Nebular emission and choice of IMF, stellar library
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 76
- Forks
- 45
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Hi. I was reading through the arXiv paper by @nell-byler about implementing nebular continuum and emission into python-fsps and had a question. If I understand correctly, the user can switch on nebular continuum and emission for both the Padova+Geneva isochrones and the MIST isochrones and have the nebular effects be implemented self-consistently for both. However, for other choices (e.g., IMF and stellar libraries) is it true that the nebular effects are only self-consistent for the selection of the Kroupa (2001) IMF and the BaSeL 3.1 spectral library and that changing these will result in inconsistent results?
For example, if I need the higher wavelength resolution of the MILES library and want to include nebular effects, do I need to worry that my nebular fluxes are not really correct? Thanks.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue asks whether nebular continuum and emission remain self-consistent across isochrone, IMF, and stellar-library choices, but names no source file or test. Start by reviewing the referenced arXiv paper and the python-fsps documentation for nebular settings. Done means documenting which combinations are self-consistent and how MILES users should interpret nebular fluxes.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100