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.