Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 115 references

Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia Bp/Rp spectra I: Systematic flux corrections and atmospheric parameters for 68 million stars

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural-network flux correction for Gaia BP/Rp spectra makes the relative spectrophotometry about twice as precise and yields atmospheric parameters for 68,394,431 stars.

desk verdict A useful public catalog and correction code whose claimed APOGEE validation is partly in-sample; trust the independent CALSPEC numbers more. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19105 v2 pith:FQNAAB6I submitted 2024-11-28 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Xianhao Ye , Wenbo Wu , Carlos Allende Prieto , David S. Aguado , Jingkun Zhao , Jonay I. González Hernández , Rafael Rebolo , Gang Zhao
show 3 more authors
Zhuohan Li Carlos del Burgo Yuqin Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords GaiaDR3BP/Rpspectraspectrophotometriccalibrationstellaratmosphericparametersneuralnetworkmetallicityextremelymetal-poorstarssynthetic
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 tries to turn the low-resolution Gaia BP/Rp spectra of more than two hundred million stars into a reliable all-sky stellar catalog by first removing systematic flux errors and then fitting the cleaned spectra with synthetic stellar spectra. The authors train a neural network on stars with well-measured parameters from a large high-resolution infrared survey to predict the wavelength-dependent “wiggle” pattern in the BP/Rp fluxes, and show that the correction cuts the error in relative spectrophotometry from about $3.2\%$--$3.7\%$ to $1.2\%$--$2.4\%$. On the corrected spectra they measure effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity for $68{,}394{,}431$ stars in the range $4000$ to $7000$ K, including a subset of $124{,}188$ stars with $[\mathrm{M/H}]$ at or below $-2.5$. If correct, this provides a physical-model-based map of stellar parameters across the whole sky that can be used to trace the Milky Way's formation and to find extremely metal-poor stars for follow-up.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the residual pattern between each normalized BP/Rp spectrum and its best-fitting synthetic spectrum, called the wiggle. The paper models this pattern with a feed-forward neural network whose inputs are 14 photometric quantities, including metallicity-sensitive colors, Gaia magnitudes, and reddening $E(B-V)$, and whose outputs are flux corrections as a function of wavelength. The corrected spectra are then passed to FERRE, a chi-squared fitting engine, which matches them against a new grid of Kurucz model-atmosphere spectra computed at constant and variable resolution. The wiggle model is what lets the paper separate instrument-calibration systematics from the astrophysical signal.

What would settle it

Take a set of stars outside the training domain, for example with $[\mathrm{M/H}]$ below $-2.5$ or $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ above $7000$ K, or fainter than the training magnitudes, get their parameters from independent high-resolution spectra, and check whether applying the paper's neural-net correction to their BP/Rp spectra improves or degrades the agreement with both the model fits and the independent parameters. If the correction systematically worsens the fit or biases the parameters outside the training range, the generalization claim behind the 68-million-star catalog fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the systematic residuals between the absolute-calibrated Gaia BP/Rp spectra and synthetic spectra are not random but depend on stellar color, brightness, extinction, and metallicity, and can therefore be predicted and removed. A neural network with seven hidden layers maps 14 photometric and reddening inputs to a 330-point flux correction; applying it brings the BP/Rp spectra into closer agreement with both model atmospheres and independent space-based flux standards. The resulting parameters agree with the high-resolution survey's values to $-38 \pm 167$ K in $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, $0.05 \pm 0.40$ dex in $\log g$, and $-0.12 \pm 0.19$ dex in $[\mathrm{M/H}]$ for stars between $4000$ and $7000$ K. The authors therefore claim that the corrected spectra are accurate enough to build a catalog of $68{,}394{,}431$ stars and to support a targeted search for extremely metal-poor stars.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network is trained on about 157,000 bright stars whose model fits already agree with a high-resolution survey, and the whole catalog depends on assuming that the wiggle pattern it learned applies to all 200-plus million BP/Rp stars, including fainter, hotter, and more metal-poor objects not represented in training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The corrected BP/Rp spectra can support all-sky metallicity mapping of the Milky Way with a catalog of 68 million stars.
  • The 124,188-star metal-poor subset provides a large candidate pool for finding extremely metal-poor stars, which can then be confirmed by high-resolution spectroscopy.
  • The flux corrections reduce the relative spectrophotometric error from $3.2\%$--$3.7\%$ to $1.2\%$--$2.4\%$, making the corrected spectra a more reliable reference for synthetic photometry and external calibrations.
  • Because parameters are obtained by fitting model atmospheres, the catalog offers an independent, physically grounded cross-check for purely data-driven parameter catalogs.
  • The same correction-plus-fitting pipeline can be rerun on future data releases of the same spectra with updated calibrations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper only applies the neural-net correction to stars with initial $[\mathrm{M/H}] > -2.5$ and with complete u/v photometry; the global catalog's reliability for the faintest, most reddened, and most metal-poor stars is therefore an extrapolation, and targeted comparisons there would be the first test.
  • Since the training labels come from one high-resolution survey, any systematic offset in that survey's temperatures, gravities, or metallicities would be inherited by this catalog; an independent comparison on metal-poor stars could reveal it.
  • The method's success suggests a natural extension: use the same residual-prediction idea to search for further wavelength-dependent systematics in other low-resolution surveys, or to extract additional labels such as alpha-enhancement if training data allow.
  • The catalog's $\log g$ dispersion of about $0.40$ dex is the weakest of the three parameters; adding Gaia parallaxes or asteroseismic constraints would likely tighten it without changing the flux-correction machinery.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a neural-network-based correction for the systematic residuals ("wiggles") in Gaia XP spectra, using an APOGEE-selected training sample (TAS) of stars whose first-pass FERRE fits already agree with APOGEE labels. The corrected spectra are refit with FERRE against a new Synple/Kurucz model grid to derive Teff, log g, and [M/H] for 68,394,431 stars with 4000 <= Teff <= 7000 K plus a 124,188-star metal-poor subset with [M/H] <= -2.5. The paper reports improved agreement with APOGEE parameters (-38 +/- 167 K, 0.05 +/- 0.40 dex, -0.12 +/- 0.19 dex), reduced RMS between XP spectra and models (3.7% to 1.2%), and improved agreement with CALSPEC standards (3.2% to 2.4%).

Significance. If the claimed accuracy is established out of sample, this is a valuable contribution: it provides a publicly available, model-linked atmospheric parameter catalog for tens of millions of stars, a public flux-correction code, and a new model grid, with an independent external check against CALSPEC that is a genuine strength. The comparison with external catalogs and star clusters is also useful. However, the headline APOGEE-based accuracy figures are weakened by the overlap between the training and validation samples and by unequal quality cuts, so the current manuscript overstates the strength of the validation relative to what is demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sections 4.1 and 5.1] The TAS training set is carved from the IAS by requiring first-pass XP fits to agree with APOGEE (|Delta Teff| < 200 K, |Delta log g| < 0.5, |Delta[M/H]| < 0.5), and Section 5.1 then validates the before/after atmospheric parameters on the IAS. The text never states that TAS stars are excluded from the IAS validation. The reported improvements (e.g., Delta log g from 0.11 +/- 0.53 to 0.05 +/- 0.40) are therefore partly a regression-to-training-labels effect. Please repeat the validation on IAS \ TAS, or on an independent sample, and explicitly state whether any TAS source remains in the comparison.
  2. [Section 5.1] The before/after comparison uses different quality cuts: dflux_per < 20% before correction versus < 8% after correction. Because the after-correction sample is selected to contain only spectra that already fit the model well, part of the apparent improvement in the dispersions can be a selection effect. Please report the comparison using identical cuts before and after, or show that the conclusions are unchanged under a common cut.
  3. [Sections 4.4 and 5.4] Section 4.4 states that spectra with first-pass [M/H] <= -2.5 or with missing u/v photometry are not corrected, yet the released metal-poor catalog of 124,188 stars with [M/H] <= -2.5 is built from these uncorrected fluxes. The APOGEE-based validation in Section 5.1 cannot validate this regime because the training sample contains very few stars below [M/H] = -2.5. The paper's own caveat in Section 4 says the correction is not trusted below -2.5, which is in tension with the abstract's EMP-search claim. Please validate the EMP subset against the Section 2.2 metal-poor sample, or explicitly state that the EMP catalog rests on uncorrected spectra.
  4. [Sections 5.2 and 5.3] The RMS reduction from 3.7% to 1.2% is computed on the IAS, which contains the TAS training stars, and the NN is trained to predict the residuals that are then subtracted before the same FERRE model is refit; this number is therefore minimized by construction. The clean external spectrophotometric check is the CALSPEC comparison, which shows a smaller improvement from 3.2% to 2.4% on 109 bright stars, with one exception after quality cuts. The abstract and summary should attribute the 1.2% figure to the in-sample model comparison and the 2.4% figure to the CALSPEC external validation, rather than presenting the range as if both endpoints were externally supported.
  5. [Sections 4.1 and 4.4] The neural network is trained on 157,478 (S_const) APOGEE stars with S/N > 70 and Teff between 3500 and 8000 K, but it is applied to roughly 200 million XP spectra, including fainter stars, hotter stars, and regions of high extinction that are underrepresented in the APOGEE footprint. No demonstration is provided that the correction interpolates or extrapolates reliably across the input space of the final catalog. Please show distributions of the NN inputs (G, colors, E(B-V), Teff, [M/H]) for TAS versus the 68M catalog, and report residual diagnostics as a function of these inputs on a truly out-of-sample subset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and wording errors, including "Janurary" in the acceptance date, "de-reddened" for "dereddened", "di fferent" for "different", "In addtion" for "In addition", and "deviation of several parameters" where "derivation" is intended.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The caption does not state which dflux_per threshold is used in the "quality cuts" panels before and after correction, making the single exception to the improvement difficult to evaluate; please specify the thresholds.
  3. [Appendix A] The text says the results are "more similar to those of Zhang et al. (2023) in Teff and log g, but align more closely with Andrae et al. (2023b) for [M/H]" based on direct catalog comparisons, but direct catalog differences do not by themselves indicate accuracy; please clarify that these statements refer to agreement, not absolute accuracy.
  4. [Section 2.3] The paper quotes APOGEE as the reference for atmospheric parameters but does not mention that APOGEE labels are themselves on the APOGEE/ASPCAP scale; a sentence noting this would help readers interpret the quoted systematic offsets.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline RMS and APOGEE precision gains are partly in-sample or by construction: the NN is trained on the model-minus-XP residual and validated on IAS, which contains the TAS training subset; only the CALSPEC check is genuinely external.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 (Eq. 1), Section 4.3, Section 5.2]
    "N∆ Flux = NFluxfitting− NFluxXP (1) ... The output is the predicted flux corrections as a function of wavelength. ... Our correction makes log10(χ2) and RMS becoming way much smaller. As shown in the bottom panel of Figure 6, the peak of the RMS histogram decreases from 3.7% to 1.2%."

    The NN's regression target (Eq. 1) is exactly the residual between the synthetic-model fit and the observed XP flux. Subtracting the predicted residual from XP moves the corrected spectrum onto the same model family used by FERRE, so the RMS defined in Eq. 2 against Fmodel must drop on the training distribution. The 3.7% to 1.2% model-RMS gain is therefore a measure of how well the network reproduced its own training target, not independent evidence about flux accuracy; the external CALSPEC test gives a smaller improvement (3.2% to 2.4%).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Section 5.1]
    "After deriving Teff, log g, and [M/H], we trim down the IAS applying the following constraints: |T XP eff − T A eff|<200, | log gXP− log gA|<0.5, |[M/H]XP− [M/H]A|<0.5. ... Finally, our TAS includes 157,478 stars for S const ... we discuss the estimation of parameters for the IAS after correcting the systematic pattern predicted by our NN model trained on the TAS data set."

    TAS is constructed from IAS by keeping only stars whose first-pass FERRE parameters already agree with APOGEE within |ΔTeff|<200 K, |Δlogg|<0.5, |Δ[M/H]|<0.5. Section 5.1 then reports before/after comparisons and the headline −38±167 K, 0.05±0.40, −0.12±0.19 on IAS, which contains TAS, and no exclusion of training stars is described. The APOGEE agreement after correction is therefore partly a regression to the selection cut and to the training labels, not an out-of-sample validation of the 68M catalog.

full rationale

Two quantitative claims in this paper are partly circular. First, the model-RMS improvement (3.7% to 1.2%) is definitional: Eq. (1) defines the residual the NN is trained to output, and correcting XP by that output moves it toward the same model grid used for the RMS comparison in Eq. (2). Second, the APOGEE parameter validation is partly in-sample: TAS is deliberately the subset of IAS whose first-pass FERRE parameters already agree with APOGEE within 200 K, 0.5 dex, and 0.5 dex, and Section 5.1 evaluates the correction on IAS without stating that training stars are excluded. The headline −38±167 K, 0.05±0.40, and −0.12±0.19 therefore partly measure regression to the training labels. The CALSPEC comparison (Section 5.3) is genuinely external and gives a smaller improvement (3.2% to 2.4%, with one exception), which prevents the correction from being wholly vacuous. Two further limitations, flagged in the manuscript itself, weaken the headline claims without being circular: Section 5.1 uses different quality cuts before (dflux_per<20%) and after (dflux_per<8%) correction, so selection effects contribute to the apparent gain; and Section 4.4 explicitly does not correct stars with first-pass [M/H]≤−2.5, yet the paper advertises a 124,188-star metal-poor catalog and an EMP-search application built on those uncorrected spectra. Overall, the derivation has substantial independent content through CALSPEC and the public catalog, but the central precision and RMS figures should be quoted as in-sample or by-construction improvements, not out-of-sample predictions.

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

The central product is a calibrated catalog; the main debt is to the assumed accuracy of Kurucz/Synple model atmospheres, APOGEE reference parameters, the SFD/ccm89 extinction corrections, and the generalization of the neural network beyond its training domain. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Neural network weights = trained model files released, values not enumerated in the paper
    The correction model is defined by weights fit to 157,478 (S_const) APOGEE-selected residual spectra; all flux corrections and derived parameters depend on them.
  • TAS agreement thresholds = 200 K, 0.5 dex, 0.5 dex
    Hand-chosen cuts defining the training sample in section 4.1; changing them changes which residuals the neural network learns and therefore the correction and parameter estimates.
  • dflux_per quality thresholds = 20% before correction, 8% after correction
    Hand-chosen in section 5.1 and used to build the catalog; using different thresholds before and after correction complicates the validation comparison.
  • Catalog temperature range = 4000 to 7000 K
    The accuracy claims and the 68M catalog are restricted to this range because fits outside it perform worse; this is a hand-set boundary, not derived.
  • AV removal threshold = AV greater than 15 mag
    Section 4.4 step (1): set high to avoid numerical errors; it is not an astrophysical constraint and does not exclude many stars.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kurucz model atmospheres and Synple synthetic spectra accurately represent real stellar SEDs over the fitting grid.
    Invoked in sections 2.1 and 4. The entire FERRE fit and the residual definition use these models, so any model error is absorbed into the neural network correction and propagated to the catalog parameters.
  • domain assumption APOGEE DR17 parameters are reliable enough to serve as reference labels.
    Used in section 4.1 to select TAS and in section 5.1 and Appendix A to validate. If APOGEE has unrecognized systematics, both the learning target and the validation inherit them.
  • domain assumption SFD dust map plus ccm89 extinction law correctly de-reddens XP spectra for all stars, including low-latitude stars.
    Applied in section 2.1. The paper itself notes low-latitude residuals are more diffuse because of extinction map uncertainties, so this assumption is load-bearing for the correction.
  • domain assumption The neural network residual pattern generalizes from APOGEE-like training stars to all Gaia XP spectra when expressed through 14 photometric inputs.
    Applied in sections 4.2 to 4.4. The catalog applies the correction to stars outside the training parameter range, and the paper explicitly declines to correct [M/H] less than -2.5, showing the generalization limit.
  • domain assumption A constant-resolution R about 100 Gaussian-convolved model is an adequate representation of XP spectra for fitting.
    Section 2.1 and 5.3. The authors acknowledge potential over-correction from the resolution mismatch and check using variable-resolution models, so this is an acknowledged domain assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia Bp/Rp spectra I: Systematic flux corrections and atmospheric parameters for 68 million stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQNAAB6I

@misc{pith2026241119105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia Bp/Rp spectra I: Systematic flux corrections and atmospheric parameters for 68 million stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQNAAB6I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19105}
}
abstract

Gaia Bp/Rp spectra for over two hundred million stars have great potential for mapping metallicity across the Milky Way. We aim to construct an alternative catalog of atmospheric parameters from Gaia Bp/Rp spectra by fitting them with synthetic spectra based on model atmospheres, and provide corrections to the Bp/Rp fluxes according to stellar colors, magnitudes, and extinction. We use GaiaXPy to obtain calibrated spectra and apply FERRE to match the corrected Bp/Rp spectra with models and infer atmospheric parameters. We train a neural network using stars in APOGEE to predict flux corrections as a function of wavelength for each target. Based on the comparison with APOGEE parameters, we conclude that our estimated parameters have systematic errors and uncertainties in $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, $\log g$, and [M/H] about $-38 \pm 167$ K, $0.05 \pm 0.40$ dex, and $-0.12 \pm 0.19$ dex, respectively, for stars in the range $4000 \le T_{\mathrm{eff}} \le 7000$ K. The corrected Bp/Rp spectra show better agreement with both models and Hubble Space Telescope CALSPEC data. Our correction increases the precision of the relative spectrophotometry of the Bp/Rp data from $3.2\% - 3.7\%$ to $1.2\% - 2.4\%$. Finally, we have built a catalog of atmospheric parameters for stars within $4000 \le T_{\mathrm{eff}} \le 7000$ K, comprising $68,394,431$ sources, along with a subset of $124,188$ stars with $\mathrm{[M/H]} \le -2.5$. Our results confirm that the Gaia Bp/Rp flux calibrated spectra show systematic patterns as a function of wavelength that are tightly related to colors, magnitudes, and extinction. Our optimization algorithm can give us accurate atmospheric parameters of stars with a clear and direct link to models of stellar atmospheres, and can be used to efficiently search for extremely metal-poor stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19105 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density distribution of residuals as a function of wavelength for stars with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density distribution of residuals as a function of wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of our NN model based on Pytorch. 4.3. Neural network architecture A simple NN model based on Pytorch (Paszke et al. 2017, 2019)7 is built for training with the TAS. The basic diagram il￾lustrating our NN model is summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the real patterns from TAS (20% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Testing on atmospheric parameters using sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms present log10  χ 2  and RMS between the XP spectra and model spectra for the IAS data set before and af￾ter correcting the pattern, indicating by blue and orange, respec￾tively. We also calculate parameters for S var for the same sample of stars (IAS) with…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of how pattern correction can help improve the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of RMS between CALSPEC and XP spectra. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of atmospheric parameters Teff, log g, and [M/H] between our catalog and LAMOST DR11 low-resolution catalog. there are some wavelengths at which the corrected version gives poorer agreement with CALSPEC. It is worth noting that the res￾olution adopted in Hua…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    K., Ag \"u eros , M

    Abazajian , K., Adelman-McCarthy , J. K., Ag \"u eros , M. A., et al. 2004, , 128, 502

    2004

  4. [4]

    2022, , 259, 35

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

    2022

  5. [5]

    & Frebel , A

    Abohalima , A. & Frebel , A. 2018, , 238, 36

    2018

  6. [6]

    S., Youakim , K., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J

    Aguado , D. S., Youakim , K., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., et al. 2019, , 490, 2241

    2019

  7. [7]

    2011, , 193, 29

    Aihara , H., Allende Prieto , C., An , D., et al. 2011, , 193, 29

    2011

  8. [8]

    2023, Atoms, 11, 61

    Allende Prieto , C. 2023, Atoms, 11, 61

    2023

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    C., Wilhelm , R., et al

    Allende Prieto , C., Beers , T. C., Wilhelm , R., et al. 2006, , 636, 804

    2006

  2. [10]

    2018, , 618, A25

    Allende Prieto , C., Koesterke , L., Hubeny , I., et al. 2018, , 618, A25

    2018

  3. [11]

    C., & Chiti , A

    An , D., Beers , T. C., & Chiti , A. 2024, , 272, 20

    2024

  4. [12]

    2023 a , , 674, A27

    Andrae , R., Fouesneau , M., Sordo , R., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A27

    2023

  5. [13]

    2023 b , , 267, 8

    Andrae , R., Rix , H.-W., & Chandra , V. 2023 b , , 267, 8

    2023

  6. [14]

    2022, , 931, 146

    Aoki , W., Li , H., Matsuno , T., et al. 2022, , 931, 146

    2022

  7. [15]

    C., Honda , S., & Lee , Y

    Aoki , W., Tominaga , N., Beers , T. C., Honda , S., & Lee , Y. S. 2014, Science, 345, 912

    2014

  8. [16]

    S., Kovaleva , D

    Avdeeva , A. S., Kovaleva , D. A., Malkov , O. Y., & Zhao , G. 2024, , 527, 7382

    2024

  9. [17]

    2023, , 674, A194

    Bellazzini , M., Massari , D., De Angeli , F., et al. 2023, , 674, A194

    2023

  10. [18]

    & Kravtsov , A

    Belokurov , V. & Kravtsov , A. 2022, , 514, 689

    2022

  11. [19]

    & Vasiliev , E

    Binney , J. & Vasiliev , E. 2024, , 527, 1915

    2024

  12. [20]

    C., Deustua , S

    Bohlin , R. C., Deustua , S. E., & de Rosa , G. 2019, , 158, 211

    2019

  13. [21]

    C., Gordon , K

    Bohlin , R. C., Gordon , K. D., & Tremblay , P. E. 2014, , 126, 711

    2014

  14. [22]

    Bohlin , R. C. & Lockwood , S. 2022, Update of the STIS CTE Correction Formula for Stellar Spectra , Instrument Science Report STIS 2022-7, 11 pages

    2022

  15. [23]

    2021, , 506, 150

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

    2021

  16. [24]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  17. [25]

    M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al

    Carrasco , J. M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al. 2021, , 652, A86

    2021

  18. [26]

    G., & Kurucz , R

    Castelli , F., Gratton , R. G., & Kurucz , R. L. 1997, , 318, 841

    1997

  19. [27]

    V., Pasquini , L., Allen , D

    Castilho , B. V., Pasquini , L., Allen , D. M., Barbuy , B., & Molaro , P. 2000, , 361, 92

    2000

  20. [28]

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

    Chandra , V., Semenov , V. A., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2024, , 972, 112

    2024

  21. [29]

    R., Sharma , S., et al

    Chen , B., Hayden , M. R., Sharma , S., et al. 2023, , 523, 3791

    2023

  22. [30]

    K., et al

    Chiti , A., Frebel , A., Mardini , M. K., et al. 2021, , 254, 31

    2021

  23. [31]

    P., & Castilho , B

    Coelho , P., Barbuy , B., Mel \'e ndez , J., Schiavon , R. P., & Castilho , B. V. 2005, , 443, 735

    2005

  24. [32]

    H., Naidu , R

    Conroy , C., Weinberg , D. H., Naidu , R. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.02989, OJAp, submitted

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P., Koposov , S

    Cooper , A. P., Koposov , S. E., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2023, , 947, 37

    2023

  26. [34]

    2018, , 616, A5

    Cropper , M., Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., et al. 2018, , 616, A5

    2018

  27. [35]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    Cui , X.-Q., Zhao , Y.-H., Chu , Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    2012

  28. [36]

    2023, , 674, A2

    De Angeli , F., Weiler , M., Montegriffo , P., et al. 2023, , 674, A2

    2023

  29. [37]

    S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A

    de Jong , R. S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2019

  30. [38]

    M., Freeman , K

    De Silva , G. M., Freeman , K. C., Bland-Hawthorn , J., et al. 2015, , 449, 2604

    2015

  31. [39]

    Deason , A. J. & Belokurov , V. 2024, , 99, 101706

    2024

  32. [40]

    S., Monteiro , H., Moitinho , A., et al

    Dias , W. S., Monteiro , H., Moitinho , A., et al. 2021, , 504, 356

    2021

  33. [41]

    Fallows , C. P. & Sanders , J. L. 2024, , 531, 2126

    2024

  34. [42]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2016, , 595, A2

    2016

  35. [43]

    2023 a , , 674, A33

    Gaia Collaboration , Montegriffo , P., Bellazzini , M., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A33

    2023

  36. [44]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A1

    2023

  37. [45]

    E., Allende Prieto , C., Holtzman , J

    Garc \' a P \'e rez , A. E., Allende Prieto , C., Holtzman , J. A., et al. 2016, , 151, 144

    2016

  38. [46]

    & Wallerstein , G

    Gonzalez , G. & Wallerstein , G. 1998, , 116, 765

    1998

  39. [47]

    Green , G. M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    2018

  40. [48]

    D., Silva , D., Rayner , J., et al

    Gregg , M. D., Silva , D., Rayner , J., et al. 2006, in The 2005 HST Calibration Workshop: Hubble After the Transition to Two-Gyro Mode, ed. A. M. Koekemoer , P. Goudfrooij , & L. L. Dressel , 209

    2006

  41. [49]

    2008, , 486, 951

    Gustafsson , B., Edvardsson , B., Eriksson , K., et al. 2008, , 486, 951

    2008

  42. [50]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01269

    Hattori , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01269

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    & Woosley , S

    Heger , A. & Woosley , S. E. 2010, , 724, 341

    2010

  44. [52]

    2024 a , , 271, 13

    Huang , B., Yuan , H., Xiang , M., et al. 2024 a , , 271, 13

    2024

  45. [53]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19895, ApJS, submitted

    Huang , B., Yuan , H., Xu , S., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19895, ApJS, submitted

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hunt , E. L. & Reffert , S. 2024, , 686, A42

    2024

  47. [55]

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

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

    2013

  48. [56]

    A., et al

    Imig , J., Price , C., Holtzman , J. A., et al. 2023, , 954, 124

    2023

  49. [57]

    C., Dalton , G

    Jin , S., Trager , S. C., Dalton , G. B., et al. 2024, , 530, 2688

    2024

  50. [58]

    Klessen , R. S. & Glover , S. C. O. 2023, , 61, 65

    2023

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    Komiya , Y., Habe , A., Suda , T., & Fujimoto , M. Y. 2010, , 717, 542

    2010

  53. [61]

    2023, , 525, 190

    Koutsouridou , I., Salvadori , S., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., et al. 2023, , 525, 190

    2023

  54. [62]

    & Speagle , J

    Laroche , A. & Speagle , J. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07316, ApJ, submitted

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    W., & Habgood , M

    Lee , J.-W., Carney , B. W., & Habgood , M. J. 2005, , 129, 251

    2005

  56. [64]

    1998, , 130, 65

    Lejeune , T., Cuisinier , F., & Buser , R. 1998, , 130, 65

    1998

  57. [65]

    Leung , H. W. & Bovy , J. 2019, , 483, 3255

    2019

  58. [66]

    Leung , H. W. & Bovy , J. 2024, , 527, 1494

    2024

  59. [67]

    2022 a , , 931, 147

    Li , H., Aoki , W., Matsuno , T., et al. 2022 a , , 931, 147

    2022

  60. [68]

    Li , J., Wong , K. W. K., Hogg , D. W., Rix , H.-W., & Chandra , V. 2024, , 272, 2

    2024

  61. [69]

    & Lin , B

    Li , X. & Lin , B. 2023, , 521, 6354

    2023

  62. [70]

    2022 b , , 517, 4875

    Li , Z., Zhao , G., Chen , Y., Liang , X., & Zhao , J. 2022 b , , 517, 4875

    2022

  63. [71]

    2022, , 513, 4130

    Lian , J., Zasowski , G., Mackereth , T., et al. 2022, , 513, 4130

    2022

  64. [72]

    L., Zhang , H.-T., Zhao , Y.-H., et al

    Luo , A. L., Zhang , H.-T., Zhao , Y.-H., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1243

    2012

  65. [73]

    R., Schiavon , R

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

    2017

  66. [74]

    K., Frebel , A., & Chiti , A

    Mardini , M. K., Frebel , A., & Chiti , A. 2024, , 529, L60

    2024

  67. [75]

    F., Starkenburg , E., Yuan , Z., et al

    Martin , N. F., Starkenburg , E., Yuan , Z., et al. 2024, , 692, A115

    2024

  68. [76]

    2023, , 674, A3

    Montegriffo , P., De Angeli , F., Andrae , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A3

    2023

  69. [77]

    P., Conroy , C., Bonaca , A., et al

    Naidu , R. P., Conroy , C., Bonaca , A., et al. 2020, , 901, 48

    2020

  70. [78]

    W., Rix , H

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

    2015

  71. [79]

    2013, , 51, 457

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, , 51, 457

    2013

  72. [80]

    2006, , 777, 424

    Nomoto , K., Tominaga , N., Umeda , H., Kobayashi , C., & Maeda , K. 2006, , 777, 424

    2006

  73. [81]

    A., Wolf , C., Bessell , M

    Onken , C. A., Wolf , C., Bessell , M. S., et al. 2024, , 41, e061

    2024

  74. [82]

    D., & Silva , D

    Pal , T., Khan , I., Worthey , G., Gregg , M. D., & Silva , D. R. 2023, , 266, 41

    2023

  75. [83]

    2017, in NIPS 2017 Workshop on Autodiff

    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Chintala, S., et al. 2017, in NIPS 2017 Workshop on Autodiff

    2017

  76. [84]

    2019, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed

    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., et al. 2019, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d Alch\' e -Buc, E. Fox, & R. Garnett, Vol. 32 (Curran Associates, Inc.)

    2019

  77. [85]

    Powell, M. J. D. 2002, Mathematical Programming, 92, 555

    2002

  78. [86]

    2022, , 941, 45

    Rix , H.-W., Chandra , V., Andrae , R., et al. 2022, , 941, 45

    2022

  79. [87]

    2007, , 381, 647

    Salvadori , S., Schneider , R., & Ferrara , A. 2007, , 381, 647

    2007

  80. [88]

    Sanders , J. L. & Matsunaga , N. 2023, , 521, 2745

    2023

  81. [89]

    2019, , 871, 206

    Sarmento , R., Scannapieco , E., & C \^o t \'e , B. 2019, , 871, 206

    2019

  82. [90]

    2018, , 616, A6

    Sartoretti , P., Katz , D., Cropper , M., et al. 2018, , 616, A6

    2018

  83. [91]

    Schlafly , E. F. & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  84. [92]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525

    1998

  85. [93]

    & Binney , J

    Sch \"o nrich , R. & Binney , J. 2009, , 399, 1145

    2009

  86. [94]

    R., & Bland-Hawthorn , J

    Sharma , S., Hayden , M. R., & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2021, , 507, 5882

    2021

  87. [95]

    2020, , 897, 58

    Tarumi , Y., Hartwig , T., & Magg , M. 2020, , 897, 58

    2020

  88. [96]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  89. [97]

    2019, , 879, 69

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

    2019

  90. [98]

    Ting , Y.-S., Rix , H.-W., Conroy , C., Ho , A. Y. Q., & Lin , J. 2017, , 849, L9

    2017

  91. [99]

    & Baumgardt , H

    Vasiliev , E. & Baumgardt , H. 2021, , 505, 5978

    2021

  92. [100]

    M., Fabricius , C., & Jordi , C

    Weiler , M., Carrasco , J. M., Fabricius , C., & Jordi , C. 2023, , 671, A52

    2023

  93. [101]

    C., Hearty , F

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

    2019

  94. [102]

    Witten , C. E. C., Aguado , D. S., Sanders , J. L., et al. 2022, , 516, 3254

    2022

  95. [103]

    2022, , 662, A66

    Xiang , M., Rix , H.-W., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2022, , 662, A66

    2022

  96. [104]

    2019, , 245, 34

    Xiang , M., Ting , Y.-S., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2019, , 245, 34

    2019

  97. [105]

    2023 a , , 268, 53

    Xiao , K., Yuan , H., Huang , B., et al. 2023 a , , 268, 53

    2023

  98. [106]

    2023 b , , 269, 58

    Xiao , K., Yuan , H., L \'o pez-Sanjuan , C., et al. 2023 b , , 269, 58

    2023

  99. [107]

    T., et al

    Xylakis-Dornbusch , T., Christlieb , N., Hansen , T. T., et al. 2024, , 687, A177

    2024

  100. [108]

    Yamada , S., Suda , T., Komiya , Y., Aoki , W., & Fujimoto , M. Y. 2013, , 436, 1362

    2013

  101. [109]

    2022, The Innovation, 3, 100224

    Yan , H., Li , H., Wang , S., et al. 2022, The Innovation, 3, 100224

    2022

  102. [110]

    P., Koposov , S

    Yao , Y., Ji , A. P., Koposov , S. E., & Limberg , G. 2024, , 527, 10937

    2024

  103. [111]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000

  104. [112]

    F., et al

    Youakim , K., Starkenburg , E., Martin , N. F., et al. 2020, , 492, 4986

    2020

  105. [113]

    M., & Rix , H.-W

    Zhang , X., Green , G. M., & Rix , H.-W. 2023, , 524, 1855

    2023

  106. [114]

    2006, , 6, 265

    Zhao , G., Chen , Y.-Q., Shi , J.-R., et al. 2006, , 6, 265

    2006

  107. [115]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723

    Zhao , G., Zhao , Y.-H., Chu , Y.-Q., Jing , Y.-P., & Deng , L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.