Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Photometric Mapping of Carbonaceous/Siliceous Dust and Water Ice in the ISM with JWST: Applications to the Dense Sightlines

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 Three JWST imaging filters can measure the optical depth of the 3.0 μm water-ice, 3.4 μm aliphatic hydrocarbon, and 10 μm silicate absorption features, and calibrated photometry recovers water-ice and silicate optical depths within about…

desk verdict A practical, honest methods paper for wide-field JWST mapping of ice and silicate absorption, but the headline accuracy numbers are in-sample and need an out-of-sample check before they should be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17550 v1 pith:MTEVYGD5 submitted 2025-07-23 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

Burcu Günay , Karl D. Gordon , Joshua E. G. Peek , Marjorie Decleir , Dries Van De Putte , Kirill Tchernyshyov , Michael G. Burton This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA PACS 95.85.Hp98.38.Cp
keywords InfraredphotometryInterstellarmediumabsorptionJWSTNIRCamMIRIwatericesilicatedust
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces a photometric mapping method that trades spectral resolution for spatial coverage: for each of three infrared absorption features it uses one JWST filter centered on the feature and two continuum filters, then reads the feature strength as the logarithmic flux deficit relative to a local linear continuum. The aim is to show that this three-band scheme yields optical depths accurate enough to map the spatial distribution of water ice, aliphatic carbonaceous dust, and silicates over JWST imaging fields, at a small fraction of the observing time of integral-field spectroscopy. Using synthetic model spectra, the authors bound the method's biases and uncertainties, and using 17 observed dense-sightline spectra from the literature they show that calibrated photometric optical depths track reported spectroscopic values to within roughly 20–25% for water ice and 15–20% for silicates. If the claim holds, wide-field JWST imaging can deliver statistical maps of major grain components across the ISM and help constrain carbon and oxygen budgets locked in dust and ice.

What carries the argument

The machinery is three-band photometry with a local linear continuum. One filter (F300M, F335M, or F1000W) samples the absorption, two bracketing filters (Filter Set 1: F250M–F410M in the NIR and F770W–F1280W in the MIR) define a straight continuum line, and the optical depth is $\tau_p = -\ln(F(\Delta\lambda)/F_0(\lambda_0))$, where $F$ is the photon-weighted flux through the filter throughput and $F_0$ is the linearly interpolated continuum flux. The paper supplements this with polynomial calibration equations derived from Gaussian absorption templates whose central wavelengths and widths are varied over literature ranges; these equations convert raw photometric depths into estimates of spectroscopic or true optical depths. The local linear continuum is the load-bearing piece: it is what makes three filters sufficient, and it is also the main source of systematic error when the true continuum is curved, as it is for cool background sources whose spectra peak at longer wavelengths.

What would settle it

Take a dense sightline with a high-resolution JWST NIRSpec or MIRI/MRS spectrum, measure the true optical depths of the 3.0, 3.4, and 10 μm features with a proper continuum fit, then simulate three-band photometric fluxes through F300M, F335M, and F1000W with the F250M–F410M and F770W–F1280W continuum filters and compute the paper's τp, with and without its calibration equations. If, over many such sightlines, the calibrated photometric depths deviate from spectroscopic depths by more than roughly 25% for water ice or 20% for silicates on sources whose continua are not saturated or pathological, the central accuracy claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optical depth of a broad interstellar absorption feature can be measured from three-band JWST photometry almost as reliably as from low-resolution spectroscopy, provided the continuum under the feature is locally linear. For each feature the method places one filter on the absorption (F300M, F335M, or F1000W) and two bracketing filters (F250M/F410M in the NIR, F770W/F1280W in the MIR), estimates the continuum flux at the feature wavelength by linear interpolation, and computes $\tau_p = -\ln(F(\Delta\lambda)/F_0(\lambda_0))$. The authors validate this on model spectra with known optical depths and on the observed spectra of dense sightlines from the literature. They find that uncalibrated photometric optical depths agree with spectroscopic simulations to within roughly 16–18%, that calibration equations derived from model spectra bring calibrated depths into close agreement with spectroscopic simulations (residual differences of 5–15%), and that calibrated depths recover reported literature values to within about 20–25% for water ice and 15–20% for silicates once saturated sources are excluded. The method is less reliable for the 3.4 μm aliphatic hydrocarbon feature, whose optical depth is contaminated by the long-wavelength wing of the water-ice feature.

Load-bearing premise

The method reads the continuum under each absorption feature as the straight line joining exactly two filter measurements, so everything rests on that two-point line being the right continuum; for cool background sources whose spectra curve across the infrared, the resulting optical-depth error can be large, and the stated accuracy transfers only to sightlines whose continua resemble the modeled blackbody and polynomial shapes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wide-field JWST imaging can map water-ice, aliphatic-hydrocarbon, and silicate optical depths simultaneously for all background sources in a field, revealing relative abundance gradients across dense regions.
  • Column densities of –OH, –CH, and –SiO groups can be estimated from these maps through the Beer–Lambert law, at an observing cost far below integral-field spectroscopy.
  • The method is expected to perform better in translucent and diffuse sightlines, where water ice is weak and the 3.4 μm feature is less masked.
  • Calibrated photometric optical-depth maps reproduce the spatial gradients of spectroscopic and literature maps in the paper's synthetic field, so statistically meaningful maps can be made despite per-sightline scatter.
  • Residual discrepancies for the aliphatic hydrocarbon feature could be reduced with more realistic spectral models of the water-ice wing, which the paper identifies as the main contaminant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same three-band logic could be extended to other ice and dust features, such as the CO$_2$ or CO ice bands near 4.3 and 4.7 μm, provided suitable JWST filters bracket them, and the paper's bias-testing template could be reused directly.
  • The calibration polynomials are trained on a limited set of Milky Way sightlines; as JWST accumulates NIRSpec and MIRI/MRS spectra, those higher-resolution data could retrain the calibration and test the claimed 15–25% accuracy on same-field imaging.
  • A direct observational test would be to take NIRCam and MIRI imaging of a cloud with existing integral-field spectra, and compare three-band optical-depth maps with IFU-derived depths across the field.
  • For extragalactic applications, redshifted features would change the effective filter wavelengths, so the specific filter sets and calibration equations would need to be re-derived rather than transferred.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-band JWST photometric method (NIRCam/MIRI) to measure the optical depths of the 3.0 μm water-ice O–H feature, the 3.4 μm aliphatic C–H feature, and the 10 μm silicate Si–O feature, using one absorption filter and two continuum filters per feature with a local linear continuum approximation. The method is validated on synthetic spectra and on 17 spectra from Gibb et al. (2004). Uncalibrated comparisons give average |Δτps|/τs of 0.16, 0.14, and 0.18 for the three features. Polynomial calibrations are derived from 'optimal models' selected by minimizing Δτps on the same Gibb et al. dataset, and after calibration the paper claims ~20–25% accuracy for water ice and ~15–20% for silicates, with the aliphatic hydrocarbon feature remaining problematic. A synthetic field-of-view is used to demonstrate optical-depth mapping.

Significance. If the accuracy claim holds, this is a valuable, cost-effective method for wide-field mapping of dust and ice column densities with JWST, complementing IFU spectroscopy. The paper is transparent about its methodology, uses publicly available spectra, and provides a useful model-based exploration of filter-set choices and continuum/absorption profile uncertainties. The strongest positive elements are the explicit synthetic-photometry framework, the systematic comparison of filter sets, and the honest reporting of residual discrepancies. However, the central accuracy claim is currently supported only by an in-sample calibration/validation procedure, so the significance for practical survey applications is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, §5.3, Table 7] The calibration polynomials are derived from 'optimal models' whose CW/FWHM parameters were selected by least-squares minimization of Δτps on the Gibb et al. (2004) spectra, and the calibrated optical depths are then compared with spectroscopic and reported values from that same dataset. This is an in-sample validation. The central post-calibration accuracy claim (Section 7: roughly 20–25% for water ice and 15–20% for silicates) may therefore reflect fitting the calibration to this particular sample rather than a robust property of three-band photometry. Please provide a leave-one-out or external validation, or explicitly reframe the claim as an internal-consistency demonstration.
  2. [§3.2.4 and Eq. (5)] The two-point linear continuum approximation is load-bearing for the method, yet the model tests show mean |Δτ_cont| = 0.43 for the water ice feature and 0.22 for aliphatic hydrocarbons across modeled continua, with only partial reduction from the 'preliminary' blackbody-continuum and wing corrections described in Section 5.4. Because the calibration models adopt a flat continuum (Table 3), transfer of the stated accuracy to observed sightlines with curved continua (e.g., W3 IRS5) is untested. Please quantify the impact of realistic continuum shapes on calibrated optical depths or state the applicable range of spectral slopes.
  3. [§5.3, Table 9, §7] After calibration, the mean |Δτcr|/τr for the aliphatic hydrocarbon feature remains 8.05, and it approaches ~2 only after a series of ad hoc corrections (water-ice-wing subtraction, continuum correction, outlier exclusion) that the authors themselves describe as preliminary. The abstract and Section 7 claim that the method measures the 3.4 μm feature with 'reasonably accurate' optical depths, but the evidence does not support that claim for the aliphatic hydrocarbon feature. The paper should either restrict the accuracy claim to water ice and silicates or provide a calibrated aliphatic-hydrocarbon pipeline with demonstrated accuracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The text says the spectra set contains 17 background sources but then lists 19 names (including Mon R2 IRS 2, NGC 7538 IRS 1, and others); Table 4 contains 17 rows. Please reconcile the count and the list.
  2. [Abstract and §2] The method is photometric, not spectroscopic; describing it as 'low-resolution spectroscopic data' in the abstract is misleading. Consider phrasing such as 'low-resolution spectrophotometric information derived from imaging filters.'
  3. [§4.3 and Figure 4] The linear fits shown in Figure 4 include correlation coefficients but no fit parameters or uncertainties; adding the slopes, intercepts, and scatter would help the reader assess the strength of each relation.
  4. [§6 and Figure 6] The comparison of the synthetic optical-depth maps is entirely visual; a quantitative metric (e.g., recovery of the known gradient, per-feature RMS difference between photometric and reference maps) would strengthen the mapping claim.
  5. [§4.3.4] The paper notes that reported optical depths vary substantially between independent spectroscopic studies, yet the accuracy claims are expressed relative to the Gibb et al. (2004) reported values; please state explicitly which comparison (τs, τr, or τ0) is used as the ground truth for each stated accuracy number.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Post-calibration accuracy is in-sample: the calibration polynomials are selected by least-squares minimization on the same Gibb et al. (2004) spectra later used to report the improved residuals.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, 5.3 (Table 7, Table 9)]
    "Since a single spectral model cannot perfectly represent the diverse feature profiles of the observational spectra, we applied the Least Squares Method to identify models that minimize the average Δτps, thereby providing the most effective calibration equations for the data set (Gibb et al. 2004). ... After calibration, the agreement between the photometric optical depths and those derived from spectroscopic simulations improved ... The average Δτcs/τs values are found to be 0.15, 0.11, and 0.05 for the water ice, aliphatic hydrocarbon, and silicate features, respectively."

    The Least-Squares selection minimizes the very quantity (average |τp − τs|) that Section 5.3 then reports as the post-calibration residual on the same Gibb et al. (2004) spectra. The calibration polynomial Pps(x) is therefore a curve fitted to the training set, and the quoted Δτcs/τs values are training errors, not independent predictions. They provide no out-of-sample evidence that three-band photometry will achieve these accuracies on new JWST fields.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.4 and Section 7]
    "Following the additional refinements described in Section 5, and using the cleaned data set, the average Δτcr/τr is further reduced, reaching 0.14 for silicate feature and 0.19 for water ice feature ... after calibration, the photometric method can provide reasonable estimates of −OH abundances in water ice and −SiO abundances in silicates, yielding optical depth values close to the reported ones, with discrepancies of approximately 20–25% for the water ice and 15–20% for the silicate feature."

    The headline accuracy in Section 7 is reached only after applying the 'possible improvement approximations' of Section 5.4, namely blackbody continuum corrections, a water-ice wing correction, and removal of saturated sources. These corrections and exclusions are derived from the same 17-source dataset and the same optimal models used to build the calibrations, so the final 20–25% and 15–20% figures are post-fit, cleaned-sample statistics rather than validated predictions. The paper itself labels these refinements 'preliminary examples', yet Section 7 uses them to state the method's accuracy.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial independent content: the uncalibrated photometric-vs-spectroscopic comparison, the model-based uncertainty analysis for CW, FWHM, and continuum variations, and the mapping demonstration are not circular. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present. However, the central accuracy claim in the abstract and Section 7 — that after calibration the method yields roughly 20–25% (water ice) and 15–20% (silicate) discrepancies — rests on calibrations whose optimal model parameters were chosen by least-squares minimization of the very photometric-to-spectroscopic difference subsequently reported as improved agreement on the same Gibb et al. (2004) dataset. The additional refinements in Section 5.4 are also derived from the same dataset and from the same models, and the cleaned-sample exclusions further improve the reported numbers. Thus the post-calibration accuracy is an in-sample validation, not an out-of-sample prediction. The paper would need a held-out or leave-one-out evaluation, or application to independently measured JWST spectra, before the stated accuracy can be treated as a robust property of the method. This warrants a score of 6: partial circularity in the central validation claim, while other parts of the paper retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method has no new physics, but its calibrated accuracy rests on several fitted parameters (optimal model CW/FWHM values, calibration polynomial coefficients) that are tuned to the same validation dataset. The continuum and absorption profile assumptions are standard for the field but limit the generality of the quoted uncertainties.

free parameters (5)
  • Water ice optimal model FWHM = 0.50 micron
    Set to 0.50 micron in the optimal models (Table 3), adjusted from the standard model's 0.40 micron to minimize Delta_tau_ps on the Gibb et al. (2004) dataset.
  • Aliphatic hydrocarbon optimal model CW/FWHM = 3.43 micron / 0.17 micron
    Chosen by least-squares tuning to the observational dataset for calibration (Table 3, Section 5.1).
  • Silicate optimal model CW/FWHM = 9.70 micron / 2.17 micron
    Fitted to the Gibb et al. (2004) dataset to derive calibration equations (Table 3).
  • Calibration polynomial coefficients Pps and Pp0 = see Table 7 (quadratic coefficients per feature)
    Regression coefficients linking tau_p to tau_s and tau_0, derived from model spectra tuned to the same observational dataset used for validation.
  • Water ice to aliphatic hydrocarbon optical depth ratio = about 2
    Average tau_3.0/tau_3.4 ratio from the observational dataset, used to model the aliphatic feature in the NIR region (Section 3.1).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Beer-Lambert law converts optical depth to column density and underlies Equations 6-8.
    Used throughout for optical depth definitions.
  • domain assumption Absorption features can be represented as Gaussian profiles with CW/FWHM ranges taken from the literature.
    Equation A1 and Table 3; the accuracy estimates depend on these profile shapes.
  • domain assumption A linear fit between two continuum filters is sufficient to estimate the continuum at the absorption wavelength.
    Equation 5 in Section 2.3.1; Section 3.2.4 shows this is violated for curved continua.
  • domain assumption Continuum of background sources in dense sightlines is approximately a blackbody or a low-order polynomial.
    Section A.2 uses BB and polynomial continua to estimate continuum-related uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The adopted literature ranges for CW/FWHM capture the true variation of absorption features in dense ISM sightlines.
    Section A.1 and Table 3; if rare sightlines fall outside these ranges, the quoted uncertainties are underestimated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photometric Mapping of Carbonaceous/Siliceous Dust and Water Ice in the ISM with JWST: Applications to the Dense Sightlines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTEVYGD5

@misc{pith2026250717550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photometric Mapping of Carbonaceous/Siliceous Dust and Water Ice in the ISM with JWST: Applications to the Dense Sightlines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTEVYGD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17550}
}
abstract

We introduce a new photometric mapping method for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to measure the spatial distribution of carbonaceous dust, siliceous dust and water ice by using absorption features arising from the grains in the dense interstellar medium (ISM). Employing NIRCam and MIRI imaging filters, low-resolution spectroscopic data can be obtained to measure the optical depths of the 3.0-$\mu$m water ice -OH feature, the 3.4-$\mu$m aliphatic hydrocarbon -CH feature, and the 10-$\mu$m silicate -SiO feature for large fields of view. This method provides extensive statistical data of the grains across wide fields in the ISM at minimal observing cost. In this study, we present its application on observational data from the literature to validate the measured optical depths and simulations to assess the accuracy of the method under various conditions. We showed that the photometric method can be employed to obtain reasonably accurate measurements of optical depth. We demonstrate that JWST optical depth maps enable the independent exploration of abundance distributions of major grain components across a wide spatial coverage in the ISM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17550 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The photometric fluxes are illustrated, as an example, on the spectrum of the Galactic Center source Sgr A∗ (Gibb et al. 2004), with colored dots indicating the JWST filters used. The half power pass-band wavelengths of the filters are also illustrated in the background using filled areas with matching colors. The gray line represents the general continuum fit using photometric flux measurements from the selected co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Local linear continuum fitting (dashed lines) examples with Set 1 for the NIR region (left panel) and Set 1 for the MIR region (right panel) of the spectrum of Sgr A∗ (Gibb et al. 2004). The photometric fluxes measured at continuum and absorptions are indicated with filled circles, and the corresponding continuum flux estimations are indicated with unfilled circles. The half power pass-band wavelengths of the filter… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example spectral model for 1–30–µm wavelength range, including the water ice (3.0–µm), carbonaceous dust (3.4–µm), and silicate dust (10.0–µm, 18.0–µm) absorption features, is presented on a flat continuum. The normalized spectrum of a Galactic Center source (Sgr A∗ ) is also shown for comparison. The photometric fluxes are shown on the model spectrum with colored dots indicating the employed JWST filters. The ha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The photometric measurements obtained using the spectral dataset from the literature (Gibb et al. 2004) are compared with their corresponding reference values to examine correlations (R is the correlation coefficient). The dotted lines indicate the equal τp and referen…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The photometric optical depths compared with the spectroscopic optical depths. In this comparison, calibrated optical depths are represented by filled dots, while uncalibrated optical depths are shown with unfilled dots. The polynomial fits show the trend between τp an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The maps illustrate the spatial gradient distribution of optical depths for water ice, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and silicates across the modeled FoV. The first row shows spectroscopic optical depths (τs), the second row presents photometric optical depths (τp), and the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The absorption feature templates at 3.0–µm, 3.35–µm, and 10.0–µm used in the standard model spectra (gray curves) are shown alongside those in the optimal models (gray dashed curves), which were obtained by adjusting the CW and FWHM parameters to achieve optimal calibr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The set of continuum profile templates: normalized blackbody curves (BBs) with temperatures ranging from T = 100– 10000 K, used for continuum modeling, is illustrated. The throughput functions of the NIRCam and MIRI filters are also presented with the color code at the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The model spectra are generated using normalized blackbody curves (BBs) with temperatures ranging from T = 100– 10000 K. Photometric optical depths at 3.0–µm, 3.35–µm, and 10.0–µm were obtained, employing the Filter Sets listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p02…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The photometric optical depths and spectroscopic optical depths at 3.0–µm, 3.35–µm, and 10.0–µm are measured using standard spectral models (to represent ideal conditions) and compared to investigate methodological biases. The gray dotted line represents equal τp and …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The photometric optical depths and spectroscopic optical depths are compared to investigate deviations across the applied optical depth ranges (τ0[3.0] = 0–2, τ0[3.4] = 0–1, and τ0[10.0] = 0–2.5). The optical depths obtained with standard spectra model parameters are …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The BBs (without absorption, τ0 = 0) are used to derive correlations between spectral index values and differences arising from the linear continuum fit approximation. The optical depths at 3.0–µm, 3.35–µm, and 10.0–µ are measured. The model spectra set was generated …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spectral models were generated with continua having continuum profiles with different slopes. An optical depth range of τ0 = 0–1 was applied. Photometric optical depths at 3.0–µm, 3.35–µm, and 10.0–µm were obtained and compared with the reference optical depths to exp…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The photometric fluxes are shown on the spectra set from the literature (Gibb et al. 2004) with colored dots indicating the employed JWST filters. The throughput functions of the NIRCam and MIRI filters used for the photometric flux measurements are also presented at …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Optical depths at 3.0–µm, 3.35–µm, and 10.0–µm are derived from literature spectra (Gibb et al. 2004). Polyno￾mial fits (colored dots) show the correlation between photometric and spectroscopic optical depths, with the gray dotted line representing equal τp and τs val…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The photometric optical depths, spectroscopic and reference optical depths at 3.0–µm, 3.35–µm, and 10.0–µm are measured using optimal spectral models and compared to investigate methodological biases. The polynomial equations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The maps show coordinates for each data distribution of the 3.0-µm water ice, the 3.4-µm aliphatic hydrocarbon, and the 10.0-µm silicate optical depth values in the scene (modeled FoV). The color of the dots (as indicated by the color bar) represents the optical depth…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Using Scattered Near-Infrared Light to Map Water Ice in Prestellar Cores with SPHEREx

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Coreshine SPHEREx spectra map 3 µm H2O ice across four prestellar cores; the two densest show an unexplained central drop in ice absorption that standard Bonnor-Ebert scattering models cannot reproduce.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7396 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Alberts, S., Lyu, J., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7396 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 Collaboration, Pri...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7396 2024

  2. [2]

    P., Cleeves, L

    Ballering, N. P., Cleeves, L. I., Boyden, R. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b7a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b7a 2025

  3. [3]

    B., Sturm, J

    Bergner, J. B., Sturm, J. A., Piacentino, E. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad79fc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad79fc 2024

  4. [4]

    D., Levy, R

    Bolatto, A. D., Levy, R. C., Tarantino, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad33c8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad33c8 2024

  5. [5]

    Boogert, A. C. A., Gerakines, P. A., & Whittet, D. C. B. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 541, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122348

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122348 2015

  6. [6]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1021

    Bouilloud, M., Fray, N., B´ enilan, Y., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1021

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1021 2015

  7. [7]

    2021, New Astronomy Reviews, 93, 101630, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101630

    Bryant, A., & Krabbe, A. 2021, New Astronomy Reviews, 93, 101630, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101630

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    A., Meyer, D

    Cardelli, J. A., Meyer, D. M., Jura, M., & Savage, B. D. 1996, ApJ, 467, 334, doi: 10.1086/177608

    work page doi:10.1086/177608 1996

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    E., Adamson, A

    Chiar, J. E., Adamson, A. J., Pendleton, Y. J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 570, 198, doi: 10.1086/339570

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/78

    Ricca, A. 2013, ApJ, 770, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/78

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    T., Rogantini, D., et al

    Costantini, E., Zeegers, S. T., Rogantini, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833820

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Dullemond, C

    Pontoppidan, K. M., & Dullemond, C. P. 2008, A&A, 486, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078589

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Dartois, E., Marco, O., Mu˜ noz-Caro, G. M., et al. 2004, A&A, 423, 549, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047067

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Caselli, P., et al

    Dartois, E., Noble, J. A., Caselli, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 359, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02155-x De Cia, A., Jenkins, E. B., Fox, A. J., et al. 2021, Nature, 597, 206, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03780-0

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Misselt, K

    Decleir, M., Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada147 D’Hendecourt, L. B., & Allamandola, L. J. 1986, A&AS, 64, 453

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Lai, T

    Donnelly, G. P., Lai, T. S. Y., Armus, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19397, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.19397

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    1995, A&A, 300, 503

    Mutschke, H. 1995, A&A, 300, 503

    1995

  10. [18]

    1986, Ap&SS, 128, 47, doi: 10.1007/BF00656018

    Dorschner, J., & Henning, T. 1986, Ap&SS, 128, 47, doi: 10.1007/BF00656018

    1986 doi

  11. [19]

    Draine, B. T. 2003a, ApJ, 598, 1017, doi: 10.1086/379118 —. 2003b, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    T., & Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., & Hensley, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 909, 94

    2021

  13. [21]

    2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0901.1691, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0901.1691

    Evans, N., Calvet, N., Cieza, L., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0901.1691, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0901.1691

    2009 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    J., Allen, L

    Evans, II, N. J., Allen, L. E., Blake, G. A., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 965, doi: 10.1086/376697

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    2001, A&A, 378, 228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011196

    Fabian, D., Henning, T., J¨ ager, C., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011196

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 71, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/71

    Koch, I. 2016, ApJ, 830, 71, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/71

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Gadallah, K. A. K. 2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 705, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2014.10.022

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Mihaila, I., Pohoata, V., et al

    Gerber, I. C., Mihaila, I., Pohoata, V., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf314

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, ApJS, 151, 35, doi: 10.1086/381182

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Battersby, C

    Ginsburg, A., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc34

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Dartois, E., & Mu˜ noz Caro, G

    Godard, M., Geballe, T. R., Dartois, E., & Mu˜ noz Caro, G. M. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117197

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc G¨ unay, B., Burton, M. G., Af¸ sar, M., & Schmidt, T. W. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa288 G¨ unay, B., Burton, M. G., Af¸ sar, M., & Schmidt, T. W. 2022, MNRAS,...

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    1998, Science, 282, 2204, doi: 10.1126/science.282.5397.2204

    Henning, T., & Salama, F. 1998, Science, 282, 2204, doi: 10.1126/science.282.5397.2204

    1998

  26. [34]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.02457. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.02457

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2021, ApJ, 906, 73

    2021

  28. [36]

    S., & Draine, B

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

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3394 31

    Hirashita, H. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3394 31

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    1994, A&A, 292, 641

    Henning, T. 1994, A&A, 292, 641

    1994

  32. [40]

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

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

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

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

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    J., & Tielens, A

    Kemper, F., Vriend, W. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, ApJ, 609, 826, doi: 10.1086/421339

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    Kim, S.-H., & Martin, P. G. 1996, ApJ, 462, 296, doi: 10.1086/177151

    1996 doi

  36. [44]

    1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 833

    Turnshek, D. 1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 833

    1986

  37. [45]

    M., Smith, R

    Maldoni, M. M., Smith, R. G., Robinson, G., & Rookyard, V. L. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 251, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01621.x

    1998

  38. [46]

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

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

    1977 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Colangeli, L., & Palumbo, P

    Mennella, V., Brucato, J. R., Colangeli, L., & Palumbo, P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 569, 531, doi: 10.1086/339229

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    Min, M., Waters, L. B. F. M., de Koter, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 462, 667, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065436

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    2004, A&A, 425, 529, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035807

    Moultaka, J., Eckart, A., Viehmann, T., et al. 2004, A&A, 425, 529, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035807

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    2000, ApJS, 128, 603, doi: 10.1086/313387

    Murakawa, K., Tamura, M., & Nagata, T. 2000, ApJS, 128, 603, doi: 10.1086/313387

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Fraser, H

    Noble, J. A., Fraser, H. J., Pontoppidan, K. M., & Craigon, A. M. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx329

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    J., & Allamandola, L

    Pendleton, Y. J., & Allamandola, L. J. 2002, The APJ Supplement Series, 138, 75, doi: 10.1086/322999

    2002 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c07

    Potapov, A., J¨ ager, C., Mutschke, H., & Henning, T. 2024, ApJ, 965, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c07

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Whittet, D

    Poteet, C. A., Whittet, D. C. B., & Draine, B. T. 2015, ApJ, 801, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/110

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, AJ, 167, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad306b

    Psaradaki, I., Corrales, L., Werk, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad306b

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    K., et al

    Ramburuth-Hurt, T., De Cia, A., Krogager, J. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.18986, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.18986

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Richardson, T., Ginsburg, A., Indebetouw, R., & Robitaille, T. P. 2024, ApJ, 961, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad072d

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Alberts, S., Shivaei, I., et al

    Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cd2

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    H., Blaylock, M., Decin, L., et al

    Rieke, G. H., Blaylock, M., Decin, L., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2245, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2245

    2008 doi

  52. [60]

    Robitaille, T. P. 2017, A&A, 600, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425486

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    Rocha, W. R. M., Rachid, M. G., McClure, M. K., He, J., & Linnartz, H. 2024, A&A, 681, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347437

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Chastenet, J., Sutter, J., et al

    Sandstrom, K. M., Chastenet, J., Sutter, J., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 944, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb0cf

    doi

  55. [63]

    M., Koch, E

    Sandstrom, K. M., Koch, E. W., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 944, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca972

    doi

  56. [64]

    D., & Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., & Sembach, K. R. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 279, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.279

    1996 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1dd8

    Shao, Z., & Jiang, B. 2024, ApJ, 963, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1dd8

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Dickinson, H

    Smith, Z. L., Dickinson, H. J., Fraser, H. J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 456, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02511-z

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    K., Whittington, A

    Speck, A. K., Whittington, A. G., & Hofmeister, A. M. 2011, ApJ, 740, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/93

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    Swinehart, D. F. 1962, Journal of Chemical Education, 39, 333, doi: 10.1021/ed039p333

    1962 doi

  61. [69]

    T., & Vacca, W

    Tokunaga, A. T., & Vacca, W. D. 2005, PASP, 117, 421, doi: 10.1086/429382 van Breemen, J. M., Min, M., Chiar, J. E., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811142 van Dishoeck, E. F., Kristensen, L. E., Mottram, J. C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A24, doi: 10.1051/0...

    2005 doi

  62. [70]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    S., Bourke, T

    Wang, K. S., Bourke, T. L., Hogerheijde, M. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322087

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    Wang, S., Li, A., & Jiang, B. W. 2015, ApJ, 811, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/38

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03021

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    Whittet, D. C. B. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1009, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1009

    2010 doi

  67. [75]

    P., Guillet, V., et al

    Ysard, N., Jones, A. P., Guillet, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348391

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    Zubko, V., Dwek, E., & Arendt, R. G. 2004, ApJS, 152, 211, doi: 10.1086/382351

    2004 doi

  69. [77]

    2021a, ApJS, 252, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcc6d —

    Zuo, W., Li, A., & Zhao, G. 2021a, ApJS, 252, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcc6d —. 2021b, ApJS, 257, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2cc3

    doi

Pith tools

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