Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Central-star extinctions towards planetary nebulae

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the reddening of planetary nebulae can be measured directly from the spectral energy distribution of their hot central stars, yielding distance-independent extinctions as precise as 0.02 magnitudes that match interstel

desk verdict A solid, externally validated extinction catalog for 162 PNe; the fixed 100 kK template and self-calibrated errors are real caveats but not deal-breakers. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10621 v1 pith:M6764MBM submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Alexander Csukai , Albert A. Zijlstra , Iain McDonald , Orsola De Marco This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords planetarynebulaecentralstarsinterstellarextinctionspectralenergydistributionsdustlawclosebinariesnebulaluminosityfunctionpost-AGB
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 attempts to show that the reddening of planetary nebulae can be measured simply and accurately from the spectral energy distribution of the nebula's central star, using survey photometry alone, without any distance information. If true, this gives a homogeneous set of extinctions for 162 extended planetary nebulae, accurate to ±0.02 magnitudes in E(B−V) at low extinction, that agrees well with independent 3D interstellar dust maps. That agreement implies that, for most evolved planetary nebulae, the extinction is interstellar rather than from the nebula's own dust — with the notable exception of NGC 6781, where the central star sees extra extinction that matches what the planetary nebula luminosity function needs to explain its bright-end cut-off. The paper further uses the same data to vet earlier central-star identifications, find four new binaries, and cast doubt on three post-RGB classifications.

What carries the argument

The central object is a standard spectral template: a single non-LTE TMAP stellar atmosphere model at T=100,000 K, log g=6, H=0.9, He=0.1, which the paper shows approximates any hydrogen-rich central star above ~60,000 K to within ~0.2 mag across the far-UV to near-IR filter set. The method reddens this template with the Fitzpatrick (1999) extinction law at R_V=3.1, convolves it with the survey filter curves, and fits the observed broadband SED by Nelder-Mead chi-squared minimization; uncertainties come from MCMC plus refitting with 60 kK and 150 kK templates. This template assumption converts the problem of measuring extinction to a one-parameter colour fit that is independent of distance a

What would settle it

A resolved spectroscopic map of the Balmer decrement across NGC 6781 would test the circumnebular-dust claim: if the extra extinction seen toward the central star is not present toward the nebular gas, or if sub-mm imaging shows no dust torus at the position of the star, the attribution to internal dust fails. More generally, for any line of sight where this paper and a 3D dust map disagree by more than 0.2 in E(B−V), a simultaneous fit of temperature and extinction to UV spectroscopy of the central star would reveal whether the 100,000 K template assumption produced the offset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single reddened model-atmosphere template reproduces the observed broadband spectral energy distributions of hot planetary-nebula central stars well enough to extract line-of-sight extinction with an accuracy of order ±0.02 mag in E(B−V). Because the template — a 100,000 K, log g=6, hydrogen-rich TMAP model — is a good representation for any central star hotter than about 60,000 K, a one-parameter fit over the full 1500 Å–1 µm SED yields extinction determinations that are independent of distance and do not rely on nebular line fluxes. Applied to a complete sample of 262 large planetary nebulae, the fit succeeds for 162 objects, and the resulting extinction

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes every bright central star has the same intrinsic spectrum — a 100,000 K, hydrogen-rich model atmosphere — so any star cooler than about 60,000 K, or whose light is contaminated by a companion or nebular emission, gets a biased extinction, and the same bias feeds the NGC 6781 circumnebular detection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A homogeneous, distance-independent catalogue of E(B−V) for 162 large planetary nebulae, with the highest-quality fits reaching ±0.02 mag precision.
  • The strong correlation with independent 3D dust maps implies that any circumnebular dust is small for most evolved nebulae, so the new extinctions can be used directly for luminosity and abundance corrections.
  • The NGC 6781 excess demonstrates that internal extinction can still matter in a 0.26 pc nebula; the PNLF cut-off can be explained if the internal dust covers only part of the nebula.
  • Composite SEDs reveal four new close binaries and set the binary fraction in the complete sample at 23–36%, consistent with field star multiplicities.
  • Three stars previously proposed as post-RGB are consistent with post-AGB evolution once temperature uncertainties are considered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same fitting machinery, applied with a fainter photometric limit or with high-resolution imaging to subtract nebular contamination, could extend distance-independent extinction measurements to the more compact nebulae that dominate the PNLF bright end.
  • Treating T_eff as a free parameter when far-UV photometry is available would remove the template bias for cooler central stars and would test whether the ~0.02 mag temperature-induced uncertainty is really as small as claimed.
  • The claimed interstellar-dominance result is vulnerable to R_V variations; refitting with a free R_V, or using the paper's own F99-vs-CCM89 comparison as a lever, could turn the extinction catalogue into a probe of dust-law variations along different sight lines.
  • The NGC 6781 result implies that toroidal or clumpy internal dust can be missed by line-of-sight averages; resolved far-IR or sub-mm imaging of that object would directly test the geometry implied by the PNLF models.
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 derives line-of-sight extinctions E(B-V) for 162 large-angular-size planetary nebulae by fitting a fixed 100 kK TMAP stellar atmosphere model, reddened with the F99 extinction law (R_V=3.1), to photometric SEDs built with PySSED. The fitting uses Nelder-Mead chi-squared minimization with MCMC-based uncertainties, including an explicit uncertainty floor calibrated to force reduced chi-squared near unity and an additional component from refitting at 60 kK and 150 kK templates. The resulting extinctions are compared with the independent G-Tomo 3D dust map and the FPJ16 compilation, showing correlations of 0.85 and 0.94 and slopes near unity. The paper also updates CSPN identification grades, derives temperature-corrected luminosities for 49 stars, identifies four new candidate close binaries, discusses three post-RGB candidates, and reports evidence for circumnebular extinction toward NGC 6781 with a discussion of its implication for the PNLF.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable homogeneous extinction catalog for a complete sample of extended PNe, independent of distance and with per-object uncertainties down to about 0.02 mag. The agreement with G-Tomo and FPJ16 is a genuine strength: it partly compensates for the simplifications in the SED modeling. The paper is also useful for its updated CSPN grades, temperature compilation, and binary candidates. However, the central precision claim and the NGC 6781 detection rest on the universality of the 100 kK template and on the uncertainty-floor calibration, so the catalog's systematic error budget needs explicit validation before the quoted accuracies can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Sec. 4.1, Table 5] The A-grade criterion (Sec. 4.1) requires the SED to be consistent with the 100 kK TMAP template, and the same template is then used to fit E(B-V) (Sec. 3.2). This creates a selection–fit coupling. The 60/150 kK tests give a typical shift of 0.02 mag, but this is an aggregate estimate. For a star actually at 40–60 kK or with a modest cool-companion contribution, the bias can exceed the quoted uncertainty, especially when GALEX/UV photometry is present (Fig. 1). The manuscript should perform a per-object check using the literature temperatures compiled in Table 5: refit each star with its tabulated T_eff and report the distribution of ΔE(B-V) relative to the quoted uncertainties. This would directly support or bound the accuracy claim and the NGC 6781 residual, which inherits the template assumption.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.1] The uncertainty floor is scaled so that the final MCMC fit has reduced chi-squared close to unity. This makes the reported error bars partly a function of the model rather than an independent measurement of the data scatter. While the paper states that the uncertainties are not formal 1-sigma, the abstract-level claim of precision down to 0.02 mag relies on these error bars. The external correlations with G-Tomo and FPJ16 provide overall validation but do not validate per-object uncertainties. Please report the un-scaled 5%-floor uncertainties for each object alongside the adopted ones, and add an explicit systematic-error term (template, R_V, zero-points) in the catalog table or discussion.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 3.3] The extinction law is fixed to F99 with R_V=3.1, and the acknowledged Galactic variation R_V=3.0–3.5 (Lallement et al. 2024) is not propagated into E(B-V). At low extinction a 0.1 change in R_V can shift E(B-V) at a level comparable to the quoted 0.02 mag precision, depending on the wavelength coverage. Please quantify this sensitivity by refitting a representative subset with R_V=3.0 and 3.5 and either add the resulting systematic to the uncertainties or justify why it is negligible for the sample's wavelength baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1 / Abstract] The phrase 'extinctions accurate down to E(B-V) of ±0.02 mag' is used in the abstract and conclusions; consider adding 'for the best-constrained SEDs' to avoid over-generalizing to all 162 objects.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 heading] The heading 'SSED extinction determination' appears to be a typo for 'SED'.
  3. [Fig. A1 caption] The caption says 'We 1-3 Binary Fit' but the table lists the object as We 3-1; please correct.
  4. [Acknowledgements] Typographical errors: 'grar=nts' and 'aacknowledges' should be corrected.
  5. [Sec. 5.3.3] The sentence 'The GALEX image in the HASH database shows only the southern part of the nebula' would benefit from giving the GALEX wavelength (FUV or NUV) and a reference to the image, since the spatial filter response is relevant to the extinction-screen argument.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

A-grade sample selection uses G-Tomo/FPJ16 agreement as a grading criterion, so the later agreement used to validate the extinctions is partly self-fulfilling.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.1 (CSPN candidate evaluation) and Sec. 5.1.1 / Figs. 4–5 (comparison to G-Tomo and FPJ16)]
    "We therefore also consider a range of auxiliary criteria, which include: the derived E(B−V) compared to other extinction indicators for the nebula, primarily those from G-Tomo and FPJ16 ... An example is the PN Abell 5, where we find a central star which requires a high extinction if it is a hot star, while the Balmer decrement and G-Tomo both indicate a much lower extinction."

    The A/A+ grade defines the sample used for the validation plots (Figs. 4–5; Table 3). Section 4.1 explicitly lists agreement of the fitted E(B−V) with G-Tomo and FPJ16 as a primary auxiliary grading criterion, and Sec. 6.1 shows a candidate rejected for exactly this reason (Abell 5). Thus the later 'good agreement' between the PySSED extinctions and G-Tomo/FPJ16 is partly guaranteed by sample selection rather than being an independent external check. The per-object extinction values are not fit to those maps, so the catalog itself is not circular, but the central conclusion that the extinction is dominated by interstellar dust is supported by a comparison whose sample has been pre-selected using that same comparison.

full rationale

The fitted E(B−V) values themselves are derived from a fixed 100 kK TMAP template plus the F99 extinction law and are not directly fit to G-Tomo or FPJ16; in that respect the extinction catalog is self-contained and the agreement with external maps is real evidence. However, the validation protocol contains one circular element. In Sec. 4.1 the A/A+ grade—the sample used for all comparison plots—is assigned using auxiliary criteria that explicitly include 'the derived E(B−V) compared to other extinction indicators for the nebula, primarily those from G-Tomo and FPJ16.' The Abell 5 discussion in Sec. 6.1 confirms that a hot-star identification was rejected because its fitted extinction disagreed with G-Tomo and the Balmer decrement. Therefore the correlations in Figs. 4–5 and the conclusion that the extinctions agree with interstellar extinction are partly produced by the selection itself, rather than being an independent test. I do not find other circularity: the temperature-template uncertainty is propagated by refits at 60 and 150 kK; the NGC 6781 circumnebular excess is a residual between the SED fit and G-Tomo, not a fitted parameter; the binary identifications rest on UV/optical SED morphology; cited self-tools (PySSED, Gesicki et al. 2018 scaling) are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. Score 6 reflects that the central validation claim is partly self-definitional, though the extinction catalog retains independent content.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are statistical or data-selection tuning choices, not new physics. The main axioms are the fixed hot-star template, the adopted extinction law, the assumption of negligible nebular contamination for large PNe, and the reliability of the G-Tomo comparison.

free parameters (2)
  • Uncertainty floor scaling factor = per-object adjusted via 1/sqrt(naive reduced chi2)
    Sec. 3.3.1: PySSED's uncertainty floor is multiplied by a factor derived from the initial fit so the MCMC-based uncertainties give reduced chi2 near unity. This is a tuning parameter of the error analysis, not a physical quantity.
  • GALEX bright-flux mask threshold = F > 10^-2.25 Jy excluded
    Sec. 4.2: data points above this flux are masked because they disagree with the rest of the SED, likely due to saturation; the threshold is chosen by inspection from the SEDs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A single TMAP model (T=100 kK, log g=6, H=0.9, He=0.1) represents the intrinsic SED of all CSPN with T>60 kK over 1000-10000 A.
    Sec. 3.2: the fit template is fixed; variation in T from 60-150 kK changes model fluxes by at most 0.21 mag, and the authors add a temperature systematic of +/-0.02 in E(B-V). For cooler stars this assumption fails.
  • domain assumption The F99 extinction law with R_V=3.1 is valid for all lines of sight in the sample.
    Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3.3: adopted for all fits; R_V variation (3.0-3.5) is acknowledged but not propagated into the final extinctions.
  • domain assumption For the large angular diameter PNe in the sample, nebular contamination and circumnebular extinction are negligible for the central-star SED below 1 micron, except where specifically identified.
    Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4.1: the sample selection of large PNe aims to minimize this, but NGC 6781 is a counterexample, so the assumption is violated for at least one object.
  • domain assumption G-Tomo 3D dust map extinctions at the adopted PN distances are reliable interstellar extinction estimates.
    Sec. 2.2.4 and Sec. 5.1.1: used as the primary external comparison; G-Tomo limitations at low latitude and high extinction are acknowledged, and the uncertainties presented are based only on distance uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Central-star extinctions towards planetary nebulae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6764MBM

@misc{pith2026250910621,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Central-star extinctions towards planetary nebulae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6764MBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10621}
}
abstract

Planetary nebulae trace the hottest and most luminous phase of evolution of solar-type stars. We use these hot, bright stars to investigate extinctions towards a complete sample of 262 confirmed PNe with large angular diameters, which have the most reliable photometry and hottest central stars. For 162 of these PNe, we identify central stars, produce spectral energy distributions from survey data using PySSED, then fit reddened model spectra to the observed photometry to obtain extinctions accurate down to $E(B-V)$ of $\pm 0.02$ mag. The fitting is performed by Nelder-Mead $\chi^2$ minimisation, with uncertainties evaluated through MCMC. The catalogue of stellar temperatures is updated for our sample for the calculation of luminosities. The extinctions agree well with interstellar extinction. We find evidence of circumnebular extinction for one PN, and evaluate its effect on the planetary nebulae luminosity function. Four new close binaries are identified from the spectral energy distributions. The binary fraction in the full sample is between 23% and 36%. We use our compiled data to evaluate the quality of the central star identifications in the literature. Three objects in our sample have previously been classified as post-RGB systems but we find that their parameters may also be consistent with post-AGB evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10621 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The spectra of CSPNe according to the TMAP models. The top panel shows the full breadth of the TMAP spectra, while the middle panel focuses on the 1000Å to 10,000Å range that is of interest to this investigation. The bottom panel shows how these spectra vary relative to the 100kK model in magnitudes, normalised at the Johnson 𝑉−band wavelength. The crosses represent the convolutions of these spectra with the filters… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The difference in 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) between adopting the F99 or CCM89 extinction laws. Only CSPNe which have been evaluated with an A+ or A grade are included. High quality fits with naive 𝜒 2 𝑟 < 5 and ≥ 5 SED points are separated from lower quality fits. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 G-Tomo E(B V) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 P y S S E D E(B V) Correlation: 0.85 Slope: 0.93 Best Fit Slope Low Latitude < 10 High Latitude > 10 [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of the 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) results from PySSED with the extinctions derived from G-Tomo. The uncertainties in the presented G-Tomo 𝐸 (𝐵−𝑉) are derived from the distance uncertainty to the PN. Only PySSED fits with ≥ 5 SED points and a naive 𝜒 2 𝑟 < 5 are included. more accurate 𝑇eff is available, we use the scaling 𝐿 ∝ 𝑇 3 to find a temperature corrected luminosity 𝐿∗ 6 . We have performed an up￾dated compilation o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The scale factor 𝑚 between the extinction determinations, calcu￾lated by least-squares minimisation of 𝐶𝛽, 𝑗 = 𝑚𝐶𝛽,𝑖. In each case, 𝑖 is the row and 𝑗 is the column. The lower number in square brackets is the number of sources the scale is calculated between. The colou…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Pearson correlation coefficient between extinction compila￾tions. The lower number in square brackets is the number of sources the correlation is calculated between. The correlation is only calculated between PNe available in both data sets. The colour represents t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An HR diagram made by adjusting 𝐿100kK to the literature temperatures of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A histogram of the best available luminosity determination for each source. The temperature corrected luminosities 𝐿∗ are used where available, 𝐿100kK is used where a temperature cannot be determined. ular ages. The remainder are consistent with the horizontal part of …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SED of the CSPN of Abell 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of literature H𝛼/H𝛽 ratios to our 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) results using F99. Balmer ratios are taken directly from the original paper or cal￾culated from the extinction and the extinction curve used in the paper, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 40 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]

    Parts I, II

    Acker A., Marcout J., Ochsenbein F., Stenholm B., Tylenda R., Schohn C., 1992, The Strasbourg-ESO Catalogue of Galactic Planetary Nebulae. Parts I, II

    1992

  3. [3]

    J., Kruk J

    Adamczak J., Werner K., Rauch T., Schuh S., Drake J. J., Kruk J. W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219718 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...546A...1A 546, A1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219718 2012

  4. [4]

    Af s ar M., Ibano g lu C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13927.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..802A 391, 802

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    A., Weidmann W

    Ahumada J. A., Weidmann W. A., Miller Bertolami M. M., Saker L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882..171A 882, 171

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3797 2019

  6. [6]

    Ali A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(99)00003-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999NewA....4...95A 4, 95

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(99)00003-2 1999

  7. [7]

    A., Dopita M

    Ali A., Amer M. A., Dopita M. A., Vogt F. P. A., Basurah H. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...583A..83A 583, A83

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526223 2015

  8. [8]

    H., Keyes C

    Aller L. H., Keyes C. D., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...65..405A 65, 405

    work page doi:10.1086/191230 1987

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    F., Olgu \' n L., V \'a zquez R., Guill \'e n P

    Aller A., Miranda L. F., Olgu \' n L., V \'a zquez R., Guill \'e n P. F., Oreiro R., Ulla A., Solano E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..317A 446, 317

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Ressler M

    Aller A., V \'a zquez R., Olgu \' n L., Miranda L. F., Ressler M. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4806A 504, 4806

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A..84B 620, A84

    Barr \' a D., Kimeswenger S., Kausch W., Goldman D. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A..84B 620, A84

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Pierfedereci F., Teuben P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Baumann M., Boch T., Pineau F.-X., Fernique P., Bot C., Allen M., 2022, in Ruiz J. E., Pierfedereci F., Teuben P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 532, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXX. p. 7

    2022

  6. [14]

    Boffin H. M. J., Jones D., 2019, The Importance of Binaries in the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Nebulae , @doi 10.1007/978-3-030-25059-1

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Bohigas J., 2001, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001RMxAA..37..237B 37, 237

    2001

  8. [16]

    Bohigas J., 2003, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003RMxAA..39..149B 39, 149

    2003

  9. [17]

    Bohigas J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..954B 674, 954

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Werner K., Jacoby G

    Bond H. E., Werner K., Jacoby G. H., Zeimann G. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..668B 521, 668

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Harrington J

    Borkowski K. J., Harrington J. P., Blair W. P., Bregman J. D., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...435..722B 435, 722

    1994 doi

  12. [21]

    H., Kaler J

    Cahn J. H., Kaler J. B., Stanghellini L., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&AS...94..399C 94, 399

    1992

  13. [22]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  14. [23]

    Chen P., Fang X., Chen X., Liu J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ada94a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980..227C 980, 227

    2025 doi

  15. [24]

    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

  16. [25]

    J., Kaplan D

    Condon J. J., Kaplan D. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJS..117..361C 117, 361

    1998 doi

  17. [26]

    Costa R. D. D., Uchida M. M. M., Maciel W. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...423..199C 423, 199

    2004 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Moe M., Jacoby G

    De Marco O., Passy J.-C., Frew D. J., Moe M., Jacoby G. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2118D 428, 2118

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    H., Hillwig T., Kronberger M., Howell S

    De Marco O., Long J., Jacoby G. H., Hillwig T., Kronberger M., Howell S. B., Reindl N., Margheim S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.3587D 448, 3587

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    Delgado Inglada G., Rodr \' guez M., Mampaso A., Viironen K., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...694.1335D 694, 1335

    2009 doi

  21. [30]

    Douchin D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.3132D 448, 3132

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    Dreizler S., 1999, Reviews in Modern Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999RvMA...12..255D 12, 255

    1999

  23. [32]

    J., Lamers H

    Dreizler S., Werner K., Heber U., 1997, in Habing H. J., Lamers H. J. G. L. M., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 180, Planetary Nebulae. p. 103

    1997

  24. [33]

    S., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...294L.107D 294, L107

    Drilling J. S., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...294L.107D 294, L107

    1985 doi

  25. [34]

    Emprechtinger M., Forveille T., Kimeswenger S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...423.1017E 423, 1017

    2004 doi

  26. [35]

    L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    1999 doi

  27. [36]

    Foreman-Mackey D., et al., 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    2013

  28. [37]

    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

  29. [38]

    J., Parker Q

    Frew D. J., Parker Q. A., Russeil D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10898.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372.1081F 372, 1081

    2006

  30. [39]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS10017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASA...28...83F 28, 83

    Frew D. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS10017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASA...28...83F 28, 83

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Boji c i \'c I

    Frew D. J., Boji c i \'c I. S., Parker Q. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431....2F 431, 2

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    J., Parker Q

    Frew D. J., Parker Q. A., Boji c i \'c I. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.1459F 455, 1459

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    A., Miller Bertolami M

    Gesicki K., Zijlstra A. A., Miller Bertolami M. M., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0453-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..580G 2, 580

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    A., Bianchi L., Manchado A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acca77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..266...34G 266, 34

    G \'o mez-Mu \ n oz M. A., Bianchi L., Manchado A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acca77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..266...34G 266, 34

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    Gonz \'a lez-Santamar \' a I., Manteiga M., Manchado A., Ulla A., Dafonte C., L \'o pez Varela P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A..51G 656, A51

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    Gordon K., 2024, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.07023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JOSS....9.7023G 9, 7023

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    Henry R. B. C., Kwitter K. B., Dufour R. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..782H 517, 782

    1999 doi

  38. [47]

    E., Bianchi L., 2004a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/386380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..391H 116, 391

    Herald J. E., Bianchi L., 2004a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/386380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..391H 116, 391

    doi

  39. [48]

    E., Bianchi L., 2004b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...609..378H 609, 378

    Herald J. E., Bianchi L., 2004b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...609..378H 609, 378

    doi

  40. [49]

    H., Manchado A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00640708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Ap&SS.169..183H 169, 183

    Herrero A., M \'e ndez R. H., Manchado A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00640708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Ap&SS.169..183H 169, 183

    1990 doi

  41. [50]

    C., Frew D

    Hillwig T. C., Frew D. J., Louie M., De Marco O., Bond H. E., Jones D., Schaub S. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...30H 150, 30

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    C., Frew D

    Hillwig T. C., Frew D. J., Reindl N., Rotter H., Webb A., Margheim S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...24H 153, 24

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    D., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/203.2.301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.203..301H 203, 301

    Howarth I. D., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/203.2.301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.203..301H 203, 301

    1983 doi

  44. [53]

    H., Ciardullo R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..129J 983, 129

    Jacoby G. H., Ciardullo R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..129J 983, 129

    2025 doi

  45. [54]

    H., Ferland G

    Jacoby G. H., Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...560..272J 560, 272

    2001 doi

  46. [55]

    Jones D., Boffin H. M. J., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.117J 1, 0117

    2017 doi

  47. [57]

    Jones D., Boffin H. M. J., Miszalski B., Wesson R., Corradi R. L. M., Tyndall A. A., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..89J 562, A89

    doi

  48. [58]

    C., Reindl N., 2023, in Manteiga M., Bellot L., Benavidez P., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., Fuente M

    Jones D., Hillwig T. C., Reindl N., 2023, in Manteiga M., Bellot L., Benavidez P., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., Fuente M. A., Mart \' nez M. J., V \'a zquez Acosta M., Dafonte C., eds, Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics XI. p. 216 ( @eprint arXiv 2304.06355 ), @doi 10.48550/arXi...

    2023 doi arXiv

  49. [59]

    B., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...271..188K 271, 188

    Kaler J. B., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...271..188K 271, 188

    1983 doi

  50. [60]

    R., Bianchi L., Maciel W

    Keller G. R., Bianchi L., Maciel W. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1379K 442, 1379

    2014 doi

  51. [61]

    L., Barlow M

    Kingsburgh R. L., Barlow M. J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/271.2.257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.271..257K 271, 257

    1994 doi

  52. [62]

    W., Werner K., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...502..858K 502, 858

    Kruk J. W., Werner K., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...502..858K 502, 858

    1998 doi

  53. [63]

    B., Henry R

    Kwitter K. B., Henry R. B. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac32b1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134b2001K 134, 022001

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    L., Babusiaux C., Cox N

    Lallement R., Vergely J. L., Babusiaux C., Cox N. L. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A.147L 661, A147

    2022 doi

  55. [65]

    L., Cox N

    Lallement R., Vergely J. L., Cox N. L. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A..41L 691, A41

    2024 doi

  56. [66]

    R., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AcA....43..329L 43, 329

    Leuenhagen U., Koesterke L., Hamann W. R., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AcA....43..329L 43, 329

    1993

  57. [67]

    W., Napiwotzki R., Fulbright M

    Liebert J., Tweedy R. W., Napiwotzki R., Fulbright M. S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...441..424L 441, 424

    1995 doi

  58. [68]

    V., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...374..280M 374, 280

    Mavromatakis F., Papamastorakis J., Paleologou E. V., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...374..280M 374, 280

    2001 doi

  59. [69]

    A., Cox N

    McDonald I., Zijlstra A. A., Cox N. L. J., Alexander E. L., Csukai A., Ramkumar R., Hollings A., 2024, @doi [RAS Techniques and Instruments] 10.1093/rasti/rzae005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RASTI...3...89M 3, 89

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    McDonald I., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp..943M

    2025 doi

  61. [71]

    Merc J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.4151M 506, 4151

    2021 doi

  62. [72]

    B., Kwitter K

    Milingo J. B., Kwitter K. B., Henry R. B. C., Souza S. P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711..619M 711, 619

    2010 doi

  63. [73]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526577 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A..25M 588, A25

    Miller Bertolami M. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526577 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A..25M 588, A25

    2016 doi

  64. [74]

    Napiwotzki R., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9908181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..101N 350, 101

    1999 doi arXiv

  65. [75]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...24N 33, e024

    Nataf D. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...24N 33, e024

    2016 doi

  66. [76]

    Offner S. S. R., Moe M., Kratter K. M., Sadavoy S. I., Jensen E. L. N., Tobin J. J., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 275 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.100...

    2023 doi arXiv

  67. [77]

    A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...565A..87O 565, A87

    \"O ttl S., Kimeswenger S., Zijlstra A. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...565A..87O 565, A87

    2014 doi

  68. [78]

    A., Boji c i \'c I

    Parker Q. A., Boji c i \'c I. S., Frew D. J., 2016, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. IOP, p. 032008 ( @eprint arXiv 1603.07042 ), @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/728/3/032008

    2016 arXiv

  69. [79]

    P., Cuesta L., Kemp S

    Phillips J. P., Cuesta L., Kemp S. N., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08664.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.357..548P 357, 548

    2005

  70. [80]

    J., Frew D

    Pierce M. J., Frew D. J., Parker Q. A., K \"o ppen J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS04039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASA...21..334P 21, 334

    2004 doi

  71. [81]

    R., 1984, Planetary nebulae

    Pottasch S. R., 1984, Planetary nebulae. A study of late stages of stellar evolution . Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 107, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-7233-9,

    1984 doi

  72. [82]

    R., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...307..561P 307, 561

    Pottasch S. R., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...307..561P 307, 561

    1996

  73. [83]

    R., Bernard-Salas J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..35P 550, A35

    Pottasch S. R., Bernard-Salas J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..35P 550, A35

    2013 doi

  74. [84]

    Rauch T., 2010, TheoSSA TMAP Web Interface, VO resource provided by the GAVO Data Center, https://dc.g-vo.org/theossa/q/web/info

    2010

  75. [85]

    L., 2003, in Hubeny I., Mihalas D., Werner K., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Rauch T., Deetjen J. L., 2003, in Hubeny I., Mihalas D., Werner K., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 288, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling. p. 103 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0403239 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0403239

    2003 doi arXiv

  76. [86]

    443, White Dwarfs

    Rauch T., Werner K., 1995, in Koester D., Werner K., eds, , Vol. 443, White Dwarfs. Springer Nature, p. 186, @doi 10.1007/3-540-59157-5_202

    1995 doi

  77. [87]

    Rauch T., Werner K., 1997, in Philip A. G. D., Liebert J., Saffer R., Hayes D. S., eds, The Third Conference on Faint Blue Stars. p. 217

    1997

  78. [88]

    Rauch T., K \"o ppen J., Napiwotzki R., Werner K., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...347..169R 347, 169

    1999

  79. [89]

    Rauch T., Demleitner M., Hoyer D., Werner K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3896R 475, 3896

    2018 doi

  80. [90]

    E., Werner K., Zeimann G

    Reindl N., Bond H. E., Werner K., Zeimann G. R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.366R 690, A366

    2024 doi

  81. [91]

    E., Cohen M., Wachter S., Hoard D

    Ressler M. E., Cohen M., Wachter S., Hoard D. W., Mainzer A. K., Wright E. L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1882R 140, 1882

    2010 doi

  82. [92]

    E., Aller A., Jones D., Lau R

    Ressler M. E., Aller A., Jones D., Lau R. M., Miranda L. F., Willacy K., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/adbbcf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..236R 169, 236

    2025 doi

  83. [93]

    Rodrigo C., Solano E., 2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society. p. 182

    2020

  84. [94]

    Rodrigo C., Solano E., Bayo A., 2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0 , IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012, @doi 10.5479/ADS/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015R

    2012 doi

  85. [95]

    Ruffle P. M. E., Zijlstra A. A., Walsh J. R., Gray M. D., Gesicki K., Minniti D., Comeron F., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08113.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..796R 353, 796

    2004

  86. [96]

    Saurer W., Werner K., Weinberger R., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...328..598S 328, 598

    1997

  87. [97]

    A., Kaler J

    Shaw R. A., Kaler J. B., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJS...69..495S 69, 495

    1989 doi

  88. [98]

    V., Pozdnyakova S

    Shimansky V. V., Pozdnyakova S. A., Borisov N. V., Bikmaev I. F., Galeev A. I., Sakhibullin N. A., Spiridonova O. I., 2008, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773708060078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AstL...34..423S 34, 423

    2008 doi

  89. [99]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...67T 799, 67

    Toal \'a J. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...67T 799, 67

    2015 doi

  90. [100]

    Traulsen I., Hoffmann A. I. D., Rauch T., Werner K., Dreizler S., Kruk J. W., 2005, in Koester D., Moehler S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 334, 14th European Workshop on White Dwarfs. p. 325 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0411403 ), @doi 10.48550/...

    2005 doi arXiv

  91. [101]

    Ueta T., Otsuka M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac20ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133i3002U 133, 093002

    2021 doi

  92. [102]

    L., Lallement R., Cox N

    Vergely J. L., Lallement R., Cox N. L. J., 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Galactic interstellar dust Gaia-2MASS 3D maps (Vergely+, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/664/A174. Originally published in: 2022A&A...664A.174V, @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier.36640174

    2022 doi

  93. [103]

    R., Monreal Ibero A., Laging J., Romeijnders M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.264W 690, A264

    Walsh J. R., Monreal Ibero A., Laging J., Romeijnders M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.264W 690, A264

    2024 doi

  94. [104]

    J., Zijlstra A

    Wareing C. J., Zijlstra A. A., O'Brien T. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12459.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1233W 382, 1233

    2007

  95. [105]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..10W 640, A10

    Weidmann W. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..10W 640, A10

    2020 doi

  96. [106]

    Werner K., Dreizler S., 1999, @doi [Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9906130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999JCoAM.109...65W 109, 65

    1999 doi arXiv

  97. [107]

    L., Dreizler S., Nagel T., Rauch T., Schuh S

    Werner K., Deetjen J. L., Dreizler S., Nagel T., Rauch T., Schuh S. L., 2003, in Hubeny I., Mihalas D., Werner K., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 288, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling. p. 31 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0209535 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.as...

    2003 doi arXiv

  98. [108]

    Zanin C., Kerber F., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...356..274Z 356, 274

    2000

  99. [109]

    W., Oliveira C

    Ziegler M., Rauch T., Werner K., Kruk J. W., Oliveira C. M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-008-9789-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Ap&SS.320..257Z 320, 257

    2009 doi

  100. [110]

    A., Pottasch S

    Zijlstra A. A., Pottasch S. R., Bignell C., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&AS...79..329Z 79, 329

    1989

Pith tools

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