Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Secret of Longevity: Protoplanetary Disks as a Source of Gas in Debris Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that gas-rich debris disks can be primordial remnants: initially massive, weakly turbulent, small-grain-depleted protoplanetary disks survive beyond 10 Myr, peak in lifetime near 2 solar masses, and keep accreting as long…

desk verdict A careful 1D extension of the authors' 0D small-grain-depleted disk model: the conditional longevity claim is internally supported, but the whole result leans on an unmodeled premise—early and persistent small-grain depletion that switches off FUV photoevaporation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17114 v2 pith:QRCQAHNF submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Wataru Ooyama , Riouhei Nakatani , Takashi Hosokawa , Hiroto Mitani , Neal J. Turner This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksdebrisphotoevaporationdiskevolutionaccretionsignaturesprimordialgasoriginsmall-graindepletionA-typestars
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 asks whether the gas seen in old debris disks can be leftover from the original protoplanetary disk rather than freshly released by colliding planetesimals. Using one-dimensional disk evolution simulations that include stellar evolution and time-varying photoevaporation, it argues that gas can survive beyond 10 Myr, and near 2 solar masses even past 100 Myr, if the disk started massive (about 10% of the stellar mass), is only weakly turbulent ($\alpha \ll 10^{-2}$), and has lost its very small grains and carbon-rich molecules (PAHs) early. If that is right, the primordial-origin scenario is alive for a defined subset of gas-rich disks around early A stars, and ongoing accretion should still be detectable in those systems. This matters because it converts a long-standing tension over debris-disk gas into falsifiable predictions about accretion and grain depletion.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-dimensional secular evolution equation for the gas surface density with separate terms for turbulent accretion, magnetohydrodynamic disk winds, and photoevaporation, using the standard $\alpha$-parameter prescription in which turbulent stress is set by a dimensionless number $\alpha$. The load-bearing element is stellar evolution: for a $2\,M_\odot$ star the disappearance of the surface convective layer at about 4 Myr sharply cuts the X-ray and magnetic EUV radiation that powers photoevaporation, while for 1 and 5 solar-mass stars the radiation stays strong at different epochs. With weak turbulence ($\alpha \sim 8 \times 10^{-5}$), accretion is slow enough that this radiation drop lets the disk survive far beyond the usual few-million-year dispersal timescale; the assumed early depletion of small grains and PAHs is what removes far-ultraviolet photoevaporation from the competition.

What would settle it

Run the same disk evolution with a self-consistent model of carbonaceous grain growth, radial drift, and far-ultraviolet photoelectric heating: if realistic starting grain populations do not fall below roughly 0.1--1 percent of interstellar abundance before the far-ultraviolet luminosity rises at 1--3 Myr, the long-lived population becomes too rare to explain the observed gas-rich debris disks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a protoplanetary disk with a depleted population of very small grains and carbon-rich molecules (PAHs) can evolve into a gas-rich debris disk instead of dispersing within 10 Myr. In the model, weak turbulent stress ($\alpha \sim 8 \times 10^{-5}$) and a massive initial disk ($M_{\mathrm{disk}}\sim 0.1\,M_*$) let gas persist; for a $2\,M_\odot$ host, the surface convective zone disappears around 4 Myr, collapsing the stellar X-ray and magnetic EUV output and therefore the photoevaporation rate, so the disk retains gas at 10--1000 au for more than 100 Myr. The same model predicts that accretion continues as long as the disk survives, with rates around $10^{-11}$--$10^{-10}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for $2\,M_\odot$ hosts after 10 Myr, and it estimates CO masses comparable to the most massive gas-rich debris disks around early A stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the very smallest dust grains and carbon-rich molecules are removed early and stay gone, so far-ultraviolet starlight cannot heat the disk and drive photoevaporation; that removal is not modeled self-consistently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gas can survive beyond 10 Myr for all stellar masses considered, provided the disk starts massive ($M_{\mathrm{disk}}\sim 0.1\,M_*$) and weakly turbulent ($\alpha \ll 10^{-2}$), with the longest lifetimes exceeding 100 Myr at $2\,M_\odot$.
  • The long-lived gas sits at roughly 10--1000 au, matching the ring-like radial extents of gas observed in gas-rich debris disks.
  • Accretion persists as long as the disk survives, so searching for accretion signatures is a direct way to distinguish primordial from secondary gas origins.
  • The estimated CO masses in the long-lived models overlap the observed range for the most massive gas-rich debris disks around early A stars.
  • The same evolution can explain old accreting disks around low-mass stars, including Peter Pan disks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not model small-grain depletion; an explicit consequence of its logic is that the timing and completeness of that depletion, rather than initial disk mass alone, selects which disks become long-lived. Coupling grain growth and drift to the same evolution calculation would turn the scenario into a predicted population fraction.
  • The 2--3 solar-mass peak implies a physical filter: only intermediate-mass stars lose their surface convective zone early enough to cut X-ray and EUV photoevaporation before the disk is gone, so the observed A-star bias in gas-rich debris disks may be partly a longevity selection effect rather than only a detection bias.
  • The appendix's result that accretion-generated EUV can shorten lifetimes toward 10 Myr suggests the longest survivors may need accretion-inhibiting processes such as inner planets or magnetization; future accretion observations could therefore constrain unseen planetary architecture, not just gas origin.
  • For low-CO debris disks, the secondary-origin scenario may still win; the model's parameter requirements make primordial gas a minority outcome, so a mixed population is the most plausible observational reality.
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 explores the primordial-origin scenario for gas in debris disks by simulating 1D secular evolution of protoplanetary disks that are assumed to be depleted in very small grains and PAHs. The model includes viscous accretion, MHD disk winds, EUV/X-ray photoevaporation with time-dependent stellar evolution, and wind shielding. The authors find that initially massive disks (M_disk ~ 0.1 M_*) with weak turbulence (alpha << 1e-2) can survive beyond 10 Myr, with the longest lifetimes around 2 M_sun, that gas persists at roughly 10-1000 au, and that accretion continues as long as the disk survives. They compare estimated CO masses to gas-rich debris disks and argue that searching for accretion signatures can distinguish primordial from secondary gas origins. The paper is an extension of the one-zone model of Nakatani et al. (2023) to a spatially resolved model and is framed as a plausibility study for a specific, long-lived disk population.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete pathway for the primordial-origin scenario, explaining the relatively high incidence of gas-rich debris disks around early A stars and offering a unified explanation for long-lived accreting disks including Peter Pan disks. The work is valuable for its systematic parameter survey, its inclusion of MHD wind shielding, its spatial predictions that can be compared with ALMA observations, and its explicit, falsifiable prediction that accretion should persist in old gas disks. The simulations are internally consistent and the parameter variations are transparent; the conditional claim 'if small grains are depleted early and persistently and alpha is small, disks can survive beyond 10 Myr' is defensible. The main weakness is that the central premise, early and persistent small-grain depletion, is not modeled self-consistently, so the paper's broader conclusions about observational plausibility rest on an external, unverified condition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.3 and 4.3] The central claim that disks survive beyond 10 Myr depends on neglecting FUV-driven photoevaporation, justified by the assumption that very small grains and PAHs are depleted. This depletion is not simulated: the paper states in Section 4.3 that the threshold abundance of 0.1-1% of ISM is uncertain and that no self-consistent calculation including grain growth and FUV photoevaporation is performed. The same section notes that FUV photoevaporation becomes significant at 1-3 Myr for 2-3 M_sun stars as FUV luminosity rises with stellar evolution. For the longevity result to apply, depletion must occur before this rise and persist across the disk. The observational evidence cited is suggestive but does not establish the required timing or spatial extent. This is the load-bearing external condition of the paper, and it needs to be addressed directly, for example by coupling a grain evolution model or by computing the epoch of depletion relative to the FUV rise, or by explicitly restricting the conclusions to disks where such early depletion can be demonstrated.
  2. [Appendix A and Figure 14] The main-text claim of a pronounced lifetime peak at 2 M_sun is substantially weakened by the authors' own EUVACC models, where 4% of accretion energy converted to EUV radiation flattens the stellar-mass dependence and reduces lifetimes to about 10 Myr for all stellar masses. Since the model predicts ongoing accretion, accretion-generated EUV is not a negligible perturbation; it removes the distinctive A-star peak that the paper emphasizes in the abstract and introduction. The appendix is clearly written, but the main conclusions and the abstract should be qualified to reflect that a plausible and internally motivated process erases the central longevity trend. At minimum, the abstract should state that the >10 Myr lifetimes and the 2 M_sun peak apply only when accretion-generated EUV is small.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Figure 13] The estimated CO masses of 0.06-0.6 M_Earth are quoted as comparable to the most massive gas-rich debris disks, but this estimate assumes interstellar carbon abundance and neglects photodissociation and carbon chemistry. The authors do describe this as an upper limit in the text, but the abstract and Section 5 present the alignment without this caveat. The comparison is therefore weaker than the summary suggests. I recommend rewording the conclusions to state that the predicted CO masses are order-of-magnitude upper limits that are consistent with the most massive observed disks only if CO survives efficiently, and that thermochemical modeling is needed for a quantitative comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The text uses 'MIRact-2' once in the discussion of Figure 9; this should be 'MRIact-2' for consistency with Table 1 and the rest of the paper.
  2. [Section 3.1.1] The sentence 'The remaining mass in 10-100 au disperses finally, which is no later than 2 Myr' appears inconsistent with Figure 3 and with the quoted lifetimes of roughly 15-20 Myr for FID-1 and FID-5; this is likely a typo for '20 Myr' and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.2, Equation (6)] In the paragraph following Equation (6), the second occurrence of 'On the left-hand side, the first and second terms' should read 'On the right-hand side' to match the physical meaning.
  4. [Table 1] The entry 'Rcut1-N' lists rcut as '30 × N', which is ambiguous because N denotes the stellar mass suffix; the caption or table should explicitly state that rcut = 30 au × (M_*/M_sun).
  5. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'unless such a survey has not already been undertaken' is confusing; it should be rephrased to state whether such a survey has already been conducted or to recommend one without the double negative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: longevity and accretion are computed outcomes of the stated 1D transport equations, not reconstructions of the target observations; the small-grain-depletion premise is an acknowledged modeling limitation rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a 1D numerical integration of Eq. (11), with the viscous stress (Eq. 2), MHD disk wind (Eqs. 3-10), and EUV/X-ray photoevaporation (Eqs. 12-18) all specified from explicit prescriptions and prior literature. The headline claim, that initially massive, low-alpha, small-grain-depleted disks can survive beyond 10 Myr with a lifetime peak near M* = 2 M_sun, is not obtained by fitting any parameter to the debris-disk observations used for comparison. The CO-mass estimates are rough post-hoc conversions using interstellar abundances, and the accretion-rate comparison with observations is likewise a comparison, not a calibration. The only element that could superficially look inherited is the omission of FUV photoevaporation, justified by small-grain depletion in Section 2.3 ('Following Nakatani et al. 2023, we do not incorporate FUV photoevaporation in the present study, as we are primarily interested in small-grain-depleted disks, where FUV photoevaporation is ineffective.') and cited to the authors' prior work for the depletion threshold. That is a premise and a caveat, not a circular reduction: the 1D calculation still must show that EUV, X-ray, and wind-driven dispersal alone do not destroy the disk within 10 Myr, and the result depends quantitatively on the stellar-evolution tracks and photoevaporation rates used. Section 4.3 explicitly acknowledges that the depletion threshold is uncertain and that no self-consistent calculation including both grain growth and FUV photoevaporation has been performed. This makes the central claim externally conditional, but the claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no output is recovered from the target data by fitting. Self-citations to Nakatani et al. 2018a,b and Nakatani et al. 2023 are present and are load-bearing in setting the small-grain-depletion premise, but they are prior published calculations of the heating threshold rather than an unverified assertion, and the present paper extends their 0D scenario to a 1D model with independent spatial and temporal structure. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited; the main risk is model dependence on an unmodeled physical condition, which is a robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of domain assumptions rather than on fitted parameters: the most consequential are early and persistent depletion of very small grains and PAHs (which removes FUV photoevaporation), the adopted stellar X-ray and EUV evolutionary tracks (which create the 2 M_sun peak), and the 0.1 suppression factor for X-ray photoevaporation. These inputs are taken from prior work, including papers by the same group, but they are not tuned to the target result; the 1D integration itself is an extrapolation of those inputs. The absence of invented entities and the presence of clearly stated conditional assumptions make the model auditable, though not independently verified.

free parameters (8)
  • MRI turbulent stress alpha_rphi = 8e-5 inactive, 8e-3 active
    Set in Section 2.1 following Suzuki et al. (2016). The survival beyond 10 Myr requires alpha much less than 1e-2, so this choice is load-bearing.
  • MHD wind mass-loading floor Cw_0 = 1e-5 inactive, 2e-5 active
    Equation (5) and Table 1. These floors set the baseline wind mass loss; strong versus weak wind variants change lifetimes by factors of order two.
  • X-ray photoevaporation suppression factor = 0.1
    Section 2.3. Applied to Owen et al. (2012) rates based on Sellek et al. (2024); reduces a major dispersal channel and extends lifetimes.
  • MHD wind shielding column thresholds = 1e19 cm^-2 EUV, 1e21 cm^-2 X-ray
    Equation (15) and following text. Photoevaporation is set to zero beyond these column densities; turning shielding off shortens lifetimes (Figure 6).
  • Initial disk-to-star mass ratio Mdisk,0/M* = 0.1 fiducial, 0.03 and 0.01 variants
    Section 2.6 and Figure 10. Only the 0.1 ratio gives >10 Myr lifetimes for most stellar masses; lower ratios disperse within a few Myr.
  • Initial disk cutoff radius rcut = 30 au fiducial, 60 au in Rcut1
    Equation (22) and Table 1. Rcut1-2 doubles the outer radius and extends the lifetime beyond 150 Myr, showing sensitivity to initial size.
  • Stellar rotation period Prot = 3 days
    Equation (18) from Kunitomo et al. (2021). Together with convective turnover time, it sets the magnetic X-ray and EUV evolution, including the 4 Myr drop for 2 M_sun.
  • Accretion-generated EUV conversion efficiency = 4% in EUVACC models
    Appendix A. When included, this shortens 2-3 M_sun lifetimes to about 10 Myr, directly affecting the headline result.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption FUV photoevaporation is negligible in small-grain-depleted disks.
    Invoked in Section 2.3: the model omits FUV because very small grains and PAHs are depleted to a threshold estimated at 0.1-1% of ISM abundance (Section 4.3). The entire >10 Myr lifetime result depends on this depletion being realized early and persistently.
  • domain assumption Stellar X-ray and EUV evolution follows Kunitomo et al. (2021) tracks.
    Equations (16)-(18) adopt Prot=3 days, the LX-Rossby relation, and stellar evolution outputs from Kunitomo et al. (2021). The dip in LX and EUV at about 4 Myr for 2 M_sun is what creates the lifetime peak; if these tracks are wrong, the peak shifts.
  • domain assumption EUV and X-ray photoevaporation rates and suppression factors are correct.
    Section 2.3. The 0.1 suppression of Owen et al. (2012) rates is a large downward revision; the EUV base density uses Tanaka et al. (2013) rather than Hollenbach et al. (1994); these choices directly set dispersal timescales.
  • domain assumption MHD wind formulations of Suzuki et al. (2016) apply.
    Section 2.2. The transport and mass-loss prescriptions (Equations 3-10) come from Suzuki et al. (2016) and Bai (2013); shielding and wind strength depend on them.
  • domain assumption Shielding of stellar radiation by MHD wind column density follows simple thresholds.
    Equation (15) and thresholds Nw > 1e19 and 1e21 cm^-2 switch off EUV and X-ray photoevaporation. These thresholds are taken from Weder et al. (2023) and Alexander et al. (2014), and markedly increase lifetimes.
  • domain assumption No FUV, external photoevaporation, late infall, planet gaps, or chemistry are active in the relevant systems.
    Section 4.3 lists these omissions. External FUV could shorten lifetimes in clustered environments; late infall could lengthen; planet gaps can inhibit accretion. The authors restrict conclusions to isolated, small-grain-depleted systems.
  • domain assumption Initial disk surface density profile is a power law with exponential cutoff rcut=30 au.
    Equation (22) and Table 1. Disk mass outside rcut is negligible; increasing rcut to 60 au extends lifetimes past 150 Myr, so the assumed initial size is consequential.
  • domain assumption Standard dust opacity and dust-to-gas ratio remain valid despite assuming small-grain depletion.
    Section 2.4. The authors argue opacity mainly affects Tvis weakly and that tiny grains are depleted only in the atmosphere; this reconciles standard opacity with the depletion premise, but is an additional modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption CO mass estimate uses the interstellar carbon abundance of about 1e-4 as an upper limit.
    Section 4.2. The rough MCO is gas mass times this ratio; the authors note it is an upper limit because photodissociation is ignored. This assumption enters the comparison with observed debris disks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secret of Longevity: Protoplanetary Disks as a Source of Gas in Debris Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRCQAHNF

@misc{pith2026241117114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secret of Longevity: Protoplanetary Disks as a Source of Gas in Debris Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRCQAHNF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17114}
}
abstract

While protoplanetary disks (PPDs) are generally thought to disperse within several million years, recent observations have revealed gas in their older counterparts, debris disks. The origin of this gas remains uncertain, with one possibility being the unexpectedly long survival of PPDs (the primordial-origin scenario). To explore the plausibility of this scenario, we conduct 1D disk evolution simulations, varying parameters like stellar mass, disk mass, turbulent stress, and the model of magnetohydrodynamic winds, while incorporating stellar evolution to account for time-varying photoevaporation rates. Our focus is on disks where small grains are depleted, as these are potentially long-lived due to reduced far-ultraviolet photoevaporation. Our results show that gas in these disks can survive beyond 10 Myr regardless of the stellar mass, provided they are initially massive ($M_{\mathrm{disk}}\approx 0.1M_*$) with relatively weak turbulent stress ($\alpha \ll 10^{-2}$). The longest lifetimes are consistently found for $M_* = 2 M_{\odot}$ across a wide parameter space, with gas typically persisting at $\sim 10$--$10^3$ au. Roughly estimated CO masses for these disks fall within the observed range for the most massive gas-rich debris disks around early A~stars. These alignments support the plausibility of the primordial-origin scenario. Additionally, our model predicts that accretion persists for as long as the disk survives, which could explain the accretion signatures detected in old disks hosted by low-mass stars, including Peter Pan disks. Our finding also suggests that ongoing accretion may exist in gas-rich debris disks. Thus, searching for accretion signatures could be a key to determining the origins of gas in debris disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the time evolution of the X-ray lumi￾nosity LX and EUV photon emissivity ΦEUV for different central stars with M∗ = 1, 2, and 5M⊙. In the model with M∗ = 1M⊙, both the X-ray luminosity and EUV emissivity remain high until the age of ≳ 10 Myr. In the model with M∗ = 2M⊙, on the contrary, both LX and ΦEUV dramatically decrease at age ≃ 4 Myr. In the model with M∗ = 5M⊙, ΦEUV is initially small and then increases… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dependence of protoplanetary disk lifetimes on stellar mass. The blue line illustrates our 1D disk models using standard input physics (models FID in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Time evolution of the disk mass for the fiducial (FID) models. The blue, green, and red lines represent the models with different central stars with M∗ = 1, 2, and 5M⊙ (i.e., FID-1, 2, and 5), respectively. ration alone, and mass loss via MHD winds as follows: tacc(t) = Mdisk(t) M˙ acc(t) , (24) tpw(t) = Mdisk(t) M˙ pw(t) , (25) tpw,X(t) = Mdisk(t) M˙ pw,X(t) , (26) tmw(t) = Mdisk(t) M˙ mw(t) , (27) where M˙ acc is … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the gas surface density as functions of the distance from the host star. In each panel, the different lines correspond to the different epochs, for which the darker color represents the later snapshot. The top, middle, and bottom panels represent different…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of shielding the stellar radiation by MHD disk wind on the disk lifetime. The blue and thin dotted lines show the stellar-mass dependence of the disk lifetime of our fiducial models and one-zone models by Nakatani et al. (2023), respectively. The orange line rep…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of various timescales related to the disk dispersal. The top, middle, and bottom panels repre￾sent the fiducial models with the central star with 1, 2, and 5M⊙ (FID-1, 2, and 5 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of varying MHD disk wind models on the disk lifetime. The blue line shows the stellar-mass depen￾dence of the disk lifetime of our fiducial models. The cyan and green lines represent sDW and MRIact models, respec￾tively (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the surface density around the cen￾tral star with 2M⊙ with different MRI viscosity and MHD disk wind models. The top, middle, and bottom panels repre￾sent models FID-2, MRIact-2, and sDW-2, respectively (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of decreasing initial disk mass on disk lifetime. The solid, dashed, and dotted lines represent mod￾els FID, Mdisk0.03, and Mdisk0.01. supply from the outer region disperses due to photoevap￾oration around 10 au, impeding further mass inflow. The photoevaporati…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time evolution of dispersal timescales in mod￾els FID-2 (top), MRIact-2 (middle), and STDW-2 (bottom panel). The evolution of tacc, tpw, and tmw are presented in the same style as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time evolution of the dispersal timescales for models FID-2 (top-left), Mdisk0.01-2 (top-right), FID-5 (bottom-left), and Mdisk0.01-5 (bottom-right panel). The evolution of tacc, tpw, and tmw are presented in the same style as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the gas surface density for models FID-2 (top) and Rcut1-2 (bottom), where the initial mass distribution cut-off radii are rcut = 30 au and 60 au, respec￾tively (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (left): Time evolution of accretion rates for various models ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effect of EUV radiation generated by mass ac￾cretion ΦEUV,acc on the disk lifetime. The green line shows the stellar-mass dependence of the disk lifetime of EUVACC models (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: shows the evolution of the dispersal timescales in EUVACC models. The features shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Dependence of the disk lifetimes on stellar mass when the lifetime is inferred by NIR emission (see text). The blue, orange, cyan, and green solid lines represent FID, Noshield, sDW, and MRIact models. The blue dashed and dotted lines represent Mdisk0.03 and Mdisk 0.0…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2010, ApJ, 718, 558, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/558

    Acke, B., Bouwman, J., Juhász, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 558, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/558

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/1/558 2010

  2. [2]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Cieza, L. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475–496, doi: 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch021

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch021 2014

  3. [3]

    D., Clarke, C

    Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 229, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10294.x

    arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    J., Simon, J

    Armitage, P. J., Simon, J. B., & Martin, R. G. 2013, ApJL, 778, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L14

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l14 2013

  5. [5]

    2019, AJ, 157, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca1

    Arun, R., Mathew, B., Manoj, P., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca1

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca1 2019

  6. [6]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/96

    Bai, X.-N. 2013, ApJ, 772, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/96

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/96 2013

  7. [7]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 152, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/152

    Bai, X.-N., Ye, J., Goodman, J., & Yuan, F. 2016, ApJ, 818, 152, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/152

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/152 2016

  8. [8]

    W., & Dullemond, C

    Birnstiel, T., Ormel, C. W., & Dullemond, C. P. 2011, A&A, 525, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 Boutéraon, T., Habart, E., Ysard, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834016

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 2011

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Waters, L. B. F. M. 2023, SSRv, 219, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00949-z

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00093

    Burn, R., & Mordasini, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00093

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    E., Henning, T., et al

    Carmona, A., van den Ancker, M. E., Henning, T., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 853, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078536

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cc7

    Cataldi, G., Wu, Y., Brandeker, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cc7

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f3

    Cataldi, G., Aikawa, Y., Iwasaki, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f3

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M

    Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 485, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04891.x

    2001

  7. [15]

    Coleman, G. A. L., & Haworth, T. J. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L111, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa098

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Dent, W. R. F., Wyatt, M. C., Roberge, A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 1490, doi: 10.1126/science.1248726 20 Drążkowska, J., & Alibert, Y. 2017, A&A, 608, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731491 Drążkowska, J., Alibert, Y., & Moore, B. 2016, A&A, 594, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361...

    2014 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    P., Küffmeier, M., Goicovic, F., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Küffmeier, M., Goicovic, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832632

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Birnstiel, T., Huang, J., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Birnstiel, T., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf742

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 4117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2294

    Ercolano, B., Jennings, J., Rosotti, G., & Birnstiel, T. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2294

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170114, doi: 10.1098/rsos.170114

    Ercolano, B., & Pascucci, I. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170114, doi: 10.1098/rsos.170114

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Jayawardhana, R., & Oliveira, J. M. 2010, A&A, 510, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912810

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    Feiden, G. A. 2016, A&A, 593, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527613

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/99

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    2006, ApJS, 165, 568, doi: 10.1086/505468

    Furlan, E., Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., et al. 2006, ApJS, 165, 568, doi: 10.1086/505468

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Espaillat, C., et al

    Furlan, E., Luhman, K. L., Espaillat, C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/3 Garcia Lopez, R., Natta, A., Testi, L., & Habart, E. 2006, A&A, 459, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065575

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    C., van Dishoeck, E

    Geers, V. C., van Dishoeck, E. F., Visser, R., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 279, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078466

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Augereau, J

    Geers, V. C., Augereau, J. C., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064830

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    Gorti, U., Hollenbach, D., & Dullemond, C. P. 2015, ApJ, 804, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/29

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Stapper, L

    Grant, S. L., Stapper, L. M., Hogerheijde, M. R., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf128

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Sándor, Z., Ronco, M

    Guilera, O. M., Sándor, Z., Ronco, M. P., Venturini, J., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2020, A&A, 642, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038458

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    A., & Lada, C

    Haisch, Karl E., J., Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJL, 553, L153, doi: 10.1086/320685

    2001 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 Hernández, J., Hartmann, L., Megeath, T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1067, doi: 10.1086/513735

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Oya, Y., & Yamamoto, S

    Higuchi, A. E., Oya, Y., & Yamamoto, S. 2019a, ApJL, 885, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab518d

    doi

  26. [34]

    E., Sato, A., Tsukagoshi, T., et al

    Higuchi, A. E., Sato, A., Tsukagoshi, T., et al. 2017, ApJL, 839, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa67f4

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Saigo, K., Kobayashi, H., et al

    Higuchi, A. E., Saigo, K., Kobayashi, H., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 883, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d26

    doi

  28. [36]

    1994, ApJ, 428, 654, doi: 10.1086/174276

    Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., & Shu, F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 654, doi: 10.1086/174276

    1994 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Duchêne, G., & Matthews, B

    Hughes, A. M., Duchêne, G., & Matthews, B. C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 541, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Lieman-Sifry, J., Flaherty, K

    Hughes, A. M., Lieman-Sifry, J., Flaherty, K. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b04

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

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

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    E., & Aikawa, Y

    Iwasaki, K., Kobayashi, H., Higuchi, A. E., & Aikawa, Y. 2023, ApJ, 950, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc524

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    M., & Kenyon, S

    Kennedy, G. M., & Kenyon, S. J. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1210, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1210

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Kunitomo, M., & Takahashi, S

    Kimura, S. S., Kunitomo, M., & Takahashi, S. Z. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1531

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    K., & Yoshida, N

    Komaki, A., Fukuhara, S., Suzuki, T. K., & Yoshida, N. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.13316, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.13316

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2af Kóspál, Á., Moór, A., Juhász, A., et al

    Komaki, A., Nakatani, R., & Yoshida, N. 2021, ApJ, 910, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2af Kóspál, Á., Moór, A., Juhász, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/77

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Kama, M., & Matrà, L

    Kral, Q., Marino, S., Wyatt, M. C., Kama, M., & Matrà, L. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2923

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    F., et al

    Kral, Q., Wyatt, M., Carswell, R. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1361

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdb2a

    Kunitomo, M., Ida, S., Takeuchi, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdb2a

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    K., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Kunitomo, M., Suzuki, T. K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa087

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Carpenter, J

    Lieman-Sifry, J., Hughes, A. M., Carpenter, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 25, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/25

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2003, PASA, 20, 337, doi: 10.1071/AS03019

    Liffman, K. 2003, PASA, 20, 337, doi: 10.1071/AS03019

    2003 doi

  43. [51]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603

    1974 doi

  44. [52]

    Mamajek, E. E. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1158, Exoplanets and Disks: Their Formation and Diversity, ed. T. Usuda, M. Tamura, & M. Ishii (AIP), 3–10, doi: 10.1063/1.3215910

    2009 doi

  45. [53]

    F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 539, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09930 21

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    F., Mordasini, C., Testi, L., et al

    Manara, C. F., Mordasini, C., Testi, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936488

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Natta, A., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F., Natta, A., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037949

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1756

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 4409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3487

    Marino, S., Flock, M., Henning, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3487

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 2933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1216 Matrà, L., Öberg, K

    Marino, S., Matrà, L., Stark, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1216 Matrà, L., Öberg, K. I., Wilner, D. J., Olofsson, J., & Bayo, A. 2019, AJ, 157, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaff5b Matrà, L., MacGregor, M. A., Kalas, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 9, doi:...

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 573, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0606399

    2007 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    Michel, A., van der Marel, N., & Matthews, B. C. 2021, ApJ, 921, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bbb Moór, A., Curé, M., Kóspál, Á., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e4e Moór, A., Kral, Q., Ábrahám, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4272

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    2013, A&A, 549, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219522

    Schneider, G. 2013, A&A, 549, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219522

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    1994, ApJ, 421, 640, doi: 10.1086/173678

    Nakamoto, T., & Nakagawa, Y. 1994, ApJ, 421, 640, doi: 10.1086/173678

    1994 doi

  55. [64]

    2018a, ApJ, 857, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70b —

    Kuiper, R. 2018a, ApJ, 857, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70b —. 2018b, ApJ, 865, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad9fd

    doi

  56. [65]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0137

    Aikawa, Y. 2021, ApJ, 915, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0137

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    J., Hasegawa, Y., et al

    Nakatani, R., Turner, N. J., Hasegawa, Y., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed8

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    J., & Takasao, S

    Nakatani, R., Turner, N. J., & Takasao, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18461, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.18461 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2025, Planetary Systems, Version: 2025-01-9, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA12

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [68]

    2024, A&A, 692, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451908

    Okamoto, T., & Ida, S. 2024, A&A, 692, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451908

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    M., Merín, B., et al

    Oliveira, I., Pontoppidan, K. M., Merín, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 778, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/778

    2010 doi

  61. [70]

    E., Clarke, C

    Owen, J. E., Clarke, C. J., & Ercolano, B. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1880, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20337.x

    2012

  62. [71]

    E., & Kollmeier, J

    Owen, J. E., & Kollmeier, J. A. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1591

    2019 doi

  63. [72]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9839

    Pfalzner, S., Dehghani, S., & Michel, A. 2022, ApJL, 939, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9839

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bef

    Pfalzner, S., & Dincer, F. 2024, ApJ, 963, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bef

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    2022, A&A, 662, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243637

    Pinilla, P., Garufi, A., & Gárate, M. 2022, A&A, 662, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243637

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    W., & Henning, T

    Preibisch, T., Ossenkopf, V., Yorke, H. W., & Henning, T. 1993, A&A, 279, 577 Ribas, Á., Bouy, H., & Merín, B. 2015, A&A, 576, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424846 Ribas, Á., Merín, B., Bouy, H., & Maud, L. T. 2014, A&A, 561, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322597

    1993 doi

  67. [76]

    Richert, A. J. W., Getman, K. V., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty949

    2018 doi

  68. [77]

    2015, ApJ, 801, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/31

    Rigliaco, E., Pascucci, I., Duchene, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/31

    2015 doi

  69. [78]

    P., Schreiber, M

    Ronco, M. P., Schreiber, M. R., Villaver, E., Guilera, O. M., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2024, A&A, 682, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347762

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Brown, J

    Salyk, C., Herczeg, G. J., Brown, J. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/21

    2013 doi

  71. [80]

    D., Booth, R

    Sellek, A. D., Booth, R. A., & Clarke, C. J. 2020a, MNRAS, 498, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2519 —. 2020b, MNRAS, 498, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2519

    doi

  72. [81]

    D., Grassi, T., Picogna, G., et al

    Sellek, A. D., Grassi, T., Picogna, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00848, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00848

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [82]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  74. [83]

    Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Henning, T., & Hartmann, L. W. 2010, ApJ, 710, 597, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/597

    2010 doi

  75. [84]

    M., Kuchner, M

    Silverberg, S. M., Kuchner, M. J., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2016, ApJL, 830, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L28

    2016 doi

  76. [85]

    M., Wisniewski, J

    Silverberg, S. M., Wisniewski, J. P., Kuchner, M. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab68e6

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    V., Moór, A., Semenov, D

    Smirnov-Pinchukov, G. V., Moór, A., Semenov, D. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3146

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    2023, A&A, 670, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512

    Birnstiel, T. 2023, A&A, 670, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    K., Muto, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Suzuki, T. K., Muto, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1289 22

    2010 doi

  80. [89]

    2016, A&A, 596, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628955 —

    Guillot, T. 2016, A&A, 596, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628955 —. 2022, A&A, 668, C1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628955e

    2016 doi

  81. [90]

    Tanaka, K. E. I., Nakamoto, T., & Omukai, K. 2013, ApJ, 773, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/155

    2013 doi

  82. [91]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1748

    Tong, S., Alexander, R., & Rosotti, G. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1748

    2024 doi

  83. [92]

    M., Haldemann, J., Ronco, M

    Venturini, J., Guilera, O. M., Haldemann, J., Ronco, M. P., & Mordasini, C. 2020, A&A, 643, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039141

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    Vicente, S., Berné, O., Tielens, A. G. G. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 765, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L38

    2013 doi

  85. [94]

    D., Baines, D., Mendigutía, I., & Pérez-Martínez, R

    Vioque, M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Baines, D., Mendigutía, I., & Pérez-Martínez, R. 2018, A&A, 620, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832870

    2018 doi

  86. [95]

    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

  87. [96]

    2023, A&A, 674, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243453

    Weder, J., Mordasini, C., & Emsenhuber, A. 2023, A&A, 674, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243453

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    D., Fairlamb, J

    Wichittanakom, C., Oudmaijer, R. D., Fairlamb, J. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa169

    2020 doi

  89. [98]

    J., Benisty, M., & Andrews, S

    Winter, A. J., Benisty, M., & Andrews, S. M. 2024, ApJL, 972, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6d5d

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    J., Drake, J

    Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48

    2011 doi

  91. [100]

    T., & Saito, M

    Yasui, C., Kobayashi, N., Tokunaga, A. T., & Saito, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1013

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.