Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Ultraviolet Properties of Multi-phase Gas Toward the Inner Galaxy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that 77% of 800 ultraviolet absorption components toward 16 inner-Galaxy stars follow disk co-rotation, so multiphase gas with disk-like kinematics extends at least 1 kpc into the halo.

desk verdict A genuinely useful 800-component UV absorption database toward the Inner Galaxy, wrapped in a halo-extent claim the absorption data cannot support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07969 v1 pith:2V33MBFH submitted 2025-05-12 astro-ph.GA

Frances H. Cashman , Andrew J. Fox , Debopam Som , Bart P. Wakker , Robert A. Benjamin , Dhanesh Krishnarao , David M. French , Rongmon Bordoloi
show 1 more author
Felix J. Lockman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWayUltravioletastronomyInterstellarmediumGalaxystructureGalacticwindsAbsorption-linespectroscopyDifferentialrotationMulti-phasegas
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to map the kinematics of interstellar gas in the inner Milky Way, where four spiral arms and the bar crowd the line of sight to the Galactic Center. Using HST/STIS ultraviolet spectra of 16 massive stars, the authors measured velocity centroids for 800 absorption components spanning molecular, neutral, low-ion, and high-ion gas, and asked how many of those components move with a simple model of differential disk rotation. They report that 619 of 800 components (77%) fall inside the co-rotation velocity window, in each gas phase at similar fractions. If correct, this means gas with disk-like circular motion is present at vertical heights up to at least 1 kpc above and below the plane, not just in the thin star-forming disk. The accompanying component database is offered as a kinematic baseline for future studies of gas flowing into and out of the Galactic disk.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a model of differential Galactic rotation, used to predict, for each sight line, the range of velocity centroids that a cloud could have while still sharing the disk's circular motion. The model assumes a flat rotation curve of $v=220$ km s$^{-1}$ between $R=0.5$ and $26$ kpc, a solar radius of $R=8.0$ kpc, a disk whose thickness grows from $2$ kpc at $R=1$ kpc to $6$ kpc at $R=26$ kpc, and solid-body rotation inside $0.5$ kpc. For each stellar sight line, the model's minimum and maximum allowed line-of-sight velocities define the co-rotation window; each of the 800 Voigt-profile-fitted absorption components is then classified as co-rotating if its measured centroid falls in that window. The classification is the single step that produces the headline 619/800 fraction.

What would settle it

Measure precise parallaxes for the ten stars whose spectroscopic distances exceed the Gaia DR3 distances by factors of two to three. If the nearer distances are confirmed, most sight lines would end below 1 kpc of vertical height; showing that the co-rotating components' velocity window still holds while their heights collapse would refute the claim that disk-like gas extends at least 1 kpc into the halo.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-phase gas in the Inner Galaxy is predominantly co-rotating with the Galactic disk even far from the midplane. Out of 800 ultraviolet absorption-line components measured toward 16 inner-Galaxy sight lines, the paper finds that 619 (77%) have LSR velocity centroids consistent with a flat-rotation-curve model of differential rotation; the co-rotation fractions are 80% for molecular CO (20 of 25), 76% for neutral atoms (176 of 233), 79% for low and intermediate ions (330 of 419), and 76% for high ions (93 of 123). The paper interprets this as evidence that molecular, neutral, and ionized gas with disk-like kinematics extends at least 1 kpc into the halo. It also finds no systematic kinematic connection between the UV gas and the spiral-arm maser velocities, and it provides the full Voigt-profile fitting results as a public database.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 619 components whose velocities fit the rotation window actually lie at large distances along the sight line, and that the spectroscopic distances used for ten of the sixteen stars are the distances to the absorbing gas; absorption spectroscopy alone cannot locate a component between the Sun and the background star.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the co-rotation fractions are right, the inner Galaxy holds a vertically extended reservoir of molecular, neutral, and ionized gas that still shares the disk's rotation, so the halo is not simply a region of infall and outflow.
  • The 619/800 co-rotating components provide a rotation-dominated baseline against which the 181 non-co-rotating components can be tested as candidates for galactic winds, accretion, or highly disturbed arms.
  • The molecular CO sample, centered near 0 km s$^{-1}$ in 10 of the 12 sight lines where CO is detected, implies the ultraviolet CO-bearing layer is thin (heights of tens to roughly 170 pc), while higher-ion gas co-rotates to much larger heights.
  • The published database of 800 components across six ionization states gives other observers a direct way to compare any new inner-Galaxy sight line with the expected rotation envelope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's vertical-extent conclusion would become much weaker if the Gaia DR3 parallax distances are the right ones for the 10 stars where the adopted spectroscopic distances are two to three times larger; with the nearer distances, fewer sight lines would reach 1 kpc of height, and the co-rotating components could all be foreground disk gas.
  • If the co-rotating halo gas is real, a natural next test is to search for the same rotating kinematics in 21 cm emission at high latitudes around $l \approx 0^\circ$, where distance information from HI self-absorption or absorption against continuum sources could separate foreground gas from gas at heights above 1 kpc.
  • The 23% non-co-rotating components are mostly neutral and low-ion gas; stacking their residuals in velocity-latitude space may reveal whether they organize into systematic inflow or outflow patterns, a question the paper does not attempt.
  • The absence of a strong UV-to-maser velocity correlation argues that spiral arms are not the dominant kinematic sites of the warm gas, which would shift attention to the general disk potential and supershell or fountain circulation as the organizing mechanisms.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic HST/STIS UV absorption-line survey of 16 massive-star sight lines toward the Inner Galaxy, measuring 800 absorption components in molecular, neutral, low-ion, and high-ion gas. The authors compare the LSR velocities of these components with a model of differential Galactic rotation with a thick disk (Section 2.3) and report that 619/800 (77%) have velocities consistent with co-rotation, concluding that multi-phase gas with disk-like kinematics extends at least 1 kpc into the halo. The paper also provides a machine-readable database of Voigt-profile fitting parameters (Table A1) and an analysis of the relation between UV components and spiral-arm maser velocities (Section 4.4).

Significance. If the halo-extent claim were supported, this would be a notable result: it would suggest a vertically extended reservoir of multiphase gas in the inner Galaxy that retains disk rotation. The component database itself is a valuable resource: the measurements are carefully made with VPFIT using STIS line-spread functions, the fitting procedures are documented in the appendix, and a machine-readable table is provided. The paper's explicit comparison against an externally defined kinematic model, rather than a parameter fitted to the target claim, is a strength. However, the central interpretation that co-rotating velocities imply gas at |z| ≥ 1 kpc is not established by the analysis as presented, because absorption spectroscopy is path-integrated and the model's velocity windows are broad. The significance of the paper therefore currently rests on the database and on the weaker kinematic statement, not on the halo-extent conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §2.3] The 77% co-rotation statistic does not by itself constrain the vertical location of absorbing gas. The model computes an allowed velocity range from the full thick disk along the line of sight; for example, Appendix B gives windows of 0 ≤ v ≤ +194 km/s for HD 173502 (B.8) and −177 ≤ v ≤ 0 km/s for HD 163522 (B.10). Because absorption spectroscopy is path-integrated, a component with a velocity inside such a window can originate in low-|z| foreground gas, and the paper's own Section 4.3 assigns the near-zero-velocity CO to the Local Orion Spur. To support the claim that co-rotating gas extends to |z| ≥ 1 kpc, the authors need a null baseline (e.g., the fraction of random or thin-disk-confined velocities that would fall in the accepted windows) and an argument that the detected components cannot be accounted for by foreground disk gas. Without this, the 77% fraction is an expected outcome of the broad windows rather than evidence of vertical extent.
  2. [§4.5, Table 1] The halo-extent claim depends on the spectroscopic distances for 10 of 16 sight lines, where d_spec exceeds the Gaia DR3 parallax distance by factors of 2–3 (e.g., HD 163522: 9.92 vs 4.01 kpc; HD 179407: 9.21 vs 4.44 kpc). If the Gaia distances are correct, most of these sight lines do not reach z = 1 kpc, so the number of sight lines that can support the ≥1 kpc claim would drop from 16 to at most 6. The paper notes the discrepancy but does not quantify how the central conclusion changes under the Gaia distance assumption; the abstract and Section 5 present the conclusion without this caveat. Please either restrict the halo-extent claim to the concordant-distance subsample or provide a quantitative version of the result under both distance scales.
  3. [§4.3 versus §4.1] The paper includes in the 619/800 co-rotating components the CO components that Section 4.3 assigns to the local environment (10/12 sight lines have CO centered near 0 km/s, constraining the CO-bearing layer to z ≤ 172 pc). Local gas trivially co-rotates with the disk, so including these components inflates the co-rotation fraction and cannot inform the z ≥ 1 kpc claim. The co-rotation statistic should be recomputed after excluding components identified as local or foreground (or at least the CO subset), or the interpretation should be restricted to components with velocities and sight-line geometries that exclude low-|z| foreground origins.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure B1 caption] The caption for Figure B1 says the sight line is in Quadrant I, but HD 165955 has l = 357.41°, which is in Quadrant IV according to Section 4.2; one of these is in error.
  2. [§3] The abbreviation 'R19' is used without definition at first use; please define it as Reid et al. (2019) and include the full citation at that point.
  3. [§4.5] The star 'HD 1640641' mentioned in Section 4.5 does not appear in Table 1; the intended star is likely HD 160641 or HD 164340, and the typo should be corrected.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says the co-rotation model is 'outlined in Section 4', but the model is defined in Section 2.3; the cross-reference should be fixed.
  5. [§2.3] The sentence 'For a given latitude and longitude, the highest and lowest velocity given by the model provides a range' has a subject-verb agreement error; 'provides' should be 'provide'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the co-rotation comparison uses an externally defined kinematic model and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's headline statistic (619/800 components consistent with differential rotation) is computed by comparing measured UV absorption-line centroids against velocity windows generated by an external flat-rotation-curve model (Wakker & van Woerden 1991), with parameters such as v=220 km/s, R0=8 kpc, and a disk thickness of 2-6 kpc taken from the literature rather than fitted to the target claim. Section 2.3 defines the model before any component classification, so the 77% co-rotation fraction is not a fit renamed as a prediction: the centroids are measured independently with VPFIT, and the model windows are fixed in advance. The inference that co-rotating gas extends to at least 1 kpc in z relies on choosing spectroscopic stellar distances for 10 of 16 sight lines (Section 4.5) and on assuming components at co-rotating velocities arise at high z rather than in foreground disk gas; these are line-of-sight localization and distance-calibration concerns, not circular reductions. Self-citations such as Cashman et al. (2021, 2023) appear in literature surveys and individual sight-line notes, but the load-bearing kinematic benchmark is external and is not justified by those citations. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the target conclusion, and no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness constraint. The central comparison is therefore self-contained against an external benchmark, and the component database stands independently of the halo-extent interpretation.

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

The central result is an empirical comparison against an adopted kinematic model. The model's thickness law and inner solid-body rotation are hand-chosen inputs, and the halo-extent interpretation additionally assumes the spectroscopic distances where they exceed Gaia DR3. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Disk thickness parameterization = 2 kpc at R=1 kpc increasing linearly to 6 kpc at R=26 kpc
    This hand-chosen model input sets the allowed velocity window in Section 2.3 and therefore determines how many of the 800 components count as co-rotating; no source or uncertainty is given.
  • Solid-body rotation scale inside 0.5 kpc = v(R) = 220 * (R / 0.5 kpc) km/s
    Chosen in Section 2.3 to extend the co-rotation model to the Galactic center; this affects the allowed velocity range for low-longitude inner sight lines.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A flat rotation curve of 220 km/s and solar radius R=8.0 kpc adequately describe Galactic rotation for the co-rotation model.
    Adopted in Section 2.3 from Wakker and van Woerden 1991; this is a standard approximation but is not separately validated for the inner disk and bar region.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk thickness law (2 kpc at R=1 kpc growing to 6 kpc at R=26 kpc) defines where co-rotating gas lives.
    Introduced in Section 2.3 with no cited basis; it directly controls the breadth of the accepted velocity ranges.
  • ad hoc to paper The larger spectroscopic distances are valid for placing absorbing gas at z greater than 1 kpc when they exceed Gaia DR3 parallax distances.
    Section 4.5 documents factor-of-2 to 3 disagreements; the halo-extent claim depends on the higher distances being correct.
  • domain assumption All measured absorption components are interstellar and lie in front of the target star.
    Standard for UV absorption-line surveys; stellar or stellar-wind contamination is not systematically checked for every line.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultraviolet Properties of Multi-phase Gas Toward the Inner Galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2V33MBFH

@misc{pith2026250507969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultraviolet Properties of Multi-phase Gas Toward the Inner Galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2V33MBFH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07969}
}
abstract

We present a systematic study of the multi-phase interstellar gas in the Inner Galaxy using HST/STIS absorption spectroscopy of 16 massive stars located at spectroscopic distances between 1.3 and 10 kpc in the region $-30^\circ\lesssim l \lesssim+30^\circ$ and $-15^\circ\lesssim b \lesssim+15^\circ$. These sight lines probe gas above and below the Sagittarius Carina, Scutum Crux-Centaurus, Norma, and Near 3 kpc spiral arms in a range of $z$-height from 0 to 1.5 kpc. Along the 16 sight lines, we measure velocity centroids for 800 UV absorption-line components across multiple gas phases (molecular CO, neutral, low ion, and high ion). We find that 619/800 components have velocities that are consistent with a simple model of co-rotation with the disk, indicating that multi-phase gas with disk-like kinematics extends at least 1 kpc into the halo. We present a database of absorption-line parameters that can be used for kinematic modeling of gas flows into and out of the Galactic disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: Top-down artist’s conception of the Inner Milky Way showing the four main spiral arms. The location of the Sun is marked with a orange circle and each archival HST stellar target is marked by a green, yellow, or pink star at its spectroscopic distance (green: STIS E140M, yellow: E140H, pink: E140M+E140H). These Inner-Galaxy sight lines probe above and below over a range of the 4 inner spiral arms: Sagitt… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UV absorption-line analysis of the HST/STIS E140H spectrum for HD 177989. Top-left: overhead view from R19 over￾laid with the star’s Gaia distance (green star) and spectroscopic po￾sition (magenta square) from Jenkins (2009). Top-right: side view of the star’s position relative to the spiral arm midplane (horizontal bars) as traced by the maser data from R19: Sagittarius (S–green), Scutum (Sc–blue), and Norma (N–red… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Location of each observed UV absorption component in velocity–longitude space. The blue circles show the components consistent with a model of differential Galactic rotation, outlined in Section 4, and the orange × markers denote components outside the allowed range of rotation. The grayscale shows the H I 21 cm emission data from the LAB Survey (Kalberla et al. 2005) integrated over the central 10◦ of Galactic lati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: LSR velocity versus Galactic longitude for observed C I (blue) and C IV (orange) components. The gradient color bar indicates the magnitude of the column density in cm−2 . Each sight line contributes a series of points at the same longitude. Bottom panel: Sa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: HST/STIS E140M or E140H spectra showing the molecular CO λ1447 or λ1477 absorption profile. CO is detected in 12 out of 16 sight lines. The left panels show sight lines in Quadrant IV (270◦ < l < 360◦ ) and the right panels show sight lines in Quadrant I (0◦ < l < 90◦ …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of UV–maser normalized velocity offsets for various gas tracers for sight lines with longitude |l| ≥ 10◦ (see Section 4.4 for details). These plots show the degree to which the UV lines from various gas phases kinematically track the spiral-arm maser emiss…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Sip˝ocz, B

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  2. [2]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  3. [3]

    V ., & Bajkova, A

    Bobylev, V . V ., & Bajkova, A. T. 2015, Astronomy Letters, 41, 473, doi: 10.1134/S1063773715080010

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773715080010 2015

  4. [4]

    C., Hillier, D

    Bouret, J. C., Hillier, D. J., Lanz, T., & Fullerton, A. W. 2012, A&A, 544, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118594

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118594 2012

  5. [5]

    V ., Jenkins, E

    Bowen, D. V ., Jenkins, E. B., Tripp, T. M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 59, doi: 10.1086/524773

    doi:10.1086/524773 2008

  6. [6]

    F., & Webb, J

    Carswell, R. F., & Webb, J. K. 2014, VPFIT: V oigt profile fitting program, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.015. http: //ascl.net/1408.015

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6d84

    Bogdanovich, P. 2017, ApJS, 230, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6d84

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6d84 2017

  8. [8]

    H., Fox, A

    Cashman, F. H., Fox, A. J., Savage, B. D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3cbc

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3cbc 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    H., Fox, A

    Cashman, F. H., Fox, A. J., Wakker, B. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaaa5

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Dressel, L., Holfeltz, S., & Quijano, J. K. 2007, in STIS Data Handbook v. 5, V ol. 5, 5

    2007

  3. [11]

    S., Jeffery, C

    Drilling, J. S., Jeffery, C. S., Heber, U., Moehler, S., & Napiwotzki, R. 2013, A&A, 551, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219433

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Savage, B

    Fox, A. J., Savage, B. D., Sembach, K. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 582, 793, doi: 10.1086/344692

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    V ., Gualandris, A., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Gvaramadze, V . V ., Gualandris, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 570, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14809.x

    2009

  6. [14]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1299, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1299

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Meyer, D. M. 2003, ApJ, 592, 964, doi: 10.1086/375767 La Palombara, N., & Mereghetti, S. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1712.00276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1712.00276

    2003 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    F., Howk, J

    Lehner, N., Zech, W. F., Howk, J. C., & Savage, B. D. 2011, ApJ, 727, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/46

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Kilkenny, D., Skillen, I., & Jeffery, C

    Lynas-Gray, A. E., Kilkenny, D., Skillen, I., & Jeffery, C. S. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/227.4.1073

    1987 doi

  11. [19]

    Morton, D. C. 2003, ApJS, 149, 205, doi: 10.1086/377639

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    2003, A&A, 410, 905, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031263

    Patriarchi, P., Morbidelli, L., & Perinotto, M. 2003, A&A, 410, 905, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031263

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    X., Tejos, N., Crighton, N., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Tejos, N., Crighton, N., et al. 2017, Linetools/Linetools: Third Minor Release, v0.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1036773

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Reed, B. C. 2003, AJ, 125, 2531, doi: 10.1086/374771

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Fox, A

    Richter, P., Nuza, S. E., Fox, A. J., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630081

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Ryans, R. S. I., Dufton, P. L., Keenan, F. P., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 267, doi: 10.1086/304871

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Massa, D., & Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., Massa, D., & Sembach, K. 1990, ApJ, 355, 114, doi: 10.1086/168746

    1990 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., Sembach, K. R., & Cardelli, J. A. 1994, ApJ, 420, 183, doi: 10.1086/173552

    1994 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., Sembach, K. R., & Howk, J. C. 2001, ApJ, 547, 907, doi: 10.1086/318411

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Kim, T.-S., Fox, A

    Savage, B. D., Kim, T.-S., Fox, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8f4c

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1065

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Danks, A

    Sembach, K. R., Danks, A. C., & Savage, B. D. 1993, A&AS, 100, 107

    1993

  24. [32]

    R., & Savage, B

    Sembach, K. R., & Savage, B. D. 1994, ApJ, 431, 201, doi: 10.1086/174478

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Savage, B

    Sembach, K. R., Savage, B. D., & Massa, D. 1991, ApJ, 372, 81, doi: 10.1086/169956

    1991 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Wakker, B

    Sembach, K. R., Wakker, B. P., Savage, B. D., et al. 2003, ApJS, 146, 165, doi: 10.1086/346231

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Dufton, P

    Smartt, S. J., Dufton, P. L., & Lennon, D. J. 1997, A&A, 326, 763

    1997

  28. [36]

    C., Savage, B

    Sterling, N. C., Savage, B. D., Richter, P., Fabian, D., & Sembach, K. R. 2002, ApJ, 567, 354, doi: 10.1086/338421

    2002 doi

  29. [37]

    Tobin, W., & Kaufmann, J. P. 1984, MNRAS, 207, 369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/207.2.369

    1984 doi

  30. [38]

    P., & van Woerden, H

    Wakker, B. P., & van Woerden, H. 1991, A&A, 250, 509

    1991

  31. [39]

    P., York, D

    Wakker, B. P., York, D. G., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 298, doi: 10.1086/523845

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.