adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Pre-peak Emission in Tidal Disruption Events
Authors: Xiaoshan Huang, 小珊 黄, Shane W. Davis, Yan-fei Jiang, 燕飞 姜
Figure caption: Histograms of Keplerian orbital period t orb and circularization radius r circ for bound gas in RSI50Edd10; the color shows the probability for each bin weighted by mass. The top panel is t = 101.4 hr, roughly at the end of the strong outflow phase, and corresponds to the middle column of Figure 2. The bottom panel is t = 225.7 hr, when we stopped the simulation and more gas is circularizing. The two gray dashed vertical lines are the circularization radius of original stellar orbit at 2r  p  and the stream–stream collision radius r SI. The horizontal dashed line is the t orb for a circular orbit at the stellar circularization radius.
Paper: Pre-peak Emission in Tidal Disruption Events
Authors: Xiaoshan Huang, 小珊 黄, Shane W. Davis, Yan-fei Jiang, 燕飞 姜
Figure caption: Inferred unbound outflow travel distance from the black hole (top row) and total velocity magnitude (bottom panel) in RSI50Edd10. We randomly sample velocity and position from five points in Figure 4 to represent gas parcels in the unbound outflow when they are just launched. Then, we integrate the ballistic trajectories to extrapolate their travel distances and velocities, and we infer the subrelativistic outflow associated with potential radio emission. The blue, orange, green, red, and purple lines correspond to sample points with initial (r, θ) = (35.08, 0.78), (17.91, 1.05), (40.05, 1.48), (49.80, 1.48), (24.95, 2.26) on the ϕ = 1.66π plane in Figure 4.
Paper: Pre-peak Emission in Tidal Disruption Events
Authors: Xiaoshan Huang, 小珊 黄, Shane W. Davis, Yan-fei Jiang, 燕飞 姜
Figure caption: Evolution of effective photosphere radius R eff (Equation (13); top panel) and average gas temperature (bottom panel) for RSI20Edd10 (blue lines), RSI50Edd10 (orange lines), and RSI100Edd10 (red lines). The prompt rise of R eff and ﹩{\overline{T}}_{\mathrm{gas}}﹩ is driven by stream–stream collision.
Paper: Pre-peak Emission in Tidal Disruption Events
Authors: Xiaoshan Huang, 小珊 黄, Shane W. Davis, Yan-fei Jiang, 燕飞 姜
Figure caption: The “side-view” radiation temperature snapshot of RSI20Edd10 at t = 36.1 hr (top panel) and RSI50Edd10 at t = 240 hr (bottom panel). The temperature is volume averaged from Δϕ ∼ 5° near the ϕ inj plane. The green solid line shows R eff along different radial lines of sight.
Paper: Pre-peak Emission in Tidal Disruption Events
Authors: Xiaoshan Huang, 小珊 黄, Shane W. Davis, Yan-fei Jiang, 燕飞 姜
Figure caption: The vertical stream pressure (top panel) and estimated timescales (bottom panel) at r = 4.75r  s  (gray circle in Figure 11), t = 13.1 hr for level 5 (blue lines) and level 6 (orange lines). In the top panel, the solid lines are the θ θ component of the radiation pressure tensor. The dotted lines are the fitted curve that scales as ∝ρ 4/3. In the bottom panel, the solid lines are the estimated vertical diffusion timescale, and the dashed lines are the estimated vertical dynamical timescale.
Paper: Pre-peak Emission in Tidal Disruption Events
Authors: Xiaoshan Huang, 小珊 黄, Shane W. Davis, Yan-fei Jiang, 燕飞 姜
Figure caption: The vertical stream density (first row), θ-direction velocity (second row), and pressure (third row) at r = 4.75r  s  (gray circle in Figure 11), t = 26.2 hr. The blue, orange, and green lines corresponds to levels 5, 6, and 7, respectively. In the third row, the solids lines are the θ θ component of the radiation pressure tensor, and the dashed lines are gas pressure.
Paper: Pre-peak Emission in Tidal Disruption Events
Authors: Xiaoshan Huang, 小珊 黄, Shane W. Davis, Yan-fei Jiang, 燕飞 姜
Figure caption: The “face-on” radiation temperature snapshot of RSI20Edd10 at t = 36.1 hr (top panel) and RSI50Edd10 at t = 240 hr (bottom panel). The temperature is volume averaged over Δθ ∼ 5° near the θ = π/2 plane. The green solid line shows R eff along different radial lines of sight.
Paper: IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: No Shortage of Thin Disk Galaxies in TNG50
Authors: Dewang Xu, 德望 徐, Hua Gao, 桦 高, Connor Bottrell, Hassen M. Yesuf, Jingjing Shi
Figure caption:  f  q ≤ 0.4 of observed and simulated galaxies in our study and H22. The f  q ≤ 0.4 values and their errors from this work and H22 are shown in the blue and gray shaded areas, respectively. The left text briefly describes the samples, the filters of images, and the redshift ranges. Different shapes of symbol represent the various methods used to measure the axis ratios; open and filled symbols are measurements of simulated galaxies and observed galaxies, respectively. Symbols of the same colors indicate the same filter of (synthetic) images or the same format of simulation data from which the axis ratios were derived. This work uses AutoProf to measure the axis ratio. The axis ratios of the GAMA sample were derived from single Sérsic fits using GALFIT; for the SDSS sample, the axis ratios were obtained via exponential or de Vaucouleurs fits using the SDSS pipeline. Both were compiled by H22. The sky-projected axis ratios of the simulated galaxies in H22 were derived from their 3D stellar mass distributions. Stellar-mass weighting is applied to observational samples to match the stellar mass distributions of the TNG50 galaxies.
Paper: IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: No Shortage of Thin Disk Galaxies in TNG50
Authors: Dewang Xu, 德望 徐, Hua Gao, 桦 高, Connor Bottrell, Hassen M. Yesuf, Jingjing Shi
Figure caption: Distributions of galaxies as a function of axis ratio and stellar mass. The left and middle panels show the real and mock HSC-SSP observations (TNG50), respectively. The right panel also displays the mock HSC-SSP observations, but with random perturbations of 0.2 dex Gaussian uncertainties applied to the stellar masses. Each row, from top to bottom, displays g-band, i-band, and y-band measurements, respectively. Darker colors correspond to a higher density of galaxies in each bin. The solid lines represent the 1st, 16th, 50th, 84th, and 99th percentiles of axis ratios at a given stellar mass. The blue lines in the middle and right panels are replicated percentile lines for the HSC-SSP galaxies in the left panels, to facilitate the comparison with the red ones for the TNG50 galaxies.
Paper: IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: No Shortage of Thin Disk Galaxies in TNG50
Authors: Dewang Xu, 德望 徐, Hua Gao, 桦 高, Connor Bottrell, Hassen M. Yesuf, Jingjing Shi
Figure caption: The relations between concentration index and stellar mass of the HSC-SSP galaxies and the TNG50 galaxies. In the top row, solid lines represent the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles of C 82 for the TNG50 galaxies, and the shaded regions and dashed lines mark the same percentiles for the HSC-SSP galaxies. The bottom row follows the same convention, except that the stellar masses of the TNG50 galaxies are randomly perturbed as in Figure 4.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Pressure–temperature profiles for a range of effective temperatures with a surface gravity of log(g) = 4.5 (cgs). The condensation curve of water ice is shown in the black dashed line. The thicker regions of the profile indicate where the atmosphere is convective.
Paper: IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: No Shortage of Thin Disk Galaxies in TNG50
Authors: Dewang Xu, 德望 徐, Hua Gao, 桦 高, Connor Bottrell, Hassen M. Yesuf, Jingjing Shi
Figure caption: The distributions of y-band axis ratios of the HSC-SSP sample (left) and the TNG50 sample (right) with resolution cut (open solid) and without resolution cut (filled dashed) in different stellar mass bins. Stellar mass increases from left to right and from top to bottom in the range ﹩9\leqslant \mathrm{log}({M}_{\star }/{M}_{\odot })\leqslant 11.5﹩. The parameter f is the ratio of the number of galaxies after the resolution cut to before the resolution cut in each stellar mass bin.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Left: The cloud-free EGP P-T profile used in Mang et al. (2022) in comparison to the cloudy (f sed = 6) EGP+ P-T profile generated in this work for a Y dwarf with T eff = 350 K, log(g) = 4.5 (left). Right: The optical depth profile of the CARMA cloud using these thermal structures.
Paper: IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: No Shortage of Thin Disk Galaxies in TNG50
Authors: Dewang Xu, 德望 徐, Hua Gao, 桦 高, Connor Bottrell, Hassen M. Yesuf, Jingjing Shi
Figure caption: The relation between S/T and stellar mass in TNG50. The three red lines mark the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles of S/T.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Illustration depicting the workflow and interconnections between the EGP, EGP+, and CARMA models used in this work.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Pressure–temperature profiles for a fully cloudy brown dwarf with T eff = 200 K and log(g) = 4.5 (cgs) with f sed = 6. Two models assume a solar metallicity with the latent heat flux set to 1 and 10 W m−2. The other thermal structures, for cases at supersolar metallicity, show the effect of latent heat release in the moist adiabat model (solid) in comparison to those without latent heat release following a dry adiabat (dashed). The condensation curve of water ice is shown in the black dashed line. The thicker regions of the profile indicate where the atmosphere is convective.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Water-ice cloud particle size distribution for a brown dwarf with T eff = 200 K and log(g) = 4.5. The distributions of particles are shown at two different layers of the atmosphere with P ∼ 0.2 bar (left) and 1 bar (right), corresponding to the upper region of the cloud and the cloud base, respectively. The EddySed cloud with three constant f sed values (solid) and four variable f sed cases with different β values with α = 3 (dashed) are compared to the CARMA distribution (black).
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Simulated thermal emission spectra from 0.6 to 15 μm of the CARMA and EddySed cloud models and a cloud-free model for a Y dwarf with T eff = 175 K, log(g) = 4.5 and f sed = 6. The CARMA water-ice clouds include those heterogeneously nucleated on KCl and infalling meteoritic dust. The case with less infalling dust corresponds to a downward flux of 10−19 g cm−2 s−1, while more infalling dust corresponds to a flux of 10−17 g cm−2 s−1. The inset highlights the region of interest between 3 and 6 μm.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Contributions to the total flux in the atmospheric profile of a T eff = 175 K, log(g) = 4.5, and f sed = 6 brown dwarf. The latent heat flux is scaled up by a factor of 109, due to its negligible contribution, making it visually comparable to the convective and infrared fluxes. The latent heat flux contribution in the radiative zones is significantly lower than the convective and infrared flux contributions.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Contour plot of the CARMA water-ice cloud mass density as a function of pressure and particle radius for the T eff = 200 K and log(g) = 4.5 case. The black dashed line represents the cloud base. The EddySed mode cloud particle radii for a model with f sed = 6 are shown in black circles for comparison.
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: A comparison of the steady-state pressure–temperature profile of the original EddySed model with the new, microphysically informed EddySed for a Y dwarf with T eff = 175 K and log(g) = 4.5.
Paper: J-PLUS: Beyond Spectroscopy. III. Stellar Parameters and Elemental-abundance Ratios for Five Million Stars from DR3
Authors: Yang Huang, 样 黄, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Young Sun Lee, Hongrui Gu, 弘睿 顾, Jihye Hong, Jifeng Liu, 继峰 刘, Zhou Fan, 舟 范, Paula Coelho, Patricia Cruz, F. J. Galindo-Guil, Simone Daflon, Fran Jiménez-Esteban, Javier Cenarro, David Cristóbal-Hornillos, Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos López-Sanjuan, Antonio Marín-Franch, Mariano Moles, Jesús Varela, Héctor Vázquez Ramió, Jailson Alcaniz, Renato Dupke, Alessandro Ederoclite, Laerte Sodré, Raul E. Angulo
Figure caption: Histograms of the training sets for metallicity ([Fe/H]) for dwarfs (blue line) and giants (red line).
Paper: Microphysical Prescriptions for Parameterized Water Cloud Formation on Ultra-cool Substellar Objects
Authors: James Mang, Caroline V. Morley, Tyler D. Robinson, Peter Gao
Figure caption: Pressure–temperature profiles with various numerical factors for the growth rate for a T eff = 175 K, log(g) = 4.5 brown dwarf.
Paper: Revisiting the A  L  Lensing Anomaly in Planck 2018 Temperature Data
Authors: Graeme E. Addison, Charles L. Bennett, Mark Halpern, Gary Hinshaw, Janet L. Weiland
Figure caption: The preference for A  L  > 1 in the Planck temperature data is strongest at low ecliptic latitudes, in particular for 217 GHz. We show marginalized A  L  constraints for the original Planck 2018 plik masks, and with additional masking around the ecliptic and ecliptic poles, indicated visually for the 217 GHz mask in the Mollweide images. Top: results including the lowl/lowE 2018 likelihoods covering multipoles ℓ < 30. Bottom: results without the ℓ < 30 TT likelihood, lowl, to highlight the contribution these low multipoles make to the preference for A  L  > 1. Points are offset horizontally for each mask for visual clarity. Horizontal dashed lines indicate the mean A  L  values for the fits using plik masks with all frequencies, 1.240 and 1.205 for the top and bottom panels, respectively.
Paper: J-PLUS: Beyond Spectroscopy. III. Stellar Parameters and Elemental-abundance Ratios for Five Million Stars from DR3
Authors: Yang Huang, 样 黄, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Young Sun Lee, Hongrui Gu, 弘睿 顾, Jihye Hong, Jifeng Liu, 继峰 刘, Zhou Fan, 舟 范, Paula Coelho, Patricia Cruz, F. J. Galindo-Guil, Simone Daflon, Fran Jiménez-Esteban, Javier Cenarro, David Cristóbal-Hornillos, Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos López-Sanjuan, Antonio Marín-Franch, Mariano Moles, Jesús Varela, Héctor Vázquez Ramió, Jailson Alcaniz, Renato Dupke, Alessandro Ederoclite, Laerte Sodré, Raul E. Angulo
Figure caption: Density distributions of the metallicity differences (APOGEE minus LAMOST) as a function of LAMOST effective temperature (top panel), surface gravity (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel). The black dots and error bars in each panel represent the median and dispersion of the metallicity differences in the individual parameter bins. Blue lines show third- and seventh-order polynomial fits to the black data points. The function in the top panel is ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}[{\rm{Fe}}/{\rm{H}}]\,=5.89680\,\times {10}^{3}-7.50396\times {10}^{0}{T}_{{\rm{eff}}}+4.05925\times {10}^{-3}{T}_{{\rm{eff}}}^{2}-1.21006\times {10}^{-6}﹩                      ﹩{T}_{{\rm{eff}}}^{3}+2.14707\times {10}^{-10}{T}_{{\rm{eff}}}^{4}-2.26794\times {10}^{-14}{T}_{{\rm{eff}}}^{5}+1.32079\,\times ﹩                      ﹩\,{10}^{-18}{T}_{{\rm{eff}}}^{6}-3.27244\times {10}^{-23}{T}_{{\rm{eff}}}^{7}﹩. The function in the middle panel is ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]=-3.49234\times {10}^{0}+1.43439\times {10}^{1}\mathrm{log}g-2.18911\,\times \,{10}^{1}\mathrm{log}{g}^{2}+1.65358\times {10}^{1}\mathrm{log}{g}^{3}-6.85637\times {10}^{0}\mathrm{log}{g}^{4}\,+1.59063\,\times ﹩                      ﹩{10}^{0}\mathrm{log}{g}^{5}-1.93735\times {10}^{-1}\mathrm{log}{g}^{6}+9.64794\times {10}^{-3}\mathrm{log}{g}^{7}﹩. The function in the bottom panel is ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]=-1.54691\times {10}^{-2}-1.12912\times ﹩                      ﹩{{10}^{-1}{[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]-4.32802\times {10}^{-2}[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]}^{2}-7.26999\times {10}^{-3}[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]}^{3}﹩. A color bar representing the numbers of stars is provided above the top panel. The blue dashed lines indicate zero residuals in each panel.
Paper: Revisiting the A  L  Lensing Anomaly in Planck 2018 Temperature Data
Authors: Graeme E. Addison, Charles L. Bennett, Mark Halpern, Gary Hinshaw, Janet L. Weiland
Figure caption: Reproduction of the Planck 2018 TT+lowl/lowE constraints in the ΛCDM+A  L  model. Despite small differences in the masking (Section 2.1), covariance approximation (Section 2.3.1), and noise modeling (Section 2.3.2), our likelihood matches the Planck results to 0.1σ or better for cosmological parameters. We also show the main 217 GHz foreground parameters, where shifts are larger, up to 0.25σ for the 217 GHz Galactic dust amplitude (﹩{A}_{217}^{{\rm{dust}}{TT}}﹩), though still subdominant to statistical uncertainty. Agreement for other foreground parameters, for fits to individual TT spectra, and for the ΛCDM model, is at least as good as that shown here.
Paper: J-PLUS: Beyond Spectroscopy. III. Stellar Parameters and Elemental-abundance Ratios for Five Million Stars from DR3
Authors: Yang Huang, 样 黄, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Young Sun Lee, Hongrui Gu, 弘睿 顾, Jihye Hong, Jifeng Liu, 继峰 刘, Zhou Fan, 舟 范, Paula Coelho, Patricia Cruz, F. J. Galindo-Guil, Simone Daflon, Fran Jiménez-Esteban, Javier Cenarro, David Cristóbal-Hornillos, Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos López-Sanjuan, Antonio Marín-Franch, Mariano Moles, Jesús Varela, Héctor Vázquez Ramió, Jailson Alcaniz, Renato Dupke, Alessandro Ederoclite, Laerte Sodré, Raul E. Angulo
Figure caption: Metallicity differences (HRS minus APOGEE/GALAH/SDSS) between the stars in common between APOGEE (top panel), GALAH (middle panel), SDSS/SEGUE (bottom panel), and the HRS, as a function of [Fe/H]. The red dots in each panel represent the median of the metallicity differences in the individual metallicity bins. Blue lines (with the functions marked in the top left corner; here x is [Fe/H] of each spectroscopic survey) show second- to third-order polynomial fits to the blue data points. The red dashed lines indicate zero residuals in each panel.
Paper: J-PLUS: Beyond Spectroscopy. III. Stellar Parameters and Elemental-abundance Ratios for Five Million Stars from DR3
Authors: Yang Huang, 样 黄, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Young Sun Lee, Hongrui Gu, 弘睿 顾, Jihye Hong, Jifeng Liu, 继峰 刘, Zhou Fan, 舟 范, Paula Coelho, Patricia Cruz, F. J. Galindo-Guil, Simone Daflon, Fran Jiménez-Esteban, Javier Cenarro, David Cristóbal-Hornillos, Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos López-Sanjuan, Antonio Marín-Franch, Mariano Moles, Jesús Varela, Héctor Vázquez Ramió, Jailson Alcaniz, Renato Dupke, Alessandro Ederoclite, Laerte Sodré, Raul E. Angulo
Figure caption: Left panel: comparisons between the LAMOST VMP (LVMP for short) sample (derived with the LSSPP; see Section 3.1 for details) and the HRS sample compiled from PASTEL+SAGA (red squares), and the LAMOST-Subaru HRS sample (blue squares) from Li et al. (2022). The overall median offset and standard deviation are marked in the top left corner. Right panel: comparison between the SDSS/SEGUE VMP (SVMP for short) sample (derived from the SSPP) and the HRS sample compiled from PASTEL+SAGA. The black dashed lines are the one-to-one lines.
Paper: J-PLUS: Beyond Spectroscopy. III. Stellar Parameters and Elemental-abundance Ratios for Five Million Stars from DR3
Authors: Yang Huang, 样 黄, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Young Sun Lee, Hongrui Gu, 弘睿 顾, Jihye Hong, Jifeng Liu, 继峰 刘, Zhou Fan, 舟 范, Paula Coelho, Patricia Cruz, F. J. Galindo-Guil, Simone Daflon, Fran Jiménez-Esteban, Javier Cenarro, David Cristóbal-Hornillos, Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos López-Sanjuan, Antonio Marín-Franch, Mariano Moles, Jesús Varela, Héctor Vázquez Ramió, Jailson Alcaniz, Renato Dupke, Alessandro Ederoclite, Laerte Sodré, Raul E. Angulo
Figure caption: Comparisons between [Mg/Fe] (left panel) and [α/Fe] (right panel) of GALAH DR3 and those of APOGEE DR17. The overall median offset and standard deviation are marked in the top left corner or each panel. Note that the spectral SNR of the stars in common is required to be greater than 50 pixel−1 in each survey.
Paper: J-PLUS: Beyond Spectroscopy. III. Stellar Parameters and Elemental-abundance Ratios for Five Million Stars from DR3
Authors: Yang Huang, 样 黄, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Young Sun Lee, Hongrui Gu, 弘睿 顾, Jihye Hong, Jifeng Liu, 继峰 刘, Zhou Fan, 舟 范, Paula Coelho, Patricia Cruz, F. J. Galindo-Guil, Simone Daflon, Fran Jiménez-Esteban, Javier Cenarro, David Cristóbal-Hornillos, Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos López-Sanjuan, Antonio Marín-Franch, Mariano Moles, Jesús Varela, Héctor Vázquez Ramió, Jailson Alcaniz, Renato Dupke, Alessandro Ederoclite, Laerte Sodré, Raul E. Angulo
Figure caption: Upper panels: density distributions of [Mg/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] for dwarf (left) and giant (right) stars with flg[Fe/H] ≥ 0.85, flg[Mg/Fe] ≥ 0.85, and RUWE ≤ 1.4, with a color bar shown on the top. Lower panels: similar to upper panels, but for [α/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]. The blue dashed lines in each panel indicate the solar ratios.
Paper: J-PLUS: Beyond Spectroscopy. III. Stellar Parameters and Elemental-abundance Ratios for Five Million Stars from DR3
Authors: Yang Huang, 样 黄, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Young Sun Lee, Hongrui Gu, 弘睿 顾, Jihye Hong, Jifeng Liu, 继峰 刘, Zhou Fan, 舟 范, Paula Coelho, Patricia Cruz, F. J. Galindo-Guil, Simone Daflon, Fran Jiménez-Esteban, Javier Cenarro, David Cristóbal-Hornillos, Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos López-Sanjuan, Antonio Marín-Franch, Mariano Moles, Jesús Varela, Héctor Vázquez Ramió, Jailson Alcaniz, Renato Dupke, Alessandro Ederoclite, Laerte Sodré, Raul E. Angulo
Figure caption: Comparisons between [C/Fe] from the LAMOST VMP (LVMP for short) sample (left panel) and the SDSS/SEGUE VMP (SVMP for short) sample (right panel) and that of APOGEE DR17 for stars (requiring spectral SNR greater than 50 pixel−1 in each survey) in common. The overall median offset and standard deviation are marked in the top left corner of each panel.
Paper: Multispacecraft Observations of Protons and Helium Nuclei in Some Solar Energetic Particle Events toward the Maximum of Cycle 25
Authors: S. Bartocci, R. Battiston, S. Benella, S. Beolè, W. J. Burger, P. Cipollone, A. Contin, M. Cristoforetti, C. De Donato, C. De Santis, A. Di Luca, F. M. Follega, G. Gebbia, R. Iuppa, M. Laurenza, A. Lega, M. Lolli, M. Martucci, G. Masciantonio, M. Mergè, M. Mese, C. Neubuser, R. Nicolaidis, F. Nozzoli, A. Oliva, G. Osteria, F. Palma, B. Panico, F. Perfetto, A. Perinelli, P. Picozza, E. Ricci, M. Ricci, S. B. Ricciarini, Z. Sahnoun, U. Savino, V. Scotti, M. Sorbara, A. Sotgiu, R. Sparvoli, P. Ubertini, V. Vilona, S. Zoffoli, P. Zuccon
Figure caption: The event-integrated, pure solar fluence spectra of H and He for events 1, 2, and 3 as a function of kinetic energy per nucleon—panels (a). The ratio between H and He is shown in panels (b) of each plot, together with a reference value from D. V. Reames (1995; magenta square). Fits with both Ellison–Ramaty and Weibull functions are superimposed to the points (solid and dashed blue lines, respectively).