How to Read a Research Compendium

Abstract: Researchers spend a great deal of time reading research papers. Keshav (2012) provides a three-pass method to researchers to improve their reading skills. This article extends Keshav's method for reading a research compendium. Research compendia are an increasingly used form of publication, which packages not only the research paper's text and figures, but also all data and software for better reproducibility. We introduce the existing conventions for research compendia and suggest how to utilise their shared properties in a structured reading process. Unlike the original, this article is not build upon a long history but intends to provide guidance at the outset of an emerging practice.

\section*{1. Introduction}\label{introduction}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{1. Introduction}

\hypertarget{motivation}{%
\subsection*{1.1 Motivation}\label{motivation}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{1.1 Motivation}

Research compendia are an increasingly used form of publication and
scholarly communication. They comprise not only the research paper's
text and figures, but also all data and software used to conduct the
computational workflow and create all outputs. They provide a lot of
added value by revealing more of the research process to readers, but,
if not done well, they can increase the difficulty of understanding the
research. To help readers better understand how to read a research
compendium, we extends Keshav's three-pass method targeted at improving
skills for reading a research paper (Keshav 2007) with additional steps
relevant to a research compendium's content.

Unlike the first version of the original (Keshav 2007), we cannot draw
from a long history of experience, because until recently research
compendia have been relatively rare. Our intention here is to provide
guidance at the outset of an emerging practice to both readers and
authors of research compendia to help them understand each others'
perspectives and needs and improve their communication. Authors can use
this guide to improve their research compendium's structure and content
by better anticipating their readers' needs. They should not be held
back by unwarranted concerns, like providing support (Barnes 2010).
Readers can avoid the trap of falling too deep into technological
challenges by an iterative approach to reading and using that gives
attention to the scientific issues. Ultimately research compendia can
enhance and deepen the reading experience, if done right. Keshav's
following introduction applies directly to research compendia:

\begin{quote}
\emph{Researchers must read papers for several reasons:} \emph{to review
them for a conference or a class, to keep current in their field, or for
a literature survey of a new field.} \emph{A typical researcher will
likely spend hundreds of hours every year reading papers.}

\emph{Learning to efficiently read a paper is a critical but rarely
taught skill.} \emph{Beginning graduate students, therefore, must learn
on their own using trial and error.} \emph{Students waste much effort in
the process and are frequently driven to frustration.}

\emph{For many years I have used a simple `three-pass' approach to
prevent me from drowning in the details of a paper before getting a
bird's-eye-view.} \emph{It allows me to estimate the amount of time
required to review a set of papers.} \emph{Moreover, I can adjust the
depth of paper evaluation depending on my needs and how much time I
have.} \emph{This paper describes the approach and its use in doing a
literature survey.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

The additions made in this work to accommodate for the content in a
research compendium are quite extensive. This stems from the complexity
that an interactive compendium has compared to a classic static
``paper'', because a research compendium goes well beyond the ``mere
advertising of the scholarship'' (Claerbout 1994). We see the breadth of
additions as a sign of potential, namely for unprecedented transparency,
openness, and collaboration.

\hypertarget{structure}{%
\subsubsection*{1.2 Structure}\label{structure}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsubsection}{1.2 Structure}

In the remainder of this paper, the excellent original work is taken
over completely. It is set in \emph{italic font} based on the most
recent online version: Keshav (2016). The term ``paper'' was not
replaced with ``research compendium'' for better readability.

First we briefly introduce research compendia and existing conventions.
We further list relevant resources for authors related to research
compendia. Then, matching the original paper's section numbering,
Sections 2 extends the ``Three-pass Approach'' to include research
compendium features in the reading process. Section 3 extends ``Doing a
Literature Survey'' with aspects relevant reviewing many research
compendia.

\hypertarget{research-compendia}{%
\subsubsection*{1.3 Research compendia}\label{research-compendia}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsubsection}{1.3 Research compendia}

The term \emph{research compendium} was coined by Gentleman and Lang
(2007) who ``introduce{[}d{]} the concept of a compendium as both a
container for the different elements that make up the document and its
computations (i.e.~text, code, data,\ldots{}), and as a means for
distributing, managing and updating the collection.'' According to
Marwick, Boettiger, and Mullen (2018) it provides ``a standard and
easily recognisable way for organising the digital materials of a
research project to enable other researchers to inspect, reproduce, and
extend the research''. This standard may differ between scientific
domains, yet the intentions and benefits are the same. Research
compendia are practised Open Science culture and as such improve
transparency (Nosek et al. 2015), ``make more published research true''
(Ioannidis 2014), and enable enhanced review and publication workflows
(Nüst et al. 2017). They answer readers' needs to understand complex
analyses through inspection and manipulation (Konkol and Kray 2018) and
enable other researchers to reproduce and extend the research (Marwick,
Boettiger, and Mullen 2018). Research compendia improve citations since
code and data are openly available (Vandevalle 2012). Ultimately, their
goal is to improve reproducibility (see Barba (2018) for definitions of
terms) in the light of claims of a ``reproducibility crisis'' in several
fields. Infrastructures to support the creation, scientific publication,
inspection, and collaboration based on research compendia are an active
field of research, but none of which have been widely deployed yet (Nüst
et al. (2017); Brinckman et al. (2018); Stodden, Miguez, and Seiler
(2015); Kluyver et al. (2016); Green and Clyburne-Sherin (2018)).

As this article is focused on providing hands-on guidance on using, and
to some extend also creating, research compendia, we refer the reader to
the references for more specific details. For the remainder of this
work, we assume a minimal view of a research compendium suitable for
\emph{readers} who examine a research compendium directly. A research
compendium has three integral parts: text, code, and data. Text can be
instructions, software documentation, or a full manuscript with figures.
Code can be scripts, software packages, specifications of dependencies
and computational environments, or even virtual machines. Data can be
just about anything, but probably comprises plain text or binary files
that are used as input to the workflow, and produced as output from
executing the workflow.

For \emph{authors}, there is a wealth of generic recommendations guiding
researchers in creating open research (software), for example Sandve et
al. (2013), Taschuk and Wilson (2017), Prlić and Procter (2012), Stodden
and Miguez (2014), and Wilson et al. (2017). When a research compendium
is published, one can assume the authors have the intention to help the
reader understanding the work and accepts there are ``no excuses'' to
not publishing your code (Barnes 2010). Authors may attempt to reach the
ideals of having one ``main'' file that can be executed with
``one-click'' (Pebesma 2013), of enabling re-use with proper licensing
(Stodden 2009), and of interweaving code and text following the literate
programming paradigm (Knuth 1984).

The following conventions are specifically for research compendia:

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  Marwick, Boettiger, and Mullen (2018) and ROpenSci community's
  \texttt{rrrpkg} (\url{https://github.com/ropensci/rrrpkg}) discuss the
  standards and tooling of the R programming language and software
  engineering tools for a variety of disciplines with real-world
  examples, including several templates
\item
  Jimenez et al. (2017) apply software engineering best pratices from
  the Open Source software domain to research (see also
  \url{http://falsifiable.us/}).
\item
  Konkol, Kray, and Pfeiffer (2018) derive recommendations for authors
  from issues encountered reproducing research compendia in geosciences
\item
  Gentleman and Lang (2007) recommend using programming languages'
  packaging mechanisms for research compendia, more specifically R and
  Python packages
\item
  Chirigati et al. (2016) describe the tool \texttt{ReproZip}
  (\url{https://reprozip.org}) to support capture and reproduction of a
  research compendium
\end{itemize}

\hypertarget{the-three-pass-approach}{%
\section*{2. The three-pass approach}\label{the-three-pass-approach}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{2. The three-pass approach}

\begin{quote}
\emph{The key idea is that you should read the paper in up to three
passes, instead of starting at the beginning and plowing your way to the
end.} \emph{Each pass accomplishes specific goals and builds upon the
previous pass:} \emph{The first pass gives you a general idea about the
paper.} \emph{The second pass lets you grasp the paper's content, but
not its details.} \emph{The third pass helps you understand the paper in
depth.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

\hypertarget{the-first-pass}{%
\subsection*{2.1 The first pass}\label{the-first-pass}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{2.1 The first pass}

\begin{quote}
\emph{The first pass is a quick scan to get a bird's-eye view of the
paper.} \emph{You can also decide whether you need to do any more
passes.} \emph{This pass should take about five to ten minutes and
consists of the following steps:} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

\begin{enumerate}
\def\arabic{enumi}.{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{Carefully read the title, abstract, and introduction}
\item
  \emph{Read the section and sub-section headings, but ignore everything
  else}
\item
  \emph{Glance at the mathematical content (if any) to determine the
  underlying theoretical foundations}
\item
  \emph{Read the conclusions}
\item
  \emph{Glance over the references, mentally ticking off the ones you've
  already read}
\item
  Glance over the text looking for (a) URLs and \texttt{formatted}
  \textbf{names} referencing software and data products or repositories
  not yet mentioned in the sections read so far, mentally ticking off
  the ones you've heard about or used, and (b) tables or figures
  describing computational environments, deployments, or execution
  statistics
\end{enumerate}

\emph{At the end of the first pass, you should be able to answer the}
seven \emph{Cs:}

\begin{enumerate}
\def\arabic{enumi}.{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{Category: What type of paper is this? A measurement paper? An
  analysis of an existing system? A description of a research
  prototype?}
\item
  \emph{Context: Which other papers is it related to? Which theoretical
  bases were used to analyze the problem?}
\item
  \emph{Correctness: Do the assumptions appear to be valid?}
\item
  \emph{Contributions: What are the paper's main contributions?}
\item
  \emph{Clarity: Is the paper well written?}
\item
  Construction: What are the building blocks of the analysis workflow
  and how accessible are they (data set(s), programming language(s),
  tools, algorithms, scripts)? Under what licenses are code and data
  published?
\item
  Complexity: What is the scale of the analysis (e.g.~HPC, required
  OS/cores/memory, typical execution time, data size) and the software
  (number of dependencies and is installation possible with dependency
  management tools)?
\end{enumerate}

\begin{quote}
\emph{Using this information, you may choose not to read further (and
not print it out, thus saving trees).} \emph{This could be because the
paper doesn't interest you, or you don't know enough about the area to
understand the paper, or that the authors make invalid assumptions.}
(Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

You may also choose not to pursue the parts of the research compendium
further, i.e.~not running the workflow or looking at data or code, thus
saving resources. Reasons to not read further that relate specifically
to code and data may be that you don't have the expertise or access to
resources to re-use the data and code.

\begin{quote}
\emph{The first pass is adequate for papers that aren't in your research
area, but may someday prove relevant.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

This first pass suits research compendia comprising potentially
re-usable components, like workflows or algorithms using data sets or
generic software that are directly transferable to your field of
research. After the first pass, you should be able to judge if the
software is useful, if it works.

\begin{quote}
\emph{Incidentally, when you write a paper, you can expect most
reviewers (and readers) to make only one pass over it.} \emph{Take care
to choose coherent section and sub-section titles and to write concise
and comprehensive abstracts.} \emph{If a reviewer cannot understand the
gist after one pass, the paper will likely be rejected; if a reader
cannot understand the highlights of the paper after five minutes, the
paper will likely never be read.} \emph{For these reasons, a `graphical
abstract' that summarizes a paper with a single well-chosen figure is an
excellent idea and can be increasingly found in scientific journals.}
(Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

When you write a paper, take care to add instructions on how a reader
can reproduce your work and provide all required parts, i.e.~publish a
research compendium. The instructions should start with a ``blank''
system and be specific, i.e.~ready for copy \& paste, including expected
or experienced execution times and resources. Such instructions give
readers a good idea about what is needed to recreate your environment
and execute the analysis If your work requires specialised or bespoke
hardware (HPC, specific GPUs), consider creating an exemplary, reduced
analysis that runs in regular environments.

Also ensure your code and data are properly deposited, citable and
licensed. If you don't do this, these core parts of your work will
likely never be properly evaluated or re-used. See the section
``Research Compendia'', above, for recommendations and further reading
on how to make your reviewers' and readers' lives easier.

\hypertarget{the-second-pass}{%
\subsection*{2.2 The second pass}\label{the-second-pass}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{2.2 The second pass}

\begin{quote}
\emph{In the second pass, read the paper with greater care, but ignore
details such as proofs.} \emph{It helps to jot down the key points, or
to make comments in the margins, as you read.} \emph{Dominik Grusemann
from Uni Augsburg suggests that you ``note down terms you didn't
understand, or questions you may want to ask the author.''} \emph{If you
are acting as a paper referee, these comments will help you when you are
writing your review, and to back up your review during the program
committee meeting.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

\begin{enumerate}
\def\arabic{enumi}.{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{Look carefully at the figures, diagrams and other illustrations
  in the paper. Pay special attention to graphs. Are the axes properly
  labelled?} \emph{Are results shown with error bars, so that
  conclusions are statistically significant? Common mistakes like these
  will separate rushed, shoddy work from the truly excellent.} (Keshav
  2016)
\item
  \emph{Remember to mark relevant unread references for further reading
  (this is a good way to learn more about the background of the paper).}
  (Keshav 2016)
\item
  Skim over data and source code files without opening them. Are they
  reasonably named (Bryan 2015)? Do they follow a well-defined structure
  (e.g.~a Python package or a research compendium convention)? Is there
  a README file and/or structured documentation for functionalities?
\item
  Visit the online source code repository, if available. Is it
  established and well maintained, or orphaned? Is there only one author
  or are there contributors? How responsive are they to issues? Does the
  repository have signs of public recognition (i.e.~GitHub ``stars'' and
  ``forks'')? Are there regular releases, using semantic versioning?
\item
  Follow the instructions to install the required software and execute
  the research compendium's workflow with the provided parameters and
  input or sample data. Note down errors or warnings but do not try to
  fix any but trivial or known problems (e.g.~fixing a path or
  installing an undocumented dependency).
\item
  Compare the outputs with the expected ones reported in the paper. Also
  check for differences in output figures: Do labels, legends etc. match
  those in the paper?
\end{enumerate}

Points 3 and 4 above hint at how to estimate the quality of a software,
but we recommend to be realistic as to what to expect and be careful not
to judge too fast. The software project you evaluate might be done by a
single researcher who is not a professional programmer, working under a
lot of pressure to write code for a single use case. In these situations
one might find low levels of code documentation, but further
documentation might be quickly provided by the authors once you as an
external user show interest. Also, no recent changes or releases at a
source code repository can also mean the software is stable and simply
works with no problems!

\begin{quote}
\emph{The second pass should take up to an hour for an experienced
reader.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

This does not include the computation time of workflows in a research
compendium. Use this time to complete first passes for one or several
other compendia. If the software used is familiar, you may attempt to
reduce the computation time by sub-setting data or simplifying the
workflow. As an author, consider adding a reduced example to your
research compendium for easier access by readers.

\begin{quote}
\emph{After this pass, you should be able to grasp the content of the
paper.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

You should have re-executed the provided workflow or understand why you
could not. You should be able to complete the second pass even if you
are unfamiliar with the actual language the software is written in or if
you are not a developer yourself. However we do recommend not to dive
too deep, i.e.~not going beyond the provided instructions for the
research compendium's workflow. At this stage, it is the author's
responsibility to guide you through their work.

Still, you may also face unsolvable problems, like access to specific
infrastructure. But if you encounter issues or have questions, you
should communicate these to the author, for example in the software's
public code repository, if available. It is important to do this
respectfully, and give the authors a chance to fix bugs or respond to
issues (Kahneman 2014). Also let the authors know if your reproduction
was successful, especially if you used a different operating system or
software version than reported.

At this point you should be able to judge whether the software works and
if it is sustainable. Based on this evaluation you can decide to re-use
parts of the analysis, i.e.~software, data, or method, for your own
work.

\begin{quote}
\emph{You should be able to summarize the main thrust of the paper, with
supporting evidence, to someone else.} \emph{This level of detail is
appropriate for a paper in which you are interested, but does not lie in
your research speciality.} \emph{Sometimes you won't understand a paper
even at the end of the second pass.} \emph{This may be because the
subject matter is new to you, with unfamiliar terminology and acronyms.}
\emph{Or the authors may use a proof or experimental technique that you
don't understand, so that the bulk of the paper is incomprehensible.}
\emph{The paper may be poorly written with unsubstantiated assertions
and numerous forward references.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

The research compendium may have incomplete documentation, rely on
unavailable software (e.g.~proprietary) or data (e.g.~sensitive), or
require infrastructure not available to you (e.g.~high-performance
computing, HPC). It may use a programming language or programming
paradigms unfamiliar to you.

\begin{quote}
\emph{Or it could just be that it's late at night and you're tired.}
\emph{You can now choose to: (a) set the paper aside, hoping you don't
need to understand the material to be successful in your career, (b)
return to the paper later, perhaps after reading background material or
(c) persevere and go on to the third pass.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

\hypertarget{the-third-pass}{%
\subsection*{2.3 The third pass}\label{the-third-pass}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{2.3 The third pass}

\begin{quote}
\emph{To fully understand a paper, particularly if you are a reviewer,
requires a third pass.} \emph{The key to the third pass is to attempt to
virtually re-implement the paper: that is, making the same assumptions
as the authors, re-create the work.} \emph{By comparing this re-creation
with the actual paper, you can easily identify not only a paper's
innovations, but also its hidden failings and assumptions.} \emph{This
pass requires great attention to detail.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

If a best practice or established convention for structuring data and
code was followed, familiarise yourself with it now.

\begin{quote}
\emph{You should identify and challenge every assumption in every
statement.} \emph{Moreover, you should think about how you yourself
would present a particular idea.} \emph{This comparison of the actual
with the virtual lends a sharp insight into the proof and presentation
techniques in the paper and you can very likely add this to your
repertoire of tools.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

Take a close look at data, metadata, source code including the embedded
code comments, and further documentation. You now leave the realm of the
mere software user to the developer's perspective. This can be a time
consuming very close study of the materials. If data is not publicly
available, e.g.~because it contains information about human subjects,
decide if you have a reasonable request to contact the original authors
and ask for data access. Work though the examples and analysis scripts
included in the research compendium. Play close attention not only to
code, but also to code comments as they should include helpful
information. A good entry point for your code read may be a ``main''
script (if provided by the author), makefile, or literate programming
document (e.g.~an R Markdown file or Jupyter Notebook). If neither of
these are available, then start with the code creating the figures for
the article (e.g.~look for ``\texttt{plot}'' statements in the code) and
trace your way back through the code until you reach a statement where
the input data is read. Your impression of the code can help to inform
your impression of the article's quality.

If you did not succeed before but the work is relevant for you, spend
more time on getting the analysis to run on your computer. Do not
hesitate to contact the authors of the paper or authors of the software
for help, but follow common error reporting guidelines (e.g. Stack
Overflow (2018) or Tatham (n.d.)). For authors it is a great experience
to be contacted by an interested and respectful reader!

With regard to the analysis, you may re-implement core parts or the full
workflow with a different software. For example, using a tool you know
but which was not used in the research compendium. Does your code lead
to the same results, or does it give different ones? Can the differences
be explained or are they not significant? Note that such a replication
is of very high value for science and you should share your findings
with the research compendium's authors and also with the scientific
community. Depending on the efforts you put in, write a blog post or
even publish a replication research compendium for one or more evaluated
research compendia.

If a full replication is not feasible, explore the assumptions you
challenge with data and code. Play around with input parameters to get a
feel for the changing results. Create exploratory plots for the data as
if you would want to analyse it from scratch, without the knowledge of
the existing workflow. With your understanding of the code you can
extend the method to a new problem or apply it to a different dataset.
This deep evaluation of code and data increases your understanding of
the authors' reasoning and decisions, and may lead to new questions.

To make sure you can trace your own hands-on changes with the original
code and configuration. We recommend initiating a local git repository
when starting this pass. You can create branches for specific
explorations and easily reset to the original functional state.

\begin{quote}
\emph{During this pass, you should also jot down ideas for future work.}
\emph{This pass can take many hours for beginners and more than an hour
or two even for an experienced reader.} \emph{At the end of this pass,
you should be able to reconstruct the entire structure of the paper from
memory, as well as be able to identify its strong and weak points.}
\emph{In particular, you should be able to pinpoint implicit
assumptions, missing citations to relevant work, and potential issues
with experimental or analytical techniques.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

You should be able to come up with useful extensions of the used
software stack and be able to judge the transferability and reusability
of the analysis' building blocks. You should most certainly have
improved your programming skills by reading and evaluating other
people's code or even trying to extend or improve it.

\hypertarget{doing-a-literature-survey}{%
\section*{3. Doing a literature
survey}\label{doing-a-literature-survey}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{3. Doing a literature survey}

\begin{quote}
\emph{Paper reading skills are put to the test in doing a literature
survey.} \emph{This will require you to read tens of papers, perhaps in
an unfamiliar field.} \emph{What papers should you read?} \emph{Here is
how you can use the three-pass approach to help.} \emph{First, use an
academic search engine such as Google Scholar or CiteSeer and some
well-chosen keywords to find three to five recent highly-cited papers in
the area.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

No search capability comparable to scientific articles exists for
research compendia, though you can of course use generic and academic
search engines. More and more journals encourage reproducible research
and software and data publication, so that extending your search regular
search with keywords such as ``reproduction'', ``reproducible'', ``open
data/software/code'' may improve your results.

In addition, you can search online platforms where research compendia
have been published and tagged as a research compendium
(\texttt{research-compendium}):

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  GitHub~label: \url{https://github.com/topics/research-compendium}
\item
  Zenodo~community:
  \url{https://zenodo.org/communities/research-compendium}
\end{itemize}

There is no journal specifically for research compendia yet, but the
following ones feature reproducibility, computational studies, or
openness in a prominent way and can be a starting point for finding
research compendia, if they fit your topic:

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{ReScience}: \url{https://rescience.github.io/}
\item
  \emph{Information~Systems} has a reproducibility editor and special
  track for invited reproducibility papers:
  \url{https://www.journals.elsevier.com/information-systems/}
\end{itemize}

A lateral approach takes advantage of the parts of a research
compendium. If you work with a specific software (tool, extension
package, library) or data, find out the recommended way to cite it (and
follow it yourself). Most scientific software provides this information
in their FAQ or might have a built-in function to generate a citation.
Scientific data is often accompanied by a ``data paper'' or published in
repositories with citeable identifiers. Then search for recent
publications which cite the referenced software or data.

\begin{quote}
\emph{Do one pass on each paper to get a sense of the work, then read
their related work sections.} \emph{You will find a thumbnail summary of
the recent work, and perhaps, if you are lucky, a pointer to a recent
survey paper.} \emph{If you can find such a survey, you are done.}
\emph{Read the survey, congratulating yourself on your good luck.}
\emph{Otherwise, in the second step, find shared citations and repeated
author names in the bibliography.} \emph{These are the key papers and
researchers in that area.}
\end{quote}

You can also find shared software or data and use them as a seed for a
next iteration.

\begin{quote}
\emph{Download the key papers and set them aside.} \emph{Then go to the
websites of the key researchers and see where they've published
recently.} \emph{That will help you identify the top conferences in that
field because the best researchers usually publish in the top
conferences.}
\end{quote}

Also check where they publish their code and data. It will give you an
idea where this community interacts online and can even lead you to
research compendia under development.

\begin{quote}
\emph{The third step is to go to the website for these top conferences
and look through their recent proceedings.} \emph{A quick scan will
usually identify recent high-quality related work.} \emph{These papers,
along with the ones you set aside earlier, constitute the first version
of your survey.} \emph{Make two passes through these papers.} \emph{If
they all cite a key paper that you did not find earlier, obtain and read
it, iterating as necessary.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

If a majority cites or uses a key software, technology, or dataset, then
evaluate it and include it in the next iteration.

\hypertarget{related-work}{%
\section*{4. Related work}\label{related-work}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{4. Related work}

\begin{quote}
\emph{If you are reading a paper to do a review, you should also read
Timothy Roscoe's paper on ``Writing reviews for systems conferences''
(Roscoe 2007).} \emph{If you're planning to write a technical paper, you
should refer both to Henning Schulzrinne's comprehensive web site
(Schulzrinne n.d.) and George Whitesides's excellent overview of the
process (Whitesides 2004).} \emph{Finally, Simon Peyton Jones has a
website that covers the entire spectrum of research skills (Peyton Jones
n.d.).} \emph{Iain H. McLean of Psychology, Inc.~has put together a
downloadable `review matrix' that simplifies paper reviewing using the
three-pass approach for papers in experimental psychology (McLean 2012),
which can probably be used, with minor modifications, for papers in
other areas.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

We are working on an extended version of this matrix to provide space
for notes about software, data, results of the reproduction, and
application of the methods. See the corresponding repository issue for
details and provide your feedback:
\url{https://github.com/nuest/how-to-read-a-research-compendium/issues/2}

If you are reviewing a research compendium, a more detailed checklist is
given in the ``rOpenSci Analysis Best Pratice Guidelines'' (rOpenSci
2017), which are partially even automated for R-based research compendia
(DeCicco et al. 2018), and the Journal of Open Research Software's
guidelines for reviewing research software (JORS Editorial Team 2018).

\hypertarget{acknowledgements}{%
\section*{5. Acknowledgements}\label{acknowledgements}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{5. Acknowledgements}

\begin{quote}
\emph{The first version of this document was drafted by my students:
Hossein Falaki, Earl Oliver, and Sumair Ur Rahman.} \emph{My thanks to
them.} \emph{I also benefited from Christophe Diot's perceptive comments
and Nicole Keshav's eagle-eyed copy-editing.} \emph{I would like to make
this a living document, updating it as I receive comments.} \emph{Please
take a moment to email me any comments or suggestions for improvement.}
\emph{Thanks to encouraging feedback from many correspondents over the
years.} (Keshav 2016)
\end{quote}

In the spirit of the original paper, we would like to make this a living
document and invite readers to provide comments or suggestions for
improvement via email, as part of this preprint, or on the GitHub
repository:
\url{https://github.com/nuest/how-to-read-a-research-compendium}. The
repository also includes open questions and is where the paper's authors
openly discuss.

\hypertarget{references}{%
\section*{References}\label{references}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}

\hypertarget{refs}{}
\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-barba_terminologies_2018}{}%
Barba, Lorena A. 2018. ``Terminologies for Reproducible Research.''
\emph{arXiv:1802.03311 {[}Cs{]}}, February.
\url{http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03311}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-barnes_publish_2010}{}%
Barnes, Nick. 2010. ``Publish Your Computer Code: It Is Good Enough.''
\emph{Nature News} 467 (7317):753--53.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1038/467753a}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-brinckman_computing_2018}{}%
Brinckman, Adam, Kyle Chard, Niall Gaffney, Mihael Hategan, Matthew B.
Jones, Kacper Kowalik, Sivakumar Kulasekaran, et al. 2018. ``Computing
Environments for Reproducibility: Capturing the `Whole Tale'.''
\emph{Future Generation Computer Systems}, February.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.12.029}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-bryan_naming_2015}{}%
Bryan, Jenny. 2015. ``Naming Things.'' \emph{Speaker Deck}.
\url{https://speakerdeck.com/jennybc/how-to-name-files}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-chirigati_reprozip:_2016}{}%
Chirigati, Fernando, Rémi Rampin, Dennis Shasha, and Juliana Freire.
2016. ``ReproZip: Computational Reproducibility with Ease.'' In
\emph{Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of
Data}, 2085--8. SIGMOD '16. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1145/2882903.2899401}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-claerbout_seventeen_1994}{}%
Claerbout, Jon. 1994. ``Seventeen Years of Super Computing.''
\url{http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/nrc.html}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-decicco_checkers:_2018}{}%
DeCicco, Laura, Noam Ross, Alice Daish, Molly Lewis, Nistara Randhawa,
Carl Boettiger, Nils Gehlenborg, Jennifer Thompson, and Nicholas
Tierney. 2018. ``Checkers: Automated Checking of Best Practices for
Research Compendia.'' rOpenSci Labs.
\url{https://github.com/ropenscilabs/checkers}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-gentleman_statistical_2007}{}%
Gentleman, Robert, and Duncan Temple Lang. 2007. ``Statistical Analyses
and Reproducible Research.'' \emph{Journal of Computational and
Graphical Statistics} 16 (1):1--23.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1198/106186007X178663}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-green_computational_2018}{}%
Green, Seth Ariel, and April Clyburne-Sherin. 2018. ``Computational
Reproducibility via Containers in Social Psychology.'' \emph{PsyArXiv},
February. \url{https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MF82T}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-ioannidis_how_2014}{}%
Ioannidis, John P. A. 2014. ``How to Make More Published Research
True.'' \emph{PLOS Medicine} 11 (10):e1001747.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-jimenez_popper_2017}{}%
Jimenez, I., M. Sevilla, N. Watkins, C. Maltzahn, J. Lofstead, K.
Mohror, A. Arpaci-Dusseau, and R. Arpaci-Dusseau. 2017. ``The Popper
Convention: Making Reproducible Systems Evaluation Practical.'' In
\emph{2017 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing
Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW)}, 1561--70.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPSW.2017.157}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-jors_editorial_team_journal_2018}{}%
JORS Editorial Team. 2018. ``Journal of Open Research Software -
Editorial Policies, Peer Review Process.''
\url{http://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/editorialpolicies/}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-kahneman_new_2014}{}%
Kahneman, Daniel. 2014. ``A New Etiquette for Replication.'' \emph{Soc.
Psychol.} 45 (4):310.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-keshav_how_2007}{}%
Keshav, S. 2007. ``How to Read a Paper.'' \emph{SIGCOMM Comput. Commun.
Rev.} 37 (3):83--84. \url{https://doi.org/10.1145/1273445.1273458}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-keshav_how_2016}{}%
---------. 2016. ``How to Read a Paper.'' Manuscript. Waterloo, ON,
Canada.
\url{http://blizzard.cs.uwaterloo.ca/keshav/home/Papers/data/07/paper-reading.pdf}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-kluyver_jupyter_2016}{}%
Kluyver, Thomas, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, Fernando Pérez, Brian Granger,
Matthias Bussonier, Jonathan Frederic, Kyle Kelley, et al. 2016.
``Jupyter Notebooks - a Publishing Format for Reproducible Computational
Workflows.'' \emph{Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing:
Players, Agents and Agendas}, 87--90.
\url{https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-knuth_literate_1984}{}%
Knuth, Donald E. 1984. ``Literate Programming.'' \emph{Comput. J.} 27
(2):97--111. \url{https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/27.2.97}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-konkol_-depth_2018}{}%
Konkol, Markus, and Christian Kray. 2018. ``In-Depth Examination of
Spatio-Temporal Figures in Open Reproducible Research.''
\emph{EarthArXiv}, April. \url{https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Q53M8}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-konkol_state_2018}{}%
Konkol, Markus, Christian Kray, and Max Pfeiffer. 2018. ``The State of
Reproducibility in the Computational Geosciences.''
\url{https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/kzu8e}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-marwick_packaging_2018}{}%
Marwick, Ben, Carl Boettiger, and Lincoln Mullen. 2018. ``Packaging Data
Analytical Work Reproducibly Using R (and Friends).'' \emph{The American
Statistician} 72 (1):80--88.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1375986}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-mclean_literature_2012}{}%
McLean, Iain H. 2012. \emph{Literature Review Matrix}.
\url{http://archive.org/details/LiteratureReviewMatrix}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-nosek_promoting_2015}{}%
Nosek, B. A., G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J.
Breckler, S. Buck, et al. 2015. ``Promoting an Open Research Culture.''
\emph{Science} 348 (6242):1422--5.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-nust_opening_2017}{}%
Nüst, Daniel, Markus Konkol, Edzer Pebesma, Christian Kray, Marc
Schutzeichel, Holger Przibytzin, and Jörg Lorenz. 2017. ``Opening the
Publication Process with Executable Research Compendia.'' \emph{D-Lib
Magazine} 23 (1/2). \url{https://doi.org/10.1045/january2017-nuest}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-pebesma_earth_2013}{}%
Pebesma, Edzer. 2013. ``Earth and Planetary Innovation Challenge (EPIC)
Submission "One-Click-Reproduce".''
\url{http://pebesma.staff.ifgi.de/epic.pdf}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-peyton_jones_simon_nodate}{}%
Peyton Jones, Simon. n.d. ``Simon Peyton Jones at Microsoft Research.''
\emph{Simon Peyton Jones at Microsoft Research}. Accessed May 25, 2018.
\url{https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/people/simonpj/}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-prlic_ten_2012}{}%
Prlić, Andreas, and James B. Procter. 2012. ``Ten Simple Rules for the
Open Development of Scientific Software.'' \emph{PLOS Comput Biol} 8
(12):e1002802. \url{https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002802}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-ropensci_ropensci_2017}{}%
rOpenSci. 2017. ``rOpenSci Analysis Guide (Unconf 2017).'' \emph{Google
Docs}.
\url{https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OYcWJUk-MiM2C1TIHB1Rn6rXoF5fHwRX-7_C12Blx8g/edit?usp=embed_facebook}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-roscoe_writing_2007}{}%
Roscoe, Timothy. 2007. ``Writing Reviews for Systems Conferences,''
March, 6.
\url{https://people.inf.ethz.ch/troscoe/pubs/review-writing.pdf}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-sandve_ten_2013}{}%
Sandve, Geir Kjetil, Anton Nekrutenko, James Taylor, and Eivind Hovig.
2013. ``Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research.''
\emph{PLoS Comput Biol} 9 (10):e1003285.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-schulzrinne_writing_nodate}{}%
Schulzrinne, Henning. n.d. ``Writing Systems and Networking Articles.''
Accessed May 25, 2018.
\url{https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/etc/writing-style.html}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-stack_overflow_how_2018}{}%
Stack Overflow. 2018. ``How to Create a Minimal, Complete, and
Verifiable Example.'' \emph{Stack Overflow}.
\url{https://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-stodden_legal_2009}{}%
Stodden, Victoria. 2009. ``The Legal Framework for Reproducible
Scientific Research: Licensing and Copyright.'' \emph{Computing in
Science \& Engineering} 11 (1):35--40.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2009.19}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-stodden_best_2014}{}%
Stodden, Victoria, and Sheila Miguez. 2014. ``Best Practices for
Computational Science: Software Infrastructure and Environments for
Reproducible and Extensible Research.'' \emph{Journal of Open Research
Software} 2 (1). \url{https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.ay}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-stodden_researchcompendia.org:_2015}{}%
Stodden, Victoria, Sheila Miguez, and Jennifer Seiler. 2015.
``ResearchCompendia.Org: Cyberinfrastructure for Reproducibility and
Collaboration in Computational Science.'' \emph{Computing in Science \&
Engineering} 17 (1):12--19. \url{https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2015.18}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-taschuk_ten_2017}{}%
Taschuk, Morgan, and Greg Wilson. 2017. ``Ten Simple Rules for Making
Research Software More Robust.'' \emph{PLOS Computational Biology} 13
(4):e1005412. \url{https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005412}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-tatham_how_nodate}{}%
Tatham, Simon. n.d. ``How to Report Bugs Effectively.'' Accessed June
11, 2018. \url{https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-vandevalle_code_2012}{}%
Vandevalle, Patrick. 2012. ``Code Sharing Is Associated with Research
Impact in Image Processing.'' \emph{Computing in Science \& Engineering}
Reproducible Research for Scientific Computing (July):42--47.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-whitesides_whitesides_2004}{}%
Whitesides, G. M. 2004. ``Whitesides' Group: Writing a Paper.''
\emph{Advanced Materials} 16 (15):1375--7.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200400767}.

\leavevmode\hypertarget{ref-wilson_good_2017}{}%
Wilson, Greg, Jennifer Bryan, Karen Cranston, Justin Kitzes, Lex
Nederbragt, and Tracy K. Teal. 2017. ``Good Enough Practices in
Scientific Computing.'' \emph{PLOS Computational Biology} 13
(6):e1005510. \url{https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510}.

\end{document}

How to Read a Research Compendium


Individual Alpha Elements, C, N, and Ba in Early Type Galaxies

Abstract: Spectral data on early type galaxies is analyzed for chemical abundance with an emphasis on obtaining detailed abundances for the elements O and Si in addition to C, N, Na, Mg, Ca, Fe, and Ba. The abundance trends with velocity dispersion fit preconceptions based upon previous Mg conclusions, namely that larger galaxies have a higher alpha element to iron peak ratio indicative of a higher ratio of Type II to Type Ia supernova products. The heaviest alpha elements, Ca and Ti, do not participate in this trend, although this fact does not necessarily alter the basic picture given the uncertainties in nucleosynthetic yields. Elements that likely have significant contributions from intermediate-mass stars, namely C, N, and Ba, also gain ground relative to Fe in massive galaxies at a modest level, with the Ba conclusion uncertain from our data alone.

\section{Introduction}

In early-type galaxies, tracking the abundances of individual elements
is a promising avenue to learn more about the nucleosynthetic
histories of these enigmatic objects because the observed abundance
pattern is the sum of the chemical enrichment over the lifetime of the
galaxies whether that enrichment occurred primordially or fairly
recently \citep{a1}. While color-magnitude relations and line
strength-magnitude relations indicated some chemical enrichment as a
function of early type galaxy luminosity or velocity dispersion
\citep{f4}, attention turned to the possibility of non-lockstep heavy
element enrichment as metallicity-sensitive stellar population models
were produced \citet{p1,w2,d1,k1}. The earliest studies concentrated
on the ratio [Mg/Fe] since the diagnostic features, Mg $b$, Fe5270,
and Fe5335 [spectral absorption feature index definitions of
  \citet{w4}] were adjacent to each other in the spectrum and thus
plausibly insulated from wavelength dependent changes in things such
as the ratio of dwarf to giant stellar light or the ratio of metal
poor to metal rich stellar light.

The elements N, Ca, Na, and Ti were soon added to the list of elements
with strong spectral signatures that could plausibly be measured
\citep{w3}, and it appeared that N and Na roughly tracked Mg, while Ca
stayed closer to Fe across the span of velocity dispersion, with Ti,
expressed in the spectrum through TiO features, was more
ambiguous. Carbon can be measured via the C$_2$ absorption associated
with the index called either Fe4668, or, later, C$_2$4668
\citep{t2}. \citet{t1} showed that the behavior of C$_2$4668 with
velocity dispersion was intermediate between Fe and Mg features and so
perhaps [C/Fe] was also increasing with galaxy velocity dispersion,
but more mildly than [Mg/Fe]. \citet{w5}'s case study of M32 indicated
high precision of the [C/Fe] ratio, and also highlighted that, if the
abundance pattern were correctly taken into consideration, a mean age
was determined with much greater confidence. [C/Fe] and [Na/Fe] were
slightly elevated in M32, while [N/Fe] and [Mg/Fe] depressed, but
global conclusions from one decidely peculiar elliptical galaxy are
impossible to make.

Nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon are related via molecular balancing
\citep{t2}. The CO molecule has the highest binding energy compared to
C$_2$ or CN, so that adding oxygen tends to decrease C$_2$ and CN
feature strengths as less free carbon is available. Leaving O as a
free parameter, however, C and N can be separately disentangled by
considering the CN features in the optical blue and C$_2$4668, leading
to the strong N and weak C positive trends with velocity dispersion
stated above. In other words, a strong O trend with velocity
dispersion could strongly alter the C and N conclusions. There is a
noteworthy side story regarding the NH feature at 3360\AA \ that at
first glance should measure N alone. \citet{toloba} more than doubled
the amount of observational data available for this feature, and found
a flat trend of the index with velocity dispersion, in stark contrast
to the strong trend with CN near 4100\AA . However, \citet{s1}
realized that this very blue feature was being weakened by weak-lined
starlight from metal poor main sequence stars, and also that it was
being negatively affected by nearby Mg absorption. There is therefore
no reason to doubt the conclusions from the optical.

Calcium, being an alpha element, albeit a heavy one, might be expected
to follow magnesium. Initial indications based on the index Ca4455
that has substantial contributions from other elements and Ca4227 that
is somewhat cleaner \citep{w3} were that Ca tracks Fe, although there
was some evidence that the [Ca/Fe] zero point was incorrect
\citep{p2}. Calcium also has a very strong trio of spectra features in
the red ($\sim$8600\AA ) that were analyzed by \citet{c4} and
\citet{c5} with the intriguing observation that the Ca line strengths
decline with increasing galaxy velocity dispersion. A possible
explanation was that the initial mass function (IMF) was becoming more
dwarf-heavy among larger galaxies, though of course this could also be
caused by a modest decline in Ca abundance for larger
galaxies. Finally, \citet{w1} analyzed the Ca K and H features which
are not sensitive to IMF changes to conclude that the latter
explanation, a true abundance trend, was much more likely, though
modest; a few tenths in the log at most.

In terms of chemical evolution and nucleosynthesis a change in the
ratio of Type Ia to Type II supernova enrichment along the mass
sequence of early type galaxies would clearly explain most of what is
seen in the abundance pattern if some mechanism were identified that
could vary the enrichment ratio as a function of galaxy mass or
velocity dispersion. There are many proposed mechanisms [see
  \citet{w2,t1,t3}] but three example mechanisms are (1) more rapid
star formation in more massive galaxies, (2) a more top-heavy upper
IMF in the star formation environments found in more massive galaxies,
and (3) quicker quenching of the tail ends of star formation episodes
in more massive galaxies. All three would operate to boost alpha
elements (C, O, Ne, Si, Ti, Ca) relative to Fe-peak elements,
presuming that Type II supernovae produce that whole list. Recently,
\citet{c6} added Ba and Sr to the list of elements to consider,
finding that Ba tracks Mg but that Sr has either no trend, or its
trend is buried in the noise. Due to their s-process \citep{bbfh}
origin, Ba and Sr could conceivably come from a third nucleosynthetic
source: intermediate-mass stars with a timescale of enrichment
intermediate between that of Type II supernovae (few million years)
and Type Ia (many hundreds of millions of years because of the
necessity to form white dwarf 'seeds' before detonation). Carbon and N
plausibly also arise mostly from intermediate mass stars
\citep{w3,m1,b3,c8,c9} although this conclusion is not perfectly
clear, even for the Milky Way environment.

Proceeding onward into the unknown, the elements Si and O are key
alpha elements whose nucleosynthetic source is type II supernovae and
whose measurement should theoretically track Mg very well. Calcium and
Ti are heavy alpha elements that perhaps should also follow Mg, but
may, in practice, not do that. It is important to confirm the Ba
result of \citet{c6}, and also at least somewhat chart the behavior of
O because of its pragmatic importance in being able to therefore
measure N and C abundances relative to some absolute scale.

The tools this group has assembled over the years to tackle the
problem are about to be overhauled, and it was judged timely to
publish a snapshot of the results to date. The methods for doing so
are laid out in the next section, followed by the abundance results,
followed by a discussion and conclusion section.

\section{Method}

The stellar population models used follow \citet{w1} with index
definitions as expanded by \citet{s3} and the basic infrastructure of
\citet{w94}. To briefly recap, stellar evolutionary isochrones are
coupled to a stellar IMF to predict the number of stars inhabiting
locations in the log $L$, log T$_{eff}$ diagram. Fluxes are associated
with each bin of stars, along with empirical estimates of the
absorption feature indices.

It was planned to use newly-computed isochrones based on MESA
\citep{p3} evolution for this work. These isochrones would have been
sensitive to abundance changes in the same way as the spectra and it
is desirable to have it so, not only for the sake of consistency, but
also for the scientific exploration of how the flexible evolution
would augment or attenuate the spectral signals. Technical reasons
prevented the timely completion of this effort, and so we proceed with
the important caveat that the mild temperature and lifetime changes
seen in \citet{d2} are not carried forward in this analysis. In
addition to the other shortcomings to be elucidated as we proceed,
there is also this fact that the stellar evolution is assumed to be
scaled-solar as the abundance mixture changes. We know enough to know
that for the abundance trends themselves the underlying isochrones
matter only in second order, and so it is possible to proceed, albeit
with due caution. \citet{b94} isochrones were used for the plots in
this paper, though isochrones are swappable in our code.

Synthetic spectra are used twice. Once to place the continuum, and
once more to provide the spectral response to changes of abundance
parameters. For this paper all spectral data and model indices are
transformed to a common resolution to mimic a velocity dispersion of
300 km s$^{-1}$. The grid of synthetic stellar spectra compiled from
three different codes \citep{lee1} at high spectral resolution,
then resampled to 0.5 Å wavelength intervals in the range 3000-10,000
\AA .  A list of 23 elements was included, not all of which are used
in this paper, and the \citet{g2} abundance list was used as the solar
mixture.

Empirical spectra are still essential for adequate spectral
matching. This is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:ffs} where three
workhorse indices are plotted for stars of surface temperature between
4000 and 6000 K. The empirical fits are based on three spectral
libraries \citep{w4,v1,s4} and are quite solidly established. The
synthetic indices were measured from the spectra we are using to
estimate spectral responses as a function of abundance change,
smoothed to 200 km s$^{-1}$ for purposes of Fig. \ref{fig:ffs} and
serve to illustrate why empirical spectra are still essential. There
tends to be far more gravity dependence in the synthetic spectra than
in real stars. This is seen even in colors \citep{w6}. \citet{t2} also
note that cool stars will have deeper Balmer line strengths than
synthetic spectra can reproduce because of chromospheric layers that
are not modeled.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{iplot.eps}
\caption{The H$\beta$, Mg $b$, and Fe5270 indices as a function of
  temperature for stars. Empirical fits (open circles) are compared
  to index measurements from synthetic spectra (stars) for log $g$ =
  0.5 (dotted), 2.5 (dashed), and 4.5 (solid). Synthetic spectra show
  gravity dependences not seen in the observations, and a weakness in
  H$\beta$ that is at least partially understood as a lack of
  chromosphere in the model atmospheres.  \label{fig:ffs} }
\end{figure}

The medium-resolution regime highlights weak points in the synthetic
spectra that can go unnoticed at very high or very low resolution:
incomplete or incorrect line lists, lack of chromospheres, and
uncertainty in convection and microturbulence all contribute to
considerable drift between observation and calculation. See
\citet{c2,c1,c3,f1,f2,f3,g1,t2} for more confrontations and derived
wisdom. The spectra we use reproduce stellar colors very well, but are also
known to suffer from incorrect Cr line parameters in addition to the
regular list of defects inherent in synthetic spectra.

We use spectra from \citet{g3} that are grand averages of non-LINER,
early-type galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey binned into six
velocity dispersion ranges, and individual galaxies from \citet{s2}
that are mostly in the Virgo cluster. Spectra and models were compared
in feature-index space at a common velocity dispersion of 300 km
s$^{-1}$. Most galaxies needed to have extra smoothing applied in
order to reach this resolution, but a few of the largest galaxies
needed to be corrected backwards, where synthetic model spectra were
used to compute the small index corrections.

An inversion program was created to find the best-fitting set of
abundance parameters for a given set of indices. A single-burst age
and a delta function in metallicity was used for this exercise, along
with a variable number of individual elemental abundance parameters,
with elements varied one by one. For ages, a collection of nine
indices (H$\delta$A, H$\delta$F, H$\gamma$F, H$\beta$, Fe4383, Fe5270,
Fe5335, Na D, C$_2$4668) was used to generate a map of RMS goodness of
fit over the parameter range covered by the models. A smoothed map was
then used to find the starting age and overall abundance. Iteratively,
individual abundances were allowed to drift, and the improved chemical
fingerprint carried forward to subsequent age guesses. All available
indices were used in the inversion process, wavelength definitions
from \citet{w4,wo97,s3}.

No constraints were imposed on the abundance mixtures. In certain
circumstances, this did indeed cause wild results, and that very
wildness was used to judge when the combination of indices and index
responses to the abundance changes were astrophysically
meaningful. For example, Sr and Al only affect tiny portions of the
spectrum at a weak level; too weak to be truly measured, so Sr and Al
abundances coming from the unconstrained inversion program are
therefore subject to noise and give [Sr/R] or [Al/R] values that are
sometimes more than a factor of ten away from the solar value. The ``R''
in the above notation stands for ``any heavy element that is not being
specifically called out.'' For example. it could
be equated to uranium, if one desired. In any case it scales
with the solar abundance pattern. One should find, for example, that
[Fe/H] = [Fe/R]+[R/H]. Indeed, for any element Q, [Q/H] =
[Q/R]+[R/H]. Additionally, [Q/Fe] = [Q/R] - [Fe/R]. As always,
square-bracket notation means base-ten logarithmic abundance relative
to the solar value. Most of the results will be quoted as relative to
Fe, but by this notation, [Fe/R] has meaning, whereas [Fe/Fe] does not.

The second way an element can give spurious results is if it is
both rather weak, yet widespread in wavelength so that it affects many
indices. Manganese, Co, Ni are like that. Iron is almost like that,
but it affects the spectrum very strongly, not weakly. The third way
is illustrated by the pair O and Ti. Increasing one or other of O or
Ti will increase the strengths of TiO features, and TiO features carry
a lot of weight in the spectrum, affecting many indices, so this pair
of elements couples to one another strongly, compensating for each
other along a predictable degeneracy axis.

However, Ti enjoys the luxury of providing some atomic transitions as
well. In our synthetic spectra, the effects of 0.3 dex enhancement of
Ti are clearly seen near 4296, 4533, and 5000 \AA\ in the
spectrum. However, the stacked SDSS spectra, when normalized to
bracket the atomic Ti absorptions, show responses of confusing sense
and also easily explainable by absorption from other species such as C
or Fe. One example is show in Figure \ref{fig:ti} where a blend of
atomic Ti at 5007.21\AA\ and 5014.19\AA\ and some lesser lines
contribute. In that example, the observed spectra show no coherent
change with velocity dispersion, though using the synthetic spectra as
guide, a 0.3 logarithmic enhancement of Ti abundance should clearly be
visible. In other words, by spectral comparison, the atomic Ti shows
no evidence for varying at all as a function of galaxian velocity
dispersion.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{snorm_ti.eps}

\caption{SDSS average galaxy spectra are shown in a spectral region
  expected to be sensitive to atomic Ti, along with scaled solar (SS)
  and Ti-enhanced synthetic stellar population spectra. All spectra
  were smoothed to 300 km s$^{-1}$ and renormalized to agree at nick
  points 5005 and 5025 \AA . [Ti/R] = 0.3 for the Ti-enhanced
  spectrum. The sequence of velocity dispersions for the observed
  spectra are hard to see because they overplot each other, but they
  are: 95 km s$^{-1}$ (thin dotted line), 127 km s$^{-1}$ (thin dashed
  line), 152 km s$^{-1}$ (thin solid line), 175 km s$^{-1}$ (thick
  dotted line), 205 km s$^{-1}$ (thick dashed line), and 260 km
  s$^{-1}$ (thick solid line). \label{fig:ti} }

\end{figure}

This null result enables us to simplify the problem by one element,
and for the most part we held Ti fixed at scaled solar abundance. For
purposes of this abundance-centered exercise, the ages and overall
heavy metal abundances are mean values from assumed single-burst
simple stellar populations, and are not meant to be particularly
realistic in terms of a true representation of the stellar populations
within a given target galaxy. The age-metallicity degeneracy
\citep{w94} remains in full play, decoupling from the process of
finding element abundance ratios as described in \citet{w94}. The
effects of metallicity compositeness on absorption feature strengths
are probably detected in the far blue \citep{s1} but our spectra do
not cover a large enough wavelength span to reach the NH 3360
feature. Inclusion of metallicity-compositeness or swapping in
different isochrone sets would have similiar effects, namely shifting
zero points. The spans of the abundance shifts should remain almost
invariant.

\section{Results}

Sample results are illustrated in Figures \ref{fig:p1}, \ref{fig:p2},
\ref{fig:p3}, and \ref{fig:p4}. Galaxies are marked by alphanumeric
codes for individual identification. The set of SDSS grand averages
from \citet{g3} begin with the letter ``S'' followed by the velocity
dispersion of the bin. The galaxies from \citet{s2} are the NGC
catalog numbers. Numbers in the 4000s are members of the Virgo
Cluster. Elements not illustrated have been set to lockstep; for
example, [Fe/R] = [Sr/R] = [Mn/R] = [Ti/R] = 0. In the present scheme,
[M/H] is not necessarily the same as [R/H] due to the fact that the
isochrones do not have flexible chemistry and do not vary as the
chemical mix changes. [M/H] indicates the scaled-solar label on the
best-fitting isochrone, as ``Age'' indicates the age lable on the
best-fitting isochrone.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{p1.eps}

\caption{Assumed single-burst mean age, mean heavy element abundance,
  and [C/Fe] as function of velocity dispersion and as derived from
  one particular run of the inversion program with [Fe/H] set to
  lockstep with [M/H]. Four digit numerals indicate NGC numbers of
  galaxies in the Serven sample, while numerals following the letter
  'S' indicate SDSS grand-average galaxies of the indicated velocity
  dispersion. The six galaxies at age 16 Gyr have railed to
  the maximum allowed age. \label{fig:p1} }

\end{figure}

The young age of NGC 3156, seen in Fig. \ref{fig:p1}, around 1 Gyr, is
a very robust age, but it means that the metallic features are quite
weak, and the rest of the parameters for that galaxy are
uncertain. Most of the individual galaxies fit about the same or
better than the SDSS average galaxies in terms of RMS reproduction of
all the indices by the final model. As is typical \citep{g4}, Fig. \ref{fig:p1}
shows a dearth of young, massive objects, and thus the average age
increases at higher velocity dispersions. The dispersion in mean age
for the individual galaxies is, by and large, real.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{p2.eps}

\caption{[N/Fe], [O/Fe], and [Na/Fe] as function of velocity
  dispersion and as derived from one particular run of the inversion
  program with [Fe/H] set to lockstep with [M/H]. Four digit numerals
  indicate NGC numbers of galaxies in the Serven sample, while
  numerals following the letter 'S' indicate SDSS grand-average
  galaxies of the indicated velocity dispersion. \label{fig:p2} }

\end{figure}

The abundance trends in Figures \ref{fig:p1} through \ref{fig:p4} are
clearly increasing with velocity dispersion, especially [M/H], [C/Fe],
[O/Fe], [Na/Fe], and [Si/Fe]. [M/H] equates to [R/H] and [Fe/H] for
the illustrated inversion program run. When other elements are
included, especially O, the [Mg/Fe] trend weakens somewhat compared
with historical estimates such as \citet{w2}. [N/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] also
weakly rise, and [Ca/Fe] stands alone as weakly declining.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{p3.eps}

\caption{[Mg/Fe], [Si/Fe], and [Ca/Fe] as function of velocity
  dispersion and as derived from one particular run of the inversion
  program with [Fe/H] set to lockstep with [M/H]. Four digit numerals
  indicate NGC numbers of galaxies in the Serven sample, while
  numerals following the letter 'S' indicate SDSS grand-average
  galaxies of the indicated velocity dispersion. \label{fig:p3} }

\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{p4.eps}

\caption{[Ba/Fe] as function of velocity dispersion and as derived from
  one particular run of the inversion program with [Fe/H] set to
  lockstep with [M/H]. Four digit numerals indicate NGC numbers of
  galaxies in the Serven sample, while numerals following the letter
  'S' indicate SDSS grand-average galaxies of the indicated velocity
  dispersion. \label{fig:p4} }

\end{figure}

There is the appearance of a two-family bifurcation between SDSS and
Serven samples in the [Si/Fe] trend of Fig. \ref{fig:p3}. The [Si/Fe]
is a relatively volatile one, resting on SiH molecular features in the
blue that aren't captured terribly well by the indices, and also are
probably not secure in the synthetic spectra. Small systematic drifts
in the input spectra can effect substantial changes in the inferred Si
abundances. The same could be said for Ba.

\section{Discussion and Conclusions}

The uncertainty in the trends is the crucial question. It is clear
that signal to noise is not an issue. The uncertainties are a
combination of systematic effects in the spectra and modeling
uncertainties. Too, the inversion methods are relatively untried. To
gauge a scalable estimate of at least the modeling uncertainties, we
added and subtracted elements from the list of things to be fit,
making many permutations of the list and recording the inverted
parameters. We included Ti several times, with the rule that O must be
turned off during those runs.

Using the $\sigma = 260$ km s$^{-1}$ average galaxy minus the $\sigma
= 95$ km s$^{-1}$ average galaxy as a convenient benchmark for
estimating the range in the abundance parameters over the span of
velocity dispersion, we collected the abundance results after the
subsampling/permutation runs. We summarize the statistics in Table
\ref{tab1}.

\begin{deluxetable}{lrr}
\tablecaption{Permutation Statistics\label{tab1}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Quantity to Range} & \colhead{Mean of Range} & \colhead{Standard Deviation}
}

\startdata
Age (Gyr) & 0.18 & 1.84 \\\
[M/H]     & 0.18 & 0.08 \\\
[C/Fe]    & 0.11 & 0.09 \\\
[N/Fe]    & 0.17 & 0.07 \\\
[O/Fe]    & 0.46 & 0.30 \\\
[Na/Fe]   & 0.29 & 0.03 \\\
[Mg/Fe]   & 0.15 & 0.03 \\\
[Si/Fe]   & 0.28 & 0.09 \\\
[Ca/Fe]   & $-0.01$ & 0.03 \\\
[Fe/R]    & 0.07 & 0.06 \\\
[Ba/Fe]   & 0.04 & 0.09 \\\
\enddata

\tablecomments{The means are the ranges of each quantity, using the
  $\sigma = 260$ km s$^{-1}$ average galaxy minus the $\sigma = 95$ km
  s$^{-1}$ average galaxy. The statistics are then computed as
  permutations on the elements that are allowed to enter the fitting
  process of the inversion program. }

\end{deluxetable}

The standard deviations in Table \ref{tab1} are, plausibly,
overestimated compared to realistic uncertainties by our permutation
process. For example, we never saw a negative [O/Fe] trend, although
the standard deviation for [O/Fe] would imply that we should
have. Clearly, some of the abundance trends are very secure, and they
all seem significant except [Ca/Fe] and [Ba/Fe]. We do disagree with
\citet{c6} that [Ba/Fe] decreases with velocity dispersion even though
our Barium sensitive indices behave the same, empirically. We have no
explanation for this at present. For this exercise, little should be
made of the ages, since the experiment was not designed with accurate
ages in mind.

Astrophysically, the trend among the alpha elements is rather
fascinating. Ordered by mass, the alpha elements are O, Ne, Mg, Si, S,
Ar, Ca, and Ti. We cannot measure Ne, S, or Ar due to lack of lines
\citep{s3}. Ca and Ti appear nearly locked to Fe in elliptical
galaxies and they are the heaviest alphas, while O, Mg, and Si show a
strong parting of ways with Fe and they are the lightest alphas. It is
tempting based upon this correspondence to lump Ca and Ti with Type Ia
supernovae and call the problem solved.

Current theoretical nucleosynthetic yield estimates seem too noisy to
give much guidance as regards Ca and Ti [see discussion and references
  in \citet{s3}]. Type Ia supernovae may contribute more than half of
the Ca and Ti in the sun.  One empirical example is available in the
galactic bulge, in which
all of the alpha elements seem to have positive, but declining [X/Fe]
except for possibly O, measurement of which seems to be slightly
controversial and Mg, which seems to linger at elevated levels even to
high metallicity \citep{c7,m2,c10,m3}. The decline of alpha elements
in the bulge may possibly be echoed by the most massive galaxy in our
sample, NGC 4486, which lies rather lower than the trend in [C/Fe],
[N/Fe], [Na/Fe], [Mg/Fe], and even [Ca/Fe] and possibly [O/Fe],
seeming unattenuated only for [Si/Fe]. The Ba measurement for NGC 4486
is too uncertain to call out specifically.

The elements that may have significant contributions from
intermediate-mass stars through mass loss on the asymptotic giant
branch that includes extra N manufactured during CNO cycle H fusion, C
manufactured during He fusion, and neutron-capture elements such as Sr
which we cannot measure, and Ba, which we do. Intermediate mass stars
are 3 M$_\odot$ through 8
M$_\odot$ with a sweet spot for chemical enrichment happening around a
5 M $_\odot$ lifetime of about 200 Myr; that is, fairly short compared
to what is most often contemplated as the Type Ia supernova enrichment
timescale. Since elliptical galaxies are chemically evolved systems,
it is not possible to separate primary enrichment (primordial
supernovae) from secondary enrichment (after the creation of C, from
with N can then be manufactured).

In summary, we have analyzed two sets of spectra for early type
galaxies in an attempt to pin down trends for O and Si for the first
time in these systems, getting trends that agree by and large with
previous Mg measurements, at least qualititatively. In addition to
O and Si we also measure abundances for C, N, Na, Mg, Ca, Fe, and Ba.
Larger galaxies generally have a higher
alpha element to iron peak ratio indicative of a higher ratio of Type
II to Type Ia supernova products with the exception of the heaviest
alpha elements, Ca and Ti, which seem to follow Fe more closely.
The [Mg/Fe] trend is quite strong, but shows less range than past estimates.
Elements that likely have significant contributions from intermediate-mass
stars, namely C, N, and Ba, also gain ground relative to Fe in massive
galaxies at a modest level, with the Ba conclusion uncertain from our
data alone.

In terms of surprises and conclusions that overturn established
wisdom, there are none; the basic picture that it is mostly the Type
II / Type Ia chemical signatures that drive the abundance trends is
still a valid hypothesis. Two items are noteworthy, though presently
apparently insoluble astrophysically. First, Ca and Ti appear to track
Fe and it would be lovely to know if those elements were Type Ia
supernova products as Fe is, or if there is a progenitor mass
dependence on the Ca and Ti enrichment. Second, the light elements C
and N could have supernova contributions, and it would be lovely to
know quantitatively what those might be as a function of star
formation and chemical evolution timescales. Measuring Ba better may not
solve this issue, as Ba can be made in the r-process as well \citep{s5}.

\acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank G. J. Graves, C. Conroy, R. L. Kurucz,
J. A. Rose, and S. C. Trager for ongoing advice and warm collegiality.

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)


Giant Outbursts of the Eta Carinae-P Cygni Type

Abstract: I discuss the role of short-duration eruptive mass loss in the evolution of very massive stars. Giant eruptions of Luminous Blue Variables (LBVs) like the 19th century event of $\eta$ Carinae can remove large quantities of mass almost instantaneously, making them significant in stellar evolution. They can potentially remove more mass from the star than line-driven winds, especially if winds are clumped such that O star mass-loss rates need to be revised downward. When seen in other galaxies as ``supernova impostors'', these eruptions typically last for less than a decade, and they can remove of order 10 M$_{\odot}$ as indicated by massive nebulae around LBVs. Such extreme mass-loss rates cannot be driven by radiation pressure on spectral lines. Instead, these outbursts must either be continuum-driven super-Eddington winds or outright hydrodynamic explosions, both of which are insensitive to metallicity. As such, this eruptive mode of mass loss could play a pivotal role for massive metal-poor stars in the early universe.

\section{Introduction}

The main question I wish to address here is whether the majority of
mass lost during the lifetime of the most massive stars occurs
primarily via steady line-driven stellar winds, or instead through
violent, short-duration eruptions.  The two extremes are shown
graphically in Figure 1.  This is critical for understanding how
$\dot{M}$ scales with metallicity.  In this contribution I draw
attention to the role of LBV eruptions, advocating for their
importance.  The essential points of the argument, already made by
Smith \& Owocki (2006), are the following:

\begin{itemize}

\item Recent studies of hot star winds indicate that MS mass-loss
  rates are lower than previously thought due to the effects of
  clumping (Fullerton et al.\ 2006; Bouret et al.\ 2005; Puls et al.\
  2006; Crowther et al.\ 2002; Hillier et al.\ 2003; Massa et al.\
  2003; Evans et al.\ 2004).  Revised $\dot{M}$ values are inadequate
  to reduce the star's mass enough to reach the WR phase.

\item Observations of nebulae around LBVs and LBV candidates have
  revealed very high ejecta masses -- of order 10 M$_{\odot}$ (Fig.\
  2). Some objects show evidence for multiple shell ejections on
  timescales of 10$^3$ years.  These eruptions could remove a large
  fraction of the total mass of the star.

\item The extreme mass-loss rates of these LBV bursts imply that line
  opacity is too saturated to drive them, so they must instead be
  either continuum-driven super-Eddington winds (see Owocki et al.\
  2004) or outright hydrodynamic explosions.  Unlike steady winds
  driven by lines, the driving in these eruptions may be largely
  independent of metallicity, and might play a role in the mass loss
  of massive metal-poor stars.

\end{itemize}

For reasons that may be obvious, my talk at this meeting and the
original paper (Smith \& Owocki 2006) were deliberately provocative.
Rather than repeat that discussion, I will briefly elaborate on a few
of these issues, and will consider alternatives and further
implications.

\section{Balancing the Budget: LBV Eruptions}

The most likely mechanism to rectify the hefty mass deficit left by
clumped winds is giant eruptions of LBVs (e.g., Davidson 1987; Lamers
1987; Humphreys \& Davidson 1994; Humphreys, Davidson, \& Smith 1999;
Smith \& Owocki 2006), where $\dot{M}$ and L$_{\rm Bol}$ increase
substantially.  While we do not yet fully understand what causes these
giant LBV outbursts, we know empirically that they do indeed occur,
and that they drive substantial mass off the star.  Deduced masses of
LBV and LBV-candidate nebulae are plotted in Figure 2.  For stars with
log(L/L$_{\odot}$)$>$6, nebular masses of 10 M$_{\odot}$ are quite
reasonable, {\it perhaps suggesting that this is a typical mass
ejected in a giant LBV eruption}.

If these large nebular masses are typical for LBV outbursts, then only
a few such eruptions occurring sequentially are needed to remove a
large fraction of the star's mass.  This is shown schematically in
Figure 1 for stars with initial masses of 120 and 60 M$_{\odot}$.
Notice that at 60 M$_{\odot}$, the LBV eruptions are more numerous and
each one is less massive than at 120 M$_{\odot}$; this is mostly
hypothetical, but is based on the presumption that a more luminous
star will have more violent mass ejections because of its closer
proximity to the Eddington limit.  For example, we might expect that
$\eta$ Car currently has an Eddington parameter of $\Gamma$=0.9 or
higher, whereas a less luminous LBV like P Cygni probably has
$\Gamma$=0.5 or so.  It is therefore also likely that the relative
importance of eruptive mass loss diminishes with lower L.  Measuring
the mass ejected in each burst, plus their frequency and total number
as functions of L and Z are probably the most important observations
to unravel the role of LBVs in stellar evolution.

Our best example of this phenomenon is the 19th century ``Great
Eruption'' of $\eta$ Carinae.  The event was observed visually, the
mass of the resulting nebula has been measured (12--20 M$_{\odot}$ or
more; Smith et al.\ 2003), and proper motion measurements of the
expanding nebula indicate that it was ejected in the 19th century
event (e.g., Morse et al.\ 2001).  The other example for which this is
true is the 1600 {\sc ad} eruption of P Cygni, although its shell
nebula has a much lower mass (Smith \& Hartigan 2006).  Both
$\eta$~Car and P~Cyg are surrounded by multiple, nested shells
indicating previous outbursts (e.g., Walborn 1976; Meaburn 2001).
While the shell of P~Cyg is less massive than $\eta$~Car's nebula, it
is still evident that P~Cyg shed more mass in such bursts than via its
stellar wind in the time between them (Smith \& Hartigan 2006).

Although LBV eruptions are rare, a number of extragalactic $\eta$ Car
analogs or ``supernova impostors'' have been observed.  Several
massive circumstellar shells have also been inferred to exist around
supernovae and gamma-ray bursters (see Smith \& Owocki 2006 and
references therein).  These indicate that the eruption of $\eta$ Car
is not an isolated, freakish event, but instead may represent a common
rite of passage for the most massive stars. A massive ejection event
may help initiate the LBV phase, by lowering the star's mass, raising
its L/M ratio, and drawing it closer to instability associated with an
opacity-modified Eddington limit (Appenzeller 1986; Davidson 1987;
Lamers \& Fitzpatrick 1988; Humphreys \& Davidson 1994).  In any case,
meager mass-loss rates through stellar winds, followed by huge bursts
of mass loss in violent eruptions at the end of core-H burning (Fig.\
1) may significantly alter stellar evolution models.

\begin{figure}[!ht]\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=nsmith.fig1.eps,width=4.2in}
\caption{Schematic representation of a star's mass as a function of
  time.  Two extreme scenarios are shown: One has higher conventional
  O-star mass-loss rates assuming homogeneous winds on the
  main-sequence (MS) with no clumping.  This is followed by a brief
  LBV wind phase and a longer WR wind phase before finally exploding
  as a supernova; this is the type of scenario usually adopted in
  stellar evolution calculations.  The second has much reduced
  $\dot{M}$ on the main sequence (assuming clumping factors of 4--6),
  followed by an LBV phase that includes severe mass loss in brief
  eruptions plus a steady wind; this is the type of scenario discussed
  by Smith \& Owocki (2006).  Panel (a) shows the case for an initial
  stellar mass of 120 M$_{\odot}$ (appropriate for an LBV like AG
  Carinae), and Panel (b) shows an initial mass of 60 M$_{\odot}$
  (appropriate for P Cygni, perhaps).  The clumping factors of 4--6
  shown here are still fairly modest compared to some estimates of
  $>$10 for O-star winds.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[!ht]\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=nsmith.fig2.eps,width=3.3in}
\caption{Masses of ejecta nebulae around LBVs (filled dots) and LBV
  candidates (unfilled) as a function of the central star's bolometric
  luminosity.  Luminosities are taken from Smith, Vink, \& de Koter
  (2004), while sources for the masses are given in Smith \& Owocki
  (2006).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Alternative Scenarios}

The scenario where LBV eruptions dominate the mass loss of the most
massive stars (Fig.\ 1), would represent a dramatic change in our
understanding of mass loss in stellar evolution. The need for
recognizing the role of LBV eruptions in mass loss is partly motivated
by recent studies of the mass-loss rates of O stars, where wind
clumping suggests drastic reductions in $\dot{M}$ on the MS.  To be
fair, the amount of reduction in $\dot{M}$ is not yet settled; some
indications favor reduction of more than an order of magnitude, while
other estimates indicate factors of only a few (see the talk by J.\
Puls).  While this is debated, it is worth remembering that even if
the $\dot{M}$ reduction is only a factor of 3, {\it LBV eruptions may
still dominate the total mass lost during the lifetime of a very
massive star}.  The plots in Figure 2 adopt fairly modest mass-loss
rate reduction factors.

\begin{figure}[!ht]\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=nsmith.fig3.eps,width=4.2in}
\caption{Same as Figure 1, but showing more complicated (and probably
  more realistic) hypothetical alternatives in between the two
  extremes of Figure 1$a$ (only one case of M$_{\rm ZAMS}$=120
  M$_{\odot}$ is shown here).  Panel (a) allows for substantial mass
  loss via a wind during an extended late-type WN phase that lasts for
  almost half the MS lifetime.  The total mass lost by the WNL wind is
  almost as much as through LBV eruptions, but one could easily adjust
  these depending on the duration of the WNL phase.  Panel (b) has a
  weaker WNL phase and allows for the possibility that the very most
  massive stars might explode before reaching the WR phase, thereby
  reducing the amount of mass that needs to be shed through LBV
  eruptions.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

However, clumping in O-star winds is only part of the story.  The
other element is the observational reality that LBV eruptions like
$\eta$ Car's massive 19th century outburst do indeed occur, and we
have evidence that they occur more than once.  A star's mass budget
needs to allow for that.  However, if we require several 10's of solar
masses in LBV eruptions, plus enhanced mass loss during a WNL phase
(see below), we run into a {\it serious} problem --- homogeneous winds
simply do not allow enough room for additional mass loss through WNL
phases and LBV eruptions!  Thus, the mass-loss rates implied by the
assumption of homogeneous winds are not viable. I would then suggest
that the existence of WNL and LBV mass loss is an independent argument
that O star winds {\it must} be clumped, reducing $\dot{M}$ by at
least a factor of 2--3.

Of course, it is likely that neither extreme in Figure 1 is exactly
right.  The truth may lie somewhere in between, so let's consider two
likely alternatives.

\subsection{A Long WNL Phase?}

One alternative is that a very massive star spends a good fraction of
its H-burning MS lifetime as a late-type WN star (WNL; see Crowther et
al.\ 1995).  Even if their winds are clumped, WNL stars have higher
mass-loss rates than their O star counterparts.  Thus, if massive
stars can spend something like a third or half of their MS lifetime as
a WNL star, they can take a substantial chunk out of the star's total
mass.  This could temper the burden placed upon LBVs.  This scenario
is sketched in Figure 3$a$.  To me, something like Figure 3$a$ seems
to be a ``best bet'', but there are a few caveats to keep in mind.

First, Figure 3$a$ with its rather long WNL phase should only apply to
the most freakishly massive stars, with initial masses above roughly
90--100 M$_{\odot}$.  The justification for this comment is that
spectral type O3 and even O2 stars still exist in clusters within star
forming regions that are 2.5--3 Myr old (like Tr16 in the Carina
Nebula).  O3 stars probably have initial masses around 80--100
M$_{\odot}$ or so, and MS lifetimes around 3 Myr.  Therefore, these
stars cannot spend a substantial fraction of their H-burning lifetime
as a WNL star, because they evidently live for about 3 Myr without yet
reaching the WNL phase (ask P.\ Conti for an alternative hypothesis).
Only for the most massive stars might a relatively long WNL phase be
possible.  This makes me wonder if we have yet another a dichotomy in
stellar evolution, with different evolutionary sequences above and
below 100--120 M$_{\odot}$ -- much like the dichotomy above and below
45--50 M$_{\odot}$.  One could certainly make the case that the most
luminous evolved stars that are sometimes called LBVs or LBV
candidates -- stars like $\eta$~Car, the Pistol star, HD5980, and
possibly LBV~1806-20 -- have followed a different path than the
``normal'' LBVs like AG~Car and R127. Below this threshhold, hot
supergiants like Ofpe/WN9 and B[e] stars might fill similar roles.

Second, while I admit that WNL stars make a substantial contribution
to $\dot{M}$, their influence must be limited.  They cannot provide
the majority of mass lost by these stars, so the LBV eruption mass
loss must still dominate.  The reasoning behind this comment has to do
with the available mass budget of $\eta$~Carinae; namely, that $\eta$
Car is probably a post-WNL star, {\it but it still has retained most
of its original mass}.

\begin{figure}[!ht]\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=nsmith.fig4.eps,width=4.2in}
\caption{An artist's conception of the mass-loss history for a star
  with an initial mass at the upper limit of 150 M$_{\odot}$, perhaps
  appropriate for $\eta$ Carinae.  Here I show relatively short (small
  contribution) and a relatively long (dominant contribution) WNL
  phases, a ``hybrid'' WNL/LBV scenario, and the simpler extremes in
  gray.  Representative Eddington factors along the way are indicated.
  The dot shows the likely currently-observed locus of $\eta$ Carinae
  (note that I am being quite generous here with the correction for
  $\eta$ Car's companion star).  Considering that $\eta$ Car has
  already suffered 2--3 major LBV eruptions, which scenarios are
  consistent with its present mass?}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Let's remember that $\eta$ Car is the most luminous and most evolved
member of a rich region containing over 65 O-type stars, as well as 3
WNL stars (see Smith 2006).  The current LBV phase of $\eta$ Car is
not only a post-MS phase, but probably also a post-WNL phase, since
its ejecta are more nitrogen rich than the WNL stars in Carina.  It is
also reasonable to assume that $\eta$ Car has advanced further in its
evolution sooner than the WNL stars of the same age in this region
simply because it is more luminous and started with a higher initial
mass.  Now, $\eta$ Car is seen today surviving as a very massive star
of around 100 M$_{\odot}$, and we measure a total of something like
20-35 M$_{\odot}$ in its circumstellar material ejected in only the
last few thousand years (the Homunculus, plus more extended outer
material; see Smith et al.\ 2003, 2005).  That means $\eta$ Car began
its LBV phase -- and ended its MS and WNL phases -- with $\sim$120
M$_{\odot}$ still bound to the star!  If there really is an upper
limit of about 150 M$_{\odot}$ to the mass of stars (Figer 2005;
Kroupa 2005), then {\it this rules out the possibility that winds
during the MS or WNL phases could dominate the mass-lost by the star
in its lifetime}.

This argument is made graphically in Figure 4, with options of
``long'' and ``short'' WNL phases.  Keeping three facts in mind ---
{\bf 1.} that we see more than 20 M$_{\odot}$ of nebular material from
recent LBV eruptions around $\eta$ Car, {\bf 2.} that $\eta$ Car has a
present day mass around 100 M$_{\odot}$ if it is not violating the
classical Eddington limit (I am being generous with the companion
star's mass in Figure 4), and {\bf 3.} that there is a likely upper
mass limit for stars of around 150 M$_{\odot}$ --- where could you
place $\eta$ Carinae on each track in Figure 4?  What does that
signify for the relative importance of the WNL phase?

Another not-too-ridiculous possibility may be the following: {\it What
if the WNL and LBV phases overlap, so that WNL stars are quiescent
LBVs for part of their existence}?  This scenario is shown by the
``hybrid'' track in Figure 4.  We already know that some LBVs (like AG
Car) are classified as Ofpe/WN9 stars in quiescence and make the
transition between the two states (Stahl 1986).  Perhaps the more
luminous WNL stars are also dormant LBVs for a spell.  In any case,
WNL stars do exist and their line-driven winds must play some role in
stellar evolution; the relative contribution of WNL vs.\ LBV eruptions
is a matter of degree, depending on the lifetime of the WNL phase.

Perhaps the most interesting consequence of the WNL mass loss is that
{\bf the WNL phase may facilitate the onset of the LBV instability}.
By quickly reducing the star's mass and thereby raising the star's L/M
ratio, the WNL wind may bring the star to the critical point where it
is dangerously close enough to the Eddington limit (say
$\Gamma\simeq$0.9) such that the LBV instability kicks in and takes
over the star's mass loss.  Representative Eddington factors are
indicated along the various tracks in Figure 4, and make the point
vividly.  This raises interesting questions about what happens at very
low metallicity, since the line-driven WNL wind should be weaker.

\subsection{An Early Death at the End of the LBV Phase?}

The main motivation for such huge amounts of mass loss in
continuum-driven LBV eruptions is the assumption that even the most
massive stars eventually need to reach the WR phase, requiring that
their mass be whittled down to about 20 M$_{\odot}$ before then (see
Smith \& Owocki 2006).  If we can relax this constraint so that the
most massive stars above 100 M$_{\odot}$ perhaps {\it do not} make it
to the WR phase, then we can alleviate the burden of removing so much
mass through LBV explosions.  In other words, {\it the most massive
stars might undergo core collapse at the end of the LBV phase, instead
of entering the WR phase} (Figure 3$b$).  If this scenario were true,
of course, it would mean that $\eta$~Carinae and stars like it in
other galaxies may explode as hypernovae at any moment.

We should be mindful that this alternative would require an {\it even
more} radical paradigm shift in our understanding of stellar evolution
than Figure 1$a$.  Namely, Figure 3$b$ would require that not only are
LBVs in core He burning, but that LBVs reach more advanced stages.
Yet, there are some reasons why an early explosion like in Figure 3$b$
might be attractive:

\begin{itemize}

\item As noted earlier in \S 2, observations of SNe (especially type
  IIn) and GRBs reveal that some have dense, massive circumstellar
  shells.  Where could these shells have come from if the WR phase has
  a sustained fast wind for a few 10$^5$ years?  The answer may be
  that these shells did in fact originate in LBV outbursts that
  occured within about 1000 years of the final death of the star.
  That would be astonishing and very important if true.

\item In his talk at this meeting, Jorick Vink drew a similar
  conclusion about supernovae occurring at the end of the LBV phase,
  based on the radio evolution of objects like SN2001ig (e.g., Ryder
  et al.\ 2004).

\item A.\ Gal-Yam et al.\ (2007; in prep.) have identified a likely
  LBV as the progenitor for the Type IIn SN2005gl, and there may be
  others.

\end{itemize}

\section{Eruptive Mass Loss at Low Metallicity}

Unlike line-driven winds, the driving mechanism for giant LBV
outbursts is probably insensitive to metallicity (see Smith \& Owocki
2006).  There is good empirical evidence for this: Above
$\sim$10$^{5.8}$ L$_{\odot}$, no RSGs are seen because their redward
evolution is halted by heavy mass loss in the LBV phase (see many
contributions in the pre-fire Lunteren meeting).  This upper limit to
RSGs seems to hold even in low Z environments like the SMC (Humphreys
\& Davidson 1979), implying that the LBV instability is indeed
metallicity-independent.

The first stars, which were metal free, are thought to have been
predominantly massive (e.g., Bromm \& Larson 2004).  With no metals,
these stars should not have been able to launch line-driven winds, and
thus, they are expected to have suffered no mass loss during their
lifetimes.  The lack of mass loss profoundly affects the star's
evolution, the type of supernova it eventually produces (Heger et al.\
2003), and its yield of chemical elements.

This view rests upon the assumption that mass loss in massive stars at
the present time is dominated by line-driven winds, but this
assumption may be problematic because of the role of LBV outbursts and
their metallicity independence.  Furthermore, LBV mass loss in the
first stars might enable a WR phase to occur, wherein the star could
shed further mass through a line-driven wind because of
self-enrichment (Vink \& de Koter 2005; Eldridge \& Vink 2006). If
mass loss of massive stars at the present epoch is dominated by a
mechanism that is insensitive to metallicity, then we must question
the prevalent notion that the first stars suffered no mass loss before
their final SN event.  If these outbursts can occur at low
metallicity, it would profoundly alter our understanding of the
evolution of the first stars and their role in early galaxies.

\acknowledgments

I thank Stan Owocki, Paul Crowther, and Peter Conti for many relevant
discussions.  I was supported by NASA through grant HF-01166.01A from
STScI.