The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modern stellar spectroscopy caveats
Open accessAbstract
Multiple codes are available to derive atmospheric parameters and individual chemical abundances from high-resolution spectra of AFGKM stars. Almost all spectroscopists have their own preferences regarding which code and method to use. But the intrinsic differences between codes and methods lead to complex systematics that depend on multiple variables such as the selected spectral regions and the radiative transfer code used. I expand iSpec, a popular open-source spectroscopic tool, to support the most well-known radiative transfer codes and assess their similarities and biases when using multiple set-ups based on the equivalent-width method and the synthetic spectral-fitting technique (interpolating from a pre-computed grid of spectra or synthesizing with interpolated model atmospheres). This work shows that systematic differences on atmospheric parameters and abundances between most of the codes can be reduced when using the same method and executing a careful spectral feature selection. However, it may not be possible to ignore the remaining differences, depending on the particular case and the required precision. Regarding methods, equivalent-width-based and spectrum-fitting analyses exhibit large differences that are caused by their intrinsic differences, which is significant given the popularity of these two methods. The results help to identify the key caveats of modern spectroscopy that all scientists should be aware of before trusting their own results or being tempted to combine atmospheric parameters and abundances from the literature.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy
The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., Droettboom, M., Bray, E., Aldcroft, T., Davis, M., Ginsburg, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. (2013) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 · Cited by 14,620
The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package*
The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., Günther, H. M., Lim, P. L., Crawford, S. M., Conseil, S., Shupe, D. L., Craig, M. W., Dencheva, N., et al. (2018) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f · Cited by 7,687
The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls
Barber, C. B., Dobkin, D. P., & Huhdanpaa, H. (1996) · ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software · doi:10.1145/235815.235821 · Cited by 5,359
A grid of MARCS model atmospheres for late-type stars: I. Methods and general properties
Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., Jørgensen, U. G., Nordlund, Å., & Plez, B. (2008) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 · Cited by 2,654
Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., Anderson, S. F., Arns, J. A., Aubourg, É., Bailey, S., Balbinot, E., et al. (2011) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 · Cited by 2,179
The Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE)
Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., Prieto, C. A., Barkhouser, R., Bizyaev, D., Blank, B., Brunner, S., Burton, A., Carrera, R., et al. (2017) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d · Cited by 1,831
A grid of MARCS model atmospheres for late-type stars I. Methods and general properties
Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., Jørgensen, U. G., Nordlund, Å., & Plez, B. (2008) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0805.0554 · Cited by 1,239
Spectroscopy made easy: A new tool for fitting observations with synthetic spectra
Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. (1996) · Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series · doi:10.1051/aas:1996222 · Cited by 913
The Solar Chemical Composition
Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. (2007) · Space Science Reviews · doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9173-7 · Cited by 843
Metadata
- Authors
- Blanco-Cuaresma, S.
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-04-19
- Volume
- 486
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 2075-2101
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W2917080777
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 15.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modern stellar spectroscopy caveats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stz549
- The paper
- Blanco-Cuaresma, S. (2019). Modern stellar spectroscopy caveats. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz549
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
