Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

SDSS-V Milky Way Mapper (MWM): ASPCAP Stellar Parameters and Abundances in SDSS-V Data Release 19

T0 review · 3 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 The SDSS-V DR19 catalog delivers measured uncertainties for nearly a million stars, with ten elements accurate below 0.1 dex.

desk verdict A solid, honestly caveated data release paper for the new SDSS-V APOGEE sample; the catalog is a real resource, but the abundance accuracy metric is partly circular and the quality categories have an internal contradiction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07845 v2 pith:DGIUUP2N submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Szabolcs Mészáros , Paula Jofré , Jennifer A. Johnson , Jonathan C. Bird , Jo Bovy , Andrew R. Casey , Julio Chaname , Katia Cunha
show 20 more authors
Nathan De Lee Peter Frinchaboy Guillaume Guiglion Viola Hegedűs Alex P. Ji Juna A. Kollmeier Melissa K. Ness Jonah Otto Marc H. Pinsonneault Alexandre Roman-Lopes Andrew Saydjari Amaya Sinha Ying-Yi Song Guy S. Stringfellow Keivan G. Stassun Jamie Tayar Andrew Tkachenko Marica Valentini Zachary Way Jörg Weingrill
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords ASPCAPSDSS-VDR19stellaratmosphericparameterschemicalabundanceszero-pointcalibrationprecisionassessmentMilkyWaypopulationsFGKMstars
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 is the science verification of a nearly one-million-star catalog of stellar parameters and chemical abundances released by the fifth phase of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. It claims that the survey's pipeline measures effective temperatures to about 50–70 K for giants and 70–100 K for dwarfs, surface gravities to 0.07–0.09 dex for giants, and abundances to 0.02–0.04 dex for the best elements, with at least ten elements better than 0.1 dex. These claims matter because the catalog puts a uniform, all-sky chemical map of the Milky Way within reach, letting astronomers trace where and when elements were produced. The paper also flags real cracks: gravities sit 0.09–0.18 dex above asteroseismic values, cool M-dwarf parameters can be off by up to a dex, and the abundance zero points assume the local solar-neighborhood sample is exactly solar in every element.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is ASPCAP, the survey's spectral-fitting pipeline, which pseudo-continuum-normalizes H-band spectra and uses the FERRE interpolator to chi-square fit a grid of MARCS-model synthetic spectra, first for eight global parameters (Teff, log g, [M/H], microturbulence, macroturbulence or v sin i, [α/M], [C/M], [N/M]) and then for individual element abundances in element-specific wavelength windows. Accuracy is anchored by zero-point offsets computed from a solar-neighborhood, solar-metallicity sample; systematics are mapped with open-cluster stars; and precision is cross-checked with the same solar-neighborhood sample, open clusters, and wide binaries.

What would settle it

Compare the DR19 calibrated abundances for the 42,376 solar-neighborhood calibration stars against an independent, non-LTE optical analysis of the same stars; if the mean residual for any element exceeds the claimed 0.02–0.04 dex precision (for example, a mean [Al/H] offset near the 0.17 dex raw correction), the zero-point assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the DR19 ASPCAP products are science-ready for FGKM stars: effective temperatures agree with the infrared-flux-method scale for dwarfs and sit within −63 to −80 K of it for giants; surface gravities are precise to 0.07–0.09 dex for red giants yet systematically offset from asteroseismic values by 0.09–0.18 dex; and the calibrated abundances reach 0.02–0.04 dex precision for [M/H], [α/M], [Mg/H], and [Si/H], with ten elements rated excellent quality overall. It provides zero-point offsets for 18 elements, temperature-dependent correction coefficients for giant stars derived from open clusters, and element-by-element quality tables that tell users where each abundance can be trusted.

Load-bearing premise

The zero-point calibration assumes that a selected set of nearby solar-metallicity stars has exactly the Sun's composition for every calibrated element; if that assumption is wrong for any element, all published abundances of that element are shifted by the same amount.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The paper's quality ratings give users a direct recipe: [M/H], [α/M], C, N, O, Mg, Si, Ca, Fe, and Ni can be trusted at the 0.02–0.1 dex level across most of the surveyed parameter space.
  • Because the internally reported uncertainties (median 0.001–0.008 dex) are several times smaller than external scatter estimates, science using DR19 abundances should adopt the paper's external precision values rather than the pipeline errors.
  • Giant-star abundances can be improved by applying the provided Teff-dependent corrections, which are not baked into the DR19 files.
  • For dwarfs cooler than 4500 K, the reported Teff, log g, and [M/H] can be badly off, so abundance work on M dwarfs should wait for the isochrone-calibrated gravity values or independent analyses.
  • The ten excellent-quality elements make the catalog suitable for Galactic chemical evolution and stellar population studies, while P, V, and Cu should be avoided.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the solar-neighborhood sample is not exactly solar in elements like Al or Cu, the published 'accuracy' is really precision-plus-zero-point; a testable extension is to compare the DR19 zero-point offsets against NLTE-corrected optical abundances of the same stars.
  • The open-cluster temperature-correction coefficients could be incorporated directly into the next data release, removing the need for users to apply them externally.
  • The cool carbon-rich group that ASPCAP misfits suggests a specific grid deficiency, likely molecular line opacities or missing carbon-enhanced model atmospheres, worth targeting in future synthetic grids.
  • The M-dwarf gravity failure implies that H-band spectra alone cannot anchor log g below 4500 K; combining ASPCAP with Gaia parallaxes and radii, or with isochrone priors, is a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes the SDSS-V DR19 ASPCAP data products: atmospheric parameters and abundances for 964,989 stars observed with APOGEE, with 894,256 stars below 8000 K. It validates raw Teff against IRFM photometric scales and benchmark stars, log g against APOKASC/TESS asteroseismology and other surveys, and [M/H] against GALAH, Gaia-ESO, GBS, and cluster samples. For individual abundances, zero-point offsets are derived from the solar-neighborhood sample (Table 2), temperature-dependent corrections are derived from open clusters (Eq. 3), and precision estimates are obtained from the solar-neighborhood sample, open clusters, and wide binaries (Table 4). The paper concludes that 10 elements are of excellent quality, with Teff precision of 50-70 K for giants and 70-100 K for dwarfs, log g precision of 0.07-0.09 dex for giants, and abundance precision better than 0.1 dex for at least 10 elements.

Significance. If the accuracy and precision claims hold, this is an important public catalog for Galactic archaeology, and the paper's broad comparison campaign against independent references is a genuine strength. The paper is also unusually candid in flagging unreliable regions (M dwarfs below 4500 K, P, V, Cu, 12C/13C, and a problematic cool carbon-rich group) and in warning that reported formal uncertainties are underestimated. However, the headline accuracy assessment in Table 5 is weakened by a calibration-validation circularity: the same solar-neighborhood sample is used both to define the zero-point offsets and to grade the accuracy of those offsets. The independent external comparisons are the real accuracy tests and should be incorporated into the quality summary. The paper also contains internal inconsistencies between the quality categories in Section 4.4 and the conclusions, and the abstract precision claim is not fully supported by Table 4. These issues are fixable within the scope of the manuscript, so revision rather than rejection is appropriate.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and Table 5] The 'Accuracy' column of Table 5 is built from the zero-point offsets Δ in Table 2, but §4.1 defines those Δ by forcing the solar-neighborhood sample (SNSM) to have mean [X/H]=0. Consequently, the 'excellent' (<0.05 dex) accuracy flags for 10 elements are a restatement of the calibration assumption rather than an independent test: any element would appear accurate on the SNSM by construction, and if the local thin disk is non-solar in, e.g., Al or Cu, the entire calibrated scale inherits that offset. The paper does contain genuinely independent accuracy checks (GALAH DR4, Gaia-ESO DR5, GBS, open and globular clusters, and asteroseismic and IRFM comparisons for the atmospheric parameters), but these are not used to set the accuracy categories in Table 5. Please relabel the first criterion as a 'zero-point consistency with the assumed solar-neighborhood scale,' and either compute the Table 5 accuracy categories from the independent comparisons or present the independent offsets (e.g., MWM − GALAH and MWM − Gaia-ESO medians) alongside Table 5 so users can judge accuracy without relying on the circular metric.
  2. [§4.4, Table 5, and §6] The quality summary is internally inconsistent. Section 4.4 and Table 5 classify Na, Ti, Co, Ce, and Nd as 'fair,' but conclusion item 4 states that these same elements are 'considered to have poor quality'; this contradicting sentence in the conclusions should be corrected. In addition, Table 5 lists C and N as having 'excellent' accuracy even though §4.1 explicitly excludes C and N from the zero-point analysis because they are not calibrated, and Table 6 marks their accuracy entries with '· · ·'; a non-applicable quantity should not be placed in the <0.05 dex accuracy bin. These issues bear directly on how users will select elements for their science, so they should be fixed before publication.
  3. [Abstract and Tables 4–5] The abstract states that 'the precision of at least 10 elements is better than 0.1 dex,' and Table 5 gives a Precision rating of Excellent (<0.1 dex) for 10 elements. Table 4, however, shows that several of those elements have at least one independent scatter estimate above 0.1 dex: Nglobal 0.113, Nwindows 0.138, S 0.067–0.151, K 0.081–0.106, Ti 0.073–0.149, Cr 0.077–0.178, and Mn 0.035–0.077. Only α, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ni have all three independent estimates at or below 0.1 dex, while Fe appears in Table 5 but has no row in Table 4. Please specify the precise statistic (e.g., the minimum, the mean, or a giant-only estimate) behind the '10 elements' claim, add the supporting data for Fe and [M/H], and adjust the abstract if the claim is not supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.11] The text 'NWM DR19-APOGEE DR17 common sample' appears to be a typo for 'MWM DR19-APOGEE DR17.'
  2. [Abstract] The word 'aseisimic' in the abstract should be 'asteroseismic.'
  3. [Figure 16 caption] The caption contains the typo 'neighboorhod'; it should read 'neighborhood.'
  4. [Table 6] The optimal-region entries for Nglobal and Nwindows list 'nowhere' for dwarfs; if this is intentional, please state explicitly that no reliable dwarf region exists for nitrogen, and if it is not intentional, please correct the entries.
  5. [§3.1.1–§3.3.1] The M dwarf caveat (Teff < 4500 K, log g > 4) is clearly documented in Sections 3.1.1–3.3.1 and Section 4.4, but the abstract does not mention it; a brief caveat in the abstract would help users who rely only on the summary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the zero-point calibration and accuracy assessment both use the SNSM, but accuracy is scored from the raw pre-calibration offsets, not the post-calibration residuals, and external comparisons anchor the main claims.

full rationale

The paper's abundance calibration (Section 4.1) defines a zero-point offset Δ by requiring the solar-neighborhood sample (SNSM) to have mean [X/H]=0, and Section 4.4 uses Δ as the accuracy criterion in Table 5. This is a methodological non-independence: the same sample supplies both the calibration and the accuracy reference, so the SNSM cannot independently validate the calibrated zero point. However, it is not a circular derivation. The accuracy column is based on the magnitude of the raw offset Δ, not on the post-calibration mean, which is indeed zero by construction; the paper never presents that zero mean as an accuracy test. The metric has discriminating power: elements with large raw offsets (Al, Mn, Cu) are explicitly downgraded in Tables 2, 5, and 6, showing that small Δ is not guaranteed by the fitting procedure. The SNSM solar composition is a stated physical prior supported by literature citations, not a result derived from ASPCAP. Precision estimates use scatter (shape statistics) that are unaffected by constant zero-point shifts. Independent checks are provided throughout: Teff against IRFM and Gaia benchmarks, log g against asteroseismic APOKASC3/TESS and other surveys, and abundances against GALAH, Gaia-ESO, and APOGEE DR17. The Teff-dependent abundance corrections (Eq. 3) are fitted to open clusters and are explicitly not applied to the published DR19 values, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. The overlapping-calibrator issue is a real limitation that should be kept in mind when interpreting the absolute abundance scale, but it does not make the paper's stated claims equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are calibration coefficients fitted to reference samples; they are honestly labeled as calibrations, but they are load-bearing for the abundance scale and for the stated precision values.

free parameters (3)
  • Abundance zero-point offsets (Table 2) = 19 elements x 2 gravity bins, e.g., [Al/H] = 0.1751 (giants), -0.0497 (dwarfs)
    Fitted by forcing the solar-neighborhood sample (Section 4.1) to have mean [X/H]=0. These offsets define the calibrated abundance scale and the 'accuracy' categories in Table 5.
  • Temperature-correction coefficients a,b (Table 3) = Listed for 17 elements, e.g., [Na/M] a=-8.2173e-5, b=0.4586
    Linear regression of [X/M] vs Teff in 12 open clusters (Section 4.2, Eq 3). These are proposed as user-side corrections, not applied in the DR19 catalog.
  • log g calibration coefficients = Not shown (Casey et al. 2025, in preparation)
    The calibrated logg column is produced by correcting raw log g with correlations fitted to APOKASC3 asteroseismic gravity (Section 3.2). The coefficients are not published here.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LTE approximation is adequate for deriving all DR19 abundances, despite NLTE level populations being available for Na, Mg, K, Ca.
    Section 2 states that DR19 abundances are all LTE. NLTE effects could bias abundances, particularly for elements with strong lines (e.g., Al, Na).
  • domain assumption MARCS model atmospheres and the Grevesse et al. (2007) solar abundance scale are the correct reference for the spectral grids.
    Section 2 says the grids were constructed with these models and abundances; any error propagates into all derived abundances and Teff/log g.
  • domain assumption The solar-neighborhood sample (distance < 500 pc, [M/H] within +/- 0.05) has a mean [X/H] = 0 for all calibrated elements.
    Section 4.1 uses this sample to set zero-points; the assumption is motivated by literature but is load-bearing for the abundance scale.
  • domain assumption Open cluster members are chemically homogeneous enough that the observed [X/M] scatter is an upper limit on measurement precision.
    Section 4.2/4.3 uses open clusters both to fit Teff trends and to estimate precision; the paper acknowledges astrophysical scatter may inflate the scatter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SDSS-V Milky Way Mapper (MWM): ASPCAP Stellar Parameters and Abundances in SDSS-V Data Release 19." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGIUUP2N

@misc{pith2026250607845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SDSS-V Milky Way Mapper (MWM): ASPCAP Stellar Parameters and Abundances in SDSS-V Data Release 19},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGIUUP2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07845}
}
abstract

The goal of this paper is to describe the science verification of Milky Way Mapper (MWM) APOGEE Stellar Parameter and Chemical Abundances Pipeline (ASPCAP) data products published in Data Release 19 (DR19) of the fifth phase of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS-V). We compare MWM ASPCAP atmospheric parameters T$_{\rm eff}$, log g, 24 abundances of 21 elements (carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen have multiple sources for deriving their abundance values) and their uncertainties determined from Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE) spectrograph spectra with those of the literature and evaluate their accuracy and precision. We also test the zero-point calibration of the v$_{\rm rad}$ derived by the APOGEE Data Reduction Pipeline. This data release contains ASPCAP parameters for 964,989 stars, including all APOGEE-2 targets expanded with new observations of 336,511 stars from the Apache Point Observatory observed until 4 July 2023. Overall, the new T$_{\rm eff}$ values show excellent agreement with the IRFM scale, while the surface gravities exhibit slight systematic offsets compared to asteroseisimic gravities. The estimated precision of T$_{\rm eff}$ is between 50 and 70 K for giants and 70$-$100 K for dwarfs, while surface gravities are measured with a precision of 0.07$-$0.09 dex for giants. We achieve an estimated precision of 0.02$-$0.04 dex for multiple elements, including metallicity, $\alpha$, Mg, and Si, while the precision of at least 10 elements is better than 0.1 dex.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07845 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Position of stars that have parameters and abundances below 8000 K published by Milky Way Mapper in DR19 color coded by [M/H]. Only stars with SNR > 50 per pixel and no BAD flags that are farther than 1000 pc are shown here to reveal the metallicity gradient of our Galaxy. from SDSS-V to provide atmospheric parameters and abun￾dances for upcoming data releases. Astra is capable of run￾ning multiple algorithms and me… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial velocity (top panels) published in DR19 compared with Gaia DR3 (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023a), GALAH DR4 (Buder et al. 2024), and GES DR5 (Randich et al. 2022). The scatter of radial velocities as a function of Teff is shown in the bottom panels. et al. (2007) solar abundance scale as both the model atmo￾spheres and synthesis were calculated using this abundance table. The parameter space is so large that … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Differences of DR19 ASPCAP spectroscopic Teff and IRFM temperatures as a function of ASPCAP Teff color coded by metallicity. The left panels show the giants, the right panels the dwarfs. Photometric J − Ks and V − Ks temperatures from Gonzalez Hern ´ andez & Bonifacio (2009) can be seen in the ´ top and middle panels, respectively. The bottom panel shows the differences compared to IRFM temperatures calculated from … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differences of DR19 ASPCAP spectroscopic raw Teff and APOGEE DR17 (Abdurro’uf et al. 2022), GALAH DR4 (Buder et al. 2024), Gaia-ESO DR5 (Randich et al. 2022) and GBS (Soubiran et al. 2024) temperatures as a function of ASPCAP raw Teff color coded by raw metallicity. Th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Main atmospheric parameters comparison with those of derived by Souto et al. (2022) as a function of ASPCAP raw Teffvalues. Top panel: difference of temperatures from Souto et al. (2022) and ASPCAP raw Teff values; middle panel: difference of surface gravities from Sou…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differences of DR19 ASPCAP spectroscopic and astroseismic log g as a function of ASPCAP metalliciy and raw surface gravity. The top panel shows the RGB, the middle panel the RC stars from the APOKASC3 sample, and the bottom panel shows all TESS stars. (2023). The MWM-T…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differences of DR19 ASPCAP raw surface gravities and APOGEE DR17 (Abdurro’uf et al. 2022), GALAH DR4 (Buder et al. 2024), Gaia-ESO DR5 (Randich et al. 2022) and GBS (Soubiran et al. 2024) values as a function of ASPCAP raw Teff color coded by raw metallicity. The solid…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panel: the 2D histogram of the difference between [M/H] and [Fe/H] as a function of raw Teff. Bottom panel: the difference between [M/H] and [Fe/H] as a function of raw log g color coded by [M/H]. Only stars with SNR>50 and no bad flags are shown. calculations of t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The difference between MWM [M/H] and literature [Fe/H] as a function of ASPCAP raw Teff and log g from APOGEE DR17 (top panels), GALAH DR4 (second row from the top), Gaia-ESO DR5 (second row from the bottom) for stars with SNR>50 from both surveys, and no BAD flags fr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Scatter of metallicity in 12 open and 16 globular clusters. A slight anticorrelation with average [M/H] can be seen as lines in H band get weaker with decreasing metallicity. 3.3.1. M Dwarfs The large offset of the surface gravities of stars with Teff < 4500 K and log…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Raw abundances of giants in the solar neighborhood solar-metallicity sample as a function of Teff. Stars with S/N > 50, no BAD flags, and −0.05 < [M/H] < 0.05 are plotted only. The zero-point offset for giants stars were determined from the 4000−6000 K range. Abundanc…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Corrected abundances published in DR19 as a function of [M/H] of stars with S/N > 50, no BAD flags, and e x h < 0.2. Features seen in the calibrated abundances are discussed in the individual abundance sections. Stripes seen in the low-density regions of some abundanc…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Here, we only plot stars with S/N > 50, no indi￾vidual element BAD flags (x h flags = 0), and small reported internal Astra uncertainty (e x h < 0.2). In general, the distri￾bution of abundances follows previous spectroscopic surveys (Jonsson et al. 2020; Buder et al.…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: [X/M] abundances as a function of Teff using 358 giant stars in 12 open clusters from the OCCAM survey. The solid line shows the derived calibration equation. Stars with S/N > 50, log g < 3.8, Teff< 6000 K, and no BAD flags were kept in the sample. and their abundance…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The median DR19 uncertainties (blue dots) for each element compared to scatter measured in the solar neighboorhod sample (red dots), in 12 open clusters (yellow dots), and 348 wide binaries (black dots). The range of Teff is between 4000 and 6000 K, S/N > 50. and can …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Raw abundances of giants (log g < 3.8) as a function of Teff with SNR > 50 and no BAD flags. The orange coloring indicates the parameter region from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Figure17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison between MWM DR19 and APOGEE DR17 abundances as a function of Teff color coded by MWM [M/H]. S/N was restricted to be larger than 50 in both surveys. Abundances of Cglobal and Nglobal are from the global fit. The solid black line shows the running median val…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Comparison between MWM DR19 and GALAH DR4 abundances as a function of Teff color coded by MWM [M/H]. S/N was restricted to be larger than 50 in both surveys. Abundances of Cglobal and Nglobal are from the global fit. The solid black line shows the running median value…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. Radial velocity and atmospheric parameter calculations for the GaiaNIR spectrograph

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

    For GaiaNIR, a 1926–1968 nm K-band window at R≈16,000–20,000 offers the best simulated balance of radial-velocity precision, atmospheric-parameter precision, and low interstellar extinction.

  4. The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping Survey: VIII. Galactic Chemical Gradient and Azimuthal Analysis from SDSS/MWM DR19

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 164-cluster sample from SDSS-V/MWM DR19 gives a Milky Way iron gradient of -0.075 dex/kpc and tentative evidence that the gradient varies with azimuth.

  5. The Nineteenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DR19 is the first SDSS-V release to include all three mappers: about 1.2 million APOGEE and 800,000 BOSS stellar spectra, roughly 380,000 black hole spectra, and a preview Helix Nebula map from the Local Volume Mapper.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    Z., Sousa, S

    Adibekyan, V . Z., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A32 Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 804

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    X., et al

    Anders, F., Chiappini, C., Santiago, B. X., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A115

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    J., Anguiano, B., Chanam´e, J., et al

    Andrews, J. J., Anguiano, B., Chanam´e, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 42

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    J., Chanam´e, J., & Ag¨ueros, M

    Andrews, J. J., Chanam´e, J., & Ag¨ueros, M. A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5393

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71

    2014

  7. [7]

    L., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Bovy, J., Nidever, D. L., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 127

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Bowen, I. S. & Vaughan, A. H., J. 1973, Appl. Opt., 12, 1430

    1973

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    X., et al

    Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, E. X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.19858

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 150

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150

    2021

  3. [11]

    D., et al

    Casagrande, L., Lin, J., Rains, A. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2684

    2021

  4. [12]

    2021, A&A, 654, A151

    Casamiquela, L., Castro-Ginard, A., Anders, F., & Soubiran, C. 2021, A&A, 654, A151

    2021

  5. [13]

    V ., Hasselquist, S., et al

    Cunha, K., Smith, V . V ., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 145

    2017

  6. [14]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 199

    2020

  7. [15]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 142

    2018

  8. [16]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    2008

  9. [17]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269

    2021

  10. [18]

    & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Freeman, K. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 487 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A33 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 202...

    2002

  11. [19]

    Gray, D. F. 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres

    2005

  12. [20]

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2007, Space Sci. Rev., 130, 105

    2007

  13. [21]

    H., Johnson, J

    Griffith, E., Weinberg, D. H., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 77

    2021

  14. [22]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332

    2006

  15. [23]

    Hartman, Z. D. & L´epine, S. 2020, ApJS, 247, 66

    2020

  16. [24]

    R., Lian, J., et al

    Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C. R., Lian, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 172

    2021

  17. [25]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 81

    Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., Cunha, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 81

    2016

  18. [26]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 1164

    Hawkins, K., Lucey, M., Ting, Y .-S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1164

    2020

  19. [27]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132

    2015

  20. [28]

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

    Hayes, C. R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 34 30

    2022

  21. [29]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

    2018

  22. [30]

    A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al

    Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 125

    2018

  23. [31]

    A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J

    Holtzman, J. A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 148

    2015

  24. [32]

    S., et al

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Kuszlewicz, J. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 131

    2021

  25. [33]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829 H´eder, M., Rig´o, E., Medgyesi, D., et al

    Hubeny, I., Allende Prieto, C., Osorio, Y ., & Lanz, T. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829 H´eder, M., Rig´o, E., Medgyesi, D., et al. 2022, InfTars - Inform´aci´os T´arsadalom, 2, 10 Jofr´e, P., Heiter, U., & Soubiran, C. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 571 Jofr´e, P., Heiter, U., Worle...

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.03234

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    C., et al

    Lagarde, N., Reyl´e, C., Robin, A. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A24

    2019

  28. [36]

    2012, A&A, 547, A108

    Lebzelter, T., Heiter, U., Abia, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A108

    2012

  29. [37]

    J., Barklem, P

    Lind, K., Korn, A. J., Barklem, P. S., & Grundahl, F. 2008, A&A, 490, 777

    2008

  30. [38]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 3934

    Liu, F., Yong, D., Asplund, M., Ram´ırez, I., & Mel´endez, J. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3934

    2016

  31. [39]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

    2017

  32. [40]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3655

    Martig, M., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3655

    2016

  33. [41]

    A., M´esz´aros, S., et al

    Masseron, T., Garc´ıa-Hern´andez, D. A., M´esz´aros, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A191

    2019

  34. [42]

    A., Santove˜na, R., et al

    Masseron, T., Garc´ıa-Hern´andez, D. A., Santove˜na, R., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 3759 M´esz´aros, S., Allende Prieto, C., Edvardsson, B., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 120 M´esz´aros, S., Holtzman, J., Garc´ıa P´erez, A. E., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 133 M´esz´aros, S., Ma...

    2020

  35. [43]

    2022, AJ, 164, 85

    Myers, N., Donor, J., Spoo, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 85

    2022

  36. [44]

    & Freeman, K

    Ness, M. & Freeman, K. 2016, PASA, 33, 22

    2016

  37. [45]

    W., Rix, H

    Ness, M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H. W., Ho, A. Y . Q., & Zasowski, G. 2015, ApJ, 808, 16

    2015

  38. [46]

    W., Rix, H

    Ness, M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H. W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 114

    2016

  39. [47]

    L., Bovy, J., Bird, J

    Nidever, D. L., Bovy, J., Bird, J. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 38

    2014

  40. [48]

    L., Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C

    Nidever, D. L., Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 88

    2020

  41. [49]

    2020, AJ, 159, 182

    Olney, R., Kounkel, M., Schillinger, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 182

    2020

  42. [50]

    2020, A&A, 637, A80

    Osorio, Y ., Allende Prieto, C., Hubeny, I., M´esz´aros, S., & Shetrone, M. 2020, A&A, 637, A80

    2020

  43. [51]

    H., Elsworth, Y ., Epstein, C., et al

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y ., Epstein, C., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 19

    2014

  44. [52]

    H., Elsworth, Y

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y . P., Tayar, J., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 32

    2018

  45. [53]

    H., Zinn, J

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Zinn, J. C., Tayar, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00102

    2024

  46. [54]

    2022, A&A, 666, A121

    Randich, S., Gilmore, G., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A121

    2022

  47. [55]

    E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D

    Reddy, B. E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 304

    2003

  48. [56]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  49. [57]

    2024, A&A, 682, L23

    Saffe, C., Miquelarena, P., Alacoria, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, L23

    2024

  50. [58]

    K., Finkbeiner, D

    Saydjari, A. K., Finkbeiner, D. P., Wheeler, A. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07126

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    C., Stassun, K

    Schonhut-Stasik, J., Zinn, J. C., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 50

    2024

  52. [60]

    2017, ApJS, 233, 23

    Serenelli, A., Johnson, J., Huber, D., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 23

    2017

  53. [61]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 89

    Sinha, A., Zasowski, G., Frinchaboy, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 89

    2024

  54. [62]

    H., Wheeler, A., et al

    Sit, T., Weinberg, D. H., Wheeler, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 180

    2024

  55. [63]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32

    2013

  56. [64]

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

    Smith, V . V ., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254

    2021

  57. [65]

    L., Lagarde, N., et al

    Soubiran, C., Creevey, O. L., Lagarde, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A145

    2024

  58. [66]

    V ., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V . V ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 123

    2022

  59. [67]

    V ., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V . V ., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 14

    2018

  60. [68]

    2022, AJ, 163, 152

    Sprague, D., Culhane, C., Kounkel, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 152

    2022

  61. [69]

    V ., et al

    Szigeti, L., M´esz´aros, S., Smith, V . V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4810

    2018

  62. [70]

    Theodoridis, A. T. & Tayar, J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 148

    2023

  63. [71]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 69

    Ting, Y .-S., Conroy, C., Rix, H.-W., & Cargile, P. 2019, ApJ, 879, 69

    2019

  64. [72]

    H., Elsworth, Y ., et al

    Vrard, M., Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03101

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 90

    Wanderley, F., Cunha, K., Souto, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 90

    2023

  66. [74]

    H., Holtzman, J

    Weinberg, D. H., Holtzman, J. A., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 32

    2022

  67. [75]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001

    2019

  68. [76]

    C., Smiljanic, R., Magrini, L., et al

    Worley, C. C., Smiljanic, R., Magrini, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.06076

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 138

    Zasowski, G., Schultheis, M., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 138

    2019

  70. [78]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 9

    Zhang, B., Liu, C., & Deng, L.-C. 2020, ApJS, 246, 9

    2020

Pith tools

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