author: Kelvin J. McQueen[^1]
subtitle: Review of Hans Christian von Baeyer's
  *QBism: The Future of Quantum Physics* \[2016\]
title: Is QBism The Future of Quantum Physics?[^2]

# Overview

The purpose of this book is to explain Quantum Bayesianism ('QBism') to "people without easy access to mathematical formulas and equations" (4-5). Qbism is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that "doesn't meddle with the technical aspects of the theory \[but instead\] reinterprets the fundamental terms of the theory and gives them new meaning" (3). The most important motivation for QBism, enthusiastically stated on the book's cover, is that QBism provides "a way past quantum theory's paradoxes and puzzles" such that much of the weirdness associated with quantum theory "dissolves under the lens of QBism".

Could a non-technical book that almost fits in your pocket really succeed in resolving the notorious paradoxes of quantum theory? I believe the answer is: not in this case. There are three primary reasons. Firstly, the argument that QBism solves quantum paradoxes is not convincing. Secondly, it proves difficult to pin down exactly what QBism says. Thirdly, as a scientific theory QBism seems explanatorily inert, which is maybe why the topic of scientific explanation is not broached. Sections 2-4 below discuss each of these problems in turn. However, there is still a wealth of insights that make this book a worthwhile read, and I shall begin with those.

The book is split into four chapters. The first presents eight sections that take the reader on a lively journey through quantum theory. This chapter will prove valuable to a variety of readers. For a general audience, it is one of the best non-technical introductions to quantum physics I have read in some time. For specialists, it illustrates clever methods for explaining quantum theory to beginners.

So much for the 'Q' in QBism. Chapter two presents two sections explaining Bayesian probability theory (the 'B'). The first (section 9) sets the stage by challenging common intuitions about the nature of probability e.g. using the paradox of the cube factory. It is then explained how nature can yield surprising demands on correct probability assignments. This is carefully illustrated with Bose-Einstein statistics and the exclusion principle. Finally, the probability theory known as *frequentism* is sharply criticized. Section 10 espouses Bayesian probability theory. Here the central rule for rationally updating one's probability assignments in light of new evidence - Bayes' law - is explained and illustrated with care.

My only qualm so far is that the dichotomy between frequentism and Bayesianism is slightly misleading. For much of the book suggests that adopting QBism is a "decision to switch from the frequentist to the Bayesian interpretation of probability" (132). But there are two forms of Bayesianism - objective and subjective. According to objective Bayesianism, probabilities are real things in nature, while according to subjective Bayesianism, probabilities are the personal degrees of beliefs of agents. Only subjective Bayesianism is consistent with QBism. Moreover, there are other interpretations of probability, such as the *best system's theory*, which resemble frequentism but are more defensible.

Chapter three is dedicating to explaining QBism and how it resolves the various quantum paradoxes and chapter four specifies various implications of QBism. There is a lot to like about these final two chapters. However, I will focus on the three above mentioned problems: (i) the argument that QBism solves quantum paradoxes is not convincing; (ii) it proves difficult to pin down exactly what QBism says and (iii); as a scientific theory QBism seems explanatorily inert. Let's take each issue in turn.

# Can QBism resolve quantum paradoxes?

Section 11 "QBism made explicit" begins by presenting QBism as a confluence of quantum theory and subjective Bayesianism. QBism is defined by a specific thesis:

> "The principal thesis of QBism is simply this: quantum probabilities are numerical measures of personal degrees of belief" (131).

By itself this doesn't suggest a distinctive interpretation of quantum mechanics. For a number of interpretations may help themselves to this principle (and to Bayesianism more generally). For example, in Bohmian mechanics quantum probabilities only arise due to our ignorance of the initial positions of particles. The probabilities may then be interpreted as the degree to which we believe a particle is in a given location. Moreover, some versions of the many worlds interpretation treat quantum probabilities as numerical measures of personal degrees of belief (where the beliefs concern which branch of the multiverse one is in). So we need to know more in order to individuate QBism as a distinctive interpretation. I will return to this problem in the next section. Let's first look to the quantum paradoxes.
**The problem of collapse**

The problem of wavefunction collapse is defined as follows: "there is no mathematical description of how it \[collapse\] happens in space and time" (132-3). However, in light of the kinds of dynamical collapse theories presented by Pearle, Penrose, Ghirardi, and others, it seems that mathematically describing collapse is not the real problem. The real problem concerns whether collapse *happens*. You might have thought that this problem will eventually get resolved by the ongoing experimental tests for collapse. But QBists have a different kind of solution:

> "Qbism solves the problem with ease and elegance. In any experiment the calculated wavefunction furnishes the prior probabilities for empirical observations that may be made later. Once an observation has been made \[...\] new information becomes available to the agent performing the experiment. With this information the agent updates her probability and her wavefunction - instantaneously and without magic. The collapse sheds its mystery. Bayesian updating describes it and finally makes the missing step explicit" (133)

It is unclear how this represents a solution. The assumption seems to be that the concept of collapse arises entirely out of the wavefunction so that just by reinterpreting it, we avoid the need for collapse. But the collapse concept arises first and foremost out of our experimental observations. Consider the double-slit experiment with electrons. If one monitors the slits, one eventually sees two bands of hits on the fluorescent screen. If one does not monitor the slits, one instead sees an interference pattern. Why does monitoring the slits make such a striking difference? Does monitoring the slits cause the states of the electrons to collapse from one kind of state into another? If not, what yields the appearance of collapse? Considerations of how the experimenter updates his probability assignments after seeing such results do not seem relevant to the problem.
**The problem of nonlocality**

An example is offered to help the reader understand the QBist account of the apparent collapse of entangled particles:

> "Alice, in New York, picks two playing cards, one black and one red, and tucks them into separate unmarked envelopes, which she seals and then shuffles. \[...\] She keeps one in her purse and hands the other one to Bob. Alice then leaves the room and travels to Australia. Before she opens her envelope, her degree of belief that Bob has the red card is 50 percent. But upon arrival, as soon as she looks at her own card she knows what's in Bob's envelope twelve thousand miles away, so she updates her degree of belief to either 100 percent or to 0 percent instantaneously. In the meantime Bob's guess about the color of Alice's card, whatever it may be, remains unaffected by her actions. There is no miracle." (133-4)

However, in this classical case we have reason to think that there is a playing card in each envelope at all times during Alice's flight. This partly explains why Alice is right to update her degree of belief about Bob's card instantaneously. So there is no problem with this case. But in the quantum case, we have reason to think that Bob's system did not have any definite value for the measured observable prior to Alice's measurement. So how can the value of Bob's system suddenly become predictable for Alice when she learns the value of her system? This stands in need of explanation. Did Alice's action collapse Bob's system from a non-definite value to a definite value or not? And if it did not, what explains why it appears that it did? As before, this problem is independent of the wavefunction in that we can define the problem in terms of experimental observations alone. Consequently, a subjective Bayesian interpretation of the wavefunction does not seem to be the right apparatus to solve the problem.
**The problem of Wigner's friend**

The "paradox" of Wigner's friend involves (i) Wigner's friend measuring the spin of an electron and updating his wavefunction accordingly and (ii) Wigner, who turns his back to the experiment and so describes his friend as being in an entangled superposition. Wigner and his friend therefore have distinct wavefunctions. The paradox is then stated as follows:

> "So who's right? Has the qubit collapsed, or is it still a superposition? As long as the wavefunction is regarded as a real thing or as a description of a real process, the question is no more easily resolved than Bishop Berkeley's infamous question about the tree in the forest: When a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" (136)

But this statement seems incorrect. Theories which admit the reality of the wavefunction yield straightforward answers to this question. For example, it is a trivial implication of collapse theories that Wigner is wrong, his friend is right. Still, the QBist "solution" helps us to further pin down what is distinctive about QBism:

> "According to QBism, there is no unique wavefunction. Wavefunctions are not tethered to electrons \[...\] they are assigned by an agent and depend on the total information available to the agent. They are malleable and subjective. In short, wavefunctions and quantum probabilities are Bayesian" (137).

Here we see a statement that makes QBism distinctive: *wavefunctions are neither real nor represent real physical systems*. This is a striking claim that does not follow merely from quantum probabilities being Bayesian. One is left wondering what the motivation for it is. Wavefunctions are our models of particles that are used to predict the behaviour of those particles. If those models do not (even approximately) represent real physical systems then what does?
**The problem of Schrödinger's cat**

How should we represent reality if not via wavefunctions? This problem for QBism is exacerbated when considering macroscopic superpositions, which is the topic of section 12: "QBism saves Schrödinger's cat". For if Schrödinger's cat isn't literally in a superposition of being both alive and dead before the box is opened, as the uncollapsed wavefunction prescribes, then what is its actual state? Despite the claim that "QBism deals with the story as effortlessly as it disposes of the miracle of wavefunction collapse and the paradox of Wigner's friend" (141), QBism does not appear to have an answer:

> "QBism refuses to describe the cat's condition before the box is opened and rescues it from being described as hovering in a limbo of living death" (142).

Refusing to describe the cat from being in a given state does not seem to save the cat from being in that state. What is the cat's condition? Without an answer we have no guarantee that it is not hovering in limbo.

# What does QBism tell us about reality?

Perhaps the demand to know the physical state of Schrödinger's cat (were we to experimentally realize such a scenario) is asking for too much. Sometimes, when a theoretical problem gets *really* hard, one does not try to solve it, rather, one tries to show that epistemic limitations prevent humans from solving it. We might call this "dissolving" but not solving the problem. Some have tried to dissolve the notorious mind-body problem, for example. Perhaps QBists are only trying to dissolve the quantum paradoxes?

But we are given no argument for the claim that describing the cat's condition before the box is opened (for example) is beyond us. Section 12: "The Roots of QBism" offers quotes from Democritus to Heisenberg, supporting scepticism of "unvarnished objectivity" (148). But quotes are not arguments. And the major realist interpretations of quantum mechanics, from collapse theories to many worlds theories to hidden variables theories, to retrocausal theories, all evidence our evolving ability to describe cats in any physically possible situation.

Section 14, "Quantum Weirdness in the Laboratory" asserts that "QBism, by foregoing realism of the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen kind, provides a simple, convincing way to avoid spooky action at a distance" (169). But as discussed, the fundamental problem is found in the lab, where we observe apparent action at a distance. To solve the problem we need a description of what's going on that accounts for the appearances without postulating action at a distance. If QBism is to help us with this problem is must start by telling us what exists. Once we know what exists, we can ask whether those things are local.

Section 15, "All Physics is Local", is puzzling. It begins well, by describing how general relativity helped remove the action at a distance inherent in Newton's theory of gravity. It also gives an elegant account of how Feynman diagrams depict the locality of interactions in quantum mechanics. Locality - where interactions only take place at a spacetime point - is a desirable property of physical theories. So we can ask, is QBism a local physical theory? Or to put the question another way:

> "Where, according to QBism, are the spots, the loci in Latin, at which interactions take place? The black dots of Feynman diagrams are, after all, not actual points in space-time but mere mathematical devices used for calculating probabilities. In plain words, where, according to QBism, does stuff happen?" (175)

To answer this question von Baeyer first quotes original QBists, Fuchs, Schack, and Mermin:

> "QBist quantum mechanics is local because its entire purpose is to enable any single agent to organize her own degrees of belief about the contents of her own personal experience" (175).

To clarify, von Baeyer adds:

> "Personal experiences are recorded (located) in the agent's mind. They follow each other in time but by definition never occur simultaneously in widely separated locations. They are local." (175-6).

But a natural reading of this statement seems in conflict with neuroscience. The cerebral cortex only becomes animated with consciousness when its nerve cells behave in an orchestrated or integrated manner. A conscious experience is hardly a point-like event. But all this talk of personal experience is beside the point. The question of locality is a question about the world not our conscious minds. Is the world local according to QBism or not? Without a description of reality, it seems we must remain agnostic.

Section 16, "Belief and Certainty" attempts to deal with situations in which probability equals unity. The EPR criterion of reality entails that if an electron's wavefunction is a z-spin eigenstate with eigenvalue +1, then the electron *really is* spin-up about the z axis, whether or not it has been measured yet. But then the wavefunction really does describe the electron, at least in this case. QBists respond by reinterpreting probability 1: "What does it mean when an agent assigns probability 1 to an event? In the context of Bayesian probability, all it implies is that she is very, very sure that it will occur \[...\] It does not imply anything \[...\] about the actual makeup of the real world" (181). I leave it to the reader to ponder this response.

The final chapter of the book, "The QBist Worldview", promises to fill in some details about the QBist ontology. Section 17, "Physics and Human Experience", emphasizes how QBism places agents, or users of quantum theory, "at the center of the action" (194). This is supposed to be in contrast to traditional physics, which ignores agents completely, and instead just describes atoms in the void. But is QBism guilty of the transpose?

Section 18, "Nature's Laws", compares two conceptions of laws of nature. The first states that laws are real things that govern or guide events in the natural world. The second states that natural events are not governed by laws, laws are just our best summaries of regularities and patterns in events. Qbism adopts the latter. But the summarised events refer to conscious experiences.

Section 19, "The Rock Kicks Back", gives crucial yet cryptic hints about the intended ontology:

> "According to QBism, a measurement does not reveal a preexisting value. Instead, that value is created in the interaction between the quantum system and the agent \[...\] the same kind of fact creation occurs when any two quantum systems happen to come together." (205-7).

Everyone should agree that new facts are generated by things coming together, at least in this pedestrian sense: if two particles collide, then the sentence "two particles are rebounding away from each other" may come true.

But I think most would disagree with the first statement and insist that measurements often do reveal preexisting values. For example, if I walk into a room and observe a chair, then the chair was there before I walked in. One wonders whether chairs count as quantum systems in the QBist framework.

QBists appear to want to agree that agents, measuring devices, and measured systems like electrons all exist. We cannot describe the electron, but when an agent interacts with it (via a device), a new fact comes into being, e.g. the fact that the electron is spin-up.

Fact-creation appears to be the QBist's replacement for collapse. But it looks like this replacement suffers the exact problem that was raised for collapse: "there is no mathematical description of how it happens in space and time" (132-3). So it becomes difficult to see what advantage QBism has over the orthodox collapse picture espoused by John von Neumann.

# Does QBism explain why the sun shines?

Section 21, "A Perfect Map?", asserts that "Qbism \[...\] implies that science is not about ultimate reality but about what we can reasonably expect" (221), and then argues that this should not be taken as an admission of defeat. Two arguments are offered. Here is one:

> "Qbism, by moving physics closer to human thoughts and feelings, may have a better chance than raw materialism to solve the ancient enigma of consciousness, the problem of the relationship between the mind and the brain." (221).

But a theory which refuses to describe the physical world is hardly going to be able to describe how that physical world generates consciousness. Here is the other:

> "QBism doesn't detract in any way from the immense success of quantum mechanics in helping us understand not only the material world but, through biochemistry and neuroscience, the foundations of the life sciences as well. Knowing what we can reasonably expect and how firmly we should expect it is as close as we can come to understanding and controlling the world." (221).

This statement addresses the status of scientific explanantion in QBism. But QBism seems explanatorily inert. For scientific explanations typically explain phenomena in terms of underlying mechanisms. Here is a simple example. Why is the Sun able to produce so much energy over such a long period of time? Physicists tend to answer this question with an explanation that goes something like this:

> The sun is composed of many little parts, including hydrogen atoms. If hydrogen atoms fuse together they yield helium. The difference in mass between the products and reactants is manifested as the release of large amounts of energy. According to quantum theory, hydrogen atoms are able to get close enough together to fuse *because they undergo quantum tunneling*.

It is not open to the QBist to describe atoms as tunneling, since for QBists tunneling is a psychological phenomenon regarding our degrees of belief. Then what of the explanation? Could the QBist reconstruct the explanation in their own terms? I'm not sure if QBists believe in hydrogen atoms or fusion (as opposed to just the experiences induced by our measurements of them). But assuming they do (the explanations will look worse if they don't!), the worry is that QBist explanations will inevitably look something like this:

> The sun is composed of many little parts, including hydrogen atoms. If hydrogen atoms fuse together they yield helium. The difference in mass between the products and reactants is manifested as the release of large amounts of energy. According to QBism, hydrogen atoms are able to get close enough together to fuse, *because we expect them to - indeed we are willing to place bets on it*.

The worry with the latter "explanation" is that it is tautologous: something should be expected to happen because we should expect it to happen. But what we want to know is *why* we should expect it to happen?

# Final thoughts

I have specified some difficulties with QBism. But to end on a positive note, QBism should be applauded as a breeding ground of ideas for multiple disciplines including physics, philosophy, and mathematics, and von Baeyer's book offers an account accessible to all.

The final section, section 22 "The Road Ahead", rightly notes that "One of the most important attributes of a new scientific idea is that it should be *heuristic*, leading to further research, inspiring fresh ideas and questions" (225). The further research arising from QBism is the "program of expressing the quantum rules in terms of probabilities rather than wavefunctions". Von Baeyer discusses how this program has experienced some success and even shows promise in helping to solve problems in pure mathematics. He even speculates that this program "may turn out to be the basis of a radically new formulation of quantum mechanics without wavefunctions" (230).

This section was a refreshing one to finish on. It seems that the right way to motivate QBism, is to show that working with it as an assumption can yield unexpected research programs that integrate with other disciplines (e.g. pure mathematics).

In conclusion, due to the three problems mentioned, this book does not provide a convincing case that QBism is "The Future of Quantum Physics". But it does provide an outstanding introduction to two of the key components of QBism (quantum theory and subjective Bayesianism), and places the reader into the mind of the QBist in a way that will aid the ongoing debate over its merit. It is a worthwhile read.

[^1]: Department of Philosophy, Chapman University, Orange, CA, US.

[^2]: This paper was initially published in *The Quantum Times*: [thequantumtimes.org/2017/07/is-qbism-the-future-of-quantum-physics/](http://www.thequantumtimes.org/2017/07/is-qbism-the-future-of-quantum-physics/)


abstract: Conversion of corn to ethanol in the US since 2005 has been a major cause of global food price increases during that time and has been shown to be ineffective in achieving US energy independence and reducing environmental impact. We make three key statements to enhance understanding and communication about ethanol production's impact on the food and fuel markets: (1) The amount of corn used to produce the ethanol in a gallon of regular gas would feed a person for a day, (2) The production of ethanol is so energy intensive that it uses only 20% less fossil fuel than gasoline, and (3) The cost of gas made with ethanol is actually higher per mile because ethanol reduces gasoline's energy per gallon.
author: Dominic K. Albino, Karla Z. Bertrand, and [Yaneer Bar-Yam](http://necsi.edu/faculty/bar-yam.html)
date: October 5, 2012
title: Food for Fuel: The Price of Ethanol

# Introduction

The US used over 45% of its 2011 corn crop to produce ethanol, up from under 15% before 2005 –a rise dictated by federal mandate and promoted by federal subsidies. The drought in 2012 is leading to questions about whether using corn for fuel is reasonable while people go hungry due to a world food shortage. Here we provide a context for this discussion by addressing the following three questions: How much food goes into ethanol production? What is the net gain in energy from ethanol production after accounting for the fossil fuel energy used in the process? How does the use of ethanol affect gasoline prices?

# 1. Food used to make ethanol

How many people could be fed with the corn used for ethanol? In the US, the primary ethanol production input is field corn. While not typically eaten on the cob, field corn is used to make other food including breakfast cereal, corn flour or meal, corn sweetener, and corn oil. It serves both as food for people and feed for livestock–which subsequently becomes food for people in the form of poultry, pork, and beef.

A bushel of field corn can be used to produce about 2.77 gallons of ethanol . A bushel of field corn weighs 56 pounds, each pound containing about 1,550 Calories . Therefore, it takes about 31,300 Calories of field corn to produce one gallon of ethanol. Regular gasoline (E10) typically contains 10% ethanol by volume (averaging 9.6% nationally in 2011 ). Therefore, about 3,000 Calories of corn energy is used to produce each gallon of regular gas.

The suggested daily food energy intake is 2,100 Calories per person . A single gallon of regular gas contains more than enough food energy to feed a person for one day. More precisely, every gallon would feed 1.4 people for a day or one person for 1.4 days.

It is often pointed out that a portion of the corn energy does not end up in the ethanol, but instead in by-products subsequently fed to animals, called distillers grains, which may account for up to 31% of the corn by weight . The actual amount is often less than 31% and in 2011 was 23% overall . The by-products are not used for food, and their nutritional content limits their use for animal feed . Even after removing 23% or 31% of its food energy, a gallon of regular gas still contains more than enough to feed a person for a day.

What is the equivalent amount of sweet ("on the cob") corn in regular gas? The energy in sweet corn is 485 Calories per pound , and there are about 0.2-0.25 edible pounds on each ear of corn . In a gallon of regular gas there is food energy equivalent to 28 ears of sweet corn, while just 19 ears of sweet corn would satisfy a person's daily energy requirement.

An average 16 gallon tank of gas contains ethanol from enough corn to feed 22 people for a day, or one person for over three weeks.

The total amount of ethanol produced in the US in 2011 was 13.95 billion gallons , enough to feed 570 million people that year.

# 2. Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol

When weighing the costs and benefits of corn ethanol, it is important to consider the net energy yield: how much more energy we get from a gallon of ethanol than is used to make that gallon. Fossil fuel energy is required to produce and transport fertilizers and pesticides, irrigate farmland, and plant and harvest the corn (not including the solar energy involved). Additional energy is required to transport the corn from the field to the ethanol plants and power the conversion process.

The most optimistic assessments claim around $1.3$ units of energy are produced for each unit of energy input . However, this estimate uses data from the best corn-growing conditions (requiring relatively low costs to grow), and considers the best processing conditions (including the highest possible distiller grain outputs as well). The average of the net energy yield across all corn-growing regions has been found to be $1.01$ . This means that the same amount of fossil fuel energy goes into making a gallon of ethanol as can be obtained by using that ethanol in a car.

Gasoline also requires energy to make. However, the ratio of output to processing energy for petroleum is about 5 to 1 . This means that an extra $20\%$ fossil fuel is used for each gallon of gasoline that is burned in a car .

Thus we need $1.0$ fossil fuel BTUs on average to produce $1.0$ ethanol BTUs of fuel energy. We need $1.2$ fossil fuel BTUs to produce $1.0$ fossil fuel BTUs of fuel energy. By choosing ethanol instead of gasoline, we save about $0.2$ fossil fuel BTUs for each BTU used. This is the only gain from ethanol after loss of its food value. The amount of fossil fuel saved by using ethanol is only about $0.2\%$ of the US energy requirements .

# 3. Gasoline Price Benefit of Corn Ethanol

While it has been claimed that ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline , what is reported is the cost per gallon, but what is relevant is the cost per mile driven. Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline. A gallon of gasoline contains about 125,000 BTUs while ethanol contains about 84,300 BTUs , or about 67% that of gasoline. When the price of ethanol is between 67% and 100% of the price of gasoline, which it often is, ethanol is cheaper by volume but more expensive by energy. The cost per gallon of gasoline with ethanol is lower, but it is as if the gasoline is watered down—the cost per mile driven is higher.

This means that in addition to the government subsidy of \$20 billion from 2005-2011 , every gallon of gasoline with ethanol bought is an extra subsidy from consumers to the ethanol producers.


author: A. Baier [^1]; F. Kerschbaum; T. Lebzelter
bibliography: 13968refs.bib
date: Received 24 12 2009 / Accepted 12 03 2010
subtitle: I. Perspectives & Limitations
title: Fitting of dust spectra with genetic algorithms

We present an automatised fitting procedure for the IR range of AGB star spectra. Furthermore we explore the possibilities and boundaries of this method. We combine the radiative transfer code DUSTY with the genetic algorithm PIKAIA in order to improve an existing spectral fit significantly. In order to test the routine we carried out a performance test by feeding an artificially generated input spectrum into the program. Indeed the routine performed as expected, so, as a more realistic test set-up, we tried to create model fits for ISO spectra of selected AGB stars. Here we were not only able to improve existing fits, but also to show that a slightly altered dust composition may give a better fit for some objects. The use of a genetic algorithm in order to automatise the process of fitting stellar spectra seems to be very promising. We were able to improve existing fits and further offer a quantitative method to compare different models with each other. Nevertheless this method still needs to be studied and tested in more detail.

# Introduction

Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars are one of the main sources of dust in the universe. According to their evolutionary state they produce different amounts and species of dust. At the onset of their mass loss stars with solar metallicity exhibit a mainly oxygen-rich dust mineralogy, which consists of oxides and silicates . At later stages of their evolution, the star's chemical composition changes depending on its mass, which may lead to a mineralogy dominated by carbon-rich dust such as amorphous carbon, carbides, sulphides and nitrides .

Dust formation is of immense importance for the overall behavior of these stars. It has an effect on the dynamics of their atmospheres and thus on their mass loss. As a consequence, the spectral appearance changes as well. The dust can produce prominent features in the infrared regime of a spectrum. Many of those dust species might be still unknown, others produce spectral features in the same wavelength region and thus are difficult to distinguish. Another aspect is the dependence of the feature shape on the dust grain shape itself.

Up to know, the fitting of those spectra has mostly been done manually. A routine to automatise this process, which also allows to quantify the results would be a big asset in this field of research. In this work we are taking first steps into this direction. By combining a genetic algorithm with a widely used radiative transfer code we want to show that it is possible to veer away from the traditional way of hand fitting to a more independent procedure.

# The Fitting Procedure

## The problem

As mentioned above, the spectrum of a low mass late type star can exhibit strong dust features in the infrared range. The mostly complex dust composition of the star's shell can make the determination of its exact composition difficult.

In order to determine the detailed dust composition of a star a synthetic spectrum is fitted to an observed one. The parameters for the synthetic spectra are chosen to include those dust species, which show features at the same wavelengths as the spectrum of the observed object. This may then eventually lead to a satisfying fit and thus to the identification of certain dust species. Since most stars do not only house a single dust species in their surroundings, their respective infrared spectrum can be quite complex, showing features that are the result of a certain blend of minerals. An unambiguous determination of the dust composition can constitute a complex challenge, since the spectral behaviour of dust does not only depend on the correct ratio of abundances, but also strongly on such parameters as the dust temperature, the optical depth and the grain shape itself .

One of the most commonly used radiative transfer codes to produce these synthetic spectra is DUSTY . During the last years it has proven to be a very useful tool to gain new insights into the dust mineralogy of evolved stars, although it has to be noted that DUSTY does not treat the dust opacity as a function of distance from the star. The assumption of an opacity $\kappa$ which is invariant to the stars radius is, however, unrealistic.

Nevertheless DUSTY is a quite powerful tool and serves as a very good starting point in means of determination of dust composition for highly evolved stars. Although this method of fitting an IR dust spectrum of a star is a robust one, it holds a downside which always needs to be taken into account when looking at the results. Casually speaking, the problem is the scientist himself. First, in order to produce a "good" fit a certain amount of experience and intuition is definitely an asset. Second, this experience can also be a drawback, since different people may produce equally good fits with a completely different set of parameters. This raises the need to quantify those models in order to compare them with each other. Furthermore a process which automatises the fitting procedure, in terms of finding the correct parameter values of the desired fit and thus produces a result which is less biased by human intervention, would serve the purpose of quantification even more.

Inspired by a preliminary study by an attempt has been made to combine DUSTY with a genetic algorithm. Following Dijkstra's example the publicly available genetic algorithm PIKAIA has been used for this task.

## DUSTY in a nutshell

DUSTY is used to perform radiative transfer calculations for objects of different nature. The code is designed to deal with the radiation from some source which is modified by a dusty region. In our case this is a central star wrapped in a dust shell. Since the light emitted by the star is scattered, absorbed and reemitted by the dust shell, the spectrum emerging is usually the only way to gain information about the dust and the object hidden inside.

DUSTY offers users an integral equation for the spectral energy distribution introduced by in order to solve the radiative transfer problem. Beside the basic free parameters such as the stellar temperature, the chemical composition, the grain size distribution, the optical depth and many more, it also allows to chose between a spherical or a plane-parallel geometry.

## Genetic algorithms & PIKAIA

Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are searching techniques used in computation for optimisation of a given problem. To assure a healthy and steady evolution a certain size of a population is required as well as the offspring showing a certain range of "fitness" to secure the variability of the process.

With these considerations in mind a genetic algorithm can be defined as the implementation of the evolutionary principle in a computational context. A simplified flowchart is shown in Fig.. This basic version gradually improves via successive iteration, but does not maximise in a strictly mathematical point of view. Most on genetic algorithms based codes comprise further strategies to face this problem.

The genetic algorithm-based optimisation routine called PIKAIA is written in a very user-friendly way. Thus, it is primarily used as a learning tool rather than a science tool. Still, this "easy-to-use" policy makes it a very attractive choice for optimisation problems of relatively low complexity. Nevertheless, one always has to keep in mind that the performance efficiency is often sacrificed to the clarity of this code.

PIKAIA maximises a problem over a fixed population and a given number generations. This means that PIKAIA does not strive to optimise a population until a certain criterion is fulfilled, but rather until a given number of generations is reached.

The code is written in FORTRAN and sticks to the conventions of ANSI-FORTRAN 77. Although PIKAIA is also available in JAVA or as a parallelised version, the decision to use its original FORTRAN version is quite obvious since DUSTY is also written in the same language and thus a certain kind of code persistency is preserved.

Genetic Algorithms are used to solve manifold problems. In astronomy itself GAs are a common tool for optimisation. make use of a GA in order to improve already existing models of protoplanetary disks. In his work on the transition region from the chromosphere to the corona of the sun used PIKAIA to optimise his Gaussian fits of various lines. used the code for optimisation of the derived orbital parameters in their work on a possible planet orbiting $\rho$ CrB. In a much larger context genetic algorithms are also used for example to model the interaction of galaxies . as well as used the optimisation code PIKAIA as an improvement and automatisation of the fitting routines of the respective studied objects. This is in the case of the former, the observed pulsation frequency of the white dwarf GD 358 and in the case of the latter the combination of the non-LTE stellar atmosphere code FASTWIND with PIKAIA for the spectral analysis of early-type stars. Finally, used an, as they call it, asexual genetic algorithm for optimization and model fitting of various problems. In their approach they apply an asexual reproduction scheme, which means the offspring are only produced by one parent – not unlike bacteria – and not by two parents as used in a traditional GA. As possible applications for this method a typical optimization problem as well as the fitting of the spectral energy distribution for a young stellar objects is presented.

## PIKAIA & DUSTY – a convenience marriage

| f-Number |           Species           |           Formula           | Ref |
|:--------:|:---------------------------:|:---------------------------:|:---:|
|  $f_1$   |  Amorphous aluminum oxide   |         Al$_2$O$_3$         |  1  |
|  $f_2$   |    astronomical silicate    |           SiO$_4$           |  2  |
|  $f_3$   |  Amorphous pyroxene (100K)  |   Mg$_x$Fe$_{1-x}$SiO$_3$   |  3  |
|  $f_4$   |     Amorphous melilite      |     Ca$_2$Al$_2$SiO$_7$     |  4  |
|  $f_5$   |      Amorphous olivine      | Mg$_{0.1}$Fe$_{1.2}$SiO$_4$ | 5,6 |
|  $f_6$   | Crystalline magnesiowustite |    Mg$_{0.1}$Fe$_{0.9}$O    |  7  |
|  $f_7$   |  Amorphous Mg-Fe-silicate   |         MgFeSiO$_4$         |  8  |
|  $f_8$   |     Crystalline spinel      |        MgAl$_2$O$_4$        |  9  |

Dust species used for fitting the ISO spectra with DUSTY

\(1\) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (5) ; (6) ; (7) ; (8) ; (9)

As already mentioned in Sect.  fitting of dust spectra of AGB stars without the help of a suitable routine can be challenging and may lead to ambiguous results. In our approach, the DUSTY code was connected with the genetic optimisation algorithm PIKAIA which allowed to produce spectra, that are less dependent on the individual experience of the respective scientist . Being based on the evolutionary natural selection process, PIKAIA tries to maximize the function $g(\lambda)=[F(\lambda)-F_m(\lambda)]^{-2}$, where $F(\lambda)$ is the observed spectrum and $F_m(\lambda)$ represents one model spectrum calculated with DUSTY.

In order to optimize $g(\lambda)$, PIKAIA creates an initial population of trial solutions for the DUSTY models $F_m(\lambda)$ by using random values for the input parameters. Starting from there, pairs of trial solutions are selected which are then used to bred two new solutions, i.e. the offspring. This way a new population with the same number of trial solutions is created, and then, the breeding process starts again until the final generation is reached.

As input parameters, for DUSTY the following have to be chosen before the calculation is started and will not be changed by PIKAIA. DUSTY's wavelength grid has been kept down to only 105 grid points in order to keep the runtime for each model as small as possible considering the big overall number of models to be calculated.

For the grain size distribution MRN as well as for the ratio between the outer shell radius $R_{out}$ and the inner shell radius $R_{in}$, the default settings have been kept. This grain size distribution, following is given by a power law of the following form $$n(a)\propto a^{-q} \quad \mathrm{ for } \quad a_{min} \leq a \leq a_{max}$$ with $n(a)$ being the number density of the dust grains with a radius a, and with the default parameters $q = 3.5$, $a_{min} = 0.005\,\mu$m and $a_{max} = 0.25\,\mu$m. For $R_{out}/R_{in}$ a value of 1000 was chosen, since any ratio above 100 has only a very small influence on the shape of the MIR spectrum.

The effective stellar photospheric temperature $T_*$ has also to be chosen beforehand. DUSTY then approximates the photospheric spectrum by a single black body. For this first stage of modelling, it was also decided that the dust temperature $T_{dust}$ and the optical depth $\tau$ are kept throughout the calculation process. Both values have a big influence on the spectral shape and thus should be known to a certain extent already beforehand.

Finally the pool of dust species used by DUSTY is also fixed during the whole run. Throughout this paper the dust species will be referred to as $f_1$ to $f_8$. The key to this numbering scheme can be found in Table  as well as a graphical representation of the optical constants in Fig.  where the main features in the studied wavelength range can be seen. Their respective abundances are subject of PIKAIA's optimisation routine. In order to avoid completely unrealistic combinations of abundances, the values have always been set to a range that seemed most likely for the respective object.

For PIKAIA two of the most important input values are the generation and population number. If these values are too small the genetic algorithm cannot act as intended, which means, values sufficiently high for the treated problem must be chosen. For our experiments we used as pop/gen values either 90/100 or 100/200, depending on the complexity of the observed spectrum.

PIKAIA qualifies each fit using a user supplied fitness function. Here we used the straight forward $\chi{}^2$ assuming that $$\mathrm{fitness}=\frac{1}{\chi{}^2}.$$ For each model the respective $\chi{}^2$ has to be calculated and then used to generate the fitness value which is used for the internal ranking of each model. At the end of the evolutional process, PIKAIA provides the respective parameter values together with the fitness value as an output for the user. This allows us to compare different fits in a quantitative way.

```latex
\begin{table*}[th]\centering
\caption{Performance test results. The fitness has been normalised to the fittest model (nr. 2) in this test.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} % centered columns (4 columns)
\hline\hline % inserts double horizontal lines
\# & pop & gen & $T_{dust}$ &  $f_2$ & $f_3$ & $\tau_{10\mu{}m}$ & free paras& fitness\\ % table heading
\hline % inserts single horizontal line
0 & artificial& spectrum& 750 & 65 & 35 & 0.009 & - & - \\ % inserting body of the table
\hline %inserts single line
1 & 10 & 5 & 754 & - & - & - & 1 & 0.019\\
2 & 10 & 5 & - & 65 & 35 & - & 1 & 1.000\\
3 & 10 & 5 & - & - & - & 0.00898 & 1 & 0.023\\
4 & 10 & 5 & - & 66.5 & 33.5 & 0.00878 & 2 & 0.552\\
5 & 10 & 5 & 752 & 50.3 & 49.7 & 0.00827 & 3 & 0.664\\
6 & 30 & 20 & - & 66.6 & 33.4 & 0.00783 & 2 & 0.777\\
7 & 30 & 20 & 730 & 65.6 & 34.4 & 0.008837 & 3 & 0.969\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{perres}
\end{table*}
```

# Performance Test

In order to investigate the performance and the overall functionality of the two combined programs a simple test setup has been designed. For this task an artificial spectrum has been created with DUSTY. Following the plan to keep the fake input spectrum as simple as possible, the stellar parameters have been chosen to represent a more or less average mira star with a silicate only dust composition.

This artificial spectrum has then been fed into PIKAIA as the "observed" spectrum. For this performance test two combinations of generation and population numbers have been used. Furthermore, for each of the test runs some of the parameters have been kept with a fixed value while others where allowed to be chosen freely. The value used to qualify the fits is the already introduced "fitness". As can be seen in Table , it does not only depend on the number of free parameters but also on which of the parameters have been left free. For calculations with a very low number of population members and generations, our procedure obviously has the least difficulties when all parameters except the dust composition are given in advance. Still it has to be pointed out that even for the low gen/pop combination the best result has been achieved with all parameters left free. This shows that the genetic algorithm operates most efficiently when given a sufficient amount of freedom concerning the parameters. Nevertheless, when comparing the fitness values of fits 5 and 7, it is also shown very clearly that in the case of no fixed parameters, a low number of populations and generations – such as in the case of fit 5 – is not sufficient anymore to retrieve a reasonable result.

The generation and population numbers may appear to be very low considering that one would expect both values to be higher to receive acceptable results from the algorithm. This is indeed true, when the code is applied to real observed spectra. Still for a simple test setup like the one used here, the numbers are sufficient enough since usually the best fit is achieved after 10 to 15 generations. This is demonstrated on the right panel of Fig. , where the development over time (i.e. generations) of each of the free parameters is shown for fit 7 (see Table ). The run time for the best model was about 4 hours in total on a PC.

The left side of this figure shows the artificial input spectrum with the best PIKAIA fit after 20 generations using a starting population of 30 trial solutions. In this test run, 4 parameters were determined by PIKAIA which are the dust temperature on the inner boundary $T_{dust}$, the abundances of 2 dust species $f_2$ and $f_3$ and the optical depth $\tau$.

This test showed, on the one hand, that the program works as expected and on the other hand gave a first idea about how the different parameters interact with each other. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the test was neither realistic concerning the complexity of typical observed spectra nor the number of generations and population members. A more realistic approach will be presented in Sect. .

Another point that needs to be mentioned is the CPU time needed for the calculations, which amounted to about two hours for the full procedure. The method presented in this paper might therefore not be able to compete with an experienced scientist doing a handfit. Still it offers some advantages compared to the "intuitive" method, apart from not getting your hands dirty but letting the computer do your work. With the fitness value it offers a parameter which allows to compare your results in a quantitative way. Furthermore the process is much less biased than a fit done by hand and as such, again, much better to be used for general comparison.

# Application to ISO spectra of AGB stars

In order to test our routine with more realistic data, models for selected AGB stars, observed by the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) , were calculated. The stars were chosen by following criteria: To start with, they had to be simple in a sense that their spectral appearance and thus mainly their dust composition is an easy (not more than three species) and more or less known and confirmed one. Nevertheless, the chosen stars should represent a wide parameter range. Finally, another criterion was that there had already been some DUSTY model calculations done for that object, in order to compare our results with previous ones and thus to put the algorithm to another test.

| Source  | ISO TDT number | Spectral class | Variability | Ref |
|:-------:|:--------------:|:--------------:|:-----------:|:---:|
| CE And  |    80104817    |       M5       |     Lb      |  1  |
| $o$ Cet |    45101201    |     M7IIIe     |    Mira     |  2  |
|  Z Cyg  |    37400126    |      M5e       |    Mira     |  3  |
| TY Dra  |    74102309    |       M8       |     Lb      |  1  |
|  S Pav  |    14401702    |     M7IIe      |     SRa     |  1  |
| SV Peg  |    74500605    |       M7       |     SRb     |  1  |

Basic properties of ISO test stars

\(1\) ; (2) ; (3)

All the data on the selected objects (see Table ) have been taken from the ISO archive and have been processed with ISO's automatic data-analysis pipeline called Off-Line Processing, v10.1. For further reduction and processing the ISO Spectroscopic Analysis Package (ISAP) was used . Since the major interest was on the overall shape and not on special features of the observed spectra, they have been rebinned to a resolution of $R=200$ in order not to waste processing time by an unnecessarily high number of data points.[^2] Before getting into detail with each single star, a remark has to be made concerning the 30 $\mu$m feature visible in all the spectra. This feature has not been taken into account in any of the calculations since it is very likely to be an instrumental artefact rather than a real feature. Although suggest that it might not be completely artificial, there is still no consensus on that matter.

For fits done by hand this feature does not present any problem since it can be easily ignored during the fitting procedure by the scientist. On the contrary, PIKAIA treats every data point equally so fits were only done until 26 $\mu$m and thus the wavelengths above are not shown in the presented plots since they are not used in the analysis.

The dust composition of the individual stars has been taken from the literature. In the case of S Pav and CE And served as a source for the starting values of the calculations. For TY Dra, $o$ Cet and Z Cyg the values were taken from . Finally, for both sources have been used to determine the starting values. Although the compositions used presented a good starting point, they had to be slightly adapted in the run, especially those of . This is most probably due to the fact that for these tests only a simple black body was used as a DUSTY input while for them a composed spectrum of a black body, the observed photospheric ISO-SWS spectrum and a Rayleigh-Jeans extrapolation served as input.

The results for each star are discussed in the following sections. Furthermore Table  gives an overview of all input and output values of the fits shown in Fig.  plus the assumed starting values used for the genetic algorithm. The first entry for each star gives the parameters for the fit done by . Thus there are no values for the population and generation entered. The second entry gives the start parameters for the PIKAIA runs. This is implicated by the values 0 for the generation and population and the missing fitness value. Finally the best result for each star is shown. CE And and S Pav do not have fits done by available. For SV Peg the results of 2 additional fits done with PIKAIA are given. Fig.  shows those results in comparison to the other fits.

```latex
\begin{table*}[th]\centering
\caption{Summary of the input values and results of the fits shown in Fig.~\ref{isotest}.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c | c c c c c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
&  &  &       Input    & & & & & & & Output & & & & &\\
\hline
Star & Pop. & Gen. & $T_{*}$ & $T_{dust}$ & $\tau_{10\mu{}m}$ & $f_1$ & $f_2$ & $f_3$ & $f_4$ & $f_5$ & $f_6$ & $f_7$ & $f_8$ & Fitness\\
& & &[K] & [K] &  & &  &  &  & & &  &  & &\\
\hline

CE And & 0   & 0       & 2700 & 500 & 0.19     &      &       &      & 24 & 72 & 4     &         & &\\
CE And & 90 & 120  & 2700 & 450 & 0.009   &      &       &      & 20 & 65 & 12  &        & 3 &3.9998\\
\hline
o Cet     &       &         & 2600 & 500 & 0.03      &      &100 &      &       &       &       &         & &6.3535\\
o Cet     & 0    & 0      & 2600 & 500 & 0.03      &     &  50 & 50 &       &       &       &         & &\\
o Cet     & 90  & 100 & 2200 & 650 & 0.2        &     &  60 & 40 &       &       &       &          & &6.3538\\
\hline
Z Cyg    &        &        & 2400 & 400 & 0.09      &      & 100 &      &       &       &       &      & &4.3745\\
Z Cyg    & 0    & 0      & 2500 & 500 & 0.15      &      &  50  & 50&        &       &       &        & &\\
Z Cyg    & 90  & 100 & 2700 & 490 & 0.13      &      &       &  30& 36 & 34 &       &        & &4.3926\\
\hline
TY Dra  &        &         & 3000 & 600 &0.025    &      &       &      &       &       &       &    100 & &9.2667\\
TY Dra  & 0    & 0      & 3000 &  600 &0.025   &      & 50  &50 &       &       &       &           & &\\
TY Dra  & 90  & 100 & 3000 & 650 & 0.3        &      & 60 & 30 &       & 10 &       &            & &9.6803\\
\hline
S Pav    & 0    & 0      & 2800 & 400 & 0.07      & 42 &      &      & 42 &        & 12 &           & 4 &\\
S Pav    & 100& 200 & 2800 & 650 & 0.0045 & 41 &      &      & 41 &        & 14 &           & 4 &9.9916\\
\hline
SV Peg &        &         & 3100 & 550& 0.008    &15  & 71&      &       &        &  10 &      & 4 & 6.3979\\
SV Peg & 0a  & 0a    & 3100 &  550& 0.008   &15  & 71&      &       &        &  10 &       & 4 & \\
SV Peg & 100 & 90  & 3000 & 615 & 0.008  &10  & 60&      &       &        &  26 &      & 4 &6.4002 \\
SV Peg & 100 & 120 & 3000 & 560 & 0.007  &13  & 61&      &       &        &   22 &       & 4 &6.4006 \\
SV Peg & 0b   & 0b    & 2800 & 500 &  0.12   &22  &      &      &  45 & 20 &   9  &       & 4 & \\
SV Peg & 100 & 200 & 2800 & 570 & 0.011  & 31 &      &      & 32 & 20  &  12&          & 5 &6.4017\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tabu}
\end{table*}
```

##

The MIR spectrum of CE And is dominated by a classical amorphous silicate emission . As a starting point for the dust composition amorphous melilite, amorphous olivine and crystalline magnesiowustite, respectively $f_4$, $f_5$ and $f_6$,were chosen. During the first manual tests it appeared that there might exist another species contributing to the spectrum. In order to test this hypothesis crystalline spinel ($f_8$) was used as an additional species. It indeed turned out that the results where better with this additional component. Concerning the population number, a starting population of 90 individuals seemed to be sufficient for the given problem as for the number of generations 120 seemed to serve the purpose. The final results are shown hereafter in Table .

##

The reason for picking $o$ Ceti is obvious. As *the* Mira star per se, its dust composition is very well known and it has been topic of a number of publications of which some presented synthetic fits . Mira's mineralogy exhibits mostly silicate dust, which makes it a perfect target for the further evaluation of the code.

As starting parameters for the calculation, we assumed the same dust composition as . After some iterations and efforts to adapt the parameters, it turned out that another dust composition including aluminum oxide produces a better fit. The best PIKAIA results were achieved with 100 generations and a population of 90. Results are shown in Table  and also in Fig. .

##

Z Cyg is a very well known Mira variable with a solely silicate dust composition. The dust properties of Z Cyg have already been extensively discussed by focusing on the effects of time variations of SWS spectra. The SWS spectrum at variability phase $\phi$=0.97 (i.e. TDT37400126) used here is the same as used to derive the dust emissivity of Z Cyg. The mass loss rate, obtained from their best fit, of 7 x 10$^{-8}$ (r$_*$/3 x 10$^{13}$ cm) seems to be in rather good agreement with the one (4 x 10$^{-8}$ M$_{\odot}$/yr) obtained by .

Figure  shows a typical fit done by hand (dashed line) taken from and the best PIKAIA fit (solid line) that could be accomplished so far. This fit exhibits an exclusively silicate containing dust composition. Although this fit covers the main silicate feature around 20 $\mu$m quite well, there seem to be some problems connected with the 9.7 $\mu$m feature. In comparison to the hand fit, the PIKAIA fit is covering this feature much better. A combination of amorphous pyroxene, $f_{3}$, amorphous melilite, $f_{4}$ and amorphous olivine, $f_{5}$ proved to produce the fittest results. Still this results are not completely satisfying yet. Again, results are given in Table .

##

TY Dra proved to be more complicated than first expected. Although its spectrum is supposed to be entirely dominated by amorphous silicate dust (MgFeSiO$_{4}$; see ), this solution did not turn out to be the fittest for the given starting values. In Fig.  the hand fit based on the assumption mentioned is shown. It can be clearly seen that, even though the 10 $\mu$m peak seems to fit quite well, and with some adjustments of the input parameters might fit even better, the peak around 19 $\mu$m is not well represented at all. On the other hand, the PIKAIA fit seems to be a better option, although not perfect, for this case. Here we assumed a dust composition consisting of amorphous pyroxene, amorphous aluminum oxide and amorphous olivine (respectively $f_{2}$,$f_{1}$ and $f_{5}$).

##

S Pav is a fairly complex star in terms of dust composition . As stated in , the given starting composition of amorphous aluminium oxide, amorphous melilite, magnesiowustite and crystalline spinel (respectively $f_1$,$f_4$,$f_6$ and $f_8$) PIKAIA was able to produce a fairly reasonable fit for the given parameter range presenting only minor changes in the amount of amorphous aluminium oxide, amorphous melilite and magnesiowustite. Still, setting the generation number to 200 in order to obtain the best fit possible, went at the cost of run time.

## SV Peg

Just like S Pav, SV Peg shows a complex mineralogy. Although still dominated by silicates, its spectrum also exhibits quite strong features of amorphous aluminium oxide, crystalline magnesiowustite and crystalline spinel according to . This complex dust composition made the fitting process for our routine very complicated.

SV Peg turned out to be a surprise in terms of fitting. Looking like too complex to be fitted by this DUSTY-PIKAIA routine in the beginning, the results were fairly good in the end, but at the costs of having to set very strict constraints to the input dust composition.

Figure tries to give an impression about the evolution of fits and the difficulties that appear when choosing the input parameters. The two fits displayed in grey (further referred to as fit A and fit B) show how the increase of the generation number leads to an improvement of the fit. Nevertheless, it turned out that in the case of these two fits, the chosen dust parameters were not the most suitable ones, since a restriction in the parameter space and the raise of the generation number did not have such a strong effect on the results as expected.

Fit A was done with a dust composition of amorphous aluminum oxide,amorphous silicate, crystalline magnesiowustite and crystalline spinel (respectively $f_1$,$f_2$,$f_6$ and $f_8$) suggested by . This worked very well for the manual fit. Unfortunately it turned out that a too high number of free parameters combined with too large range of values for the respective parameters did not perform very well. This was mainly due to the chosen number of only 90 generations (and also population members). For a problem of this complexity more time is needed to find a solution, thus more generations are needed. As a consequence the number of generations for fit B was increased to 120. It can be seen clearly in Fig. , that the fit slowly improves and approaches the real spectrum. Nevertheless only raising the number of generations did not have such a strong effect as desired. Furthermore, the increment lead to an immensely extended run time of almost 2 days.

Since we were not able to achieve considerably better results even with higher generation numbers, a slightly altered dust composition, consisting of marphous aluminium oxide, am. melilite, olivine, crystalline magnesiowustite and crystalline spinel (respectively $f_1$,$f_4$,$f_5$,$f_6$ and $f_8$) in accordance to , was used. This time only the amount of dust was set to be a free parameter. All other variables were fixed. Furthermore the number of generations was increased to 200 to provide PIKAIA with enough time to arrive the best fit possible. This result can be also seen in Fig.  as well as in Table .

# Conclusions and Outlook

AGB stars are known to exhibit strong dust features in the IR range of their spectra. The carriers of those features have to be identified in order to study the dust composition of these shells and hence the mass loss process of AGB stars.

The goal of this work was to study an automatised routine to fit this IR part of the spectrum of an AGB star and to explore the possibilities and more important the boundaries for a routine like this. Therefor we have focused in this work only on the improvement of fits which have already been carried out on the respective objects. This goal was definitely reached. We could show that it is indeed possible to improve fits done by various researchers using a genetic algorithm for fine tuning of the parameters. We could also show that in cases of Z Cyg, SV Peg and TY Dra a more elaborate or even slightly different dust composition leads to better results than with the composition taken from , which was used as a starting point for our calculation. For CE And, o Cet, S Pav and SV Peg our results showed only minor difference from the dust compositions taken from , which we used as starting parameters for our models for these objects.

Furthermore this routine also provides a quantitative method, namely the fitness value supplied by the genetic algorithm, for comparison of the model spectra. This is connected with the need of independence from an all hands on method done by a scientist, which is, even when carefully trying to avoid it, always biased by the individual experience on the respective field of research. This method can be seen as a little step away form this type of fitting process to a more automatised and independent fitting process.

Nevertheless there are a few things which need to be kept in mind while using PIKAIA and DUSTY in order to fit a spectrum. First, the starting parameters for the fits of all stars mentioned in this paper were taken from the literature. However, one will not always work on objects that have already been the subject of investigations beforehand. This leaves us with the question of how to determine the basic stellar parameters for each object needed as input for our automatic fitting method. For a star's temperature the most likely approach is carrying out JHK-photometry in order to retrieve these values. Another logical approach would be using only similar object of a certain group, which then should also offer some hints for the approximate values.

The dust temperature is also a value which might not be found in the literature. In order to estimate the temperature a simple black body fit of the respective wavelength region should offer a sufficient starting value for our calculations.

Still, the by far most difficult part in choosing the starting values for a model is the selection of suitable dust species and their respective amount. So far the only reliable method is an experienced scientist. Although this step could be executed by a program doing a comparison of local maxima in the dust spectra with the star's spectrum, an accordance in the peaks unfortunately does not necessarily mean that a single species or a certain combination applies to the star. For now human intervention in this step seems to be unavoidable and a performance efficient black box fitting procedure out of reach.

This leads also directly to the problem of the run time of our routine. as well as used the parallelized version of PIKAIA to run their simulations. In this paper we used only a serial version of PIKAIA in order to study the overall behaviour of the routine in combination with DUSTY in a setting as simple as possible. Thus a full optimisation procedure took on an average work station up to a day at most.

The most time during the fitting procedure is consumed by DUSTY and not by PIKAIA itself. Thus, our attempts to speed up the routine focused on DUSTY. We reduced the wavelength grid as much as possible, skipped unnecessary command line outputs and used the basic black bodies, inbuilt in DUSTY, as a background spectrum instead of a more elaborated one. Another problem which increases the runtime, is that DUSTY models with a good fitness, that continue to the next generation are not stored anywhere, but are calculated again. All those points together will likely lead to an extension of the runtime by up to a factor of two. In the current version of our code we did take these points into account as we were aiming at testing the general fitting possibilities of this approach first. Solutions to most of these points are straightforward and their implementation is foreseen for a forthcoming version of our code currently under development. The results shown in this paper are very promising, thus we expect that our method, keeping in mind its limitations, will finally provide a valuable tool for fitting dust spectra of AGB stars.

[^1]: *email to:* firstname.lastname@example.com

[^2]: The dust species examined in this paper all exhibit only such dust features which are broad enough to be resolved at R = 200. Thus no essential dust features are missed at this resolution.