Notes from reading draft of Paper 2

[gully]

I'm reading the draft of paper 2. Here are some notes:

1. Interpretable --> "Adaptive"
   Paper1 emphasized the interpretability of assigning lots of parameters to individual line shapes. I think in Paper2 we should emphasize the adaptability of the model. The fact that it can learn from repeated exposure to data and adapt. A good familiar analogy for this is a spell-checker, that you can teach to incorporate new proper nouns into its vocabulary and it will recognize those words in the future. Here, a reconstructed spectral line can learn to adapt from exposure to data.
   The metaphor is apt, because different communities will have different "spell-checkers", with different words in its library adapted to the common usuage patterns. Here, different astrophysics practitioners will have different semi-empirical models that started with a common, say, PHOENIX library, but adapted to exposure to new observed spectra.

[gully]

Section 2: "Emulating the PHOENIX Grid"

I recommend restructuring paragraphs:

1. Briefly summarize the key aspects of blasé paper1
2. Describe any technical changes to it (e.g. pseudo Voigt ▶️ exact Voigt)
3. Desribe the attributes of your "Step 3": the extent of the grid, how many grid points are in it, the wavelength range, how many wavelength samples.
4. Describe the computing-- GPU machine, computation time, scaling