Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Using the Coolest Ae Stars to Constrain Circumstellar Disk Viscosity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Viscous shear heating—not just starlight—can power Hα emission in the disks of the coolest Classical Ae stars, and the strength of that emission can be used to estimate the disk viscosity parameter α.

desk verdict Solid shear-heating models for cool Ae disks; the α constraint is plausible but not yet demonstrated, so referee it but expect revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04486 v1 pith:KW3JBA3S submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.SR

R. Anusha , T. A. A. Sigut This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords ClassicalAestarscircumstellardisksHαemissionshearheatingdiskviscosityShakura-SunyaevalphaparameterdecretionLAMOSTsurvey
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

Classical Ae (CAe) stars are A-type main-sequence stars whose Hα emission betrays a dust-free circumstellar disk, but for the coolest members the central star's ultraviolet radiation is too weak to explain the observed emission. This paper asks whether viscous shear heating—the energy dissipated as the disk's Keplerian rotation shreds itself through viscosity—supplies the missing warmth. Using a radiative-equilibrium disk code with a volumetric shear heating term $d(R,Z)=\tfrac{3}{2}\alpha P\Omega$, the authors find that shear heating becomes important at spectral type A2 and later, and that the presence and strength of Hα emission grow with the viscosity parameter α. They propose that the steep decline in CAe numbers toward A3/A4, together with the distribution of Hα equivalent widths, can be used as an ensemble constraint on α, and they attempt such constraints with a 159-star survey sample. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a new, purely radiative route to a quantity—disk viscosity—that previously could only be estimated from the timing of disk variability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the volumetric shear-heating rate $d(R,Z)=\frac{3}{2}\alpha P\Omega$, inserted into the radiative-equilibrium solver Bedisk (Sigut & Jones 2007) as an extra source in the energy balance. It derives from the standard viscous dissipation rate $D(R)=\frac{1}{2}\nu\Sigma(R\,d\Omega/dR)^2$ with $\nu=\alpha c_s H$ and Keplerian rotation, and its magnitude is set entirely by the α parameter; because shear heating and stellar photoionization scale differently with gas density, the ratio of heating to cooling changes with spectral type, which is why the effect switches on near A2. Around this rate the paper builds a grid of 174,240 Hα profiles over spectral type, disk density parameters, α, and inclination, automatically classifying each profile as emission or absorption at R=2000 to define what 'would be observed as a CAe star'.

What would settle it

A high signal-to-noise Hα survey of a large, spectroscopically complete sample of A3–A5 stars in the same survey fields, counting emission-line stars down to equivalent widths well below the current detection limit, would decide between the count-based α≤0.1 conclusion and the EW-based α≈1 conclusion; in particular, finding numerous A3/A4 CAe stars or any A5 CAe star would falsify the low-α count constraint, while finding none at high signal-to-noise would challenge the high-α EW fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that viscous shear heating is a necessary thermal ingredient in the coolest Classical Ae star disks, and that its strength is readable from Hα emission. The authors compute two-dimensional temperature structures of gaseous, axisymmetric disks around main-sequence A0–A5 stars with the Bedisk code, adding to the usual radiative heating by the stellar photoionizing field a viscous dissipation rate $d(R,Z)=(3/2)\alpha P\Omega$ (with $\alpha$ the Shakura–Sunyaev viscosity parameter, $P$ the gas pressure, and $\Omega$ the Keplerian angular velocity). For A0 and A1 disks, even $\alpha=1$ changes little; for A2 and later, shear heating substantially raises disk temperatures and increases both the fraction of model disks that produce detectable Hα emission and the strength of that emission. The paper therefore proposes that the observed decline in CAe incidence from A0 to A4 and the Hα equivalent-width distributions can jointly constrain α. Applying the proposal to the survey sample of 159 CAe stars, they find a tension: the count-based decline favors $\alpha \lesssim 0.1$, while matching the equivalent-width distributions across spectral types favors $\alpha\approx 1.0$ (with no consistent solution for $\alpha\le 0.3$). The paper reads this as a promising but not yet settled diagnostic, limited by small numbers of A3/A4 stars and by the absence of A5 members.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that would sink the central claim is the equivalence between 'detectable Hα emission' as defined by peak-finding on noise-free model profiles at R=2000 and actual membership in the CAe catalog, with raw survey A-star counts and equal disk incidence across spectral types treated as unbiased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If shear heating is required, purely radiatively heated disk models systematically underpredict Hα emission for A2–A4 stars, so any thermal model of cool Ae disks must include a viscous heating term.
  • The observed CAe fraction versus spectral type becomes a direct readout of α: larger α keeps more late-A disks hot enough to emit Hα.
  • For A0/A1 stars Hα is insensitive to α, so those stars cannot constrain viscosity; constraints come almost entirely from A2 and later.
  • An α near 1 predicts detectable Hα emission from A5 disks, which the current survey sample does not contain; the absence of A5 CAe stars is therefore a test of the high-α end.
  • Because the count-based and EW-based constraints currently disagree (α≤0.1 versus α≈1), the paper's own conclusion is that more cool CAe stars, especially at A3 and later, are needed to resolve the ensemble α.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the EW-based preference for α≈1 survives larger samples, it would imply that CAe disks are more viscous at late spectral types than the α≈0.1–0.3 values typically inferred for classical Be disks, suggesting a spectral-type trend in the viscosity mechanism.
  • The same radiative method could be extended to shell stars, whose Hα central absorption is also sensitive to disk temperature and which are observed to linger to A5–A7; matching shell-star statistics would give an independent cross-check.
  • The count-versus-EW discrepancy might dissolve if disk incidence is not equal across spectral types, e.g., if slower rotation among later A stars makes disks rarer; measuring CAe disk incidence independently would separate this from the viscosity constraint.
  • With larger samples from later survey data releases, the α≈1 fit's 5%-level KS overlap over many trial distributions could be re-tested with proper multiple-testing control, since 1512 parameter combinations were searched.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models the thermal structure of gaseous circumstellar disks around main-sequence A-type stars (classical Ae stars) using the Bedisk/Beray code suite, adding a volumetric viscous shear-heating term d(R,Z) = (3/2) α P Ω (Eq. 6) for a Keplerian disk with α-viscosity. On a grid of 174,240 star+disk models spanning spectral types A0–A5, disk density parameters, inclination, and α = 0.01–1.0, the authors compute Hα profiles and classify them as emission or absorption. They find that for A2 and later spectral types, shear heating significantly raises disk temperatures and increases the fraction of models with detectable Hα emission (Figures 3 and 4). The paper then attempts to constrain α using the LAMOST DR5 CAe sample of Anusha et al. (2021): a count-based comparison (Section 4.1) favors α ≤ 0.1, while fitting Hα equivalent-width CDFs (Section 4.2) favors α ≈ 1.0; the paper concludes that these results are inconsistent and attributes this to small-number statistics. The central proposal is that the spectral-type dependence of Hα emission can be used as a radiative diagnostic of disk viscosity.

Significance. If the shear-heating mechanism is correct, the paper offers a novel, observationally accessible probe of the viscosity parameter α in cool Ae disks, complementing traditional viscous-timescale estimates used for classical Be stars. The theoretical modeling is thorough: the grid is large, the radiative-equilibrium calculations are described in detail, and the paper is commendably explicit about the internal inconsistency between the two proposed constraints. The comparison to observations, however, rests on assumptions about survey completeness and statistical significance that are not yet demonstrated; as it stands, the paper establishes the plausibility of the diagnostic rather than a secure measurement of α. The honest reporting of the disagreement between the count-based and EW-based constraints is a strength, but it also means the central claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The count-based constraint α ≤ 0.1 equates the noiseless, R = 2000 model Hα emission classification of Section 2.3 with actual detection in the LAMOST DR5 sample of Anusha et al. (2021), which has S/N ≈ 90 at Hα, without modeling LAMOST's target selection or the detection threshold for weak, narrow emission lines. Because A3/A4 CAe stars have systematically weaker Hα emission (Figure 5), a noiseless peak-finder will classify many model profiles as 'emitting' that would not be detected in real LAMOST spectra, biasing N_e_A34/B01 downward. The inferred E_A34 ≈ 12% and the resulting α ≤ 0.1 may therefore reflect survey incompleteness rather than disk viscosity. The authors should either model the LAMOST selection function and S/N-dependent detection probability or clearly state the range of completeness corrections that would change the inferred α.
  2. [Section 4.2, Figure 8] The claim that only α = 1.0 yields a consistent set of fits across spectral types A0–A4 is based on a grid search over 1512 (μ_ρ, σ_ρ, μ_n, σ_n) combinations per spectral type, with the 'common region' in Figure 8 identified visually rather than by a formal statistical test. No multiple-testing correction is applied, so the appearance of an overlap region at α = 1.0 could be a chance coincidence given the large number of trials. The authors should quantify the significance of the overlap, for example by performing a permutation test that scrambles spectral-type labels or by computing the expected number of chance overlaps under a null model.
  3. [Section 5, Conclusions] The two constraints derived in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are mutually inconsistent (α ≤ 0.1 from counts versus α ≈ 1.0 from EW CDFs), and the α = 1.0 model predicts A5 CAe stars that are not observed. The paper attributes this to small-number statistics, but the inconsistency directly undermines the stated conclusion that the dependence of Hα on shear heating 'can be used to constrain' α. The authors should provide a quantitative joint assessment, such as a likelihood-based combination of both constraints, or explicitly conclude that current data do not yet provide a reliable α measurement and specify what sample sizes or observations would resolve the tension.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (9)] The assumption D_c2/D_c1 ≈ 1 (that the fraction of A-type stars hosting disks is the same for A0–A1 and A3–A4) is not justified beyond a plausibility argument. If the disk-formation efficiency varies with spectral type—for example, because stellar rotation rates or wind strengths change across this range—the inferred E_A34 and hence the α constraint would shift. The authors should discuss the sensitivity of Eq. (10) to plausible ranges of D_c2/D_c1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] There is a typo in 'its' versus 'it's' in the paragraph discussing spectral-type re-estimation: 'to estimate it's equivalent width' should be 'its equivalent width'.
  2. [Figure 3] The legend entry 'α=0.0' appears inconsistent with the text, which lists α = 0.01 as the lowest value; the figure caption or the text should be corrected to match.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'this comparison is be repeated over the 1512 combinations' contains a grammatical error ('is be') and should read 'this comparison is repeated'.
  4. [Table 3] The table entries are log10 of KS probabilities; the caption should state this explicitly and explain why negative values are used, as the current description is terse.
  5. [Section 4.2, footnote 12] The exclusion of parameter combinations that cannot produce samples of 20 or more emission-line stars should be discussed in the main text, because it could bias the reported numbers of fitting models, particularly for late spectral types with small α.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: alpha is a scanned forward-model parameter and all comparisons use external LAMOST data.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is a forward-model comparison. The shear-heating term d(R,Z) = (3/2) alpha P Omega (Eq. 6) is adopted from standard viscous disk theory (Lee et al. 1991; Shakura & Sunyaev 1973) and is an input, not a quantity fitted to H-alpha data. The model grid scans alpha over 0.01, 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 (Table 2), and each model's H-alpha emission classification (Section 2.3) is a derived output. The count-based constraint in Section 4.1 uses Eqs. (8)-(10) with the observed LAMOST A-star counts N(A34)/N(A01), the observed CAe numbers N^e_A34/N^e_A01 = 15/109, and the model's alpha-independent A0/A1 emission fraction E_A01 ~ 0.7 from Figure 4. Solving for E_A34 ~ 12% and comparing it to the same Figure 4 is a legitimate inversion: E_A01 is not fitted to the A3/A4 data, and the inferred E_A34 is a model prediction, not a fitted parameter. The EW CDF analysis in Section 4.2 fits nuisance density-distribution parameters (mu_rho, sigma_rho, mu_n, sigma_n) to the observed EW distributions for each alpha; this is in-sample model fitting and weakens the statistical weight of the alpha comparison, but the alpha conclusion is a consistency check across spectral types (presence or absence of a common (mu_rho, mu_n) region), not a quantity defined by those nuisance fits. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction. Self-citations (Anusha et al. 2021; Sigut & Ghafourian 2023) supply the external LAMOST catalog and prior modeling parameter ranges; they are reproducible data or stated model choices, not uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that pre-impose the conclusion. The unmodeled LAMOST selection function and the noiseless R=2000 peak-finder are validity risks, not circularity, and the authors themselves flag the small-number statistics and the inconsistency between the count-based and EW-based alpha estimates.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model adds one new physical term, volumetric shear heating proportional to αPΩ, to a mature radiative-equilibrium code; the rest is standard disk physics. The model space is pre-configured by the authors' own prior work (parameter ranges of Sigut & Ghafourian 2023; the 159-star catalog of Anusha et al. 2021). The Section 4.2 α inference depends on nuisance Gaussians fit to the same data being compared, and the count-based α inference depends on unmodeled survey selection. No invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • α, Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter = Grid: 0.01, 0.10, 0.30, 1.00; attempted constraints: ≤0.1 (counts), ≈1.0 (EW CDFs), mutually inconsistent
    Dial controlling the shear heating rate in Eq. (6); the central goal of the paper is to measure it, and the two diagnostics give conflicting values.
  • Per-spectral-type disk density distribution parameters (μ_ρ, σ_ρ, μ_n, σ_n) = Best fits not tabulated; α=1.0 common-fit region at (μ_ρ, μ_n) ≈ (-10.50, 2.00), Section 4.2, Figure 8
    Fitted to the LAMOST Hα EW CDFs by scanning 1512 combinations (Table 4) and maximizing KS probability, separately for each spectral type and α.
  • Disk scale height temperature, 0.6 Teff = 60% of each star's effective temperature
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.1 to fix c_s and the flaring scale height; used only for the density structure, not for the computed temperatures, which can fall to about 3000 K.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The disk is in Keplerian rotation, Ω = √(GM/R³), with pressure support neglected.
    Used to derive the shear heating rate in Eqs. (3)-(6); standard for decretion disk models (Lee et al. 1991).
  • domain assumption Viscosity follows ν = α c_s H with α constant throughout the disk (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973).
    Section 2.2; the authors note α may vary with R and Z and that constant α may produce artificially hot rarefied disks that exceed Teff.
  • domain assumption Viscous dissipation is deposited locally as volumetric heating d = (3/2)αPΩ in each vertical layer.
    Eq. (6); follows from Pringle (1981) for a Keplerian disk with hydrostatic H = c_s/Ω, but local deposition is an assumption for turbulent MRI stresses.
  • domain assumption Disk gas density follows ρ(R,Z) = ρ0 (R*/R)^n exp(-(Z/H)²) with H fixed by T = 0.6 Teff, not by the computed temperature.
    Eqs. (1)-(2); the vertical structure is not recomputed from the derived temperatures, which reach about 3000 K for α=0.01 and exceed Teff in some low-density α=1.0 models.
  • domain assumption The disk fraction is the same for early and late A-type stars, D_c2/D_c1 ≈ 1.
    Section 4.1, Eq. (9); explicitly stated as an assumption to convert observed CAe count ratios into an emission-fraction constraint on α.
  • ad hoc to paper The CAe disk population's (log ρ0, n) follow Gaussian distributions with fitted means and widths.
    Eqs. (11)-(13), Section 4.2; adopted after 'trial and error' (option 3), fit per spectral type and α; the α preference depends on overlap of these fitted regions.
  • domain assumption Gravitational darkening from rotation at 0.8 v_crit is neglected.
    Section 2.3; justified by cited small effects in Be disks (McGill et al. 2011, 2013), deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption Molecule formation is excluded from the disk thermal balance.
    Section 2.1; the coolest disks reach about 3000 K where molecular cooling could matter, a limitation the authors flag.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using the Coolest Ae Stars to Constrain Circumstellar Disk Viscosity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KW3JBA3S

@misc{pith2026250604486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using the Coolest Ae Stars to Constrain Circumstellar Disk Viscosity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KW3JBA3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04486}
}
read the original abstract

Classical Ae (CAe) stars are main sequence, A-type stars with H{\alpha} emission but no signature of dust. They are thought to be the cool extension of the classical Be stars to lower masses. Recent surveys based on H{\alpha} spectroscopy have significantly increased the number of known CAe stars, with the population extending to spectral types as cool as A4 (Teff approx. 8500 K). We compute the temperature structure of gaseous, circumstellar disks around A-type stars, including both radiative heating from the central star and viscous shear heating from the disk's rotation. We find that shear heating can become important for spectral types A2 and later and can act to increase the low temperatures predicted by purely radiatively heated disks. Our modeling indicates that the presence and strength of H{\alpha} emission for spectral types A2 and later significantly increases with the amount of shear heating included, and we propose that this dependence can be used to constrain the {\alpha} viscosity parameter appropriate for CAe star disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04486 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms of the density-weighted disk temperatures (Eq. 7) for all spectral types of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The density-weighted disk temperature (Eq. 7) as a function of the central star’s effective temperature. Each point represents ⟨Tρ⟩ (Eq. 7) for a different combination of parameters (spectral type, n, ρ0, α), with the corresponding Teff values randomly jittered by ±100 K for visibility. Symbol colors indicate different levels of shear heating governed by the viscosity parameter α: α = 0.01 (black), α = 0.10 (blue), … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fraction of computed models ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dependence of the Hα emission fraction on the disk α parameter controlling the amount of shear heating. The α value associated with each line is given in the legend. The circles are the calculations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of the measured LAMOST Hα equivalent widths (in ˚Angstroms) for each spectral type in the Ae star sample of Anusha et al. (2021). The number of sample stars for each spectral type is given in brackets. EW< 0 is net absorption, whereas EW> 0 is net emission. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the optical spectrum of a LAMOST A4-type CAe star (blue line, LAMOST J114805.60+412843.2) and A3-type CAe star (orange line, LAMOST J184640.36+425427.9) with the A1-type MILES template (black line). Note the mismatches in the central depths of the hydroge…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best model fits to the CDF of the observed Hα EWs shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parameters (µρ, µn) for the theoretical Hα CDFs fits of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Moyd, K

    Abt, H. A., & Moyd, K. I. 1973, ApJ, 182, 809, doi: 10.1086/152184

    doi:10.1086/152184 1973

  2. [2]

    1986, A&AS, 65, 1

    Andrillat, Y., Jaschek, M., & Jaschek, C. 1986, A&AS, 65, 1

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3964

    Anusha, R., Mathew, B., Shridharan, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3964

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3964 2021

  4. [4]

    E., Sigut, T

    Arcos, C., Jones, C. E., Sigut, T. A. A., Kanaan, S., & Cur´ e, M. 2017, ApJ, 842, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5f 2017

  5. [5]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 249, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/249

    Bai, Z.-R., Zhang, H.-T., Yuan, H.-L., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 249, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/249

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/249 2021

  6. [6]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  7. [7]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  8. [8]

    A., & Ozuyar, D

    Balona, L. A., & Ozuyar, D. 2021, ApJ, 921, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1a77

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1a77 2021

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    1990, A&A, 236, 202

    Ferlet, R. 1990, A&A, 236, 202

    1990

  2. [10]

    E., & Carciofi, A

    Bjorkman, J. E., & Carciofi, A. C. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 337, The Nature and Evolution of Disks Around Hot Stars, ed. R. Ignace & K. G. Gayley, 75

    2005

  3. [11]

    2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bohlender, D. 2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 506, Bright Emissaries: Be Stars as Messengers of Star-Disk Physics, ed. T. A. A. Sigut & C. E. Jones, 275

    2016

  4. [12]

    C., & Bjorkman, J

    Carciofi, A. C., & Bjorkman, J. E. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1081, doi: 10.1086/499483

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Bjorkman, J

    Carciofi, A. C., Bjorkman, J. E., Otero, S. A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 744, L15

    2012

  6. [14]

    Collins, II, G. W. 1965, ApJ, 142, 265, doi: 10.1086/148282

    1965 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 Cur´ e, M., Meneses, R., Araya, I., et al

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 Cur´ e, M., Meneses, R., Araya, I., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243620

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Wallin, B

    Desch, S. J., Wallin, B. K., & Watson, W. D. 1998, ApJ, 496, 775, doi: 10.1086/305391

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    1991, ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Battrick, B., eds. 1991, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1147, A Be star atlas of far UV and optical high-resolution spectra Espinosa Lara, F., & Rieutord, M. 2011, A&A, 533, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117252

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  11. [19]

    R., Carciofi, A

    Ghoreyshi, M. R., Carciofi, A. C., Jones, C. E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd1e

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Carciofi, A

    Ghoreyshi, M. R., Carciofi, A. C., R ´ ımulo, L. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1577

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Apparao, K

    Ghosh, K. K., Apparao, K. M. V., & Pukalenthi, S. 1999, A&AS, 134, 359, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999144

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    E., & Sigut, T

    Granada, A., Jones, C. E., & Sigut, T. A. A. 2021, ApJ, 922, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac222f

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Gray, D. F. 2022, 1, Vol. 1, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, 4th edn. (University Printing

    2022

  16. [24]

    O., & Corbally, Christopher, J

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, Christopher, J. 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification

    2009

  17. [25]

    Halbedel, E. M. 1994, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 185, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 48.22

    1994

  18. [26]

    Hanuschik, R. W. 1996, A&A, 308, 170

    1996

  19. [27]

    C., Rivinius, T., Okazaki, A

    Haubois, X., Carciofi, A. C., Rivinius, T., Okazaki, A. T., & Bjorkman, J. E. 2012, ApJ, 756, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/156

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    2000, A&A, 354, 157

    Hauck, B., & Jaschek, C. 2000, A&A, 354, 157

    2000

  21. [29]

    A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D

    Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D. L. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #225, 336.16

    2015

  22. [30]

    2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 926, doi: 10.1002/asna.201713401

    Skarka, M. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 926, doi: 10.1002/asna.201713401

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2000, A&A, 359, 1075 H¨ ummerich, S., Paunzen, E., & Bernhard, K

    Hummel, W., & Vrancken, M. 2000, A&A, 359, 1075 H¨ ummerich, S., Paunzen, E., & Bernhard, K. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2978

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    J., & Irvine, C

    Irvine, N. J., & Irvine, C. E. 1979, PASP, 91, 105, doi: 10.1086/130451

    1979 doi

  25. [33]

    1991, A&A, 250, 127

    Jaschek, M., Andrillat, Y., & Jaschek, C. 1991, A&A, 250, 127

    1991

  26. [34]

    1986, A&A, 158, 325

    Jaschek, M., Jaschek, C., & Egret, D. 1986, A&A, 158, 325

    1986

  27. [35]

    D., Owocki, S., Townsend, R., & M¨ uller, H

    Kee, N. D., Owocki, S., Townsend, R., & M¨ uller, H. R. 2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2016

  28. [36]

    506, Bright Emissaries: Be Stars as Messengers of Star-Disk Physics, ed

    Series, Vol. 506, Bright Emissaries: Be Stars as Messengers of Star-Disk Physics, ed. T. A. A. Sigut & C. E. Jones, 47, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.8511

    doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    C., Rivinius, T., et al

    Klement, R., Carciofi, A. C., Rivinius, T., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526535 Krtiˇ cka, J., Owocki, S. P., & Meynet, G. 2011, A&A, 527, A84

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1991, in Precision Photometry: Astrophysics of the Galaxy, ed. A. G. D. Philip, A. R. Upgren, & K. A. Janes, 27 17

    1991

  31. [39]

    1991, MNRAS, 250, 432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/250.2.432

    Lee, U., Osaki, Y., & Saio, H. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/250.2.432

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

    2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76949-1

    Maeder, A. 2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76949-1

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Sigut, T

    McGill, M. A., Sigut, T. A. A., & Jones, C. E. 2011, ApJ, 743, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/111 —. 2013, ApJS, 204, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/2

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Meeus, G., Waters, L. B. F. M., Bouwman, J., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, 476, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000144

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    E., & Marlborough, J

    Millar, C. E., & Marlborough, J. M. 1998, ApJ, 494, 715, doi: 10.1086/305229

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    N., Wade, G

    Monin, D. N., Wade, G. A., & Fabrika, S. N. 2003, A&A, 411, 197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031182

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    Morgan, W. W. 1932, ApJ, 76, 144, doi: 10.1086/143410

    1932 doi

  38. [46]

    Neiner, C., & Hubert, A. M. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 337, The Nature and Evolution of Disks Around Hot Stars, ed. R. Ignace & K. G. Gayley, 275

    2005

  39. [47]

    D., van der Veen, W

    Oudmaijer, R. D., van der Veen, W. E. C. J., Waters, L. B. F. M., et al. 1992, A&AS, 96, 625

    1992

  40. [48]

    M., & Rivinius, T

    Porter, J. M., & Rivinius, T. 2003, PASP, 115, 1153

    2003

  41. [49]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033 R ´ ımulo, L. R., Carciofi, A. C., Vieira, R. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3555, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty431

    1981

  42. [50]

    C., & Martayan, C

    Rivinius, T., Carciofi, A. C., & Martayan, C. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 69, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0 S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim´ enez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x

    2013

  43. [51]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  44. [52]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 288, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/288

    Shridharan, B., Mathew, B., Nidhi, S., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 288, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/288

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Sigut, T. A. A. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 515, Workshop on Astrophysical Opacities, 213

    2018

  46. [54]

    Sigut, T. A. A., & Ghafourian, N. R. 2023, ApJ, 948, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac940c

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Sigut, T. A. A., & Jones, C. E. 2007, ApJ, 668, 481, doi: 10.1086/521209

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    Sigut, T. A. A., McGill, M. A., & Jones, C. E. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1973, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1973

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    E., Sigut, T

    Silaj, J., Jones, C. E., Sigut, T. A. A., & Tycner, C. 2014, ApJ, 795, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/82

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    E., Tycner, C., Sigut, T

    Silaj, J., Jones, C. E., Tycner, C., Sigut, T. A. A., & Smith, A. D. 2010, ApJS, 187, 228

    2010

  51. [59]

    1982, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Slettebak, A. 1982, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 98, Be Stars, ed. M. Jaschek & H.-G. Groth, 109–121

    1982

  52. [60]

    A., & Terrile, R

    Smith, B. A., & Terrile, R. J. 1984, Science, 226, 1421, doi: 10.1126/science.226.4681.1421

    1984

  53. [61]

    G., & Kruger, C

    Vincenti, W. G., & Kruger, C. H. 1965, 1, Vol. 1, Intorduction to Physical Gas Dynamics, 1st edn. (John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)

    1965

  54. [62]

    S., Drew, J

    Vink, J. S., Drew, J. E., Harries, T. J., & Oudmaijer, R. D. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2005

  55. [63]

    343, Astronomical Polarimetry: Current Status and Future Directions, ed

    Series, Vol. 343, Astronomical Polarimetry: Current Status and Future Directions, ed. A. Adamson, C. Aspin, C. Davis, & T. Fujiyoshi, 232, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406372 von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/84.9.665

    1924 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    A., Petit, V., Grunhut, J., & Neiner, C

    Wade, G. A., Petit, V., Grunhut, J., & Neiner, C. 2014, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6165

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J., & Wolstencroft, R

    Walker, H. J., & Wolstencroft, R. D. 1988, PASP, 100, 1509, doi: 10.1086/132357

    1988 doi

  58. [66]

    Wall, J. V. W., & Jenkins, C. R. J. 2003, 1, Vol. 1, Practical Statistics for Astronomers, 1st edn. (The Edinburgh

    2003

  59. [67]

    Waters, L. B. F. M., & Waelkens, C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 233, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.233

    1998 doi

  60. [68]

    2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Wu, Y., Du, B., Luo, A., Zhao, Y., & Yuan, H. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 306, Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology, ed. A. Heavens, J.-L. Starck, & A. Krone-Martins, 340–342, doi: 10.1017/S1743921314010825

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    L., et al

    Zhang, Y.-J., Hou, W., Luo, A. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4964

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    1997, A&A, 318, 443

    Zorec, J., & Briot, D. 1997, A&A, 318, 443

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.