Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

The NewEra model grid

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The NewEra LTE grid—37,438 spherical stellar atmosphere models—is now public, with spectra substantially changed by updated molecular line lists.

desk verdict A well-documented, genuinely useful new PHOENIX model grid with updated opacities; the main soft spot is that validation is internal (line-list reduction tested only at 25 Å for one model) rather than against observed spectra. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17597 v1 pith:C45A6QJM submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.SR

Peter H. Hauschildt , T. Barman , E. Baron , J.P. Aufdenberg , A. Schweitzer This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellaratmospheremodelssyntheticspectraLTEmodelgridPHOENIXACESequationofstatemolecularlinelistslimbdarkeningHDF5
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 presents and publicly releases the NewEra LTE grid: 37,438 spherical stellar atmosphere models and their synthetic spectra covering effective temperatures 2300 K to 12000 K, surface gravities $\log g$ 0.0 to 6.0, metallicities [M/H] −4.0 to +0.5, plus $\alpha$-element variations. The grid is built on about 851 million atomic lines and 834 billion molecular lines, reduced per model to a tractable working list, and it uses a self-consistent chemical-equilibrium equation of state. The models' internal structures differ only slightly from the previous grid generation, but the predicted spectra differ significantly, especially in optical cool-star regions, because the molecular line data are much improved. The HDF5 release, with high- and low-sampling spectra, is intended to replace earlier grids in stellar spectrum analysis, stellar population synthesis, and transit light-curve fitting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the PHOENIX/1D stellar atmosphere code in LTE and spherical symmetry, driven by three input blocks: the ACES chemical-equilibrium solver for the equation of state, the atomic line database with 851 million lines, and a molecular database, dominated by Exomol, with 834 billion lines. A line-selection step compares each candidate line's central opacity to the local continuous opacity at reference layers and keeps lines whose line-to-continuum opacity ratio exceeds $10^{-4}$; strong lines get Voigt profiles while weaker lines get Gauss profiles. This reduces the list actually used per model to roughly 800,000 to 2.5 million atomic lines and about 20.5 billion molecular lines. The HDF5 delivery format is the final part of the machinery: one file per model contains the restartable atmosphere structure, the input namelist, and high-sampling spectra from 900 Å to 30 µm at sampling rates above one million except in parts of the 5.8–30 µm range.

What would settle it

Take a well-observed benchmark star with known parameters, such as the Sun or a nearby M dwarf, and compare high-resolution observed spectra in molecular bands (for example water or FeH in the optical or near-infrared) to the corresponding NewEra model after proper convolution; wavelength-correlated residuals beyond the 0.4% flux level quoted for the 25 Å convergence test would show the reduced line list misses opacity that matters at high resolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the new NewEra LTE grid delivers substantially more realistic synthetic spectra than earlier PHOENIX grids while keeping the parameter coverage and structure of the well-used ACES grid. Most of the spectral change comes from new molecular line opacities, not from changes in the atmospheric structure. A second, quantitative claim is that the adopted line-selection reduction, from 823.8 billion molecular lines down to about 20.5 billion actually used lines, changes the emitted flux at 25 Å resolution by less than 0.4%, so the grid is considered converged relative to the full line list. In addition, all models use spherical symmetry, which changes center-to-limb variation in a way that matters for both giants and, to a lesser degree, dwarfs; this affects limb-darkening modeling in transits. The paper does not compare any NewEra spectrum to an observed stellar spectrum; calibration of hydrogen line dissolution is cited as in preparation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the line opacities—the reduced 20.5-billion-line molecular list, the atomic database, and the LTE approximation up to 12000 K—preserve the real opacity of stellar atmospheres closely enough that the released spectra and limb darkening match actual stars; the paper checks convergence of the reduction at 25 Å resolution and code consistency, but does not compare any model to an observed spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Analyses currently using ACES, GAIA DR1, or NextGen spectra can be rerun on NewEra, with the largest changes in optical cool-star spectra where molecular opacities dominate.
  • Transit light-curve fits relying on limb-darkening coefficients need updated values from spherical models, especially for giants and for dwarfs where the wavelength-dependent apparent radius matters.
  • The HDF5 files make it possible to reconstruct the exact model structure and input line lists, so derived abundances or C/O ratios can be traced back to specific line data.
  • The GAIA-compatible and JWST-compatible low-sampling spectra allow direct use in population synthesis and JWST archive tools without re-gridding.
  • The newly calibrated hydrogen line dissolution will shift Balmer-line predictions and hotter-star analyses relative to earlier grids.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence of better molecular lists is that elemental abundances derived from M-dwarf spectra will shift systematically relative to older grids; a benchmark sample with independent abundance constraints would reveal whether the shifts are improvements.
  • The 25 Å convergence test does not by itself guarantee convergence at the highest sampling rates delivered; users working near the sampling limit should verify that omitted weak lines do not affect narrow-band features such as exoplanet transmission windows.
  • The stated plan for an NLTE version implies that LTE residuals will soon be quantified for hotter stars; until then, the LTE grid is the natural baseline against which those NLTE corrections will be measured.
  • Because limb-darkening data are only available upon request, a natural follow-up is precomputed limb-darkening coefficients; wavelength-dependent spherical limb darkening should measurably improve transit depth precision for small planets around cool stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the NewEra LTE grid of 37,438 spherically symmetric PHOENIX/1D model atmospheres and synthetic spectra, covering Teff 2300–12000 K, log g 0.0–6.0, [M/H] −4.0 to +0.5, and alpha-element variations. The input physics uses the ACES equation of state, about 851 million Kurucz atomic lines, and about 823.8 billion molecular lines, mostly from Exomol, reduced to roughly 20.5 billion lines. The paper documents the atmospheric structures, spectral energy distributions, limb darkening, and comparisons to the NextGen, GAIA DR1, and ACES grids. The main scientific claims are that the grid is computed, publicly released in HDF5 format with high- and low-sampling spectra, and that the spectra differ substantially from previous grids, mostly because of updated molecular line lists.

Significance. If the grid is accurate, it will be a valuable community resource for stellar spectroscopy, stellar populations, and transit light-curve analysis. The paper has clear strengths: the grid construction is carefully documented, cross-platform reproducibility is checked to 10^-6 relative accuracy, the line-selection procedure is described in detail, the data release includes checksums and access software, and the 37,438-model grid is a substantial extension of the ACES parameter space. The main weakness is that the central claim of improved spectra is not validated against observed stellar spectra or flux-calibrated observations; the comparisons are exclusively against older synthetic grids. The paper is transparent about the LTE approximation and about the hydrogen line dissolution calibration being in preparation, but these caveats do not by themselves replace external validation. As a data-release paper the construction is largely sound; the missing observational anchor is what prevents me from recommending acceptance without revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The molecular-line reduction is validated only at 25 Å resolution for a single model (Teff=2300 K, log g=4.5, [M/H]=0), while the primary delivered product is the HSR spectrum with sampling rate at least 10^6 (Table 3) and the supplied GAIA/JWST convolutions use Gaussian filters with 0.1–2 Å scales. A flux agreement below 0.4% at 25 Å does not establish that the omitted weak lines are negligible in the high-resolution data, where individual weak lines remain visible, nor does it test other grid corners where different molecules dominate, such as TiO/VO bands near 4000–5000 K or metal-poor models with different line-to-continuum ratios. Additionally, the thresholds ('10^-3 to 10^-4 depending on species') and the criterion for 'molecules not present' are not itemized, so the reduction is not independently reproducible. Please provide high-resolution flux comparisons for several grid corners and quantify the per-species thresholds and molecule-omission criterion.
  2. [Section 4.4, Abstract] The abstract concludes that the spectra show significant differences 'mostly due to the updates of the molecular line lists,' and Section 4.4 presents these differences as improvements, but no NewEra spectrum is compared with observed stellar spectra or observed flux-calibrated SEDs. The only external anchor mentioned, the hydrogen line dissolution calibration against Sirius A, is cited as 'in preparation.' As a result, the paper supports the statement that the grid differs from older grids, but not that it is more accurate. Please add comparisons to observed spectra for a small set of representative stars spanning the grid, or explicitly reword the conclusions to present the grid as an internally consistent update whose observational validation remains to be demonstrated.
  3. [Sections 1 and 5] The LTE assumption up to Teff=12000 K is flagged as an approximation with an NLTE grid in preparation, but the caveat is not quantified. For effective temperatures above roughly 8000–9000 K, non-LTE effects on Balmer lines and ionization equilibria are known to be important, and users of the released HSR spectra cannot judge where the LTE assumption degrades. I request either quantitative statements (for example, comparisons of selected models with existing NLTE calculations) or a clear statement in the abstract and data documentation restricting the reliable temperature range for spectroscopic applications.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.6] The phrase 'intervals based sampling rate' is awkward and should be rephrased, for example as 'The HSR spectra have a sampling rate lambda/delta-lambda of at least one million.'
  2. [Section 4.4] The statement that NewEra and ACES spectra differ little in the near-IR because of very similar water line data sits in some tension with the broad claim that molecular line updates drive the large differences; please clarify which wavelength regions are dominated by which molecular species and why the near-IR agreement does not contradict the overall conclusion.
  3. [Section 4.6] The LSR wavelength range is described as extending from the soft X-ray to the radio region, but Table 4 ends at 1000 microns (sub-millimeter); please adjust the wording to match the actual coverage.
  4. [Section 6] Given that limb darkening is a stated motivation for the grid, making limb darkening data available only 'upon request' is a limitation for users of the release; consider providing at least a representative set of center-to-limb intensity profiles in the HDF5 files.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the grid spectra are computed from external line lists and an independent EOS, and self-citations supply input parameters rather than conclusions.

full rationale

The NewEra grid is computed from external line-opacity databases (Kurucz atomic lines; Exomol molecular lines) and the ACES equation of state, which is used as a solver with its own thermodynamic data. No quantity claimed as a prediction is fitted to the grid's own output. The molecular-line reduction is validated by directly comparing spectra computed with the full 823.8-billion-line list and the reduced 20.5-billion-line list for one representative model, which is a ground-truth check rather than a circular re-derivation. The paper's inheritance of the mass-Teff-log(g) setup, mixing length, and abundance patterns from Husser et al. (2013), and its use of ACES from Barman et al. (2011), are references to prior work by overlapping authors, but these references supply input parameters and a solver, not the conclusions; no uniqueness theorem or fitted prediction is carried by self-citation. The calibration of hydrogen line dissolution to Sirius A (Aufdenberg et al., in preparation) is an external calibration, and the paper does not present a Sirius A spectrum as a test of that calibration. Comparisons to the NextGen, GAIA DR1, and ACES grids are independent benchmarks. The lack of direct comparison to observed stellar spectra and the 25-A-only validation of the line-list reduction are scientific limitations or correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The grid's scientific value rests on the external input data (ACES EOS, Kurucz and Exomol line lists) and on the LTE and spherical-symmetry modeling choices. These are not validated against observations within this paper. The free parameters are numerical choices in the line selection and inherited grid setup, not fitted to a target result.

free parameters (4)
  • Atomic line selection thresholds = 10^-4 and 1
    Section 3.1: lines are included if line-to-continuum opacity ratio exceeds 10^-4 at a reference layer, and get Voigt profiles above 1. These hand-set thresholds control how many of the 851 million atomic lines enter each model and affect the spectra.
  • Molecular line inclusion threshold = 10^-3 to 10^-4 per species
    Section 3.2: the Exomol list is reduced from 823.8 billion to 228.9 billion lines by including lines contributing more than this threshold to the estimated infinite-temperature opacity per molecule. The value depends on species.
  • Mixing length and mass-Teff-log(g) relations = Inherited from Husser et al. (2013)
    Section 4: the grid follows the setup of the ACES grid, including convection parameters and the mass relation. These choices affect model structures but are not justified within this paper.
  • Hydrogen line dissolution calibration = Calibrated to Sirius A NLTE modeling (in preparation)
    Section 4.4: differences at 9800 K are attributed to a revised line dissolution treatment calibrated with NLTE modeling of Sirius A (Aufdenberg et al., in prep.). The calibration is not described and its source is not yet available.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ACES equation of state correctly computes chemical equilibrium for 839 species under stellar atmosphere conditions.
    Section 2: the whole grid structure depends on the EOS; no independent validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Kurucz (2017) atomic line data and Exomol molecular line data are sufficiently complete and accurate for the grid's purposes.
    Sections 3.1-3.2: the novel content is largely new line lists, but their accuracy is not validated against observations here.
  • domain assumption LTE is a valid approximation for the parameter space covered, including Teff up to 12000 K.
    The grid is explicitly LTE; an NLTE version is 'in preparation' (Sections 1, 5), meaning the LTE assumption is a known limitation for hotter stars.
  • domain assumption The mass-Teff-log(g) and mixing length relations from Husser et al. (2013) apply to the NewEra grid.
    Section 4: 'The new model grid follows the parameters and setup of Husser et al. (2013), this includes the Teff-log(g) - (mixing length, mass) relations...'
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry provides adequate center-to-limb variation for dwarf models.
    Section 4.5: the grid uses spherical models, and the paper argues plane-parallel models differ, but no observed limb darkening comparison is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The NewEra model grid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C45A6QJM

@misc{pith2026250417597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The NewEra model grid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C45A6QJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17597}
}
abstract

Analyses of stellar spectra, stellar populations, and transit light curves rely on grids of synthetic spectra and center-to-limb variations (limb darkening) from model stellar atmospheres. Extensive model grids from PHOENIX, a generalized non-LTE 1D and 3D stellar atmosphere code, have found widespread use in the astronomical community, however current PHOENIX/1D models have been substantially improved over the last decade. To make these improvements available to the community, we have constructed the NewEra LTE model grid consisting of 37438 models with $2300K \leq T_{eff} \leq 12000K$, $0.0\le log{(g)} \le 6.0$ metallicities [M/H] from $-4.0$ to $+0.5$, and for metallicities $-2.0 \le [M/H] \le 0.0$ additional $\alpha$ element variations from $-0.2 \le [\alpha/{\rm Fe}] \le +1.2$ are included. The models use databases of 851 million atomic lines and 834 billion molecular lines and employ the Astrophysical Chemical Equilibrium Solver for the equation of state. All models in the NewEra grid have been calculated in spherical symmetry because center-to-limb variation differences from plane-parallel models are quite large for giants and not insignificant for dwarfs. All model data are provided in the Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) format, including low and high sampling rate spectra. These files also include a variety of details about the models, such as the exact abundances and isotopic patterns used and results of the atomic and molecular line selection. Although the model structures have small differences with the previous grid generation, the spectra show significant differences, mostly due to the updates of the molecular line lists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Available models for solar metallicity in a Hertzsprung￾Russell Diagram. The parameters of the models are the effective temperature (on the x-axis), log(g) (indicated next to the series of models for constant log(g)), the metallicity (fixed to [M/H]=0 in this plot) and stellar mass (color coded) following Husser et al. (2013). The luminosity of the models follows from the given pa￾rameters. See Section 4 for a discu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effects of line blanketing on the spectral energy distribution for a NewEra grid model with Teff = 3000 K, log(g) = 5.0 and solar abundances (black line). The structure of the grid model was used to compute the ’true continuum’, i.e., the SED without any spectral lines included (red line). In addition, the blackbody for the effective temperature is shown in the green curve. der to reduce the size of the line list an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The grid spectra for model with Teff = 2300, 3000, 5000, 9800 K and log(g) = 5.0, 5.0, 4.5, and 4.5 for solar metallicity respectively, compared to the NextGen (Hauschildt et al. 1999b), GAIA DR1 (Kučinskas et al. 2005), ACES (Husser et al. 2013), and New Era (this work). required relative accuracy, models with individualized masses may be needed for low gravities. 4.4. Comparison to previous grids In Figures 3 and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The grid spectra for models with Teff = 2300, 3000, 5000, 9800 K and log(g) = 5.0, 5.0, 4.5, and 4.5 for [M/H]=-3.0 respectively, compared to the NextGen (Hauschildt et al. 1999b), GAIA DR1 (Kučinskas et al. 2005), ACES (Husser et al. 2013), and New Era (this work). le…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The structure of models with (bottom to top) Teff = 2300, 3000, 5000, 9800 K and log(g) = 5.0, 5.0, 4.5, and 4.5 for [M/H]=-3.0 respectively, compared to the NextGen (Hauschildt et al. 1999b), GAIA DR1 (Kučinskas et al. 2005), ACES (Husser et al. 2013), and New Era (th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The effect of (model) mass on the spectral energy distributions (SED) at a resolution of 25Å for an example model with Teff = 2500 K, log(g) = 0.0, M = 0.93 M⊙, and solar abundances. ∆F/F is defined as (F (mass=[0.5,2.0])- F (mass=0.93))/F (mass=0.93). one million (exc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Limb darkening for representative giant and dwarf models (as indicated in the panels) for 4 wavelengths. The model with Teff = 3000K, log(g) = 0.0 has a mass of 1.35 M⊙ and the one with Teff = 3000K, log(g) = 5.0 has a mass of 0.27 M⊙. For comparison the simplest plane…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualizations of the center-to-limb variation of a model with Teff = 3000K, log(g) = 0.0 (left panels, 1.35 M⊙) and log(g) = 5.0 (right panels, 0.27 M⊙), solar abundances for 4 wavelengths: 2775Å (top left), 6500Å (top right), 9000Å (bottom left), and 1.49 µm (bottom …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Pyrat Bay 2.0: an Upgraded Framework for Exoplanet Atmosphere Modeling in the JWST Era

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pyrat Bay 2.0 adds equilibrium chemistry, radiative equilibrium, and vertically varying abundance retrieval, and simulations indicate JWST-quality spectra can recover such variations.

  2. STARSFLUX: an all-sky catalogue of absolute spectro-photometric calibrators from 0.3 to 30 $\mu$m

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

    STARSFLUX is a 64 484-star all-sky library of absolutely calibrated 0.3–30 μm spectra and angular diameters derived from Gaia parameters, multi-band photometry and NewEra PHOENIX models, validated at the few-percent level.

  3. Limb-Darkening Coefficients for the 4-Term and Power-2 Laws for the JWST Space Mission, Adopting PHOENIX Spherical Models at High Resolution

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    New limb-darkening coefficients for the 4-term and power-2 laws are tabulated for 11 JWST NIRCam, NIRISS, and NIRSpec passbands, based on 306 high-resolution PHOENIX spherical atmosphere models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Y., Yachmenev, A., Yurchenko, S

    Adam, A. Y., Yachmenev, A., Yurchenko, S. N., & Jensen, P. 2019, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 123, 4755 Al Derzi, A. R., Furtenbacher, T., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Császár, A. G. 2015,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 161, 117

    2019

  2. [2]

    Yurchenko, S. N. 2016,MNRAS, 461, 1012

    2016

  3. [3]

    F., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Al-Refaie, A. F., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1704

    2015

  4. [4]

    & Hauschildt, P

    Allard, F. & Hauschildt, P. H. 1995, ApJ, 445, 433

    1995

  5. [5]

    Amaral, P. H. R., Diniz, L. G., Jones, K. A., et al. 2019,ApJ, 878, 95

    2019

  6. [6]

    Azzam, A. A. A., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Naumenko, O. V. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4063

    2016

  7. [7]

    J., Strange, J

    Barber, R. J., Strange, J. K., Hill, C., et al. 2014,MNRAS, 437, 1828

    2014

  8. [8]

    S., Hauschildt, P

    Barman, T. S., Hauschildt, P. H., Schweitzer, A., et al. 2002,ApJ, 569, L51

    2002

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    S., Hauschildt, P

    Barman, T. S., Hauschildt, P. H., Short, C. I., & Baron, E. 2000,ApJ, 537, 946

    2000

  2. [10]

    S., Macintosh, B., Konopacky, Q

    Barman, T. S., Macintosh, B., Konopacky, Q. M., & Marois, C. 2011, ApJ, 733, 65

    2011

  3. [11]

    R., Jeffers, S

    Barnes, J. R., Jeffers, S. V., Haswell, C. A., et al. 2024,MNRAS, 534, 1257

    2024

  4. [12]

    E., Branch, D., et al

    Baron, E., Nugent, P. E., Branch, D., et al. 2003,ApJ, 586, 1199

    2003

  5. [13]

    J., Chiu, C., Golpayegani, S., et al

    Barton, E. J., Chiu, C., Golpayegani, S., et al. 2014,MNRAS, 442, 1821

    2014

  6. [14]

    J., Yurchenko, S

    Barton, E. J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2013,MNRAS, 434, 1469

    2013

  7. [15]

    Bernath, P. F. 2020,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 240, 106687

    2020

  8. [16]

    F., Dodangodage, R., & Liévin, J

    Bernath, P. F., Dodangodage, R., & Liévin, J. 2022,ApJ, 933, 99

    2022

  9. [17]

    Bittner, D. M. & Bernath, P. F. 2018,ApJS, 235, 8

    2018

  10. [18]

    Brooke, J. S. A., Bernath, P. F., & Western, C. M. 2015, J. Chem. Phys. , 143, 026101

    2015

  11. [19]

    W., J., et al

    Burrows, A., Dulick, M., Bauschlicher, C. W., J., et al. 2005,ApJ, 624, 988

    2005

  12. [20]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 857

    Casebeer, D., Baron, E., Leighly, K., Jevremovic, D., & Branch, D. 2008, ApJ, 676, 857

    2008

  13. [21]

    Chapman, R. D. 1966,ApJ, 143, 61 Chubb,K.L.,Naumenko,O.,Keely,S.,etal.2018, J. Quant. Spec. Ra- diat. Transf., 218, 178

    1966

  14. [22]

    L., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Chubb, K. L., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2020,MNRAS, 493, 1531

    2020

  15. [23]

    Clark, V. H. J., Owens, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2020, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 246, 106929

    2020

  16. [24]

    M., Lodi, L., & Tennyson, J

    Coppola, C. M., Lodi, L., & Tennyson, J. 2011,MNRAS, 415, 487

    2011

  17. [25]

    Coxon, J. A. & Hajigeorgiou, P. G. 2015, J. Quant. Spec. Ra- diat. Transf., 151, 133

    2015

  18. [26]

    D., et al

    Darby-Lewis, D., Tennyson, J., Lawson, K. D., et al. 2018, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 51, 185701

    2018

  19. [27]

    J., Sampedro, L., Alfaro, E

    Delgado, A. J., Sampedro, L., Alfaro, E. J., et al. 2016,MNRAS, 460, 3305

    2016

  20. [28]

    M., Baron, E., Branch, D., et al

    DerKacy, J. M., Baron, E., Branch, D., et al. 2020,ApJ, 901, 86

    2020

  21. [29]

    W., J., Burrows, A., et al

    Dulick, M., Bauschlicher, C. W., J., Burrows, A., et al. 2003,ApJ, 594, 651

    2003

  22. [30]

    M., Bernath, P

    Fernando, A. M., Bernath, P. F., Hodges, J. N., & Masseron, T. 2018, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 217, 29

    2018

  23. [31]

    T., et al

    Friesen, B., Baron, E., Parrent, J. T., et al. 2017,MNRAS, 467, 2392

    2017

  24. [32]

    J., Bernath, P

    Frohman, D. J., Bernath, P. F., & Brooke, J. S. A. 2016, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 169, 104

    2016

  25. [33]

    Fuhrmeister, B., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2005,A&A, 436, 677

    2005

  26. [34]

    Fuhrmeister, B., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2010,A&A, 511, A83

    2010

  27. [35]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hill, C., et al. 2017,J. Quant. Spec. Ra- diat. Transf., 203, 3

    2017

  28. [36]

    N., Yurchenko, S

    Gorman, M. N., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019,MNRAS, 490, 1652 Article number, page 10 Hauschildt et al.: NewEra model grid

    2019

  29. [37]

    J., Tennyson, J., Kaminsky, B

    Harris, G. J., Tennyson, J., Kaminsky, B. M., Pavlenko, Y. V., & Jones, H. R. A. 2006,MNRAS, 367, 400

    2006

  30. [38]

    H., Barman, T., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., Barman, T., & Baron, E. 2008, Physica Scripta Vol- ume T, 130, 014033

    2008

  31. [39]

    2025, The PHOENIX/1D NewEra model atmosphere grid: Access software

    Schweitzer, A. 2025, The PHOENIX/1D NewEra model atmosphere grid: Access software

    2025

  32. [40]

    Hauschildt, P. H. & Baron, E. 1999, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 109, 41

    1999

  33. [41]

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

    Hauschildt, P. H., Baron, E., & Allard, F. 1997, ApJ, 483, 390

    1997

  34. [42]

    Hodges, J. N. & Bernath, P. F. 2017,ApJ, 840, 81

    2017

  35. [43]

    & Bernath, P

    Hou, S. & Bernath, P. F. 2017,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 203, 511

    2017

  36. [44]

    & Bernath, P

    Hou, S. & Bernath, P. F. 2018,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 210, 44

    2018

  37. [45]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013,A&A, 553, A6

    2013

  38. [46]

    L., Désert, J.-M., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., Désert, J.-M., et al. 2014,Nature, 505, 69

    2014

  39. [47]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1992, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 23, 45

    1992

  40. [48]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2017, Canadian Journal of Physics, 95, 825 Kučinskas, A., Hauschildt, P. H., Ludwig, H. G., et al. 2005,A&A, 442, 281

    2017

  41. [49]

    N., & Bernath, P

    Langleben, J., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Bernath, P. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2332

    2019

  42. [50]

    B., Khatu, V

    Lester, J. B., Khatu, V. C., & Neilson, H. R. 2017,PASP, 129, 024201

    2017

  43. [51]

    E., Le Roy, R

    Li, G., Gordon, I. E., Le Roy, R. J., et al. 2013,J. Quant. Spec. Ra- diat. Transf., 121, 78

    2013

  44. [52]

    E., Rothman, L

    Li, G., Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., et al. 2015,ApJS, 216, 15

    2015

  45. [53]

    Y., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Li, H. Y., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2019,MNRAS, 486, 2351

    2019

  46. [54]

    Littleton, J. E. & Davis, S. P. 1985, ApJ, 296, 152

    1985

  47. [55]

    N., & Tennyson, J

    Lodi, L., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2015, Molecular Physics, 113, 1998

    2015

  48. [56]

    F., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., & Owens, K. 2025,ApJ, 981, 32

    2025

  49. [57]

    P., Chubb, K

    Mant, B. P., Chubb, K. L., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2020, Molecular Physics, 118, e1581951

    2020

  50. [58]

    P., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Mant, B. P., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3220

    2018

  51. [59]

    2014,A&A, 571, A47

    Masseron, T., Plez, B., Van Eck, S., et al. 2014,A&A, 571, A47

    2014

  52. [60]

    K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H

    McKemmish, L. K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H. J., et al. 2019,MN- RAS, 488, 2836

    2019

  53. [61]

    K., Syme, A.-M., Borsovszky, J., et al

    McKemmish, L. K., Syme, A.-M., Borsovszky, J., et al. 2020,MNRAS, 497, 1081

    2020

  54. [62]

    K., Yurchenko, S

    McKemmish, L. K., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2016,MNRAS, 463, 771

    2016

  55. [63]

    C., Baron, E., Branch, D., et al

    Mitchell, R. C., Baron, E., Branch, D., et al. 2002,ApJ, 574, 293

    2002

  56. [64]

    B., Taylor, S., Tennyson, J., et al

    Mitev, G. B., Taylor, S., Tennyson, J., et al. 2022,MNRAS, 511, 2349

    2022

  57. [65]

    I., Alijah, A., Zobov, N

    Mizus, I. I., Alijah, A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2017,MNRAS, 468, 1717

    2017

  58. [66]

    R., Lester, J

    Neilson, H. R., Lester, J. B., & Baron, F. 2022,A&A, 662, A38

    2022

  59. [67]

    K., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Owens, A., Conway, E. K., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1927

    2020

  60. [68]

    N., & Tennyson, J

    Owens, A., Mitrushchenkov, A., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2022b, MNRAS, 516, 3995 Owens,A.,Tennyson,J.,&Yurchenko,S.N.2021, MNRAS,502,1128

    2021

  61. [69]

    2018,MNRAS, 479, 3002 Owens,A.,Yachmenev,A.,Thiel,W.,Tennyson,J.,&Yurchenko,S.N

    Owens, A., Yachmenev, A., Thiel, W., et al. 2018,MNRAS, 479, 3002 Owens,A.,Yachmenev,A.,Thiel,W.,Tennyson,J.,&Yurchenko,S.N. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 5025

    2018

  62. [70]

    M., Reiners, A., Jeffers, S

    Passegger, V. M., Reiners, A., Jeffers, S. V., et al. 2018,A&A, 615, A6

    2018

  63. [71]

    M., Schweitzer, A., Shulyak, D., et al

    Passegger, V. M., Schweitzer, A., Shulyak, D., et al. 2019,A&A, 627, A161

    2019

  64. [72]

    J., Yurchenko, S

    Paulose, G., Barton, E. J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1931

    2015

  65. [73]

    I., Yurchenko, S

    Pavlyuchko, A. I., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2015,MNRAS, 452, 1702

    2015

  66. [74]

    L., Hauschildt, P

    Peacock, S., Barman, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Hauschildt, P. H., & Baron, E. 2019, ApJ, 871, 235

    2019

  67. [75]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018,MNRAS, 480, 2597

    2018

  68. [76]

    2017,MNRAS, 472, 3648

    Prajapat, L., Jagoda, P., Lodi, L., et al. 2017,MNRAS, 472, 3648

    2017

  69. [77]

    Qin, Z., Bai, T., & Liu, L. 2021,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 258, 107352

    2021

  70. [78]

    N., & Tennyson, J

    Qu, Q., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2021,MNRAS, 504, 5768

    2021

  71. [79]

    S., Brooke, J

    Ram, R. S., Brooke, J. S. A., Western, C. M., & Bernath, P. F. 2014, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 138, 107

    2014

  72. [80]

    N., Tennyson, J., & Le Roy, R

    Rivlin, T., Lodi, L., Yurchenko, S. N., Tennyson, J., & Le Roy, R. J. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 634

    2015

  73. [81]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barbe, A., et al. 2009, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 110, 533

    2009

  74. [82]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barber, R. J., et al. 2010, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 111, 2139

    2010

  75. [83]

    2019,A&A, 630, A58

    Roueff, E., Abgrall, H., Czachorowski, P., et al. 2019,A&A, 630, A58

    2019

  76. [84]

    B., Bedell, M., Kempton, E

    Savel, A. B., Bedell, M., Kempton, E. M. R., et al. 2025,AJ, 169, 135

    2025

  77. [85]

    N., Kim, G.-S., & Tennyson, J

    Semenov, M., Clark, N., Yurchenko, S. N., Kim, G.-S., & Tennyson, J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1158

    2022

  78. [86]

    Shemansky, D. E. 1969,J. Chem. Phys. , 51, 689

    1969

  79. [87]

    I., Hauschildt, P

    Short, C. I., Hauschildt, P. H., Starrfield, S., & Baron, E. 2001,ApJ, 547, 1057

    2001

  80. [88]

    G., Knutson, H

    Shporer, A., O’Rourke, J. G., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2014,ApJ, 788, 92

    2014

  81. [89]

    N., Solomonik, V

    Smirnov, A. N., Solomonik, V. G., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (Incorporating Faraday Transactions), 21, 22794

    2019

  82. [90]

    Smith, W. R. & Missen, R. W. 1982, Chemical reaction equilibrium analysis: Theory and Algorithms (New York: Wiley & Sons Inc)

    1982

  83. [91]

    N., Shapiro, A

    Smitha, H. N., Shapiro, A. I., Witzke, V., et al. 2025,ApJ, 978, L13

    2025

  84. [92]

    & Tennyson, J

    Sochi, T. & Tennyson, J. 2010,MNRAS, 405, 2345

    2010

  85. [93]

    N., & Yachmenev, A

    Somogyi, W., Yurchenko, S. N., & Yachmenev, A. 2021, J. Chem. Phys. , 155, 214303

    2021

  86. [94]

    F., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Sousa-Silva, C., Al-Refaie, A. F., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2337

    2015

  87. [95]

    & McKemmish, L

    Syme, A.-M. & McKemmish, L. K. 2021,MNRAS, 505, 4383

    2021

  88. [96]

    2022, GNU Parallel is a general parallelizer to run multiple serial command line programs in parallel without changing them

    Tange, O. 2022, GNU Parallel is a general parallelizer to run multiple serial command line programs in parallel without changing them

    2022

  89. [97]

    N., Al-Refaie, A

    Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2016, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 327, 73 The HDF Group. 1997-2025, Hierarchical Data Format, version 5, https://www.hdfgroup.org/HDF5/

    2016

  90. [98]

    K., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Upadhyay, A., Conway, E. K., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1520

    2018

  91. [99]

    Yurchenko, S. N. 2010,MNRAS, 402, 492

    2010

  92. [100]

    Western, C. M. 2017,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 186, 221

    2017

  93. [101]

    M., Carter-Blatchford, L., Crozet, P., et al

    Western, C. M., Carter-Blatchford, L., Crozet, P., et al. 2018, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 219, 127

    2018

  94. [102]

    N., Bernath, P., et al

    Wong, A., Yurchenko, S. N., Bernath, P., et al. 2017,MNRAS, 470, 882

    2017

  95. [103]

    N., Lodi, L., & Tennyson, J

    Yorke, L., Yurchenko, S. N., Lodi, L., & Tennyson, J. 2014,MNRAS, 445, 1383

    2014

  96. [104]

    Yurchenko, S. N. 2015,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. , 152, 28

    2015

  97. [105]

    N., Amundsen, D

    Yurchenko, S. N., Amundsen, D. S., Tennyson, J., & Waldmann, I. P. 2017, A&A, 605, A95

    2017

  98. [106]

    N., Blissett, A., Asari, U., et al

    Yurchenko, S. N., Blissett, A., Asari, U., et al. 2016,MNRAS, 456, 4524

    2016

  99. [107]

    Yurchenko, S. N. & Tennyson, J. 2014,MNRAS, 440, 1649 Yurchenko,S.N.,Tennyson,J.,Barber,R.J.,&Thiel,W.2013,Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 291, 69

    2014

  100. [108]

    N., Tennyson, J., Syme, A.-M., et al

    Yurchenko, S. N., Tennyson, J., Syme, A.-M., et al. 2022,MNRAS, 510, 903

    2022

Pith tools

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