# Modern stellar spectroscopy caveats

## TL;DR

This paper compares various stellar spectroscopic codes and methods, highlighting systematic differences and biases, and emphasizes the importance of careful feature selection and method choice for accurate atmospheric parameters.

## Contribution

It expands iSpec to support multiple radiative transfer codes and assesses their biases, providing guidance on minimizing systematic differences in stellar spectroscopy.

## Key findings

- Systematic differences can be reduced with consistent methods and feature selection.
- Equivalent-width and spectral-fitting methods show significant intrinsic differences.
- Remaining differences depend on specific cases and desired precision.

## Abstract

Multiple codes are available to derive atmospheric parameters and individual chemical abundances from high-resolution spectra of AFGKM stars. Almost all spectroscopists have their own preferences regarding which code and method to use. But the intrinsic differences between codes and methods lead to complex systematics that depend on multiple variables such as the selected spectral regions and the radiative transfer code used. I expand iSpec, a popular open-source spectroscopic tool, to support the most well-known radiative transfer codes and assess their similarities and biases when using multiple set-ups based on the equivalent-width method and the synthetic spectral-fitting technique (interpolating from a pre-computed grid of spectra or synthesizing with interpolated model atmospheres). This work shows that systematic differences on atmospheric parameters and abundances between most of the codes can be reduced when using the same method and executing a careful spectral feature selection. However, it may not be possible to ignore the remaining differences, depending on the particular case and the required precision. Regarding methods, equivalent-width-based and spectrum-fitting analyses exhibit large differences that are caused by their intrinsic differences, which is significant given the popularity of these two methods. The results help to identify the key caveats of modern spectroscopy that all scientists should be aware of before trusting their own results or being tempted to combine atmospheric parameters and abundances from the literature.