Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

This paper shows that an incomplete, deliberately selected spectroscopic survey can be converted into unbiased population statistics for the 100-parsec solar neighborhood by explicitly modeling the selection function and a new subpopulation

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 12:34 UTC pith:5QYHYQH7

load-bearing objection Useful selection-function and forward-modeling toolkit for SDSS-V SNC, but a real prior-specification bug over-predicts rare subpopulations in sparse HR bins. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19501 v1 pith:5QYHYQH7 submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

A Probabilistic Framework for Population Studies of the Solar Neighborhood: Application to SDSS-V and Gaia

Ilija Medan , Keivan G. Stassun , Zachary Way , Guy S. Stringfellow , Alexandre Roman-Lopes , Jiadong Li , Madeline Lucey , Andrew R. Casey
show 3 more authors
B\'arbara Rojas-Ayala Ricardo L\'opez-Valdivia Jos\'e G. Fern\'andez-Trincado
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords selection functionsolar neighborhoodSDSS-V SNCGaia GCNSspectroscopic survey completenessBayesian forward modelingHertzsprung-Russell diagramstellar subpopulations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The Solar Neighborhood Census within the SDSS-V survey only captures a fraction of the 100-parsec stellar population, because fiber assignment, competing science programs, sky coverage, and data-quality filters remove many stars before spectra exist. This paper tries to prove that the missing fraction can be modeled rather than mourned: it builds a selection function that gives, for each star in the nearly complete Gaia Catalog of Nearby Stars, the probability it would appear in a given user-defined SDSS-V subsample, as a function of sky position, apparent magnitude, and color. It then introduces a 'subpopulation probability' — a grid of posterior estimates across the color–magnitude diagram for how likely a Gaia member belongs to a spectroscopically defined class — and couples it to the selection function through a Poisson forward model. If the framework is correct, researchers can take the deliberately incomplete SDSS-V spectra and recover volume-complete statements, such as how H-alpha emission concentrates at the lowest masses or how stellar density depends on mass and metallicity. The mock-data validation and the two scientific demonstrations are the paper's evidence that this works.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the effective selection function of the SDSS-V Solar Neighborhood Census relative to the Gaia Catalog of Nearby Stars can be decomposed into layers — carton targeting, fiber assignment, actual observation, and successful recovery of the spectroscopic quantity — and that the compound probability of surviving all layers is well described by Beta-distributed counts in bins of sky position, G magnitude, and BP−RP color. Against this backdrop, the authors propose that every spectroscopically defined subpopulation can be represented by a 'subpopulation probability' grid over the HR diagram, p_sub,k, and that the expected number of SDSS-V stars in a bin is the prod

What carries the argument

The central object is the subpopulation probability p_sub,k — a cell-wise posterior estimate of the chance that a GCNS star in HR-diagram bin k belongs to the spectroscopic class of interest. It enters a Poisson point-process intensity via Λ_obs,j = Σ_k A_{j,k} p_sub,k, where A_{j,k}, the 'effective selection factor', is the sum of detection probabilities (the analysis-dependent selection function) over all GCNS stars in selection-bin j and HR-bin k. The selection function itself is built as a Beta posterior from counts (k out of n GCNS stars observed in a bin), with bins in sky-position pixels, Gaia G magnitude, and BP−RP color; the framework enforces zero probability in unvisited bins. The

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a star's position on the color–magnitude diagram fully encodes the probability that it belongs to a given spectroscopically defined subpopulation; unresolved binaries and overlapping stellar populations (e.g., young pre-main-sequence versus old metal-rich stars) can break that link and skew the inferred subpopulation probabilities.

What would settle it

Run the released forward model on a mock Gaia sample in which a known fraction of stars are unresolved binaries whose combined light shifts them redder and overluminous, and check whether the recovered subpopulation probabilities in the affected color–magnitude bins match the true input fractions within the posterior width; a systematic mismatch would show the HR-position-only mapping is insufficient.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Any science case built on SDSS-V SNC data can define its own effective sample — targeted, assigned, observed, successfully reduced — and the same selection-function machinery corrects for all four layers of incompleteness.
  • H-alpha emission mapping across the HR diagram shows the emission fraction rises sharply at the lowest masses, shifting the peak of the luminosity function from M_G ≈ 11 to ≈ 12, a population-level statement now available from a deliberately incomplete survey.
  • Number-density measurements in metallicity bins reveal that low-mass stellar density increases with metallicity and that the mass-function slope changes with metallicity, setting up direct IMF-metallicity tests.
  • The mock validation demonstrates that arbitrary subpopulation patterns across the HR diagram can be recovered from incomplete spectroscopy, with the caveat that low-count regions remain prior-dominated.
  • Because the framework resamples distance posteriors and incorporates the GCNS completeness and 1/Vmax corrections, it yields volume-complete luminosity and mass functions for the 100-pc sample.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer the same machinery transfers to other fiber-fed spectroscopic surveys with algorithmic target assignment: once the parent catalog's completeness is known, the layered selection (carton → fiber assignment → observation → measurement success) can be characterized with the same Beta-count prescription.
  • We expect the framework's most productive extension is a hierarchical version that treats unresolved binaries as a distinct latent population rather than folding them into the HR-diagram mapping; that would directly test the binary-bias concern the paper flags in its limitations section.
  • The prior-dominance flags (KL divergence, variance shift, mean shift) double as a survey-design tool: they reveal HR-diagram cells where additional spectroscopic observations would add the most information about subpopulation membership.
  • We speculate the selection function could be validated epoch-by-epoch: recomputing it on successive data releases should show detection probabilities converging field-by-field as scheduling gaps fill, and any jumps would indicate plan revisions the current static model cannot absorb.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a probabilistic framework for using the incomplete SDSS-V Solar Neighborhood Census (SNC) sample together with the Gaia Catalog of Nearby Stars (GCNS) 100 pc sample. It models an analysis-dependent selection function as a Beta posterior in bins of HEALPix sky position, Gaia G magnitude, and BP−RP color; introduces a 'subpopulation probability' grid p_sub,k across the HR diagram; and fits this grid with a Poisson point-process likelihood using JAX/numpyro MCMC. The fitted probabilities are then used to resample GCNS stars, enabling volume-corrected densities. The framework is validated on a mock subpopulation and illustrated with DR19 data on Hα emission and on stellar number density versus mass and metallicity. The paper also releases public code and reproducible analysis scripts.

Significance. If the framework performs as claimed, it would be a valuable community tool: it directly addresses the severe selection effects of SDSS-V's SNC and offers a practical path from an incomplete spectroscopic sample to population-level inferences tied to the nearly complete GCNS. The public code, reproducible scripts, and the self-consistency mock test are real strengths, and the selection function reproduces the main qualitative features of the survey planning logic. The central promise of unbiased, statistically robust population inference is, however, undermined by an internally inconsistent prior specification in Eqs. (9)–(10) that biases exactly the rare-subpopulation regime the method is designed for. The issue is local and fixable, but until it is addressed the paper's headline claims are not supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 (Eqs. 9–10)] The Beta prior is claimed to have mean equal to the observed fraction f_o, but the cap β=2 breaks this for f_o < 1/3. For example, f_o = 0.01 yields Beta(1,2), whose mean is 1/3 and whose 95% interval is [0.013, 0.84]. Thus in HR bins with zero observed subpopulation stars, the posterior is essentially the prior, over-predicting counts by an order of magnitude relative to f_o. The mock validation in §4.1 shows an 'overestimation in low number regions' but attributes it to small-number statistics rather than to the prior. The rare-population applications (e.g., the metal-poor bins in §4.3) are exactly in this regime. The prior should be reparameterized so that its mean is f_o (for instance β=(1−f_o)/f_o, or a Beta(α=c f_o, β=c(1−f_o)) form) and the validation rerun.
  2. [§3.1 (k=0 rule) and §4.2–4.3] Setting S=0 whenever k=0 conflates unvisited survey fields with bins that are visited but contain no members of a rare subpopulation. For analysis-dependent subsamples (Hα emitters, metallicity cuts), a bin can contain GCNS stars and SDSS-V spectra but zero subpopulation members purely because the subpopulation is rare. The strict-zero rule then removes those bins from the Poisson likelihood, so p_sub,k in them is unconstrained and collapses to the prior, compounding the bias in the previous comment. Please distinguish unvisited bins from zero-detection bins and, in the latter case, use a nonzero Beta posterior (e.g., Beta(1, n+1)) or justify why S=0 is appropriate for rare subpopulations.
  3. [§4.1 and §4.3] The mock validation uses a sinusoidal subpopulation that is likely not rare, so it does not stress the prior-dominated regime that is central to the paper's motivating examples. The paper should include a rare-subpopulation mock (global fraction at the few-percent level) and report the bias in low-count bins separately from the width of the 95% envelope. The current statement that 'the forward model correctly recovers the true distribution when the errors are considered' is too weak to support the unbiasedness claim in the presence of a prior that is known to be biased.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] The sentence 'a minimum of β=2 so the result is never a uniform distribution' is incorrect: for f_o=0.5, β=(1−f_o)/f_o=1, and Beta(1,1) is the uniform distribution.
  2. [Eq. (18) / Appendix B] The calibration relation is described as a 'second degree polynomial' but contains a T^3 term; it is a cubic polynomial.
  3. [§4.3] The binary-removal criterion 'ipd_frac_multi_peak≥0' is a no-op because this quantity is non-negative by definition; the intended cut was presumably '>0'.
  4. [Appendix A] Minor typos: 'evalutate_Ajk' should be 'evaluate_Ajk', and the column name 'e_fe_h' appears inconsistently in the code example.
  5. [Figures 4–6] '95% confidence' should be '95% credible interval' or 'posterior percentile range' to match the Bayesian framework.
  6. [§4.1 validation scope] The mock test is a posterior-predictive check; it validates the statistical machinery only under the assumption that the HR-diagram mapping is correct. The paper should state explicitly that the mock does not independently validate that mapping, a limitation already acknowledged in §5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: selection function and subpopulation inference are empirically fitted, and the mock validation is a genuine recovery test; the data-dependent prior is a bias concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The subsample selection function is empirically estimated as a Beta posterior over GCNS/SDSS-V counts (Eqs. 1–3), following the external Castro-Ginard et al. framework; the statement that the detection probabilities reproduce survey planning logic is a consistency check against independent operational knowledge, not a fitted constraint. The subpopulation probabilities p_sub,k are free parameters in a Poisson forward model (Eqs. 4–8); the GCNS draws made from the posterior are posterior predictive summaries of the fit, and the mock validation compares these against an independently defined mock truth, which is a genuine recovery test. The data-dependent prior in Eqs. 9–10 does mean that under-sampled HR bins remain prior-dominated, and the β cap makes the prior mean 1/3 for f_o<1/3 rather than f_o; this is an internal-consistency/bias issue that the paper itself acknowledges (Section 5 and the prior-flagging masks), but it is not a reduction of a prediction to its own input. The only overlapping-author citations (Way et al. 2026; Medan et al. 2025) enter as data-filtering and survey-context references, not as load-bearing derivation. Thus no quoted equation reduces to itself by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

All free parameters are data-driven or hand-chosen. The central inference depends on the HR-diagram proxy assumption and on treating GCNS incompleteness as a post-processing correction; these are stated but not independently validated.

free parameters (4)
  • p_sub,k (HR-diagram subpopulation probability grid) = posterior samples per bin; not tabulated in paper
    Free parameters of the Poisson forward model (Eq. 8); fitted by MCMC to the observed SDSS-V subpopulation.
  • Prior hyperparameters f_o and beta = f_o = max(N_subpop/N_data, 0.01); beta = min((1-f_o)/f_o, 2)
    Set from the observed subpopulation fraction; the beta cap forces mean 1/3 for rare subpopulations, contradicting the text.
  • ASPCAP metallicity correction coefficients = -6.095e-11, 9.164e-7, -4.564e-3, 7.538
    Cubic polynomial fit to 129 wide-binary pairs (Appendix B, Eq. B1) to place ASPCAP and SLAM metallicities on the same scale; used in Case 3.
  • Binning scheme = HEALPix order 3; dG=0.5 mag; d(BP-RP)=0.15 mag; dM_G=0.25 mag
    Chosen by hand; the paper notes results can depend on binning and recommends sensitivity tests.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption GCNS is complete enough that its remaining incompleteness (bright end, late M/L/T dwarfs, close binaries) can be ignored or corrected in post-processing
    Section 3.1 states these regimes are not modeled and that the method underestimates incompleteness there.
  • domain assumption HR-diagram position is a probabilistic predictor of spectroscopic subpopulation membership
    Section 3.2 constructs p_sub,k on (BP-RP, M_G); Section 5 lists binaries and overlapping populations as failure cases.
  • domain assumption Selection probability is constant within (HEALPix, G, BP-RP) bins and follows Beta-Binomial counting
    Section 3.1; field-level decisions are blended when a HEALPix pixel overlaps two SDSS-V fields.
  • domain assumption Observed subpopulation stars can be modeled as a Poisson process on the GCNS catalog with per-star intensity p_sub,k x S
    Section 3.2, Eqs. 4-8; requires independent thinning and ignores clustering/binarity correlations.
  • domain assumption Volume corrections use a thin-disk exponential density law with H=365 pc and z_sun=17 pc
    Section 3.3, Eq. 13; adopted from literature, not validated here.
  • domain assumption GCNS distance posterior samples and 80th-percentile magnitude limits are accurate inputs
    Sections 3.2-3.3; used for M_G assignment and Vmax; Lutz-Kelker bias addressed by sampling, but completeness limits are taken as given.
  • domain assumption Bins with k=0 have strictly zero selection probability, interpreted as unvisited fields
    Section 3.1; Section 5 later acknowledges that zero counts can also mean measurement failure, so the two cases are conflated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22730 in / 19061 out tokens · 187150 ms · 2026-08-01T12:34:01.026333+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Probabilistic Framework for Population Studies of the Solar Neighborhood: Application to SDSS-V and Gaia." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QYHYQH7

@misc{pith2026260719501,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Probabilistic Framework for Population Studies of the Solar Neighborhood: Application to SDSS-V and Gaia},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QYHYQH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19501}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Studies of the Solar Neighborhood require spectroscopic follow-up of stars identified in astrometric surveys to fully characterize their physical properties. The SDSS-V Solar Neighborhood Census (SNC) is a dedicated program to observe stars within 100~pc. However, due to competing observing programs and fiber assignment constraints, the resulting sample carries severe and complex selection effects. A framework is presented for characterizing the selection function of the SDSS-V SNC relative to the Gaia Catalog of Nearby Stars (GCNS), along with a forward modeling method to infer the properties of stellar subpopulations across the GCNS-defined 100 pc sample. The selection function is based on a method that models the selection probability as a function of sky position, Gaia G magnitude, and BP-RP. The resulting detection probabilities faithfully reproduce the known survey planning logic. This work further introduces the concept of a "subpopulation probability" -- a grid of posterior estimates across the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram representing the likelihood that a GCNS member belongs to a given SDSS-V defined subpopulation. The framework is validated with a mock dataset and its scientific utility is demonstrated through two applications using data from the Data Release 19: mapping H$\alpha$ emission across the HR diagram and measuring the variation of stellar density with mass and metallicity. These results illustrate how statistically robust population studies can be conducted with an incomplete spectroscopic survey when the selection function is well characterized. The code is made publicly available with this work, which will serve as an important tool for future studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19501 by Alexandre Roman-Lopes, Andrew R. Casey, B\'arbara Rojas-Ayala, Guy S. Stringfellow, Ilija Medan, Jiadong Li, Jos\'e G. Fern\'andez-Trincado, Keivan G. Stassun, Madeline Lucey, Ricardo L\'opez-Valdivia, Zachary Way.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sky plot of the SDSS-V targets in the mwm_snc_100pc cartons for BOSS (left column) and APOGEE (right column). The top row is the sky distribution for the full carton, which serves as the input for robostrategy. The middle row shows the targets that are assigned to a fiber by robostrategy in the DR19 survey plan. The bottom row shows the targets that have a spectrum in DR19. fields used by SDSS-V. The SDSS-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Color-magnitude diagram of the median detection probability, SC(q|q in parent), for targets with an APOGEE and/or BOSS spectrum from SDSS-V DR19 that are within a mwm_snc_100pc carton. The left panel is for targets across the whole sky, the middle panel is for targets with |b| < 10◦ and the right panel is for targets with |b| > 55◦ . some grid of subpopulation probabilities, which in this schematic is star… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic illustrating the various terms of our subpopulation probability forward model, as described in equations 6−8. The first panel shows the HR diagram of the observed SDSS-V SNC sample, where each star is weighted by the subpop￾ulation probability and selection function. The second panel is the sky distribution of the GCNS. The third panel is the HR diagram of the GCNS after applying the selection fu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the validation of our method with a mock dataset. We model our mock subpopulation as a sine wave with MG. With this, we randomly select stars from the complete GCNS and then our subpopulation observed with SDSS-V is the DR19 mwm_snc_100pc stars within that subpopulation (Selected SNC Stars (Mock Dataset)). With our selection function and subpopulation we then forward model the subpopulation… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: HR diagrams for stars with Hα emission (E.W. < −1 Å; left panel), or Hα absorption or no usable Hα measurement (E.W. > −1 Åor E.W. is Null; middle panel). The HR diagrams are the 50th percentile of star counts for the emission and comparison sample after randomly sampling from the GCNS using the respective subpopulation probabilities. The right panel shows the ratio of the emission sample to the total samp… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar number density as a function of mass for different metallicity bins as determined from sampling from the subpopulation probabilities informed by SLAM and ASPCAP data from SDSS-V DR19. The errorbars show the 95th percentile confidence region for these results. method should include explicit sensitivity tests to the adopted binning scheme to ensure it is appropriate for the analysis at hand. On the G… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HR diagram of the 50th percentile of the samples of the subpopulation probabilities (left panel) and 50th percentile of the GCNS counts (middle panel) for stars with [F e/H] > −0.5. The right panel shows the same HR diagram for the GCNS counts, but with regions masked with grey where the subpopulation probability posterior does not deviate significantly from the prior. The forward model correctly identifie… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel shows the difference in ASPCAP metallicity for wide binaries as a function of temperature of the secondary. A clear offset is observed that is well fit by a second degree polynomial (eq. B1). The middle and right panels shows the the HR diagram of the ASPCAP and SLAM sample before and after this correction is applied, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  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

    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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  2. [2]

    R., Carlberg, J

    Blanton, M. R., Carlberg, J. K., Dwelly, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.21328, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21328

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.21328 2025

  3. [3]

    S., & Vaughan, A

    Bowen, I. S., & Vaughan, A. H., J. 1973, ApOpt, 12, 1430, doi: 10.1364/AO.12.001430

    doi:10.1364/ao.12.001430 1973

  4. [4]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13. http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  5. [5]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., & et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127

    2012

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 669, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244784

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244784

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244784 2023

  7. [7]

    Castro-Ginard, A., Brown, A. G. A., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346547

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346547 2023

  8. [8]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102 18

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., & et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102 18

    2016

  9. [9]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323 ESA, ed. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab323 2021

  10. [10]

    2021, A&A, 649, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039834

    Fabricius, C., Luri, X., Arenou, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039834

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039834 2021

  11. [11]

    Felten, J. E. 1976, ApJ, 207, 700, doi: 10.1086/154538 Gaia Collaboration, Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1086/154538 1976

  12. [12]

    2023, A&A, 670, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244250

    Golovin, A., Reffert, S., Just, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244250

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244250 2023

  13. [13]

    E., Siegmund, W

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

    doi:10.1086/500975 2006

  14. [14]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J. P., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2360, doi: 10.1086/508233

    doi:10.1086/508233 2006

  15. [15]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac262 2018

  16. [16]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1111.4246 2011

  17. [17]

    Karim, T., & Mamajek, E. E. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2772

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2772 2017

  18. [18]

    D., Marocco, F., Gelino, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Marocco, F., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2 2024

  19. [19]

    A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0576

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae0576 2026

  20. [20]

    E., Allende Prieto, C., Cooper, A

    Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., Cooper, A. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1842

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1842 2024

  21. [21]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    arXiv 2001

  22. [22]

    Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. 1951, The annals of mathematical statistics, 22, 79

    1951

  23. [23]

    2023, Nature, 613, 460, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    Li, J., Liu, C., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2023, Nature, 613, 460, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1 2023

  24. [24]

    E., & Kelker, D

    Lutz, T. E., & Kelker, D. H. 1973, PASP, 85, 573, doi: 10.1086/129506

    doi:10.1086/129506 1973

  25. [25]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc 2019

  26. [26]

    2026, imedan/snc_sf: 1.1.1, 1.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21285596

    Medan, I. 2026, imedan/snc_sf: 1.1.1, 1.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21285596

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21285596 2026

  27. [27]

    R., et al

    Medan, I., Dwelly, T., Covey, K. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.15475, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15475

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.15475 2025

  28. [28]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    W., Derwent, M

    Pogge, R. W., Derwent, M. A., O’Brien, T. P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J

    2020

  30. [30]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 1144781, doi: 10.1117/12.2561113

    doi:10.1117/12.2561113

  31. [31]

    A., Liu, C., et al

    Qiu, D., Johnson, J. A., Liu, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.20005, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20005

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20005 2025

  32. [32]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039587 2021

  33. [33]

    W., Boubert, D., et al

    Rix, H.-W., Hogg, D. W., Boubert, D., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0c13

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0c13 2021

  34. [34]

    2024, AJ, 167, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2001

    Saad, S., Lane, K., Kounkel, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2001

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad2001 2024

  35. [35]

    1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G.,

    Schmidt, M. 1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G.,

    doi:10.1086/149446 1968

  36. [36]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    Aghakhanloo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07093 2025

  37. [37]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 32

    2013

  38. [38]

    G., Reid, I

    Tinney, C. G., Reid, I. N., & Mould, J. R. 1993, ApJ, 414, 254, doi: 10.1086/173074

    work page doi:10.1086/173074 1993

  39. [39]

    2026, The Astronomical Journal, 171, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae48ae

    Way, Z., Lépine, S., Gagné, J., & Medan, I. 2026, The Astronomical Journal, 171, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae48ae

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae48ae 2026

  40. [40]

    jax_enable_x64

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 19 APPENDIX A.SELECTION FUNCTION CODE EXAMPLE Below, we will go through a simple example of how to use the code associated with this work22 (Medan 2026). For this example, we will only consider the APOGEE SNC stars from DR19. The SDSS-V data neede...

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 2019