Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 68 references

PyEMILI: A New Generation Computer-aided Spectral Line Identifier

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that PyEMILI, a Python rewrite of the EMILI line identifier with a larger atomic database and effective recombination coefficients, raises agreement with manual identifications on IC 418 from 75.3% to 91.3%.

desk verdict PyEMILI is a genuinely useful upgrade to EMILI with a much richer atomic database, but the headline accuracy gain is measured against benchmarks that are not fully independent, so it merits refereeing with a request for cleaner validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11845 v1 pith:7Z7N5JIC submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Zhijun Tu , Xuan Fang , Robert Williams , Jifeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords spectrallineidentificationplanetarynebulaeHIIregionsWolf-Rayetstarsatomictransitiondatabaseeffectiverecombinationcoefficientsemissionlistsastronomysoftware
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

PyEMILI is a reimplemented line-identification tool that aims to turn the slow, expert-driven process of identifying emission lines in deep high-dispersion spectra of planetary nebulae and H II regions into a reliable automated search. The paper claims that on the well-studied planetary nebula IC 418, the new code's top-ranked ('A') identifications agree with the published manual identifications for 91.3% of lines, against 75.3% for the older EMILI code, and that it also supplies sensible identifications for lines that were previously left unidentified. The improvements come from a much larger atomic transition database, a dedicated set of effective recombination coefficients for faint carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon recombination lines, and a revised scoring system that weights wavelength, predicted flux, and multiplet coherence. If these results hold, line identification in nebular and stellar emission spectra could become faster, more reproducible, and less dependent on individual memory and experience.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the identification index $IDI = W + F + M$, where $W$ scores wavelength agreement, $F$ scores how well a candidate's predicted template flux matches the observed intensity, and $M$ scores how many sibling fine-structure lines from the same multiplet are present at consistent wavelengths and relative fluxes. Candidates with the lowest $IDI$ are ranked A, B, C, D, or None. Three supporting mechanisms carry the improvement. First, the energy-bin model divides the nebula into five ionization-potential bins and derives its ionization and velocity parameters from a high-confidence Sub-Line List, so no manual pre-identification is required. Second, the atomic transition database expands the Atomic Line List v3.00b4 (about 900,000 transitions) with about 690,000 transition probabilities from the Kurucz line lists, plus compiled Case B effective recombination coefficients for H I, He I, He II, C II, N II, O II, and Ne II lines. Third, the multiplet check works in LS, j-j, and intermediate coupling schemes by matching the integer term IDs assigned by the database, which lets faint heavy-element recombination lines be checked even when their coupling is not pure LS.

What would settle it

Take a deep echelle spectrum of a planetary nebula whose line list was published by an independent group with no overlap with the authors, run PyEMILI through the standard interface with the same 10 km/s wavelength uncertainty and default model, and compare A rankings with that independent manual list. If the agreement is well below the 91.3% reported for IC 418, the reported improvement is tied to benchmark kinship rather than to the code's general identification ability; if it stays near 90%, the method transfers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the long-standing manual bottleneck in nebular line identification can be automated to near-expert level. PyEMILI reimplements the old EMILI scoring in Python and sharpens each of the three criteria, so that on IC 418 the fraction of lines whose manual identifications receive A ranking rises from 75.3% to 91.3%, and the share of lines with no useful ranking falls from 12.8% to 1.4%. The code re-identifies 28 IC 418 lines differently from the published table and proposes new identifications for 38 previously unidentified lines, most of them A-ranked. On Hf 2-2, 97.8% of the 411 manually identifiable lines match PyEMILI's A rankings, and on the [WC11] star J0608, 91.4% of 281 manually identified lines agree. The authors are explicit that agreement with manual lists is not itself proof of correctness; the model is anchored by strong, well-understood lines and inherits their assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark comparisons presuppose that the published manual identifications used for validation are correct and were made independently of PyEMILI's own scoring logic; for IC 418 and J0608 a co-author of this paper participated in producing those manual tables, so a systematic error shared by both would not be exposed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On IC 418, the fraction of lines whose manual identifications receive A ranking rises from 75.3% (EMILI) to 91.3% (PyEMILI), and the fraction of lines with no useful ranking drops from 12.8% to 1.4%.
  • PyEMILI proposes new identifications for 38 previously unidentified lines in IC 418 and assigns A rankings to most of them, many supported by effective recombination coefficients or multiplet coherence.
  • On Hf 2-2, 97.8% of 411 manually identified lines receive A rankings matching the authors' manual work, including 100% of lines with $I_\lambda/I_{\mathrm{H}\beta} \ge 0.01$.
  • On the [WC11] star J0608, 91.4% of the manually identified lines agree with PyEMILI's A ranking, demonstrating applicability beyond nebulae to Wolf-Rayet stars.
  • The enlarged transition list and recombination-coefficient subset give the code the ability to track faint heavy-element recombination lines central to the abundance discrepancy problem in planetary nebulae.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not go this far, but its ranked output could serve as a clean training set for machine-learning spectral identifiers, because every line carries a grade plus a multiplet-coherence signal rather than a bare yes/no.
  • A testable extension is to run PyEMILI on a sample of planetary nebulae with published line lists produced by groups unrelated to the authors; if the roughly 90% agreement class holds across such samples, the method becomes a practical survey tool.
  • Combining the identifier with the planned MCMC recombination-line fitting would let a user move from raw spectra to electron temperature, density, and ionic abundances without manually assembling a line list, turning line identification into a plasma diagnostic pipeline.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. PyEMILI is a Python rewrite and extension of the EMILI spectral-line identification code. It replaces the AtLL v2.04 atomic database with an expanded AtLL v3.00b4 database supplemented by Kurucz transition probabilities, adds a dataset of effective recombination coefficients for the H i, He i, He ii, C ii, N ii, O ii, and Ne ii nebular lines, refines an energy-bin ionization and velocity model, and provides a spectrum-analysis module for automatic line searching. The authors test the code on the PN IC 418 (comparing PyEMILI rankings against EMILI rankings, with Sharpee et al. 2003 manual IDs as a benchmark), on the PN Hf 2-2, and on the [WC11] star J0608. They report A-ranking agreement rates of 91.3% for IC 418 versus 75.3% for EMILI, 97.8% for Hf 2-2, and 91.4% for J0608.

Significance. If the reported improvements survive an independent validation, PyEMILI would be a valuable community tool: it is open source, runs quickly (about one minute for 1000 lines), and it assembles a curated atomic database plus effective recombination coefficients that should directly help identify faint optical recombination lines in deep spectra. The release on Zenodo/GitHub, the worked examples, and the carefully documented criteria are genuine strengths. However, the headline agreement rates are currently based on partly non-independent benchmarks, so the significance of the central claim is limited until those benchmarks are made clean.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Tables 5 and 6] The headline improvement from 75.3% to 91.3% for IC 418 is measured against a benchmark whose content is changed after running PyEMILI: the authors state that they re-identified 28 emission lines and that PyEMILI identified 38 previously unidentified lines, with Table 6 listing these amendments. If the 696-line comparison in Table 5 includes those 66 amendments, then about 9.5% of the benchmark has been constructed by the code under test, so the comparison with EMILI's 75.3% is not a like-for-like test. Please reproduce Table 5 using the unmodified Sharpee et al. (2003) IDs, and report the amended and newly identified lines separately.
  2. [Sections 3.2.4 and 3.3.3, Table 8] The Hf 2-2 validation compares PyEMILI with manual identifications performed by the present authors from the same spectra immediately before running PyEMILI, and the J0608 benchmark (Williams et al. 2021) has overlapping authorship with this paper. Because PyEMILI optimizes its ionization and velocity parameters from its own Sub-Line List (Section 2.2), the reported 97.8% and 91.4% agreement rates are consistency statistics against correlated references, not independent validation. The caveat in Section 4 that consistency does not imply correctness is appropriate, but it should be applied to the headline claims; an external benchmark, or a blind test with held-out lines, is needed.
  3. [Section 2.4.2, Eq. (9)] The quantity C is described as a branching ratio, but the denominator is not the sum over transitions from the upper level j; it is the sum over all transitions of the ion whose upper level is not higher than j. This is not a branching ratio and can produce very different values, because it includes transitions that are not connected to the level j. Since Eq. (8) is used to compute predicted template fluxes for the large fraction of lines without effective recombination coefficients, errors in C propagate directly into the F score and hence into A/B rankings. The comparison with literature recombination coefficients (factor of 0.2-5) is reassuring at the flux level, but the paper should either correct the denominator or demonstrate that the final rankings are insensitive to this approximation.
  4. [Section 2.4.3 and Table 2] The three extra multiplet-check rules in Section 2.4.3 (the low-flux M=3 reassignment, the W=0/F=0 M=2 reassignment, and the wedge annotation) are ad hoc components of the scoring function whose effect on the final rankings is not tested. Because the agreement rates in Tables 5 and 8 depend on how borderline lines are ranked, please provide the numbers of lines whose A/B ranking changes when these rules are disabled, or otherwise justify their inclusion with a sensitivity test.
  5. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract claims that PyEMILI gives better results than EMILI on two Galactic PNe, but for Hf 2-2 no EMILI rerun is presented; the 97.8% agreement is against the authors' own manual IDs, not against EMILI identifications. Please either provide an EMILI run on the same Hf 2-2 input line list, or restrict the improvement claim to IC 418 where the comparison with EMILI is actually made.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.1, Eq. (2)] The wording describing the 0.01 normalization factor in Eq. (2) is hard to parse; please clarify how the normalization was chosen and how N1 behaves when no Bin 1 lines are present.
  2. [Section 2.4.2 and Table 2] The text discusses an F=4 score for fluxes in the range 10^-5 to 10^-4 Imax and then states that this case is excluded, but Table 2 lists only F=0 through F=3; this explanation is confusing and should be rewritten to match the table.
  3. [Section 2.4.3, extra criterion (2)] The rule that resets M=2 when W=0 and F=0 is described in prose but not encoded in Table 2; Table 2 should be updated to show the effective criteria including these overrides.
  4. [Table 6] The meaning of the ellipsis in column (3) is not defined in the table notes; please state explicitly that it indicates a line that was unidentified in Sharpee et al. (2003).
  5. [Section 2.8] The statement that runtime is within one minute should be qualified with the Numba compilation caching and the machine used, since the first run may take several extra minutes.
  6. [Section 6.1] There is a typo in 'will sbe reported'; this should be corrected to 'will be reported'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The IC 418 headline gain (75.3% to 91.3%) is measured against the fixed Sharpee et al. (2003) list and is not forced by construction, but two load-bearing validations are self-referential: the Hf 2-2 benchmark is the same team's own manual IDs, and Table 6's new identifications are supported by PyEMILI's own ERC-based predicted fluxes.

  1. other [Section 3.2.4 (Hf 2-2: Measurements and Identification of Emission Lines), Tables 7 and 8]
    "We first carried out manual identifications of emission lines by checking each line against the atomic transition database, using the published line tables of Hf 2-2 as references. We then run PyEMILI, using the measured line list of Hf 2-2 as the input. After that, we checked the PyEMILI output for the IDI and ranking of the ID assigned by manual identification for each emission line."

    The 97.8% A-rate reported in Table 8 is presented as a validation of PyEMILI's performance, but the benchmark is a list of manual identifications constructed by the same authors in this same section by checking lines against the same atomic transition database and published line tables (Liu et al. 2006; McNabb et al. 2016, which shares author X. Fang; Garcia-Rojas et al. 2022) that encode the physical logic built into PyEMILI. The comparison therefore measures the code against its own designers' priors rather than an independent reference, making the high agreement a consistency metric rather than an external confirmation.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.1 (IC 418), Table 6 notes column ('ERC')]
    "Among the 110 unidentified emission lines in IC 418, PyEMILI identified 38 which are deemed to be rigorous identifications. ... ERC - The predicted intensity of the new ID is calculated using the effective recombination coefficients collected for our atomic transition database (see Section 2.5), and is more consistent with the observed intensity."

    The claim that PyEMILI discovered new identifications in IC 418 (38 previously unidentified lines plus 28 re-identifications) is supported in Table 6's notes column by the 'ERC' criterion: the predicted intensity of the new ID is computed from the effective recombination coefficient dataset and is more consistent with the observed intensity. That predicted intensity (Eq 14, Section 2.5) is precisely the input to the F-score and hence to the IDI ranking (Eq 1 and Table 2) that generated the A label for the same line.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: PyEMILI's ranking (IDI = W + F + M, Eq 1) is computed from three external criteria - wavelength agreement against laboratory wavelengths, predicted template flux from recombination and collisional-excitation coefficients taken from the published literature (Badnell 2006; Storey & Hummer 1995; Fang et al. 2011, 2013; Storey et al. 2017; independently published calculations), and multiplet membership - none of which is defined in terms of the validation benchmarks or of the claimed results. The energy-bin self-calibration (Eqs 2-7) fits the ionization and velocity parameters to PyEMILI's own Sub-Line List and is fully disclosed as a two-pass scheme; the Sub-Line List lines were already A-ranked with default parameters, so the fit does not by construction create any A-ranking counted in Tables 5, 7, or 8, and the model parameters are internal quantities, not presented as predictions. The IC 418 comparison is genuinely external in content: the Input Line List and the 696 manual IDs come from the fixed 2003 Sharpee et al. table (the Table 5 counts sum to 696), PyEMILI's rankings are checked against those published IDs, and the 28 re-identified lines would count against PyEMILI's A-rate rather than inflate it. The 75.3% to 91.3% improvement is therefore a real measurement with independent content. The genuine weaknesses are: (1) the Hf 2-2 validation benchmark (97.8% A-rate in Table 8) is a list of manual identifications constructed by the same authors in Section 3.2.4 from the same atomic transition database and published line tables used to build PyEMILI, making that test self-referential; (2) the Table 6 claim of 38 newly identified IC 418 lines is justified by ERC-based predicted-flux agreement, i.e., by the same I_pred computation that produced the A-ranking, so the new identifications are not independently confirmed; (3) the IC 418 and J0608 benchmarks (Sharpee et al. 2003; Williams et al. 2021) share co-author R. Williams, weakening but not eliminating their independence since both are pre-existing published lists; and (4) the paper itself concedes in Section 4 that a high level of consistency between PyEMILI's identifications and manual identifications does not necessarily mean a high confidence level of correctness in line identifications. None of these reduces a headline claim to its input by construction, so the finding is partial self-referentiality in the validation, not circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central claims rest on the completeness of the atomic database, the adequacy of the five-bin model, and the correctness of the manual benchmarks, plus a set of hand-picked parameters (default transition probabilities, dilution factors, thresholds, velocity and ionization structure parameters) that are fitted or chosen per object.

free parameters (8)
  • Ionization structure parameters N1-N5 = Object-dependent; initial values 0.01, 0.5, 0.4, 0.1, 0.001
    Refined per object using Eqs 2-7 from the Sub-Line List generated by the code itself; these determine predicted template fluxes used for scoring.
  • Velocity structure parameters per energy bin = Initial 0 km/s; refined to average observed velocity differences per bin
    Derived from the Sub-Line List; used to correct observed wavelengths for each candidate ID.
  • Default transition probabilities for missing Aji = 10^4 s^-1 (permitted), 10 s^-1 (intercombination), 10^-5 s^-1 (forbidden)
    Assigned to transitions without measured probabilities; directly affect predicted template fluxes and the F score.
  • Dilution factor D (Eq 10) = Adjusted per line
    Empirically set to bring predicted CEL fluxes into agreement; not derived from first principles.
  • Collision strength Upsilon = 1
    Adopted typical value for all CELs (Section 2.4.2); affects predicted fluxes.
  • Intercombination dilution factor = 100
    Empirical factor reducing the collisional contribution to semiforbidden lines.
  • Candidate retention threshold = 10^-4 Imax
    Lines with predicted flux below this threshold are discarded as candidates; choice affects the ranking distributions.
  • Wavelength uncertainty sigma = 10 km/s (IC 418, Hf 2-2); 30 km/s (J0608)
    User-assigned; larger sigma admits more candidates and changes the W scores and rankings.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The compiled atomic transition database (AtLL v3.00b4 plus Kurucz and effective recombination coefficients) is complete enough to contain the correct transition for each observed line.
    The code cannot identify a line whose correct transition is missing; the paper notes missing O II lines in Hf 2-2 (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The five-bin energy model (Table 1) with the parameter formulas Eqs 2-7 adequately represents the ionization and velocity structure of the target object.
    Used to calculate predicted template fluxes and velocity corrections; no independent check of model adequacy is provided.
  • domain assumption Permitted lines are formed mainly by recombination and forbidden lines by collisional excitation; intercombination lines are a 1/100 diluted sum of both.
    Stated in Section 2.4.2; supports the choice of predicted template flux formula for each transition type.
  • domain assumption Case B recombination applies to all recombination lines used in the effective recombination coefficient dataset.
    All coefficients in Table 3 are Case B; appropriate for typical PNe and H II regions but not universally.
  • domain assumption The manual identifications used as benchmarks are correct.
    The paper uses them as ground truth in Section 3; it later concedes that no absolute benchmark exists (Section 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PyEMILI: A New Generation Computer-aided Spectral Line Identifier." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7Z7N5JIC

@misc{pith2026250111845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PyEMILI: A New Generation Computer-aided Spectral Line Identifier},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7Z7N5JIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11845}
}
read the original abstract

Deep high-dispersion spectroscopy of Galactic photoionized gaseous nebulae, mainly planetary nebulae and HII regions, has revealed numerous emission lines. As a key step of spectral analysis, identification of emission lines hitherto has mostly been done manually, which is a tedious task, given that each line needs to be carefully checked against huge volumes of atomic transition/spectroscopic database to reach a reliable assignment of identity. Using Python, we have developed a line-identification code PyEMILI, which is a significant improvement over the Fortran-based package EMILI introduced ~20 years ago. In our new code PyEMILI, the major shortcomings in EMILI's line-identification technique have been amended. Moreover, the atomic transition database utilized by PyEMILI was adopted from Atomic Line List v3.00b4 but greatly supplemented with theoretical transition data from the literature. The effective recombination coefficients of the CII, OII, NII and NeII nebular lines are collected from the literature to form a subset of the atomic transition database to aid identification of faint optical recombination lines in the spectra of PNe and HII regions. PyEMILI is tested using the deep, high-dispersion spectra of two Galactic PNe, Hf2-2 and IC418, and gives better results of line identification than EMILI does. We also ran PyEMILI on the optical spectrum of a late-type [WC11] star UVQS J060819.93-715737.4 recently discovered in the Large Magellanic Cloud, and our results agree well with the previous manual identifications. The new identifier PyEMILI is applicable to not only emission-line nebulae but also emission stars, such as Wolf-Rayet stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11845 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow chart of PyEMILI. The three main criteria of PyEMILI’s line identification are summarized separately in the three grey boxes in the bottom-right corner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Optical spectrum of an LMC [WC]-type star J0608. The red curve is the result of automatic continuum fitting by a function in the module spec of PyEMILI. During the continuum fitting, the length of the moving window is set to be 50 ˚A, while the percentile parameter is set to be 30%. Middle and Bottom: Examples showing automatic line searching in the spectrum (a) of J0608 by the PyEMILI module spec. The S/N rati… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335, 27, doi: 10.1002/asna.201312003

    Aoki, W. 2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335, 27, doi: 10.1002/asna.201312003

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201312003 2014

  2. [2]

    R., et al

    Argyriou, I., Glasse, A., Law, D. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346489

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346489 2023

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Badnell, N. R. 2006, ApJS, 167, 334, doi: 10.1086/508465

    doi:10.1086/508465 2006

  5. [5]

    R., O’Mullane, M

    Badnell, N. R., O’Mullane, M. G., Summers, H. P., et al. 2003, A&A, 406, 1151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030816

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030816 2003

  6. [6]

    A., Verner, E

    Baldwin, J. A., Verner, E. M., Verner, D. A., et al. 2000, ApJS, 129, 229, doi: 10.1086/313416

    doi:10.1086/313416 2000

  7. [7]

    A., Skillman, E

    Benjamin, R. A., Skillman, E. D., & Smits, D. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 307, doi: 10.1086/306923 B¨ oker, T., Beck, T. L., Birkmann, S. M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb846

    doi:10.1086/306923 1999

  8. [8]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615

    arXiv 2007

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    A., De Marco, O., & Barlow, M

    Crowther, P. A., De Marco, O., & Barlow, M. J. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 367, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01360.x

    1998

  2. [10]

    R., Storey, P

    Davey, A. R., Storey, P. J., & Kisielius, R. 2000, A&AS, 142, 85, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000139 De Marco, O., Akashi, M., Akras, S., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1421, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01845-2 Del Zanna, G., Dere, K. P., Young, P. R., Landi, E., &

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    Mason, H. E. 2015, A&A, 582, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526827 Del Zanna, G., & Storey, P. J. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac800

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Del Zanna, G., Young, P

    Dere, K. P., Del Zanna, G., Young, P. R., & Landi, E. 2023, ApJS, 268, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acec79

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Escalante, V., & Victor, G. A. 1990, ApJS, 73, 513, doi: 10.1086/191479 —. 1992, Planet. Space Sci., 40, 1705, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(92)90127-A

    1990 doi

  6. [14]

    Fang, X., & Liu, X. W. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18681.x

    2011

  7. [15]

    Fang, X., & Liu, X.-W. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts414 32 T able 9.Line List of Hf 2-2 λobs Fλ/FHβ Iλ/IHβ Error IDI ID λlab Transition Electron Configurations gl gu (˚A) (%) ( ˚A) (Lower-Upper) (Lower-Upper) 3132.84 2.10E-02 3.47E-02 2.45 1A O iii 3132.79 3S–...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Liu, X

    Fang, X., Storey, P. J., & Liu, X. W. 2011, A&A, 530, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116511 —. 2013, New effective recombination coefficients for nebular N II lines (Corrigendum), Astronomy &

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    Astrophysics, Volume 550, id.C2, 2 pp., doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116511e

    doi

  10. [18]

    Ferland, G. J. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094836 Garc ´ ıa-Rojas, J., Delgado-Inglada, G., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2519 Garc ´ ıa-Rojas, J., Morisset, C., Jones, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, ...

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A., Fang, X., Miller Bertolami, M

    Guerrero, M. A., Fang, X., Miller Bertolami, M. M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 784–789, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0551-8 G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, V. M. A., Toal´ a, J. A., Guerrero, M. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 959–973, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1542 G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, V. M. ...

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Hanuschik, R. W. 2003, A&A, 407, 1157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030885

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    2005 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bodman, E. H. L. 2016, AJ, 152, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/34

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Truran, J

    Iben, I., J., Kaler, J. B., Truran, J. W., & Renzini, A. 1983, ApJ, 264, 605, doi: 10.1086/160631

    1983 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Kisielius, R., & Storey, P. J. 1999, A&AS, 137, 157, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999242 —. 2002, A&A, 387, 1135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020263

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Davey, A

    Kisielius, R., Storey, P. J., Davey, A. R., & Neale, L. T. 1998, A&AS, 133, 257, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998319

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 515, Workshop on Astrophysical Opacities, 47

    2018

  22. [30]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, LL VM ’15 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), doi: 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  23. [31]

    2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1001.3715, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1001.3715

    Liu, X. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1001.3715, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1001.3715

    2010 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Storey, P. J. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1959, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10283.x

    2006

  25. [33]

    1993, MNRAS, 261, 465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/261.3.465

    Liu, X.-W., & Danziger, J. 1993, MNRAS, 261, 465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/261.3.465

    1993 doi

  26. [34]

    1993, MNRAS, 262, 699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.699

    Liu, X.-W., Danziger, J., & Murdin, P. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.699

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Storey, P

    Liu, X. W., Storey, P. J., Barlow, M. J., & Clegg, R. E. S. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.2.369

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Storey, P

    Liu, X. W., Storey, P. J., Barlow, M. J., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 585, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03167.x

    2000

  29. [37]

    1998, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Lutz, J., Alves, D., Becker, A., et al. 1998, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 192, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #192, 53.09

    1998

  30. [38]

    2020a, ApJ, 888, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e78

    Margon, B., Manea, C., Williams, R., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 888, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e78

    doi

  31. [39]

    F., & Morrell, N

    Margon, B., Massey, P., Neugent, K. F., & Morrell, N. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9abe

    doi

  32. [40]

    A., Fang, X., & Liu, X

    McNabb, I. A., Fang, X., & Liu, X. W. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2818, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1405

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Storey, P. J. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts283 Miller Bertolami, M. M., Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., &

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    Panei, J. A. 2006, A&A, 449, 313–326, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053804

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    Nussbaumer, H., & Storey, P. J. 1983, A&A, 126, 75 —. 1984, A&AS, 56, 293 —. 1986, A&AS, 64, 545

    1983

  36. [44]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 825, doi: 10.1086/149385

    Peimbert, M. 1967, ApJ, 150, 825, doi: 10.1086/149385

    1967 doi

  38. [46]

    1991, A&A, 251, 680 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gieren, W., et al

    Pequignot, D., Petitjean, P., & Boisson, C. 1991, A&A, 251, 680 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gieren, W., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 76–79, doi: 10.1038/nature11878

    1991 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Ferland, G

    Porter, R. L., Ferland, G. J., Storey, P. J., & Detisch, M. J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, L28, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01300.x Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J. S., Toal´ a, J. A., Cazzoli, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2531

    2012

  40. [48]

    G., Arrieta, A., Arias, L., et al

    Richer, M. G., Arrieta, A., Arias, L., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9732

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Rubin, R. H. 1989, ApJS, 69, 897, doi: 10.1086/191330

    1989 doi

  42. [50]

    A., & Williams, R

    Sharpee, B., Baldwin, J. A., & Williams, R. 2004, ApJ, 615, 323, doi: 10.1086/424035

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    A., & van Hoof, P

    Sharpee, B., Williams, R., Baldwin, J. A., & van Hoof, P. A. M. 2003, ApJS, 149, 157, doi: 10.1086/378321

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    Sochi, T., & Storey, P. J. 2013, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 99, 633, doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2012.10.002

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  46. [54]

    Storey, P. J. 1981, MNRAS, 195, 27P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/195.1.27P —. 1994, A&A, 282, 999

    1981 doi

  47. [55]

    J., & Hummer, D

    Storey, P. J., & Hummer, D. G. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41 34

    1995 doi

  48. [56]

    J., & Sochi, T

    Storey, P. J., & Sochi, T. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2581–2587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu477

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Sochi, T., & Bastin, R

    Storey, P. J., Sochi, T., & Bastin, R. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1189

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2022, Journal of Applied Physics, 132, 183302, doi: 10.1063/5.0107578 van Hoof, P

    Tobin, M., Nations, M., & the TAE Team. 2022, Journal of Applied Physics, 132, 183302, doi: 10.1063/5.0107578 van Hoof, P. A. M. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 63, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6020063

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    2011, A&A, 536, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    S., Allen, S

    Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362, doi: 10.1117/12.176725

    1994 doi

  54. [62]

    2006, PASP, 118, 183, doi: 10.1086/500443

    Werner, K., & Herwig, F. 2006, PASP, 118, 183, doi: 10.1086/500443

    2006 doi

  55. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2946

    Wesson, R. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2946

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    Corradi, R. L. M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4589–4613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1871

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    A., et al

    Wesson, R., Matsuura, M., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3670

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc754

    Williams, R., Manea, C., Margon, B., & Morrell, N. 2021, ApJ, 906, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc754

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Rieke, G

    Wright, G. S., Rieke, G. H., Glasse, A., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acbe66

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    W., Korista, K

    Zatsarinny, O., Gorczyca, T. W., Korista, K. T., Badnell, N. R., & Savin, D. W. 2003, A&A, 412, 587, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031462

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.