Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Modeling the Cosmic Ultraviolet Background at the North Galactic Pole

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper detects an isotropic ultraviolet background offset of $267\pm 7$ photon units at the North Galactic Pole and models the dust-scattered component with a quadratic in optical depth.

desk verdict A useful fast parametrization of dust-scattered UV light, with an offset measurement that confirms prior values but whose uncertainty and isotropy assumptions are not yet fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03322 v1 pith:VCQNLXNS submitted 2025-07-04 astro-ph.IM

Jayant Murthy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords cosmicultravioletbackgrounddiffuseGalacticlightdust-scatteredNorthPoleGALEXFUVinterstellardustalbedoextragalacticparametricmodel
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

The paper tries to separate the diffuse far-ultraviolet background at the North Galactic Pole into two pieces: starlight scattered by interstellar dust, and an isotropic offset with no direction dependence. It derives a quadratic parameterization of the scattered surface brightness as a function of optical depth, valid for optical depths below about 1.5, and fits it to GALEX observations in the 1350--1800 \AA\ band. The fit yields a firm isotropic offset of $267\pm 7$ photon units, about half of which is not accounted for by known Galactic or extragalactic sources. If this stands, the offset is a real, mostly unexplained component of the ultraviolet background, and the parameterization offers a fast way to predict dust-scattered light across low-extinction sky.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quadratic parameterization $S(a,g,\tau)=P_0(a,g)\,\tau+P_1(a,g)\,\tau^2$, with coefficients tabulated for a grid of albedo $a$ and asymmetry factor $g$. It replaces expensive Monte Carlo scattering runs for lines of sight with optical depth below about 1.5, and it is inserted into the linear-plus-offset model $CUVB = C(a,g)\,S(a,g,\tau)+O\,\exp(-\tau)$. A secondary mechanism is the empirical degeneracy curve $g=-0.262+4.491a-6.512a^2+3.318a^3$, which lets the fit trade albedo against asymmetry without changing the offset. The machinery matters because it makes the dust-scattered foreground predictable from optical depth alone, isolating the isotropic offset.

What would settle it

Measure the diffuse FUV background in several high-latitude fields with nearly zero dust but different gas content; if the unexplained offset is truly isotropic, each field should show the same 267±7 photon-unit intercept, whereas a contribution from H2 fluorescence or two-photon emission would make the intercept track the H2 column.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an empirical decomposition of the high-latitude cosmic ultraviolet background. At the North Galactic Pole the observed FUV brightness can be written as $CUVB = C(a,g)\,S(a,g,\tau) + O\,\exp(-\tau)$, where $S(a,g,\tau)=P_0(a,g)\,\tau+P_1(a,g)\,\tau^2$ is the dust-scattered surface brightness from Monte Carlo scattering models, $C$ is the local interstellar radiation field scaling, and $O$ is the isotropic offset. Fitting this to GALEX data gives an offset of $267\pm 7$ photon units, independent of the dust grain albedo $a$ and phase-function asymmetry $g$. The grain constants are found to be consistent with the Astrodust values $a=0.33$, $g=0.68$, although the data allow a degenerate curve of $(a,g)$ pairs rather than a unique solution. Roughly half of the offset can be attributed to known sources, and half remains unexplained.

Load-bearing premise

The whole decomposition assumes the high-latitude ultraviolet background is exactly dust-scattered starlight plus a single isotropic offset dimmed by dust, ignoring other glowing components such as molecular hydrogen fluorescence and two-photon emission that could vary with the dust and gas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dust-scattered FUV foreground at the NGP can be computed from a quadratic in optical depth without running a Monte Carlo simulation for each sightline.
  • The isotropic component of the CUVB at 1500 \AA\ is constrained to $267\pm 7$ photon units, tightening the earlier 200--300 photon-unit determinations.
  • About half of that offset has no identified source, so any complete model of the ultraviolet background must include an additional isotropic emitter or a recalibrated extragalactic contribution.
  • Because the dust-scattered light depends mainly on the amount of dust in the line of sight and is independent of the optical constants over the NGP, the model can be inverted to build high-resolution extinction maps.
  • Dust grain properties from the fit are consistent with the Astrodust model, offering an independent observational check on laboratory-based grain models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's method to many high-latitude fields would test whether the 267 photon-unit offset is truly constant; a drift with H2 column would indicate the isotropic assumption needs revision.
  • The paper excludes molecular hydrogen fluorescence and two-photon emission from the model; adding them to the fit is a concrete next step that could erase part of the unexplained half.
  • The quadratic is empirical and only validated for $\tau < 1.5$; computing Monte Carlo predictions at higher optical depth would show whether a cubic term or exponential saturation is needed.
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. The paper develops a Monte-Carlo-based parametrization of dust-scattered ultraviolet light at the North Galactic Pole, expressing the predicted scattered surface brightness as a quadratic function of optical depth for τ < 1.5 (Eq. 1, with coefficients tabulated in Table 3). It then fits GALEX FUV observations at b > 80° using Eq. 2, which decomposes the observed CUVB into a dust-scattered component and an isotropic, extincted offset. The fit yields a degenerate a–g relation consistent with the Astrodust model predictions (a = 0.33, g = 0.68), and an isotropic offset of 267 ± 7 photon units, about half of which the author reports as unexplained by known Galactic or extragalactic sources. The paper frames the work as a methodology paper, with a future extension to wider sky regions planned.

Significance. If the parametric model and the fitted offset are correct, the paper provides a computationally cheap estimator of dust-scattered light at low optical depth and strengthens the evidence for a substantial isotropic component of the ultraviolet background at the NGP that is not yet accounted for by known sources. The paper has several concrete strengths: the full coefficient table is made publicly available (doi:10.5281/zenodo.15295073), the Monte Carlo maps are available (doi:10.5281/zenodo.5337045), the comparison with Astrodust is an a posteriori overlap rather than a fitted prediction, and the parametric model is calibrated against Monte Carlo simulations rather than directly against the target data, so circularity is not a concern. The significance of the central offset claim is, however, contingent on the untested isotropy assumption in Eq. 2 and on the quoted uncertainty being supported by a proper error analysis, neither of which is currently established in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) assumes that the high-latitude CUVB is exactly the sum of dust-scattered light and a single isotropic, extincted offset. The Introduction, however, lists molecular hydrogen fluorescence, two-photon emission, and line emission from highly ionized gas as DGL contributors that are relatively more important at high latitudes where dust is scarce. These components are not isotropic: H2 fluorescence traces the same dusty clouds that produce E(B-V), and the exciting interstellar radiation field varies with look direction. If such components have a nonzero mean and correlate with τ over b > 80°, the fitted C term absorbs the correlated part and O absorbs the mean, shifting the reported 267 photon-unit offset and hence the 'half unexplained' conclusion. The paper provides no flux estimate, template, or masking test for the omitted terms, so Eq. 2 is an assumption rather than a tested decomposition. I request a quantitative test of this assumption, for example by masking regions with significant H2 or 21-cm emission, or an explicit estimate of the systematic error these components could introduce.
  2. [§3, abstract, and §4] The central number 267 ± 7 photon units is not supported by the error analysis presented in the paper. Section 3 states that the error analysis is non-trivial because of uncertainties in the Planck reddening (≈ 5 millimagnitudes), the FUV data (≈ 20 photon units), and the model uncertainties (estimated to be ≈ 30 photon units), and that the analysis 'will be deferred to a future paper.' No fitting covariance, degrees of freedom, or derivation of ±7 is given, nor is the model uncertainty folded into the quoted error. The reported minimum χ² = 1.4 is also given without a definition or the number of degrees of freedom. As written, the abstract's '267 ± 7' and the conclusion's 'firm detection' overstate the precision. The paper should either derive the uncertainty, including the ≈ 30 photon-unit model term, or report the offset with a caveat and remove the ±7 from the abstract.
  3. [§2, Eq. (1) and Table 3] The quadratic parametrization is derived from a Monte Carlo model that assumes a specific dust geometry (Green et al. 2019 with a 125 pc scale-height fill and a 50 pc cavity) and an ISRF from Hipparcos stars with Castelli-Kurucz spectra. The paper states that the scattered radiation is 'relatively independent of the details of the dust distribution,' but no sensitivity test is shown. Because Eq. (1) is the foundation of Eq. (2) and therefore of the fitted offset, a robustness check varying the scale height, cavity radius, and dust map is needed to quantify the systematic uncertainty in P0 and P1, and in turn in O. Without such a test, the claimed model uncertainty of ≈ 30 photon units is not substantiated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4 and abstract] The statement that 'approximately half' of the offset is unaccounted for would be easier to assess if the paper itemized the expected contributions from galaxies and other known sources in a short table or equation, rather than referring only to Murthy et al. (2025).
  2. [Table 1] The column header 'Zero-O ffseta' contains a typographical artifact, and several entries have spacing issues (for example 'V oyager'); the table should be re-set.
  3. [Fig. 3] The caption of Fig. 3 does not state which values of a, g, C, and O were used to generate the plotted model; please specify these parameters so the fit is reproducible from the figure alone.
  4. [§2, Eq. (1)] The quoted 'minimum χ² of 0.859' should be labeled as a reduced χ² or accompanied by the number of degrees of freedom, otherwise the goodness-of-fit value is ambiguous.
  5. [§3, Eq. (3)] The empirical fit in Eq. (3) is clearly labeled as purely empirical, but it would be useful to state the uncertainty in the fitted coefficients or show the scatter of the allowed a–g points around the curve.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parametric scattering law is fit to external Monte Carlo simulations, and the offset is a fitted residual from independent GALEX data; the same-author dependencies are contextual and do not feed back into the fit.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Section 2 constructs S(a,g,tau)=P0*tau+P1*tau^2 (Eq. 1) as a fit to Monte Carlo radiative-transfer predictions whose inputs are external (Green et al. 2019 3D dust, Hipparcos/Castelli-Kurucz stellar spectra, Draine 2003 cross-sections), not to the GALEX data that the model later confronts. Section 3 then applies that independently computed scattering law through the stated decomposition CUVB=C(a,g)*S(a,g,tau)+O*exp(-tau) (Eq. 2) to GALEX FUV maps and Planck reddening maps; the 267±7 offset is the fitted intercept, not a quantity inserted a priori, and the a-g consistency with Astrodust is explicitly an allowed-region overlap, with Eq. 3 admitted to be 'purely empirical'. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction of a different quantity, and no step defines its conclusion into its inputs. The same-author dependencies (Murthy 2016/Akshaya et al. 2019 Monte Carlo machinery; Murthy et al. 2025 cited for the 'half unexplained' bookkeeping) are contextual and do not feed a fitted value back into an assumed conclusion. The paper openly flags the untested isotropy assumption in Eq. 2 and the deferred ~30 photon-unit model-uncertainty budget, but those are modeling-risk statements, not circular steps. Overall: no significant circularity, with only minor self-citation present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on external dust maps, ISRF catalogs, and a simplifying isotropy assumption; no new entities are introduced. The only fitted-to-data parameter is the offset O; the quadratic coefficients are fitted to the author's own simulation, not to astronomical data.

free parameters (2)
  • Offset O = 267 ± 7 photon units
    Fitted in Eq. 2 to GALEX FUV data at the NGP. The quoted uncertainty is not derived in this paper because the error analysis is deferred.
  • Quadratic coefficients P0(a,g) and P1(a,g) = Tabulated grid in Table 3 and Zenodo
    Fitted to the author's Monte Carlo scattering predictions for each (a,g) pair. These coefficients define the parametric model (Eq. 1) used in the final fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 3D dust distribution of Green et al. (2019), with unmapped bins filled by an exponential disk with scale height 125 pc and a 50 pc local cavity.
    Section 2. The Monte Carlo scattered-light predictions depend on this assumed dust geometry.
  • domain assumption The ISRF is modeled from Hipparcos O/B stars with Castelli & Kurucz spectra, using Draine (2003) grain cross-sections and Henyey-Greenstein scattering.
    Section 2. The normalization and wavelength dependence of scattered light depend on these inputs.
  • domain assumption The high-latitude CUVB is the sum of dust-scattered light plus an extincted isotropic offset (Eq. 2), ignoring anisotropic non-scattered components.
    Section 3, Eq. 2. The introduction lists H2 fluorescence and two-photon emission, so this is a simplification that is not tested.
  • domain assumption The scattered radiation is relatively independent of the details of the dust distribution.
    Section 2, statement that the scattered radiation is 'relatively independent of the details of the dust distribution.' This underpins the generality of the model.
  • domain assumption GALEX FUV surface brightness is a good measure of the CUVB at 1500 Å with no interplanetary medium emission.
    Section 3, citing Murthy et al. (2025). If the IPM or other foregrounds contribute, the fitted offset would be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the Cosmic Ultraviolet Background at the North Galactic Pole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCQNLXNS

@misc{pith2026250703322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the Cosmic Ultraviolet Background at the North Galactic Pole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCQNLXNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03322}
}
abstract

I explore models of the dust-scattered component of the Cosmic Ultraviolet Background (CUVB) at the North Galactic Pole (NGP) in order to develop a framework for calculating the dust-scattered light as a function of the optical depths. As expected, I find that the dust-scattered emission scales linearly with reddening up to $E(B-V) \approx 0.1$\ mag and derive a parametric model for this dependence. I have applied these models to fit the far-ultraviolet (1350--1800 \AA) observations from the \textit{Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX)} finding that the optical constants of the interstellar dust grains -- albedo ($a$) and phase function asymmetry factor ($g$) -- are consistent with predictions from the Astrodust model ($a = 0.33$, $g = 0.68$). I detect an isotropic offset of $267 \pm 7$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-1}$, half of which remains unaccounted for by known Galactic or extragalactic sources. I will now extend my analysis to wider sky regions with the goal of generating high-resolution extinction maps.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  3. [3]

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

    Akshaya M. S., Murthy J., Ravichandran S., Henry R. C., Overduin J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcb9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858..101A 858, 101

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabcb9 2018

  4. [4]

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

    Akshaya M. S., Murthy J., Ravichandran S., Henry R. C., Overduin J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1120A 489, 1120

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2186 2019

  5. [5]

    C., Henry R

    Anderson R. C., Henry R. C., Brune W. H., Feldman P. D., Fastie W. G., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157510 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..415A 234, 415

    work page doi:10.1086/157510 1979

  6. [6]

    Boissier S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526089 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526089 2015

  7. [7]

    Bowyer S., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.000423 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ARA

    work page arXiv 1991

  8. [8]

    L., 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph..5087C 0405087

    Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph..5087C 0405087

    work page 2004

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Chiang Y.-K., M \'e nard B., Schiminovich D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877..150C 877, 150

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    434, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIX

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

    2010

  3. [11]

    Coulais A., et al., 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.0679

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379118 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598.1017D 598, 1017

    Draine B. T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379118 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598.1017D 598, 1017

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827..108D 827, 108

    Driver S. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827..108D 827, 108

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Brune W

    Feldman P. D., Brune W. H., Henry R. C., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...249L..51F 249, L51

    1981 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Schiminovich D., Seibert M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/180 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..180H 779, 180

    Hamden E. T., Schiminovich D., Seibert M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/180 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..180H 779, 180

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    C., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190436 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJS...33..451H 33, 451

    Henry R. C., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190436 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJS...33..451H 33, 451

    1977 doi

  10. [18]

    C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.000513 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ARA

    Henry R. C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.000513 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ARA

    1991

  11. [19]

    C., Murthy J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...418L..17H 418, L17

    Henry R. C., Murthy J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...418L..17H 418, L17

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Feldman P

    Henry R. C., Feldman P. D., Fastie W. G., Weinstein A., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223..437H 223, 437

    1978 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Murthy J., Overduin J., Tyler J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/14 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...14H 798, 14

    Henry R. C., Murthy J., Overduin J., Tyler J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/14 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...14H 798, 14

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Draine B

    Hensley B. S., Draine B. T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948...55H 948, 55

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    G., Greenstein J

    Henyey L. G., Greenstein J. L., 1941, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144246 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941ApJ....93...70H 93, 70

    1941 doi

  16. [24]

    B., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164834 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...311..969H 311, 969

    Holberg J. B., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164834 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...311..969H 311, 969

    1986 doi

  17. [25]

    Jo Y.-S., Seon K.-I., Min K.-W., Edelstein J., Han W., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..231...21J 231, 21

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Jura M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156788 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...227..798J 227, 798

    1979 doi

  19. [27]

    R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac689e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134h4302K 134, 084302

    Kulkarni S. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac689e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134h4302K 134, 084302

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

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

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

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Markkanen T., 1979, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A

    1979

  22. [30]

    J., Robin A

    Marshall D. J., Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Schultheis M., Picaud S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    Martin C., Bowyer S., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...350..242M 350, 242

    1990 doi

  24. [32]

    Martin C., Hurwitz M., Bowyer S., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168681 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...354..220M 354, 220

    1990 doi

  25. [33]

    C., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426387 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L...1M 619, L1

    Martin D. C., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426387 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L...1M 619, L1

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Whitney B

    Mathis J. S., Whitney B. A., Wood K., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..812M 574, 812

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    Morrissey P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520512 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..682M 173, 682

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    Murthy J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-008-9855-y , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Ap

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    Murthy J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/32 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..213...32M 213, 32

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Murthy J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw755 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1710M 459, 1710

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    C., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176012 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...448..848M 448, 848

    Murthy J., Henry R. C., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176012 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...448..848M 448, 848

    1995 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Holberg J

    Murthy J., Hall D., Earl M., Henry R. C., Holberg J. B., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307652 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..904M 522, 904

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    C., Sujatha N

    Murthy J., Henry R. C., Sujatha N. V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1389 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724.1389M 724, 1389

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    Murthy J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ada4a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..103M 169, 103

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    Onaka T., Kodaira K., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170526 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379..532O 379, 532

    1991 doi

  36. [44]

    Park J., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.04633 , 7, 4633

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Perryman M. A. C., et al., 1997, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A

    1997

  38. [46]

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

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Porras-Bedmar S., Meyer M., Horns D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110j3501P 110, 103501

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17149.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408...53P 408, 53

    Puthiyaveettil S., Murthy J., Fix J. D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17149.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408...53P 408, 53

    2010

  41. [49]

    J., 1990, in Bowyer S., Leinert C., eds, IAU Symposium Vol

    Reynolds R. J., 1990, in Bowyer S., Leinert C., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 139, The Galactic and Extragalactic Background Radiation. p. 157

    1990

  42. [50]

    G., Martin C., Morrissey P

    Schiminovich D., Friedman P. G., Martin C., Morrissey P. F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338656 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...563L.161S 563, L161

    2001 doi

  43. [51]

    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

  44. [52]

    Seon K.-I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..196...15S 196, 15

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    L., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...560..730S 560, 730

    Shelton R. L., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...560..730S 560, 730

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    Y., Lallement R., Vergely J.-L., Raimond S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913202 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    Welsh B. Y., Lallement R., Vergely J.-L., Raimond S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913202 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    N., Petersohn J

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

    1994

  48. [56]

    N., Friedmann B

    Witt A. N., Friedmann B. C., Sasseen T. P., 1997, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...481..809W 481, 809

    1997

  49. [57]

    P., Miville-Desch \^e nes M.-A., Abergel A., Fanciullo L., 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577

    Ysard N., Koehler M., Jones A. P., Miville-Desch \^e nes M.-A., Abergel A., Fanciullo L., 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.