pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.19239 · v2 · pith:ERMII42Enew · submitted 2025-09-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Recalibration of the Hα surface brightness-radius relation for planetary nebulae using Gaia DR3: new distances and the Milky Way oxygen radial gradient

Oscar Cavichia , Hektor Monteiro , Miguel Cervi\~no , Adalberto R. da Cunha-Silva , Walter J. Maciel , Andr\'e F. S. Cardoso This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 22:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords planetary nebulaeGaia DR3 parallaxesoxygen radial gradientMilky Way chemical evolutionH alpha surface brightnessgalactocentric radiusGalactic barthin and thick disks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gaia DR3 recalibration shows the Milky Way's oxygen gradient breaks near the solar radius.

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

The paper recalibrates the H alpha surface brightness to radius relation for planetary nebulae by anchoring it to precise Gaia DR3 parallaxes. This produces reliable distances for 1130 objects, of which 415 have direct Bayesian distances. When these distances are applied to oxygen abundances measured in 231 disk planetary nebulae, the radial O/H gradient is found to change slope near 8 kpc. Inside that radius the gradient is flatter or slightly positive; outside it becomes steeper and negative. A reader would care because the shape of this gradient records how star formation and gas flows have varied across the Galactic disk over time.

Core claim

After recalibrating the H alpha surface brightness-radius relation with Gaia DR3 parallaxes, distances derived for 1130 planetary nebulae yield an oxygen-to-hydrogen radial gradient in the Galactic disk that is best described by segmented linear fits with a break near the solar radius of about 8 kpc, showing a flatter or slightly positive slope inward and a steeper negative slope outward. These breaks may arise from the superposition of distinct stellar populations associated with the thin and thick disks or from changes in star formation efficiency linked to the Galactic bar and the corotation resonance of the spiral arms. The two-dimensional O/H map in the Galactic plane further reveals a

What carries the argument

The recalibrated H alpha surface brightness-radius relation that converts observed surface brightness and angular size into physical radius and distance for planetary nebulae.

If this is right

  • The O/H radial gradient changes slope near the solar radius, being flatter or slightly positive inside 8 kpc and steeper negative outside.
  • This break may reflect changes in star formation efficiency driven by the Galactic bar or the corotation resonance of the spiral arms.
  • The breaks may result from the superposition of distinct stellar populations associated with the thin and thick disks.
  • The two-dimensional O/H distribution shows modest azimuthal asymmetry with enhanced abundances near the bar at positive longitudes and a bimodal structure between inner and outer solar regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Chemical-evolution models of the Milky Way must now incorporate non-axisymmetric structures such as the bar to reproduce the observed break in the gradient.
  • The same recalibration approach could be tested on other elemental gradients or on H II regions to check whether the break is a general feature of the disk.
  • If the inner positive slope holds, it would imply net inward migration of metal-rich gas or stars in the central few kiloparsecs.

Load-bearing premise

The recalibrated H alpha surface brightness-radius relation derived from a subset of PNe with Gaia DR3 parallaxes can be reliably applied to the full sample of 1,130 PNe without introducing systematic biases in the derived distances or the subsequent gradient fits.

What would settle it

Independent high-precision distances for several hundred of the same 1130 planetary nebulae, obtained from a future Gaia data release or from spectroscopic methods, that differ systematically from the recalibrated values would falsify the gradient results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.19239 by Adalberto R. da Cunha-Silva, Andr\'e F. S. Cardoso, Hektor Monteiro, Miguel Cervi\~no, Oscar Cavichia, Walter J. Maciel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: extinction in the visual band obtained in this work from the Bayestar (Green et al. 2019), Marshall (Marshall et al. 2006) and SFD (Schlegel et al. 1998) dust maps as a function of the extinction obtained from F16, as labeled. Right: the same as the right panel but excluding PNe that are 3σ from the identity line. F16, as a large number of PNe have accurate astrometric parallaxes are available. 2.2.1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Hα surface brightness–radius relation based on Gaia DR3 parallaxes and classifying the PNe according to the optical depth. The data and the lines are color-coded for optically thin, thick and intermediate cases, as labeled. The lines and the shaded regions represent linear fits and the 95% confidence intervals for each sub-class. The data are restricted to parallaxes uncertainties f ≤ 0.15. As given in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Recalibration of the Hα surface brightness–radius relation based on Gaia DR3 parallaxes and considering dif￾ferent fractional parallaxes uncertainties f, as labeled. The red line and the orange shaded region represent the linear fit and the 95% confidence interval, respectively. The blue line represent the linear fit obtained by F16 for reference. The data are color-coded by the ionized mass (see the text … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panels: unnormalized priors distributions using statistical distances from the Hα surface brightness– radius relation as recalibrated in this work. Right panels: respective unnormalized posterior distributions. The verti￾cal continuous line represents the median and the vertical dashed lines represent the 68% confidence intervals. The three sources have fractional parallax uncertainties f as la￾beled … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Comparison between heliocentric dis￾tances derived from this work (Dtw) using the Bayesian ap￾proach and the ratio of the heliocentric distances from Chor￾nay & Walton (2021) and this work, in logarithm for a bet￾ter visualization. Bottom panel: the same as in the top panel but for F16 distances. In both panels the horizontal dashed lines indicate the average difference in the compared distances… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Toomre diagram to identify halo, thin and thick disks PNe. Green, black and red semi-circles show constant values of the total Galactic velocities of 50, 70, and 220 km/s. The data are color-coded using the Vpec velocities. genitors were formed. However, for oxygen a small pro￾duction or depletion may be observed due to both the dredge-up episodes and the hot-bottom burning during the AGB phase (Ventura et… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the 419 PNe in the Galactic plane as seen from top view and using our Bayesian distances cal￾culated in Section 2.2.2. The color bar indicates the inter￾stellar extinction (AV ) as described in Section 2. The Milky Way spiral arms positions are from Reid et al. (2019) and the names are given at the bottom right. The shaded ellipse near the center represent the position of the Galactic bar a… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial abundance distribution for oxygen includ￾ing all objects in our sample. The PNe were classified as disk, bulge and halo with the number of PNe in each population indicated in parenthesis, as labeled. The vertical dashed line marks the Sun position at 8.122 kpc. The radial O/H distribution is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial O/H gradient for disk PNe. Top panel: a simple linear fit with the shaded region representing the 95% confidence interval (linear model). Middle panel: a fit con￾sidering a break in the radial distribution (one-break model). Bottom panel: a fit with two breaks (two-break model). The vertical dashed lines mark the position of the breaks and the shaded regions the 68% confidence interval. steps of 1 k… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: the log(O/H) + 12 abundance map inter￾polated using the 2D universal kriging algorithm. Bottom: the respective log(O/H) + 12 error map. In both panels the red x marks the position of the Sun and the red dashed semi￾circunference the solar radius. The gray ellipse centered in the origin represent the position of the Galactic bar after Wegg et al. (2015) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Radial abundance gradient for oxygen including all disk PNe with calculated Vpec, thin and thick disks PNe, in top, middle and bottom panels, respectively. In each panel the red line is the single linear fit and the shaded region the 95% confidence interval. slope across the Galactic disk. Previous results sug￾gest either a flattening of the oxygen gradient at large Galactocentric distances (e.g., Maciel … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The spatial distribution of chemical elements in the Galactic disk provides key constraints on models of galaxy evolution. However, studies using planetary nebulae (PNe) as tracers have been historically limited by large uncertainties in their distances. To overcome the long-standing distance uncertainties, we recalibrated the H$\alpha$ surface brightness-radius relation from Frew et al. with Gaia DR3 parallaxes, deriving distances for 1,130 PNe of which 415 have Bayesian distances based on Gaia DR3 parallaxes. The O/H radial gradient for 231 disk PNe is fitted considering three models: a single linear gradient and segmented linear fits with one or two breaks. The segmented fits indicate a change in slope near the solar radius (R ~8 kpc), with a flatter or slightly positive gradient inward and a steeper negative gradient outward. This feature may reflect changes in star formation efficiency driven by the Galactic bar or the corotation resonance of the spiral arms. The breaks in the metallicity radial gradients observed in this work may result from the superposition of distinct stellar populations associated with the thin and thick disks. The two-dimensional O/H distribution in the Galactic plane supports the adopted distances and reveals modest azimuthal asymmetry, with enhanced abundances near the bar at positive longitudes, and a bimodal abundance structure between the inner and outer solar regions. Our results provide new constraints on the chemical evolution of the Milky Way, the impact of non-axisymmetric structures, and the possible existence of distinct radial abundance regimes across the Galactic disk.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript recalibrates the Hα surface brightness-radius relation of Frew et al. using Gaia DR3 parallaxes, derives distances for 1,130 planetary nebulae (415 with direct Bayesian Gaia distances), and fits the O/H radial gradient for 231 disk PNe. It compares a single linear gradient to segmented linear models with one or two breaks, reporting a slope change near R ≈ 8 kpc (flatter or slightly positive inward, steeper negative outward) that may trace the Galactic bar or spiral-arm corotation; the work also presents the 2D O/H distribution in the plane.

Significance. If the recalibrated distances prove unbiased, the segmented gradient and azimuthal asymmetry results would supply useful new constraints on Milky Way chemical evolution, the role of non-axisymmetric structures, and possible thin/thick-disk population differences. The Gaia-based recalibration itself is a clear methodological advance over purely statistical distance scales.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (gradient fitting and sample): the claim that the segmented model with a break near R ~ 8 kpc is physically meaningful rests on distances for the 231 PNe that are largely extrapolated from the recalibrated SBR relation. The manuscript does not report a direct test (e.g., residuals versus Galactocentric radius or versus the 415-object Gaia subset alone) that would demonstrate the break is not an artifact of position-dependent bias in the calibration sample.
  2. [§3] §3 (recalibration procedure): the selection criteria and properties (morphology, luminosity, spatial distribution) of the Gaia-parallax subset used to recalibrate the SBR relation are not compared in detail to the full 1,130-PN sample. Without this comparison or a cross-validation exercise, the assumption that the relation applies uniformly to inner-bar and outer-disk PNe remains untested and load-bearing for the reported gradient break.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §5: the statement that the 2D O/H map 'supports the adopted distances' would be strengthened by an explicit reference to the relevant figure or table showing the azimuthal asymmetry.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: ensure consistent use of R (or R_g) for Galactocentric radius and explicit units in all tables and equations describing the SBR relation and gradient fits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address the major comments below and have updated the manuscript accordingly to include additional tests and comparisons.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (gradient fitting and sample): the claim that the segmented model with a break near R ~ 8 kpc is physically meaningful rests on distances for the 231 PNe that are largely extrapolated from the recalibrated SBR relation. The manuscript does not report a direct test (e.g., residuals versus Galactocentric radius or versus the 415-object Gaia subset alone) that would demonstrate the break is not an artifact of position-dependent bias in the calibration sample.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating the robustness of the break against potential biases in the extrapolated distances is important. In the revised manuscript, we have added an analysis of the SBR relation residuals as a function of Galactocentric radius for the 415-object Gaia calibration sample. We also include a new figure and discussion showing the O/H gradient fit performed solely on the subset of PNe with direct Gaia distances. This restricted fit exhibits a similar change in slope near R ≈ 8 kpc, supporting that the feature is not an artifact of the extrapolation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (recalibration procedure): the selection criteria and properties (morphology, luminosity, spatial distribution) of the Gaia-parallax subset used to recalibrate the SBR relation are not compared in detail to the full 1,130-PN sample. Without this comparison or a cross-validation exercise, the assumption that the relation applies uniformly to inner-bar and outer-disk PNe remains untested and load-bearing for the reported gradient break.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for a more detailed comparison to justify the extrapolation. The revised manuscript now includes a dedicated paragraph in Section 3 comparing the Gaia-parallax subset to the full sample in terms of morphology, luminosity, and spatial distribution. Additionally, we have performed a cross-validation test by randomly splitting the calibration sample into training and validation sets and verifying the consistency of the recalibrated relation. These additions strengthen the case for applying the relation across the disk. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper calibrates the Hα surface brightness-radius relation on a Gaia DR3 parallax subset (independent external data), derives distances for the full sample of 1130 PNe, and then fits the O/H radial gradient to a subset of 231 disk PNe. The gradient parameters are outputs only and do not enter the calibration step; no equation or claim reduces the final segmented-fit result to the calibration inputs by construction. No self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise for the slope-break claim, and the derivation remains self-contained against the external Gaia benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the empirical recalibration of the surface brightness-radius relation and the assumption that the selected PNe sample accurately represents the galactic disk for gradient analysis.

free parameters (1)
  • Parameters of the Hα surface brightness-radius relation
    The relation is recalibrated using Gaia DR3 parallaxes for a subset of PNe to derive distances for the larger sample.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Hα surface brightness-radius relation holds for planetary nebulae in the sample
    This is the basis for deriving distances from observed surface brightness and angular size.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5850 in / 1446 out tokens · 67083 ms · 2026-05-21T22:03:01.394263+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    ٶI s/A .&?ws

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    1992, Strasbourg - ESO catalogue of galactic planetary nebulae

    Acker , A., Marcout , J., Ochsenbein , F., Stenholm , B., & Tylenda , R. 1992, Strasbourg - ESO catalogue of galactic planetary nebulae. Part 1; Part 2 (Garching: European Southern Observatory)

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    1973, Akad \'e miai Kiad \'o , Budapest

    Akaike, H. 1973, Akad \'e miai Kiad \'o , Budapest

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    Ali , A., Algarni , E., Mindil , A., & Alghamdi , S. A. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac7545

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac7545 2022

  5. [5]

    M., Martin , R

    Andrievsky , S. M., Martin , R. P., Kovtyukh , V. V., Korotin , S. A., & L \'e pine , J. R. D. 2016, , 461, 4256, 10.1093/mnras/stw1631

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1631 2016

  6. [6]

    Z., Esteban , C., Garc \' a-Rojas , J., & M \'e ndez-Delgado , J

    Arellano-C \'o rdova , K. Z., Esteban , C., Garc \' a-Rojas , J., & M \'e ndez-Delgado , J. E. 2020, , 496, 1051, 10.1093/mnras/staa1523

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1523 2020

  7. [7]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., & et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L. 2015, , 127, 994, 10.1086/683116

    work page doi:10.1086/683116 2015

  9. [9]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  10. [10]

    S., Rood , R

    Balser , D. S., Rood , R. T., Bania , T. M., & Anderson , L. D. 2011, , 738, 27, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/27 2011

  11. [11]

    S., Wenger , T

    Balser , D. S., Wenger , T. V., Anderson , L. D., & Bania , T. M. 2015, , 806, 199, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/199

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/199 2015

  12. [12]

    Bensby , T., Feltzing , S., & Oey , M. S. 2014, , 562, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  13. [13]

    C., & Goddard , Q

    Bresolin , F., Ryan-Weber , E., Kennicutt , R. C., & Goddard , Q. 2009, , 695, 580, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/580

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/580 2009

  14. [14]

    2023, , 680, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347519

    Bucciarelli , B., & Stanghellini , L. 2023, , 680, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347519

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347519 2023

  15. [15]

    Bershady and David R

    Bundy , K., Bershady , M. A., Law , D. R., & et al. 2015, , 798, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

  16. [16]

    2002, Model Selection and Multimodel Inference : A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd edn

    Burnham, K., & Anderson, D. 2002, Model Selection and Multimodel Inference : A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd edn. (New York, NY: Springer New York : Imprint: Springer)

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    Cardoso , A. F. S., Cavichia , O., Moll \'a , M., & S \'a nchez-Menguiano , L. 2025, , 980, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9eab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9eab 2025

  18. [18]

    2019, , 873, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28e

    Carigi , L., Peimbert , M., & Peimbert , A. 2019, , 873, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28e 2019

  19. [19]

    W., Yong , D., Teixera de Almeida , M

    Carney , B. W., Yong , D., Teixera de Almeida , M. L., & Seitzer , P. 2005, , 130, 1111, 10.1086/432541

    work page doi:10.1086/432541 2005

  20. [20]

    Cavichia , O., Moll \'a , M., Costa , R. D. D., & Maciel , W. J. 2014, , 437, 3688, 10.1093/mnras/stt2164

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2164 2014

  21. [21]

    Chornay , N., & Walton , N. A. 2020, , 638, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037554

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037554 2020

  22. [22]

    2021, , 656, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142008

    ---. 2021, , 656, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142008

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142008 2021

  23. [23]

    S., Monteiro , H., L \'e pine , J

    Dias , W. S., Monteiro , H., L \'e pine , J. R. D., & Barros , D. A. 2019, , 486, 5726, 10.1093/mnras/stz1196

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1196 2019

  24. [24]

    1998, , 132, 13

    Durand , S., Acker , A., & Zijlstra , A. 1998, , 132, 13

    work page 1998

  25. [25]

    Easeman , B., Schady , P., Wuyts , S., & Yates , R. M. 2022, , 511, 371, 10.1093/mnras/stac017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac017 2022

  26. [26]

    Esteban , C., Carigi , L., Copetti , M. V. F., et al. 2013, , 433, 382, 10.1093/mnras/stt730

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt730 2013

  27. [27]

    2017, , 471, 987, 10.1093/mnras/stx1624

    Esteban , C., Fang , X., Garc \' a-Rojas , J., & Toribio San Cipriano , L. 2017, , 471, 987, 10.1093/mnras/stx1624

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1624 2017

  28. [28]

    2018, , 478, 2315, 10.1093/mnras/sty1168

    Esteban , C., & Garc \' a-Rojas , J. 2018, , 478, 2315, 10.1093/mnras/sty1168

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1168 2018

  29. [29]

    Statistical Methods for Astronomy

    Feigelson , E. D., & Babu , G. J. 2012, Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy , 10.48550/arXiv.1205.2064

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1205.2064 2012

  30. [30]

    M., & Mampaso , A

    Fern \'a ndez-Mart \' n , A., P \'e rez-Montero , E., V \' lchez , J. M., & Mampaso , A. 2017, , 597, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628423

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628423 2017

  31. [31]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw120

    Fragkoudi , F., Athanassoula , E., & Bosma , A. 2016, , 462, L41, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw120

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw120 2016

  32. [32]

    J., Boji c i \'c , I

    Frew , D. J., Boji c i \'c , I. S., & Parker , Q. A. 2013, , 431, 2, 10.1093/mnras/sts393

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts393 2013

  33. [33]

    J., Parker , Q

    Frew , D. J., Parker , Q. A., & Boji c i \'c , I. S. 2016, , 455, 1459, 10.1093/mnras/stv1516

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1516 2016

  34. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., Prusti , T., & et al. 2018, , 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 2018

  35. [35]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., Brown , A. G. A., & et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016

  36. [36]

    2023 a , , 674, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243511

    Gaia Collaboration , Recio-Blanco , A., Kordopatis , G., de Laverny , P., & et al. 2023 a , , 674, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243511

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243511 2023

  37. [37]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., Prusti , T., & et al. 2023 b , , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  38. [38]

    2014, , 566, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323198

    Genovali , K., Lemasle , B., Bono , G., et al. 2014, , 566, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323198

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323198 2014

  39. [39]

    P., Tremblay , P

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P. E., Cukanovaite , E., et al. 2021, , 508, 3877, 10.1093/mnras/stab2672

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2672 2021

  40. [40]

    K., Pilkington , K., Brook , C

    Gibson , B. K., Pilkington , K., Brook , C. B., Stinson , G. S., & Bailin , J. 2013, , 554, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321239

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321239 2013

  41. [41]

    2021, , 656, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141916

    Gonz \'a lez-Santamar \' a , I., Manteiga , M., Manchado , A., et al. 2021, , 656, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141916

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141916 2021

  42. [42]

    2018, , 615, L15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter , R., Amorim , A., Anugu , N., & et al. 2018, , 615, L15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 2018

  43. [43]

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

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  44. [44]

    R., Holtzman , J

    Hayden , M. R., Holtzman , J. A., & et al. 2014, , 147, 116, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/116 2014

  45. [45]

    Henry , R. B. C., Kwitter , K. B., Jaskot , A. E., Balick , B., & et al. 2010, , 724, 748, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/748

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/748 2010

  46. [46]

    Henry , R. B. C., & Worthey , G. 1999, , 111, 919, 10.1086/316403

    work page doi:10.1086/316403 1999

  47. [47]

    2024, , 60, 227, 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2024.60.02.03

    Hern \'a ndez-Ju \'a rez , D., Rodr \' guez , M., & Pe \ n a , M. 2024, , 60, 227, 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2024.60.02.03

    work page doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2024.60.02.03 2024

  48. [48]

    M., et al

    Jordi , C., Gebran , M., Carrasco , J. M., et al. 2010, , 523, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015441

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015441 2010

  49. [49]

    2018, , 616, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833647

    Kimeswenger , S., & Barr \' a , D. 2018, , 616, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833647

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833647 2018

  50. [50]

    L., & Barlow , M

    Kingsburgh , R. L., & Barlow , M. J. 1994, , 271, 257

    work page 1994

  51. [51]

    2015, , 580, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424599

    Kubryk , M., Prantzos , N., & Athanassoula , E. 2015, , 580, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424599

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424599 2015

  52. [52]

    L \'e pine , J. R. D., Cruz , P., Scarano , Jr., S., et al. 2011, , 417, 698, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19314.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19314.x 2011

  53. [53]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., & et al. 2018, , 616, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018

  54. [54]

    The astrometric solution

    Lindegren , L., Klioner , S. A., Hern \'a ndez , J., & et al. 2021, , 649, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021

  55. [55]

    F., Lin , L., et al

    L \'o pez-Cob \'a , C., S \'a nchez , S. F., Lin , L., et al. 2022, , 939, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac937b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac937b 2022

  56. [56]

    Abundance gradients in the galactic disk: space and time variations

    Maciel , W. J., & Costa , R. D. D. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 254, IAU Symposium, ed. J. Andersen , Nordstr \"o ara , B. m , & J. Bland-Hawthorn , 38P. 0806.3443

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  57. [57]

    Time variation of the O/H radial gradient in the galactic disk based on planetary nebulae

    Maciel , W. J., & Costa , R. D. D. 2013, , 49, 333. 1308.1884

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Radial abundance gradients from planetary nebulae at different distances from the galactic plane

    Maciel , W. J., Costa , R. D. D., & Cavichia , O. 2015, , 51, 165. 1505.07640

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Kinematic ages of central stars of planetary nebulae

    Maciel , W. J., Rodrigues , T. S., & Costa , R. D. D. 2011, , 47, 401, 10.48550/arXiv.1108.5307

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1108.5307 2011

  60. [60]

    2023, , 669, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244957

    Magrini , L., Viscasillas V \'a zquez , C., Spina , L., & et al. 2023, , 669, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244957

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244957 2023

  61. [61]

    J., Robin , A

    Marshall , D. J., Robin , A. C., Reyl \'e , C., Schultheis , M., & Picaud , S. 2006, , 453, 635, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 2006

  62. [62]

    P., Andrievsky , S

    Martin , R. P., Andrievsky , S. M., Kovtyukh , V. V., et al. 2015, , 449, 4071, 10.1093/mnras/stv590

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv590 2015

  63. [63]

    L., Rybski , P

    McCall , M. L., Rybski , P. M., & Shields , G. A. 1985, , 57, 1, 10.1086/190994

    work page doi:10.1086/190994 1985

  64. [64]

    E., Amayo , A., Arellano-C \'o rdova , K

    M \'e ndez-Delgado , J. E., Amayo , A., Arellano-C \'o rdova , K. Z., et al. 2022, , 510, 4436, 10.1093/mnras/stab3782

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3782 2022

  65. [65]

    H., Sbordone , L., Rojas-Arriagada , A., et al

    Minniti , J. H., Sbordone , L., Rojas-Arriagada , A., et al. 2020, , 640, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037575

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037575 2020

  66. [66]

    I., Cavichia , O., & et al

    Moll \'a , M., D \' az , \'A . I., Cavichia , O., & et al. 2019, , 482, 3071, 10.1093/mnras/sty2877

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2877 2019

  67. [67]

    A., Dias , W

    Monteiro , H., Barros , D. A., Dias , W. S., & L \'e pine , J. R. D. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 62, 10.3389/fspas.2021.656474

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.656474 2021

  68. [68]

    Murphy , B. S. 2014, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2014, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, H51K--0753

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Pagomenos , G. J. S., Bernard-Salas , J., & Pottasch , S. R. 2018, , 615, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730861

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730861 2018

  70. [70]

    Carlberg, R

    Parker , Q. A., Acker , A., Frew , D., & et al. 2006, , 373, 79, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10950.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10950.x 2006

  71. [71]

    2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3859, 10.21105/joss.03859

    Pilgrim, C. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3859, 10.21105/joss.03859

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03859 2021

  72. [72]

    S., & Tautvaiˇ sien˙ e, G

    Pilyugin , L. S., & Tautvai s ien \. e , G. 2024, , 682, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347032

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347032 2024

  73. [73]

    Reddy , A. B. S., Lambert , D. L., & Giridhar , S. 2016, , 463, 4366, 10.1093/mnras/stw2287

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2287 2016

  74. [74]

    J., Menten , K

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11 2019

  75. [75]

    F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    S \'a nchez , S. F., Kennicutt , R. C., Gil de Paz , A., & et al. 2012, , 538, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117353 2012

  76. [76]

    F., Rosales-Ortega , F

    S \'a nchez , S. F., Rosales-Ortega , F. F., Iglesias-P \'a ramo , J., & et al. 2014, , 563, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322343

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322343 2014

  77. [77]

    F., P \'e rez , I., & et al

    S \'a nchez-Menguiano , L., S \'a nchez , S. F., P \'e rez , I., & et al. 2016, , 587, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527450

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527450 2016

  78. [78]

    2018, , 609, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731486

    ---. 2018, , 609, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731486

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731486 2018

  79. [79]

    Maps of Dust IR Emission for Use in Estimation of Reddening and CMBR Foregrounds

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525, 10.1086/305772

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  80. [80]

    A., McGee , R

    Shaver , P. A., McGee , R. X., Newton , L. M., Danks , A. C., & Pottasch , S. R. 1983, , 204, 53

    work page 1983

Showing first 80 references.