pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06348 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Emulator (DSEE) 1: Generative Stellar Evolution Model Database

Jiaqi (Martin) Ying , Brian Chaboyer , Phillip A. Cargile , Wenxin Du , George Dufresne
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM
keywords stellar evolutiongenerative modelsemulatorsisochronesevolutionary tracksflow-based modelsuncertainty quantificationstellar astrophysics
0
0 comments X

The pith

A flow-based emulator trained on eight million stellar tracks unifies construction of evolutionary tracks and isochrones as outputs of one generative model.

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

The Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Emulator learns phase-conditioned snapshots of stellar states from a database of more than eight million evolutionary tracks that span twenty dimensions of input physics. Track and isochrone generation are treated as different marginal distributions drawn from this single model rather than as separate computations. The resulting emulator supports continuous variation of all input parameters, supplies probabilistic predictions together with calibrated credible intervals, and runs orders of magnitude faster than direct stellar evolution codes. These capabilities are packaged in an open-source tool that produces uncertainty-aware ages for star clusters while incorporating observational selection effects. The approach replaces fixed grids of precomputed models with a generative, physics-marginalized representation suitable for survey-scale work.

Core claim

DSEE learns phase-conditioned stellar state snapshots from over eight million evolutionary tracks spanning twenty input-physics dimensions. Track and isochrone construction are unified as marginals of this single generative model, which supports continuous interpolation across high-dimensional physics, delivers probabilistic predictions with calibrated credible intervals, and provides orders-of-magnitude speedups over direct modeling.

What carries the argument

Phase-conditioned flow-based generative model that learns stellar state snapshots directly from the training database.

If this is right

  • Continuous interpolation across all twenty input-physics dimensions is possible without recomputing new tracks.
  • Probabilistic outputs include calibrated credible intervals for every predicted stellar property.
  • Generation of tracks and isochrones occurs orders of magnitude faster than with conventional codes.
  • Uncertainty-aware age determinations for clusters can incorporate observational effects in an end-to-end pipeline.
  • Fixed-physics grids are replaced by a single generative emulator that marginalizes over input physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Large-scale population synthesis studies could propagate full stellar-model uncertainties into galaxy or cluster observables without prohibitive cost.
  • The generative formulation might support direct Bayesian inference of which input physics parameters best match a given set of observations.
  • Extension of the same architecture to additional physics such as rotation or diffusion could proceed by simply augmenting the training database.
  • Survey pipelines that currently rely on discrete isochrone grids might shift to sampling from the continuous emulator for each star.
  • keywords

Load-bearing premise

The database of over eight million tracks sufficiently samples the twenty-dimensional input-physics space and the flow-based model accurately captures the true joint distributions without introducing biases.

What would settle it

Comparison of emulator-generated distributions against new full stellar evolution calculations for input-physics combinations absent from the training set, checking whether the two sets of Monte Carlo samples agree within the reported credible intervals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06348 by Brian Chaboyer, George Dufresne, Jiaqi (Martin) Ying, Phillip A. Cargile, Wenxin Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Plot of change in luminosity at the tip of red-giant branch (TRGB) and the Helium core mass against initial metallicity with M = 0.8 M⊙ with minimal luminosity of the star required for the Helium flash to happen as a function of mass. Bottom: Plot of change in luminosity at the tip of red-giant branch (TRGB) and the Helium core mass against initial mass with [[Fe/H] = −1.6 with minimal luminosity of t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ratio of the new triple-α reaction rate (Suno et al. 2016) to the NACRE rate (Angulo et al. 1999) as a function of temperature. During the evolution of a star, as the temperature of the hydrogen-burning shell increases and the degenerate core builds in mass, the temperature eventually reaches approximately 108K. This will trigger the helium fusion via the triple-α reaction (Collins 1989). The triple-α reac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Helium flash of both updated and old triple-α reaction rate with mass = 0.7M⊙ and [Fe/H] = −1.6. The minimal luminosity of the star required for the Helium flash is calculated for both old and updated triple-α reaction rates for models with mass from 0.8M⊙ to 1M⊙ and [Fe/H] from −2.0 to −1.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Plot of luminosity against initial mass with [Fe/H] = −1.6 with minimal luminosity of the star required for the Helium flash to happen as a function of mass. Bottom: Plot of luminosity against initial metallicity with mass = 0.8M⊙ with minimal luminosity of the star required for the Helium flash to happen as a function of metallicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of luminosity as a function of time after the ignition of helium fusion for a M = 3 M⊙ model. Four combinations were chosen: “Original” DSEP (blue), updated triple-α reaction rate (red dotted, LHS16), updated 12C(α, γ) 16O reaction rate (yellow dotted, LdeBoer17), and both updated triple-α reaction rate and updated 12C(α, γ) 16O reaction rate (green). Bottom: Zoomed in version of the star’s luminosit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plot showing the distribution of mass, [Fe/H], and [α/Fe] for stellar evolution models used to train the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Emulator. We choose to follow the mass distribution used to construct isochrones in previous studies (Dotter et al. 2008; Ying et al. 2023, 2024, 2025). Thesse studies have shown success in capturing the essential morphological changes for isochrone construction using … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparing the samples generated using the Sobol sequence(left) and the traditional Monte Carlo approach(right) for a uniform distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparing the samples generated using the Sobol sequence(left) and the traditional Monte Carlo approach(right) for a normal distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot showing the 5-dimensional stellar evolution model output in the DSEE training set. To construct the high-dimensional input parameter space necessary for training our machine learning model, we employed a Sobol sequence (Sobol’ 1967), a type of quasi-random, low-discrepancy sampling technique. The primary motivation for adopting Sobol sequences is their ability to provide a more uniform and even… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparing the distribution of evolutionary snapshots in the database with over 60 million stars within 5, 000 ly from the Sun on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in Gaia DR3 absolute magnitude. The color indicates the number density of Gaia DR3 sources on the HR diagram and the contour represents the number density level of evolutionary snapshots in the database [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparing a simulated color-magnitude diagram (in red) with the observed color-magnitude diagram for 47Tuc (in blue). This particular simulated CMD was chosen at random from our database for a particular set of physics inputs and is not a good fit to the data. Our database contains a wide range of physics input parameters, and, as discussed in Ying et al. (2025) it is possible to find a range of parameter… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparing 185 stellar models evolved using DSEP with stellar models emulated using DSEE. Each red dot represents an evolutionary snapshot from the DSEP models, and each blue dot represents an evolutionary snapshot generated by DSEE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparing the solar model from the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Database (DSED) with the solar model generated by the DSEE emulator using the same set of parameters. Left: the blue solid line is the evolutionary track of the DSED solar model and the red dashed line is the track generated by DSEE. The dashed gray rectangle marks the RGB bump region. Right: zoomed view of the RGB bump region. Blue circles co… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparing the 1, 000 13 Gyr Monte-Carlo isochrones generated in the M92 study (Ying et al. 2023) with 1, 000 emulated isochrones from DSEE. Left: Emulated isochrones, each consisting of 3, 000 evolutionary snapshots with different masses (in blue), are plotted over the 1, 000 13 Gyr Monte-Carlo isochrones (in red). Right: Corresponding median effective temperatures at given luminosities, with shaded regio… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Illusitration of the workflow using CONF1DENCE to inference stellar evolution parameters for globular clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Emulator (DSEE), a flow-based stellar evolution model emulator trained on a comprehensive database comprising over eight million evolutionary tracks that vary across twenty input-physics dimensions and span broad ranges in mass and composition. DSEE learns phase-conditioned stellar state snapshots, unifying track and isochrone construction as marginals of one generative model. It delivers continuous interpolation across high-dimensional physics, probabilistic predictions with calibrated credible intervals, and orders-of-magnitude speedups over direct modeling. Validation against current stellar evolution models shows high fidelity across the HR diagrams, while distributional tests recover the full distributions obtained from brute-force Monte Carlo sampling. To broaden impact, DSEE is integrated into the open-source CONF1DENCE package, enabling fast, end-to-end creation of stellar tracks and isochrones. CONF1DENCE includes the ability to make uncertainty-aware age determinations for clusters taking into account observational effects. CONF1DENCE replaces bespoke, fixed-physics grids with a generative, physics-marginalized emulator, setting a practical new standard for stellar modeling and enabling survey-scale analyses with rigorous uncertainty.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Emulator (DSEE), a flow-based generative model trained on a database of over eight million stellar evolutionary tracks varying across twenty input-physics parameters. DSEE is claimed to learn phase-conditioned stellar state snapshots, allowing track and isochrone construction as marginals of a single model, with continuous interpolation in high-dimensional space, probabilistic predictions including calibrated credible intervals, and substantial computational speedups. It is validated for high fidelity in HR diagrams and recovery of distributions from Monte Carlo sampling, and integrated into the CONF1DENCE package for uncertainty-aware cluster age determinations.

Significance. If the validation and generalization claims hold, this represents a potentially significant advance for stellar astrophysics by providing a fast, physics-marginalized emulator that unifies tracks and isochrones while enabling rigorous uncertainty propagation in large-scale analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claims of high-fidelity validation and distributional recovery rest on assertions without accompanying quantitative metrics, error distributions, or explicit tests for generalization gaps in the 20D physics space; this is load-bearing for the central claim of calibrated credible intervals and reliable uncertainty-aware ages.
  2. [Database construction and model training sections] Database construction and model training sections: Eight million tracks in a twenty-dimensional input-physics space plus stellar state variables leaves the volume sparsely sampled; the manuscript must demonstrate that the flow model captures accurate joint distributions without systematic biases or extrapolation failures on unseen parameter combinations, as this directly threatens the fidelity of derived marginals for tracks and isochrones.
  3. [Validation section] Validation section: The reported high fidelity against current models and recovery of brute-force Monte Carlo distributions requires specific quantitative comparisons (e.g., residual statistics, coverage of credible intervals) rather than qualitative statements to substantiate the probabilistic predictions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Package integration] The integration of DSEE into the open-source CONF1DENCE package is a strength for reproducibility, but additional details on usage examples and handling of observational effects would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript on the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Emulator (DSEE). The comments correctly identify areas where additional quantitative detail would strengthen the presentation of our validation results. We respond to each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested enhancements in a revised version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claims of high-fidelity validation and distributional recovery rest on assertions without accompanying quantitative metrics, error distributions, or explicit tests for generalization gaps in the 20D physics space; this is load-bearing for the central claim of calibrated credible intervals and reliable uncertainty-aware ages.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is necessarily brief and that the central claims require stronger quantitative backing. While the manuscript body presents visual comparisons of HR diagrams and Monte Carlo distributional recovery, we will revise the abstract and validation section to include explicit metrics such as RMS residuals in log Teff and log L, coverage fractions for the 68% and 95% credible intervals, and results from held-out generalization tests across the 20D physics parameter space. These additions will directly support the claims of calibrated uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Database construction and model training sections] Database construction and model training sections: Eight million tracks in a twenty-dimensional input-physics space plus stellar state variables leaves the volume sparsely sampled; the manuscript must demonstrate that the flow model captures accurate joint distributions without systematic biases or extrapolation failures on unseen parameter combinations, as this directly threatens the fidelity of derived marginals for tracks and isochrones.

    Authors: The database employs a space-filling sampling strategy across the 20 physics dimensions to mitigate sparsity. We recognize that explicit checks for joint-distribution fidelity on unseen combinations are essential. In the revised manuscript we will add targeted tests, including model evaluations on held-out physics parameter sets with direct comparisons to new stellar evolution runs, bias and variance statistics on derived marginals, and checks for systematic deviations in track and isochrone properties. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Validation section] Validation section: The reported high fidelity against current models and recovery of brute-force Monte Carlo distributions requires specific quantitative comparisons (e.g., residual statistics, coverage of credible intervals) rather than qualitative statements to substantiate the probabilistic predictions.

    Authors: We concur that visual agreement alone is insufficient to substantiate the probabilistic claims. The current validation relies primarily on qualitative figures; we will expand the validation section with quantitative measures including residual histograms and statistics, reliability diagrams for credible-interval coverage, Kolmogorov-Smirnov or similar tests for distributional recovery, and explicit error metrics against both reference models and brute-force Monte Carlo ensembles. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: emulator trained on external tracks with external validation

full rationale

The paper trains a flow-based generative model on a pre-existing database of over eight million Dartmouth stellar evolution tracks spanning 20 input-physics dimensions. Track and isochrone construction are obtained as marginals of the learned phase-conditioned distribution; these are outputs of the trained model rather than algebraic identities or fitted parameters renamed as predictions. Validation compares generated distributions against independent current stellar evolution models and brute-force Monte Carlo sampling, providing external benchmarks. No equation reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by construction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The central claims rest on empirical fidelity and generalization of the learned distribution, which the paper treats as testable rather than definitional.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that standard stellar evolution codes produce a representative training distribution across twenty physics dimensions and that normalizing flows can faithfully model the resulting high-dimensional stellar state distributions.

free parameters (1)
  • Flow model parameters
    Weights and hyperparameters of the normalizing flow are fitted to the eight-million-track database during training.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution physics can be adequately represented by varying twenty input dimensions over broad mass and composition ranges.
    The training database is constructed under this premise from the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Program.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5511 in / 1401 out tokens · 48564 ms · 2026-05-10T18:36:24.185359+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2016, Physics Letters B, 760, 584, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032

    Platter, L. 2016, Physics Letters B, 760, 584, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032 2016

  2. [2]

    G., Garc´ ıa, A., Robertson, R

    Adelberger, E. G., Garc´ ıa, A., Robertson, R. G. H., et al. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 195, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.195

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.195 2011

  3. [3]

    R., & Ferguson, J

    Alexander, D. R., & Ferguson, J. W. 1994, ApJ, 437, 879, doi: 10.1086/175039

    work page doi:10.1086/175039 1994

  4. [4]

    H., & Pedersen, M

    Anders, E. H., & Pedersen, M. G. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 56, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020056

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies11020056 2023

  5. [5]

    1999, NuPhA, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5 1999

  6. [6]

    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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  7. [7]

    A., & Skillman, E

    Aver, E., Olive, K. A., & Skillman, E. D. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/011

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/011 2015

  8. [8]

    Balser, D. S. 2006, AJ, 132, 2326, doi: 10.1086/508515

    work page doi:10.1086/508515 2006

  9. [9]

    P., Angelou, G

    Bellinger, E. P., Angelou, G. C., Hekker, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 31, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/31

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/31 2016

  10. [10]

    R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C

    Blouin, S., Shaffer, N. R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C. E. 2020, ApJ, 899, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e75

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e75 2020

  11. [11]

    M., & Chaboyer, B

    Boudreaux, E. M., & Chaboyer, B. C. 2023, ApJ, 944, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb685

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb685 2023

  12. [12]

    1991, PhRvL, 66, 1655, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.1655

    Braaten, E. 1991, PhRvL, 66, 1655, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.1655

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.66.1655 1991

  13. [13]

    1993, PhRvD, 48, 1478, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1478

    Braaten, E., & Segel, D. 1993, PhRvD, 48, 1478, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1478

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.48.1478 1993

  14. [14]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012

  15. [15]

    2025, SoPh, 300, 97, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02508-x

    Buldgen, G., Canocchi, G., Le Saux, A., et al. 2025, SoPh, 300, 97, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02508-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02508-x 2025

  16. [16]

    1970, ApJ, 159, 641, doi: 10.1086/150338

    Canuto, V. 1970, ApJ, 159, 641, doi: 10.1086/150338

    work page doi:10.1086/150338 1970

  17. [17]

    Thefractionofbinarysystemsinthecoreof13low-densityGalactic globularclusters,

    Jimenez, R. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1516, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12512.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12512.x 2007

  18. [18]

    2007, ApJ, 661, 1094, doi: 10.1086/516819

    Salaris, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1094, doi: 10.1086/516819

    work page doi:10.1086/516819 2007

  19. [19]

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

    Cassisi, S., Potekhin, A. Y., Salaris, M., & Pietrinferni, A. 2021, A&A, 654, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141425

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141425 2021

  20. [20]

    J., & Krauss, L

    Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., Kernan, P. J., & Krauss, L. M. 1996, Science, 271, 957, doi: 10.1126/science.271.5251.957

    work page doi:10.1126/science.271.5251.957 1996

  21. [21]

    H., Nelan, J

    Chaboyer, B., Fenton, W. H., Nelan, J. E., Patnaude, D. J., & Simon, F. E. 2001, ApJ, 562, 521, doi: 10.1086/323872

    work page doi:10.1086/323872 2001

  22. [22]

    Chaboyer, B., & Krauss, L. M. 2002, ApJL, 567, L45, doi: 10.1086/339898

    work page doi:10.1086/339898 2002

  23. [23]

    E., O’Malley, E., et al

    Chaboyer, B., McArthur, B. E., O’Malley, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/152

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/152 2017

  24. [24]

    2015, PhRvC, 91, 045801

    Chakraborty, S., deBoer, R., Mukherjee, A., & Roy, S. 2015, PhRvC, 91, 045801

    2015

  25. [25]

    Application to PARSEC isochrones

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Fu, X., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936612 2019

  26. [26]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  27. [27]

    2004, A&A, 424, 919, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040470

    Claret, A. 2004, A&A, 424, 919, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040470

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040470 2004

  28. [28]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1589

    Claret, A., & Torres, G. 2019, ApJ, 876, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1589

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1589 2019

  29. [29]

    P., Magee, N

    Colgan, J., Kilcrease, D. P., Magee, N. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 116, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/116

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/116 2016

  30. [30]

    Collins, II, G. W. 1989, The fundamentals of stellar astrophysics. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989fsa..book.....C deBoer, R. J., G¨ orres, J., Smith, K., et al. 2014, PhRvC, 90, 035804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.035804 deBoer, R. J., G¨ orres, J., Wiescher, M., et al. 2017, Reviews of Modern Physics, 89, 035007, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.035804 1989

  31. [31]

    Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., & Yi, S. K. 2004, ApJS, 155, 667, doi: 10.1086/424966

    work page doi:10.1086/424966 2004

  32. [32]

    NICE: Non-linear Independent Components Estimation

    Dinh, L., Krueger, D., & Bengio, Y. 2014, NICE: Non-linear Independent Components Estimation, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1410.8516. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1410.8516D

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.8516 2014

  33. [33]

    Density estimation using Real NVP

    Dinh, L., Sohl-Dickstein, J., & Bengio, S. 2016, Density estimation using Real NVP, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08803. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160508803D 27

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.08803 2016

  34. [34]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  35. [35]

    2007, AJ, 134, 376, doi: 10.1086/517915 —

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 376, doi: 10.1086/517915 —. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    work page doi:10.1086/517915 2007

  36. [36]

    Durkan, A

    Durkan, C., Bekasov, A., Murray, I., & Papamakarios, G. 2019, Neural Spline Flows, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1906.04032. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190604032D

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.04032 2019

  37. [37]

    Eddington, A. S. 1926, The Internal Constitution of the Stars. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1926ics..book.....E

    1926

  38. [38]

    Eggen, O. J. 1965, ARA&A, 3, 235, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.03.090165.001315

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.03.090165.001315 1965

  39. [39]

    J., Timmes, F

    Farag, E., Fontes, C. J., Timmes, F. X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4355

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4355 2024

  40. [40]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585, doi: 10.1086/428642 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1086/428642 2005

  41. [41]

    2021, AJ, 162, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0ef0

    Cargile, P. 2021, AJ, 162, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0ef0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0ef0 2021

  42. [42]

    Generative Adversarial Networks

    Goodfellow, I. J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., et al. 2014, Generative Adversarial Networks, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1406.2661. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1406.2661G

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1406.2661 2014

  43. [43]

    1994, ApJ, 425, 222, doi: 10.1086/173978

    Haft, M., Raffelt, G., & Weiss, A. 1994, ApJ, 425, 222, doi: 10.1086/173978

    work page doi:10.1086/173978 1994

  44. [44]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/306745 1999

  45. [45]

    J., Morton, J., Rougier, J

    Hoarty, D. J., Morton, J., Rougier, J. C., et al. 2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30, 063302, doi: 10.1063/5.0141850

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0141850 2023

  46. [46]

    Kuszlewicz, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2853

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2853 2020

  47. [47]

    2024, Flow-Based Generative Emulation of Grids of Stellar Evolutionary Models, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.09427

    Hon, M., Li, Y., & Ong, J. 2024, Flow-Based Generative Emulation of Grids of Stellar Evolutionary Models, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.09427. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240709427H

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.09427 2024

  48. [48]

    B., & Lampe, M

    Hubbard, W. B., & Lampe, M. 1969, ApJS, 18, 297, doi: 10.1086/190192

    work page doi:10.1086/190192 1969

  49. [49]

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

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  50. [50]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    work page doi:10.1086/177381 1996

  51. [51]

    1992, ApJ, 395, 622, doi: 10.1086/171682

    Itoh, N., Mutoh, H., Hikita, A., & Kohyama, Y. 1992, ApJ, 395, 622, doi: 10.1086/171682

    work page doi:10.1086/171682 1992

  52. [52]

    Jorgensen, U. G. 1994, Molecules in the Stellar

    1994

  53. [53]

    428, doi: 10.1007/3-540-57747-5

    Environment, Vol. 428, doi: 10.1007/3-540-57747-5. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994LNP...428.....J

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-57747-5

  54. [54]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/142 —

    Joyce, M., & Chaboyer, B. 2015, ApJ, 814, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/142 —. 2018a, ApJ, 864, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad464 —. 2018b, ApJ, 856, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab200

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/142 2015

  55. [55]

    I., Marchetti, T., et al

    Joyce, M., Johnson, C. I., Marchetti, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb692

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb692 2023

  56. [56]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075 Kib´ edi, T., Alshahrani, B., Stuchbery, A

    Joyce, M., & Tayar, J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075 Kib´ edi, T., Alshahrani, B., Stuchbery, A. E., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 182701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.182701

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies11030075 2023

  57. [57]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

    Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. 2017, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 2017

  58. [58]

    P., & Dhariwal, P

    Kingma, D. P., & Dhariwal, P. 2018, Glow: Generative Flow with Invertible 1x1 Convolutions, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1807.03039. http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03039

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.03039 2018

  59. [59]

    Improving variational inference with inverse autoregressive flow

    Kingma, D. P., Salimans, T., Jozefowicz, R., et al. 2016, Improving Variational Inference with Inverse Autoregressive Flow, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.04934. https: //ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160604934K

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.04934 2016

  60. [60]

    Kingma and Max Welling

    Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. 2019, An Introduction to Variational Autoencoders, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1906.02691. https: //ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190602691K Krishna Swamy, K. S. 1966, ApJ, 145, 174, doi: 10.1086/148752

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.02691 2019

  61. [61]

    2002, ApJ, 567, 643, doi: 10.1086/338384

    Kunz, R., Fey, M., Jaeger, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 643, doi: 10.1086/338384

    work page doi:10.1086/338384 2002

  62. [62]

    1993, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 13

    Kurucz, R. 1993, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 13

    1993

  63. [63]

    R., Huber, D., et al

    Li, Y., Bedding, T. R., Huber, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c3e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c3e 2024

  64. [64]

    2020, Kernel Interpolation of High Dimensional Scattered Data, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.01514

    Lin, S.-B., Chang, X., & Sun, X. 2020, Kernel Interpolation of High Dimensional Scattered Data, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.01514. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200901514L

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.01514 2020

  65. [65]

    J., Davies, G

    Lyttle, A. J., Davies, G. R., Li, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1368 2021

  66. [66]

    2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142971 2022

  67. [67]

    E., Schiavilla, R., & Viviani, M

    Marcucci, L. E., Schiavilla, R., & Viviani, M. 2013, PhRvL, 110, 192503, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.192503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.192503 2013

  68. [68]

    2011, PhRvC, 83, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045804 28

    Marta, M., Formicola, A., Bemmerer, D., et al. 2011, PhRvC, 83, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045804 28

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.045804 2011

  69. [69]

    2025, High Energy Density Physics, 55, 101177, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hedp.2025.101177

    Mayes, D., Hobbs, B., Heeter, R., et al. 2025, High Energy Density Physics, 55, 101177, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hedp.2025.101177

    work page doi:10.1016/j.hedp.2025.101177 2025

  70. [70]

    2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243210 2022

  71. [71]

    Mombarg, J. S. G., Van Reeth, T., Pedersen, M. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz501

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz501 2019

  72. [72]

    2012, ˚ ap, 541, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117749

    Mowlavi, N., Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., et al. 2012, ˚ ap, 541, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117749

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117749 2012

  73. [73]

    E., Loisel, G

    Nagayama, T., Bailey, J. E., Loisel, G. P., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 235001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.235001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.235001 2019

  74. [74]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 33, e022, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.51

    Ness, M., & Freeman, K. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 33, e022, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.51

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.51 2016

  75. [75]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244166

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244166 2022

  76. [76]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.07057

    Papamakarios, G., Pavlakou, T., & Murray, I. 2017, Masked Autoregressive Flow for Density Estimation, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.07057. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170507057P

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07057 2017

  77. [77]

    2016, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 52, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1608.02062

    Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Luridiana, V. 2016, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 52, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1608.02062

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1608.02062 2016

  78. [78]

    T., Istrate, A

    Pepper, B. T., Istrate, A. G., Romero, A. D., & Kepler, S. O. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1016

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1016 2022

  79. [79]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 168, doi: 10.1086/422498

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 168, doi: 10.1086/422498

    work page doi:10.1086/422498 2004

  80. [80]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3267 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pietrinferni, A., Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3267 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, ˚ ap, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3267 2024

Showing first 80 references.