Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Nature or Nurture: LMC-like Dust in the Solar Metallicity Galaxy M31

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M31's dust looks like the LMC's, not the Milky Way's

desk verdict Valuable new M31 UV extinction data with an LMC-like average that is real, but the interpretation outruns the data; the STIS extraction normalization is the main thing to check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08612 v1 pith:IPMS5DAR submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.GA

Geoffrey C. Clayton , Petia Yanchulova Merica-Jones , Karl D. Gordon , Marjorie Decleir , Claire E. Murray , Ralph Bohlin , Luciana Bianchi , Philip Massey
show 1 more author
Michael J. Wolff
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords UVextinctioninterstellardustAndromedaGalaxy(M31)30DoradusLargeMagellanicCloudLocalGroupgalaxies2175ÅbumpHST/STISspectroscopy
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 uses new Hubble Space Telescope STIS ultraviolet spectra of thirteen reddened OB stars in the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), together with four re-measured sightlines, to build a seventeen-line-of-sight map of UV dust extinction across galactocentric radii of 5 to 16 kpc. The central claim is that the average M31 UV extinction curve closely resembles the average curve toward the 30 Doradus star-forming region of the Large Magellanic Cloud, and differs clearly from the average Milky Way curve, even though M31 has roughly solar metallicity. The paper finds no correlation between extinction parameters and galactocentric distance, and gas-to-dust ratios that are LMC-like rather than Milky Way-like. The authors conclude that global galactic metallicity is less important than local environmental conditions such as density, UV radiation field, and shocks in setting the dust grain properties along any given sightline.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the model-atmosphere pair method: each reddened OB star's STIS spectrum and broadband photometry are fit by an unreddened non-LTE Tlusty stellar atmosphere model, extinguished by a Milky Way foreground component fixed by radio H I measurements and by an M31 component parameterized with the FM90 functional form (C2, B3, C4, bump centroid xo, bump width gamma) for ultraviolet wavelengths and the G23 R(V)-dependent model for optical and near-infrared wavelengths. A Bayesian MCMC fit with Gaussian priors anchored on literature spectral types and Milky Way parameter distributions returns the stellar, dust, and gas parameters. The FM90 parameters are the comparative currency: plotting C2, B3, C4, and gas-to-dust ratio against each other for M31 and the other Local Group galaxies is what reveals the LMC and 30 Doradus similarity.

What would settle it

Use the classical pair method on the same M31 stars: compare each reddened OB star to an unreddened M31 star of the same spectral type observed with the same instrument, so no atmosphere model sets the intrinsic spectrum. If the resulting average curve matches the Milky Way average instead of the 30 Doradus curve, the model-atmosphere treatment produced the claimed result. A second check: a larger M31 sample reaching galactocentric radii beyond 16 kpc would show whether the flat radial trend in FM90 parameters persists or whether a metallicity gradient appears at larger radii.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the average M31 extinction curve is very similar to the average LMC2-30Dor curve: the FM90 parameters C2 (UV slope), B3 (2175 Å bump amplitude), and C4 (far-UV curvature) for M31 lie close to the 30 Doradus values, steeper in the far-UV and weaker in the 2175 Å bump than the average Milky Way curve. It further claims that the same correlations between extinction parameters and gas-to-dust ratio seen in the Milky Way, LMC, and SMC also hold for M31, with N(HI)/A(V) ratios that match the LMC. Because M31 is a solar-metallicity spiral like the Milky Way, the authors argue the similarity to 30 Doradus means the Milky Way's dust curve, measured mainly within about a kiloparsec of the Sun, is not a universal template for metal-rich spiral galaxies, and that local environment rather than global metallicity controls the dust properties along each sightline.

Load-bearing premise

The intrinsic ultraviolet spectrum of each target star is correctly predicted by the Tlusty non-LTE model atmospheres given the fitted effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity, and the Milky Way foreground extinction is correctly subtracted; if either is wrong in a way that flattens the UV slope and weakens the 2175 Å bump, the LMC-like result would be an artifact of the fitting, not of M31's dust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the average M31 curve is genuinely 30 Doradus-like, radiative-transfer and SED-fitting codes for M31 and similar spirals should use LMC and 30-Dor-type dust rather than the standard Milky Way R(V)-dependent extinction law.
  • The lack of a galactocentric trend implies that radial metallicity gradients, where they exist, do not straightforwardly translate into radial dust-property gradients.
  • The shared parameter correlations across the Milky Way, LMC, SMC, and M31 support a single family of extinction curves with overlapping dust grain properties across Local Group galaxies.
  • The Milky Way extinction database, drawn mostly from sightlines within about one kiloparsec of the Sun, may not represent dust throughout the Milky Way disk, so MW-based extinction templates need external checks.
  • The seventeen sightlines provide a new benchmark sample: future M31 extinction measurements can be compared directly to these curves and to the LMC2-30Dor average.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editorial extension: because the target stars are young OB stars, the sample is biased toward spiral arms and active star-forming complexes; a test of the 'local conditions beat metallicity' claim would be UV extinction measurements toward older, more uniformly distributed stars or background quasars in M31, which the paper itself notes are still lacking.
  • A second extension: if 30-Dor-like dust is common in star-forming regions of solar-metallicity spirals, then derived dust masses and star formation rates from SED fits that assume Milky Way dust may be systematically off for M31 and similar galaxies; this is not computed in the paper.
  • A third extension: comparing extinction curves toward quiescent versus active M31 sightlines at fixed metallicity would isolate the role of UV radiation and shocks, a test the current sample's spiral-arm bias cannot cleanly perform.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents HST/STIS G140L and G230L spectroscopy of 13 newly observed reddened OB stars in M31 and re-analyzes four earlier sightlines, yielding UV extinction curves for 17 lines of sight spanning galactocentric distances of 5 to 16 kpc. The extinction curves are derived by forward-modeling the spectra and photometry with Tlusty stellar atmospheres, an FM90/G23 extinction model, a fixed MW foreground, and MCMC parameter estimation. The main claims are that the average M31 extinction curve closely resembles the LMC2-30Dor average rather than the Milky Way average, that no correlation is found between extinction parameters and galactocentric distance despite the inferred M31 metallicity gradient, and that local environmental conditions may be more important than global metallicity in setting dust properties.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a significant observational step: it extends resolved UV extinction-curve mapping to a solar-metallicity spiral galaxy over a wide area, and it challenges the assumption that overall metallicity is the primary driver of dust properties. The paper is transparent and reproducible: the fitting code, reduced spectra, and average extinction curve are public; the MCMC procedures and priors are described; and the MW foreground is modeled explicitly. The LMC-like shift is not manufactured by the priors, since the fitted average C2 is about two sigma above the Milky Way prior center. The main weakness is that the central comparison rests on the absolute spectral shape from a custom STIS extraction whose wavelength-dependent uncertainties are not yet quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2] The custom GWIDTH=3 STIS extraction is not validated at the level required by the central claim. The text states that the normalization to the standard 11-pixel extractions leaves residuals of "a few percent to 23% depending on the wavelength" for the G140L spectrum of j004546.81+415431.7, and only two wavelength windows are used for the normalization. Because C2 and B3 are derived from the absolute shape of these same spectra, a smooth few-percent-level flux error across 1150-1700 Angstrom can shift C2 by order unity at E(B-V) ~ 0.3 and can also perturb B3, which is enough to move the average curve from MW-like toward LMC-like. The quoted 5% RMS aperture correction is an overall scale and does not cover this wavelength-dependent effect. Please quantify the systematic uncertainty by fitting the FM90 parameters from the 11-pixel extractions, by varying the normalization windows, and by comparing the resulting average curve; if the systematics are comparable to or larger than the reported statistical errors, the LMC-like conclusion is not yet supported.
  2. [Section 2.3 / Table 3] The extinction curves are model-dependent in a second way, through the Tlusty non-LTE stellar atmospheres. Any error in the predicted continuum slope or line blanketing for B supergiants is absorbed into the FM90 parameters, and the paper itself notes that the method is sensitive to absolute flux calibration. Please add an explicit validation of the stellar-model step: for example, fit the same sightlines with an independent model grid or use the F275W and F336W photometry as independent anchors on the UV slope; report how much C2 and B3 change under these alternative assumptions.
  3. [Section 3.2 / 3.4] The absence of a detected radial trend is used to conclude that global metallicity is less important than local environment, but the sample is selected for E(B-V) > 0.25 and is composed of young stars in star-forming spiral-arm regions, with a small range of N(HI)/A(V) as the authors acknowledge. This supports "no gradient detected in this sample" rather than a general statement about the role of global metallicity in setting dust properties. Please either soften the global-metallicity conclusion or add a quantitative discussion of how the selection could mask a gradient.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] State explicitly whether the reported few-percent-to-23% variation is the residual after the normalization or the pre-normalization correction, and whether it is monotonic with wavelength.
  2. [Table 6] Clarify whether the listed average FM90 parameters are the mean of the individual sightline fits or the result of fitting the average extinction curve, since the two procedures need not give the same values.
  3. [Section 2.3, e6] Because e6 has extreme FM90 parameters and required excluding three photometric bands, provide a version of the average curve and of Figure 5 with e6 removed.
  4. [Figure 5] The caption sentence about the C1-C2 correlation is confusing because C1 is not listed in Table 6; explain that C1 is derived from C2 rather than fitted.
  5. [Figures 5-6] The units in the N(HI)/A(V) axis labels and in Table 5 should be typeset consistently (e.g., with the 10^21 H cm^-2 mag^-1 exponent formatted uniformly).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: M31 average extinction curve is a new measurement, and the LMC-like shape is not forced by priors or by construction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation—measured STIS spectra and PHAT photometry are forward-modeled with Tlusty non-LTE atmospheres plus FM90/G23 extinction laws, yielding posterior FM90 parameters, an average curve, and a comparison with MW/LMC/SMC averages—is not circular. The Gaussian priors on C2, B3, and C4 are centered on Milky Way values (Table 3), yet the fitted M31 average C2=1.21 lies about 1.9 sigma from the prior center (0.73), so the LMC-like flattening is not a prior artifact. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction; the average extinction curve is constructed from 17 independent sightlines and compared to externally measured LMC2-30Dor curves (Gordon et al. 2003). Self-citations (G23, FM90, the measure_extinction package, and previous M31 work) are standard methodological tools and are not the load-bearing justification for the central claim. The paper openly discloses sensitivity to absolute flux calibration and the e6 photometric excess; these are correctness risks, not definitional circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted extinction and stellar parameters (R(V), C2, B3, C4, xo, gamma, log Z, A(V), N(HI)) obtained with a forward model using Tlusty atmospheres, FM90/G23 extinction laws, and Gaussian priors anchored to Milky Way measurements. These are standard tools, but the priors and the model dependence mean the 'measured' curves are not raw observables. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • R(V) per sightline = 2.33 to 5.59
    Ratio of total to selective extinction, fit with Gaussian prior (3.0, 0.4) from Milky Way values (Table 3, Table 5); used to normalize curves and compare grain size.
  • C2 (UV slope) = 0.53 to 1.89; average 1.21
    FM90 UV slope, fit with prior (0.73, 0.25); central to LMC-like comparison.
  • B3 (2175 A bump amplitude) = 1.64 to 4.24; average 3.00
    FM90 bump strength, fit with prior (3.6, 0.6); compared to LMC2-30Dor.
  • C4 (FUV curvature) = -0.27 to 0.39; average 0.13
    FM90 far-UV curvature, fit with prior (0.4, 0.2).
  • xo (2175 A bump centroid) = 4.566 to 4.702 inverse microns
    FM90 bump position, fit with prior (4.59, 0.2).
  • gamma (2175 A bump width) = 0.64 to 1.24 inverse microns
    FM90 bump width, fit with prior (0.89, 0.08).
  • log(Z) stellar metallicity = -0.146 to 0.248
    Fitted with Gaussian prior (0, 0.2); used to argue sample has a small metallicity range and to compare with predicted radial gradient.
  • A(V) per sightline = 0.36 to 1.72 mag
    V-band extinction fitted for each star; used for gas-to-dust ratio and normalizing curves.
  • log N(HI) M31 = 21.52 to 22.05
    Hydrogen column from Ly-alpha fitting; used for gas-to-dust ratio comparisons.
  • Stellar parameters (log Teff, log g, vturb) = log Teff 4.185 to 4.513; log g 2.001 to 3.506; vturb 3.77 to 9.73 km/s
    Fitted with priors from spectral types; mismatch would be absorbed into extinction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Tlusty non-LTE stellar atmosphere models accurately represent intrinsic UV continua of target OB stars.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 as the unreddened comparison for the pair method; any model mismatch is absorbed into the extinction fit.
  • domain assumption Milky Way foreground extinction is correctly modeled from HI4PI H I column, fixed N(HI)/E(B-V) = 8.3e21 cm^-2 mag^-1, and the G23 R(V)=3.1 extinction law.
    Section 2.3 removes this foreground before measuring M31 dust; uncertainties in this correction are not propagated into FM90 errors.
  • domain assumption The FM90 parameterization, with Gaussian priors from Milky Way sightlines, adequately describes M31 UV extinction.
    Table 3 lists priors on R(V), C2, B3, C4, xo, gamma; comparisons to MW/LMC/SMC are made in this parameter space.
  • domain assumption Assumed M31 distance (785 kpc) and orientation (inclination 78.1 deg, PA 37.2 deg) yield correct galactocentric distances.
    Section 2.1; radial correlation analysis depends on these geometry values.
  • domain assumption Target stars are single, or unresolved companions do not affect the UV spectrum.
    Implicit in the pair method; e6 required excluding red photometry due to unknown excess, and e5/e9 lie in stellar associations (Section 2.3).
  • standard math The emcee MCMC sampling with 100,000 steps reliably characterizes the posterior.
    Section 2.3; statistical uncertainties quoted from posterior are conditional on the model and priors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nature or Nurture: LMC-like Dust in the Solar Metallicity Galaxy M31." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPMS5DAR

@misc{pith2026250708612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nature or Nurture: LMC-like Dust in the Solar Metallicity Galaxy M31},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPMS5DAR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08612}
}
read the original abstract

Using the {\it Hubble Space Telescope}/Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph, ultraviolet (UV) extinction curves have been measured in M31 along thirteen new sightlines, increasing the M31 sample to seventeen. This sample covers a wide area of M31 having galactocentric distances of 5 to 16 kpc, enabling the analysis of UV extinction curve variations over a large region of an external galaxy similar to the Milky Way with global galactic characteristics such as metallicity for the first time. No correlation is found between the extinction parameters and galactocentric distance which might be expected if there is a radial metallicity gradient in M31. Most of the new UV extinction curves presented here are significantly different from the average extinction curves of the Milky Way, LMC, and SMC, but the average M31 extinction curve is similar to the average extinction curve in the 30-Dor region of the LMC. The wide range of extinction curves seen in each individual Local Group galaxy suggests that global galactic properties such as metallicity may be less important than the local environmental conditions such as density, UV radiation field, and shocks along each sightline. The combined behavior of the Milky Way, LMC, SMC, and now M31 UV extinction curves supports the idea that there is a family of curves in the Local Group with overlapping dust grain properties between different galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08612 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The star locations are shown on the Spitzer/MIPS 24 µm image of M31 (K. D. Gordon et al. 2006) as it appears on the sky (top) and deprojected assuming an inclination of 78◦ (bottom). duces a revised G140L dark file, except for fitting in the X direction by linear interpolation. In addition to the revised dark image, the standard sky background position moves from the standard dis￾tance (BDIST) of 300 rows from the s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The observed data for J004420.52+411751.1 (e3) are shown in black in the top panels. In the left top panel, the full wavelength range is shown with the unextinguished model at the top (cyan), the MW foreground extinguished model in the middle (blue), and the MW foreground and M31 internal dust extinguished model overplotted on the observations (red). The right top panel gives the region around Lyα with the model wit… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The MW foreground-corrected M31 extinction curves are plotted sorted by UV slope in these units (i.e., C2/R(V )+1). The curves have been rebinned to a resolution of 200. The FM90 fits are plotted as non-solid lines. For clarity, the curves have been offset on the y-axis. Regions of low S/N, near Lyα, and around wind lines have been masked. UV. In fact, most of the extinction sightlines studied in the MW, on which al… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A(V ) versus R(V ) is shown in the upper left panel. The other panels show different FM90 parameters versus each other. The C1 versus C2 correlation is not shown as our fitting technique does not include C1, instead C1 is related to C2 using the known strong correlatio…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The behavior of the FM90 extinction parameters and A(V ) versus gas-to-dust ratio N(HI)/A(V ) are plotted. The plot of N(HI)/A(V ) versus A(V ) shows that generally the gas-to-dust ratio increases from the MW to the LMC to the SMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the average M31 extinction curve, in￾cluding all 17 sightlines, compared to the average curves of the MW, LMC2-30Dor, LMC-average, and SMC. The M31 average R(V ) = 3.20 and FM90 parameters are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bianchi, L. 2011, Ap&SS, 335, 51, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0612-2 11 https://github.com/karllark/hst m31 ext 12 https://github.com/karllark/measure extinction 13 https://github.com/karllark/extinction ensemble props 14 https://github.com/karllark/dust extinction

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-011-0612-2 2011

  2. [2]

    C., Bohlin, R

    Bianchi, L., Clayton, G. C., Bohlin, R. C., Hutchings, J. B., & Massey, P. 1996, ApJ, 471, 203, doi: 10.1086/177963

    work page doi:10.1086/177963 1996

  3. [3]

    2012, AJ, 144, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/142

    Bianchi, L., Efremova, B., Hodge, P., & Kang, Y. 2012, AJ, 144, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/142

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/142 2012

  4. [4]

    1998,, STIS Instrument Science Report 98-20, 31 pages

    Bohlin, R., & Hartig, G. 1998,, STIS Instrument Science Report 98-20, 31 pages

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900 14 Clayton et al

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  6. [6]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e2b

    Chen, Z., Williams, B., Lang, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e2b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e2b 2025

  7. [7]

    C., Gordon, K

    Clayton, G. C., Gordon, K. D., Bianchi, L. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/14

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/14 2015

  8. [8]

    C., Gordon, K

    Clayton, G. C., Gordon, K. D., & Wolff, M. J. 2000, ApJS, 129, 147, doi: 10.1086/313419

    work page doi:10.1086/313419 2000

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Martin, P

    Clayton, G. C., & Martin, P. G. 1985, ApJ, 288, 558, doi: 10.1086/162821

    1985 doi

  2. [10]

    Misselt, K. A. 2003, ApJ, 588, 871, doi: 10.1086/374316

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    2010, A&A, 511, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913297

    Thilker, D. 2010, A&A, 511, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913297

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Cox, N

    Cordiner, M. A., Cox, N. L. J., Evans, C. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/39

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJs, 200, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/18

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Andrews, J

    Decleir, M., Gordon, K. D., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe D’Onghia, E., & Fox, A. J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023251

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    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

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1985, ApJ, 299, 219, doi: 10.1086/163694

    1985 doi

  9. [17]

    L., & Massa, D

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 1990, ApJS, 72, 163, doi: 10.1086/191413

    1990 doi

  10. [18]

    L., & Massa, D

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2005, AJ, 130, 1127, doi: 10.1086/431900

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    L., & Massa, D

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320, doi: 10.1086/518158

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    Clayton, G. C. 2019, ApJ, 886, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Farr, W., Sinha, M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    Gordon, K. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2025,, v1.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15831876

    Gordon, K. 2025,, v1.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15831876

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Gordon, K., Decleir, M., & Gunasekera, C. M. 2025a,, v1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15831932

    doi

  18. [26]

    2025b,, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15831884

    Decleir, M. 2025b,, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15831884

    doi

  19. [27]

    D., Calzetti, D., & Witt, A

    Gordon, K. D., Calzetti, D., & Witt, A. N. 1997, ApJ, 487, 625

    1997

  20. [28]

    D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G. C. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1320, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    D., & Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., & Clayton, G. C. 1998, ApJ, 500, 816, doi: 10.1086/305774

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Bailin, J., Engelbracht, C

    Gordon, K. D., Bailin, J., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 638, L87, doi: 10.1086/501046

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Misselt, K

    Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., Bouwman, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Fitzpatrick, E

    Gordon, K. D., Fitzpatrick, E. L., Massa, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be1 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, AJ, 169, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb1bf

    Hubeny, I., Bohlin, R., Gordon, K., & Fitzpatrick, E. 2025, AJ, 169, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb1bf

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2003, ApJs, 146, 417, doi: 10.1086/374373

    Lanz, T., & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJs, 146, 417, doi: 10.1086/374373

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18779, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18779

    Li, Y., Jiang, B., & Ren, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18779, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18779

    2025 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/17

    Liszt, H. 2014, ApJ, 783, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/17

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69cc Ma ´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., & Rubio, M

    Liu, C., Kudritzki, R.-P., Zhao, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69cc Ma ´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., & Rubio, M. 2012, A&A, 541, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118712

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    D., & Fitzpatrick, E

    Massa, D., Savage, B. D., & Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1983, ApJ, 266, 662, doi: 10.1086/160813

    1983 doi

  33. [41]

    Wilson, C. D. 1995, AJ, 110, 2715, doi: 10.1086/117725

    1995 doi

  34. [42]

    F., & Smart, B

    Massey, P., Neugent, K. F., & Smart, B. M. 2016, AJ, 152, 62, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/62

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., Hodge, P. W., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2478, doi: 10.1086/503256

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Clayton, G

    Misselt, K. A., Clayton, G. C., & Gordon, K. D. 1999, ApJ, 515, 128, doi: 10.1086/307010

    1999 doi

  37. [45]

    1984, A&A, 132, 389

    Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1984, A&A, 132, 389

    1984

  38. [46]

    E., Caldwell, N., McDowell, J., & Harding, P

    Sanders, N. E., Caldwell, N., McDowell, J., & Harding, P. 2012, ApJ, 758, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/133

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

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

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Clayton, G

    Valencic, L. A., Clayton, G. C., & Gordon, K. D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 912, doi: 10.1086/424922 Dust in M31 15

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Clayton, G

    Valencic, L. A., Clayton, G. C., Gordon, K. D., & Smith, T. L. 2003, ApJ, 598, 369, doi: 10.1086/378802

    2003 doi

  43. [51]

    F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J

    Williams, B. F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJs, 215, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/9

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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