Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Disk in the circumstellar envelope of carbon Mira V Cygni

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The carbon star V Cygni hosts a compact equatorial dust disk or torus within 25 AU, a structure that polarized-light imaging shows is needed to explain its circumstellar envelope.

desk verdict First resolved scattered-polarized view of V Cyg's envelope reveals a real asymmetry, but the compact equatorial disk/torus interpretation is not uniquely required and the 880 nm fit is too poor to close the case. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10092 v1 pith:JGZPCQL3 submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Boris S. Safonov , Sergey G. Zheltoukhov , Andrey M. Tatarnikov , Ivan A. Strakhov , Victor I. Shenavrin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords CircumstellarenvelopesMiravariablestarsInfraredspectroscopySpeckleinterferometryDifferentialpolarimetryRadiativetransferCarbonDust
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

V Cygni is a carbon-rich Mira variable star whose dusty outflow feeds the interstellar medium, but the outflow's geometry has been essentially unconstrained. This paper combines new near-infrared photometry and spectra with archival data and resolves the dust envelope in scattered polarized light at 50–80 milliarcsecond scales using differential speckle polarimetry. The authors show that a spherical outflow alone cannot reproduce the resolved polarization images at 550, 625, and 880 nm; an inclined equatorial density enhancement, modeled as either a thin disk or a torus with dust mass between 5.7 and 7.6 thousandths of an Earth mass concentrated inside 25 AU, is required. If the claim holds, envelope geometry rather than only mass-loss rate shapes what we see, the star's luminosity is revised to about 21,000 solar luminosities at maximum, and the long-standing puzzle of V Cyg's anomalously high water content finds a natural source in an eroding disk of cometary bodies.

What carries the argument

The central observable is the differential polarization visibility (DPV), the ratio of the object's Fourier visibilities in two orthogonal polarizations; it maps the envelope's polarized scattered light at near-diffraction-limited resolution while suppressing the unpolarized star and atmospheric noise. The paper fits the DPV at 550, 625, and 880 nm together with the 0.4–160 micron spectral energy distribution using Monte Carlo radiative transfer, modeling the envelope as a spherical outflow plus an axisymmetric equatorial component: either a hydrostatic disk whose scale height shrinks with radius (power-law exponent about -1.3) or a Gaussian torus of major radius about 15 AU. The tapered disk or compact torus concentrates essentially all equatorial dust within 25 AU, which is what produces the observed two bright lobes and two shadows at position angles 135 and 315 degrees.

What would settle it

Image V Cyg at submillimeter or infrared interferometric resolution comparable to the inner 25 AU (about 45 milliarcseconds at the adopted 565 pc distance): a real disk or torus should appear as a compact elongated brightness distribution perpendicular to position angle 45 degrees and, if it contains gas, should show a rotational velocity gradient; a round, smooth, spherically symmetric source would falsify the equatorial-enhancement claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is that V Cyg's circumstellar envelope contains a compact, inclined equatorial density enhancement—a disk or torus whose material is concentrated within 25 AU—that is required to reproduce the resolved polarized scattered light. A spherical dusty outflow fits the spectral energy distribution but underproduces the observed polarization and its brightness trend across 550, 625, and 880 nm. The disk model (dust mass 7.6 thousandths of an Earth mass, optical depth about 33 at 0.5 micron along the equator, inclination about 68 degrees) and the torus model (5.7 thousandths of an Earth mass, major radius about 15 AU, thickness about 2.2 AU) both reproduce the SED and the observed two bright lobes and two shadows in the polarized images; the two geometries are degenerate with these data. The dust is 84–85 percent amorphous carbon with silicon carbide, and particle radii run from 5 to 950 nm following a power law of slope -3.5. The authors also use the model to improve the stellar luminosity estimate to 21,000 solar luminosities at maximum and 8,300 at minimum, and they note that the equatorial structure's mass is comparable to the envelope's water content, consistent with water being produced by destruction of cometary bodies.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation rests on the assumption that the asymmetric pattern is a single axisymmetric equatorial structure with its symmetry axis at position angle 45 degrees; if the resolved scattered light instead comes from a one-sided dust cloud, a spiral arm, or a bipolar outflow, the disk mass and the water-link story do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mass-loss rates derived from the SED alone are biased when a compact equatorial structure is present, so resolved scattered light becomes a necessary input for accurate AGB mass-loss estimates.
  • The equatorial enhancement does not participate in the outward stellar wind, meaning the constant-velocity, steady-outflow model applies only outside roughly 25 AU.
  • The disk or torus geometry, with inclination about 68 degrees and mass comparable to the envelope's water content, is consistent with water being produced by destruction of cometary bodies rather than by standard carbon-star chemistry.
  • The dust grain size distribution is pinned down more tightly than SED fitting alone allows: maximum grain radius about 0.95 micron and amorphous-carbon fraction about 85 percent.
  • The revised luminosity of about 21,000 solar luminosities at maximum and 8,300 at minimum changes the inferred mass-loss and evolutionary context of V Cyg.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 880 nm DPV residuals (reduced chi-squared around 4.1–4.4) show structure the axisymmetric models do not capture, so the true asymmetry may include non-axisymmetric features; a one-sided cloud or outflow is not explicitly tested and remains an open alternative.
  • If the compact equatorial structure is gravitationally confined by a companion, the star's unusual Gaia astrometric noise hints at binarity; radial-velocity or astrometric monitoring could decide this without waiting for new imaging.
  • The disk/torus degeneracy means the dust mass is only loosely fixed (roughly 5.7 to 7.6 thousandths of an Earth mass); submillimeter continuum or gas kinematics inside 25 AU would break the degeneracy and test the cometary-water scenario.
  • Applying the same differential speckle polarimetry to other carbon Miras could reveal whether compact equatorial disks are common, and whether their presence correlates with the anomalous water content seen in some carbon stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new JHKLM photometry and NIR spectra of the carbon Mira V Cyg, combined with literature data to construct the SED at maximum and minimum brightness, and differential speckle polarimetry (DSP) at 550, 625, and 880 nm that resolves scattered polarized light from the circumstellar envelope. The reconstructed polarized-intensity maps show a two-lobed, asymmetric reflection nebula. Using Monte Carlo radiative transfer (RADMC-3D), the authors first fit a spherical dusty envelope to the SED and then jointly fit the SED and DPV with models consisting of a spherical envelope plus an inclined equatorial density enhancement, either a disk or a torus. They conclude that the asymmetry requires a compact equatorial structure with dust mass 7.6e-3 M_Earth (disk) or 5.7e-3 M_Earth (torus), concentrated within 25 AU, inclined at about 68 degrees, and they link this structure to the anomalously high water content in the envelope. The paper also reports improved stellar luminosity estimates of ~21000 and ~8300 L_sun at maximum and minimum.

Significance. If the detection of an equatorial density enhancement in V Cyg is robust, it would be a valuable addition to the small sample of AGB stars with constrained non-spherical circumstellar geometry, with implications for binary/companion influence and the water-anomaly debate. The paper is methodologically strong in several respects: it uses full 3D Monte Carlo radiative transfer with polarization, develops a careful empirical noise model for DPV including correlated noise and a thinning procedure for the likelihood, applies MCMC with proper marginalization over nuisance noise parameters, and compares two geometric models (disk and torus) explicitly. The webMCRT links and reproducibility of the analysis are also assets. The main significance is limited, however, because the central claim depends on a narrow family of axisymmetric geometries and the highest-S/N (880 nm) data are poorly fitted by both proposed models, leaving the uniqueness and quantitative parameters of the 'disk' less secure than the abstract implies.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3.3–5.3.4, Tables 4–5, Fig. 8] The central claim that the DPV asymmetry 'requires' an equatorial density enhancement is not established because the model family is restricted to axisymmetric equatorial overdensities. Only spherical+disk and spherical+torus are fitted, with the symmetry axis fixed at PA=45° based on the observed appearance. No alternative non-axisymmetric or underdense geometries—such as a bipolar outflow cavity creating two bright lobes and a dark lane, a global ellipsoidal envelope, or a one-sided dust cloud—are tested. The DPV data show two bright lobes and two shadowed regions; such a pattern can in principle be produced by these alternative geometries. Since the derived disk/torus mass and the water/comet interpretation in §6 depend specifically on the equatorial-overdensity interpretation, the authors should either fit one or more plausible alternative geometries or explicitly demonstrate (e.g., with a parameterized family that includes both over- and under-dense equatorial structures) that the data discriminate between them.
  2. [§5.3.3, Table 4, Fig. 8] The 880 nm band, which has the highest signal-to-noise ratio and the most complete Fourier coverage, is poorly fitted by both models: reduced chi-squared is 4.41 for the disk model and 4.14 for the torus model, whereas the 550 and 625 nm fits are 0.70–2.21. The authors attribute this to 'deviations in morphology from symmetry around the axis PA=45°' (Section 5.3.3), which is effectively an admission that the model does not reproduce the primary detection dataset. The statement that the disk model 'provides consistent explanation for the entire set of observations' is therefore overstated. The authors should quantify the 880 nm residuals—are they localized in a particular Fourier region or image feature?—and assess how strongly the fitted disk/torus parameters and masses would change if the 880 nm data were excluded or fitted alone. Without such robustness tests, the claimed detection is not yet on solid ground.
  3. [§5.3.3, Eqs. (19)–(20), §6] Several quantities presented as results are fitted from the same data that motivate the disk, so they are not independent predictions. The concentration of disk mass within 25 AU follows from the fitted value of beta = -1.33 in Eq. (20), and the scale height h0, optical depth tau_disk, inclination epsilon, and even the PA=45° symmetry axis are all adjusted to the same DPV data used to claim the detection. The water/comet connection in §6 is explicitly conditional on this fitted geometry. The authors should clearly separate the model-independent observables (e.g., the existence and approximate orientation of the two-lobe asymmetry in the reconstructed polarized-intensity maps) from the model-dependent inferences (equatorial overdensity, mass, and radial concentration), and state the degree to which the water link would be affected if an alternative geometry were adopted. This separation would help the reader judge the robustness of the headline claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The phrase 'The ephemeris for maximum brightness are as follows' should be 'is as follows', and 'AA VSO' should be 'AAVSO' in the Facilities line and in the acknowledgments for consistency with the standard abbreviation.
  2. [§5.2.1, Eq. (14)] The statement that 'the optimal parameter values are weakly dependent on the adopted noise model' is not demonstrated; since the same data set is used to estimate both the astrophysical parameters and the noise parameters, it would be helpful to show a comparison of the astrophysical posteriors under at least two different noise covariance models.
  3. [§5.3.3] The text says the spherical-envelope parameters were fixed to their optimal values 'except for the optical depth τsph and the carbon fraction fC', but Table 4 shows that amax is also varied with a prior [0.2, 2.5] and an optimal value of 0.95 µm in the spherical+disk fit; please clarify which parameters are actually varied.
  4. [§4, Eq. (7)] The optimal filter is defined as G_opt(f) = 1/σ²(f); as written it has units of inverse variance, and a multiplicative normalization is not specified. Please clarify the normalization or note that any constant factor is absorbed when the filter is applied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equatorial disk/torus is a fitted interpretation of the DPV asymmetry, not an independent prediction, and the paper's derivation chain is self-contained.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: (1) the luminosity is obtained by direct integration of the compiled SED, independent of the envelope model; (2) the spherical envelope is fitted to the SED alone, and its resulting DPV prediction is then compared with the resolved-polarization data and found to fail — the paper states that 'the overall brightness predicted by the spherical envelope model is significantly lower than observed' (Section 5.3.1), which is a genuine falsifiable step; (3) only after that failure are the disk and torus introduced, with their parameters (tau_disk, h0, beta, epsilon, and torus equivalents) fitted to the joint SED+DPV likelihood, so the derived masses and the 'concentrated at stellocentric distances less than 25 AU' result are posterior estimates, not predictions claimed from first principles. The paper frames the whole exercise as 'an interpretation' of thermal and scattered radiation (Abstract), and it explicitly tests alternative beta values in Appendix C. The PA = 45 degree symmetry axis is fixed from the observed image (Section 5.3.3), but the paper does not present that choice as a derived prediction. The elevated 880 nm reduced chi-square values and the disk/torus degeneracy are acknowledged limitations (Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4); these are model-adequacy concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to the DSP method papers are methodological and are supported by external consistency checks cited in Section 4; no load-bearing astrophysical claim reduces to a self-citation chain. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 18 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The modeling rests on standard radiative transfer and Mie theory, plus domain assumptions about dust composition, size distribution, and geometry. The disk or torus is a hand-added component whose parameters are fitted to the same data that motivate it, which is the main circularity burden. No genuinely new physical entities such as new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (18)
  • fC (carbon mass fraction in dust) = 0.85 to 0.86
    Fitted to SED and DPV; determines dust optical properties.
  • amax (maximum dust grain radius) = 0.65 to 0.95 microns
    Fitted to SED and DPV; constrains the upper end of the grain size distribution.
  • b (spherical envelope density exponent) = -2
    Fitted in the spherical model (-1.97), fixed to -2 in disk/torus models assuming constant velocity outflow and steady mass loss.
  • rin (inner envelope radius) = 10 to 11.4 AU
    Fitted, bounded below by the assumed dust sublimation temperature of 1400 K.
  • tau_sph (optical depth at 0.5 microns) = 2.8 to 3.6
    Normalizes the spherical envelope density and dust mass.
  • sigma0, sigmac, l (SED noise model parameters) = sigma0=0.020, sigmac=0.071, l=0.060
    Nuisance parameters of the Gaussian-process noise model fitted jointly with astrophysical parameters.
  • tau_disk = 33
    Equatorial optical depth of the disk at 0.5 microns; normalizes the disk dust mass.
  • h0 (disk scale height at 10 AU) = 1.81 AU
    Fitted; controls the vertical thickness of the disk.
  • beta (disk scale-height radial exponent) = -1.33
    Fitted; the negative value makes the disk taper and concentrates most mass within 25 AU.
  • epsilon (inclination) = 68 degrees
    Fitted; the disk is close to edge-on.
  • tau_torus = 8.8
    Equatorial optical depth of the torus at 0.5 microns; normalizes the torus dust mass.
  • r_ma (torus major radius) = 14.7 AU
    Fitted; location of the torus peak density.
  • sigma_torus (torus thickness) = 2.17 AU
    Fitted; characterizes the Gaussian width of the torus.
  • Dust size distribution power-law exponent = -3.5
    Fixed by hand to a standard ISM value; not fitted.
  • Minimum dust grain radius = 0.005 microns
    Fixed by hand.
  • Outer envelope radius = 30000 AU
    Fixed by hand; poorly constrained by the data.
  • Disk/torus position angle = 45 degrees
    Fixed by hand based on the observed DPV appearance.
  • Reference radius r0 for disk scale height = 10 AU
    Arbitrary normalization for the disk scale height law.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Dust is composed of amorphous carbon and SiC, modeled as spherical particles with Mie theory.
    Adopted from Suh 2000 and Pegourie 1988; affects opacities and scattering matrices.
  • domain assumption Dust size distribution is a power law with exponent -3.5 between 0.005 microns and amax.
    Standard assumption for interstellar dust; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The spherical envelope is in steady state with constant mass-loss rate and outflow velocity, giving density proportional to r^-2.
    Used to fix b = -2 for the spherical component in the disk and torus models.
  • domain assumption Dust sublimation temperature is 1400 K, setting a minimum inner radius of 10 AU.
    Bounded the prior for rin; motivated by standard dust sublimation physics.
  • domain assumption The star is at 565 pc based on Gaia DR3 parallax, despite the high RUWE of 6.187.
    Distance affects the physical scale of the disk and the luminosity; the paper notes the RUWE anomaly but adopts the parallax distance.
  • domain assumption Interstellar extinction follows Cardelli et al. 1989 with AV = 0.74 mag; interstellar polarization is negligible.
    Used to de-redden the SED; the small extinction justifies neglecting interstellar polarization.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk or torus has the same dust properties as the spherical envelope.
    Acknowledged limitation in the conclusion; not independently constrained by the observations.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk is in hydrostatic equilibrium with scale height h(z) = h0 (rxy/r0)^beta.
    The fitted negative beta is counterintuitive and the torus model fits equally well, so this specific form is not uniquely required.
  • ad hoc to paper The position angle of the symmetry axis is fixed at 45 degrees based on the observed appearance.
    Reduces model freedom; residual deviations at 880 nm suggest this assumption is imperfect.
  • standard math Band-limited DPV noise is modeled by an exponential correlation with scale fl = 0.065 fc.
    Empirical fit to noise harmonics; used to construct the DPV likelihood and thinning scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disk in the circumstellar envelope of carbon Mira V Cygni." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGZPCQL3

@misc{pith2026250110092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disk in the circumstellar envelope of carbon Mira V Cygni},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGZPCQL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10092}
}
read the original abstract

AGB stars are the primary source of dust and complex molecules in the interstellar medium. The determination of outflow parameters is often hindered by the unknown geometry of the circumstellar environment, creating a demand for high-angular resolution observations. We use our NIR spectra and photometry of the carbon AGB star V Cyg, along with literature data, to construct its SED over a wide range of wavelengths. The dust envelope responsible for the IR excess was also resolved in scattered polarized light at angular scales of 50-80 mas using differential speckle polarimetry. We present an interpretation of the thermal and scattered radiation of the dust using models of a spherical dusty outflow (Mdust = 5.3e-7 M_sun) and an inclined equatorial density enhancement, either in the form of a disk (Mdust = 7.6e-3 M_earth) or a torus (Mdust = 5.7e-3 M_earth), which material is concentrated at stellocentric distances less than 25 AU. The dust material consists of amorphous carbon and SiC, with 84% of the dust being amorphous carbon. Dust particle radii range from 5 to 950 nm and follow a power law with an exponent of -3.5. Modeling of the envelope allowed us to improve the accuracy of stellar luminosity estimations: 21000 L_sun and 8300 L_sun at maximum and minimum brightness, respectively. The relation between the disk and the high water content in the envelope is also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lower part: JHKLM light curves. Upper part: color indices J−K, L−M. Short vertical lines above the hor￾izontal axis indicate the moments of spectral observations. vided by Zheltoukhov et al. (2020). Observations were conducted in cross–dispersion mode using 0.9 ′′ wide slit. A0V stars located at similar altitudes as the object at the time of observations were used as telluric standards. Absolute flux calibration was… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Differential polarimetric visibility of V Cyg. The rows correspond to observations in the 550, 625, and 880 nm bands, from top to bottom. The first four columns display the following DPV components: |RQ|, |RU |, argRQ, argRU . Spatial frequency is shown along the axes, with the displayed domain having a size of 2D/λ, where D is the telescope diameter and λ is the wavelength. The fifth column presents the image in po… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Noise characteristics of DPV RQ, RU for observations at 880 nm. a. R demodulated using the factor cos 18γ. Black lines indicate the ring zones used later in Section 5.3.2 for the noise correlation analysis. b. The two–point correlation of the noise as a function of the distance between the considered points. Different lines correspond to different ring zones (as described above). The red line shows the function exp(… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NIR spectra of V Cyg at maximum and minimum of brightness. The regions of strong telluric absorption bands are shaded in grey. The light grey band at a λ ≈ 1.14 µm marks the region, in which signal recovery is possible. standard interstellar reddening law, this corresp…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase curves of J, M magnitudes and J −K, K− L color indices. Blue lines show approximation by Fourier series containing terms of order of ≤ 3. in prominence, while the HCN+C2H2 band, on the con￾trary, becomes stronger. In contrast, the CO bands (λ = 2.29 µm) remain cl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SED of V Cyg at the brightness maximum and minimum. The inset shows two flux measurements made with IRAM (Castro-Carrizo et al. 2010). nation of point–like source (the star) and an extended envelope. Since the direct stellar radiation is unpolar￾ized, the Fourier trans…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Approximation of SED. a) Red squares represent the observed SED, while the black line shows the optimal model (corresponding to the median value of θ, as discussed in Section 5.2.2). b) Residuals R. Thick black line repre￾sents the optimal model, and the thin colored l…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of observed (right column) and modeled (left and centered column) images of the V Cyg dust envelope in polarized intensity. The first column corresponds to the model of a spherical envelope (Section 5.2). The second column corresponds to the model of a spher…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: a) Thinning mask in Fourier space, brightness is proportional to logarithm of weight. b) Covariance matrix for DPV noise. c) Logarithm of inverse of covariance matrix for DPV noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Models of spherical envelope with disk and spherical envelope with torus. a). SED. b): Decimal logarithm of density section for model with disk, white disk represents the star, black line — line of sight. c). Relative deviation of the model SED from the observed SED. …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The modeled images of the system at 880 nm, not convolved by the PSF. Left column: the polarized inten￾sity, right column: the total intensity. Upper row: the model of the spherical envelope, Section 5.2.2, lower row: the model of the spherical envelope and disk, Sect…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Corner plot of the posterior probability for parameters of the spherical envelope model, obtained using only the SED (Section 5.2). Parameters: amax — maximum radius of dust particle, fC — carbon fraction in dust material, τsph — optical depth in the envelope at λ = 0…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Corner plot of the posterior probability for parameters of the model of spherical envelope and disk, SED and DPV are taken into account (Section 5.2). Parameters: amax — maximum radius of dust particles, fC — carbon fraction in dust material, τsph — optical depth in s…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left column: correction factor ξ = SEDscat/SEDnoscat for SED, computed at nodes of the grid presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Z b Ma xyԱ YV\_M?/zz( QͫhEp3Z b<^c 1 +M[^bʻ#- a^

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    2004, , 415, 671, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034549

    Apai , D., Pascucci , I., Brandner , W., et al. 2004, , 415, 671, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034549

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034549 2004

  5. [5]

    Aringer , B., Girardi , L., Nowotny , W., Marigo , P., & Lederer , M. T. 2009, , 503, 913, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911703

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911703 2009

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    2001, , 369, 178, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010106

    Bergeat , J., Knapik , A., & Rutily , B. 2001, , 369, 178, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010106

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010106 2001

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    E., & Wood , K

    Bjorkman , J. E., & Wood , K. 2001, , 554, 615, 10.1086/321336

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, , 593, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628546

    Bujarrabal , V., Castro-Carrizo , A., Alcolea , J., et al. 2016, , 593, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628546

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  4. [12]

    2010, , 523, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014755

    Castro-Carrizo , A., Quintana-Lacaci , G., Neri , R., et al. 2010, , 523, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014755

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    2006, , 456, 1001, 10.1051/0004-6361:20064827

    Cherchneff , I. 2006, , 456, 1001, 10.1051/0004-6361:20064827

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, Stellar Polarimetry

    Clarke , D. 2010, Stellar Polarimetry

    2010

  7. [15]

    1979, , 186, 837, 10.1093/mnras/186.4.837

    Cohen , M. 1979, , 186, 837, 10.1093/mnras/186.4.837

    1979 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Mandel , K

    Czekala , I., Andrews , S. M., Mandel , K. S., Hogg , D. W., & Green , G. M. 2015, , 812, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/128

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, , 59, 337, 10.1146/annurev-astro-090120-033712

    Decin , L. 2021, , 59, 337, 10.1146/annurev-astro-090120-033712

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    Dominik , C., Min , M., & Tazaki , R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010. 2104.010

    2021

  11. [19]

    P., Juhasz , A., Pohl , A., et al

    Dullemond , C. P., Juhasz , A., Pohl , A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015. 1202.015

    2012

  12. [20]

    P., Price , S

    Egan , M. P., Price , S. D., Kraemer , K. E., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: MSX6C Infrared Point Source Catalog. The Midcourse Space Experiment Point Source Catalog Version 2.3 (October 2003) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: V/114. Originally published in: Air Force R...

    2003

  13. [21]

    R., & Szczerba , R

    Etma \'n ski , B., Schmidt , M. R., & Szczerba , R. 2020, Advances in Astronomy and Space Physics, 10, 7, 10.17721/2227-1481.10.7-11

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Tatarnikov , A

    Fedoteva , A. A., Tatarnikov , A. M., Safonov , B. S., Shenavrin , V. I., & Komissarova , G. V. 2020, Astronomy Letters, 46, 38, 10.1134/S1063773720010016

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Gillett , F

    Forrest , W. J., Gillett , F. C., & Stein , W. A. 1975, , 195, 423, 10.1086/153342

    1975 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211. 2208.00211

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    G., et al

    Garufi , A., Ginski , C., van Holstein , R. G., et al. 2024, , 685, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347586

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

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

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

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Groenewegen , M. A. T., Whitelock , P. A., Smith , C. H., & Kerschbaum , F. 1998, , 293, 18, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01113.x

    1998

  21. [29]

    Hackwell , J. A. 1972, , 21, 239

    1972

  22. [30]

    2018, , 26, 1, 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    H \"o fner , S., & Olofsson , H. 2018, , 26, 1, 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    V., et al

    H g , E., Fabricius , C., Makarov , V. V., et al. 2000, , 355, L27

    2000

  24. [32]

    2020, , 642, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038255

    Homan , W., Cannon , E., Montarg \`e s , M., et al. 2020, , 642, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038255

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    1983, , 21, 271, 10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.001415

    Iben , I., J., & Renzini , A. 1983, , 21, 271, 10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.001415

    1983

  26. [34]

    2010, , 514, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811

    Ishihara , D., Onaka , T., Kataza , H., et al. 2010, , 514, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    2010, , 524, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014514

    Kerschbaum , F., Lebzelter , T., & Mekul , L. 2010, , 524, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014514

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Kervella , P., Homan , W., Richards , A. M. S., et al. 2016, , 596, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629877

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    2016, , 462, 4464, 10.1093/mnras/stw1839

    Kornilov , V., Kornilov , M., Voziakova , O., et al. 2016, , 462, 4464, 10.1093/mnras/stw1839

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Potter , D., & Parise , B

    Kuhn , J. R., Potter , D., & Parise , B. 2001, , 553, L189, 10.1086/320686

    2001 doi

  31. [39]

    2016, , 588, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527049

    Lombaert , R., Decin , L., Royer , P., et al. 2016, , 588, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527049

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Matesic , M. R. B., Rowe , J. F., Livingston , J. H., et al. 2024, , 167, 68, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0fe9

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Melikian , N. D. 1996, Astrophysics, 39, 321, 10.1007/BF02077202

    1996 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, , 510, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912674

    Murakawa , K., Ueta , T., & Meixner , M. 2010, , 510, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912674

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Tatarnikov , A

    Nadjip , A. E., Tatarnikov , A. M., Toomey , D. W., et al. 2017, Astrophysical Bulletin, 72, 349, 10.1134/S1990341317030245

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso , E., Melnick , G., et al

    Neufeld , D. A., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso , E., Melnick , G., et al. 2010, , 521, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015080

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    2011, , 727, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L29

    ---. 2011, , 727, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L29

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    J., van Duinen , R., et al

    Neugebauer , G., Habing , H. J., van Duinen , R., et al. 1984, , 278, L1, 10.1086/184209

    1984 doi

  39. [47]

    T., Hoai , D

    Nhung , P. T., Hoai , D. T., Darriulat , P., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 035009, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad18a4

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Norris , B. R. M., Tuthill , P. G., Ireland , M. J., et al. 2012, , 484, 220, 10.1038/nature10935

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Bieging , J

    Oppenheimer , B. D., Bieging , J. H., Schmidt , G. D., et al. 2005, , 624, 957, 10.1086/429081

    2005 doi

  42. [50]

    1988, , 194, 335

    Pegourie , B. 1988, , 194, 335

    1988

  43. [51]

    2019 a , , 484, 5129, 10.1093/mnras/stz288

    Safonov , B., Lysenko , P., Goliguzova , M., & Cheryasov , D. 2019 a , , 484, 5129, 10.1093/mnras/stz288

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Zhang , M., et al

    Safonov , B., Millar-Blanchaer , M. A., Zhang , M., et al. 2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 028005, 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.2.028005

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05215, 10.48550/arXiv.2005.05215

    Safonov , B., Dodin , A., Burlak , M., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05215, 10.48550/arXiv.2005.05215

    2020 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    S., Dodin , A

    Safonov , B. S., Dodin , A. V., Lamzin , S. A., & Rastorguev , A. S. 2019 b , Astronomy Letters, 45, 453, 10.1134/S1063773719070065

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Lysenko , P

    Safonov , B. S., Lysenko , P. A., & Dodin , A. V. 2017, Astronomy Letters, 43, 344, 10.1134/S1063773717050036

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Strakhov , I

    Safonov , B. S., Strakhov , I. A., Goliguzova , M. V., & Voziakova , O. V. 2022, , 163, 31, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac36cb

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    N., Kazarovets , E

    Samus' , N. N., Kazarovets , E. V., Durlevich , O. V., Kireeva , N. N., & Pastukhova , E. N. 2017, Astronomy Reports, 61, 80, 10.1134/S1063772917010085

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2015, , 584, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527563

    Scicluna , P., Siebenmorgen , R., Wesson , R., et al. 2015, , 584, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527563

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

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

    1973

  52. [60]

    2020, in Ground-Based Astronomy in Russia

    Shatsky , N., Belinski , A., Dodin , A., et al. 2020, in Ground-Based Astronomy in Russia. 21st Century, ed. I. I. Romanyuk , I. A. Yakunin , A. F. Valeev , & D. O. Kudryavtsev , 127--132, 10.26119/978-5-6045062-0-2\_2020\_127

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    R., Hoffman , J

    Shrestha , M., Neilson , H. R., Hoffman , J. L., Ignace , R., & Fullard , A. G. 2021, , 500, 4319, 10.1093/mnras/staa3508

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  55. [63]

    C., Kraemer , K

    Sloan , G. C., Kraemer , K. E., Price , S. D., & Shipman , R. F. 2003, , 147, 379, 10.1086/375443

    2003 doi

  56. [64]

    2000, , 315, 740, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03482.x

    Suh , K.-W. 2000, , 315, 740, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03482.x

    2000

  57. [65]

    M., Zheltoukhov , S

    Tatarnikov , A. M., Zheltoukhov , S. G., Shenavrin , V. I., Sergeenkova , I. V., & Vakhonin , A. A. 2024, Astronomy Letters, 50, 53, 10.1134/S1063773724600176

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    1974, , 188, 545, 10.1086/152746

    Treffers , R., & Cohen , M. 1974, , 188, 545, 10.1086/152746

    1974 doi

  59. [68]

    1997 b , , 114, 2150, 10.1086/118635

    ---. 1997 b , , 114, 2150, 10.1086/118635

    1997 doi

  60. [69]

    2024, , 532, 734, 10.1093/mnras/stae1553

    Van de Sande , M., Walsh , C., Danilovich , T., De Ceuster , F., & Ceulemans , T. 2024, , 532, 734, 10.1093/mnras/stae1553

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    A., Feast , M

    Whitelock , P. A., Feast , M. W., & Van Leeuwen , F. 2008, , 386, 313, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13032.x

    2008

  62. [71]

    A., & Hartmann , L

    Whitney , B. A., & Hartmann , L. 1992, , 395, 529, 10.1086/171673

    1992 doi

  63. [72]

    Wiegert , J., Groenewegen , M. A. T., Jorissen , A., Decin , L., & Danilovich , T. 2020, , 642, A142, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038029

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    K., & Rasmussen, C

    Williams, C. K., & Rasmussen, C. E. 2006 (MIT press Cambridge, MA)

    2006

  65. [74]

    G., Perrin , M

    Wolff , S. G., Perrin , M. D., Stapelfeldt , K., et al. 2017, , 851, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9981

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  67. [76]

    G., Tatarnikov , A

    Zheltoukhov , S. G., Tatarnikov , A. M., & Shatsky , N. I. 2020, Astronomy Letters, 46, 193, 10.1134/S106377372002005X

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.