Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Hydroxyl Lines and Moonlight: a High Spectral Resolution Investigation of NIR skylines from Maunakea to guide NIR spectroscopic surveys

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the Moon's continuum contribution must be included in near-infrared sky subtraction at Moon separations of at least 10 degrees for faint targets and sub-1% residuals, and that OH airglow lines vary on roughly…

desk verdict The OH variability timescales and the public dataset are the real contributions; the 10-degree Moon rule is an uncalibrated extrapolation and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05473 v1 pith:VUISOYTH submitted 2024-12-06 astro-ph.IM

Frederick Dauphin , Andreea Petric , Étienne Artigau , Andrew W. Stephens , Neil James Cook , Steven Businger , Nicolas Flagey , Jennifer Marshall
show 3 more authors
Michelle Ntampaka Swara Ravindranath Laurie Rousseau-Nepton
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords nightskybrightnessOHairglownear-infraredspectroscopysubtractionGaussianprocessregressionLomb-ScargleperiodogramMaunakeaobservingsiteSPIRouspectrograph
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 aims to give survey planners concrete numbers for near-infrared (NIR) sky subtraction. Analyzing 1075 high-resolution spectra of the Maunakea night sky, it finds that the Moon's continuum, usually ignored at NIR wavelengths, must be accounted for at Moon separation distances of at least 10 degrees when reconstructing the sky with principal component analysis, when targets are fainter than about 15 mag, or when a sky subtraction better than 1% is attempted. The same data show that 481 OH airglow lines vary on a common timescale of about 30 minutes, so a 1% residual in an ABBA sky-science-sky pattern requires the two sky frames to be within about 10 minutes. The paper also provides a catalog of 126 resolved OH doublets and makes the spectra and fitting code public.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-Gaussian flux model for each of 481 hydroxyl lines, fitted to continuum-filtered spectra, and by two time-series tools: Gaussian process regression with a squared-exponential plus white-noise kernel, which yields the correlation length, and Lomb-Scargle periodograms, which reveal dominant variability periods. The Moon's contribution is separated from the band background by subtracting a linear persistence-decay fit and then fitting the residual flux as an exponential function of angular separation to the Moon. The correlation length is the central quantity because it directly converts the time delay between sky and science frames into a fractional sky-subtraction error.

What would settle it

Measure the NIR continuum background as a function of Moon separation on a photometric night with known aerosol optical depth, extending to separations of 10-15 degrees; if the Moon's contribution at 10 degrees is below 1% of the band-integrated sky background, or if the exponential decay slope differs materially from the values in Table 1, the recommended 10-degree threshold would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the NIR night sky on Maunakea has two previously underappreciated variability drivers with directly actionable timescales. The Moon's scattered continuum, measured serendipitously as it passed within about a degree of the spectrograph fiber, decays exponentially with angular separation; the fit indicates the Moon dominates the band-integrated background within roughly 4 degrees in J and 8 degrees in Y, and the paper recommends treating separation distances under 10 degrees as contaminated for demanding observations. Independently, Gaussian process regression on the line fluxes gives a correlation length of about 30 minutes, with a median of 39 minutes for high signal-to-noise lines, implying that simple on/off sky subtraction needs a 3-minute cadence for 1% accuracy, while ABBA subtraction extends that to about 10 minutes. These two results are framed as the first step toward a data-driven sky model for Maunakea.

Load-bearing premise

The 10-degree Moon guideline rests on an exponential fit to only three nights of serendipitous Moon passages, observed out to about 6 degrees, with no correction for lunar phase changes or aerosol scattering, so the threshold is an extrapolation beyond the measured range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Survey schedulers should treat Moon separation under 10 degrees as a constraint for faint NIR targets, especially with PCA-based sky reconstruction or when trying to reach sub-1% residuals.
  • ABBA-style observations should keep the two sky frames within about 10 minutes to hold 1% sky-subtraction error, while simple on/off subtraction would require about 3 minutes of sampling.
  • The 126 resolved OH doublets form a wavelength-dependent catalog that can be used to predict sky-line contamination at high spectral resolution and below.
  • The public spectra and fitting tools are a reusable input for building a Maunakea-specific sky model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If aerosol optical depth varies significantly, the fixed 10-degree threshold may shift; combining these spectra with simultaneous aerosol measurements could replace the threshold with a separation-versus-contamination curve.
  • The homogeneous ~30-minute OH timescale suggests that low-dimensional models (PCA or a trained autoencoder) could predict the full 481-line sky from a few monitored lines, potentially relaxing the required sky cadence.
  • The Moon's relative contribution is band-dependent, so a target's science band should set the Moon-separation constraint rather than a single value for all NIR observations.
  • Extending this analysis to a second site or to visible airglow would test whether the correlation length and the Moon scaling are transferable or site-specific.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 1075 high-resolution NIR sky spectra from SPIRou on Maunakea, including two three-night runs with 5.5-minute cadence, to characterize OH line variability and the Moon's continuum contribution. The authors fit OH lines with one or two Gaussian profiles on a high-pass-filtered continuum, identify 126 resolved doublets, and study temporal variability with Gaussian process regression (GPR) and Lomb-Scargle periodograms. Two survey guidelines are presented: (1) the Moon contribution must be accounted for at separations within 10 degrees when using PCA sky reconstruction, observing targets fainter than about 15 mag, or aiming for sky subtraction better than 1%; and (2) OH lines have a GPR correlation length of about 30 minutes, implying that an ABBA sky-subtraction pattern needs roughly 10 minutes between sky observations for a 1% residual. The data are released on Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.13363061) and the analysis code is public on GitHub.

Significance. If the guidelines are robust, this would be a direct and useful input for NIR survey scheduling and sky-subtraction strategies, complementing the ESO SkyCalc modeling efforts. The dataset itself is a strong asset: six nights of high-cadence, high-resolution sky spectra with serendipitous Moon passages are rare, and the public data/code release is exemplary. The doublet catalog and the explicit GPR correlation timescales are concrete products that can inform future observing programs. However, the two headline guidelines rest on an extrapolated, uncertainty-free Moon fit and on an incompletely described ABBA residual calculation; as it stands, the paper is more secure as a characterization dataset than as a quantitative survey rule.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1, Figure 6] The 10-degree Moon-separation guideline is extrapolated from data that the text itself says constrain the continuum only 'to about 6 degrees in all bands' (Section 4.2). Table 1 reports no uncertainties on the exponential fit slopes or intercepts, and the Figure 6 caption states that the three nights were fit without correcting for lunar phase change (illumination varying from 95% to 80%). Because this number appears in the abstract as a survey rule, the authors should either restrict the guideline to the measured range with an explicit extrapolation warning, or quantify the extrapolation, for example by fitting a physical scattering model (e.g., Jones et al. 2013) or by reporting Monte Carlo uncertainties that include phase and aerosol systematic terms.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The criterion that the Moon must be accounted for when 'observing targets at YJHK mags fainter than ~15' is not derived anywhere in the paper. No calculation is shown that connects the measured Moon surface brightness (mag arcsec^-2) to a target magnitude threshold for a given sky-subtraction accuracy. Please provide the underlying contrast/signal-to-noise estimate, or explicitly label the 15-mag threshold as an illustrative rule of thumb rather than a quantitative result of this analysis.
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 4.5, Figure 9] The method for computing the ABBA sky-subtraction timescales is not described. The text states that 'From the GPR fit of each line, we determined the timescale corresponding to a 1%, 2% and 5% sky-subtraction error in an ABBA scenario' but gives no equation or algorithm for converting the GP covariance into an ABBA residual as a function of delay (for example, the residual after subtracting a linear trend over a sliding window). Without this, the headline result of about 10 minutes for a 1% ABBA residual is not reproducible; please add the explicit formula or a clear pseudo-code description.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.5, Figure 9] The GPR prior on the correlation length is a log-uniform distribution bounded between 10 minutes and 1 day. The derived ABBA 1% timescale is 10.4 +/- 1.6 min, close to the lower prior boundary, and the simple-subtraction 1% timescale is about 2 minutes, which is below the prior range. This raises the possibility that the prior's lower bound affects the short-lag behavior of the squared-exponential kernel and biases the quoted timescales. Please report a sensitivity test with a lower bound below the sampling cadence (e.g., 2 minutes) or otherwise demonstrate that the 10-minute prior does not drive the ABBA result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'subtracted a linear fit of the persistence contribution for angles ranging from 50 to 20 degrees' is unclear: it should specify what is being fit (e.g., background versus time or versus Moon separation) and the intended direction of the angular range (50 to 20 degrees is descending).
  2. [Table 1 and Figure 6] Table 1 should report uncertainties on the intercept and slope values and should state the exact functional form used (the text says 'exponential decay' but the table columns are labeled 'Slope (degree^-1)', which suggests a different parametrization).
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The phrasing 'at separation distances less than 10 degrees' (abstract) and 'at Moon separation distances of at least 10 degrees' (Section 4.2) is contradictory; use a consistent phrase such as 'within 10 degrees of the Moon' throughout.
  4. [Section 4.4 and Table A.1] The doublet identification thresholds (separation within +/-0.05 Angstrom and flux ratio between 0.78 and 1.3) are stated without an estimate of the false-positive rate; a comparison with HITRAN line separations or a bootstrap-style test would strengthen confidence in the 126-doublet catalog.
  5. [Various] There are several typographical issues: 'Gaussian Proccess' in the Section 3.3 heading, 'a a unique set' in the Conclusions, and 'minuutes' in the Figure 12 caption; the reference list also contains duplicated entries for Noll et al. (2023) and Oliva et al. (2015a).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sky-variability and Moon-continuum results are empirical fits presented as measurements, with extrapolation caveats stated in the paper rather than hidden.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical characterization of NIR sky variability, not a derivation from first principles, and I find no circular step that reduces a claim to its inputs by construction. The Moon-continuum result (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 6, Table 1) is a direct exponential fit to measured continuum levels versus fiber-Moon separation; the 10-degree survey guideline is an extrapolation from that fit, and the paper itself discloses the relevant limitations: 'our observations can track its continuum contribution to about 6 deg in all bands,' 'we did not correct for the Moon phase change between dates,' and 'these angular distances can change if one considers the variation of atmospheric aerosol.' An extrapolation with stated caveats is a robustness risk, not circularity: the conclusion is not already contained in a premise that presupposes it. Similarly, the GPR correlation length (~30 min median, 39 min for high-SNR lines; Sec. 4.5, Fig. 8) and the ABBA sky-subtraction cadence guideline (~10 min for 1%; Fig. 9) are derived from the fitted GPR model of the observed OH time series; they are presented as applied consequences of the fit, not as independent predictions validated against held-out data, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The identified doublets are threshold classifications of the fitted line profiles, and the LSP analysis explicitly flags the 5.5-min sampling artifact and the inability to constrain timescales beyond ~0.3 days. Self-citations (Cook et al. 2022 for APERO, Artigau et al. 2018 for persistence, Donati et al. 2018 for SPIRou) are instrument/pipeline references, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz sources; the OH line list and doublet physics come from independent literature (Rousselot et al. 2000, HITRAN). No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the result it is used to establish, and no central claim rests on an unverified self-citation chain. The honest finding is therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on empirical fits rather than first-principles derivations. The main fitted inputs are the per-band exponential Moon background and the GPR hyperparameters, plus hand-chosen thresholds for doublet detection. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Moon background intercept, Y band = 12.74 mag arcsec^-2
    Fitted exponential intercept in Table 1 from median Y background versus Moon separation; no uncertainty reported.
  • Moon background intercept, J band = 13.84 mag arcsec^-2
    Fitted exponential intercept in Table 1 from median J background versus Moon separation; no uncertainty reported.
  • Moon background intercept, H band = 15.20 mag arcsec^-2
    Fitted exponential intercept in Table 1 from median H background versus Moon separation; no uncertainty reported.
  • Moon background intercept, K band = 16.08 mag arcsec^-2
    Fitted exponential intercept in Table 1 from median K background versus Moon separation; no uncertainty reported.
  • Moon background slope, Y band = 0.56 degree^-1
    Fitted exponential slope in Table 1; no uncertainty reported.
  • Moon background slope, J band = 0.48 degree^-1
    Fitted exponential slope in Table 1; no uncertainty reported.
  • Moon background slope, H band = 0.42 degree^-1
    Fitted exponential slope in Table 1; no uncertainty reported.
  • Moon background slope, K band = 0.38 degree^-1
    Fitted exponential slope in Table 1; no uncertainty reported.
  • GPR kernel hyperparameters = Per-line amplitude A, length scale l, white noise sigma; median length scale 39 min for high SNR
    Parameters of the squared-exponential plus white-noise kernel in Equation 10, optimized with MCMC for each OH line time series; these drive the sky-sampling timescale claims.
  • Doublet detection thresholds = Separation within 0.05 Angstrom, flux ratio 0.78 to 1.3, KDE bandwidth 0.05
    Hand-chosen criteria in Section 4.4 that determine the 126 doublet count; changing these thresholds changes the catalog.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption OH line positions and identities from Rousselot et al. (2000) are accurate enough for centroiding and flux fitting.
    Section 2.2 states all lines aligned with the spectra; the doublet analysis in Section 4.4 uses these positions as the reference.
  • ad hoc to paper The sky line profile is adequately represented by one or two Gaussians on a locally flat continuum after high-pass filtering.
    Section 3.1, Equation 1. The authors acknowledge in Section 5.1 that this model may be too simple, which would bias fitted fluxes.
  • ad hoc to paper The Moon's continuum contribution follows a single exponential decay with angular separation, independent of lunar phase and aerosol content.
    Section 4.2 and Table 1. No phase or aerosol correction is applied, and the fit is extrapolated from 6 to 10 degrees.
  • domain assumption Persistence from daytime calibrations can be removed by a linear fit at Moon separations of 50 to 20 degrees.
    Section 4.2 states a linear persistence subtraction; residual persistence would contaminate the Moon background measurement.
  • domain assumption The GPR squared-exponential kernel plus white noise captures the true short-term variability structure of OH lines.
    Section 3.3, Equation 10. The paper notes that a low amplitude-to-white-noise ratio biases toward longer correlation lengths.
  • domain assumption The six high-cadence nights and 1075 spectra are representative of Maunakea NIR sky variability for survey design.
    Events 1 and 2 span only six nights in December 2019 and January 2020; seasonal and weather coverage are missing, as acknowledged in Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption Lomb-Scargle periodogram quasi-periodicity is a meaningful description of OH intensity variations.
    Section 3.4 states that true periodic behavior is not expected, so the recovered periods are an approximation for decomposition and forecasting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydroxyl Lines and Moonlight: a High Spectral Resolution Investigation of NIR skylines from Maunakea to guide NIR spectroscopic surveys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUISOYTH

@misc{pith2026241205473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydroxyl Lines and Moonlight: a High Spectral Resolution Investigation of NIR skylines from Maunakea to guide NIR spectroscopic surveys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUISOYTH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05473}
}
read the original abstract

Subtracting the changing sky contribution from the near-infrared (NIR) spectra of faint astronomical objects is challenging and crucial to a wide range of science cases such as estimating the velocity dispersions of dwarf galaxies, studying the gas dynamics in faint galaxies, measuring accurate redshifts, and any spectroscopic studies of faint targets. Since the sky background varies with time and location, NIR spectral observations, especially those employing fiber spectrometers and targeting extended sources, require frequent sky-only observations for calibration. However, sky subtraction can be optimized with sufficient a priori knowledge of the sky's variability. In this work, we explore how to optimize sky subtraction by analyzing 1075 high-resolution NIR spectra from the CFHT's SPIRou on Maunakea, and we estimate the variability of 481 hydroxyl (OH) lines. These spectra were collected during two sets of three nights dedicated to obtaining sky observations every five and a half minutes. During the first set, we observed how the Moon affects the NIR, which has not been accurately measured at these wavelengths. We suggest accounting for the Moon contribution at separation distances less than 10 degrees when 1) reconstructing the sky using principal component analysis 2) observing targets at Y JHK mags fainter than ~15 and 3) attempting a sky subtraction better than 1%. We also identified 126 spectral doublets, or OH lines that split into at least two components, at SPIRou's resolution. In addition, we used Lomb-Scargle Periodograms and Gaussian process regression to estimate that most OH lines vary on similar timescales, which provides a valuable input for IR spectroscopic survey strategies. The data and code developed for this study are publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A raw two-dimensional SPIRou sky spectrum. Left: A full-frame image with wavelength decreasing from left (K band) to right (Y band). The slicer shape, tilt, and curvature of the 49 echelle orders were corrected in calibration. Right: A zoom-in image of the region boxed in cyan on the left. The A, B, and C fibers correspond to the two science and one reference fiber, respectively. emission, but these data provide the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Median stack of our calibrated SPIRou sky spectra. The flux is normalized by the spectrum’s median. The J, H, and K bands are shown in orange, green, and red, respectively. The 481 lines we fit as part of our analysis are shown in light gray. The black body curve, originating from the thermal emission of the telescope, the front-end module, and the optical fiber train, is also visible starting around 2.1µm. The figu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of flux model fits for singlet (top) and doublet (bottom) profiles. The left shows a flat continuum, which is well-fit by a Gaussian line emission on top of a constant continuum model. The middle column shows a non-flat continuum. The right column shows poor fits, indicated by large discrepancies between the flux model fit and the data. The initial wavelengths for µ1 and µ2 are shown as dashed green and red… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure aims to present an overview of the Lomb-Scargle Periodogram (LSP) method and motivate why we use the method for our analysis. We show LSP examples on a noisy (N(µ = 0, σ = 0.1)) sine (f = 1) wave (left) and a noisy (N(µ = 0, σ = 5)) complex wave (right), wh…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Median sky backgrounds in Y JHK bands. One clearly sees a low-level persistence decay from the evening calibrations within each band. The peak at the end of the night is due to the Moon continuum contribution as it serendipitously passes within < 2 ◦ of SPIRou’s fiber.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Continuum background level contribution as a function of the angular separation of the fiber to the Moon. A simple exponential decay was fitted to each band dataset. All 3 nights with the Moon passage were included in the fit and we did not correct for the Moon phase c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Moon contribution as a function of the distance to the fiber expressed in mag arcsec−2 in comparison of representative broad-band background (JHK from Srinath et al. 2014, Y from High et al. 2010).The linear fits for the Moon background as a function of angular separat…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation length of the GPR fit for OH line time series. There is a correlation between the ratio of the GPR amplitude over the white noise term (σGP R/σwn) and the correlation length. The inclusion of a large white noise term masks short-term variability in the time…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Timescale for an RMS error in sky subtraction of 1%, 2% and 5% fractional accuracy. The top panels show the case of a naive sky subtraction while the bottom panels show the case with an ABBA sky subtraction that handles sky line changes that are linear with time. An ac…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of periodograms (top) and reconstructions (bottom) from Event 1 (left) and 2 (right). The red line indicates the cutoff power to be considered a relative maximum. The periodograms were concentrated at periods of 1 day and 5.5 minutes. Because 5.5 minutes is t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Lomb-Scargle Period-Power Phase Diagrams for Event 1 colored by period order (left) and wavelength (right). The first-period order was centered around 1/3 of a day (8 hours) and 2 days while the second and third-period orders were centered around 5.5 minutes (i.e. spu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Lomb-Scargle Period-Power Phase Diagrams for Event 2 colored by period order (left) and wavelength (right). The first period order was centered around a day while the rest of the periods were relatively small periods which are due to our sampling because we obtained o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, ARA&A, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    Aigrain, S., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 2023

  2. [2]

    W., & O’Neil, M

    Hogg, D. W., & O’Neil, M. 2015, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 38, 252, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2448083 Artigau, ´E., Saint-Antoine, J., L´ evesque, P.-L., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10709, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VIII...

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 914715, doi: 10.1117/12.2055663 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1117/12.2055663 2018

  4. [4]

    2021, Sustainability, 13, doi: 10.3390/su13052984

    Beamer, K., Tuma, A., Thorenz, A., et al. 2021, Sustainability, 13, doi: 10.3390/su13052984

    work page doi:10.3390/su13052984 2021

  5. [5]

    2004, Opt

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Englund, M., & Edvell, G. 2004, Opt. Express, 12, 5902, doi: 10.1364/OPEX.12.005902

    work page doi:10.1364/opex.12.005902 2004

  6. [6]

    2020, Advances in neural information processing systems, 33, 1877

    Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., et al. 2020, Advances in neural information processing systems, 33, 1877

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    2013a, A&A, 549, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219834 —

    Buton, C., Copin, Y., Aldering, G., et al. 2013a, A&A, 549, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219834 —. 2013b, A&A, 549, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219834

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219834

  8. [8]

    J., Artigau, ´E., Doyon, R., et al

    Cook, N. J., Artigau, ´E., Doyon, R., et al. 2022, APERO: A PipelinE to Reduce Observations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2211.019. http://ascl.net/2211.019

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    J., ´Etienne Artigau, Doyon, R., et al

    Cook, N. J., ´Etienne Artigau, Doyon, R., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114509, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9e74

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed

    Donati, J.-F., Kouach, D., Lacombe, M., et al. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte, 107, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 107

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    C., & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Ellis, S. C., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 47, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13021.x

    2008

  4. [12]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hargreaves, R. J., et al. 2022a, JQSRT, 277, 107949, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949 —. 2022b, JQSRT, 277, 107949, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949

    2021

  6. [14]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Tonry, J. L. 2010, PASP, 122, 722, doi: 10.1086/653715

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Bouchy, F., Cook, N

    Hobson, M. J., Bouchy, F., Cook, N. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038413

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2013, A&A, 560, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    Kimeswenger, S. 2013, A&A, 560, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, A&A, 624, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833759

    Jones, A., Noll, S., Kausch, W., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833759

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    S., et al

    Jursa, A. S., et al. 1985, Handbook of geophysics and the space environment, Vol. 1 (Air Force Geophysics

    1985

  13. [21]

    2015, A&A, 576, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423909

    Kausch, W., Noll, S., Smette, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423909

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    H., & Stone, T

    Kieffer, H. H., & Stone, T. C. 2005, AJ, 129, 2887, doi: 10.1086/430185

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    P., & Welling, M

    Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. 2013, arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  17. [25]

    2014, A&A, 568, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423790

    Moehler, S., Modigliani, A., Freudling, W., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423790

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2015, in SF2A-2015: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 205–212, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1510.01368

    Moutou, C., Boisse, I., H´ ebrard, G., et al. 2015, in SF2A-2015: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 205–212, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1510.01368

    2015 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2012, A&A, 543, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    Noll, S., Kausch, W., Barden, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, A&A, 567, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423908

    Noll, S., Kausch, W., Kimeswenger, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423908

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Noll, S., Plane, J. M. C., Feng, W., et al. 2024, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24, 1143, doi: 10.5194/acp-24-1143-2024

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 128, e2022JD038275, doi: 10.1029/2022JD038275

    Kimeswenger, S. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 128, e2022JD038275, doi: 10.1029/2022JD038275

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    2020, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 20, 5269, doi: 10.5194/acp-20-5269-2020 23

    Noll, S., Winkler, H., Goussev, O., & Proxauf, B. 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 20, 5269, doi: 10.5194/acp-20-5269-2020 23

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    2013, A&A, 555, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321366

    Oliva, E., Origlia, L., Maiolino, R., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321366

    2013 doi

  25. [34]

    2015a, A&A, 581, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526291 —

    Oliva, E., Origlia, L., Scuderi, S., et al. 2015a, A&A, 581, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526291 —. 2015b, A&A, 581, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526291

    doi

  26. [35]

    2008, A&A, 481, 575, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079279

    Patat, F. 2008, A&A, 481, 575, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079279

    2008 doi

  27. [36]

    2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed

    Puech, M., Rodrigues, M., Yang, Y., et al. 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, Vol. 9147, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 91476L, doi: 10.1117/12.2055137

    2014 doi

  28. [37]

    E., Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. E., Williams, C. K., et al. 2006, Gaussian processes for machine learning, Vol. 1 (Springer)

    2006

  29. [38]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Rodrigues, M., Flores, H., Puech, M., Yang, Y., & Royer, F. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77356L, doi: 1...

    2010 doi

  30. [39]

    S., Rinsland, C

    Rothman, L. S., Rinsland, C. P., Goldman, A., et al. 1998, JQSRT, 60, 665, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(98)00078-8

    1998 doi

  31. [40]

    2000, A&A, 354, 1134

    Monnet, G. 2000, A&A, 354, 1134

    2000

  32. [41]

    M., Mlynczak, M

    Russell, J. M., Mlynczak, M. G., Gordley, L. L., Tansock, J. J., & Esplin, R. W. 1999, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3756, Optical Spectroscopic Techniques and Instrumentation for Atmospheric and Space Research III, ed. A....

    1999 doi

  33. [42]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  34. [43]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, 2495, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17298.x

    Sharp, R., & Parkinson, H. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2495, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17298.x

    2010

  35. [44]

    2015, A&A, 576, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    Smette, A., Sana, H., Noll, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    2015 doi

  36. [46]

    T., Lilly, S

    Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw474

    2016 doi

  37. [47]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12313

    2019 arXiv

  38. [48]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Srinath, S., McGurk, R., Rockosi, C., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9148, Adaptive Optics Systems IV, ed. E. Marchetti, L. M. Close, & J.-P. Vran, 91482Z, doi: 10.1117/12.2055672

    2014 doi

  39. [49]

    C., & Morris, E

    Staudemeyer, R. C., & Morris, E. R. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09586

    2019 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Q., Ellis, S

    Trinh, C. Q., Ellis, S. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/51

    2013 doi

  41. [51]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    2018 doi

  42. [52]

    2017, Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., et al. 2017, Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  43. [53]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    2016, PASA, 33, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.54

    Zhang, B., Zhang, L., & Ye, Z. 2016, PASA, 33, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.54

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.