Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

An all-sky 3D dust map Based on Gaia and LAMOST

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By merging ~0.01-mag spectroscopic reddening from LAMOST with ~150 million Gaia XP-based measurements, the authors build an all-sky 3D map whose per-sightline fit separates the local bubble, the diffuse dust layer, and up to four molecular

desk verdict A useful all-sky 3D reddening map that will get adopted, but the headline 0.01 mag precision is fit residual, not validated absolute accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07640 v1 pith:763PLKS5 submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.GA

Tao Wang , Haibo Yuan , Bingqiu Chen , Maosheng Xiang , Ruoyi Zhang , Bowen Huang , Hongrui Gu , Shuaicong Wang
show 1 more author
Jiawei Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords 3DdustmapinterstellarreddeningextinctionGaiaXPspectraLAMOSTmolecularcloudsdiffusemediumlocalbubble
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

This paper tries to establish that an all-sky three-dimensional map of Milky Way dust reddening can be pushed to roughly 0.01 mag precision and arcminute-scale angular resolution by merging two independent reddening estimators: spectroscopic E(B-V) for about 4.6 million LAMOST stars at ~0.01 mag precision, and forward-modelled E(B-V) from Gaia XP spectra for about 150 million selected stars at ~0.03 mag median precision. For every line of sight the dust is decomposed into three physical pieces - a dust-free local bubble, an exponentially thinning diffuse interstellar layer, and up to four individual molecular clouds - so the delivered product is a continuous, interpretable distance-reddening curve rather than a discrete collection of star measurements. A sympathetic reader would care because a map this precise and this resolved, covering the whole sky with per-sightline physical parameters, could serve both as the standard extinction-correction reference for objects inside the Milky Way and as a direct probe of dust geometry, cloud distances, and the local bubble. The paper also validates the map against earlier work, finding the classic SFD map overestimates reddening by about 16% and uncovering cloud structures in the 0.5-2 kpc range that earlier 3D maps missed.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the parametric line-of-sight model of Section 3.2 (Eqs. 2-4, 8-9): total E(B-V) equals a diffuse interstellar medium term - zero inside a fitted local-bubble boundary, then exponential decay with fitted scale height and density - plus up to four 'modified sigmoid' clouds, each with a distance d_MC, a line-of-sight width Lambda_MC, and cumulative reddening Delta E(B-V)_MC. The sigmoid is the workhorse: smooth, with an analytic derivative, so one fit yields both the reddening curve and the dust-density profile in mag/kpc, with cloud peaks readable directly. An L1 penalty (lambda=0.1) on cloud amplitudes drives superfluous clouds to zero, making model selection part of

What would settle it

Compare lines of sight through well-studied complexes (e.g., the Aquila Rift and the Perseus region) against 3D dust inversions built without this parametric prior, and against maser-parallax or CO-based cloud distances. If the fitted cloud distances disagree with independent distances beyond combined uncertainties, or if the inversion shows peaks or wings the four-sigmoid form cannot absorb, the map's structure is an artifact of the assumed shape. A second check follows from the paper's own concession that cloud widths are distance-dominated: fitting only stars with the most precise parallaxe

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

One data product can give, for any direction, a continuous reddening-distance curve whose parts are separately identifiable: a dust-free local bubble, an exponential diffuse dust layer, and up to four molecular clouds, each with fitted distance, width, and reddening. Two independent estimators - LAMOST standard-pair reddening (~0.01 mag) and Gaia XP forward-model reddening - are cross-validated; XP is aligned by 0.89; ~150 million sources are kept; and an L1-regularized weighted absolute-deviation fit makes redundant clouds vanish. The resulting all-sky map runs at 3.4-58 arcmin resolution (half the sky better than 6.9 arcmin), reaches 10-15 kpc off-plane and 3-5 kpc in-plane, with ~0.01 mag

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every line of sight is exactly a dust-free local bubble, an exponentially thinning diffuse layer, and at most four smooth, symmetric cloud steps. Wherever real dust deviates from this shape, the fitted cloud distances, cloud widths, and scale height are biased even if total reddening is right; the paper itself concedes cloud widths are dominated by distance errors, and that the XP non-negativity offset can bias the high-latitude scale height.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any star behind the map can be corrected for foreground reddening with typical 0.01-0.03 mag precision and arcminute-scale resolution, including low-latitude directions where previous all-sky maps are coarser.
  • The fitted components themselves become data: the local-bubble boundary, the diffuse-dust scale height, and the distance, width, and cumulative reddening of up to four molecular clouds are returned for every direction, enabling cloud-distance and dust-structure studies without re-deriving the map.
  • Integrated to its maximum reliable distance, the map confirms SFD's reddening is about 16% too high (scale factor 0.834) and agrees with SFD at high Galactic latitude while adding finer detail; it also finds reddening in high-latitude regions where the Green et al. (2019) map reads zero.
  • The comparison with Green et al. (2019) reveals previously unnoticed structures - prominent molecular clouds at 0.5-1 kpc at high latitude and features extending out of the disk at 0.5-2 kpc - which the authors flag for follow-up.
  • The public website and Python package (pip install dustmaps3d) let a user query extinction, dust density, uncertainty, maximum reliable distance, local-bubble distance, diffuse scale height, and cloud membership for any three-dimensional position.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My reading: the per-sightline cloud components amount to an implicit all-sky catalog of molecular-cloud distances; the natural check the paper does not perform is comparing fitted d_MC against independent distances (maser parallaxes or CO kinematics) for well-known complexes such as Orion, Perseus, and the Aquila Rift.
  • My reading: the absolute zero-point of the whole map hangs on the standard-pair assumption that stars sharing atmospheric parameters share intrinsic color; users doing precision work should treat the 0.89 (XP-to-LAMOST) and 0.834 (LAMOST-to-SFD) scale factors as a chain that could carry a small systematic tilt across stellar types.
  • My reading: a discriminating null test of the parametric form is to run a non-parametric tomographic inversion on the lines of sight with the worst residuals (low latitude, high cloud count); if an inversion reveals structure the four-sigmoid form cannot express, the cloud-count ceiling and sigmoid shape, not the data, set the map's structural limit.
  • My reading: the in-plane distance limit (3-5 kpc) is set by the faint end of the XP sample rather than by the method, so the same pipeline could be re-run on deeper surveys to push deeper into the dust disk, and the parametric design makes such updates cheap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an all-sky 3D dust reddening map by combining LAMOST DR11 standard-pair E(B−V) measurements (~4.6 million stars) with Gaia XP–based extinctions from Zhang et al. (2023a), rescaled and filtered to ~150 million sources with revised Gaia distances. An adaptive HEALPix partition yields sightlines of 3.4′–58′ resolution, and each sightline is fit with a parametric distance–reddening model consisting of a dust-free local bubble, an exponential diffuse ISM, and up to four modified-sigmoid molecular clouds under an L1 penalty. The abstract claims typical individual-star reddening precision of ~0.01 mag at |b|>20° and 0.01–0.05 mag at lower latitudes, with distance coverage of 3–5 kpc in the plane and 10–15 kpc elsewhere. The paper also provides public data products and comparisons to SFD and Green et al. (2019).

Significance. If the precision and coverage claims hold, this would be a valuable community resource: the largest all-sky 3D reddening map with arcminute-class resolution, built from ~150 million stars, with per-sightline parameters for the local bubble, diffuse dust, and molecular clouds. The paper's strengths include careful cross-matching and filtering of LAMOST and Gaia XP data, public release of the map and Python tools, and external anchors that are broadly reassuring: the SFD scaling factor of 0.834 (§4.2.1) is consistent with earlier independent calibrations, and the large-scale comparisons with Green et al. (2019) show good agreement. However, the headline precision is currently an in-sample, post-clipping fit residual, and the DIM model contains a sign error for southern Galactic latitudes. These issues are load-bearing for the central claims, so the paper needs a substantial revision before the quantitative results can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (3) and (8)] The DIM term is written with h/sin b and no absolute value. For any sightline with b<0, h/sin b<0, so 1−exp(−d/(h/sin b)) grows without bound as d increases, and the derivative in Eq. (8) becomes an increasing exponential. This is unphysical and affects every southern Galactic latitude sightline; b=0 is also singular. Replace sin b by |sin b| (or sin|b|) in Eqs. (3) and (8), refit all affected lines of sight, and recompute the southern-sky results in Figs. 15–20 and the public data products. This is load-bearing because the map is advertised as all-sky.
  2. [§3.3 and §4.1] The quoted ~0.01 mag reddening precision is the standard deviation of residuals of the model fitted to the same stars that define each line of sight, after iterative 3σ clipping. With up to 15 free parameters per sightline (Eqs. 3–9) and λ=0.1 in Eq. (15), in-sample residuals measure internal consistency, not predictive error. Please add a hold-out validation, e.g., fit each sightline on a random half of the stars and report σ on the held-out half, binned by |b|, distance, and cumulative E(B−V), or compare per-star predictions against an independent reddening catalog at matched distances. Without this, the headline precision is not established.
  3. [§2.3] The rescaled XP extinctions (factor 0.89) and the adopted XP errors are calibrated against the same LAMOST standard-pair reference that is itself part of the final dataset, and Z23's XP model used LAMOST parameters for training. This is partially an intra-family validation. Although the final SFD factor 0.834 agrees with earlier independent calibrations, the per-star error model is not independently tested. Please validate the rescaled XP E(B−V) against an independent spectroscopic or photometric reference (e.g., APOGEE/RAVE or red-clump colors), and quantify how the non-negativity offset described at the end of §2.3 propagates into the high-latitude DIM scale height.
  4. [§3.2, §4.1, §5] The public tool exposes cloud distances, cloud widths Λ_MC_i, and DIM scale height h as physical parameters, but §4.1 concedes that cloud widths are dominated by distance uncertainties, and §2.3 concedes that the Z23 offset can bias h. This undermines the parametric interpretability claim unless (i) Λ_MC_i is reported as an apparent width with a deconvolved estimate or clear caveat, and (ii) cloud distances are validated against known nearby clouds (e.g., Orion, Taurus, Perseus, California) or existing dust maps. The sensitivity to the ad hoc λ=0.1 in Eq. (15) should also be tested, since the number of retained clouds depends on it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, after Eq. (1)] The sentence 'and a and b αandβ are parameters' is garbled; it should read 'α and β are parameters.'
  2. [§2.2] In the definition of E(B−V)_LAMOST, the text says 'E(B−V)_observed is the observed color'; this should be '(B−V)_observed'.
  3. [§6 and elsewhere] Several occurrences of 'Milk Way' should be 'Milky Way'.
  4. [Figure 15] The lower panels compare the authors' residual σ with σ values 'calculated from the extinction curves provided by Green et al. (2019).' Please describe how those σ values are computed (same distance bins, same stars, or map-to-map scatter) so the comparison is interpretable.
  5. [§4.1] The 'maximum reliable distance' is defined as the distance to the farthest star in each sightline after 3σ clipping. This is not an independent completeness or sensitivity limit; please state this caveat explicitly or provide a recovery test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the map is an independent fit with external support; the headline precision is an in-sample residual (validation caveat) and the SFD comparison partly inherits the input 0.86 scaling, but these are not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: E(B−V)_LAMOST is obtained by standard-pair interpolation on low-SFD control stars; E(B−V)_XP comes from the Zhang et al. (2023a) forward model; the two are cross-calibrated with a fitted 0.89 factor (§2.3) and then a parametric local-bubble + exponential-DIM + up-to-4-cloud model is fit per sightline (§3). This is a genuine fit, not an identity. External comparisons with Green et al. (2019) and SFD (§4.2) provide independent large-scale support. The main caveats are validation issues, not circularity: the quoted 0.01–0.05 mag precision is the residual σ of the fit to the same stars, after iterative 3σ clipping (§3.3, §4.1), so it is an in-sample estimate; hold-out validation would be needed to confirm predictive error. The SFD comparison in §4.2.1 partly inherits the 0.86 SFD scaling used to define intrinsic colors in §2.2, so the 0.834 ratio is not fully independent, but the paper cites prior calibrations and does not use 0.834 to construct the map. Self-citations (e.g., Yuan et al. 2013; Zhang & Yuan 2023; Sun et al. 2022) are methodological and not load-bearing; no uniqueness-theorem or ansatz-by-citation pattern is present. The paper also explicitly concedes that cloud widths are dominated by distance uncertainties (§4.1) and that Z23's non-negativity offset can bias high-latitude scale heights (§2.3); these are acknowledged limitations, not circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The map rests on a chain of empirical calibrations: SFD-selected control stars define intrinsic colors via a 0.86 rescale; Z23 E(B-V) is rescaled by a fitted 0.89 to match LAMOST; then the line-of-sight decomposition fits 3 + 3n parameters per sightline (median ~43 effective stars) under hand-set weights, lambda = 0.1, and 3-sigma clipping. Every number in the final map inherits this chain. No new physical entities are introduced; the cost is concentrated in free parameters and shape assumptions.

free parameters (8)
  • XP scale factor = 0.89
    Linear fit to binned medians of E(B-V)_LAMOST vs E(B-V)_XP (Section 2.3, Fig. 7); applied to all ~150M Z23 measurements and then treated as fixed.
  • L1 regularization lambda = 0.1
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.3 (Eq. 15); controls how many of the 4 cloud components survive; no tuning or cross-validation is shown.
  • Decentration weight parameters alpha, beta = alpha=7.5, beta=-5
    Chosen in Section 3.1 (Eq. 1) so that the weight volume inside and outside the resolution radius balance; sets how much neighboring-star data leaks into each sightline fit.
  • Per-sightline DIM parameters d_bubble, h, rho_max = bounds: 50-1000 pc, 50-500 pc, 0-0.04 mag/kpc
    Three free parameters per line-of-sight in the piecewise exponential DIM model (Section 3.2, Eq. 3, Table 3).
  • Per-cloud parameters d_MC, Lambda_MC, DeltaE_MC = up to 4 clouds per sightline, 4 multi-start initial sets
    Distance, size, and cumulative reddening of each molecular cloud component (Section 3.2, Eq. 4; Table 3).
  • Z23 reliability cuts = quality flag<8, teff_confidence>0.2, SNR_BP>5, SNR_RP>7
    Empirically chosen filters (Section 2.3) that determine the ~150M source sample; not derived from a formal criterion.
  • Weight caps and normalization = E(B-V)_err 0.01-0.1 mag; relative distance error 0.5%-50%
    Clipping and normalization of weights (Section 3.3, Eqs. 10-13), hand-set to prevent outliers from dominating.
  • 3-sigma clipping threshold = 3-sigma, iterative, with re-fit
    Outlier removal during each sightline fit (Section 3.3); in-sample residuals after clipping are later quoted as the map precision.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Stars with identical (Teff, log g, [Fe/H]) have identical intrinsic (B-V)
    Standard-pair algorithm premise (Section 2.2), inherited from Yuan et al. 2013.
  • domain assumption Control stars with E(B-V)_SFD < 0.01 mag are unreddened after a 0.86 rescale of SFD
    Defines intrinsic colors for the standard-pair calibration (Section 2.2); SFD zero-point and 0.86 factor taken from prior literature.
  • domain assumption DIM density falls exponentially with Galactic height and the Local Bubble is dust-free
    Piecewise DIM model, Section 3.2, Eq. 3; the bubble boundary is fitted per sightline.
  • domain assumption Molecular clouds are modified sigmoid profiles with central maximum density
    Cloud model, Section 3.2, Eq. 4; limits the shapes of clouds the map can recover.
  • ad hoc to paper At most 4 significant clouds per sightline (n=4) with lambda L1 penalty
    Section 3.3; chosen because more clouds would hide background stars, but the cap is a modeling decision.
  • domain assumption LAMOST stellar parameters are extinction-independent because they are derived from normalized spectra
    Section 2.1; needed so that parameter systematics do not leak into E(B-V)_LAMOST.
  • domain assumption Z23 revised parallaxes (inverse-parallax distances) and Bailer-Jones geometric distances are unbiased and interchangeable
    Section 2.4 mixes the two distance systems across the sample; no cross-validation of the two systems is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An all-sky 3D dust map Based on Gaia and LAMOST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/763PLKS5

@misc{pith2026250907640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An all-sky 3D dust map Based on Gaia and LAMOST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/763PLKS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07640}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive 3D dust reddening map covering the entire Milky Way, constructed by combining reddening estimates based on LAMOST low-resolution spectra (E(B$-$V)$_{\rm LAMOST}$) with those derived from $Gaia$ XP spectra (E(B$-$V)$_{\rm XP}$), along with revised $Gaia$ distances. E(B$-$V)$_{\rm LAMOST}$ values of $\sim$ 4.6 million unique sources were obtained with the standard-pair analysis using LAMOST DR11 stellar parameters and synthesized $B/V$-band photometry from $Gaia$ XP spectra, showing a typical precision of $\sim$ 0.01 mag. The E(B$-$V)$_{\rm XP}$ from the catalog of \citet{zhang2023}, which was derived using forward modeling of $Gaia$ XP spectra, were cross-validated with E(B$-$V)$_{\rm LAMOST}$, leading to the selection of $\sim$ 150 million high-reliability measurements. The combined dataset achieves a median precision of $\sim$ 0.03 mag for E(B$-$V). To model the reddening -- distance relationship along various lines-of-sight, we implemented a parametric approach that accounts for contributions from the local bubble, diffuse interstellar-medium, and multiple potential molecular clouds. The sky was adaptively partitioned based on stellar density, resulting in angular resolutions ranging from 3.4$^{\prime}$ to 58$^{\prime}$, with about half of the sky having a resolution better than 6.9$^{\prime}$. The reddening precision of our 3D map for individual stars reaches $\sim$ 0.01 mag in most regions at $|b| > 20^\circ$, but degrades to 0.01-0.05 mag at $|b| < 20^\circ$. The map reaches a maximum distance of 3-5 kpc in high-extinction regions with $|b| < 5^\circ$, and extends to 10-15 kpc elsewhere. An interactive platform and Python package have been developed for utilization of the 3D dust map. Available online: https://nadc.china-vo.org/data/dustmaps/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mean and standard deviation of the differences between the two independent measurements of extinction (E(B−V)LAMOST − E(B − V)SFD). We used the entire sample of ∼ 5 million stars as the target sample and applied the aforementioned standard￾pair algorithm by selecting stars from the control sam￾ple. For 99.6% of the target stars, sufficient control stars were found to perform the linear fit. An example of this fittin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Teff,LAMOST vs. log gLAMOST (left panel) and Teff,LAMOST vs. [Fe/H]LAMOST (right panel) distributions of the target and control samples. The blue dots represent the control sample stars, and the density contours represent the target sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of the results for a target star using the standard-pair algorithm. The top three panels show the distribution of control stars in the parameter space, with the colors encoding the intrinsic colors of the control stars. The bottom three panels display the residuals from the linear fit, with the blue shading and red dashed lines indicating the 3-σ range and the mean (µ) of the residuals, respectively. The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 2D histogram of the residual standard devi￾ation from the linear fit to the target stars, derived using the standard-pair algorithm, as a function of Teff,LAMOST, with color encoding representing the stellar number density. For E(B−V)LAMOST, the reddening is calcul…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of intrinsic B−V colors in the stellar parameter space derived using the standard-pair algorithm. The color-coded dots represent the intrinsic B−V colors obtained from the LAMOST DR11 through the standard-pair algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 2D histogram of the difference between the algorithm-derived E(B−V)LAMOST and E(B − V)SFD as a function of SNRg, with color encoding representing the stel￾lar number density. The data selection is based on E(B−V)< 0.02 mag , |b| > 20◦ , and |Z| > 300 pc. Note that …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 2D histogram of the difference between E(B−V)LAMOST and E(B−V)XP as a function of SNRBP, with color encoding representing the stellar number density. The black line represents the median value in each bin, while the red lines indicate the ±1 σ range. Given that we …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Adaptive multi-resolution line-of-sight scheme maximum reliable distance for each line-of-sight. (a) The number density of the LAMOST and XP sample（see subsection 2.4）in the Galactic coordinate system. The number of stars per ∼ 0.21 deg2 area（Nside =128）is shown. (b) A…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Weight function of stellar decentration relative to resolution. The horizontal axis represents the ratio of decentration to resolution, with both decentration and res￾olution measured in degrees. The blue region indicates de￾centration within the resolution limit, whi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Modeling the extinction-distance relationship. The x-axis represents distance, while the left panels show extinction, and the right panels show the extinction gradient. (a) The blue line represents the extinction model for diffuse dust. The purple segment highlights o…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The number of independent molecular clouds along the line-of-sight is considered. The brown, yellow, blue, red, and green regions represent the presence of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 molecular clouds, respectively. reddening curves for multiple lines-of-sight with overlaid dat…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples of the distance-extinction relationship in different line-of-sight directions. Blue points represent E(B−V)LAMOST, orange points represent E(B−V)XP, and gray points represent data that are not within the resolution but included with a certain weight. To avoid…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: It shows all the information obtained in one line-of-sight. (a) The variation of extinction with distance. Blue points represent E(B−V)LAMOST, orange points represent E(B−V)XP, and gray points represent data that are not within the resolution but included with a certa…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Sky distribution and variation with cumulative extinction of the fitted residual standard deviation (σ) along different lines of sight. The upper panels show sky maps of σ calculated using both LAMOST and XP sources, as well as σLAMOST calculated using only LAMOST sou…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: A comparison of the E(B−V) derived from the extinction integral at the maximum reliable distance in this work and those from the SFD is shown. The black points represent the median values within each bin, and the black line is the linear fit to these points. Note that…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison to the 2D extinction map of Schlegel et al. (1998). Top panel: Our 3D extinction map at the maximum reliable distance, with E(B−V) shown at a resolution of 3.3 arcmin, corresponding to Nside = 1024. Mid￾dle panel: The extinction map from Schlegel et al. (19…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Cumulative reddening in the Galactic Mollweide projection at different distances: 0 - 0.5 kpc, 0.5 - 1 kpc, 1 - 2 kpc, and 2 - 5 kpc. The left side of the figure shows the results from our work, while the right side displays the results from Green et al. (2019). All s…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Dust density in the XY plane containing the Sun, with the Sun located at a distance of 8.12 kpc from the Galactic center (marked by the black "×" symbol). The directions of Galactic longitude l = 0◦ and l = 90◦ are also indicated. The solid black and dashed curved lin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Milky Way Atlas: A radial-velocity-resolved, three-dimensional map of H I within 1.25 kpc

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Bayesian inference method combining HI4PI radio data with Gaia-based 3D dust maps reconstructs the 3D density, velocity, and line-width of local atomic hydrogen within 1.25 kpc, validated by synthetic tests and inde...

  2. Unveiling the nature of G6096: a likely hierarchical triple system

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    G6096 is likely a hierarchical triple of main-sequence stars rather than a binary hosting a white dwarf or neutron star.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C., & Chiti, A

    An, D., Beers, T. C., & Chiti, A. 2024, ApJS, 272, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3641

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad3641 2024

  2. [2]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  3. [3]

    Q., Schultheis, M., Jiang, B

    Chen, B. Q., Schultheis, M., Jiang, B. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219682

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219682 2013

  4. [4]

    Q., Huang, Y., Yuan, H

    Chen, B. Q., Huang, Y., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3341

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3341 2019

  5. [5]

    P., & Reynolds, R

    Cox, D. P., & Reynolds, R. J. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 303, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.001511

    arXiv 1987

  6. [6]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243680

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  7. [7]

    E., Bailer-Jones, C

    Dharmawardena, T. E., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Fouesneau, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1474

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1474 2024

  8. [8]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    arXiv 2003

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    2003, A&A, 409, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070

    Drimmel, R., Cabrera-Lavers, A., & López-Corredoira, M. 2003, A&A, 409, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Drimmel, R., & Spergel, D. N. 2001, ApJ, 556, 181, doi: 10.1086/321556 Ferrière, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031

    2001 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Dettbarn, C., & Flynn, C

    Fuchs, B., Breitschwerdt, D., de Avillez, M. A., Dettbarn, C., & Flynn, C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 993, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11044.x Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Montegr...

    2006

  4. [12]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Chen, B

    Guo, H. L., Chen, B. Q., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc68a

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19895

    Huang, B., Yuan, H., Xu, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19895

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Koo, B.-C., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 388, 93, doi: 10.1086/171132

    1992 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N

    Lallement, R., Vergely, J. L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 661, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142846

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    L., & Redfield, S

    Linsky, J. L., & Redfield, S. 2021, ApJ, 920, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1feb

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Yuan, H

    Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., Huo, Z. Y., et al. 2014, in IAU

    2014

  11. [19]

    298, Setting the scene for Gaia and LAMOST, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 298, Setting the scene for Gaia and LAMOST, ed. S. Feltzing, G. Zhao, N. A. Walton, & P. Whitelock, 310–321, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313006510

    doi

  12. [20]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    McKee, C. F. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 80, The Physics of the Interstellar Medium and Intergalactic Medium, ed. A. Ferrara, C. F

    1995

  15. [23]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdbac Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P

    Niu, Z., Yuan, H., & Liu, J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdbac Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323195

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1175, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1175

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

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

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac642f

    Sun, Y., Yuan, H., & Chen, B. 2022, ApJS, 260, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac642f

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N

    Vergely, J. L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 664, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243319

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, A&A, 639, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936868

    Wang, S., Zhang, C., Jiang, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936868

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, Submitted

    Wang, T., Yuan, H., Chen, B., et al. 2025, Submitted

    2025

  24. [32]

    Y., & Shelton, R

    Welsh, B. Y., & Shelton, R. L. 2009, Ap&SS, 323, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0053-3

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Li, H.-N., et al

    Wu, Y., Luo, A. L., Li, H.-N., et al. 2011, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11, 924, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/11/8/006

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    B., Liu, X

    Yuan, H. B., Liu, X. W., & Xiang, M. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt039

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9dfa 25

    Zhang, R., & Yuan, H. 2023, ApJS, 264, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9dfa 25

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad613e

    Zhang, R., Yuan, H., Huang, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad613e

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    M., & Rix, H.-W

    Zhang, X., Green, G. M., & Rix, H.-W. 2023a, MNRAS, 524, 1855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1941 —. 2023b, Parameters of 220 million stars from Gaia BP/RP spectra, v1.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7811871

    doi

  30. [38]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Alves, J., et al

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 334, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.