Comparative analysis of atmospheric parameters from high-resolution spectroscopic sky surveys: APOGEE, GALAH, <i>Gaia</i>-ESO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. SDSS-IV APOGEE-2, GALAH, and Gaia -ESO are high-resolution, ground-based, multi-object spectroscopic surveys providing fundamental stellar atmospheric parameters and multiple elemental abundance ratios for hundreds of thousands of stars of the Milky Way. Data from these and other surveys contribute to investigations of the history and evolution of the Galaxy. Aims. We undertake a comparison between the most recent data releases of these surveys to investigate the accuracy and precision of derived parameters by placing the abundances on an absolute scale. We also discuss the correlations in parameter and abundance differences as a function of main parameters. Uncovering the variants provides a basis to continue the efforts of future sky surveys. Methods. Quality samples from the APOGEE−GALAH (15 537 stars), APOGEE−GES (804 stars), and GALAH−GES (441 stars) overlapping catalogs were collected. We investigated the mean variants between the surveys, and linear trends were also investigated. We compared the slope of correlations and mean differences with the reported uncertainties. Results. The average and scatter of v rad , T eff , log g , [M/H], and v micro , along with numerous species of elemental abundances in the combined catalogs, show that in general there is a good agreement between the surveys. We find large radial velocity scatters ranging from 1.3 km s −1 to 4.4 km s −1 when comparing the three surveys. We observe some weak trends (e.g., in Δ T eff vs. Δlog g for the APOGEE−GES stars) and a clear correlation in the v micro − Δ v micro planes in the APOGEE−GALAH common sample. For [ α /H], [Ti/H] (APOGEE−GALAH giants), and [Al/H] (APOGEE−GALAH dwarfs) potential strong correlations are discovered as a function of the differences in the main atmospheric parameters, and we also find weak trends for other elements. Conclusions. In general we find good agreement between the three surveys within their respective uncertainties. However, there are certain regimes in which strong variants exist, which we discuss. There are still offsets larger than 0.1 dex in the absolute abundance scales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".