Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 76 references

A numerical approach for modelling the polarisation signals of strong resonance lines with partial frequency redistribution. Numerical applications to two-term atoms and plane-parallel atmospheres

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A new numerical strategy solves polarized radiative transfer with angle-dependent partial frequency redistribution for two-term atoms, validated on Mg ii h&k and H i Ly-alpha.

desk verdict TRAP4 makes AD PRD polarized RT practical for 1D models, but the 5–10% Stokes I discrepancy in the benchmark keeps the 'accurate' label conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20968 v1 pith:YXS4TFRJ submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Fabio Riva , Gioele Janett , Luca Belluzzi , Tanausú del Pino Alemán , Ernest Alsina Ballester , Javier Trujillo Bueno , Pietro Benedusi , Simone Riva
show 1 more author
Rolf Krause
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords radiativetransferscatteringpolarizationpartialfrequencyredistributionHanleeffectZeemantwo-termatomMgiih&kHiLy-alpha
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 make tractable a computationally demanding problem: computing the Stokes profiles of strong resonance lines that form out of local thermodynamic equilibrium, with scattering polarisation, angle-dependent partial frequency redistribution, and quantum interference between fine-structure levels. The strategy is to fix the lower-level/term population from an independent unpolarised calculation, which turns the coupled radiative transfer and statistical equilibrium problem into a linear system in the radiation field. This linear system is solved with matrix-free preconditioned iterative methods, evaluating the scattering emissivity in the comoving frame and using quadrature rules that minimise evaluations of the expensive redistribution functions. The resulting code, TRAP4, synthesises the Mg ii h&k doublet and the H i Ly-alpha line in a 1D solar atmosphere model, converging in 10-12 iterations and agreeing closely with an existing reference code. The paper also finds that for wavelength-integrated Ly-alpha polarisation, the angle-averaged approximation matches the full angle-dependent calculation in the tested 1D cases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the redistribution matrices $\mathbf{R}^{\mathrm{II}}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{\mathrm{III}}$ in the irreducible-tensor formalism, which describe scattering that is coherent or completely uncorrelated in frequency in the atomic rest frame. The argument also rests on the linearization that freezes the lower-level/term population, turning the problem into the linear system $(\mathrm{Id} - \Lambda\Sigma)\mathbf{I} = \Lambda\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{th}} + \mathbf{t}$, and on the comoving-frame evaluation of the scattering integral, which reduces the angular dependence of $\mathbf{R}^{\mathrm{II}}$ to a single scattering angle $\Theta$. The numerical efficiency comes from an adaptive spectral quadrature that switches between analytic integration at $\Theta=0$, a 65-node Gauss-Hermite rule in the near-Gaussian regime, and composite Gauss-Legendre rules in the line-core and near-wing regimes, keeping relative quadrature errors below $10^{-8}$ with roughly 100-300 nodes, plus physics-based preconditioners built from the angle-averaged approximation with an inner block-diagonal preconditioner.

What would settle it

Compute the lower-level (or lower-term) population with a fully self-consistent polarised NLTE calculation, including polarisation in the statistical equilibrium, for a case where the lower level has angular momentum $J \gtrsim 1$ and a long lifetime, in a low-density plasma with strongly anisotropic radiation; compare it with the unpolarised input population. If the relative difference exceeds a few percent and the resulting Stokes profiles shift by more than the observational noise, the linearization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the polarised NLTE radiative transfer problem for strong resonance lines, with angle-dependent PRD and J-state interference, can be reformulated as a linear problem without losing physical fidelity, provided the lower-level/term population is supplied as a fixed input. With that linearization, the system $(\mathrm{Id} - \Lambda\Sigma)\mathbf{I} = \Lambda\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{th}} + \mathbf{t}$ is solved by matrix-free Krylov iterations, and the dominant cost of the scattering integral is reduced from scaling with the square of the number of directions to scaling with the number of scattering angles $N_\Theta$, by evaluating the emissivity in the comoving frame so that the redistribution functions depend only on the scattering angle $\Theta$. The authors design adaptive angular and spectral quadratures, including analytic integration at $\Theta = 0$ and Gauss-Hermite or composite Gauss-Legendre rules tuned to the line-core and near-wing behaviour of the redistribution function, and normalise the emissivity using the generalised Kirchhoff law. The result is a validated solver that reproduces the reference code's Stokes profiles and shows that, for wavelength-integrated Ly-$\alpha$ polarisation, the angle-averaged approximation agrees closely with the full angle-dependent calculation.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that polarisation of the radiation field has negligible impact on the lower level/term population, so that population can be computed once from an unpolarised calculation and then held fixed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, Stokes profiles of Mg ii h&k and H i Ly-alpha with angle-dependent PRD and J-state interference become fast to compute, making parameter studies and eventually inversions of scattering-polarisation observations feasible.
  • The linearization means the polarised calculation can accept lower-level populations from comprehensive unpolarised NLTE codes, combining their atomic completeness with a tractable polarised transfer step.
  • The close benchmark agreement with an independent code validates the redistribution-matrix formalism and the numerical choices, supporting their use in solar chromospheric diagnostics.
  • For wavelength-integrated scattering-polarisation signals of Ly-alpha in 1D models, the angle-averaged approximation is adequate for magnetic fields up to 100 G, supporting earlier work that relied on the AA approximation in this context.
  • The same formalism covers two-level and two-term atoms and extends to hyperfine structure and to 3D geometries, so the method is a basis for more general solvers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-step approach could be iterated: recomputing the lower-level population from the polarised solution and feeding it back would converge to a fully self-consistent solution, extending the speed-up to regimes where lower-level polarisation is not negligible.
  • The AA-versus-AD agreement for Ly-alpha is established only in 1D plane-parallel models; in 3D, with horizontal transfer and different illumination geometries, the agreement may degrade and should be re-tested before applying the AA approximation to inversions.
  • The quadrature design principles, especially avoiding the backward-scattering singularity and horizontal directions, should transfer to other resonance lines such as Lyman-beta, whose redistribution functions share the same analytic structure.
  • If the preconditioned iteration count stays at 10-12 in more complex geometries, the reported timings suggest the method could serve as the forward engine for inverting CLASP-type spectropolarimetric observations.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents TRAP4, a numerical method for solving the polarized NLTE radiative transfer problem in strong resonance lines with angle-dependent (AD) partial frequency redistribution (PRD), J-state interference, and Zeeman, Hanle, and magneto-optical effects, for two-level and two-term atoms in 1D plane-parallel atmospheres with arbitrary magnetic and bulk velocity fields. The central methodological step is to treat the lower-level/term population as a fixed input obtained from unpolarized NLTE calculations, which makes the problem linear in the radiation field; the resulting system (Id − ΛΣ)I = Λεεεth + t is solved with matrix-free, physics-based-preconditioned iterative methods. Efficiency is pursued by computing the scattering emissivity in the comoving frame, by adaptive angular and spectral quadratures that minimize the number of redistribution-function evaluations, and by a block-diagonal preconditioner (Appendix F). The solver is verified by resolution-doubling studies (Sect. 6.3) and benchmarked against the independent HanleRT-TIC code for the Mg ii h&k doublet in a dynamic, magnetized 1D atmosphere (Sect. 6.4). Applications include the synthesis of Mg ii h&k and H i Ly-α Stokes profiles, with a study of angle-averaged versus angle-dependent PRD for wavelength-integrated Ly-α polarization for magnetic fields up to 100 G (Sect. 6.6).

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable methodological contribution: AD-PRD polarized RT with J-state interference for two-term atoms has only recently become feasible, and a solver that converges in 10–12 preconditioned iterations at N ≈ 6×10^6 unknowns while reducing the angular evaluation cost from NΩ² to NΘ (205 ≪ 11664 here) is a practical advance for forward modeling and future inversion work. The strengths are explicit and verifiable: resolution-doubling verification (Sect. 6.3), adaptive Gauss–Kronrod cross-checks of the frequency quadrature, the direct quantification of the linearization error for Mg ii (<0.2% ground-level population change, Sect. 6.5), and the documented error-controlled quadratures (Appendix C; Fig. 1). The benchmark with the independent HanleRT-TIC code validates the target observables, Q/I and U/I, convincingly, and the AA-versus-AD Ly-α comparison yields a concrete, falsifiable claim (AA suffices for wavelength-integrated Ly-α polarimetry in 1D for B ≤ 100 G). Two reservations block a clean acceptance: the 5–10% Stokes I discrepancy in the benchmark is left unexplained at a quantitative level (Sect. 6.4, Fig.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sect. 6.4 / Fig. 3 / Appendix E] The benchmark is the only external accuracy check, and it leaves the central 'accurate' claim for Stokes I unsupported. Fig. 3 shows 5–10% relative differences in I near the Mg ii k core while Q/I and U/I agree; the text attributes this to 'different normalisation of the emissivity and formulation of the redistribution matrices'. This explanation is not substantiated: Sect. 1 states (citing Casini et al. 2017b) that the two formalisms coincide for a two-term atom with an unpolarized lower term, and Appendix E shows that the Kirchhoff-law normalization is applied to the I component only. If the two codes adopt different normalization conventions, the I comparison is a comparison of conventions rather than of physics, and since no absolute intensity reference is provided (the comparison with Alsina Ballester et al. 2022 in Sect. 6.3 is visual), the reader cannot tell which code's I is correct. Please quantify the discrepancy (e.g., compare the normalization factor f or the line source functions between the two codes; or add a matched-normalization or absolute-intensity-calibrated comparison) and either resolve it or qualify the abstract's accuracy claim to the polarization observables.
  2. [Sect. 2.5 / Sect. 6.5 / Sect. 6.6] The linearization of the problem with respect to the radiation field is the methodological core of the paper (Sect. 2.5), but its explicit validation covers only Mg ii: Sect. 6.5 reports <0.2% differences in the Mg ii ground-level population for one dynamic 20 G configuration. For the H i Ly-α results (Sect. 6.6), the hydrogen ground-level population is adopted from the FAL-C tabulation and no test of the sensitivity of the emergent profiles or of the polarization to this fixed input is presented. Given that the Ly-α application is one of the paper's headline results, I would like either a cheap sensitivity test (e.g., perturb the fixed hydrogen population within a plausible range and report the response of the wavelength-integrated Q/I and U/I) or an explicit statement that the linearization's validity for Ly-α is assumed on physical grounds and remains to be checked. The physical argument in Sect. 2.5 is reasonable, so this is a request for evidence, not a claim that the assumption is wrong.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 6.2] Per-iteration times (1700 s and 1450 s) and iteration counts (10–12) are reported, but no total wall-clock time for a converged run and no runtime comparison with an existing AD-PRD solver are given; since 'fast' is a headline claim, please add at least the total time-to-solution and, ideally, a comparison with HanleRT-TIC on the same hardware.
  2. [Appendix C / Fig. 1] The relative-error estimate for the spectral quadrature (<1e-8) is shown for a single test vector and specific values of a, u∗, and uku,kℓ; a sentence documenting the robustness of the achieved accuracy across the parameter ranges relevant to the Mg ii and H i applications would help the reader judge the safety margin of the chosen node counts and thresholds.
  3. [Sect. 2.7] The propagation matrix K and the tensor index K used throughout the redistribution formalism share the same letter; although the fonts are consistent, this is a recurring notational ambiguity that could be removed by renaming one of the two.
  4. [Sect. 1 / Sect. 7] No statement is given on the availability of the TRAP4 code; for a methods paper whose value is a concrete numerical strategy, a brief code-availability statement (even 'available from the authors on reasonable request') would be appropriate, in the spirit of the provided HanleRT-TIC link.
  5. [Sect. 6.4] The benchmark description does not state how HanleRT-TIC treats the RIII redistribution; since TRAP4 uses the simplified observer's-frame RIII of Sect. 2.4 and the Stokes I discrepancy is concentrated in the optically thick core where RIII matters most, an explicit statement of the RIII treatment in both codes would sharpen the discussion of the discrepancy's origin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central numerical claim is validated against a separate code, and the fixed-population linearization is directly checked rather than assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, namely that the proposed strategy solves the polarized NLTE radiative transfer problem with AD PRD and J-state interference accurately and efficiently, does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The lower-level/term population is indeed a fixed input, but the benchmark in Sect. 6.4 compares full emergent Stokes profiles from TRAP4 against the HanleRT-TIC code, and Sect. 6.5 directly quantifies the error introduced by the linearization, finding relative differences below 0.2% in the ground-level population. The linearization is therefore tested rather than assumed. The main caveat is that HanleRT-TIC is also the source of some TRAP4 inputs and shares authors, but the compared quantities are not fitted to that code; the 5-10% Stokes I discrepancy near the Mg ii k core is explicitly attributed by the paper to different emissivity normalization and redistribution-matrix formulations, which is a validation limitation rather than a circular step. Self-citations such as Alsina Ballester et al. (2022), Janett et al. (2024), and related prior work supply formalism, quadrature analysis, and preconditioning strategies, but they are not used as uniqueness theorems or as substitutes for the benchmark. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no central result is imposed as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are external populations and hand-tuned quadrature choices; the physical assumptions are standard domain simplifications, several of which the authors test.

free parameters (2)
  • lower-level/term population = Mg ii from HanleRT-TIC; H i from FAL-C model
    Fixed input in Sect. 2.5; the linearization and all synthesized profiles depend on this number. It is supplied externally, not fitted to the benchmark.
  • quadrature tuning thresholds and node counts = ut=5.8 or 2.5*Theta; delta values in Appendix C; 65/101/... nodes; 2001 RIII nodes
    Hand-tuned to achieve 1e-8 relative error in Eq. (11) for the example settings; they are numerical choices, not physical constraints, and different grids may be needed for other regimes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The lower level/term is infinitely sharp and unpolarized.
    Sect. 2.2: assumed for all resonance lines; good for ground/metastable levels but excludes lower-level atomic polarization and finite lifetime effects.
  • domain assumption Polarization of the radiation field has negligible impact on the lower-level/term population.
    Sect. 2.5: makes the problem linear in I; validated for Mg ii ground population (Sect. 6.5 shows <0.2% differences) but not demonstrated in all velocity/magnetic regimes.
  • domain assumption Stimulated emission is neglected and the redistribution matrix formalism with analytic statistical equilibrium solution is valid.
    Sect. 2.3: standard for these UV resonance lines, but excludes strong radiation fields or lower-level alignment.
  • domain assumption Depolarizing elastic collisions are negligible for the RIII branch.
    Appendix B: cited as good for the low-density chromosphere; if collisional depolarization matters, the two-term redistribution matrix formalism needs modification.
  • domain assumption RIII scattering is completely uncorrelated in frequency in the observer's frame, and continuum has no dichroism or dispersion.
    Sect. 2.4 and Appendix A: common approximations; the RIII simplification is stated to be accurate for strong resonance lines.
  • domain assumption The FAL-C 1D semi-empirical atmospheric model represents the chromospheric plasma for the tested lines.
    Sect. 6.1: all demonstrations use this sole atmospheric model; the conclusions are not tested in 3D or other model atmospheres.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A numerical approach for modelling the polarisation signals of strong resonance lines with partial frequency redistribution. Numerical applications to two-term atoms and plane-parallel atmospheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXS4TFRJ

@misc{pith2026250520968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A numerical approach for modelling the polarisation signals of strong resonance lines with partial frequency redistribution. Numerical applications to two-term atoms and plane-parallel atmospheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXS4TFRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20968}
}
read the original abstract

Aims. The main goal of this paper is to present an accurate and efficient numerical strategy for solving the radiative transfer problem for polarised radiation in strong resonance lines forming out of local thermodynamic equilibrium, taking angle-dependent (AD) partial frequency redistribution (PRD) effects and J-state interference into account. We consider the polarisation produced both by the Zeeman effect and by the scattering of anisotropic radiation, along with its sensitivity to the Hanle and magneto-optical effects. Methods. We introduce a formalism that allows treating both a two-level and a two-term atom in the presence of arbitrary magnetic and bulk velocity fields. The problem is formulated by treating the population of the lower level/term as a fixed input parameter. This approach makes the problem linear with respect to the radiation field, enabling the application of efficient matrix-free preconditioned iterative methods for its solution. Additionally, the computation of the scattering emissivity in the comoving frame, together with a careful choice of the angular and spectral quadrature nodes, allow us to speed up the calculations by reducing the number of evaluations of the redistribution functions. Results. The proposed solution strategy is applied to synthesise the Stokes profiles of the Mg ii h&k doublet and the H i Ly-{\alpha} line in 1D semi-empirical models. The results demonstrate that the method is both fast and accurate. A comparison with calculations from HanleRT-TIC displays an overall good agreement, thereby validating our solution strategy. Moreover, for the wavelength-integrated polarisation profiles of the H i Ly-{\alpha} line, we find an excellent agreement between the results obtained including PRD effects in their general AD description and those obtained considering the angle-averaged simplifying approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrative examples of the quadrature grids. Left: real part (blue and red lines) and positive and negative values of the imaginary part (yellow and purple lines, respectively) of F as a function of u ′ − (un + ukℓ ,k ′ ℓ ), with u ′ = u(ν ′ ), un = u(νn), and ukℓ ,k ′ ℓ = uku ,k ′ ℓ − uku,kℓ , for different values of u + uku,k ′ ℓ . Here, a = 0.01, Θ = 0.9π, uku,kℓ = −11.1, and uku ,k ′ ℓ = −11.2. The dots denote… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Intensity (left column), Q/I (middle column), and U/I (right column) as a function of vacuum wavelength for the Mg ii h&k doublet (first row) and the H i Ly-α line (second row), obtained with PRD–AD calculations in a static magnetic FAL-C atmosphere (see text) for a LOS with µ = 0.1. The solid black curves correspond to reference calculations, whereas the red (dashed), yellow (dot-dashed), and purple (dotted) lines … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Intensity (left column), Q/I (middle column), and U/I (right column) as a function of vacuum wavelength for the Mg ii k line obtained with PRD–AA (dashed lines) and PRD–AD (solid lines) calculations in a dynamic magnetic atmosphere (see text) for the two LOSs with µ = 0.1 (first row) and µ = 1 (second row). The blue and red curves correspond to calculations carried out with the HanleRT-TIC and the TRAP4 code, respec… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Centre-to-limb variation of Q/I (left panel) and U/I (right panel) as function of µ = cos(θ). The results are obtained for χ = 0 and considering height-independent horizontal (θB = π/2 and χB = 0) magnetic fields of different strengths (see the legend). Dashed and soli…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Hummer , D

    Adams , T. F., Hummer , D. G., & Rybicki , G. B. 1971, , 11, 1365

    work page 1971

  2. [2]

    2016, , 831, L15

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2016, , 831, L15

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    2017, , 836, 6

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2017, , 836, 6

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    2021, , 127, 081101

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2021, , 127, 081101

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2022, , 664, A76

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2022, , 664, A76

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, , 947, 71

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2023, , 947, 71

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    2013, , 551, A84

    Belluzzi , L., Landi Degl'Innocenti , E., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2013, , 551, A84

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    2024, , 691, A278

    Belluzzi , L., Riva , S., Janett , G., et al. 2024, , 691, A278

    work page 2024

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    Belluzzi , L. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2011, , 743, 3

    2011

  2. [10]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    Belluzzi , L. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2012, , 750, L11

    2012

  3. [11]

    2012, , 755, L2

    Belluzzi , L., Trujillo Bueno , J., & S t e p \'a n , J. 2012, , 755, L2

    2012

  4. [12]

    2021, , 655, A88

    Benedusi , P., Janett , G., Belluzzi , L., & Krause , R. 2021, , 655, A88

    2021

  5. [13]

    2022, , 664, A197

    Benedusi , P., Janett , G., Riva , G., Belluzzi , L., & Krause , R. 2022, , 664, A197

    2022

  6. [14]

    2023, Journal of Computational Physics, 479, 112013

    Benedusi , P., Riva , S., Zulian , P., et al. 2023, Journal of Computational Physics, 479, 112013

    2023

  7. [15]

    1997 a , , 328, 706

    Bommier , V. 1997 a , , 328, 706

    1997

  8. [16]

    1997 b , , 328, 726

    Bommier , V. 1997 b , , 328, 726

    1997

  9. [17]

    2017, , 607, A50

    Bommier , V. 2017, , 607, A50

    2017

  10. [18]

    Carlson, B. G. 1963, Methods in Computational Physics, Vol. 1, The numerical theory of neutron transport, ed. B. Alder, S. Fernbach, & M. Rotenberg (Academic Press), 1--42

    1963

  11. [19]

    1986, Uppsala Astronomical Observatory Reports, 33

    Carlsson , M. 1986, Uppsala Astronomical Observatory Reports, 33

    1986

  12. [20]

    2017 a , , 835, 114

    Casini , R., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., & Manso Sainz , R. 2017 a , , 835, 114

    2017

  13. [21]

    2017 b , , 848, 99

    Casini , R., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., & Manso Sainz , R. 2017 b , , 848, 99

    2017

  14. [22]

    2014, , 791, 94

    Casini , R., Landi Degl'Innocenti , M., Manso Sainz , R., Land i Degl'Innocenti , E., & Landolfi , M. 2014, , 791, 94

    2014

  15. [23]

    & Sainz, R

    Casini, R. & Sainz, R. M. 2016 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 135

    2016

  16. [24]

    & Sainz, R

    Casini, R. & Sainz, R. M. 2016 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 197

    2016

  17. [25]

    2024, , 689, A90

    D'Anna , M., Janett , G., & Belluzzi , L. 2024, , 689, A90

    2024

  18. [26]

    2016, , 830, L24

    del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Casini , R., & Manso Sainz , R. 2016, , 830, L24

    2016

  19. [27]

    2020, , 891, 91

    del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Trujillo Bueno , J., Casini , R., & Manso Sainz , R. 2020, , 891, 91

    2020

  20. [28]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 978, 27

    del Pino Alemán, T., Alsina Ballester, E., Trujillo Bueno, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 978, 27

    2024

  21. [29]

    1992, , 258, 521

    Faurobert-Scholl , M. 1992, , 258, 521

    1992

  22. [30]

    M., Avrett , E

    Fontenla , J. M., Avrett , E. H., & Loeser , R. 1991, , 377, 712

    1991

  23. [31]

    M., Avrett , E

    Fontenla , J. M., Avrett , E. H., & Loeser , R. 1993, , 406, 319

    1993

  24. [32]

    2000, The Second Solar Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation

    Gandorfer , A. 2000, The Second Solar Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation. Volume I: 4625\, to 6995\, (Zurich: vdf ETH)

    2000

  25. [33]

    2002, The Second Solar Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation

    Gandorfer , A. 2002, The Second Solar Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation. Volume II: 3910\, to 4630\, (Zurich: vdf ETH)

    2002

  26. [34]

    2005, The Second Solar Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation

    Gandorfer , A. 2005, The Second Solar Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation. Volume III: 3160\, to 3915\, (Zurich: vdf ETH)

    2005

  27. [35]

    2024, , 683, A207

    Guerreiro , N., Janett , G., Riva , S., Benedusi , P., & Belluzzi , L. 2024, , 683, A207

    2024

  28. [36]

    1994, Iterative solution of large sparse systems of equations, Vol

    Hackbusch, W. 1994, Iterative solution of large sparse systems of equations, Vol. 95 (Springer)

    1994

  29. [37]

    H., & Womersley, R

    Hesse, K., Sloan, I. H., & Womersley, R. S. 2015, in Handbook of Geomathematics, ed. W. Freeden, M. Z. Nashed, & T. Sonar (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 2671--2710

    2015

  30. [38]

    2023, , 958, 38

    Janett , G., Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2023, , 958, 38

    2023

  31. [39]

    A., Guerreiro , N., et al

    Janett , G., Ballester , E. A., Guerreiro , N., et al. 2021 a , , 655, A13

    2021

  32. [40]

    2021 b , , 655, A87

    Janett , G., Benedusi , P., Belluzzi , L., & Krause , R. 2021 b , , 655, A87

    2021

  33. [41]

    2024, , 682, A68

    Janett , G., Benedusi , P., & Riva , F. 2024, , 682, A68

    2024

  34. [42]

    S., Steiner, O., & Belluzzi, L

    Janett, G., Carlin, E. S., Steiner, O., & Belluzzi, L. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 107

    2017

  35. [43]

    & Paganini, A

    Janett, G. & Paganini, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 91

    2018

  36. [44]

    2019, , 624, A104

    Janett , G., Steiner , O., Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Mishra , S. 2019, , 624, A104

    2019

  37. [45]

    2021, , 645, A101

    Jaume Bestard , J., S t e p \'a n , J., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2021, , 645, A101

    2021

  38. [46]

    A., & Favennec , Y

    Jolivet , P., Badri , M. A., & Favennec , Y. 2021, Journal of Computational Physics, 437, 110313

    2021

  39. [47]

    2017, , 839, L10

    Kano , R., Trujillo Bueno , J., Winebarger , A., et al. 2017, , 839, L10

    2017

  40. [48]

    1860, Annalen der Physik, 185, 275

    Kirchhoff, G. 1860, Annalen der Physik, 185, 275

  41. [49]

    2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Kobayashi , K., Kano , R., Trujillo-Bueno , J., et al. 2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 456, Fifth Hinode Science Meeting, ed. L. Golub , I. De Moortel , & T. Shimizu , 233

    2012

  42. [50]

    & Becker, R

    Koch, R. & Becker, R. 2004, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 84, 423 , eurotherm Seminar 73 - Computational Thermal Radiation in Participating Media

    2004

  43. [51]

    2023, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver

    Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Y., Reader, J., & NIST ASD Team . 2023, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.11). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. https://physics.nist.gov/asd

    2023

  44. [52]

    & Landolfi , M

    Landi Degl'Innocenti , E. & Landolfi , M. 2004, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 307, Polarization in Spectral Lines (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers)

    2004

  45. [53]

    2012, , 543, A109

    Leenaarts , J., Pereira , T., & Uitenbroek , H. 2012, , 543, A109

    2012

  46. [54]

    2022, , 933, 145

    Li , H., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Trujillo Bueno , J., & Casini , R. 2022, , 933, 145

    2022

  47. [55]

    2023, version 9.14.0 (R2023a) (Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc.)

    MATLAB. 2023, version 9.14.0 (R2023a) (Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc.)

    2023

  48. [56]

    2021, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    McKenzie , D., Ishikawa , R., Trujillo Bueno , J., et al. 2021, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2021, SH52A--06

    2021

  49. [57]

    E., Ishikawa , R., Trujillo Bueno , J., et al

    McKenzie , D. E., Ishikawa , R., Trujillo Bueno , J., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 526, Solar Polariation Workshop 8, ed. L. Belluzzi , R. Casini , M. Romoli , & J. Trujillo Bueno , 361

    2019

  50. [58]

    1978, Stellar Atmospheres, 2nd edn

    Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar Atmospheres, 2nd edn. (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company)

    1978

  51. [59]

    & Butler , K

    Przybilla , N. & Butler , K. 2004, , 609, 1181

    2004

  52. [60]

    A., Trujillo Bueno , J., McKenzie , D

    Rachmeler , L. A., Trujillo Bueno , J., McKenzie , D. E., et al. 2022, , 936, 67

    2022

  53. [61]

    Rees , D. E. & Saliba , G. J. 1982, , 115, 1

    1982

  54. [62]

    2024, , 688, A137

    Riva , F., Janett , G., & Belluzzi , L. 2024, , 688, A137

    2024

  55. [63]

    2023, Phd thesis, USI facoltà di scienze informatiche

    Riva, S. 2023, Phd thesis, USI facoltà di scienze informatiche

    2023

  56. [64]

    2023, , 679, A87

    Riva , S., Guerreiro , N., Janett , G., et al. 2023, , 679, A87

    2023

  57. [65]

    N., & Stenflo , J

    Sampoorna , M., Nagendra , K. N., & Stenflo , J. O. 2017, , 844, 97

    2017

  58. [66]

    2020, A&A, 636, A24

    Step\'an , J., Jaume Bestard , J., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2020, A&A, 636, A24

    2020

  59. [67]

    Sukhorukov , A. V. & Leenaarts , J. 2017, , 597, A46

    2017

  60. [68]

    P., & Pask, J

    Suryanarayana, P., Pratapa, P. P., & Pask, J. E. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 234, 278

    2019

  61. [69]

    2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Trujillo Bueno , J. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 288, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, ed. I. Hubeny , D. Mihalas , & K. Werner , 551

    2003

  62. [70]

    2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Trujillo Bueno , J. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 489, Solar Polarization 7, ed. K. N. Nagendra , J. O. Stenflo , Z. Q. Qu , & M. Sampoorna , 137

    2014

  63. [71]

    & del Pino Alem \'a n , T

    Trujillo Bueno , J. & del Pino Alem \'a n , T. 2022, , 60, 415

    2022

  64. [72]

    & Manso Sainz , R

    Trujillo Bueno , J. & Manso Sainz , R. 1999, , 516, 436

    1999

  65. [73]

    2001, , 557, 389

    Uitenbroek , H. 2001, , 557, 389

    2001

  66. [74]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    S t e p \'a n , J. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2013, , 557, A143

    2013

  67. [75]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  68. [76]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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