Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 128 references

Comparing Grid Model Fitting Methodologies for Low-Temperature Atmospheres: Markov Chain Monte Carlo versus Random Forest Retrieval

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For low-temperature L and T dwarf spectra, the choice of atmospheric model grid matters more than the choice between MCMC and random forest fitting, so the paper recommends a fast machine-learning pre-screen followed by a precise Bayesian…

desk verdict A genuinely useful benchmark of RFR vs grid-interpolation MCMC on modern L/T dwarf model grids, but the 'more precise parameters' claim rests on an invalid acceptance rule and needs a standard-likelihood rerun. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19993 v1 pith:2RDLSMVB submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Anna Lueber , Adam J. Burgasser This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords browndwarfsLTatmosphericmodelgridsMarkovchainMonteCarlorandomforestretrievalspectralfittingbenchmarkcompanions
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 asks whether the way you fit a precomputed atmospheric model grid to a low-temperature L or T dwarf spectrum matters as much as which grid you choose. It compares a Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler that interpolates between grid points against a random forest retriever trained on the same grids, using three modern atmosphere grids and eleven benchmark companions with known host-star ages and metallicities. The paper finds that the choice of model set is more important than the fitting approach in reproducing the observed spectra, while the MCMC yields higher-quality fits and tighter parameter uncertainties and the random forest is orders of magnitude faster after training. Best-fit parameters are generally consistent between the two methods, but both show mixed agreement with independent metallicity, surface gravity, temperature, and radius expectations. It therefore recommends a hybrid workflow in which the random forest selects the optimal model grid and starting parameters, followed by a higher-accuracy MCMC fit.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a comparison of two ways to map spectral data to atmospheric parameters. The MCMC is a Metropolis-Hastings sampler that computes $\chi^2$ between the observed and model spectra, linearly interpolates fluxes between grid points on a logarithmic parameter grid, and uses a scale factor to estimate the source radius. The random forest retrieval is an ensemble of 3,000 regression trees trained separately on each of the three atmosphere grids, with bias-corrected weighted-mean predictions, real-versus-predicted $R^2$ diagnostics, and feature importance maps that show which wavelengths drive each parameter. The three atmosphere grids are the named central objects: Sonora Diamondback (clouds parameterized by sedimentation efficiency), Sonora Elf Owl (cloud-free, with vertical mixing and variable C/O), and SAND (a grid with hybrid cloud treatment and $\alpha$-element enrichment). The load-bearing point of the comparison is that the MCMC can in principle reach any parameter value through interpolation, while the random forest is limited by the training grid's sampling density.

What would settle it

Run the MCMC retrieval on the same source with the same grid, then repeat with the grid spacing halved in temperature, metallicity, C/O, and gravity; if the inferred parameters shift by more than the original 1-sigma uncertainties, the linear-interpolation assumption is violated and the MCMC precision is not trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for near-infrared spectra of low-temperature L and T dwarfs, the choice of atmospheric model set has a larger effect on the quality of the spectral reproduction than the choice between MCMC and random forest retrieval. Working with three grids with different cloud, metallicity, and non-equilibrium chemistry treatments, the authors find that Diamondback reproduces early and mid-type L dwarfs best, Elf Owl reproduces mid and late T dwarfs best, and SAND works best for young L dwarfs and L/T transition objects. The MCMC approach consistently achieves lower reduced $\chi^2$ and much smaller parameter uncertainties than the random forest, but the random forest is faster by roughly one to two orders of magnitude and yields more conservative uncertainties; both methods give mixed accuracy when compared with benchmark metallicities and evolutionary-model-based temperatures and radii. On this basis the paper argues that the fitting method is secondary to having the right model set, and that a two-stage RFR-then-MCMC pipeline is an efficient way to find and refine the best model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that linear interpolation between the sparsely sampled grid models gives a faithful representation of the spectrum at any intermediate parameter value, so the MCMC's tight uncertainties are real rather than artifacts of the interpolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For low-temperature spectra, fitting the same source with multiple model grids is more likely to improve the result than further refining the fitting algorithm.
  • Random forest retrieval can serve as a fast pre-screen that identifies the best model set and starting parameters in seconds rather than minutes.
  • The MCMC method should be reserved for final parameter estimation, where its better fit quality and tighter uncertainties matter.
  • Surveys that will return large numbers of cool dwarf or exoplanet spectra can use RFR for bulk classification and target the MCMC pass only at objects of interest.
  • The usefulness of a model grid depends on spectral type: no single grid is best across the full L-to-T sequence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • [Editorial inference] The paper's result implies that the precision gap between the two methods is a symptom of grid sampling density, so investing in finer grids for C/O, cloud, and metallicity should narrow the gap between MCMC and RFR uncertainties.
  • [Editorial inference] A synthetic injection-recovery test, implanting grid-model spectra with known parameters into noise and running the proposed RFR-then-MCMC pipeline, would quantify how often the fast pre-screen picks a wrong model set and whether the final MCMC corrects it.
  • [Editorial inference] The feature importance maps could be used to design future observing strategies by targeting the wavelength regions that dominate temperature, gravity, and metallicity constraints.
  • [Editorial inference] Because grid choice dominates fit quality in this sample of cool companions, similar multi-grid screening is likely to help exoplanet atmosphere fitting, where model-set uncertainty is also large.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript compares two approaches to fitting low-temperature L and T dwarf spectra against pre-computed atmospheric model grids: an MCMC algorithm that interpolates between grid points, and a Random Forest Retrieval (RFR) method trained on the same grids. The comparison is carried out with three modern model grids (Sonora Diamondback, Sonora Elf Owl, SAND) and eleven benchmark companions to FGKM stars with independently known ages and metallicities. The main findings are that the choice of model grid matters more for reproducing an observed spectrum than the fitting method does; that MCMC generally yields lower chi-squared fits and narrower parameter uncertainties, while RFR is orders of magnitude faster after training; and that both methods give mixed agreement with independent constraints from primaries and evolutionary models. The authors propose a hybrid pipeline in which RFR is used first to select the best model set and initial parameters, followed by MCMC for refined parameter estimates and uncertainties.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and practical question: how should large spectral surveys fit low-temperature atmospheres to pre-computed grids? The use of eleven benchmark companions with independent age and metallicity constraints, combined with three state-of-the-art grids, is a genuine strength, and the feature-importance analysis and timing measurements are useful for survey planning. The conclusion that model-set choice dominates fit quality is well supported by the large grid-to-grid variations in chi-squared that the authors report. However, the claimed precision advantage of MCMC rests on a non-standard acceptance criterion and on linear interpolation between grid points, both of which need validation before the quantitative uncertainty comparison can be accepted. If those issues are addressed, the paper would provide a valuable methodological benchmark for brown dwarf and exoplanet spectral fitting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.3.1, Eq. (4)] The acceptance rule described in Eq. (4), with proposals accepted when (chi2(i+1)-chi2(i))/MIN[chi2] < U(0,0.5) and chains reverted to the running minimum whenever chi2 exceeds 2*MIN[chi2], is not a Metropolis-Hastings update against the likelihood exp(-chi2/2). It does not satisfy detailed balance, and the resulting chain is not a sample from the posterior distribution. The Geweke diagnostic only checks that segment means agree; it does not verify convergence to the intended target. Consequently, the parameter uncertainties quoted in Table 3 (e.g., Teff = 900+10-0 K and R = 0.067+0.000-0.001 R_sun for HD 3651B) cannot be interpreted as posterior credible intervals, and the abstract's 'more precise parameters' claim is not yet established. The authors should rerun the MCMC with the standard likelihood acceptance step (or another posterior sampler) and compare the resulting credible intervals and edge behavior.
  2. [Section 2.3.1 and Section 4.3] The MCMC's continuous parameter exploration relies on linear interpolation between grid points in logarithmic flux and parameter space. The authors themselves cite Fisher & Heng (2022) in Section 4.3, noting that such interpolation can produce biased posterior distributions for parameters with nonlinear spectral effects, including C/O ratio, cloud properties, and metallicity. The extremely narrow MCMC uncertainties in Table 3 may therefore be artifacts of the interpolation rather than robust parameter constraints. The paper should validate the interpolation, for example by leave-one-out tests on the model grids or by comparing against a retrieval with an emulator known to handle nonlinearity, before claiming that MCMC is more precise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] In the paragraph describing grid down-selection, the text reads '-0.5 <= [M/H] <= +0.5, and and 0.5 <= C/O <= 1.5'; the duplicated 'and' should be removed.
  2. [Table 3 vs Table 4] HD 3651B is listed with spectral type T7.5 in Table 3 but T7 in Table 4 and in parts of the text; the entries should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 3.3.2] The phrase 'RFR Elf Model fits' should read 'RFR Elf Owl model fits'.
  4. [Section 4.3] The text refers to 'the real-versus-predicted statistic R' when the quantity plotted in Figure 4 is the coefficient of determination R^2; please use R^2 consistently.
  5. [Figures 8 and 9 and Table 4] The caption and text state that the RFR spectral fits are the median fits from the posterior draws, whereas the MCMC fits are the minimum-chi2 chain values; this difference should be stated clearly when comparing chi-squared values in Section 3.3.1, since the comparison is not between two optimized point estimates.
  6. [Section 5, summary bullet] The bullet 'MCMC also provided more accurate parameter estimates (smaller uncertainties)' conflates accuracy with precision; smaller uncertainties are a precision statement, while accuracy is separately discussed in Section 4.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MCMC/RFR comparison is externally benchmarked, and the cited prior work by the authors is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison—MCMC grid interpolation versus random-forest retrieval on the same grids—is tested against eleven observed benchmark spectra with independent primary metallicities/ages and evolutionary-model Teff/logg/radii (Table 1, Figs. 10 and Section 3.3.3). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the RFR is trained on grid models and then applied to held-out observed spectra, and the RvP R2 metrics are explicitly self-consistency checks on the 80/20 training/test split rather than the main scientific claim. The MCMC acceptance rule (Eq. 4) is non-standard and its posterior widths are plausibly overconfident, but this is a methodological correctness risk, not a circular derivation: the paper discloses the rule, and the precision comparison is an empirical output of the two algorithms rather than an input assumed in the conclusion. Several citations to Lueber et al. (2023, 2024a,b) appear, but they support auxiliary statements (feature-importance interpretation, possible interpolation improvements, applicability to exoplanet spectra) and are not the unique justification for any central result. The main conclusion (model set choice dominates fitting approach) follows directly from the chi-squared comparison across grids and methods, so no derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are methodological choices: MCMC step sizes, an ad hoc acceptance threshold, RFR hyperparameters, and the flux-scaling prior. The main unstated assumptions are the validity of grid interpolation and the reliability of benchmark values from evolutionary models and primaries.

free parameters (4)
  • MCMC proposal step sizes = sigma_Teff=25 K, sigma_logg=0.2 dex, sigma_[M/H]=0.2 dex, sigma_[alpha/H]=0.2 dex, sigma_C/O=0.05 dex…
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.3.1; they control how far the MCMC can move each step and directly affect the reported parameter uncertainties, so they influence the central claim of MCMC precision.
  • MCMC acceptance threshold = 0.5 in Eq. 4 (uniform bound)
    The acceptance rule in Eq. 4 uses a uniform(0,0.5) threshold on (chi2(i+1)-chi2(i))/MIN[chi2]. This is a hand-set constant that determines chain mixing and posterior width; no calibration or validation against a standard likelihood is provided.
  • RFR hyperparameters = 3000 trees, no max depth, min variance fraction 0.01, max features = sqrt(number of spectral points), bias correction…
    Adopted from Marquez-Neila et al. (2018) and stated in Section 2.3.2. These choices affect the predicted distributions and uncertainties, though the authors do not tune them here.
  • RFR flux scale factor prior range = f uniform in [0.5, 2.0]
    The scaling factor in Eq. 7 is assigned a uniform prior and is used to infer radii. The range is arbitrary and affects the radius constraints reported in Table 4.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The observed spectra are described by independent Gaussian noise with known uncertainties sigma[lambda_i], so chi2 in Eq. 1 is the appropriate fit statistic.
    Invoked in Section 2.3.1 for both grid search initialization and the MCMC likelihood evaluation.
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation between neighboring grid models in log flux on a log parameter grid accurately represents model spectra at arbitrary parameters.
    Stated in Section 2.3.1. This is load-bearing for MCMC precision; the authors themselves note in Section 4.3 that interpolation on linear grids can be biased for nonlinear parameters.
  • domain assumption The three atmosphere model grids (Diamondback, Elf Owl, SAND) span the parameter space of the benchmark sample and capture the relevant physics.
    The entire fitting exercise assumes that at least one of these grids can reproduce the spectra; the paper's comparisons are all relative to these models, not to an absolute ground truth.
  • domain assumption The evolutionary-model-based Teff, logg, and radii from Sanghi et al. (2023) and the primary-star metallicity and age estimates are reliable enough to serve as benchmarks for accuracy assessment.
    Used in Section 3.3.3 and Section 3.3.4 as 'expected values'. These are independently derived from evolutionary models and primary spectroscopy, but they are still model-dependent, which the paper acknowledges only implicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing Grid Model Fitting Methodologies for Low-Temperature Atmospheres: Markov Chain Monte Carlo versus Random Forest Retrieval." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RDLSMVB

@misc{pith2026250519993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing Grid Model Fitting Methodologies for Low-Temperature Atmospheres: Markov Chain Monte Carlo versus Random Forest Retrieval},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RDLSMVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19993}
}
read the original abstract

The atmospheres of low-temperature stars, brown dwarfs, and exoplanets are challenging to model due to strong molecular features and complex gas and condensate chemistry. Self-consistent atmosphere models are commonly used for spectral fitting, but computational limits restrict the production of finely-sampled multi-dimensional parameter grids, necessitating interpolation methods to infer precise parameters and uncertainties. Here, we compare two grid-model fitting approaches: a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm interpolating across spectral fluxes, and a Random Forest Retrieval (RFR) algorithm trained on a grid model set. We test these with three low-temperature model grids -- Sonora Diamondback, Sonora Elf Owl, and Spectral ANalog of Dwarfs (SAND) -- and a sample of eleven L and T dwarf companions to FGKM stars with known distances, compositions, and ages. Diamondback models are optimal for early- and mid-type L dwarfs, Elf Owl for mid- and late T dwarfs, and SAND for young L dwarfs and L/T transition objects. The MCMC approach yields higher fit quality and more precise parameters, though best-fit parameters are generally consistent between approaches. RFR analysis is orders of magnitude faster after training. Both approaches yield mixed results when comparing fit parameters to expected values based on primary (metallicity and surface gravity) or evolutionary models (temperature and radius). We propose modeling low-temperature spectra efficiently by first fitting multiple model sets using RFR, followed by a more accurate MCMC assessment, to accelerate improved grid development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Near-infrared spectra of our curated sample of eleven L and T dwarf companions to main sequence stars (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absolute flux-calibrated spectra of our benchmark brown (black lines) com￾pared to best-fit models (thick magenta lines) and posterior draws (magenta shading) for Diamondback (left), Elf Owl (center), and SAND models (right) based on our MCMC anal￾ysis. The bottom panel in each plot compares the difference (∆ = model - data) to the ±1σ uncertainty spectrum (gray bands). Best-fit parameter values for Teff, log g, and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real versus predicted (RvP) comparison for random forest model training and testing on the evaluated model grids. Each row represents one grid with its corresponding model parameters. The red dashed line in each panel indicates perfect agreement (R2 = 1). the greatest …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Feature importance plots for the random forest retrieval model trained on the Diamondback grid for temperature Teff (blue), surface gravity log g (orange), metallicity [M/H] (green), cloud sedimentation efficiency fsed (red), radius R (calculated from the calibration f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Model fit parameters and 1σ uncertainties for our full L and T dwarf se￾quence, comparing the MCMC (purple points) and RFR (orange points) approaches, and the Diamondback (DBack, left), Elf Owl (EOwl, middle), and SAND (right) model grids. Parameters show from top to …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Posterior parameter distributions from our MCMC Diamondback fits of the near-infrared spectrum of the L0 dwarf LP 465-70B. Diagonal plots display the marginal￾ized 1D parameter distributions for temperature Teff (blue), surface gravity log g (orange), metallicity [M/H…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior parameter distributions for our RFR Diamondback retrieval of the L0 dwarf LP 465-70B. Paramaters and panels are as defined as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., & Marley, M

    Ackerman, A. S., & Marley, M. S. 2001, ApJ, 556, 872, doi: 10.1086/321540

    doi:10.1086/321540 2001

  2. [2]

    J., Faherty, J

    Aganze, C., Burgasser, A. J., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/46

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/46 2016

  3. [3]

    H., Alexander, D

    Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., & Starrfield, S. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.137

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.137 1997

  4. [4]

    H., Alexander, D

    Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357, doi: 10.1086/321547

    doi:10.1086/321547 2001

  5. [5]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull, M. K. Browning, & A. A. West, 91, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1011.5405

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1011.5405 2011

  6. [6]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    F., Allard, F., & Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Allard, F., & Kielkopf, J. F. 2005, A&A, 440, 1195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053162

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053162 2005

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Alvarado, E., Gerasimov, R., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 134, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad4bd7 Ard´ evol Mart ´ ınez, F., Min, M., Kamp, I., & Palmer, P. I. 2022, A&A, 662, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142976 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P.,

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad4bd7 2024

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    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

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D

    Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Burgasser, A. J., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/143

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167, doi: 10.1086/519295

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6759

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Best, W. M. J., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., & Dupuy, T. J. 2021, AJ, 161, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc893

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, A&A, 585, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527297

    Bonfanti, A., Ortolani, S., & Nascimbeni, V. 2016, A&A, 585, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527297

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    Breiman, L. 2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    2001, Machine learning, 45, 5

    Breiman, L. 2001, Machine learning, 45, 5

    2001

  10. [18]

    Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2006a, ApJ, 639, 1095, doi: 10.1086/499344

    doi

  11. [19]

    Golimowski, D. A. 2006b, ApJ, 637, 1067, doi: 10.1086/498563

    doi

  12. [20]

    S., et al

    Ackerman, A. S., et al. 2002a, ApJL, 571, L151, doi: 10.1086/341343

    doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Splat Development Team

    Burgasser, A. J., & Splat Development Team. 2017, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol. 14, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 7–12. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00062

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J., Witte, S., Helling, C., et al

    Burgasser, A. J., Witte, S., Helling, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/148

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    E., et al

    Brown, M. E., et al. 2002b, ApJ, 564, 421, doi: 10.1086/324033

    doi

  16. [24]

    J., Gerasimov, R., Kremer, K., et al

    Burgasser, A. J., Gerasimov, R., Kremer, K., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 971, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6607

    doi

  17. [25]

    M., et al

    Meisner, A. M., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.01378, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.01378 Brown Dwarf Model Fitting Methods37

    doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    S., Line, M

    Burningham, B., Marley, M. S., Line, M. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1246

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Lunine, J

    Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719

    2001

  20. [28]

    2006, ApJ, 640, 1063, doi: 10.1086/500293

    Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Hubeny, I. 2006, ApJ, 640, 1063, doi: 10.1086/500293

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    L., et al

    Charnay, B., B´ ezard, B., Baudino, J. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Himes, M

    Cobb, A. D., Himes, M. D., Soboczenski, F., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2390

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Cochran, W. G. 1977, Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. (New York: Wiley)

    1977

  24. [32]

    P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al

    Crill, B. P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020:

    2020

  25. [33]

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup & M. D. Perrin, 114430I, doi: 10.1117/12.2567224

    doi

  26. [34]

    Burgasser, A. J. 2009, AJ, 137, 3345, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3345

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Marley, M

    Cushing, M. C., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1372, doi: 10.1086/526489

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2012, ApJS, 201, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Burgasser, A

    Faherty, J. K., Burgasser, A. J., West, A. A., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/176

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    K., Burgasser, A

    Faherty, J. K., Burgasser, A. J., Walter, F. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/56

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    2005, Design and modeling for computer experiments (Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    Fang, K.-T., Li, R., & Sudjianto, A. 2005, Design and modeling for computer experiments (Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Fegley, B., J., & Prinn, R. G. 1985, ApJ, 299, 1067, doi: 10.1086/163775

    1985 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2550 —

    Fisher, C., & Heng, K. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2550 —. 2022, ApJ, 934, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7801

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Fisher, C., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7a92 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2011, GNU Scientific Library - Reference manual, Version 1.15

    Galassi, M., Davies, J., Theiler, J., et al. 2011, GNU Scientific Library - Reference manual, Version 1.15. https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/ doc/html/intro.html

    2011

  36. [44]

    R., Saumon, D., Leggett, S

    Geballe, T. R., Saumon, D., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 373, doi: 10.1086/321575

    2001 doi

  37. [45]

    S., et al

    Konrad, B. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346390

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Caiazzo, I., et al

    Gerasimov, R., Burgasser, A. J., Caiazzo, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad08bf

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Homeier, D., et al

    Gerasimov, R., Burgasser, A. J., Homeier, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e5

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Gerasimov, R., Homeier, D., Burgasser, A., & Bedin, L. R. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abcf2c

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    1992, in Bayesian Statistics 4, ed

    Geweke, J. 1992, in Bayesian Statistics 4, ed. A. D. J.M. Bernardo, J.O. Berger & A. Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

    1992

  42. [50]

    Lothringer, J., Maguire, C., & Sing, D. K. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac091

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Kirkpatrick, J

    Gizis, J. E., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Burgasser, A., et al. 2001a, ApJL, 551, L163, doi: 10.1086/320017

    doi

  44. [52]

    E., Kirkpatrick, J

    Gizis, J. E., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Wilson, J. C. 2001b, AJ, 121, 2185, doi: 10.1086/319937

    doi

  45. [53]

    I., Pinfield, D

    Gomes, J. I., Pinfield, D. J., Marocco, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt371

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    O., Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., Corbally, C. J., Garrison, R. F., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 161, doi: 10.1086/504637 38Lueber & Burgasser

    2006 doi

  47. [55]

    O., Napier, M

    Gray, R. O., Napier, M. G., & Winkler, L. I. 2001, AJ, 121, 2148, doi: 10.1086/319956

    2001 doi

  48. [56]

    A., & Yelle, R

    Griffith, C. A., & Yelle, R. V. 1999, ApJL, 519, L85, doi: 10.1086/312103 Guzm´ an-Mesa, A., Kitzmann, D., Fisher, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9176

    1999 doi

  49. [57]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    1970 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Baron, E., & Allard, F

    Hauschildt, P. H., Baron, E., & Allard, F. 1997, ApJ, 483, 390, doi: 10.1086/304233

    1997 doi

  51. [59]

    L., Covey, K

    Hawley, S. L., Covey, K. R., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 3409, doi: 10.1086/340697

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 627

    Helling, C. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 627

    2005

  53. [61]

    Hauschildt, P. H. 2008, ApJL, 675, L105, doi: 10.1086/533462

    2008 doi

  54. [62]

    Helling, C., Oevermann, M., L¨ uttke, M. J. H., Klein, R., & Sedlmayr, E. 2001, A&A, 376, 194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010937

    2001 doi

  55. [63]

    Ho, T. K. 1998, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 20, 832

    1998

  56. [64]

    1999, Michigan Spectral Survey, 5, 0

    Houk, N., & Swift, C. 1999, Michigan Spectral Survey, 5, 0

    1999

  57. [65]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    Irwin, P. G. J., Teanby, N. A., de Kok, R., et al. 2008, JQSRT, 109, 1136, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.11.006

    2008 doi

  59. [67]

    C., & McNeil, R

    Keenan, P. C., & McNeil, R. C. 1989, ApJS, 71, 245, doi: 10.1086/191373

    1989 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Reid, I

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 447, doi: 10.1086/301427

    2000 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d71

    Kitzmann, D., Heng, K., Oreshenko, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d71

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    Kleijnen, J. P. 2015, in International workshop on simulation, Springer, 3–22

    2015

  63. [71]

    R., Leggett, S

    Knapp, G. R., Leggett, S. K., Fan, X., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3553, doi: 10.1086/420707

    2004 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Duvet, L., Escudero Sanz, I., et al

    Laureijs, R. J., Duvet, L., Escudero Sanz, I., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7731, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2010: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 77311H, doi: 10.1117/12.857123

    2010 doi

  65. [73]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    2007

  66. [74]

    K., Saumon, D., Marley, M

    Leggett, S. K., Saumon, D., Marley, M. S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 1079, doi: 10.1086/510014

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    K., Burningham, B., Saumon, D., et al

    Leggett, S. K., Burningham, B., Saumon, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1627, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1627

    2010 doi

  68. [76]

    K., Tremblin, P., Phillips, M

    Leggett, S. K., Tremblin, P., Phillips, M. W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cfe

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Fortney, J

    Line, M. R., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Sorahana, S. 2014, ApJ, 793, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/33

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    J., & Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2015, ApJ, 807, 183, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/183

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    Linsky, J. L. 1969, ApJ, 156, 989, doi: 10.1086/150030

    1969 doi

  72. [80]

    Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H. P. 2009, Landolt B¨ ornstein, 4B, 712, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4 34

    2009 doi

  73. [81]

    2022, A&A, 663, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243516

    Gauza, B. 2022, A&A, 663, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243516

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    P., et al

    Lueber, A., Heng, K., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2024a, A&A, 690, A357, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451301

    doi

  75. [83]

    E., et al

    Lueber, A., Kitzmann, D., Fisher, C. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace530

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    2024b, A&A, 687, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348802

    Heng, K. 2024b, A&A, 687, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348802

    doi

  77. [85]

    L., et al

    Luhman, K. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 570, doi: 10.1086/509073

    2007 doi

  78. [86]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/36 Brown Dwarf Model Fitting Methods39

    Madhusudhan, N. 2012, ApJ, 758, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/36 Brown Dwarf Model Fitting Methods39

    2012 doi

  79. [87]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    Madhusudhan, N., & Seager, S. 2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    2009 doi

  80. [88]

    M., Montes, D., et al

    Marfil, E., Tabernero, H. M., Montes, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141980

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    S., & Robinson, T

    Marley, M. S., & Robinson, T. D. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 279, doi: 10.1146/ annurev-astro-082214-122522 M´ arquez-Neila, P., Fisher, C., Sznitman, R., & Heng, K. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 719, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0504-2

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    P., Pollack, J

    McKay, C. P., Pollack, J. B., & Courtin, R. 1989, Icarus, 80, 23, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90160-7

    1989 doi

  83. [91]

    1953, JChPh, 21, 1087, doi: 10.1063/1.1699114

    Teller, E. 1953, JChPh, 21, 1087, doi: 10.1063/1.1699114

    1953 doi

  84. [92]

    V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71d5

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    E., Fortney, J

    Mukherjee, S., Batalha, N. E., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2023, ApJ, 942, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    J., Morley, C

    Mukherjee, S., Fortney, J. J., Morley, C. V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c2

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    2004, ApJ, 607, 499, doi: 10.1086/383299

    Nakajima, T., Tsuji, T., & Yanagisawa, K. 2004, ApJ, 607, 499, doi: 10.1086/383299

    2004 doi

  88. [96]

    2020, AJ, 159, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5955

    Oreshenko, M., Kitzmann, D., M´ arquez-Neila, P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5955

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    R., De Rosa, R

    Patience, J., King, R. R., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118058

    2012 doi

  90. [98]

    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

  91. [99]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 362

    2003

  92. [100]

    2019, AJ, 157, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf101

    Reis, I., Baron, D., & Shahaf, S. 2019, AJ, 157, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf101

    2019 doi

  93. [101]

    C., Best, W

    Sanghi, A., Liu, M. C., Best, W. M. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff66

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    J., Williams, B

    Santner, T. J., Williams, B. J., Notz, W. I., & Williams, B. J. 2003, The design and analysis of computer experiments, Vol. 1 (Springer)

    2003

  95. [103]

    Saumon, D., & Marley, M. S. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1327, doi: 10.1086/592734

    2008 doi

  96. [104]

    S., Cushing, M

    Saumon, D., Marley, M. S., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 552, doi: 10.1086/505419

    2006 doi

  97. [105]

    C., Munn, J

    Schneider, A. C., Munn, J. A., Vrba, F. J., et al. 2023a, AJ, 166, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace9bf

    doi

  98. [106]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a40

    Gerasimov, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a40

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    2023b, ApJL, 943, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb0cd

    Bruursema, J., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 943, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb0cd

    doi

  100. [108]

    C., & Reid, I

    Shkolnik, E., Liu, M. C., & Reid, I. N. 2009, ApJ, 699, 649, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/649

    2009 doi

  101. [109]

    A., Fan, Y., & Beaumont, M

    Sisson, S. A., Fan, Y., & Beaumont, M. 2018, Handbook of approximate Bayesian computation (CRC Press)

    2018

  102. [110]

    F., Cutri, R

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

    2006 doi

  103. [111]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/47

    Sorahana, S., & Yamamura, I. 2014, ApJ, 793, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/47

    2014 doi

  104. [112]

    2022, AJ, 163, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4de7

    Sprague, D., Culhane, C., Kounkel, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4de7

    2022 doi

  105. [113]

    C., Leggett, S

    Stephens, D. C., Leggett, S. K., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/154

    2009 doi

  106. [114]

    Stephenson, C. B. 1986, AJ, 92, 139, doi: 10.1086/114146

    1986 doi

  107. [115]

    Struve, O., & Franklin, K. L. 1955, ApJ, 121, 337, doi: 10.1086/145993

    1955 doi

  108. [116]

    S., Chabrier, G., et al

    Tremblin, P., Amundsen, D. S., Chabrier, G., et al. 2016, ApJL, 817, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L19

    2016 doi

  109. [117]

    S., Mourier, P., et al

    Tremblin, P., Amundsen, D. S., Mourier, P., et al. 2015, ApJL, 804, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L17 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., &

    2015 doi

  110. [118]

    2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 40Lueber & Burgasser van Leeuwen, F

    Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 40Lueber & Burgasser van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078357

    2011 doi

  111. [119]

    2023, A&A, 672, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245263

    Vasist, M., Rozet, F., Absil, O., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245263

    2023 doi

  112. [120]

    J., Muirhead, P

    Veyette, M. J., Muirhead, P. S., Mann, A. W., & Allard, F. 2016, ApJ, 828, 95, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/95

    2016 doi

  113. [121]

    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

  114. [122]

    Waldmann, I. P. 2016, ApJ, 820, 107, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/107 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

    2016 doi

  115. [123]

    W., Hsu, C.-C., Finnerty, L., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Hsu, C.-C., Finnerty, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4796

    2024 doi

  116. [124]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

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

    2000 doi

  117. [125]

    V., Osorio, M

    Zakhozhay, O. V., Osorio, M. R. Z., B´ ejar, V. J. S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345944

    2023 doi

  118. [126]

    C., & Zhang, Z

    Zhang, R., Liu, M. C., & Zhang, Z. 2024, ApJ, 960, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad083c

    2024 doi

  119. [127]

    R., & Best, W

    Line, M. R., & Best, W. M. J. 2021a, ApJ, 916, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b2 —. 2021b, ApJ, 921, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0af7

    doi

  120. [128]

    C., Hermes, J

    Zhang, Z., Liu, M. C., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab765c

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.