Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Excess Ultraviolet Emission at High Galactic Latitudes: A New Horizons View

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read New Horizons measurements from 57 AU give the first firm measurement of the cosmic ultraviolet background in the 912–1100 Å band and find that roughly half of the high-latitude UV background is unidentified.

desk verdict The 1500 Å result is solid; the 1000 Å 'first detection' needs an LSF systematics estimate before I'd trust the quoted uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00787 v1 pith:NM6DXB6K submitted 2025-01-01 astro-ph.GA

Jayant Murthy (1) , J. Michael Shull (2 , 3) , Marc Postman (4) , Joel Wm. Parker (5) , Seth Redfield (6) , Nathaniel Cunningham (7) , G. Randall Gladstone (8
show 35 more authors
9) Jon P. Pineau (10) Pontus Brandt (11) Anne J. Verbiscer (12) Kelsi N. Singer (5) Harold A. Weaver (11) Richard C. Henry (13) S. Alan Stern (14) ((1) Indian Institute of Astrophysics (2) Department of Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences CASA University of Colorado (3) Department of Physics & Astronomy University of North Carolina (4) Space Telescope Science Institute (5) Department of Space Studies Southwest Research Institute (6) Astronomy Department Van Vleck Observatory Wesleyan University (7) Nebraska Wesleyan University (8) Southwest Research Institute San Antonio TX (9) University of Texas at San Antonio (10) Stellar Solutions Aurora USA (11) The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (12) Department of Astronomy University of Virginia (13) Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Physics Astronomy (14) Southwest Research Institute Space Sector Boulder USA)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmicultravioletbackgrounddiffuseradiationNewHorizonsAlicehighGalacticlatitudeLymanlimittwo-photonemissioninterstellarreddeningGALEXcross-calibration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Cosmic ultraviolet background measurements from Earth orbit are contaminated by airglow and by scattered interplanetary Lyman-$\alpha$. This paper reports observations with the Alice spectrograph on New Horizons from 57 AU, where those foregrounds are largely gone, of 25 high-latitude fields ($|b|>40^\circ$). The background is linearly correlated with the Planck $E(B-V)$ reddening, with zero-reddening offsets of $221 \pm 11$ photon units at 1000 Å and $264 \pm 24$ photon units at 1500 Å ($4.4 \pm 0.2$ and $5.3 \pm 0.5$ nW m$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$). The 1000 Å offset is claimed as the first firm detection in the 912–1100 Å window, where the prior result was only an upper limit. Known sources explain about half of the signal, leaving unidentified excesses of $133 \pm 17$ photon units at 1000 Å and $103 \pm 31$ photon units at 1500 Å; nothing is detected shortward of the Lyman limit.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the data-processing sequence that turns Alice raw counts into a clean background spectrum, built around two foreground subtractions. Dark counts from the spacecraft's radioisotope thermoelectric generator are measured with door-closed exposures interleaved with the sky exposures. The dominant contaminant, scattering of the intense interplanetary Lyman-alpha line across the detector, is removed with a template formed by differencing Alice observations of the same sky region made in 2007 at about 8 AU and in 2023 at about 57 AU, scaled by the Lyman-alpha line counts; the solar Lyman-alpha signal fell by a factor of 3.5 over that interval, so the difference isolates the scattering function. Because aperture-filling diffuse calibration is difficult, the 1400–1700 Å Alice band is cross-calibrated against GALEX diffuse observations, and a single scale factor is applied to the whole Alice spectrum. The residual after these subtractions, plotted against the mean Planck $E(B-V)$ in each aperture, yields the linear fits and zero-reddening offsets.

What would settle it

To test the first-detection claim, one could observe a hot white dwarf or B star with a model-atmosphere spectrum through Alice's short-wavelength (KBr) and long-wavelength (CsI) channels and compare the 912–1100 Å count rate with the model prediction; if the single GALEX-derived scale factor is wrong for the short-wavelength channel by more than the quoted errors, the $221 \pm 11$ photon units offset at 1000 Å would shift and the firm detection would be called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the cosmic ultraviolet background at high Galactic latitudes has a substantial component not explained by any known source, and that this component can now be measured in the previously inaccessible 912–1100 Å band. From 25 fields observed with the Alice spectrograph at 57 AU, after subtracting dark counts and a scattering template for interplanetary Lyman-$\alpha$, the CUVB surface brightness is linear in the Planck $E(B-V)$: at 1000 Å the best fit is $2994 \pm 446$ photon units per magnitude of $E(B-V)$ plus an offset of $221 \pm 11$ photon units; at 1500 Å it is $6723 \pm 909$ photon units per magnitude plus $264 \pm 24$ photon units, where photon units are photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$. The 1000 Å offset is the first firm measurement of the zero-reddening offset between 912 and 1100 Å; the only earlier measurement, from the Voyager ultraviolet spectrometers, was an upper limit near 200 photon units. Adding the integrated light of unresolved galaxies, faint stars, O VI and C IV line emission, and two-photon emission accounts for roughly half the offsets, leaving $133 \pm 17$ photon units at 1000 Å and $103 \pm 31$ photon units at 1500 Å with no identified source. In the 600–800 Å band the measured surface brightness is $3.2 \pm 3.0$ photon units, so no background is detected below the Lyman limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a single scale factor, derived from a 1400–1700 Å comparison with GALEX, applies unchanged across the entire Alice spectrum, including the 912–1100 Å band that uses a different detector coating.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 912–1100 Å zero-reddening offset becomes a measured number, $221 \pm 11$ photon units, rather than an upper limit, so models of the extragalactic UV background must now reproduce it.
  • After accounting for galaxies, stars, line emission, and two-photon emission, an excess of $133 \pm 17$ photon units at 1000 Å and $103 \pm 31$ photon units at 1500 Å remains, indicating an unidentified isotropic component of the high-latitude UV sky.
  • The null detection below the Lyman limit, $3.2 \pm 3.0$ photon units in the 600–800 Å band, constrains the metagalactic ionizing background and implies that the local EUV field seen by earlier missions is dominated by a few nearby stars.
  • Because the 1400–1800 Å Alice and GALEX offsets agree to $-23 \pm 24$ photon units, the paper concludes that 1300–1800 Å background measurements are feasible from low Earth orbit, whereas the 912–1100 Å band requires an outer-solar-system vantage point where Lyman-alpha scattering is weak.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test, not performed in the paper, is to replace the single GALEX-derived scale factor with a wavelength-dependent calibration anchored to stellar model atmospheres; if the 1000 Å offset moves by more than its stated error, the first-detection claim would rest on a calibration artifact.
  • If the residual excess is a real astrophysical component, cross-correlating the 1000 Å residual map with galaxy redshift surveys, X-ray maps, and far-infrared dust maps would show whether it is Galactic halo emission or genuinely extragalactic; the paper already cites a clustering analysis that argues against an extragalactic origin for a comparable 1500 Å monopole.
  • The combination of a substantial 912–1100 Å offset with a null below 912 Å implies that the unknown emitter produces photons just longward of the Lyman limit but not ionizing photons; warm partially ionized gas or a decaying-particle source would make concrete predictions that future short-wavelength UV observations could test.
  • If a future deep-space platform observes the same 912–1100 Å window with an independently calibrated spectrograph, the comparison would be a clean check of whether the 221 photon units offset is a property of the sky or of Alice's calibration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents new observations of the cosmic ultraviolet background (CUVB) with the Alice spectrograph on New Horizons at ~57 AU from the Sun, targeting high-latitude fields with |b| > 40°. The authors subtract detector dark counts (measured with the door closed and interleaved with sky exposures) and a Lyα scattering template built by differencing 2007 and 2023 blank-sky observations. They then correlate Alice surface brightness in two bands (912–1100 Å and 1400–1700 Å) with Planck E(B−V), finding zero-reddening offsets of 221 ± 11 photon units at 1000 Å and 264 ± 24 photon units at 1500 Å. The former is claimed as the first firm detection of the offset in the 912–1100 Å range. Comparing with known contributors (unresolved galaxies, stars, O VI/C IV line emission, two-photon emission) leaves an unexplained excess of about 133 and 103 photon units in the two bands. An upper limit of 3.2 ± 3.0 photon units is reported for 600–800 Å emission below the Lyman limit.

Significance. If correct, this is a landmark measurement: it would be the first firm detection of the diffuse ultraviolet background in the 912–1100 Å band from outside the solar system, and the agreement with earlier GALEX-based offsets at 1500 Å would validate the method. The paper is careful in its dark subtraction, uses interleaved dark exposures, constructs a Lyα template from the 2007–2023 orbital baseline, and makes electronic data available. The high-latitude, outer-solar-system vantage point removes geocoronal and zodiacal foregrounds that have plagued earlier measurements. These strengths make the paper valuable regardless of the final verdict. However, the central first-detection claim depends on two assumptions that need explicit support: that the Box spectrum in the 912–1100 Å band is not dominated by red-wing leakage from longer wavelengths, and that a single GALEX-based scale factor, calibrated at 1400–1700 Å, applies across the entire Alice spectrum including the KBr-coated short-wavelength region.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4 / §2.1] The first-firm-detection claim at 912–1100 Å is not yet supported because the analysis does not address the spectral purity of the Box measurement. The Box has a FWHM of 172 Å (§2.1), nearly the full 188 Å width of the claimed band, and §4.4 states that the detector region was integrated down to 850 Å to capture the short-wavelength signal. Without a line-spread-function deconvolution or an explicit leakage estimate, the 912–1100 Å band will include red-wing counts from the 1100–1350 Å region (blanked in Fig. 15) and potentially from 1400–1800 Å, where the measured offset is 264 ± 24 photon units. The paper itself cautions that the decrease in offsets from 1100 to 912 Å 'may be an artifact of the Box line width.' The quoted 221 ± 11 photon units includes only the statistical errors from the fit and template subtraction, not an LSF modeling error. The Stem measurement in the same band, 172 ± 48 photon units, is far less precise and cannot by itself establish a firm detection. Please quantify the red-wing contribution using the measured LSF and the observed spectrum at λ > 1100 Å, or deconvolve the spectrum; unless this is done, the first-detection claim is not load-bearing.
  2. [§4.2] The absolute calibration of the 912–1100 Å band rests on an assumption that is stated but not validated. Section 4.2 derives a single scale factor from the correlation between Alice 1400–1700 Å counts and GALEX FUV background, and then 'rescaled the Alice spectra by these factors, assuming that a single scale factor applies over the entire Alice spectrum.' The Alice detector has a split coating of KBr (520–1180 Å) and CsI (1250–1870 Å) (§2.1). If the relative sensitivity of the two coatings has drifted since ground calibration, or if the diffuse-source calibration differs between the two coatings, the 1000 Å offset of 221 ± 11 photon units would shift by an amount not captured by the quoted uncertainty. Please provide evidence that the short-wavelength response tracks the 1400–1700 Å response, for example from stellar observations at 912–1100 Å or from a stability analysis of the KBr/CsI boundary region, or propagate a conservative systematic uncertainty into the 1000 Å offset.
  3. [§4.3] The reported EUV limit of 3.2 ± 3.0 photon units at 600–800 Å is presented as an absolute surface brightness, but it is converted using the same GALEX-derived calibration that is only established for 1400–1700 Å. The text does not describe any calibration check for the 520–912 Å KBr-coated region, which is the part of the detector most likely to have a different sensitivity history. Either provide a validation for the short-wavelength calibration or present the EUV result as an upper limit in count-space rather than in photon units, with the calibration uncertainty included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] Please clarify the direction of the rescaling: the fit gives Alice = 0.71 × GALEX for the Box, so the correction factor to apply to Alice spectra should be 1/0.71, yet the text says 'rescaled the Alice spectra by these factors' without specifying whether 'factors' means the slope or its inverse.
  2. [§3.3 / Fig. 8] The caption of Fig. 8 writes the subtracted component as D2023 + T × L2007, while Eq. (3) defines CUVB = (S − D) − L ∗ T; please reconcile the notation for the template scaling so that L and T are not confused with each other.
  3. [Table 7] The 912–1100 Å STEM row reports a slope of 2214 ± 1694 photon units mag−1, a relative uncertainty of ~76%; please state explicitly that the Stem is too noisy to constrain the slope and that all quantitative conclusions rely on the Box.
  4. [§4.4] The text says the offsets are 'close to flat between 1400 – 1800 ˚A at a level of about 290 photon units,' but Table 7 quotes 264 ± 24 photon units for 1400–1700 Å; please specify whether the 290 value refers to a different wavelength range or a different estimate.
  5. [§3.3.1] The error propagation description adds dark, sky, and template errors in quadrature, but it does not state how the template normalization uncertainty (the scaling by the Lyα line ratio L2007/L2023) is incorporated into the template error; please add one sentence describing the scaling uncertainty.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Main 912–1100 Å derivation is not circular, but the 1500 Å 'confirmation' and the 'near-zero atmospheric offset' restate the GALEX cross-calibration fit rather than independent measurements.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (GALEX cross-calibration) and Section 6 (Summary)]
    "We have, therefore, rescaled the Alice spectra by these factors, assuming that a single scale factor applies over the entire Alice spectrum. There is evidence for a small offset (≈ 23 photon units at 1 σ) between GALEX and Alice, perhaps due to two-photon emission arising in the Earth’s atmosphere (Kulkarni 2022). ... Importantly, we have found that there is, at most, an offset of −23 ± 24 photon units between the Alice observations and GALEX data at 1500 Å."

    The Alice 1400–1700 Å data are cross-calibrated by a least-squares fit to GALEX diffuse data (slope 0.71, intercept −23.2 for the Box). After rescaling, the reported 'offset between Alice and GALEX at 1500 Å' is exactly the fitted intercept of that calibration fit, not an independently measured quantity. The 1500 Å zero-reddening offset of 264 ± 24 photon units is likewise a deterministic transform of the GALEX offset that was used to set the Alice scale. Therefore the abstract's statement that 'the latter result confirms previous results from GALEX' overstates the independence: it is a re-derivation of the calibration input. The 912–1100 Å offset is not circular because no GALEX data exist at those wavelengths, but it inherits the single-scale-factor assumption.

full rationale

The central new claim—the 912–1100 Å zero-reddening offset of 221 ± 11 photon units—is derived from Alice sky counts after dark subtraction and Lyα-template removal, regressed against external Planck E(B−V) values. That offset is not fitted to the claimed excess; it is the intercept of an independent linear regression against an external reddening map, and the excess over known sources is computed by subtracting external literature estimates (galaxy counts, stellar models, O VI/C IV, two-photon emission). This portion of the derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The one circular element is at 1400–1800 Å: the Alice data are calibrated using GALEX diffuse maps, and then the same comparison is reported as a 'finding' of near-zero atmospheric contribution and as a 'confirmation' of GALEX offsets. That is a fitted calibration parameter presented as a measurement, warranting a small deduction (score 2). Self-citations of earlier CUVB measurements (Akshaya et al., Henry et al., Murthy et al.) are present, but they are used for context and comparison, not as load-bearing justification for the new 1000 Å detection. The paper explicitly flags a spectral-resolution caveat: the Box line width is 172 Å, and the authors caution that the apparent decline from 1100 to 912 Å 'may be an artifact of the Box line width.' That is a measurement limitation, not circularity, but it should temper the 'first firm detection' headline. Overall, no significant circularity in the primary derivation chain; the 912–1100 Å result is an extrapolated measurement with unverified cross-coating calibration, not a conclusion forced by the inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central measurement rests on two calibration/analysis assumptions: wavelength-independent cross-calibration to GALEX and constancy of the background in the template field, plus the standard linear DGL model. These are explicit in Sections 3.3 and 4.2.

free parameters (2)
  • Box GALEX scale factor = 0.71 ± 0.05
    Fitted by correlating Alice Box surface brightness (1400-1700 Å) with GALEX diffuse FUV; applied to all wavelengths, so the quoted 1000 Å offset scales with this factor.
  • Stem GALEX scale factor = 0.82 ± 0.14
    Fitted similarly for the Stem aperture; Stem offsets are less constraining but are quoted in Table 7.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The CUVB surface brightness in the template field was identical in 2007 and 2023, so that (S2007-D2007)-(S2023-D2023) isolates the solar Ly-alpha scattering.
    Used in Section 3.3, Eq. 2. If the Galactic or extragalactic background in that field varied over 16 years, the scattering template T would be biased, affecting all derived CUVB spectra.
  • domain assumption A single Alice-to-GALEX calibration scale factor applies over the entire Alice spectrum, including 912-1100 Å where no direct cross-calibration exists.
    Stated in Section 4.2: 'assuming that a single scale factor applies over the entire Alice spectrum.' The first-detection claim at 1000 Å depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption At high Galactic latitudes, the dust-scattered ultraviolet intensity is linearly proportional to E(B-V) with no additional color dependence over the sampled range.
    Standard DGL model used throughout Section 4.4 and Figures 13-14; field selection excludes large optical depths where nonlinearity could appear.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Excess Ultraviolet Emission at High Galactic Latitudes: A New Horizons View." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NM6DXB6K

@misc{pith2026250100787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Excess Ultraviolet Emission at High Galactic Latitudes: A New Horizons View},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NM6DXB6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00787}
}
abstract

We present new observations of the cosmic ultraviolet background (CUVB) at high Galactic latitudes ($|b| > 40^{\circ}$), made using the Alice UV spectrograph on board the New Horizons spacecraft. These observations were taken at about 57 AU from the Sun, outside much of the foreground emission affecting previous missions, and allowed a new determination of the spectrum of the CUVB between 912 -- 1100~\AA\ and 1400 -- 1800~\AA. We found a linear correlation between the CUVB and the Planck E(B~-~V) with offsets at zero-reddening of $221 \pm 11$ photon units at 1000~\AA\ and $264 \pm 24$ \photu\ at 1500~\AA\ ($4.4 \pm 0.2$ nW m$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$ at 1000~\AA\ and $5.3 \pm 0.5$ nW m$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$ at 1500~\AA). The former is the first firm detection of the offset in the range 912 -- 1100 \AA\ while the latter result confirms previous results from \galex, showing that there is little emission from the Solar System from 1400 -- 1800 \AA. About half of the offset may be explained by known sources (the integrated light of unresolved galaxies, unresolved stars, emission from ionized gas, and two-photon emission from warm hydrogen in the halo) with the source of the remaining emission as yet unidentified. There is no detectable emission below the Lyman limit with an upper limit of $3.2 \pm 3.0$ photon units.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Alice entrance aperture is a square Box on top of a narrow, rectangular Stem (Stern 2008). 2. THE CUVB SURVEY 2.1. The New Horizons Alice UV Spectrograph The New Horizons Alice spectrograph (Stern 2008) is a Rowland Circle spectrograph with spectral coverage from 520 – 1870 ˚A, enabling direct measurement of the FUV cosmic background over these wavelengths. The main airglow channel (AGC) has an aperture compris￾… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The locations of the CUVB fields are shown on the IRIS full-sky 100 µm map (Miville-Deschˆenes & Lagache 2005) in Galactic coordinates. The auxiliary fields include the two shock fields and one molecular hydrogen fields. would be sufficient to keep direct sunlight out of the instrument apertures, the spacecraft bulkhead in which the apertures are positioned supports other instruments that could potentially scatter s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detector image of one of our diffuse background observations, with the instrumental STIM pulses seen on either side of the image. The scale is in units of counts pixel−1 s −1 . Wavelength increases to the right with the illuminated region spanning the range from 520 – 1870 ˚A. Lyα is at the center of the image with much of the background due to instrumental scattering and dark counts. The Stem is identified in the l… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The average dark count rate over the Stem (+) and the Box (*) as a function of the year in which the ob￾servations were taken ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectrum of the dark counts in the Box from 2007 (black line) and 2023 (red line). the Sun (Murthy et al. 1999; Gladstone et al. 2018). Al￾ice re-observed a long observation of the blank sky from 2007 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Diffuse FUV image from GALEX (Murthy 2014) in Galactic coordinates with the Alice Box and Stem observations from 2007 (red) and 2023 (white) superimposed. The dashed observations did not include the star HIP 648 (blue star) in the Box and were not used in the derivatio…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Different components of the template creation for the Stem. Symbols in the key are as defined in Eq. 2. The Lyα scattering matrix is given by the difference between the observed spectrum in 2007 (S2007) and 2023 (S2023) and has to be scaled to the observed counts in th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Different components of the template creation for the Box. Symbols in the key are as defined in Eq. 2. See caption for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Box spectrum for each of the fields plotted as a function of wavelength (600 – 1800 ˚A). The spectra are ordered by the mean Planck E(B - V) in the Box, except for the last three spectra, and are labeled as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stem (black) and Box (red) Alice surface bright￾ness between 1350 ˚A and 1800 ˚A compared to the mean GALEX surface brightness in the FUV band. The best-fit lines are NH = 0.82G − 31.2 for the Stem (black line) and NH = 0.71G − 23.2 for the Box (red line), where NH is…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mean surface brightness in the Box from 912 – 1100 ˚A as a function of the E(B - V) with 1σ errors. Red points are near the SGP and black points are near the NGP. The line represents the best fit to the data with SB = 2994E(B - V) + 221 photon units ( [PITH_FULL_IMAG…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Mean surface brightness in the Box from 1400 – 1700 ˚A as a function of the E(B - V) with 1σ errors. Red points are near the SGP and black points are near the NGP. The line represents the best fit to the data with SB = 6723E(B - V) + 264 photon units ( [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Offsets at zero reddening plotted as 1 σ error bars for the Box. The discontinuity from 1100 – 1350 ˚A is because we have blanked out the section where uncertainties in the subtraction of the Lyα template dominate the errors. Components of the diffuse radiation field …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Offsets for the northern observations (black) and the southern observations (red). be included in the GALEX point source catalog (Bianchi et al. 2018), which is complete to an AB magnitude of 19.9 in the FUV. Stars in the catalog contribute a mean of 26.7 ± 10.5 photo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Murthy, J., Ravichandran, S., Henry, R

    Akshaya, M. S., Murthy, J., Ravichandran, S., Henry, R. C., & Overduin, J. 2018, ApJ, 858, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcb9 —. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2186

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabcb9 2018

  2. [2]

    C., Henry, R

    Anderson, R. C., Henry, R. C., Brune, W. H., Feldman, P. D., & Fastie, W. G. 1979, ApJ, 234, 415, doi: 10.1086/157510

    doi:10.1086/157510 1979

  3. [3]

    Barcons, X., & Fabian, A. C. 1992, The X-Ray Background (Cambridge University Press)

    1992

  4. [4]

    L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., et al

    Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1, doi: 10.1086/377253

    doi:10.1086/377253 2003

  5. [5]

    2018, Ap&SS, 363, 56, doi: 10.1007/s10509-018-3277-2

    Bianchi, L., de la Vega, A., Shiao, B., & Bohlin, R. 2018, Ap&SS, 363, 56, doi: 10.1007/s10509-018-3277-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-018-3277-2 2018

  6. [6]

    1991, ARA&A, 29, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.000423

    Bowyer, S. 1991, ARA&A, 29, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.000423

    arXiv 1991

  7. [7]

    A., O’Brien, R., et al

    Carleton, T., Windhorst, R. A., O’Brien, R., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8d02

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8d02 2022

  8. [8]

    F., Weaver, H

    Cheng, A. F., Weaver, H. A., Conard, S. J., et al. 2008, SSRv, 140, 189

    2008

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b35

    Chiang, Y.-K., M´ enard, B., & Schiminovich, D. 2019, ApJ, 877, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b35

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Coulais, A., Schellens, M., Gales, J., et al. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 434, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIX, ed. Y. Mizumoto, K.-I. Morita, & M. Ohishi, 187

    2010

  3. [11]

    2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.0679

    Coulais, A., Schellens, M., Gales, J., et al. 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.0679

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cravens, T. E. 2000, ApJL, 532, L153, doi: 10.1086/312574

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Peebles, P

    Dicke, R. H., Peebles, P. J. E., Roll, P. J., & Wilkinson, D. T. 1965, ApJ, 142, 414

    1965

  6. [14]

    Dixon, W. V. D., Sallmen, S., Hurwitz, M., & Lieu, R. 2001, ApJL, 552, L69, doi: 10.1086/320265

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Andrews, S

    Driver, S. P., Andrews, S. K., Davies, L. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/108

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    1995, ApJ, 455, 574

    Thejll, P. 1995, ApJ, 455, 574

    1995

  9. [17]

    D., Brune, W

    Feldman, P. D., Brune, W. H., & Henry, R. C. 1981, ApJL, 249, L51, doi: 10.1086/183657

    1981 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Redfield, S., & Slavin, J

    Frisch, P. C., Redfield, S., & Slavin, J. D. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 237

    2011

  11. [19]

    R., et al

    Galeazzi, M., Chiao, M., Collier, M. R., et al. 2014, Nature, 512, 171, doi: 10.1038/nature13525

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Brown, T

    Gardner, J. P., Brown, T. M., & Ferguson, H. C. 2000, ApJL, 542, L79, doi: 10.1086/312930

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    R., & Rossi, B

    Giacconi, R., Gursky, H., Paolini, F. R., & Rossi, B. B. 1962, PhRvL, 9, 439, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.9.439

    1962 doi

  14. [22]

    Gillmon, K., & Shull, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 636, 908, doi: 10.1086/498055

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042352 18

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Pryor, W

    Gladstone, G. R., Pryor, W. R., Stern, S. A., et al. 2018, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 8022, doi: 10.1029/2018GL078808

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    T., Schiminovich, D., & Seibert, M

    Hamden, E. T., Schiminovich, D., & Seibert, M. 2013, ApJ, 779, 180, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/180

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    1969, Ap&SS, 5, 493, doi: 10.1007/BF00652397

    Hayakawa, S., Yamashita, K., & Yoshioka, S. 1969, Ap&SS, 5, 493, doi: 10.1007/BF00652397

    1969 doi

  20. [28]

    Henry, R. C. 1991, ARA&A, 29, 89, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.000513

    1991

  21. [29]

    C., Feldman, P

    Henry, R. C., Feldman, P. D., Fastie, W. G., & Weinstein, A. 1978, ApJ, 223, 437, doi: 10.1086/156278

    1978 doi

  22. [30]

    C., & Murthy, J

    Henry, R. C., & Murthy, J. 1993, ApJL, 418, L17, doi: 10.1086/187105

    1993 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Murthy, J., Overduin, J., & Tyler, J

    Henry, R. C., Murthy, J., Overduin, J., & Tyler, J. 2015, ApJ, 798, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/14

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Swandic, J

    Henry, R. C., Swandic, J. R., Shulman, S. D., & Fritz, G. 1977, ApJ, 212, 707, doi: 10.1086/155095

    1977 doi

  25. [33]

    Holberg, J. B. 1986, ApJ, 311, 969, doi: 10.1086/164834

    1986 doi

  26. [34]

    1984, A&A, 139, 481

    Jakobsen, P., Bowyer, S., Kimble, R., et al. 1984, A&A, 139, 481

    1984

  27. [35]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 231, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8091

    Jo, Y.-S., Seon, K.-I., Min, K.-W., Edelstein, J., & Han, W. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 231, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8091

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab22ae

    Jo, Y.-S., Seon, K.-i., Min, K.-W., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab22ae

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Cruvellier, P., Masnou, J

    Joubert, M., Deharveng, J. M., Cruvellier, P., Masnou, J. L., & Lequeux, J. 1983, A&A, 128, 114

    1983

  30. [38]

    1979, ApJ, 227, 798, doi: 10.1086/156788

    Jura, M. 1979, ApJ, 227, 798, doi: 10.1086/156788

    1979 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Kollmeier, J. A., Weinberg, D. H., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, L32

    2014

  32. [40]

    M., Kim, M

    Korngut, P. M., Kim, M. G., Arai, T., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac44ff

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Bellstedt, S., et al

    Koushan, S., Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab540

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Kulkarni, S, R., & Shull, J. M. 2023, PASP, 135, 124301

    2023

  35. [43]

    Kulkarni, S. R. 2022, PASP, 134, 084302, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac689e

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2004, A&A, 422, 391, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035625

    Lallement, R. 2004, A&A, 422, 391, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035625

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Crifo, F., & Sfeir, D

    Lallement, R., Welsh, B., Vergely, J. L., Crifo, F., & Sfeir, D. 2003, A&A, 411, 447

    2003

  38. [46]

    R., Postman, M., Weaver, H

    Lauer, T. R., Postman, M., Weaver, H. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc881

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Postman, M., Spencer, J

    Lauer, T. R., Postman, M., Spencer, J. R., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac573d

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    F., & Witt, A

    Lillie, C. F., & Witt, A. N. 1976, ApJ, 208, 64, doi: 10.1086/154582

    1976 doi

  41. [49]

    1990, ApJ, 350, 242, doi: 10.1086/168376

    Martin, C., & Bowyer, S. 1990, ApJ, 350, 242, doi: 10.1086/168376

    1990 doi

  42. [50]

    1990, ApJ, 354, 220, doi: 10.1086/168681

    Martin, C., Hurwitz, M., & Bowyer, S. 1990, ApJ, 354, 220, doi: 10.1086/168681

    1990 doi

  43. [51]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/2

    Matsuura, S., Shirahata, M., Kawada, M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/2

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    2019, Contemporary Physics, 60, 23, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2019.1586130

    Mattila, K., & V¨ ais¨ anen, P. 2019, Contemporary Physics, 60, 23, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2019.1586130

    2019

  45. [53]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1296 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., & Lagache, G

    Mattila, K., V¨ ais¨ anen, P., Lehtinen, K., von Appen-Schnur, G., & Leinert, C. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1296 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., & Lagache, G. 2005, ApJS, 157, 302, doi: 10.1086/427938

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, Ap&SS, 320, 21, doi: 10.1007/s10509-008-9855-y —

    Murthy, J. 2009, Ap&SS, 320, 21, doi: 10.1007/s10509-008-9855-y —. 2014, ApJS, 213, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/32 —. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw755

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    Murthy, J., Conn Henry, R., & Holberg, J. B. 2012, ApJS, 199, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/11

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    C., & Holberg, J

    Murthy, J., Hall, D., Earl, M., Henry, R. C., & Holberg, J. B. 1999, ApJ, 522, 904, doi: 10.1086/307652

    1999 doi

  49. [57]

    C., & Sujatha, N

    Murthy, J., Henry, R. C., & Sujatha, N. V. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1389, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1389

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    Murthy, J., & Sahnow, D. J. 2004, ApJ, 615, 315, doi: 10.1086/424441

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    1991, ApJ, 379, 532, doi: 10.1086/170526

    Onaka, T., & Kodaira, K. 1991, ApJ, 379, 532, doi: 10.1086/170526

    1991 doi

  52. [60]

    F., & Bowyer, S

    Paresce, F., McKee, C. F., & Bowyer, S. 1980, ApJ, 240, 387, doi: 10.1086/158244

    1980 doi

  53. [61]

    2022, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4633, doi: 10.21105/joss.04633

    Park, J., Duvert, G., Coulais, A., et al. 2022, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4633, doi: 10.21105/joss.04633

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 2020, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University Press)

    2020

  55. [63]

    2010, A&A, 524, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015362

    Stobie, E. 2010, A&A, 524, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015362

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    A., & Wilson, R

    Penzias, A. A., & Wilson, R. W. 1965, ApJ, 142, 419, doi: 10.1086/148307 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323195 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A132, doi: 10.1051/0...

    1965 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Parker, J

    Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Parker, J. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06273, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06273

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    Reynolds, R. J. 1992, ApJL, 392, L35, doi: 10.1086/186419 19

    1992 doi

  59. [67]

    G., et al

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Dom ´ ınguez, A., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2393

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    G., Martin, C., & Morrissey, P

    Schiminovich, D., Friedman, P. G., Martin, C., & Morrissey, P. F. 2001, ApJL, 563, L161, doi: 10.1086/338656

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  62. [70]

    Sciama, D. W. 1990, ApJ, 364, 549

    1990

  63. [71]

    L., Kruk, J

    Shelton, R. L., Kruk, J. W., Murphy, E. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, 730, doi: 10.1086/322478

    2001 doi

  64. [72]

    Fardal, M. A. 1999, AJ, 118, 1450

    1999

  65. [73]

    L., Cox, D

    Snowden, C. L., Cox, D. P., McCammon, D., & Sanders, W. T. 1990, ApJ, 354, 211

    1990

  66. [74]

    N., Verde, L., Peiris, H

    Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175

    2003

  67. [75]

    Stern, S. A. 2008, SSRv, 140, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9295-y

    2008 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Becker, T

    Stern, S. A., Becker, T. M., Parker, J. W., et al. 2025, New Horizons Alice Kuiper Belt Extended Mission 2 Raw Data Collection, URN:nasa:pds:nh alice:kem2 raw::1.0, NASA Planetary Data System, doi: 10.26007/03vn-5336

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Slater, D

    Stern, S. A., Slater, D. C., Scherrer, J., et al. 2008, SSRv, 140, 155, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9407-3

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al

    Stern, S. A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al. 2015, Science, 350, doi: 10.1126/science.aad1815

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    A., Weaver, H

    Stern, S. A., Weaver, H. A., Spencer, J. R., et al. 2019, Science, 364, eaaw9771, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw9771

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    Symons, T., Zemcov, M., Cooray, A., Lisse, C., & Poppe, A. R. 2023, ApJ, 945, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa37

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    D., Henry, R

    Tennyson, P. D., Henry, R. C., Feldman, P. D., & Hartig, G. F. 1988, ApJ, 330, 435, doi: 10.1086/166481

    1988 doi

  74. [82]

    Vallerga, J. V. 1998, ApJ, 497, 921

    1998

  75. [83]

    A., Cheng, A

    Weaver, H. A., Cheng, A. F., Morgan, F., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab67ec

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  77. [85]

    N., Friedmann, B

    Witt, A. N., Friedmann, B. C., & Sasseen, T. P. 1997, ApJ, 481, 809

    1997

  78. [86]

    N., & Petersohn, J

    Witt, A. N., & Petersohn, J. K. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 58, The First Symposium on the Infrared Cirrus and Diffuse Interstellar Clouds, ed. R. M. Cutri & W. B. Latter, 91

    1994

  79. [87]

    K., Donas, J., Arnouts, S., et al

    Xu, C. K., Donas, J., Arnouts, S., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L11, doi: 10.1086/425252

    2005 doi

  80. [88]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 15003, doi: 10.1038/ncomms15003

    Zemcov, M., Immel, P., Nguyen, C., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 15003, doi: 10.1038/ncomms15003

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    2018, PASP, 130, 115001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadb77

    Zemcov, M., Arcavi, I., Arendt, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 115001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadb77

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.