Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Exploring the pattern of the Galactic HI foreground of GRBs with the ATCA

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the standard low-resolution LAB survey underestimates the Milky Way neutral-hydrogen foreground toward gamma-ray bursts, and that arcminute-scale HI data plus optical-depth corrections lower the inferred host-galaxy…

desk verdict A genuinely useful pilot ATCA HI study toward four GRBs, but the headline claim that the foreground columns are higher—and the host columns lower—rests on a uniform 1.2x scaling offset that the paper itself attributes to data combination, not to resolved structure. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00622 v1 pith:PSTKGNQC submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.GA

H. Denes , P. A. Jones , L. V. Toth , S. Zahorecz , B-C. Koo , S. Pinter , I. I. Racz , L. G. Balazs
show 7 more authors
M. R. Cunningham Y. Doi I. Horvath T. Kovacs T. Onishi N. Suleiman Z. Bagoly
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords gamma-rayburstsGalacticforegroundneutralhydrogenHI21cmlineopticaldepthX-rayabsorptioninterferometrycolumndensity
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 sets out to test whether the standard Milky Way foreground correction applied to gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglow spectra is accurate enough. The common practice uses neutral hydrogen (HI) data from the low-resolution LAB survey, with a 36-arcminute beam, even though GRB positions are known to a few arcseconds. Using higher-resolution observations from the Australia Telescope Compact Array combined with single-dish GASS data, the authors measure Galactic HI column densities toward four GRBs at arcminute scales and find them to be higher than the LAB values. Re-fitting the Swift XRT X-ray spectra with these larger foregrounds lowers the inferred intrinsic hydrogen column densities of the host galaxies, and for one burst, GRB070508, an optical-depth correction raises the foreground by about 60 percent, lowering the host column further. The paper concludes that higher-resolution HI data, particularly the HI4PI survey, should be used instead of LAB for GRB foreground corrections, and that the Planck DL dust model should be avoided because it overestimates the foreground by roughly a factor of two.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two mechanisms. First, interferometric ATCA HI data (synthesized beams of roughly 1.5-3.8 arcminutes) are combined with the 16-arcminute GASS single-dish data through a maximum-entropy deconvolution, producing column-density maps that resolve filamentary and clumpy HI structure invisible to the 36-arcminute LAB beam. Second, the optical depth of the foreground is measured directly: 1.4 GHz continuum maps are used to find background sources, and H I absorption lines in front of them yield the optical depth spectrum $\tau(v)$. The corrected column density is computed as $N({\rm HI})_{\rm corrected}=C_0\int T_B(v)\,\tau(v)/(1-e^{-\tau(v)})\,dv$, with $C_0=1.823\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$ (km s$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$, and the spin temperature $T_s$ is estimated from the ratio of the emission integral to $(1-e^{-\tau})$. These foreground column densities are then fed into the absorbed power-law model used for the Swift XRT spectra, with a fixed Galactic absorption component and a free host absorption component, so the fitted intrinsic host absorption is the quantity that shifts as the Galactic foreground changes.

What would settle it

Take a GRB with a bright radio afterglow or a continuum source aligned within a few arcseconds of the burst position and measure the H I absorption spectrum directly at the GRB line of sight. If the optical depth toward GRB070508 turns out to be near zero rather than the ~2.3 measured toward the offset source J204442-782027, the corrected foreground would drop back toward the uncorrected value and the claimed host column density would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that single-dish, low-resolution HI surveys underestimate the Milky Way foreground seen by GRB X-ray afterglows, and that correcting this bias changes the derived properties of the bursts' host galaxies. For all four observed lines of sight, the ATCA+GASS maps give Galactic HI column densities roughly 20 percent higher than the LAB values used by the standard Swift data-reduction pipeline; applying these foregrounds to the X-ray spectra lowers the fitted intrinsic hydrogen column densities, most clearly for GRB081008 and GRB100425A. The paper also argues that optical depth cannot simply be assumed negligible: H I absorption against nearby continuum sources shows optically thick components toward two of the four fields, and for GRB070508 the column density corrected for optical depth is $14.6\pm0.2\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, about 60 percent higher than the uncorrected ATCA value. Thus the true foreground toward this burst, and the correspondingly lower host column density, depends on gas that a single-dish optically thin analysis would miss.

Load-bearing premise

The optical depth measured toward a bright background source about 30 arcseconds from the GRB is taken to be the same as the optical depth in the GRB's own line of sight; if the cold HI is clumpy on scales smaller than that offset, the large 60 percent correction for GRB070508 and the derived spin temperature would not apply at the GRB position.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Published intrinsic hydrogen column densities for GRB hosts that rely on the LAB foreground are likely overestimated; re-fitting Swift spectra with HI4PI or arcminute-resolution foregrounds should systematically lower them.
  • For GRB070508, the optically thick gas raises the Milky Way foreground to $14.6\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, so its host galaxy's intrinsic column density is lower than the standard LAB-based fit suggests by a margin that could matter for interpreting the burst environment.
  • HI4PI at 16-arcminute resolution is recommended over the 36-arcminute LAB survey for Galactic foreground corrections in GRB work, and Planck PR1/RQ extinction can serve as a consistency check.
  • The Planck DL dust model overestimates the hydrogen column toward these sightlines by about a factor of two and should not be used to set the Galactic foreground for GRB X-ray fitting.
  • Because the foreground differs from GRB to GRB at arcminute scales, a single survey value cannot represent the Milky Way absorption along an individual line of sight; position-specific high-resolution data are needed for accurate host properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bias toward higher arcminute-scale foregrounds holds more generally, then part of the long-standing discrepancy between X-ray and UV/optical column densities in GRB hosts may be a Milky Way foreground artifact rather than extra absorption in the host or intergalactic medium.
  • A low-cost extension would be to re-fit all archived Swift XRT spectra of southern GRBs with HI4PI foregrounds; if the four sightlines here are representative, the resulting host column densities would shift downward on average, and the scatter should shrink.
  • The same ATCA+GASS combination applied to a larger sample, or to existing high-resolution HI surveys at other longitudes, could map where single-dish foregrounds fail by more than 20 percent, providing a way to correct older catalogues statistically.
  • The optical-depth transfer assumption could be tested directly by targeting GRBs that catch a bright radio afterglow or an aligned background source, allowing $\tau$ to be measured at the burst position itself rather than at a 30-arcsecond offset.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a pilot study of the Galactic HI foreground toward four GRB sightlines using new ATCA interferometric observations combined with GASS single-dish data. The authors derive foreground N(HI) from the combined ATCA+GASS cubes, measure HI optical depths against continuum sources near two GRBs, recalculate intrinsic host N(H) by fitting Swift XRT spectra with different foreground assumptions, and compare all estimates with LAB, HI4PI, and Planck-based column densities. The central claim is that the higher-resolution ATCA+GASS data yield higher Galactic HI column densities than the standard LAB/HI4PI foreground, implying lower intrinsic host column densities, and that optical-depth correction substantially increases the foreground for GRB070508.

Significance. The paper assembles a rare data set: arcminute-resolution HI maps toward GRB positions, with explicit optical-depth measurements and a systematic comparison of foreground estimators. The recommendation to prefer HI4PI over LAB for GRB foreground corrections is sensible and supported by the comparison. I find no circularity; the intrinsic N(H) values come from standard Xspec fits and do not depend on prior group papers. However, the headline claim of higher foreground and lower intrinsic columns is undercut by the paper's own error bars and by an unexplained multiplicative scaling in the data combination, so the scientific result, if it survives revision, would be a demonstration of method rather than a decisive new measurement.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.1, Table 4] The statement after Table 4 that the ATCA+GASS values are 1.2 times higher than HI4PI 'due to the scaling of the data when combining interferometric and single measurements' is a load-bearing but unquantified assertion. Section 2.2 says the GASS data were 'gridded and scaled' to match the ATCA data and then used as the MEM default; the absolute scale of the combined cube is therefore set by that operation. A multiplicative error in the amplitude calibration, primary-beam correction, or MEM default would produce exactly the observed uniform 1.2x offset in all four sightlines, and would propagate directly into the lower intrinsic N(H) values in Table 5. Please give the scaling factor, its derivation, and its uncertainty, and show that it reflects true sky brightness rather than a calibration choice; if that cannot be done, the claim of higher Galactic HI foregrounds should be removed or explicitly labeled as calibration-dependent.
  2. [Abstract, §4, Table 5] The abstract claims that the new ATCA data 'results in lower intrinsic column densities for the hosts,' but Section 4 states that 'considering the 90% confidence of the fits all results agree with each other within the errors,' and Table 5 confirms broad overlap. For example, GRB070508 gives N(H)=0.94 (0.72-1.21) x 10^22 cm^-2 with LAB versus 0.93 (0.70-1.19) with ATCA, and GRB100621A gives 2.78 in both cases. The data do not statistically support lower intrinsic columns. Please add a formal comparison of the confidence intervals or moderate the abstract and conclusions to reflect that the differences are not significant at the stated confidence level.
  3. [§3.1.1, Table 3] The text says the optical depth measured toward a continuum source is assumed to apply at the GRB position 'across ~30 arc seconds,' but the coordinates in Table 3 indicate much larger separations: J204442-782027 is roughly 20 arcminutes from GRB070508, and J183826-572922 is roughly 12 arcminutes from GRB081008. Either the stated separation or the coordinate table is erroneous. This matters because the 60% foreground increase for GRB070508 and the derived spin temperature of 52±8 K depend on transferring tau over this angular scale, and the paper itself cites arcsecond-scale optical-depth variations. Please correct the stated separation and discuss whether the transfer is plausible at the actual angular scale.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6] The conclusions refer to 'ATCA+Parks maps,' while the body of the paper consistently uses 'ATCA+GASS'; please unify the nomenclature.
  2. [§6] The word 'revile' should be 'reveal' in the first paragraph of the summary and conclusions.
  3. [Table 3] The coordinate for J183953-572325 is formatted as '57.23.25' rather than '57:23:25'; please correct the sexagesimal formatting.
  4. [§2.2] The sentence describing PKS 1934-638 and PKS 0023-263 says 'is a much brighter sources compared to'; this should be 'is a much brighter source than.'
  5. [Fig. 1] The color-scale units for GRB100425A are printed as x10^21 while the other panels use x10^20; please verify that the units and the displayed values are consistent.
  6. [§4] The phrase 'longer iteration to achieve a more accurate fit' is vague; please specify the convergence criterion or fit statistic used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the new foreground and intrinsic column densities come from independent ATCA observations and Xspec fits; the uniform 1.2x scaling offset is an admitted calibration caveat, not a circular result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. N(HI) is computed from the ATCA+GASS cubes via the standard optically-thin integral (Eq. 1) and, for two sightlines, the optical-depth corrected integral (Eq. 2), with tau measured from H I absorption against continuum sources in the same ATCA data. Those corrected values are not prescribed by the input data; the tau-transfer approximation over ~30 arcseconds is explicitly flagged as an approximation and does not define the result. The X-ray analysis fixes the Galactic TBabs component at the independently derived foreground values and fits zTBabs as a free parameter in Xspec, so the intrinsic N(H) values in Table 5 are genuine spectral fits rather than a rearrangement of the foreground inputs. The paper's own statement that the ATCA+GASS values are uniformly 1.2 times higher than HI4PI 'due to the scaling of the data when combining interferometric and single measurements' is an honest calibration caveat: it weakens the abstract's causal phrasing that the higher foreground comes from the resolved ATCA data, but it is not a circular step because the scaling is an input to the combined cube and the comparison is openly attributed to that scaling rather than presented as an independent discovery. The prior-group citations (Toth et al. 2017, 2018a,b; Racz et al. 2017) are motivational or procedural and are not load-bearing; the current N(HI) and N(H) values do not reduce to those cited results. Finally, Section 4 states that all intrinsic values agree within 90% confidence, so the statistical support for lower intrinsic columns is weak, but statistical weakness is a correctness matter, not circularity. No derived quantity is equivalent by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative claims rest on standard observational conversions, two domain assumptions about gas phases and dust-to-gas ratio, and one explicitly rough approximation that the optical depth measured off-axis equals the on-axis value. The unknown GASS scaling factor in the combination step is the least controlled input.

free parameters (1)
  • GASS scaling factor in ATCA+GASS combination = not stated; paper notes ATCA values are ~1.2x HI4PI due to scaling
    The paper states the ATCA values are uniformly 1.2 times higher than HI4PI "due to the scaling of the data when combining interferometric and single measurements" (Section 3.1.1). The absolute foreground column densities depend on this scaling, and it may account for the headline higher values.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Optically thin HI column density formula N(HI) = C0 times the integral of T_B over velocity (Eq. 1) applies to the ATCA+GASS cubes before optical depth correction.
    Standard conversion, but the paper later shows tau > 0 for two sightlines, so the uncorrected values are lower limits.
  • domain assumption N(HI) equals N(H) along the four sightlines, i.e., no significant H2 or CO in the beam.
    Stated in Section 3.1.1: "we assume that N(HI) = N(H)... there is no significant H2 present." For GRB070508 this is justified by CO detections being several degrees away.
  • domain assumption One-phase ISM for the optical depth correction (Eq. 2).
    Equation 2 is introduced with "Assuming a one phase ISM"; real interstellar media are multi-phase, which adds uncertainty to the corrected column densities.
  • ad hoc to paper Optical depth measured toward a continuum source applies at the GRB position about 30 arcseconds away.
    Section 3.1.1: "we make the approximation that the optical depth does not change across ~30 arc seconds", needed because no bright continuum source lies at the GRB positions.
  • domain assumption The X-ray spectral model TBabs x zTBabs x powerlaw with standard cosmology and abundances correctly isolates the intrinsic host absorption.
    Section 4 adopts the UKSSDC automated model; systematic errors in the assumed spectral shape or abundance pattern would propagate into N(H)_intrinsic.
  • domain assumption Guver and Ozel (2009) conversions N(H) = 2.21e21 A_V and N(H) = 6.86e21 E(B-V) apply to the Planck dust maps.
    Used in Section 3.2 to convert FIR reddening to column density; the DL-map conversion is found to be a factor of two high.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the pattern of the Galactic HI foreground of GRBs with the ATCA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSTKGNQC

@misc{pith2026190900622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the pattern of the Galactic HI foreground of GRBs with the ATCA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSTKGNQC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00622}
}
read the original abstract

The afterglow of a gamma ray burst (GRB) can give us valuable insight into the properties of its host galaxy. To correctly interpret the spectra of the afterglow we need to have a good understanding of the foreground interstellar medium (ISM) in our own Galaxy. The common practice to correct for the foreground is to use neutral hydrogen (HI) data from the Leiden/Argentina/Bonn (LAB) survey. However, the poor spatial resolution of the single dish data may have a significant effect on the derived column densities. To investigate this, we present new high-resolution HI observations with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) towards 4 GRBs. We combine the interferometric ATCA data with single dish data from the Galactic All Sky Survey (GASS) and derive new Galactic HI column densities towards the GRBs. We use these new foreground column densities to fit the Swift XRT X-ray spectra and calculate new intrinsic hydrogen column density values for the GRB host galaxies. We find that the new ATCA data shows higher Galactic HI column densities compared to the previous single dish data, which results in lower intrinsic column densities for the hosts. We investigate the line of sight optical depth near the GRBs and find that it may not be negligible towards one of the GRBs, which indicates that the intrinsic hydrogen column density of its host galaxy may be even lower. In addition, we compare our results to column densities derived from far-infrared data and find a reasonable agreement with the HI data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Column density maps from the GASS (left) and the combined ATCA+GASS (right) data. The black square on the left shows the size of the ATCA image (0.5 deg). A cross marks the position of the GRB in each image, stars mark the positions of the continuum sources with detected absorption lines and circles mark the positions of continuum sources with no detected absorption lines. The grey oval on the ATCA+GASS images indic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1.4 GHz continuum maps. Contour levels are 5σ, 10σ, 20σ. The grey ellipses in the bottom left corner show the size of the synthesized beam. The black squares mark the 0.5◦ field shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time averaged X-ray spectra for the four GRBs. The red curve shows the fit with XSpec using the new ATCA+GASS Galactic foreground data. 5.1 Fluctuations in the Planck data In addition to the H i data, we also analysed the FIR data for fluctuations. We Fourier transform…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Power spectra of the target GRBs. Each dot represents a (f, P(f )) pair, the red line is the fitted linear. The high frequency end is determined by the Nyquist-limit, the low frequency end by the size of the map. effect of using single dish versus interferometric data …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1169101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...323.1688A 323, 1688

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1169101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...323.1688A 323, 1688

    doi:10.1126/science.1169101 2009

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    D., 2000, in Flanagan K

    Barthelmy S. D., 2000, in Flanagan K. A., Siegmund O. H., eds, Vol. 4140, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XI. pp 50--63, @doi 10.1117/12.409149

    work page doi:10.1117/12.409149 2000

  4. [4]

    D., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..143B 120, 143

    Barthelmy S. D., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..143B 120, 143

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  5. [5]

    Bihr S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425370 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425370 2015

  6. [6]

    D., McKee C

    Blandford R. D., McKee C. F., 1976, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.861619 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976PhFl...19.1130B 19, 1130

    doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  7. [7]

    B., Desert F.-X., Hartmann D., Lagache G., Puget J.-L., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    Boulanger F., Abergel A., Bernard J.-P., Burton W. B., Desert F.-X., Hartmann D., Lagache G., Puget J.-L., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  8. [8]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Burstein D., Heiles C., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156466 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...225...40B 225, 40

    1978 doi

  2. [10]

    Burstein D., Heiles C., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113199 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982AJ.....87.1165B 87, 1165

    1982 doi

  3. [12]

    Campana S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20428.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.1697C 421, 1697

    2012

  4. [13]

    Chen B.-Q., Liu X.-W., Yuan H.-B., Huang Y., Xiang M.-S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv103 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2015MNRAS.448.2187C 448, 2187

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    E., Peek J

    Clark S. E., Peek J. E. G., Putman M. E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/82 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...82C 789, 82

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    Costa E., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1038/42885 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997Natur.387..783C 387, 783

    1997 doi

  7. [16]

    B., Cenko S

    Cucchiara A., Fox D. B., Cenko S. B., Berger E., 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2008GCN..8346....1C 8346

    2008

  8. [17]

    Cucchiara A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736....7C 736, 7

    2011 doi

  9. [18]

    X., Cooke R

    Cucchiara A., Fumagalli M., Rafelski M., Kocevski D., Prochaska J. X., Cooke R. J., Becker G. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804...51C 804, 51

    2015 doi

  10. [20]

    Dado S., Dar A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad69 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2018ApJ...855...88D 855, 88

    2018 doi

  11. [21]

    J., Diamond P

    Davis R. J., Diamond P. J., Goss W. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/283.4.1105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283.1105D 283, 1105

    1996 doi

  12. [22]

    M., McClure-Griffiths N

    Dickey J. M., McClure-Griffiths N. M., Stanimirovi \'c S., Gaensler B. M., Green A. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323409 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...561..264D 561, 264

    2001 doi

  13. [23]

    M., McClure-Griffiths N

    Dickey J. M., McClure-Griffiths N. M., Gaensler B. M., Green A. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2003ApJ...585..801D 585, 801

    2003 doi

  14. [24]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30....3D 30, e003

    Dickey J. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30....3D 30, e003

    2013 doi

  15. [25]

    Doi Y., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv022 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASJ...67...50D 67, 50

    2015 doi

  16. [26]

    T., Li A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511055 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..810D 657, 810

    Draine B. T., Li A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511055 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..810D 657, 810

    2007 doi

  17. [27]

    El \' asd \'o ttir \'A ., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1725 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2009ApJ...697.1725E 697, 1725

    2009 doi

  18. [29]

    A., Kulkarni S

    Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R., Nicastro L., Feroci M., Taylor G. B., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1038/38451 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997Natur.389..261F 389, 261

    1997 doi

  19. [30]

    Fynbo J. P. U., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/526 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..185..526F 185, 526

    2009 doi

  20. [31]

    J., Wijers R

    Galama T. J., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...549L.209G 549, L209

    2001 doi

  21. [32]

    J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/27150 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.395..670G 395, 670

    Galama T. J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/27150 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.395..670G 395, 670

    1998 doi

  22. [33]

    Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G., Nava L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913980 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  23. [34]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.478..651G 478, 651

    Green G. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.478..651G 478, 651

    2018 doi

  24. [35]

    A., Casandjian J.-M., Terrier R., 2005, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1106924 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Sci...307.1292G 307, 1292

    Grenier I. A., Casandjian J.-M., Terrier R., 2005, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1106924 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Sci...307.1292G 307, 1292

    2005 doi

  25. [36]

    u ver T., \

    G \"u ver T., \"O zel F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.2050G 400, 2050

    2009

  26. [37]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  27. [38]

    E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.3456H 479, 3456

    Heintz K. E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.3456H 479, 3456

    2018 doi

  28. [39]

    E., Zugger M

    Hill J. E., Zugger M. E., Shoemaker J., Witherite M. E., Koch T. S., Chou L. L., Case T., Burrows D. N., 2000, in Flanagan K. A., Siegmund O. H., eds, Vol. 4140, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XI. pp 87--98, @doi 10.1117/12.409162

    2000 doi

  29. [40]

    Hjorth J., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature01750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2003Natur.423..847H 423, 847

    2003 doi

  30. [41]

    Hjorth J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756..187H 756, 187

    2012 doi

  31. [42]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  32. [43]

    Hurley K., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1038/372652a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Natur.372..652H 372, 652

    1994 doi

  33. [44]

    Kalberla P. M. W., Haud U., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525859 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  34. [45]

    Kalberla P. M. W., Burton W. B., Hartmann D., Arnal E. M., Bajaja E., Morras R., P \"o ppel W. G. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  35. [46]

    Kalberla P. M. W., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913979 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  36. [47]

    Kalberla P. M. W., Kerp J., Haud U., Winkel B., Ben Bekhti N., Fl \"o er L., Lenz D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/117 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821..117K 821, 117

    2016 doi

  37. [48]

    I., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173723 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...422..248K 422, 248

    Katz J. I., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173723 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...422..248K 422, 248

    1994 doi

  38. [49]

    Kiss C., \'A brah \'a m P., Klaas U., Lemke D., H \'e raudeau P., del Burgo C., Herbstmeier U., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021787 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2003A&A...399..177K 399, 177

    2003 doi

  39. [50]

    X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774..115K 774, 115

    Krongold Y., Prochaska J. X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774..115K 774, 115

    2013 doi

  40. [51]

    R., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/29927 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.393...35K 393, 35

    Kulkarni S. R., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/29927 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.393...35K 393, 35

    1998 doi

  41. [52]

    S., Dor \'e O., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84af , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...38L 846, 38

    Lenz D., Hensley B. S., Dor \'e O., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84af , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...38L 846, 38

    2017 doi

  42. [53]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx220 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1795L 467, 1795

    Lyman J. D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx220 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1795L 467, 1795

    2017 doi

  43. [54]

    M., Dickey J

    McClure-Griffiths N. M., Dickey J. M., Gaensler B. M., Green A. J., Haverkorn M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508706 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652.1339M 652, 1339

    2006 doi

  44. [55]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/398 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..181..398M 181, 398

    McClure-Griffiths N. M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/398 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..181..398M 181, 398

    2009 doi

  45. [56]

    M., Dickey J

    McClure-Griffiths N. M., Dickey J. M., Gaensler B. M., Green A. J., Green J. A., Haverkorn M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/12 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...12M 199, 12

    2012 doi

  46. [57]

    J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303625 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...476..232M 476, 232

    M \'e sz \'a ros P., Rees M. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303625 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...476..232M 476, 232

    1997 doi

  47. [58]

    R., Djorgovski S

    Metzger M. R., Djorgovski S. G., Kulkarni S. R., Steidel C. C., Adelberger K. L., Frail D. A., Costa E., Frontera F., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1038/43132 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997Natur.387..878M 387, 878

    1997 doi

  48. [59]

    Paczynski B., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184740 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308L..43P 308, L43

    1986 doi

  49. [60]

    Paradis D., Dobashi K., Shimoikura T., Kawamura A., Onishi T., Fukui Y., Bernard J.-P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  50. [61]

    Peek J. E. G., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/20 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..194...20P 194, 20

    2011 doi

  51. [62]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/7 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2016ApJ...817....7P 817, 7

    Perley D. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/7 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2016ApJ...817....7P 817, 7

    2016 doi

  52. [63]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323195 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  53. [64]

    2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424955 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Planck Collaboration Fermi Collaboration et al. 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424955 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  54. [65]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424945 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  55. [66]

    H., Teukolsky S

    Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., Vetterling W. T., Flannery B. P., 1992, Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing

    1992

  56. [67]

    I., Hortobagyi A

    Racz I. I., Hortobagyi A. J., 2018, @doi [AN] DOI:10.1002/asna.201813503 , 339, 347

    2018 doi

  57. [68]

    I., Bagoly Z., T \'o th L

    R \'a cz I. I., Bagoly Z., T \'o th L. V., Bal \'a zs L. G., Horv \'a th I., Pint \'e r S., 2017, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017CoSka..47..100R 47, 100

    2017

  58. [69]

    Roming P. W. A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120...95R 120, 95

    2005 doi

  59. [70]

    Salvaterra R., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.461.1258S 461, 1258

    2009 doi

  60. [71]

    Salvaterra R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749...68S 749, 68

    2012 doi

  61. [72]

    J., Teuben P

    Sault R. J., Teuben P. J., Wright M. C. H., 1995, in Shaw R. A., Payne H. E., Hayes J. J. E., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV. p. 433 ( @eprint arXiv:astro-ph/0612759 )

    1995 arXiv

  62. [73]

    Schady P., 2015, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.05.001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JHEAp...7...56S 7, 56

    2015 doi

  63. [74]

    Schady P., Savaglio S., Kr \"u hler T., Greiner J., Rau A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...525A.113S 525, A113

    2011 doi

  64. [75]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  65. [76]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  66. [77]

    J., et al., 1992, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A

    Schneid E. J., et al., 1992, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A

    1992

  67. [78]

    Z., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591L..17S 591, L17

    Stanek K. Z., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591L..17S 591, L17

    2003 doi

  68. [79]

    G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051810 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA

    Stanimirovi \'c S., Zweibel E. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051810 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA

    2018 doi

  69. [80]

    Starling R. L. C., Willingale R., Tanvir N. R., Scott A. E., Wiersema K., O'Brien P. T., Levan A. J., Stewart G. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.3159S 431, 3159

    2013 doi

  70. [81]

    Tanga M., Schady P., Gatto A., Greiner J., Krause M. G. H., Diehl R., Savaglio S., Walch S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527961 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A..24T 595, A24

    2016 doi

  71. [82]

    R., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08459 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.461.1254T 461, 1254

    Tanvir N. R., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08459 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.461.1254T 461, 1254

    2009 doi

  72. [83]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2010A&A...520A...1T 520, A1

    Tauber J. A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2010A&A...520A...1T 520, A1

    2010 doi

  73. [84]

    V., Hotzel S., Krause O., Lehtinen K., Lemke D., Mattila K., Stickel M., Laureijs R

    T \'o th L. V., Hotzel S., Krause O., Lehtinen K., Lemke D., Mattila K., Stickel M., Laureijs R. J., 2000, , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2000A

    2000

  74. [85]

    V., Doi Y., Zahorecz S., Agas M., Balazs L

    Toth L. V., Doi Y., Zahorecz S., Agas M., Balazs L. G., Forro A., Racz I. I., 2017, @doi [Publication of Korean Astronomical Society] 10.5303/PKAS.2017.32.1.113 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PKAS...32..113T 32, 113

    2017 doi

  75. [86]

    V., et al., 2018a, in Jeli \'c V., van der Hulst T., eds, IAU Symposium Vol

    T \'o th L. V., et al., 2018a, in Jeli \'c V., van der Hulst T., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 333, IAU Symposium. pp 162--165, @doi 10.1017/S1743921317011541

    doi

  76. [87]

    V., et al., 2018b, in Ootsubo T., Yamamura I., Murata K., Onaka T., eds, Vol

    Toth L. V., et al., 2018b, in Ootsubo T., Yamamura I., Murata K., Onaka T., eds, Vol. JAXA-SP-17-009E, The Cosmic Wheel and the Legacy of the AKARI Archive: From Galaxies and Stars to Planets and Life. pp 119--122, https://repository.exst.jaxa.jp/dspace/handle/a-is/874005

  77. [88]

    Watson D., Hjorth J., Fynbo J. P. U., Jakobsson P., Foley S., Sollerman J., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...660L.101W 660, L101

    2007 doi

  78. [89]

    Watson D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...23W 768, 23

    2013 doi

  79. [90]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  80. [91]

    E., Ferris R

    Wilson W. E., Ferris R. H., Axtens P., et al. 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19054.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416..832W 416, 832

    2011

  81. [92]

    Winkel B., Kerp J., Fl \"o er L., Kalberla P. M. W., Ben Bekhti N., Keller R., Lenz D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  82. [93]

    G., Hollenbach D., McKee C

    Wolfire M. G., Hollenbach D., McKee C. F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1191 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716.1191W 716, 1191

    2010 doi

  83. [94]

    T., Stanimirovi \'c S., Evans A., Muller E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09815.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365.1277V 365, 1277

    van Loon J. T., Stanimirovi \'c S., Evans A., Muller E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09815.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365.1277V 365, 1277

    2006

  84. [95]

    van Paradijs J., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1038/386686a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997Natur.386..686V 386, 686

    1997 doi

  85. [96]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    van der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.