Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 135 references

Performance of the Stellar Abundances and atmospheric Parameters Pipeline adapted for M dwarfs I. Atmospheric parameters from the spectroscopic module

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modified SAPP pipeline derives M dwarf effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity from APOGEE H-band spectra with overall uncertainties of 100 K, 0.1 dex, and 0.15 dex, validated against interferometric and binary benchmarks.

desk verdict A useful, well-documented M-dwarf adaptation of SAPP with a real but contained mask-circularity problem; worth refereeing seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09388 v1 pith:IGKKKUDZ submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM

Terese Olander , Matthew R. Gent , Ulrike Heiter , Oleg Kochukhov , Maria Bergemann , Ekaterina Magg , Santi Cassisi , Mikhail Kovalev
show 7 more authors
Thierry Morel Nicola J. Miller Diogo Souto Yutong Shan Bárbara Rojas-Ayala Elisa Delgado-Mena Haiyang S. Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords MdwarfsstellaratmosphericparameterseffectivetemperaturesurfacegravitymetallicityAPOGEEH-bandspectraneuralnetworkspectralfittingPLATOscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper adapts the SAPP stellar-parameter pipeline, designed for Sun-like FGK stars, to the cooler, molecule-blanketed spectra of M dwarfs, the most common stars in the solar neighbourhood and prime targets in the search for Earth-like exoplanets. It uses H-band APOGEE spectra, a training grid of synthetic spectra processed by the machine-learning tool The Payne, and a photometric constraint on surface gravity. Against a validation sample of 26 stars that includes interferometric temperature benchmarks and binary companions, the pipeline recovers effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity with overall uncertainties of 100 K, 0.1 dex, and 0.15 dex, respectively. The result matters because upcoming missions such as PLATO will need fast, reliable stellar parameters for thousands of M dwarfs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is The Payne, a three-layer artificial neural network trained on 11,292 synthetic H-band spectra (MARCS atmospheres, Turbospectrum synthesis, APOGEE DR16 line list plus the Polyansky water line list) that maps nine stellar labels, namely Teff, log g, [Fe/H], microturbulence, and five light-element abundances, to flux. Around it the pipeline adds two M-dwarf-specific devices: a synthetic-spectrum-based pseudo-continuum normalisation that iterates with the parameter fit, and a wavelength mask taken from Sarmento et al. (2021) that restricts fitting to spectral regions the models reproduce well. Surface gravity is not fitted spectroscopically; it is fixed to the maximum-likelihood value from photometric BaSTI isochrone fitting, which breaks the Teff-log g-[Fe/H] degeneracy.

What would settle it

A concrete check: re-derive Teff and [Fe/H] for the validation sample using a line mask built from a different star not in the validation sample, and compare the resulting Teff to the interferometric benchmarks; if the 100 K offset and the 0.15 dex metallicity scatter change by more than the quoted uncertainties, the mask selection is a hidden parameter. Alternatively, analyse a star with a directly measured angular diameter and bolometric flux that was not used in any mask construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a modified SAPP, retrained on a synthetic grid of H-band spectra computed with MARCS models, Turbospectrum, the APOGEE DR16 line list, and the Polyansky water line list, can derive Teff, log g, and [Fe/H] for early-to-mid M dwarfs from APOGEE spectra with overall uncertainties of 100 K, 0.1 dex, and 0.15 dex. The key adaptations are: replacing the optical FGK analysis with H-band fitting because molecular blanketing is weaker there; constructing a pseudo-continuum normalisation that treats the water-line depression; fixing log g from photometry and BaSTI evolutionary models to break the Teff-log g-[Fe/H] degeneracy; and restricting the fit to a wavelength mask taken from Sarmento et al. (2021) because full-spectrum fits produced Teff values more than 200 K too hot. Validation against 26 reference stars, including 12 with interferometric angular-diameter temperatures and M dwarfs in binaries with FGK primaries, shows a mean absolute difference of about 100 K in Teff relative to interferometry, MADs within 100 K against most spectroscopic studies, log g consistent at the roughly 0.1 dex level, and binary-companion metallicities agreeing within about 0.15 dex.

Load-bearing premise

The line mask, the fixed set of spectral windows used for fitting, was chosen without an independent benchmark, and the star it was built on (Ross 128, also called GJ 447) is itself one of the validation stars, so mask selection and validation are not fully independent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pipeline can produce Teff, log g, and [Fe/H] for large samples of APOGEE M-dwarf spectra without per-star hand-tuning, meeting the throughput needs of the PLATO stellar science software.
  • The photometric log g constraint from BaSTI isochrones and the synthetic pseudo-continuum normalisation are portable to other H-band instruments such as CARMENES and SPIRou, as the paper identifies for future work.
  • The roughly 100 K systematic offset against interferometric Teff, shared with other spectroscopic studies, points to interferometric modelling choices (limb darkening, bolometric flux) as a partial cause rather than a pipeline defect.
  • Stars with projected rotation of roughly 17 km s−1 or more (fast rotators) are outside the pipeline's validity range; adding rotational broadening as a fit parameter is the stated next step.
  • Low-S/N, cool-end targets such as GJ 777B may need a revised line mask, since full-spectrum fits were unreliable for those stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to train the neural network to fit a continuum-scaling nuisance parameter directly, replacing the iterative pseudo-continuum loop and removing one of the largest systematic terms in the quoted 100 K uncertainty.
  • Applying the pipeline to the full APOGEE M-dwarf archive would yield a homogeneous H-band parameter catalogue that could serve as training data for data-driven methods such as The Cannon, which currently rely on sparse benchmarks.
  • If the interferometric offset is confirmed as a bolometric-flux or limb-darkening artefact, re-reducing the same angular-diameter data with updated models would raise the reference Teff values and shrink the pipeline's apparent bias without any change to the code.
  • With PLATO light curves providing photometry, the same photometric-log g machinery could be coupled to lower-resolution follow-up spectroscopy, extending the pipeline's use to the bulk of PLATO's M dwarf sample that will lack high-resolution spectra.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper adapts the SAPP pipeline, originally developed for FGK stars, to derive effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity for M dwarfs from APOGEE H-band spectra. The modifications include a new grid of MARCS/Turbospectrum synthetic spectra with the APOGEE DR16 line list and a water line list, a pseudo-continuum normalisation procedure, a photometric log g constraint from BaSTI isochrones, and a restricted line mask. The pipeline is validated against 26 stars with interferometric temperatures, spectroscopic literature values, machine-learning based results, and binary companions. The authors report overall uncertainties of 100 K in Teff, 0.1 dex in log g, and 0.15 dex in [Fe/H].

Significance. If the reported uncertainties hold, the modified SAPP would be a useful prototype for spectroscopic M-dwarf characterisation in the PLATO consortium. The paper has several strengths: a transparent description of the synthetic grid and normalisation procedure, a validation sample combining interferometric benchmarks with binary consistency checks, and direct comparisons with multiple independent methods. The binary-component metallicity comparison is a particularly valuable internal check. However, the central accuracy claim is weakened by the non-independence of the line mask selection from the validation sample and by the known systematic Teff offset relative to interferometry. These issues are addressable, but they are load-bearing for the quoted uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2.3, Fig. 2, Table 1] The line mask choice is not independent of the validation. Section 3.2.3 states that full-spectrum fits produced Teff values more than 200 K too high compared with interferometry, and that the mask was introduced to remedy this. The mask was taken from Sarmento et al. (2021), who constructed it by fitting a synthetic spectrum to GJ 447, and GJ 447 is itself a validation star in Table 1 with an interferometric Teff from Rabus et al. (2019). The mean absolute difference of 116 K against Boyajian et al. (2012) therefore reflects, at least in part, the mask's origin. I request a test of robustness, for example by validating with an alternative mask built from a different anchor star, by a leave-one-out scheme, or by reporting the full-spectrum fits alongside the masked fits so the magnitude of the mask-induced correction is visible.
  2. [4.1, Fig. 6, Sect. 4.5] The paper reports a systematic offset of about 100 K between SAPP and interferometric Teff, with a linear fit slope of 0.963 and intercept of 238 K, yet Sect. 4.5 and the abstract quote an overall uncertainty of 100 K. An offset is a systematic bias, not a random uncertainty; presenting it as 'uncertainty' obscures that the pipeline's Teff scale is not on the interferometric scale. The authors should either apply a correction for the offset or explicitly include it as a systematic term and state that the quoted uncertainty encompasses a known bias. This distinction matters for PLATO applications, where spectroscopic and interferometric temperatures may be combined.
  3. [4.2.4, Fig. 7, Table 2] The metallicity outliers BD+00 549B (SAPP −0.66 dex versus −1.05 dex, −0.92 dex, and −1.0 dex in Sarmento et al., Souto et al., and Gilhool et al., respectively) and GJ 777B (SAPP −0.08 dex versus +0.40 dex in Sarmento et al.) deviate from multiple references by more than the quoted 0.15 dex overall uncertainty, while their internal uncertainties are only 0.07 and 0.04 dex. The discussion attributes these to method differences and cool-star limitations, but these stars are real members of the validation sample. Please quantify how many sample stars fall outside the quoted uncertainty and consider presenting the overall uncertainty as conditional on Teff and S/N ranges, rather than as a single global value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The overall uncertainties in the derived effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity is 100 K, 0.1 dex, and 0.15 dex, respectively' has a subject-verb agreement error ('uncertainties ... is' should be 'uncertainties ... are').
  2. [3.2.3] The line mask is only shown as grey shading in figures. For reproducibility, please provide a machine-readable list or table of the wavelength intervals included in the mask, including the fraction of the H-band covered.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Appendix C] The y-axis label 'Normlised flux' appears in Fig. 2 and in Figs. C.1-C.3; it should read 'Normalised flux'.
  4. [4.5] The overall uncertainty estimates are based on mean absolute differences from several heterogeneous literature studies. A small table listing the per-study MADs for Teff, log g, and [Fe/H] would help readers see which comparisons drive the quoted values.
  5. [Table 2] The abstract and text refer to a 26-star sample, but Table 2 contains 25 entries because LSPM J1204+1728S is excluded, and two of the entries are K dwarfs. Please state the effective sample size for M dwarfs more prominently to avoid overstating the validation sample.
  6. [3.1] In the paragraph after the isochrone grid description, 'Platowill obtain light curves' is missing a space; it should read 'PLATO will obtain light curves'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Line mask built from GJ 447 and introduced to fix the interferometric Teff offset makes part of the Teff validation circular; independent benchmarks keep the central claim largely intact.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sect. 3.2.3 (line mask) and Sect. 4.1 (interferometric comparison), Table 1]
    "First tests using the complete spectral range of the APOGEE data resulted in derived effective temperatures which were higher by more than 200 K compared to interferometric values for some stars. ... To remedy this, we restricted the application of the fitting procedure to selected spectral ranges within a line mask. The line mask was taken from Sarmento et al. (2021), who compared an observed spectrum of the M4V star Ross 128 (GJ 447) with a synthetic spectrum generated for parameters corresponding to this star."

    The line mask is a load-bearing input because it determines which spectral regions are fitted, and it was introduced specifically to remove the >200 K Teff offset against interferometric references. The adopted mask comes from Sarmento et al. (2021), a paper co-authored by two of the present authors, and that prior work constructed the mask using GJ 447, which is itself one of the validation stars with an interferometric Teff (Table 1, column 'Int.' = R, Rabus et al. 2019). Thus the reported agreement for GJ 447 and part of the overall Teff accuracy assessment are not an independent test of the mask: the mask was built to reproduce a star of this type and then validated on that same star.

full rationale

The central pipeline construction is otherwise self-contained: the synthetic grid, ANN training, pseudo-continuum normalisation, and photometrically constrained log g are described from first principles and validated against external data. The main circular element is the line mask, which is both adopted from an overlapping-author paper and constructed using a star (GJ 447) that appears in the validation sample, after the mask was introduced to correct a full-spectrum Teff discrepancy against interferometry. This makes part of the quoted 100 K Teff uncertainty dependent on the mask choice rather than fully independently demonstrated. However, the 100 K estimate is also supported by comparisons with Boyajian et al. (2012) interferometric temperatures for stars not used to construct the mask, and the log g and [Fe/H] claims rest on photometric isochrones, binary consistency, and a range of external spectroscopic studies that are not reduced to the mask construction. The paper's own limitation statements in Sects. 4.2.2 and 5.1 flag the mask as preliminary and possibly inappropriate for some cool, low-S/N stars. Overall, this is a partial circularity in one load-bearing validation step, not a collapse of the derivation into its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the synthetic spectral grid (MARCS, APOGEE line list, water list), the isochrone-based log g constraint, the pseudo-continuum normalisation, and the post-hoc line mask. These are external models and empirical choices, not new physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Pseudo-continuum polynomial coefficients = Not given numerically; one set per (Teff, [Fe/H]) grid point
    Second-degree polynomials fitted to the upper envelope of synthetic spectra define the pseudo-continuum normalisation; the final parameters depend on this normalisation choice.
  • Line mask wavelength ranges = Not given; taken from Sarmento et al. (2021)
    The mask selects spectral ranges used in fitting. The decision to restrict fitting to these ranges was made after full-range fits produced Teff too high, so the mask choice is an empirical adjustment that influences derived parameters.
  • Convergence iteration limit n = 10
    Iterations of normalisation and fitting stop after 10; the paper states this was sufficient for the sample, but the limit is a chosen parameter.
  • Photometric subdomain bounds = Teff 2700-4300 K, log g 3.9-5.9, [Fe/H] -1.02 to 0.98
    The photometric module only considers isochrone models within this subdomain; these bounds are set by hand and could affect the log g constraint.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LTE is a valid approximation for H-band M dwarf spectral line formation.
    The adopted model grid and fitting assume LTE; the authors note non-LTE effects for some elements but do not account for them.
  • domain assumption MARCS model atmospheres and the APOGEE DR16 line list (plus Polyansky water list) accurately represent M dwarf H-band spectra.
    The synthetic training grid is computed with these ingredients; systematic errors in these models propagate directly into derived parameters.
  • domain assumption The BaSTI stellar evolution models with PHOENIX boundary conditions give reliable log g constraints for M dwarfs.
    The photometric log g is taken from isochrone fitting; any bias in the isochrones (e.g., radius inflation, mixing length) affects the final log g.
  • domain assumption Photogeometric distances and reddening from Bailer-Jones et al. and Stilism are accurate.
    These are inputs to the photometric module for absolute magnitudes; the M dwarfs are nearby with zero reddening, but distances still enter.
  • domain assumption Stars in the validation sample are mostly slow rotators with no significant magnetic broadening.
    The code does not fit rotation or magnetic fields; the fast rotator LSPM J1204+1728S is excluded, and the paper assumes the remaining sample is unaffected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance of the Stellar Abundances and atmospheric Parameters Pipeline adapted for M dwarfs I. Atmospheric parameters from the spectroscopic module." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGKKKUDZ

@misc{pith2026250209388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance of the Stellar Abundances and atmospheric Parameters Pipeline adapted for M dwarfs I. Atmospheric parameters from the spectroscopic module},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGKKKUDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09388}
}
read the original abstract

M dwarfs are important targets in the search for Earth-like exoplanets due to their small masses and low luminosities. Several ongoing and upcoming space missions are targeting M dwarfs for this reason, and the ESA PLATO mission is one of these. In order to fully characterise a planetary system the properties of the host star must be known. For M dwarfs we can derive effective temperature, surface gravity, metallicity, and abundances of various elements from spectroscopic observations in combination with photometric data. The Stellar Abundances and atmospheric Parameters Pipeline (SAPP) has been developed as a prototype for one of the stellar science softwares within the PLATO consortium, it is aimed at FGK stars. We have modified it to be able to analyse the M dwarf among the PLATO targets. The current version of the pipeline for M dwarfs mostly relies on spectroscopic observations. The data processing is based on the machine learning algorithm The Payne and fits a grid of model spectra to an observed spectrum to derive effective temperature and metallicity. We use spectra in the H-band, as the near-infrared region is beneficial for M dwarfs. A method based on synthetic spectra was developed for the continuum normalisation of the spectra, taking into account the pseudo-continuum formed by numerous lines of the water molecule. Photometry is used to constrain the surface gravity. We tested the modified SAPP on spectra of M dwarfs from the APOGEE survey. Our validation sample of 26 stars includes stars with interferometric observations and binaries. We found a good agreement between our values and reference values from a range of studies. The overall uncertainties in the derived effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity is 100 K, 0.1 dex, and 0.15 dex, respectively. We find that the modified SAPP performs well on M dwarfs and identify possible areas of future development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09388 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of H-band synthetic spectra generated with different effective temperatures. The surface gravity was set to 4.7 dex and the metallicity was set to solar. The different colours correspond to different Teff values. etry (Teff, log g, and [Fe/H]) to build a PDF space. However, the photometry PDF is the Teff-log g plane of a multi-dimensional set of isochrones. As in Gent et al. (2022), the photometry PDF is sim… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalised observed spectrum of the star GJ 880 as black dashed line, and best-fit model (synthetic spectrum predicted by the Payne’s ANN for the parameters given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlation matrix for SAPP’s spectroscopic module without photometric constraint for star GJ 880. The colour scale represents sta￾tistical correlation from −1 to 1 for nine ANN parameters. 4.1. Comparison based on interferometry We used Boyajian et al. (2012) and Rabus et al. (2019) to obtain reference parameters based on interferometric measurements. Boyajian et al. (2012) used the CHARA array to obtain limb￾darke… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PDFs calculated for GJ 880 for two different SAPP modules: spectroscopy (left) and photometry (right). The horizontal axis is effective temperature, the vertical axis is surface gravity, and the colour scale is the logarithm of probability. Each PDF is sliced in the [F…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface gravity versus effective temperature derived by the SAPP (black diamonds with error bars). The K dwarf GJ 105A is not visible since its parameters are outside of the axis ranges. Small dots represent a subset of the grid of stellar evolution models used by the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing Teff (top) and log g (bottom) derived from the SAPP with corresponding parameters based on interferometric angular diam￾eters (Boyajian et al. 2012; Rabus et al. 2019). The black dashed line in both figures corresponds to the 1:1 ratio and the grey dotted lin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SAPP results compared with spectroscopic results from Sarmento et al. (2021); Passegger et al. (2019); Mann et al. (2015); Maldonado et al. (2020); Souto et al. (2022); Cristofari et al. (2022a). Values derived using the SAPP are shown on the vertical axis, and the lit…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparing Teff (top) and [Fe/H] (bottom) derived with the SAPP with the results based on machine-learning techniques from Birky et al. (2020) and Passegger et al. (2022). The black dashed line corresponds to the 1:1 ratio. 4.3. Comparison with machine-learning techniqu…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparing the derived [Fe/H] from the SAPP for M dwarf sec￾ondary components in a binary (y-axis, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  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]

    M., Korotin , S

    Abia , C., Tabernero , H. M., Korotin , S. A., et al. 2020, , 642, A227

    2020

  4. [4]

    H., & Schwenke , D

    Allard , F., Hauschildt , P. H., & Schwenke , D. 2000, , 540, 1005

    2000

  5. [5]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., & Freytag , B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    2012

  6. [6]

    J., Morales , J

    Alonso-Floriano , F. J., Morales , J. C., Caballero , J. A., et al. 2015, , 577, A128

    2015

  7. [7]

    & Plez , B

    Alvarez , R. & Plez , B. 1998, , 330, 1109

    1998

  8. [8]

    G., Delgado-Mena , E., Santos , N

    Antoniadis-Karnavas , A., Sousa , S. G., Delgado-Mena , E., Santos , N. C., & Andreasen , D. T. 2024, , 690, A58

    2024

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    G., Delgado-Mena , E., et al

    Antoniadis-Karnavas , A., Sousa , S. G., Delgado-Mena , E., et al. 2020, , 636, A9

    2020

  2. [10]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

    2021

  3. [11]

    Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. H. 1995, , 446, L35

    1995

  4. [12]

    Barklem , P. S. 2016, , 24, 9

    2016

  5. [13]

    M., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al

    Bello-Garc \' a , A., Passegger , V. M., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al. 2023, , 673, A105

    2023

  6. [14]

    Bidelman , W. P. 1985, , 59, 197

    1985

  7. [15]

    W., Mann , A

    Birky , J., Hogg , D. W., Mann , A. W., & Burgasser , A. 2020, , 892, 31

    2020

  8. [16]

    R., Bershady , M

    Blanton , M. R., Bershady , M. A., Abolfathi , B., et al. 2017, , 154, 28

    2017

  9. [17]

    1958, , 46, 108

    B \"o hm-Vitense , E. 1958, , 46, 108

    1958

  10. [18]

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

    1973

  11. [19]

    P., Hinkley , S., Ziegler , C., et al

    Bowler , B. P., Hinkley , S., Ziegler , C., et al. 2019, , 877, 60

    2019

  12. [20]

    S., von Braun , K., van Belle , G., et al

    Boyajian , T. S., von Braun , K., van Belle , G., et al. 2012, , 757, 112

    2012

  13. [21]

    Brett , J. M. 1995, , 295, 736

    1995

  14. [22]

    1998, , 295, 711

    Brocato , E., Cassisi , S., & Castellani , V. 1998, , 295, 711

    1998

  15. [23]

    A., Davies , G

    Bugnet , L., Garc \' a , R. A., Davies , G. R., et al. 2018, , 620, A38

    2018

  16. [24]

    G., Steffen , M., Freytag , B., & Bonifacio , P

    Caffau , E., Ludwig , H. G., Steffen , M., Freytag , B., & Bonifacio , P. 2011, , 268, 255

    2011

  17. [25]

    Cannon , A. J. & Pickering , E. C. 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog, III/135A

    1993

  18. [26]

    L., Elyajouri , M., & Monreal-Ibero , A

    Capitanio , L., Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., Elyajouri , M., & Monreal-Ibero , A. 2017, , 606, A65

    2017

  19. [27]

    D., et al

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

    2021

  20. [28]

    2011, , 530, A138

    Casagrande , L., Sch \"o nrich , R., Asplund , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A138

    2011

  21. [29]

    R., Hogg , D

    Casey , A. R., Hogg , D. W., Ness , M., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.03040

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y., Pietrinferni , A., Catelan , M., & Salaris , M

    Cassisi , S., Potekhin , A. Y., Pietrinferni , A., Catelan , M., & Salaris , M. 2007, , 661, 1094

    2007

  23. [31]

    Y., Salaris , M., & Pietrinferni , A

    Cassisi , S., Potekhin , A. Y., Salaris , M., & Pietrinferni , A. 2021, , 654, A149

    2021

  24. [32]

    & Salaris , M

    Cassisi , S. & Salaris , M. 2013, Old Stellar Populations: How to Study the Fossil Record of Galaxy Formation

    2013

  25. [33]

    Cassisi , S., Salaris , M., & Irwin , A. W. 2003, , 588, 862

    2003

  26. [34]

    & Baraffe , I

    Chabrier , G. & Baraffe , I. 2000, , 38, 337

    2000

  27. [35]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Cosentino , R., Lovis , C., Pepe , F., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 84461V

    2012

  28. [36]

    I., Donati , J

    Cristofari , P. I., Donati , J. F., Masseron , T., et al. 2022 a , , 516, 3802

    2022

  29. [37]

    I., Donati , J

    Cristofari , P. I., Donati , J. F., Masseron , T., et al. 2022 b , , 511, 1893

    2022

  30. [38]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  31. [39]

    2022, , 164, 225

    Damiano , M., Hu , R., Barclay , T., et al. 2022, , 164, 225

    2022

  32. [40]

    2000, , 364, 217

    Delfosse , X., Forveille , T., S \'e gransan , D., et al. 2000, , 364, 217

    2000

  33. [41]

    G., Lucatello , S., & Claudi , R

    Desidera , S., Gratton , R. G., Lucatello , S., & Claudi , R. U. 2006, , 454, 581

    2006

  34. [42]

    G., Scuderi , S., et al

    Desidera , S., Gratton , R. G., Scuderi , S., et al. 2004, , 420, 683

    2004

  35. [43]

    M., Charbonneau , D., & Buchhave , L

    Diamond-Lowe , H., Mendon c a , J. M., Charbonneau , D., & Buchhave , L. A. 2023, , 165, 169

    2023

  36. [44]

    F., Kouach , D., Moutou , C., et al

    Donati , J. F., Kouach , D., Moutou , C., et al. 2020, , 498, 5684

    2020

  37. [45]

    W., Alexander , D

    Ferguson , J. W., Alexander , D. R., Allard , F., et al. 2005, , 623, 585

    2005

  38. [46]

    Gaia Collaboration, Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  39. [47]

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

    2023

  40. [48]

    R., Bergemann , M., Serenelli , A., et al

    Gent , M. R., Bergemann , M., Serenelli , A., et al. 2022, , 658, A147

    2022

  41. [49]

    M., Magg , E., Plez , B., et al

    Gerber , J. M., Magg , E., Plez , B., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.00967

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    H., Blake , C

    Gilhool , S. H., Blake , C. H., Terrien , R. C., et al. 2018, , 155, 38

    2018

  43. [51]

    Gray, R. O. & Corbally, C. J. 2009, Chapter 9. M Dwarfs and L Dwarfs—J. Davy Kirkpatrick (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 339--387

    2009

  44. [52]

    O., Corbally , C

    Gray , R. O., Corbally , C. J., Garrison , R. F., et al. 2006, , 132, 161

    2006

  45. [53]

    O., Corbally , C

    Gray , R. O., Corbally , C. J., Garrison , R. F., McFadden , M. T., & Robinson , P. E. 2003, , 126, 2048

    2003

  46. [54]

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

    2007

  47. [55]

    2018, , 481, 3244

    Grieves , N., Ge , J., Thomas , N., et al. 2018, , 481, 3244

    2018

  48. [56]

    E., Siegmund , W

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

    2006

  49. [57]

    H., Allard , F., Alexander , D

    Hauschildt , P. H., Allard , F., Alexander , D. R., & Baron , E. 1997, , 488, 428

    1997

  50. [58]

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

    Henry , T. J., Jao , W.-C., Subasavage , J. P., et al. 2006, , 132, 2360

    2006

  51. [59]

    Henry , T. J. & McCarthy , Donald W., J. 1993, , 106, 773

    1993

  52. [60]

    L., Pietrinferni , A., Cassisi , S., et al

    Hidalgo , S. L., Pietrinferni , A., Cassisi , S., et al. 2018, , 856, 125

    2018

  53. [61]

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

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

    2018

  54. [62]

    & Swift , C

    Houk , N. & Swift , C. 1999, Michigan Spectral Survey, 5, 0

    1999

  55. [63]

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

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

    2013

  56. [64]

    Iglesias , C. A. & Rogers , F. J. 1996, , 464, 943

    1996

  57. [65]

    T., Aoki , W., Kotani , T., et al

    Ishikawa , H. T., Aoki , W., Kotani , T., et al. 2020, , 72, 102

    2020

  58. [66]

    A., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    J \"o nsson , H., Holtzman , J. A., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2020, , 160, 120

    2020

  59. [67]

    Keenan , P. C. & McNeil , R. C. 1989, , 71, 245

    1989

  60. [68]

    Y., Kirkpatrick , J

    Kesseli , A. Y., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Fajardo-Acosta , S. B., et al. 2019, , 157, 63

    2019

  61. [69]

    D., Henry , T

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Henry , T. J., & McCarthy , Donald W., J. 1991, , 77, 417

    1991

  62. [70]

    2021, , 29, 1

    Kochukhov , O. 2021, , 29, 1

    2021

  63. [71]

    2010, , 403, 1949

    Koen , C., Kilkenny , D., van Wyk , F., & Marang , F. 2010, , 403, 1949

    2010

  64. [72]

    2019, , 628, A54

    Kovalev , M., Bergemann , M., Ting , Y.-S., & Rix , H.-W. 2019, , 628, A54

    2019

  65. [73]

    2019, , 484, 2656

    Lachaume , R., Rabus , M., Jord \'a n , A., et al. 2019, , 484, 2656

    2019

  66. [74]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Lantz , B., Aldering , G., Antilogus , P., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5249, Optical Design and Engineering, ed. L. Mazuray , P. J. Rogers , & R. Wartmann , 146--155

    2004

  67. [75]

    Lee , S. G. 1984, , 89, 702

    1984

  68. [76]

    J., Mann , A

    L \'e pine , S., Hilton , E. J., Mann , A. W., et al. 2013, , 145, 102

    2013

  69. [77]

    & Amarsi , A

    Lind , K. & Amarsi , A. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00697

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    & Heiter , U

    Lindgren , S. & Heiter , U. 2017, , 604, A97

    2017

  71. [79]

    2016, , 586, A100

    Lindgren , S., Heiter , U., & Seifahrt , A. 2016, , 586, A100

    2016

  72. [80]

    2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    Lodders , K. 2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 16, Principles and Perspectives in Cosmochemistry, 379

    2010

  73. [81]

    N., Basu , S., Bieryla , A., et al

    Lund , M. N., Basu , S., Bieryla , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15919

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    R., Schiavon , R

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

    2017

  75. [83]

    2015, , 577, A132

    Maldonado , J., Affer , L., Micela , G., et al. 2015, , 577, A132

    2015

  76. [84]

    2020, , 644, A68

    Maldonado , J., Micela , G., Baratella , M., et al. 2020, , 644, A68

    2020

  77. [85]

    W., Brewer , J

    Mann , A. W., Brewer , J. M., Gaidos , E., L \'e pine , S., & Hilton , E. J. 2013, , 145, 52

    2013

  78. [86]

    W., Dupuy , T., Kraus , A

    Mann , A. W., Dupuy , T., Kraus , A. L., et al. 2019, , 871, 63

    2019

  79. [87]

    W., Feiden , G

    Mann , A. W., Feiden , G. A., Gaidos , E., Boyajian , T., & von Braun , K. 2015, , 804, 64

    2015

  80. [88]

    M., Montes , D., et al

    Marfil , E., Tabernero , H. M., Montes , D., et al. 2021, , 656, A162

    2021

  81. [89]

    Marocco , F., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Fowler , J. W., et al. 2021, , 253, 8

    2021

  82. [90]

    2024, , 687, A205

    Mas-Buitrago , P., Gonz \'a lez-Marcos , A., Solano , E., et al. 2024, , 687, A205

    2024

  83. [91]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor , M., Pepe , F., Queloz , D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  84. [92]

    2024, , 973, 90

    Melo , E., Souto , D., Cunha , K., et al. 2024, , 973, 90

    2024

  85. [93]

    2017, PhD thesis, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 3, 20146 Hamburg

    Meyer, M. 2017, PhD thesis, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 3, 20146 Hamburg

    2017

  86. [94]

    G., Levine , S

    Monet , D. G., Levine , S. E., Canzian , B., et al. 2003, , 125, 984

    2003

  87. [95]

    M., et al

    Montalto , M., Piotto , G., Marrese , P. M., et al. 2021, , 653, A98

    2021

  88. [96]

    M., et al

    Montes , D., Gonz \'a lez-Peinado , R., Tabernero , H. M., et al. 2018, , 479, 1332

    2018

  89. [97]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Mourard , D., Berio , P., Pannetier , C., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12183, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VIII, ed. A. M \'e rand , S. Sallum , & J. Sanchez-Bermudez , 1218308

    2022

  90. [98]

    2022, , 658, A31

    Nascimbeni , V., Piotto , G., B \"o rner , A., et al. 2022, , 658, A31

    2022

  91. [99]

    W., Rix , H

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

    2015

  92. [100]

    L., Holtzman , J

    Nidever , D. L., Holtzman , J. A., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2015, , 150, 173

    2015

  93. [101]

    2021, , 649, A103

    Olander , T., Heiter , U., & Kochukhov , O. 2021, , 649, A103

    2021

  94. [102]

    M., Bello-Garc \' a , A., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al

    Passegger , V. M., Bello-Garc \' a , A., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al. 2022, , 658, A194

    2022

  95. [103]

    M., Bello-Garc \' a , A., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al

    Passegger , V. M., Bello-Garc \' a , A., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al. 2020, , 642, A22

    2020

  96. [104]

    M., Reiners , A., Jeffers , S

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

    2018

  97. [105]

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

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

    2019

  98. [106]

    2021, , 908, 102

    Pietrinferni , A., Hidalgo , S., Cassisi , S., et al. 2021, , 908, 102

    2021

  99. [107]

    L., Kyuberis , A

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

    2018

  100. [108]

    J., Caballero , J

    Quirrenbach , A., Amado , P. J., Caballero , J. A., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay , I. S. McLean , & H. Takami , 91471F

    2014

  101. [109]

    2019, , 484, 2674

    Rabus , M., Lachaume , R., Jord \'a n , A., et al. 2019, , 484, 2674

    2019

  102. [110]

    D., Nordlander , T., Monty , S., et al

    Rains , A. D., Nordlander , T., Monty , S., et al. 2024, , 529, 3171

    2024

  103. [111]

    S., Allard , F., Rajpurohit , S., et al

    Rajpurohit , A. S., Allard , F., Rajpurohit , S., et al. 2018, , 620, A180

    2018

  104. [112]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    T., Toomey , D

    Rayner , J. T., Toomey , D. W., Onaka , P. M., et al. 2003, , 115, 362

    2003

  106. [114]

    2012, , 143, 93

    Reiners , A., Joshi , N., & Goldman , B. 2012, , 143, 93

    2012

  107. [115]

    J., et al

    Reiners , A., Shulyak , D., K \"a pyl \"a , P. J., et al. 2022, , 662, A41

    2022

  108. [116]

    2023, , 670, A139

    Ribas , I., Reiners , A., Zechmeister , M., et al. 2023, , 670, A139

    2023

  109. [117]

    K., Flagg , L., et al

    Ridden-Harper , A., Nugroho , S. K., Flagg , L., et al. 2023, , 165, 170

    2023

  110. [118]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 76

    Rodr \' guez-L \'o pez , C. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 76

    2019

  111. [119]

    R., Muirhead , P

    Rojas-Ayala , B., Covey , K. R., Muirhead , P. S., & Lloyd , J. P. 2012, , 748, 93

    2012

  112. [120]

    J., Fulton , B

    Rosenthal , L. J., Fulton , B. J., Hirsch , L. A., et al. 2021, , 255, 8

    2021

  113. [121]

    2021, , 649, A147

    Sarmento , P., Rojas-Ayala , B., Delgado Mena , E., & Blanco-Cuaresma , S. 2021, , 649, A147

    2021

  114. [122]

    2021, , 654, A118

    Shan , Y., Reiners , A., Fabbian , D., et al. 2021, , 654, A118

    2021

  115. [123]

    E., et al

    Shetrone , M., Bizyaev , D., Lawler , J. E., et al. 2015, , 221, 24

    2015

  116. [124]

    L., Ballard , S., & Johnson , J

    Shields , A. L., Ballard , S., & Johnson , J. A. 2016, , 663, 1

    2016

  117. [125]

    2019, , 626, A86

    Shulyak , D., Reiners , A., Nagel , E., et al. 2019, , 626, A86

    2019

  118. [126]

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

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

    2021

  119. [127]

    V., et al

    Souto , D., Cunha , K., Smith , V. V., et al. 2020, , 890, 133

    2020

  120. [128]

    V., et al

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

    2022

  121. [129]

    2019, , 879, 69

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

    2019

  122. [130]

    2007, , 474, 653

    van Leeuwen , F. 2007, , 474, 653

    2007

  123. [131]

    J., Muirhead , P

    Veyette , M. J., Muirhead , P. S., Mann , A. W., & Allard , F. 2016, , 828, 95

    2016

  124. [132]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.optimize.curve\_fit.html

    2020

  125. [133]

    A., Morgan , D

    West , A. A., Morgan , D. P., Bochanski , J. J., et al. 2011, , 141, 97

    2011

  126. [134]

    C., Hearty , F

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

    2019

  127. [135]

    T., Girard , T

    Zacharias , N., Finch , C. T., Girard , T. M., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/322A

    2012

Pith tools

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