Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

A uniform-screen silicate+graphite model translates resolved attenuation-curve variations into effective small-grain fractions: the 2175 Å bump tracks small graphitic grains, and the NUV slope tracks small silicates.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 03:27 UTC pith:RQ64US6D

load-bearing objection A clean, honestly hedged translation of the series' attenuation-curve variations into effective silicate/graphite grain parameters; the uniform-screen geometry is a real but openly acknowledged caveat that the conclusions depend on. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13868 v1 pith:RQ64US6D submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.GA

Mapping Dust Attenuation at Kiloparsec Scales. IV. A Dust-model Interpretation of Attenuation Curves in Nearby Galaxies

Ruonan Guo (1) , Cheng Li (1) , Tao Jing (1) , Shuang Zhou (2) , Niu Li (3 , 1) , Zhuo Cheng (4 , 1) ((1) Tsinghua
show 3 more authors
(2) INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera (3) NAOC (4) CUHK)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dust attenuation2175 Å bumpNUV slopesmall grainsgrain size distributioninterstellar dustintegral field spectroscopydust-to-stellar mass ratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether the empirical diversity of kiloparsec-scale dust attenuation curves measured in earlier papers of the series can be translated into physical dust properties. Using 2487 spatially resolved regions in 91 nearby galaxies, the authors fit each measured attenuation curve with a uniform foreground-screen model made of astronomical silicate and graphite grains with power-law (MRN-like) size distributions. They find that the relative strength of the 2175 Å bump maps mainly onto the effective mass fraction of small graphitic/carbonaceous grains, while the ultraviolet slope maps onto the effective small-silicate fraction and total silicate mass fraction. Inferred dust masses and compositions separate absolute dust content from dust per unit stellar mass, and regions with stronger recent star formation or ionized-gas activity have more dust per stellar mass but fewer small grains. The paper interprets this as local dust processing shaping attenuation curves, while stressing that the inferred quantities are model-dependent effective values rather than unique inversions.

Core claim

Within the adopted uniform-screen, two-component silicate+graphite model with MRN-like size distributions, the observed attenuation-curve sequence from the earlier papers is reproduced by coherent variations in effective grain properties. The 2175 Å bump strength is most directly tied to the effective fraction of small graphitic/carbonaceous grains, the NUV slope to the effective small-silicate fraction and total silicate mass fraction, and the attenuation amplitude to a model-dependent dust mass surface density. Non-star-forming regions come out with higher dust mass surface densities but lower dust-to-stellar mass ratios than star-forming regions; regions with larger specific Hα surface br

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a precomputed grid of about 920,000 uniform foreground-screen attenuation models built from astronomical silicate and graphite grains with MRN-like power-law size distributions, with four free parameters: silicate mass fraction, maximum grain radius, and the two size-distribution slopes. Each observed optical-to-NUV attenuation curve is first matched in normalized shape (dividing by V-band attenuation), then the attenuation amplitude sets the dust mass surface density. Small-grain fractions are computed as the mass in grains below 0.01 μm for each component. This machinery converts curve shape into grain-size and composition language, with the screen geometry as the

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that all stars in a spaxel sit behind a single uniform foreground dust screen; if the actual dust-star geometry varies from region to region, the mapping from curve shape to grain-size fractions could be an artifact of geometry rather than of grain processing.

What would settle it

Fit the same attenuation curves with a clumpy or mixed-geometry radiative-transfer model in which grain-size distributions are held fixed; if the 2175 Å bump and NUV-slope variations can be reproduced by geometry alone, the inferred small-grain-fraction mapping is not unique. Alternatively, cross-check the inferred small-graphite fraction against spatially resolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission maps: strong disagreement would indicate the screen-based translation is not capturing the true small-carbon-grain abundance.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the mapping holds, resolved attenuation curves become a probe of effective small-grain abundances across galactic environments.
  • The dust-to-stellar mass ratio, not the absolute dust column, is the quantity most sensitive to recent star-formation or ionized-gas activity.
  • The opposite trends in dust mass and small-grain fractions support local dust processing: star-forming regions accumulate dust per unit stellar mass while destroying or coagulating small grains.
  • Non-star-forming regions can be separated from star-forming ones by absolute dust content versus dust per stellar mass, giving a clearer local analogue of global dust scaling relations.
  • Joint modeling with infrared dust emission and flexible radiative-transfer geometries would test and calibrate the absolute dust masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The screen-geometry assumption means the inferred small-grain trends could partly absorb real variations in dust-star geometry; a radiative-transfer test that fixes grain properties and varies geometry alone would reveal how much of the bump and NUV-slope sequence is geometric.
  • The same fitting machinery could be applied to sub-kiloparsec resolved data or to high-redshift lensed galaxies; if the small-grain-versus-activity trends persist at finer scales, local processing is the dominant driver.
  • Comparing the inferred small-graphite fraction with independent maps of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission would give a cross-check, since both should trace the small carbonaceous grain population.
  • Because the model grid constrains only four parameters, families of grain-size distributions are degenerate; extending to observables like scattering polarization or mid-infrared extinction would break some of that degeneracy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper interprets resolved UV-to-NIR attenuation curves for 2487 spaxels in 91 nearby galaxies using a grid of uniform-screen dust models with astronomical silicate and graphite grains and MRN-like size distributions. The fitting procedure first matches the normalized attenuation-curve shape to constrain four model parameters (silicate mass fraction q_sil, common maximum radius a_max, and power-law slopes alpha_sil and alpha_gra) and then uses the attenuation amplitude to estimate a model-dependent dust mass surface density. The authors derive effective dust properties—dust mass surface density, dust-to-stellar mass ratio, silicate fraction, and small-grain fractions—and study their correlations with local stellar mass, specific Hα surface brightness, and star-formation history diagnostics. The central claim is that the empirical 2175 Å bump and NUV-slope sequences from Papers I–III map, within this model, onto changes in the effective small-graphite and small-silicate fractions, supporting a local dust-processing picture.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper provides a physically interpretable bridge from resolved attenuation-curve variations to grain-size and composition diagnostics, complementing emission-based dust studies and enabling a more direct use of attenuation curves for studying local dust processing. The paper's strengths include its explicit statement that the inferred quantities are model-dependent effective quantities, a transparent fitting procedure, and an unusually honest discussion of the limitations of the uniform-screen assumption. However, the scientific advance is more modest than the abstract suggests: the mapping from curve shape to small-grain fractions is largely a property of the chosen model and fitting setup, and the lack of any geometry constraint leaves the headline trends degenerate with possible dust-star geometry variations. The paper is a useful parametric translation of the observed attenuation-curve sequence, but the claim that the trends support a real grain-processing picture requires additional validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3; Eq. (1)] The uniform foreground-screen geometry is load-bearing for the inference from attenuation-curve shape to grain-size parameters. Because the model has no dust-star geometry or scattering-geometry parameter, any environmental variation in geometry (e.g., a higher fraction of dust behind the stars in non-SF regions) will be absorbed into q_sil, alpha_sil, alpha_gra, and a_max. The paper itself notes in §4.1 and Figure 5 that at fixed A_V non-SF regions require larger Σ_dust 'possibly reflecting differences in effective dust-star geometry.' This admission indicates that the inferred small-grain trends may be degenerate with geometry. I request a concrete mitigation: either a simple radiative-transfer or mixed-geometry test showing that the B–small-graphite and NUV-slope–small-silicate correlations are robust to plausible geometry variations, or an explicit downgrade of the conclusions from '
  2. [§2.4; Fig. 2] Some best-fit parameters lie near or at the grid edges: non-SF a_max extends to 2.0 μm (Fig. 2), and §2.5 notes that low small-graphite fractions occur where alpha_gra approaches the edge of the model grid. If the true best fit lies outside the grid, the adopted edge values and the correlations involving a_max and alpha_gra may be truncated artifacts. The paper should report the fraction of spaxels at each grid boundary and test the sensitivity of the main trends to extending the grid or to using a continuous optimizer with boundary treatment.
  3. [§3.1; §4.3] The correlations between B and the small-graphite fraction, and between the NUV slope and the small-silicate fraction, are expected by construction because the model is fitted directly to the attenuation curves. The paper states this in §3.1 but in §4.3 treats these correlations as supporting a dust-processing picture. To demonstrate that the translation is non-trivial, the authors should provide an internal cross-validation: for example, a null test using model-generated curves with known input parameters, or a comparison with an independent observable such as PAH emission strength or extinction toward background stars. Without such a test, the headline claim that attenuation-curve variations 'map mainly onto' small-grain fractions is largely a restatement of the model assumptions rather than an independent empirical result.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.4] The statement that the 84th-percentile absolute differences are '4.3×10−8 in q_sil' is implausibly small and likely a typo; please check the value and the reported units.
  2. [Fig. 2] The quantile notation such as 'q_sil = 0.78+0.10−0.12' is ambiguous. Please define whether the errors are 16th/84th percentiles or a different confidence interval.
  3. [Fig. 6] The main text and caption state that the horizontal axis is Σ_Hα/Σ_*, but the figure as reproduced contains the label 'log(sSFR/Gyr^-1)'. Please unify the axis label with the quantity actually plotted, or clarify if both are shown.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Curve-feature-to-dust-parameter mappings are largely the fitting procedure itself, but external environmental trends provide independent content.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§3.1, Figure 5; see also §2.4 and Summary item 3]
    "Because the model is fitted directly to the attenuation curves, some relations are expected by construction; their value is to translate the empirical features measured in Papers II and III into model-dependent quantities such as dust column, composition, and small-grain fractions. ... The strongest amplitude relation is the positive correlation between A_V and Σ_dust, as expected because Σ_dust is inferred from the attenuation amplitude after the curve shape is matched."

    The small-grain fractions and silicate fraction are outputs of fitting the observed A(λ)/A_V curve and UVOT points (§2.4). The bump strength B and NUV slope A_w2/A_w1 are features of that same fitted curve. Reporting that B tracks the fitted small-graphite fraction and that the NUV slope tracks the fitted small-silicate fraction is therefore a restatement of the fitting procedure, not an independent empirical finding: the fit selects grain parameters precisely to reproduce those features. The A_V–Σ_dust correlation is explicitly the amplitude fit. The paper acknowledges this, but the abstract and Summary item 3 still present these by-construction mappings as the main 'bridge' to Papers I–III.

full rationale

The central curve-feature-to-dust-parameter correlations are largely built into the fitting procedure, as the paper itself states in §3.1 and §4.3 ('partly built into the model physics'). These should be read as a translation/interpretation, not as independent confirmation of the dust model. However, the paper's environmental trends — e.g., inferred small-grain fractions versus Σ_Hα/Σ_* and stellar-population diagnostics — involve external quantities that were not used as fit inputs, so they carry independent, though model-dependent, content. The uniform-screen geometry is a stated assumption that could bias effective grain parameters if real geometry varies; that is a model-validity risk rather than circularity. Papers I–III are cited as data/method sources, not as circular uniqueness theorems. Overall, the headline mapping reduces partly to the fit, but the external correlations and explicit caveats keep the paper from being fully circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a simple, explicitly model-dependent framework: uniform-screen geometry, MRN power-law size distributions, silicate+graphite composition, and Mie scattering. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the four grain-model parameters plus the per-spaxel dust mass and two fixed size thresholds. All derived 'effective' quantities inherit these assumptions, and the paper correctly labels them as model-dependent.

free parameters (7)
  • q_sil = 0.78 (full-sample median, range 0–1 grid)
    Silicate mass fraction, one of four grid parameters fit to the normalized attenuation-curve shape.
  • a_max = 0.23 micron (full-sample median; grid 0.025–2.0 micron)
    Common maximum grain radius for both silicate and graphite MRN distributions; fit per spaxel.
  • alpha_sil = 4.0 (full-sample median; grid 1.0–6.0)
    Size-distribution slope for silicate grains; fit per spaxel.
  • alpha_gra = 3.25 (full-sample median; grid 1.0–6.0)
    Size-distribution slope for graphite grains; fit per spaxel.
  • Sigma_dust = log10 ~ 4–6 M_sun/kpc^2
    Dust mass surface density fit as the amplitude parameter after shape match.
  • a_min = 0.005 micron (fixed)
    Minimum grain radius fixed by hand from MRN prior; affects absolute normalization and derived small-grain fractions.
  • small-grain threshold = 0.01 micron (fixed)
    Threshold chosen by hand to define 'small' grains for the diagnostic fractions; changes the derived small-silicate and small-graphite mass fractions.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Uniform foreground-screen geometry for dust and stars.
    Adopted in §2.3; all stellar populations experience the same screen attenuation. Load-bearing because curve-shape to grain-property mapping depends on geometry.
  • domain assumption MRN power-law grain-size distribution dn/da proportional to a^(-alpha) over [a_min, a_max].
    Adopted in §2.3 from Mathis et al. (1977). Restricts the family of grain-size distributions to a simple analytic form.
  • domain assumption Two-component dust composition: astronomical silicate + graphite with Draine & Lee (1984) dielectric functions and the 1/3-2/3 approximation for graphite.
    Stated in §2.3. Assumes no other grain species or materials contribute significantly to attenuation.
  • domain assumption K_s-band attenuation is negligible, giving the 2MASS anchor.
    Used in §2.2 via Paper I method: 'under the Paper I assumption that NIR attenuation is negligible.' If false, absolute curve normalization and Sigma_dust shift.
  • domain assumption BIGS spectral fitting provides the intrinsic NUV-to-NIR model spectrum for each spaxel.
    Invoked in §2.2 as the reference for measuring attenuation; systematic errors in the intrinsic spectrum propagate directly into attenuation curves.
  • standard math Mie theory (BHMIE) correctly gives absorption and scattering coefficients for the assumed grain compositions and sizes.
    Used in §2.3 to build the model library; standard physics but depends on assumed optical constants.
  • domain assumption The 2175 Å bump carrier is small graphitic/carbonaceous grains.
    Imported from prior literature (Draine & Malhotra 1993; Hensley & Draine 2023) and used in §4.3 to interpret the B–small-graphite mapping as physical.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17487 in / 12063 out tokens · 115719 ms · 2026-08-02T03:27:29.207303+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this fourth paper on kiloparsec-scale dust attenuation, we ask whether the empirical trends found in Papers I--III can be translated into effective dust properties. Using attenuation curves for 2487 high-continuum-S/N spaxels in 91 SwiM v4.2 galaxies, we construct a grid of uniform-screen dust models composed of astronomical silicate and graphite grains with MRN-like size distributions. We fit the normalized attenuation-curve shape to constrain model parameters and then use the attenuation amplitude to estimate the model-dependent dust mass surface density. The inferred dust masses, compositions, and small-grain fractions are therefore effective quantities defined within the adopted attenuation model. The fitted models reproduce the main attenuation-curve variations and provide a direct bridge to Papers I--III: within this model, the relative 2175\AA\ bump sequence maps mainly onto the effective fraction of small graphitic/carbonaceous grains, while the NUV-slope sequence maps onto the effective small-silicate grain fraction and total silicate mass fraction. Non-SF regions have higher dust mass surface densities but lower dust-to-stellar mass ratios than SF regions, separating absolute dust content from dust content per unit stellar mass. Regions with larger specific H$\alpha$ surface brightness have larger dust-to-stellar mass ratios but lower inferred small-grain fractions, especially lower small-silicate fractions. In non-SF regions this quantity is interpreted as ionized-gas emission per unit stellar mass rather than as a direct sSFR. These model-dependent trends support a picture in which local dust processing changes the relative abundance of small grains and thereby shapes the attenuation-curve variations found across the series.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13868 by 1), 1) ((1) Tsinghua, (2) INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, (3) NAOC, (4) CUHK), Cheng Li (1), Niu Li (3, Ruonan Guo (1), Shuang Zhou (2), Tao Jing (1), Zhuo Cheng (4.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of the dust-model fit for one spaxel in galaxy 8138-12704. The green curve shows the optical at￾tenuation curve measured from the MaNGA spectrum. Blue crosses mark the derived B- and V -band attenuations, and purple points show the UVOT-band attenuations Aw2, Am2, and Aw1, with uncertainties from error propagation. The orange cross marks the adopted Ks-band anchor, where the attenuation is assumed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Joint distributions of the best-matched dust– model parameters. Black shows the full sample, while blue and sienna contours show SF and non-SF regions. The one-dimensional panels give the corresponding marginalized distributions and quantiles. grains rather than as a unique physical boundary. The small-grain masses in the silicate and graphite compo￾nents are denoted ma<0.01,sil and ma<0.01,gra, and we use… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example attenuation and dust-property maps for galaxy 11748-12705. The first row shows, from left to right, the SDSS optical image, AV , AB/AV , Aw2/Aw1, and the attenuation-curve relative 2175˚A bump strength B. The second row shows the model-inferred dust mass surface density, dust-to-stellar mass ratio, silicate mass fraction, small-silicate mass fraction, and small-graphite mass fraction. 4.0 4.5 5.0 5… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of derived dust quantities: dust mass surface density, dust-to-stellar mass ratio, small-sili￾cate mass fraction, and small-graphite mass fraction. Gray histograms show the full selected sample, while blue and si￾enna step histograms show SF and non-SF regions. Non-SF regions have larger dust mass surface densities, lower dust– to-stellar mass ratios, and higher inferred silicate and smal￾l-g… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relations between observed attenuation properties and model-inferred dust quantities. Columns show, from left to right, AV , AB/AV , Aw2/Aw1, and the attenuation-curve relative 2175˚A bump strength B. Rows show, from top to bottom, dust mass surface density, dust-to-stellar mass ratio, silicate mass fraction, small-silicate mass fraction, and small-graphite mass fraction. Light blue contours and blue media… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dust content and grain/composition diagnostics as functions of local stellar mass and Hα emission. Top row: dust mass surface density versus stellar mass surface density, dust mass surface density versus specific Hα surface brightness ΣHα/Σ∗, and dust-to-stellar mass ratio versus ΣHα/Σ∗. Bottom row: small-graphite mass fraction, small-silicate mass fraction, and silicate mass fraction versus ΣHα/Σ∗. Blue c… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dust content as a function of recent-SFH diagnostics. The upper row shows dust mass surface density Σdust, and the lower row shows dust-to-stellar mass ratio Σdust/Σ∗. Columns, from left to right, show Dn4000, EW(Hα), and EW(HδA). Symbols, contours, median curves, and colors are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Mapping Dust Attenuation at Kiloparsec Scales. III. The 2175\AA\ Bump

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    The 2175Å attenuation bump is strongest at low Σ_Hα/Σ_* (especially non-SF regions) while absolute strength tracks dust column, supporting local radiation-field processing of its carriers.

  2. Mapping Dust Attenuation at Kiloparsec Scales. III. The 2175\AA\ Bump

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    At kiloparsec scales, the 2175 Å dust bump is strongest in non-star-forming regions with the lowest ionized-gas emission per stellar mass and weakens where recent star formation is strong.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 3844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3253

    Aoyama, S., Hirashita, H., & Nagamine, K. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3253

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3253 2020

  2. [2]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3061 12Guo et al

    Aoyama, S., Hou, K.-C., Shimizu, I., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3061 12Guo et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3061 2017

  3. [3]

    S., Takeuchi, T

    Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Nozawa, T. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt506 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Col...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt506 2013

  4. [4]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C., Sommovigo, L., Carniani, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, L58, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab104

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab104 2021

  5. [5]

    F., & Huffman, D

    Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles (New York: Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9783527618156

    doi:10.1002/9783527618156 1983

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

    2020, A&A, 633, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936665

    Casasola, V., Bianchi, S., De Vis, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936665

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936665 2020

  9. [9]

    2022, A&A, 668, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245043

    Casasola, V., Bianchi, S., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245043

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245043 2022

  10. [10]

    D., et al

    Chastenet, J., Bot, C., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629133

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629133 2017

  11. [11]

    K., et al

    Chastenet, J., Sandstrom, K., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2025, ApJS, 276, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8a5c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad8a5c 2025

  12. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad373

    Chiang, I.-D., Hirashita, H., Chastenet, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad373

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad373 2023

  13. [13]

    Clark, C. J. R., Dunne, L., Gomez, H. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1276 Compi` egne, M., Verstraete, L., Jones, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015292

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1276 2015

  14. [14]

    2012, A&A, 540, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118499 da Cunha, E., Eminian, C., Charlot, S., & Blaizot, J

    Cortese, L., Ciesla, L., Boselli, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118499 da Cunha, E., Eminian, C., Charlot, S., & Blaizot, J. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1894, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16344.x De Looze, I., Lamperti, I., Saintonge, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3668, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1496 De Vis, P., Dunne, L., Maddox, S., et al...

    arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    X., Boulanger, F., & Puget, J

    Desert, F. X., Boulanger, F., & Puget, J. L. 1990, A&A, 237, 215

    1990

  16. [16]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    doi:10.1086/162480 1984

  17. [17]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  18. [18]

    T., & Malhotra, S

    Draine, B. T., & Malhotra, S. 1993, ApJ, 414, 632, doi: 10.1086/173109

    doi:10.1086/173109 1993

  19. [19]

    T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

    Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/172

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/172 2014

  20. [20]

    Galliano, F., Galametz, M., & Jones, A. P. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 673, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051900

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051900 2018

  21. [21]

    P., et al

    Galliano, F., Hony, S., Bernard, J. P., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117952

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117952 2011

  22. [22]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.08824

    Garaldi, E., Popovic, F., Kannan, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.08824. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08824

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    D., Roman-Duval, J., Bot, C., et al

    Gordon, K. D., Roman-Duval, J., Bot, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/85

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/85 2014

  24. [24]

    2026, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:2607.10573

    Guo, R., Li, C., Jing, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:2607.10573. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10573

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 065017, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/add673

    Guo, R., Li, C., Zhou, S., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 065017, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/add673

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/add673 2025

  26. [26]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 2023

  27. [27]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  28. [28]

    A., & da Cunha, E

    Hodge, J. A., & da Cunha, E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556, doi: 10.1098/rsos.200556

    doi:10.1098/rsos.200556 2020

  29. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 1727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz121

    Shimizu, I. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz121

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz121 2019

  30. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 5749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3259

    Ji, X., & Yan, R. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3259

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3259 2020

  31. [31]

    2017, A&A, 602, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630225

    Verstraete, L. 2017, A&A, 602, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630225

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630225 2017

  32. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab92a1

    Li, N., Li, C., Mo, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab92a1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab92a1 2020

  33. [33]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591

    doi:10.1086/155591 1977

  34. [34]

    1908, Annalen der Physik, 330, 377, doi: 10.1002/andp.19083300302

    Mie, G. 1908, Annalen der Physik, 330, 377, doi: 10.1002/andp.19083300302

    doi:10.1002/andp.19083300302 1908

  35. [35]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf578 Rela˜ no, M., Lisenfeld, U., Hou, K

    Molina, M., Duffy, L., Eracleous, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf578 Rela˜ no, M., Lisenfeld, U., Hou, K. C., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937087 Rela˜ no, M., De Looze, I., Saintonge, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2108

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf578 2023

  36. [36]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021933

    Salim, S., & Narayanan, D. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021933

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021933 2020

  37. [37]

    J., Li, C., et al

    Zhou, S., Mo, H. J., Li, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz764

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz764 2019

  38. [38]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb80

    Zhou, S., Li, C., Li, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfb80 2023