Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Abundance Measurements of the Metal-poor M subdwarf LHS 174 Using High-resolution Optical Spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The metal-poor M subdwarf LHS 174 has five measured abundances, including first-time calcium and vanadium.

desk verdict A careful, honest single-star abundance study that adds the first Ca and V for LHS 174, but the absolute scale rests on adopted external parameters and the 'better match' claim is visual, so treat it as pilot-strength evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20255 v2 pith:MAQWRHKO submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Neda Hejazi , Sebastien Lepine , Thomas Nordlander , Wei-Chun Jao , David R. Coria , Kathryn V. Lester This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords MsubdwarfselementalabundancesspectralsynthesisAutoSpecFitmetal-poorstarsLHS174high-resolutionspectroscopyTiObands
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 reports the most complete set of chemical abundances yet measured for the nearby metal-poor M subdwarf LHS 174, using a high-resolution optical spectrum and the authors' spectral-fitting pipeline. It obtains [O/H] = −0.519 ± 0.081, [Ca/H] = −0.753 ± 0.177, [Ti/H] = −0.711 ± 0.144, [V/H] = −1.026 ± 0.077, and [Fe/H] = −1.170 ± 0.135, with calcium and vanadium reported for the first time. The paper argues that the synthetic spectrum built from these abundances matches the observed spectrum better than a model using previously published oxygen, titanium, and iron values, and that this supports the reliability of the pipeline when applied to optical wavelengths. A sympathetic reader would care because metal-poor M subdwarfs retain the chemistry of the early Galaxy, and precise abundances in more of these stars would sharpen the picture of early nucleosynthesis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is AutoSpecFit, a spectral-fitting pipeline that performs line-by-line χ2 minimization against synthetic spectra generated on the fly with the Turbospectrum radiative-transfer code and MARCS model atmospheres. In each iteration, the observed spectrum is normalized relative to each candidate synthetic spectrum using manually selected pseudo-continuum intervals, which is essential in M-dwarf spectra where molecular bands obscure the true continuum. The code then takes the weighted average abundance from all lines of an element and regenerates the models with updated abundances, continuing until all five elements converge simultaneously so that correlated abundances (notably O and Ti in the TiO bands) are handled together. The underlying atomic and molecular data include the ExoMol TOTO TiO line list, VALD3 atomic lines supplemented with Linemake data, and hyperfine-split vanadium lines.

What would settle it

Re-derive Teff, log g, [M/H], and ξ self-consistently from the same high-resolution spectrum, for example by requiring Fe I excitation balance, Ca I/Ca II ionization balance, and no abundance trend with equivalent width, then rerun the abundance fit; if the resulting [X/H] values move by more than the reported total uncertainties (~0.08–0.18 dex), the central claim is not robust. Alternatively, a higher-SNR spectrum of LHS 174 that resolves the TiO pseudo-continuum cleaner would test whether the claimed better fit of the new model persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LHS 174 is a halo M subdwarf with five precisely measured element abundances, and that the abundance pattern is α-enhanced: oxygen, calcium, and titanium are markedly above iron. The oxygen abundance is measured from a small region of the γ R2 0-0 TiO band using two composite features containing hundreds of TiO lines, while the other four elements are measured from 26 atomic lines. Because titanium and oxygen control the same TiO features, the analysis fits all element abundances simultaneously and iteratively rather than separately. The paper further shows that the best-fit synthetic model reproduces the observed spectrum more closely than a model constructed with the previously published O, Ti, and Fe abundances from Schmidt et al. (2009) and Woolf & Wallerstein (2005).

Load-bearing premise

The derived abundances assume that the star's temperature (3790 K), metallicity ([M/H] = −0.95), surface gravity (log g = 4.78), and microturbulence (1.0 km/s) are correct as taken from earlier work, with α-enhancement set by a prescription rather than measured from this spectrum; if any of these is biased, every abundance shifts by the tabulated systematic errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LHS 174 joins the small set of metal-poor M subdwarfs with abundances measured from high-resolution spectra, and it is the first of these with Ca and V abundances.
  • Because the star is α-enhanced with [O/Fe] ≈ +0.65, [Ca/Fe] ≈ +0.42, and [Ti/Fe] ≈ +0.46, its pattern matches expectations for an old halo population and can serve as a benchmark for that population.
  • The better fit of the new model over the previous-abundance model indicates that equivalent-width abundance measurements in M dwarfs can be biased by the unrecognized pseudo-continuum, and that full spectral synthesis is the safer route for these stars.
  • The success on optical data extends the AutoSpecFit pipeline beyond the near-infrared, giving a path to measure several elements in larger samples of M subdwarfs from existing archives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the abundance pattern holds up, LHS 174 could become a calibration anchor for low-resolution metallicity classifications, since its CaH- and TiO-based subdwarf class (esdM1.0) can now be tied to quantitative [Fe/H] and [α/Fe] values.
  • The Ca I and Ca II lines' strong sensitivity to Teff and log g, which the paper notes, suggests a testable extension: use these same lines to fix the physical parameters from the spectrum itself, which should reduce the dominant systematic error.
  • A broader implication is that the listed [X/H] values may shift by up to ~0.18 dex if the adopted physical parameters are biased, so the numerical values should be read as tied to the WW05 parameter scale rather than as model-independent.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a detailed abundance analysis of the metal-poor M subdwarf LHS 174 using a high-resolution (R~33000) optical spectrum from ARCES/APO and the authors' AutoSpecFit spectral synthesis pipeline. Using Turbospectrum with MARCS model atmospheres, the VALD3/Linemake atomic line lists, and the ExoMol TOTO TiO line list, the authors derive [O/H]=-0.519±0.081, [Ca/H]=-0.753±0.177, [Ti/H]=-0.711±0.144, [V/H]=-1.026±0.077, and [Fe/H]=-1.170±0.135. Ca and V are measured for the first time for this star. The authors compare their O, Ti, and Fe abundances with earlier values from WW05 and Sch09 and claim, on the basis of visual comparison (Figures 7-9), that their synthetic model matches the observed spectrum better than a model using the earlier abundances. The physical parameters (Teff=3790 K, [M/H]=-0.95, log g=4.78, xi=1.00 km/s) are adopted from Woolf & Wallerstein (2005), with uncertainties modified using photometric relations. The paper is framed as a pilot demonstration that AutoSpecFit can be applied to optical M-dwarf spectra.

Significance. If the central results are correct, the paper provides the most complete abundance set for LHS 174, extends AutoSpecFit from the NIR to the optical regime, and adds two new elements (Ca, V) to the star's known chemistry. The analysis uses standard, well-tested tools (Turbospectrum, MARCS, ExoMol TOTO, VALD3/Linemake) and presents a transparent error budget that separates systematic and random contributions. The simultaneous iterative fitting of abundances is methodologically sensible for blended M-dwarf spectra. However, the significance is limited by the single-star pilot nature of the study, the adoption (rather than re-derivation) of the physical parameters, and the qualitative nature of the central model-comparison claim. The paper is honest about its limitations, especially in Section 8, and the future direction it proposes (parameter-independent spectral regions) is well motivated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1, Table 3] The central abundance values rest on physical parameters adopted from WW05 rather than re-derived from the same spectrum. The paper notes in Section 3 that Kesseli et al. (2019) report [M/H]=-0.63±0.30, which is 0.32 dex higher than the adopted -0.95. The systematic-error analysis in Section 6.2 (Eq. 7 and Table 3) propagates only the adopted parameter uncertainties (e.g., ±0.14 dex for [M/H]). Using the tabulated sensitivity, a +0.32 dex shift in [M/H] changes [Fe/H] by about (0.086/0.14)×0.32 ≈ 0.20 dex, which exceeds the quoted total uncertainty of 0.135 dex; comparable shifts affect [O/H], [Ca/H], and [Ti/H]. Because AutoSpecFit keeps the parameters fixed, a good internal fit does not validate the parameter choice. The authors should either re-derive the physical parameters from the same spectrum or incorporate the full literature spread into the quoted uncertainties.
  2. [Section 7, Figures 7-9] The abstract and Section 7 claim that the observed data is "clearly better matched" with the authors' abundances than with ModelWW05+Sch09. This claim is based entirely on visual inspection. No quantitative metric (e.g., chi-square difference, RMS residual, or reduced chi-square over the displayed windows) is provided. Moreover, in each panel the observed spectrum is normalized to the corresponding synthetic model separately, which can absorb overall flux-level differences between the two models. A quantitative comparison using identical normalization for both models is needed to support the central claim in the abstract.
  3. [Section 6.2, Table 3] The random error for O and V is listed as "..." with the statement that "random error does not apply to these elements." With N=2 lines, the standard error of the mean (std/sqrt(N)) is computable and the line-to-line scatter is a real source of uncertainty; omitting it underestimates sigma_tot for O and V. Further, the two O measurements are not independent atomic lines but two windows within the same TiO band, so the effective number of independent constraints is unclear. The authors should report the line-to-line scatter or justify explicitly why it is negligible.
  4. [Section 7.1, Table 3] The oxygen abundance is measured from TiO bands and therefore depends on the titanium abundance, as acknowledged in Section 7.1. The iterative AutoSpecFit procedure handles this for the central values, but the error budget does not propagate the covariance between [O/H] and [Ti/H]. A change in [Ti/H] by its quoted uncertainty (0.144 dex) will change the TiO band strength and hence the inferred [O/H]; this contribution should be reflected in sigma_sys for O (e.g., by varying the Ti abundance during the TiO synthesis). Without this, the quoted [O/H] uncertainty is incomplete.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 8] The summary states "We identified 26 atomic lines" for Ca, Ti, V, and Fe, which is consistent with Table 3 (10+7+2+7=26), but the two TiO-band O measurements are also counted as lines in the table; the text could clarify the distinction between atomic lines and molecular-band windows.
  2. [Section 5] The red spectrum in Figure 1 is described as "the star's best-fit model (hereafter, ModelApprox)", but Figure 1 is generated with ABUND(X)=0 for all elements, i.e., a default-abundance model, not a best-fit model. Please rename or clarify this label.
  3. [Section 6.2, Section 7.2, Section 7.5] The phrase "Tables 3 and 3" appears in Section 6.2 (and similarly in Sections 7.2 and 7.5); it should read "Table 3".
  4. [Section 8] Typo: "Higer-SNR spectra" should be "Higher-SNR spectra".
  5. [Table 2] The comment "Our source VLAD atomic line list" appears to contain a typo; the database is VALD (Vienna Atomic Line Database), not VLAD.
  6. [Section 3, Table 1] The photometric [M/H] from Duque-Arribas et al. (2023) is used only to assign an uncertainty, while the photometric Teff and log g are used to modify the central values. The rationale for treating [M/H] differently (keeping WW05's central value) could be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: derived abundances are fit outputs anchored to externally adopted parameters and previous measurements.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Physical parameters (Teff=3790 K, [M/H]=-0.95, log g=4.78, xi=1.00 km/s) are adopted from Woolf & Wallerstein (2005) and re-checked via independent photometric relations (Mann et al. 2015; Mann et al. 2019; Duque-Arribas et al. 2023), and the alpha enhancement follows the external Gustafsson et al. (2008) prescription. The abundances in Table 3 are outputs of AutoSpecFit chi2 minimizations over 28 lines, with O constrained by TiO bands while Ti is independently constrained by Ti I lines, so the O-Ti coupling is not circular. The paper's comparison showing the best-fit model matches the observed spectrum better than a model with WW05/Sch09 abundances (Figures 7-9) is an in-sample fit-quality display rather than an out-of-sample prediction; the paper does not rely on that comparison alone, since it also reports consistency with WW05 and Sch09 within uncertainties. The paper itself flags the main limitation: 'The accuracy of our inferred abundances is largely determined by the accuracy of the input physical parameters,' which is a correctness caveat, not a circular step. Self-citations to AutoSpecFit (H24) and prior classifications are frequent but not load-bearing: the cited code is applied to a new optical spectrum, and the physical parameters come from external studies. No equation reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

The reported abundances are conditional on five adopted input parameters (Teff, [M/H], log g, xi, and [alpha/Fe]) that are taken from prior literature or prescriptions rather than fitted to this star's spectrum, and on the adequacy of 1D LTE MARCS models and the TiO line list. These are standard inputs for M-dwarf abundance work, but biases in any of them propagate directly into the central values. No new physical entities are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Effective temperature Teff (adopted 3790 K)
    Adopted from WW05 with an assumed uncertainty of 65 K from the photometric relation of Mann et al. (2015). Not fitted in this paper; enters the synthetic spectra and the systematic error budget.
  • Overall metallicity [M/H] (adopted -0.95 dex)
    Adopted from WW05 with an assumed uncertainty of 0.14 dex from Duque-Arribas et al. (2023). Sets the zero point of all [X/H] values through Eqs. 1-4.
  • Surface gravity log g (adopted 4.78)
    Adopted from WW05 with an assumed uncertainty of 0.12 dex derived from photometric relations (Mann et al. 2015, 2019). Affects pressure broadening and the inferred abundances.
  • Microturbulence xi (adopted 1.00 km/s)
    Adopted from WW05 with an assumed uncertainty of 0.10 km/s. Affects line saturation and the derived abundances.
  • Alpha enhancement [alpha/Fe] (adopted +0.38)
    Set by the Gustafsson et al. (2008) scaling rule for [M/H]=-0.95; applied to O, Ca, and Ti in Eq. 4. If the actual alpha enhancement differs, these abundances shift.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 1D LTE plane-parallel model atmospheres (MARCS) and the Turbospectrum radiative transfer code adequately model the photosphere of LHS 174.
    Invoked in Section 4; deviations from LTE are mentioned as a possible source of line-profile discrepancies (Section 5).
  • domain assumption The physical parameters adopted from WW05 (Teff, [M/H], log g, xi) are correct within the stated uncertainties.
    Section 3 and Table 1; the paper does not re-derive these parameters from its own spectrum, and the summary states that abundance accuracy is largely determined by the input parameters.
  • domain assumption The ExoMol TOTO TiO line list with the a>10^-6 cutoff at T=3500 K accurately represents the TiO opacity in the 7080 A windows used for the oxygen abundance.
    Section 4 and Table 2; the O measurement relies on hundreds of TiO lines per window, and errors in line positions or intensities would bias [O/H].
  • domain assumption The solar abundance scale of Asplund et al. (2021) provides the zero point for the [X/H] ratios.
    Section 4; using a different solar reference would shift all reported [X/H] values by a constant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Abundance Measurements of the Metal-poor M subdwarf LHS 174 Using High-resolution Optical Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAQWRHKO

@misc{pith2026250420255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Abundance Measurements of the Metal-poor M subdwarf LHS 174 Using High-resolution Optical Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAQWRHKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20255}
}
abstract

Metal-poor M subdwarfs are among the oldest stellar populations and carry valuable information about the chemical enrichment history of the Milky Way. The measurements of chemical abundances of these stars therefore provide essential insights into the nucleosynthesis in the early stages of the Galaxy's formation. We present the detailed spectroscopic analysis of a nearby metal-poor M subdwarf, LHS 174 from its high-resolution optical spectrum, and apply our previously developed spectral fitting code, \texttt{AutoSpecFit}, to measure the abundances of five elements:[O/H]=$-$0.519$\pm$0.081, [Ca/H]=$-$0.753$\pm$0.177, [Ti/H]=$-$0.711$\pm$0.144, [V/H]=$-$1.026$\pm$0.077, and [Fe/H]=$-$1.170$\pm$0.135. We compare the abundances of O, Ti, and Fe derived from this work and those from previous studies and demonstrate the observed data is clearly better matched with the synthetic model generated based on our abundances than those from the other analyses. The accuracy of inferred stellar abundances strongly depends on the accuracy of physical parameters, which motivates us to develop a reliable technique to determine the parameters of low-mass M dwarfs more accurately ever than before and infer abundances with smaller uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20255 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Synthetic models associated with the star’s parameters and default abundances calculated from Equations 1 or 3 assuming ABUND(X)=0 for all elements X when including: only MgH molecular lines (magenta); only CaH molecular lines (green); only TiO molecular lines (blue); only atomic lines (black); and all atomic and molecular lines (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the observed spectrum (red dots) and the best-fit model (blue lines) for the analyzed Ca I and Ti I lines of LHS 174. The observed flux is normalized to the best-fit model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The continuation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The continuation of Figures 2 and 3 for the analyzed V I lines. The line data used in the spectral synthesis includes the HFS splitting lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The continuum-normalized synthetic spectra as￾sociated with the star’s parameters but with different oxy￾gen abundances while assuming ABUND(X)=0 for other el￾ements X over a small portion of the γ R2 0-0 TiO band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A small portion of the γ R2 0-0 TiO band used in measuring the oxygen abundance. Top: Comparison be￾tween the normalized observed spectrum (red) and the best￾fit synthetic model inferred from this study (blue). Bot￾tom: Comparison between the normalized observed spec￾t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The continuum-normalized synthetic spectra as￾sociated with the star’s parameters but with different tita￾nium abundances while assuming ABUND(X)=0 for other elements X over a small portion of the γ R2 0-0 TiO band Valenti et al. (1998) first attempted to perform a de￾…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Korotin, S

    Abia, C., Tabernero, H. M., Korotin, S. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A227, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039032

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039032 2020

  2. [2]

    1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710157

    Alvarez, R., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710157

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9710157 1998

  3. [3]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  4. [4]

    L., Sneden, C., Hauschildt, P

    Bean, J. L., Sneden, C., Hauschildt, P. H., Johns-Krull, C. M., & Benedict, G. F. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1604, doi:10.1086/508321

    work page doi:10.1086/508321 2006

  5. [5]

    Milsom, J. A. 2002, ApJ, 577, 986, doi:10.1086/342242

    doi:10.1086/342242 2002

  6. [6]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, The IRSA 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    2020, A&A, 633, A23, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936666

    Lebreton, Y. 2020, A&A, 633, A23, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936666

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936666 2020

  8. [8]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2013, ApJ, 767, 95, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/95 —. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/95 2013

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Duque-Arribas, C., Montes, D., Tabernero, H. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 106, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acacf6 Gaia-DR3, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    s., Lind, K., Amarsi, A

    Gao, X. s., Lind, K., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2666, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2414

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Gizis, J. E. 1997, AJ, 113, 806, doi:10.1086/118302

    1997 doi

  4. [12]

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2007, SSRv, 130, 105, doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9173-7

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

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

    Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., & Baron, E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 377, doi:10.1086/306745

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1175, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13395.x

    Haywood, M. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1175, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13395.x

    2008

  8. [16]

    M., & M., S

    Hejazi, N., Lépine, S., Homeier, D., Rich, R. M., & M., S. M. 2020, AJ, 159, 30, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab563c

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 122, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e16

    Hejazi, N., Lépine, S., & Nordlander, T. 2022, ApJ, 927, 122, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e16

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Coria, D

    Hejazi, N., Xuan, J. W., Coria, D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 42, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad968c

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I. J. M., Nordlander, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 79, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb97

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I. J. M., Souto, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 31, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61dc

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Jao, W.-C

    Henry, T. J., & Jao, W.-C. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 593, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-102740

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Y., Kirkpatrick, J

    Kesseli, A. Y., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Fajardo-Acosta, S. B., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 63, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae982

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2011, Canadian Journal of Physics, 89, 417, doi:10.1139/p10-104

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Cowan, J. J. 2013, ApJS, 205, 11, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/205/2/11

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Sneden, C., Cowan, J

    Lawler, J. E., Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., Ivans, I. I., & Den Hartog, E. A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 51, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/51

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, A&A, 604, A97, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730715

    Lindgren, S., & Heiter, U. 2017, A&A, 604, A97, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730715

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, A&A, 586, A100, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526602 Lépine, S., Rich, R

    Lindgren, S., Heiter, U., & Seifahrt, A. 2016, A&A, 586, A100, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526602 Lépine, S., Rich, R. M., & Shara, M. M. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1235, doi:10.1086/521614

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Montes, D., et al

    Marfil, E., Tabernero, H. M., Montes, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A162, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141980

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H

    McKemmish, L. K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2836, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1818

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    1984, ApJ, 282, 206, doi:10.1086/162193

    Michaud, G., Fontaine, G., & Beaudet, G. 1984, ApJ, 282, 206, doi:10.1086/162193

    1984 doi

  25. [33]

    s., Bossini, D., & Campilho, B

    Moedas, N., Deal, M. s., Bossini, D., & Campilho, B. 2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Nordlander, T., Gruyters, P., Richard, O., & Korn, A. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12120, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3973

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, A&A, 649, A103, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039747

    Olander, T., Heiter, U., & Kochukhov, O. 2021, A&A, 649, A103, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039747

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2017, 518, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1710.10854

    Pakhomov, Y., Piskunov, N., & Ryabchikova, T. 2017, 518, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1710.10854

    2017 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    V., Ryabchikova, T

    Pakhomov, Y. V., Ryabchikova, T. A., & Piskunov, N. E. 2019, 63, 1010, doi:10.1134/S1063772919120047

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, A&A, 642, A77, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037863

    Tennyson, J. 2020, A&A, 642, A77, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037863

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2021, 5, 92, doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abf651

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    2012

  33. [41]

    S., Reylé, C., Allard, F., et al

    Rajpurohit, A. S., Reylé, C., Allard, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A90, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322881 18

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    N., & Hawley, S

    Reid, I. N., & Hawley, S. L. 2000, Springer, London (UK), Published in association with Praxis Publishing, Chichester

    2000

  35. [43]

    L., et al

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, PhyS, 90, 054005, doi:10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Wallerstein, G., Woolf, V

    Schmidt, S. J., Wallerstein, G., Woolf, V. M., & Bean, J. L. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 121, 1083, doi:10.1086/644605 Schönrich, R., & Binney, J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 203, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14750.x

    2009

  37. [45]

    2021, A&A, 654, A118, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141530

    Shan, Y., Reiners, A., Fabbian, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A118, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141530

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    F., Stancil, P

    Skory, S., Weck, P. F., Stancil, P. C., & Kirby, K. 2003, ApJS, 148, 599, doi:10.1086/376834

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    A., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., García-Hernández, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 239, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/239

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    V., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 133, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d07 —. 2022, ApJ, 927, 123, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4891

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Shan, Y., Caballero, J

    Tabernero, H. M., Shan, Y., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A223, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450054

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Piskunov, N., & Johns-Krull, C

    Valenti, J. A., Piskunov, N., & Johns-Krull, C. M. 1998, ApJ, 498, 851, doi:10.1086/305587

    1998 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Lépine, S., & Wallerstein, G

    Woolf, V. M., Lépine, S., & Wallerstein, G. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 121, 117, doi:10.1086/597433

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Wallerstein, G

    Woolf, V. M., & Wallerstein, G. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 963, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08515.x —. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 218, doi:10.1086/498459 —. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2718, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa878

    2005

  45. [53]

    2015, AJ, 150, 42, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/42

    Zhong, J., Lépine, S., Hou, J., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 42, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/42

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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