Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Dissecting NGC 3132: Tracing the mass-loss history of the southern ring planetary nebula

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 standard empirical abundance method overestimates oxygen in NGC 3132 by up to 35 percent, and the bias traces to line-of-sight projection effects rather than the ionization-correction formulas.

desk verdict Projection effects can bias empirical O abundances by ~35% in this model—an important result that needs clearer presentation and sensitivity checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08079 v1 pith:HULA57QH submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

K. Bouvis , S. Akras , H. Monteiro , L. Konstantinou , P. Boumis , J. García-Rojas , D.R. Gonçalves , A. Monreal-Ibero
show 2 more authors
I. Aleman K.N. Gourgouliatos
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords planetarynebulaeNGC3132empiricalabundancemethod3DphotoionizationmodelsprojectioneffectsionizationcorrectionfactorsMUSEintegral-fieldspectroscopyJWSTinfraredimaging
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 tests whether the traditional empirical method for measuring chemical abundances in planetary nebulae — applying electron-temperature and density diagnostics plus ionization-correction factors (formulas that patch in unobserved ionization stages) to emission-line fluxes — can be trusted for a nebula with genuinely three-dimensional structure. Its test case is NGC 3132, the Southern Ring Nebula, for which a detailed 3D photoionization model supplies known input abundances and high-quality MUSE, JWST, and Spitzer observations exist. Running the empirical method on simulated observations generated from that model, the paper finds that the method fails to recover the input abundances, overestimating oxygen by roughly 34-35 percent. The overestimate is traced chiefly to projection effects: information is lost when fluxes are summed along the line of sight through regions with complex ionization structure, and for oxygen the ionization-correction formulas contribute essentially nothing to the error. If this is right, empirical abundances of resolved nebulae carry a systematic bias that propagates into every field that leans on nebular abundances, from stellar evolution to Galactic chemical enrichment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the simulated-observation test. A 3D photoionization model of NGC 3132 built with the MOCASSIN code supplies the ground truth: input abundances and full three-dimensional cubes of temperature, density, and ionic abundances, projected along the line of sight to make synthetic 2D emission-line maps that stand in for telescope data. The SATELLITE analysis code then applies the same empirical pipeline — PyNeb-based electron-temperature and density diagnostics plus the Delgado-Inglada et al. (2014) ionization-correction formulas — to both the real MUSE cube and the simulated maps. The decisive comparison is between 'true' values extracted from the 3D cubes and 'integrated' values extracted from the 2D maps; because the oxygen sum from the 2D maps exceeds the model input while the 3D-cube sum matches it exactly, the discrepancy is pinned on line-of-sight projection rather than on the correction formulas.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to run the same simulated-observation test on a 3D model with a smooth, spherically symmetric density distribution and the same input abundances: the ionization-correction formulas were calibrated on spherical 1D models, so the empirical method should recover the input oxygen abundance to within a few percent, and a persistent error near 35 percent would show that projection is not the main cause. An independent reconstruction of NGC 3132's 3D structure — from multi-angle observations or a different modelling code — whose projected maps give a different ionic-abundance sum would likewise change the claimed bias magnitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated as the authors would state it, is that the empirical method overestimates the true oxygen abundance of NGC 3132: the empirical value is about $7.8\times10^{-4}$ O/H against the 3D model's input of $5.8\times10^{-4}$, a bias of roughly 34-35 percent. The mechanism is isolated by comparing 'true' values read directly from the model's 3D cubes with 'integrated' values derived from the same model projected into 2D emission-line maps. For oxygen, the sum of $\mathrm{O^+}$ and $\mathrm{O^{2+}}$ from the projected maps exceeds the input total abundance, while summing the full 3D cubes recovers the input exactly, proving that the excess is an artifact of line-of-sight integration. Projection-induced changes in the electron-temperature and density diagnostics shift $\mathrm{O^+}$ down and $\mathrm{O^{2+}}$ up, netting +8 percent on one slit and -10 percent on the other, with the remaining bias coming from projection acting directly on the measured fluxes; a 'true' ionization-correction factor built from the model cubes agrees with the standard formula for slits covering the whole ionization structure, so the ICF is exonerated for oxygen.

Load-bearing premise

The 3D photoionization model's input abundances and structure are treated as the true values for NGC 3132, so if the model's geometry, clumpiness, or composition is not representative of the real nebula, the size of the claimed 35 percent bias would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Empirical oxygen abundances of resolved planetary nebulae with complex 3D structure may be systematically overestimated by tens of percent even when the aperture covers the whole nebula.
  • Slits or sub-regions that sample only part of the ionization stratification produce even larger spurious abundance enhancements, so long-slit abundance surveys of stratified nebulae overstate the heaviest elements.
  • The sum of the singly and doubly ionized oxygen abundances read from the projected 2D maps exceeds the model's input total oxygen, so empirical abundance maps of NGC 3132 should not be read as the true abundance distribution.
  • The spatial coincidence of the extinction coefficient $c(\mathrm{H}\beta)$, the H$_2$ lines, and the dip in the IRAC [8.0]/[4.5] ratio supports a dusty torus as the molecular reservoir, so extinction maps and infrared colours jointly trace the mass-loss geometry of the central binary.
  • The first detections of [Ni II] 7378 Å, [Fe II] 8617 Å, and [Fe III] 5270 Å in NGC 3132 expose nickel/iron-rich clumps, one deformed by a PAH-H$_2$ cometary knot, indicating a recent collimated ejection that has shocked dust grains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied to other 3D models of different morphologies, the same audit would likely show that the projection bias grows with clumpiness and with how steeply the ionization structure varies along the line of sight, making the 35 percent figure a case study rather than a universal constant.
  • Because the bias is a line-of-sight effect, the identical nebula viewed from a different direction would yield a different empirical abundance; some of the scatter among empirical abundances of chemically similar planetary nebulae may therefore be orientation-driven rather than intrinsic.
  • The audit could become a standard validation step for any new ionization-correction formula or diagnostic line ratio: generate simulated observations from a 3D model, apply the proposed recipe, and report how well the input abundances are recovered.
  • Measuring the expansion velocity and proper motion of the V-shaped Ni(Fe)-rich clump and its PAH-H$_2$ knot would date the most recent mass-loss event in NGC 3132 and tie it to the binary dynamics that shaped the ring, a testable step the paper leaves open.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength study of the planetary nebula NGC 3132 using MUSE, JWST, and Spitzer observations together with a 3D photoionization model from Monteiro et al. (2025). The authors generate simulated observations from the model and apply the empirical electron-temperature-based abundance method to a set of pseudo-slits, finding that the method overestimates the model input oxygen abundance by about 35% and attributing this mainly to line-of-sight projection effects. They also present radial stratification of ionic, atomic, and molecular emission, a spatial correlation between H2, c(Hβ), and the IRAC [8.0]/[4.5] ratio, and the discovery of [Ni II], [Fe II], and [Fe III] clumps in the MUSE datacube.

Significance. If correct, the projection-effect result would be an important caution for empirical abundance determinations in resolved planetary nebulae, quantifying a bias that is usually neglected in integrated-spectrum analyses. The study's strengths include the use of synthetic observations from a 3D model as a controlled test, the public availability of the satellite code, and the quantitative comparison with the external DIMS14 ICF formulae. However, the headline 35% figure is tied to a single model whose properties are not fully described in this paper, and the internal decomposition of the discrepancy between projection effects and ICF inaccuracies relies on an inconsistent definition of the 'true' abundances. The qualitative finding—that the empirical method does not recover the model input when applied to simulated observations—is well supported, but the quantitative attribution needs further work.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.2, Tables 6 and 7] Table 6 lists 'True' O+/H+ = 4.08e-4 and O+2/H+ = 3.78e-4 for pseudo-slit 10, whose sum 7.86e-4 exceeds the model input O/H = 5.80e-4 (Table 5). In a uniform-abundance model the sum of O+ and O+2 cannot exceed the total O abundance when unobserved stages such as O+3 are present, and the text in Section 4.2 states that summing the 3D cubes of all oxygen stages matches the input value. The caption's claim that these are values 'directly extracted from the 3D model' is therefore inconsistent with the model's own conservation, and the 'True' values in Table 7 (2.86e-4 for PS10) are yet another different quantity, described as an average of O+, O+2, and O+3 across spaxels. Such an unweighted or otherwise ill-defined spatial average is not what the empirical method estimates from integrated fluxes. Because the conclusion that ICFs contribute zero and projection effects are the only cause of the 35% discrepancy rests on this comparison, the decomposition is not currently supported; please recompute the 'True' values using a volume- or flux-weighted mean over the slit volume and verify that the sum of ionic abundances does not exceed the input abundance.
  2. [4.1, Table 5] The paper's headline figure—a ~35% overestimate of oxygen—is measured relative to the model input O/H, which is an adopted parameter of the MOCASSIN model rather than an independently measured quantity. The model itself shows ionic abundances that differ from MUSE by more than the observational uncertainties (Section 3.2), and no uncertainty is attached to the 35% figure or to the 8–35% range cited in Section 4.1. Because the magnitude of the projection bias is expected to depend on the adopted geometry, filling factor, and abundance set, the authors should provide at least a qualitative sensitivity test or explicitly and prominently identify the result as a single-model estimate. Without this, the abstract's 'up to 35%' is not yet a robust quantitative claim.
  3. [4.2, Fig. 12 and Table 7] The claim that current ICFs play a 'minor role' is based on comparing the empirical abundance with a 'True Abund.' obtained by averaging O+, O+2, and O+3 across spaxels, and on the 2D ICF maps in Fig. 12 that the authors explicitly state are not used for any estimate. The relevant test for the empirical method is whether the DIMS14 ICF, applied to flux-integrated ionic abundances, recovers the volume-integrated O/H. As presented, the comparison in Table 7 mixes a spaxel-average 'truth' with a flux-based empirical estimate, so the conclusion that the ICF contribution is exactly zero is not established. Please redo this comparison using the same spatial weighting for both the 'truth' and the empirical estimate, or clearly justify why the spaxel average is the appropriate reference.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The emission line is written as '[Niii] 7378 Å' in the abstract and once in Section 6; the correct ion notation is [Ni II], as used in the rest of the paper.
  2. [Section 3.1] 'thought they remain within the uncertainties' should be 'though they remain within the uncertainties'.
  3. [Section 4.1] 'none of the configuratios succeeded' is a typo for 'configurations'.
  4. [Table 7] The parenthetical values in Table 7 (reported as ICFs) are not defined in the caption; please state explicitly what the numbers in parentheses represent.
  5. [Section 2.4] The 3D model is described only by reference to Monteiro et al. (2025); because the central projection test depends on the model's geometry, filling factor, and input abundances, please include a brief summary of these ingredients in an appendix or in the main text.
  6. [Table 8 and Section 5.1] The peak positions for MUSE lines are quoted with ±0.2'' precision despite the ~0.7'' seeing; it would be helpful to state in the caption that these values are centroids of broad features rather than independent high-precision measurements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central abundance test is a known-answer recovery test with an independent external ICF, though internal 'True' abundance definitions are internally inconsistent.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative result is that the empirical DIMS14 method, applied to synthetic fluxes from a 3D photoionization model, overestimates the model input oxygen abundance by about 35% (Table 5, Sec. 4.1). This is a known-answer recovery test: the model input O/H (5.80e-4) is a forward-model parameter, not an output of the empirical method, and the empirical estimates (7.80e-4, 7.76e-4) are computed from line fluxes, Te/ne diagnostics, and the external ICF formulae of Delgado-Inglada et al. (2014). No equation in the paper defines the empirical estimate in terms of the model input, so the 35% discrepancy is not circular by construction. The model itself is from the same group (Monteiro et al. 2025, with Monteiro as co-author), but it is validated against MUSE Te/ne maps and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or fitted to the empirical result, so self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. A separate internal consistency problem does exist and is a correctness risk, not a circularity: Table 6 lists 'True' O+/H+ = 4.08e-4 and O+2/H+ = 3.78e-4 for pseudo-slit 10, summing to 7.86e-4, which exceeds the model input O/H = 5.80e-4, while the text says summing the 3D cubes confirms the input value; Table 7 gives a different 'True Abund.' of 2.86e-4 for the same pseudo-slit. This suggests the 'True' values are not the direct 3D-cube ionic abundances and that the projection-effect attribution may be contaminated by an averaging scheme, but that is an internal-consistency or methodology issue, not a circularity. The H2/c(Hbeta)/IRAC correlation and the newly discovered Ni/Fe clumps are independent observational findings. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The H2 torus is a proposed spatial structure, not a new entity, and the Ni(Fe)-rich clumps are observational detections.

free parameters (2)
  • 3D model input elemental abundances (O/H, N/H, S/H, Cl/H, Ar/H, He/H) = O/H=5.80e-4, N/H=2.27e-4, S/H=1.06e-5, Cl/H=1.70e-7, Ar/H=3.10e-6, He/H=1.17e-1
    These values from Monteiro et al. (2025) are adopted as the true abundances of NGC 3132 and used as the benchmark for the empirical method. Their provenance (fit or assumption) is not discussed; if incorrect, the 35% overestimate is not an unbiased measurement.
  • Model filling factor = not stated in this paper
    The line-of-sight profiles in Fig. 10 contain zero values due to the adopted filling factor. This parameter controls the clumpiness along the line of sight and therefore influences the size of the projection effect, but its value and sensitivity are not given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MOCASSIN photoionization model solves the thermal and ionization structure of NGC 3132 correctly and completely enough for the synthetic test.
    The model's 3D cubes are used as ground truth in Sect. 4; any deficiency in the model's physical treatment propagates into the claimed projection effect.
  • ad hoc to paper The model input abundances are the true elemental abundances of NGC 3132.
    The empirical method is judged against these inputs (Table 5) rather than against an independent abundance measurement. The paper does not justify how these values were determined.
  • domain assumption The DIMS14 ICF formulae are the correct standard reference for the empirical method.
    The conclusion that ICFs contribute negligible bias for oxygen depends on comparing DIMS14 with the model-derived ICF for the chosen slits (Table 7).
  • domain assumption The [N II], [S III], [S II], and [Cl III] line ratios are valid diagnostics for Te and ne in the integrated spectra.
    Both the empirical method and the projection-effect decomposition in Table 6 rest on these diagnostics; alternative diagnostics could yield different bias estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissecting NGC 3132: Tracing the mass-loss history of the southern ring planetary nebula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HULA57QH

@misc{pith2026250708079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissecting NGC 3132: Tracing the mass-loss history of the southern ring planetary nebula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HULA57QH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08079}
}
read the original abstract

Central to our understanding of stellar evolution and its impact on processes in our Galaxy and across the Universe is the study of mass loss. While the general framework is well established, recent JWST observations of objects like NGC 3132 have revealed intricate nebular structures, suggesting complex mass-loss processes likely driven by multiple star system at its core. These findings pose new challenges for the currently available investigation tools. The primary goal of this study is the first detailed comparison of the physical properties and chemical composition obtained for NGC 3132, based on the latest detailed 3D model and observations from MUSE, JWST and Spitzer. We evaluate the reliability of the traditional empirical method and photoionization model for abundances estimations, both based on the same available high-quality, spatially resolved observations. We find that the model and empirical method yield consistent results for the integrated total properties such as Te, ne and chemical abundances. However, when applied to simulated observations from the model, the empirical method fails to recover the model input abundances, providing only an approximate estimate. This discrepancy arises in part from the loss of information when summing fluxes over regions which have complex ionisation structures. This discrepancy in the case of oxygen has been estimated to be up to 35%. Moreover, the latest IR data reveal a spatial correlation between H2, c(Hb) as well as the [8.0]/[4.5] IRAC ratio. Finally, new clumps are discovered in [Ni II] 7378 \AA, [Fe II] 8617 \AA and [Fe III] 5270 \AA emission lines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. JWST NIRCam composite image of NGC 3132. In the image, the RGB channels represent, respectively, the following emission dominantly: Red: H2 2.12 μm, Green: Br α (4.05 μm), Blue: [S iii] 9069 Å. tween MUSE observations and predictions from a sophisticated 3D photoionisation model of NGC 3132. To investigate the nebula’s molecular structure, which is not included in the 3D model, we conducted a multi-wavelength analys… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ten pseudo-slits overlaid on the H α map of NGC 3132 as captured from the MUSE (left panel) and the photoionisation model (right panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Top panel: radial profile of 𝑛e [S ii] west from the CSPN. Bottom panel: radial profile of 𝑇e [N ii] west from the CSPN. Blue colour denotes MUSE data, while orange model values. median value of 450 cm−3 . Two inner filaments are only barely seen in the modelled map. The overall spatial distribution of 𝑇e [S ii] is approximately reconstructed, though with slightly higher values, ranging from 8 460 K to 10 300 K, wit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NGC 3132 2D map of 𝑛e [S ii] (top panels) and 𝑇e [N ii] (bottom panels). MUSE data are located in the left panels, while model data in the right panels. using the ICFs provided by Delgado-Inglada et al. (2014) (hereafter DIMS14), for all pseudo-slits. A noticeable vari…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial profiles of singly (solid line) and doubly (dashed line) ionised oxygen abundances from MUSE data (blue lines) and the model (orange lines) across pseudo-slit no. 5. 3.3 Diagnostic diagrams We also examined the distribution of specific line ratios commonly used …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Total Oxygen abundance (top panel) and ICF(O+ + O+2 ) estimates (bottom panel) from DIMS14 as estimated from MUSE data and the 3D model. Blue colour denotes the MUSE data, while orange the model values for each pseudo-slit. The dashed lines show the values for the enti…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Emission line diagnostic diagrams for NGC 3132. Left panels correspond to observational data, while right panels show modelled results. For the modelled data, only pixels with flux above the MUSE detection limit (∼10−17 erg·s −1 ) are included. Cyan dots represent the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 3D model total oxygen abundance as estimated by satellite angular module (solid orange line), by specific slit no. 5 (dashed purple line) and no. 10 (dashed-dot blue line). The dotted green line corresponds to the abundance that was used as input for the model. element…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: O + (blue solid lines), O+2 (orange solid lines) and O+3 (green solid lines) abundances profiles along the line of sight for the central spaxel of the NGC 3132 model. Dashed lines correspond to the mean of O+ (blue) and O+2 (orange) distributions. Dashed dotted lines …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: O + (blue solid) and O+2 (orange solid) abundances profiles along the line of sight for 15 selected regions in NGC 3132. Dashed lines in each subplot represent O+ (dark blue) and O+2 (dark orange) abundances estimated from already integrated along the lines of sight f…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 2D map of the relative difference in ICF(O+ + O+2 ) derived from the 3D model and the one using the formulae of DIMS14. The red contours indicate the surface brightness of the H β emission line. 3D model by averaging along the line of sight, and the corresponding one …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Radial profiles of H2 lines and c(H β) east from the CSPN. resembles more of a torus or a tube with a density gradient (see fig. 4 in Monteiro et al. 2025). It is important to note that the model does not account for molecular emissions. The idea that molecules could …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Composite image of NGC 3132. Red: MUSE [O i] 𝜆6300, Green: NIRCam@JWST H2 2.12 μm, Blue: MIRI@JWST PAHs 11.3 μm). (see Aleman & Gruenwald 2011). It is important to note that due to current differences in spatial resolution between MUSE and JWST, it is difficult to ass…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Radial profile for Spitzer’s channels ratios east from the CSPN. Red lines correspond to the local maxima of H2 emission at 2.12 μm from NIRCam@JWST. Spitzer IRAC bands encompass H2 lines from the ground ro￾tational state 0-0 and forbidden emission lines. Channel 2 ([…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left panel: NGC 3132 MUSE emission line map of [Ni ii] 7378 Å. Right panel: NGC 3132 MIRI@JWST PAHs 11.3 μm infrared emission map with red contours of [Ni ii] 7378 Å emission displayed on top of it. The red box in the [Ni ii] 7378 Å map highlights the zoomed in region…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Akras S., Monteiro H., Aleman I., Farias M. A. F., May D., Pereira C. B., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2238A 493, 2238

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa383

  3. [3]

    R., Ramos-Larios G., Aleman I., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3800A 493, 3800

    Akras S., Gon c alves D. R., Ramos-Larios G., Aleman I., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3800A 493, 3800

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa515

  4. [4]

    R., Aleman I., Gonçalves D

    Akras S., Monteiro H., Walsh J. R., Aleman I., Gonçalves D. R., Boumis P., 2022a, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies10010027 , 10

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10010027

  5. [5]

    Akras S., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2202A 512, 2202

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac632

  6. [6]

    Aleman I., Gruenwald R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..74A 528, A74

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014978 2011

  7. [7]

    S., Ramsay S

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773508 ( @eprint arXiv 2211.16795 ), @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Bacon R., et al., 2014, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Msngr.157...13B 157, 13

    work page 2014

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PASP...93....5B 93, 5

    1981 doi

  3. [11]

    Cazaux S., Minissale M., Dulieu F., Hocuk S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...585A..55C 585, A55

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A.110C 656, A110

    Chornay N., Walton N. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A.110C 656, A110

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Sipior M

    Ciardullo R., Bond H. E., Sipior M. S., Fullton L. K., Zhang C. Y., Schaefer K. G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118..488C 118, 488

    1999 doi

  6. [14]

    Cox N. L. J., Pilleri P., Bern \'e O., Cernicharo J., Joblin C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456L..89C 456, L89

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    De Marco O., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01845-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6.1421D 6, 1421

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Decin L., et al., 2020, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abb1229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Sci...369.1497D 369, 1497

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Delgado-Inglada G., Morisset C., Stasi \'n ska G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..536D 440, 536

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Storey P

    Ercolano B., Barlow M. J., Storey P. J., Liu X. W., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06371.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.340.1136E 340, 1136

    2003

  11. [19]

    G., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154...10F 154, 10

    Fazio G. G., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154...10F 154, 10

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    J., 2008, PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Department of Physics and Astronomy

    Frew D. J., 2008, PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Department of Physics and Astronomy

    2008

  13. [21]

    Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G; doi:10.5270/esa-1ug, @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier.1350

    Gaia Collaboration 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G; doi:10.5270/esa-1ug, @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier.1350

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Garc \' a-Rojas J., Morisset C., Jones D., Wesson R., Boffin H. M. J., Monteiro H., Corradi R. L. M., Rodr \' guez-Gil P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.5444G 510, 5444

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Steffen W., Meaburn J., Manchado A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646L..61G 646, L61

    Garc \' a-Segura G., L \'o pez J. A., Steffen W., Meaburn J., Manchado A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646L..61G 646, L61

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Corradi R

    Gon c alves D. R., Corradi R. L. M., Mampaso A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...547..302G 547, 302

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Ramos-Larios G., Toal \'a J

    Guerrero M. A., Ramos-Larios G., Toal \'a J. A., Balick B., Sabin L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.2234G 495, 2234

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Latter W

    Hora J. L., Latter W. B., Allen L. E., Marengo M., Deutsch L. K., Pipher J. L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..296H 154, 296

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    H., Weintraub D

    Kastner J. H., Weintraub D. A., Gatley I., Merrill K. M., Probst R. G., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..777K 462, 777

    1996 doi

  20. [28]

    H., Wilner D

    Kastner J. H., Wilner D. J., Moraga Baez P., Bublitz J., De Marco O., Sahai R., Wootten A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2848 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...21K 965, 21

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Konstantinou L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A.227K 697, A227

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Kopsacheili M., Zezas A., Leonidaki I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2594 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..889K 491, 889

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Leonidaki I., Boumis P., Zezas A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..189L 429, 189

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    Luridiana V., Morisset C., Shaw R. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D

    Manchado A., Stanghellini L., Villaver E., Garc \' a-Segura G., Shaw R. A., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..115M 808, 115

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Matsuura M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1067M 700, 1067

    2009 doi

  27. [36]

    R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936845 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...634A..47M 634, A47

    Monreal-Ibero A., Walsh J. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936845 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...634A..47M 634, A47

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    Monteiro H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp..476M

    2025 doi

  29. [38]

    Moraga Baez P., et al., 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 468.02

    2023

  30. [39]

    Morisset C., 2018, in Walking the Line 2018. p. 2, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1206115

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    Morisset C., Luridiana V., Garc \' a-Rojas J., G \'o mez-Llanos V., Bautista M., Mendoza C., 2020, @doi [Atoms] 10.3390/atoms8040066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Atoms...8...66M 8, 66

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  33. [42]

    P., Cuesta L

    Phillips J. P., Cuesta L. C., Ramos-Larios G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17372.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..881P 409, 881

    2010

  34. [43]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8a4e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936L..14P 936, L14

    Pontoppidan K. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8a4e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936L..14P 936, L14

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    A., Phillips J

    Quino-Mendoza J. A., Phillips J. P., Ramos-Larios G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1012.2904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011RMxAA..47...31Q 47, 31

    2011 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    K., Walton N

    Reay N. K., Walton N. A., Atherton P. D., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/232.3.615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.232..615R 232, 615

    1988 doi

  37. [46]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135b8001R 135, 028001

    Rieke M. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135b8001R 135, 028001

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006RMxAA..42...47R 42, 47

    Riesgo H., L \'o pez J. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006RMxAA..42...47R 42, 47

    2006 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    Sabbadin F., Minello S., Bianchini A., 1977, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....60..147S 60, 147

    1977

  40. [49]

    Sahai R., Wootten A., Clegg R. E. S., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...234L...1S 234, L1

    1990

  41. [50]

    E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..110S 943, 110

    Sahai R., Bujarrabal V., Quintana-Lacaci G., Reindl N., Van de Steene G., S \'a nchez Contreras C., Ressler M. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..110S 943, 110

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    C., Desai J

    Sahu K. C., Desai J. N., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...161..357S 161, 357

    1986

  43. [52]

    Soker N., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01817.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.299..562S 299, 562

    1998

  44. [53]

    J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751....9T 751, 9

    Tappe A., Forbrich J., Mart \' n S., Yuan Y., Lada C. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751....9T 751, 9

    2012 doi

  45. [54]

    Wakelam V., et al., 2017, @doi [Molecular Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.molap.2017.11.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MolAs...9....1W 9, 1

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acbe66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135d8003W 135, 048003

    Wright G. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acbe66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135d8003W 135, 048003

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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