Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 98 references

The jet-feedback mechanism in common envelope evolution of planetary nebula progenitors

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A low-mass companion's jets inside a giant's envelope cut the local envelope density, and therefore their own power, by a factor roughly $\chi_{\rm AGB} \simeq 0.5\,(M_2/0.1\,M_\odot)^{-1}$ for AGB stars and $\chi_{\rm RGB} \simeq…

desk verdict Useful first estimate of negative jet feedback for low-mass companions in CEE, but the headline chi scaling is biased by constant-zeta energy injection that ignores the feedback loop's own power reduction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06049 v2 pith:7MA6G62M submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.SR

Yonah Weiner , Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords jetscommonenvelopeevolutionnegativejetfeedbackasymptoticgiantbranchstarsredplanetarynebulaeBondi-Hoyle-Lyttletonaccretionluminousnovae
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 how much a low-mass companion's jets throttle themselves when the companion spirals inside the envelope of an AGB or RGB star during common envelope evolution. The jets heat and inflate the surrounding envelope, which lowers the local gas density; because the accretion rate that feeds the jets depends on that density, the jets reduce their own power. Using one-dimensional stellar evolution runs with energy deposited in the outer envelope as a stand-in for jet heating, the paper finds that for a main-sequence companion of mass $M_2 = 0.1$–$0.2\,M_\odot$ the density, accretion rate, and jet power are all reduced by a factor $\chi_{\rm AGB} \simeq 0.5\,(M_2/0.1\,M_\odot)^{-1}$ in AGB envelopes and $\chi_{\rm RGB} \simeq 0.8\,(M_2/0.1\,M_\odot)^{-1}$ in RGB envelopes, at mid-range assumptions for the accretion efficiency and jet energy fraction. These formulas are offered as crude input for future three-dimensional simulations and population studies. The motivation is that jet-shaped planetary nebulae and their central binaries are widely thought to descend from common envelope evolution, and the same jet feedback may power luminous red novae.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-dimensional stellar evolution model in which the energy of two opposite jets is deposited, at each timestep, into a thick spherical shell of the giant's outer envelope according to the jet-power formula $\dot E_{2j} = 2\pi\zeta G M_2^3 a^2 \rho_0 / (M^2 R_2) \sqrt{G(M+M_2)/a}$, with $\zeta = \eta\xi\chi$ combining the accretion-efficiency fraction, the jet-energy fraction, and the density-reduction factor. The central measured quantity is $\chi = \rho/\rho_0$ at the companion's orbital radius, which closes the feedback loop by entering both the accretion rate $\dot M_{\rm acc} = \chi\xi\dot M_{\rm BHL,0}$ and the jet power. The method follows an earlier neutron-star common-envelope study and is checked against a three-dimensional run in a lower-power regime, whose results lie on the same linear fit.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation of a $0.2\,M_\odot$ main-sequence companion with jets spiraling inside an AGB envelope, and a separate run for an RGB envelope, run until the companion reaches about twenty percent of the stellar radius, measuring the density at the companion's orbit and comparing it with the unperturbed profile; if the measured $\chi$ at $\eta\xi \simeq 0.15$ falls outside roughly $0.1$–$0.4$ for the AGB case or $0.3$–$0.7$ for the RGB case, the one-dimensional transfer and its extrapolation fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the negative jet feedback coefficient $\chi \equiv \rho/\rho_0$ — the factor by which jets lower the envelope density near their launching companion — is approximately $\chi_{\rm AGB} \simeq 0.5\,(M_2/0.1\,M_\odot)^{-1}$ for AGB progenitors and $\chi_{\rm RGB} \simeq 0.8\,(M_2/0.1\,M_\odot)^{-1}$ for RGB progenitors of planetary nebulae. The calculation takes the actual accretion rate to be a fraction $\xi \approx 0.2$–$0.5$ of the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton rate and lets the jets carry a fraction $\eta \approx 0.25$–$0.5$ of the accretion energy, giving the jet power that is deposited into the envelope. Because the code could not converge for the highest expected jet powers, the quoted values are extrapolations from runs at lower energy-injection rates, and the paper explicitly calls them crude estimates that await three-dimensional simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that depositing the jets' energy as spherically symmetric heat in a one-dimensional stellar model reproduces the density reduction that real bipolar, off-center jets cause around the companion; the paper states this limitation directly, and its only quantitative support is the agreement between one- and three-dimensional runs for a neutron-star companion in a different mass regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For low-mass main-sequence companions, jets can cut their own power by roughly a factor of two to four depending on companion mass, so accretion during early common envelope evolution is self-regulated rather than run-away.
  • Equations (8) and (9) give population-synthesis studies a ready-made negative-feedback coefficient to apply when modelling how much mass the companion accretes and how much energy jets deposit during CEE.
  • Because the same method used here was found to agree with a 3D run for a neutron-star companion, the paper expects the 1D energy-deposition approach to be a useful first step before fully 3D common-envelope jet simulations.
  • The orbital energy deposited by the spiraling companion can be neglected for these low masses down to separations of roughly $40\,R_\odot$ (AGB) and $25\,R_\odot$ (RGB), which supports modelling the early CEE phase with jets only.
  • Self-regulated jet power of this kind is a candidate energy source for luminous red novae and for shaping planetary nebulae during grazing envelope evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct 3D run with a main-sequence companion, not a neutron star, would settle whether the spherical energy-deposition approximation over- or under-estimates the local density reduction; if real jets carve low-density channels that let accretion continue, equations (8) and (9) may underestimate $\chi$.
  • If the extrapolation from the numerically accessible low-$\zeta$ runs saturates rather than remaining linear, the negative feedback would be weaker than equations (8) and (9) imply, making jet power during CEE larger than these estimates; light-curve shapes of luminous red novae could constrain this.
  • Population synthesis using these coefficients could predict a systematic trend: more massive companions thin the envelope more strongly, so they should end common envelope evolution with a different mass-accretion history than lighter companions, a trend testable against the masses of main-sequence stars in post-CEE planetary nebula cores.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the 1D stellar evolution code MESA to model the negative jet-feedback mechanism in common envelope evolution of AGB and RGB stars with low-mass main-sequence companions (M2 = 0.1–0.2 M_sun). Energy is deposited into a spherical shell to mimic the effect of jets, and the resulting envelope density reduction chi = rho/rho0 is measured at three radii for a set of fixed values of the dimensionless parameter zeta. The authors fit chi(zeta), transform to the plane chi versus eta xi = zeta/chi, extrapolate to the range eta xi ~ 0.05–0.25, and propose the central results chi_AGB ~ 0.5 (M2/0.1 M_sun)^{-1} and chi_RGB ~ 0.8 (M2/0.1 M_sun)^{-1}, given in Eqs. (8) and (9). The method intentionally neglects orbital energy and uses spherical energy deposition despite the intrinsically non-spherical jet-envelope interaction.

Significance. If Eqs. (8) and (9) were reliable, they would provide a simple and useful parametrization of jet feedback for population-synthesis studies of planetary-nebula progenitors and for interpreting luminous red novae and grazing envelope evolution. The paper is transparent about several limitations, including the 1D spherical symmetry and the neglect of orbital energy, and it clearly shows the raw data and fits in Figures 3 and 4. However, the quantitative result is not currently supported: the simulations do not implement the negative feedback loop self-consistently, the main coefficients come from a large extrapolation without error estimates, and the transfer of 1D spherical results to real bipolar jets is not independently validated. The paper is a useful first step, but it needs substantial additional work before Eqs. (8) and (9) can be used as quantitative input.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Section 2.4] The negative feedback loop is not actually closed in the simulations. Equation (5) defines zeta = eta xi chi, where chi is the density-reduction factor, but the MESA runs treat zeta as a constant input parameter and inject energy according to Eq. (6) using the unperturbed density rho0. In the physical cycle, once the envelope density drops (chi < 1), the accretion rate and hence the jet power should drop with it, so zeta should be time-dependent: zeta(t) = eta xi chi(t). A constant-zeta run over-injects energy throughout the inspiral, over-inflates the envelope, and therefore biases chi systematically low. The transformation to eta xi = zeta/chi in the right panels of Figures 3 and 4 does not repair this, because the response function itself has been computed under an over-driven perturbation rather than at the fixed point of the feedback dynamics. Equations (8) and (9) are thus biased; the size of the bias is unknown but could be substantial, since the fits are anchored to runs with zeta <= 0.016-0.019 in which the injected power never weakens as the density falls.
  2. [Section 3] The primary result is an extrapolation, not a measurement. The simulations reach zeta <= 0.016 (AGB) and zeta <= 0.019 (RGB), while the inferred target range eta xi ~ 0.05-0.25 with the quoted chi values corresponds to zeta ~ 0.005-0.1, i.e., a factor of several up to roughly an order of magnitude above the simulated range. The linear and log-linear fits give noticeably different extrapolated values, no error bars are reported for the fits, and points with chi > 1 at the outer radius are excluded by a criterion applied after the fits were made. The authors honestly acknowledge the extrapolation, but the precision implied by Eqs. (8) and (9) is not supported by the data.
  3. [Section 5] The transfer of the 1D spherical energy-deposition results to real bipolar jets is not established. The paper itself states in Section 5 that the jet-envelope interaction is highly non-spherical, and the only quantitative support offered is the agreement between the 1D Grichener et al. (2021) and 3D Hillel et al. (2022) neutron-star-in-red-supergiant calculations, which share the same group's setup and assumptions and concern a different accretor mass and envelope regime. That agreement does not validate the 1D approach for a 0.1-0.2 M_sun main-sequence companion inside an AGB or RGB envelope, where the cocoon geometry and feedback efficiency are likely different. Therefore, even a fully self-consistent 1D calculation would not by itself establish that Eqs. (8) and (9) apply to real systems.
  4. [Section 3] The M2 dependence in Eqs. (8) and (9) is derived by scaling, not by direct simulation. Section 3 assumes M2/R2 is approximately constant for low-mass main-sequence stars and rescales zeta by M2^{-2} (so eta xi scales as M2^{-2} for a fixed chi) to convert the M2 = 0.2 M_sun runs to M2 = 0.1 M_sun. This assumes that the envelope response depends only on the absolute injected power and not on the companion mass separately. No M2 = 0.1 M_sun simulation is shown, so the inverse-linear scaling in Eqs. (8) and (9) is not directly tested.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] In the RGB run description, "zeta = 0.19" should be "zeta = 0.019", consistent with the stated numerical limit and with Figure 2.
  2. [Figure 1] The caption contains a duplicated word: "by a factor of of 2.3" should read "by a factor of 2.3".
  3. [Figure 3] The captions refer to "M1 = 0.1 M_sun" where the companion mass M2 is meant; this should be corrected in both figure captions.
  4. [Section 3] Adding error bars or a quantitative estimate of the fit uncertainty to the left panels of Figures 3 and 4 would substantially strengthen the paper, especially because the result depends on extrapolation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central χ result is a genuine MESA transfer-function output, and the ηξ=ζ/χ transformation is a fixed-point construction rather than a re-use of the fitted result; remaining issues are modeling limitations, not circularity.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central quantity is χ(ζ), measured by MESA runs that inject energy at prescribed ζ (Eq. 6). The right panels of Figs. 3 and 4 re-plot the same simulations against ηξ=ζ/χ; this is the implicit-function/fixed-point solution of the feedback relation ζ=ηξχ (Eq. 5), with ηξ an external efficiency product (ξ≈0.2-0.5, η≈0.25-0.5). Equations (8)-(9) are extrapolations of that measured transfer function, not re-statements of the input assumptions, so the 'prediction' is not statistically forced by a fit to the target quantity. The acknowledged limitations - spherical 1D energy deposition, constant-ζ injection rather than time-dependent ζ(t)=ηξχ(t), and extrapolation beyond ζ≈0.016-0.019 (Section 5: 'The spherically symmetric code we use is limited...') - are real accuracy risks that could bias χ, but they are modeling approximations rather than circular reductions. The same-group NS comparison (Grichener et al. 2021; Hillel et al. 2022) is cited to support the 1D method; it uses a different code/dimension and a different regime and is externally falsifiable, so it constitutes evidence rather than a circularity chain. No quoted step reduces an equation to itself by construction. Therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the classical BHL accretion formula, on literature-assumed ranges for xi and eta, on a 1D spherically symmetric energy deposition that the authors themselves describe as limited, on a linear or log extrapolation beyond the simulated zeta range, and on a scaling to M2 = 0.1 M_sun that was not directly simulated. No new particles or processes are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • AGB linear fit slope and intercept for chi(zeta) = not reported
    The coefficient 0.5 in equation (8) is read off the linear fit of chi versus zeta at eta_xi = 0.15; the fit parameters are not tabulated.
  • RGB linear fit slope and intercept for chi(zeta) = not reported
    The coefficient 0.8 in equation (9) is read off the RGB fit at eta_xi = 0.15; fit parameters are not tabulated.
  • Data exclusion threshold for chi = chi = 1
    Points with chi > 1 at the outer radius are excluded from the fits, affecting the fitted slope used to derive equations (8) and (9).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion rate formula (equation 1) applies in the CEE envelope with the density taken at the companion's orbital position.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; a classical formula, but its applicability inside a common envelope is uncertain.
  • domain assumption The actual accretion rate is xi = 0.2-0.5 times the BHL rate, where xi is constant.
    Section 2.1 and Section 3, based on Kashi et al. (2022) and other 3D simulations; the paper notes some simulations give xi as low as 0.01, so this range is optimistic.
  • domain assumption The jets carry eta = 0.25-0.5 of the accretion energy onto the main-sequence companion.
    Section 2.2; no detailed calculation of the jet energy fraction for these parameters is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The envelope response to energy injection can be computed in 1D hydrostatic or hydrodynamic MESA with energy deposited in a thick spherical shell.
    Section 2.4; the paper states this is a limitation of the 1D approach because the real flow is non-spherical.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear (or log) extrapolation of chi(zeta) from zeta ≈ 0.016-0.019 to the physically motivated range zeta ≈ 0.1 remains valid.
    Section 3, right panels of Figures 3 and 4; this is a factor of 3-6 extrapolation with no physical model for the extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Orbital energy released by the spiraling-in companion is negligible for these low-mass companions in the outer envelope.
    Section 4, justified by comparing E_dot_B / E_dot_acc << 1 for a > 40 R_sun (AGB) and a > 25 R_sun (RGB).
  • domain assumption M2/R2 is approximately constant for low-mass main-sequence stars, so zeta ∝ M2^2 and the M2 scaling of chi follows.
    Section 3, used to translate the M2 = 0.2 M_sun simulations to M2 = 0.1 M_sun without new simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The jet-feedback mechanism in common envelope evolution of planetary nebula progenitors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MA6G62M

@misc{pith2026250606049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The jet-feedback mechanism in common envelope evolution of planetary nebula progenitors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MA6G62M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06049}
}
read the original abstract

Using the stellar evolution code MESA, we mimic the negative jet feedback mechanism in common envelope evolution (CEE) of low-mass main sequence stars, M2=0.1-0.2Mo, spiraling inward inside the envelopes of asymptotic giant branch (AGB) or red giant branch (RGB) stars and find that the jets reduced the envelope density, therefore the jets' power, by a factor of ~0.5/(M2/0.1Mo). We mimic the energy that the jets deposit into the envelope by depositing energy into the outer envelope, a process that inflates the envelope, therefore reducing the density in the vicinity of the main sequence star, the accretion rate, and the jets' power. In deriving this expression for the negative jet feedback coefficient, we assume that the actual mass accretion rate is a fraction ~0.2-0.5 of the classical Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton mass accretion rate and that the jets carry a fraction ~0.25-0.5 of the accretion energy onto the main sequence star. Our study is another step in establishing the major role of jets in the onset and early phase of CEE, a possible grazing envelope evolution phase, and in transient events, such as luminous red novae, which these processes can power.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The AGB stellar density profiles at t = 0 when we start energy injection (red line), and at t = 818 day (blue line), in a model with a companion star of M2 = 0.2M⊙ and ζ = 0.016 in equation (6). As expected, the star ex￾pands; in this case by a factor of of 2.3. Note the density inversion very close to the photosphere. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 logR[R ] 10 8 6 4 lo g [ g c m 3 ] RGB t=0 t=259 day = 0.019 [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The RGB stellar density profiles at t = 0 when we start energy injection (red line), and at t = 259 day, in a model with a companion star of M2 = 0.2M⊙ and ζ = 0.019 in equation (6). The star expands by a factor of 3.3 for these parameters and this time. This is small, but non-negligible, compared to the com￾panion initial mass, so that we expect the main-sequence companion to expand somewhat. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panels: The density change factor χ at three radii (given in the insets) as a function of ζ for a companion of M2 = 0.2M⊙, and for an AGB stellar model at t = 818 day (upper panels) and an RGB stellar model at t = 259 day (lower panels); insets give the radii and color code. The solid lines, with color corresponding to the points, are the best linear fit of χ(ζ). The filled circles in the right panels present t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ratio of the power of the gravitational energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mmӌu0 T>iE5& *F-.ǀ3_LL\ ]V P6MC > ; zZ (? ^G篘۾ 6ԼvD]@ ̏) װL b 6 C

    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

  2. [2]

    2018, , 481, 2754, 10.1093/mnras/sty2479

    Akashi , M., & Soker , N. 2018, , 481, 2754, 10.1093/mnras/sty2479

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2479 2018

  3. [3]

    A., Imai , H., & Orosz , G

    Baan , W. A., Imai , H., & Orosz , G. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 275, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/275

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/275 2021

  4. [4]

    1987, , 94, 671, 10.1086/114504

    Balick , B. 1987, , 94, 671, 10.1086/114504

    doi:10.1086/114504 1987

  5. [5]

    2020, , 889, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    Balick , B., Frank , A., & Liu , B. 2020, , 889, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651 2020

  6. [6]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025010, 10.1088/1674-4527/ada8ef

    Bear , E., & Soker , N. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025010, 10.1088/1674-4527/ada8ef

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ada8ef 2025

  7. [7]

    C., De Marco , O., Siess , L., et al

    Berm \'u dez-Bustamante , L. C., De Marco , O., Siess , L., et al. 2024, , 533, 464, 10.1093/mnras/stae1841

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1841 2024

  8. [8]

    G., & Lucchini , S

    Blackman , E. G., & Lucchini , S. 2014, , 440, L16, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu001

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu001 2014

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    2001, , 377, 868, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011090

    Bujarrabal , V., Castro-Carrizo , A., Alcolea , J., & S \'a nchez Contreras , C. 2001, , 377, 868, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011090

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Frank , A., et al

    Chamandy , L., Blackman , E. G., Frank , A., et al. 2019, , 490, 3727, 10.1093/mnras/stz2813

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    G., et al

    Chamandy , L., Carroll-Nellenback , J., Blackman , E. G., et al. 2024, , 528, 234, 10.1093/mnras/stae036

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    G., et al

    Chamandy , L., Frank , A., Blackman , E. G., et al. 2018, , 480, 1898, 10.1093/mnras/sty1950

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    H., & Arendt , R

    Chu , Y.-H., Jacoby , G. H., & Arendt , R. 1987, , 64, 529, 10.1086/191207

    1987 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, , 516, 2711, 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    Clairmont , R., Steffen , W., & Koning , N. 2022, , 516, 2711, 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Corradi , R. L. M., & Schwarz , H. E. 1995, , 293, 871

    1995

  8. [16]

    2022, , 260, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    Danehkar , A. 2022, , 260, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, , 530, 3327, 10.1093/mnras/stae1013

    Derlopa , S., Akras , S., Amram , P., et al. 2024, , 530, 3327, 10.1093/mnras/stae1013

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Esquivel , A., & Raga , A

    Estrella-Trujillo , D., Hern \'a ndez-Mart \' nez , L., Vel \'a zquez , P. F., Esquivel , A., & Raga , A. C. 2019, , 876, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12e1

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, , 683, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348383

    Gagnier , D., & Pejcha , O. 2024, , 683, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348383

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    1997, , 489, L189, 10.1086/316796

    Garcia-Segura , G. 1997, , 489, L189, 10.1086/316796

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    Garc \' a-Segura , G., & L \'o pez , J. A. 2000, , 544, 336, 10.1086/317186

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    A., & Franco , J

    Garc \' a-Segura , G., L \'o pez , J. A., & Franco , J. 2005, , 618, 919, 10.1086/426110

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Ricker , P

    Garc \' a-Segura , G., Taam , R. E., & Ricker , P. M. 2021, , 914, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc4e

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, , 517, 3822, 10.1093/mnras/stac2824

    ---. 2022, , 517, 3822, 10.1093/mnras/stac2824

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Glanz , H., & Perets , H. B. 2021 a , , 500, 1921, 10.1093/mnras/staa3242

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2021 b , , 507, 2659, 10.1093/mnras/stab2291

    ---. 2021 b , , 507, 2659, 10.1093/mnras/stab2291

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Siess , L., & Price , D

    Gonz \'a lez-Bol \' var , M., De Marco , O., Berm \'u dez-Bustamante , L. C., Siess , L., & Price , D. J. 2024, , 527, 9145, 10.1093/mnras/stad3748

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Gonz \'a lez-Bol \' var , M., De Marco , O., Lau , M. Y. M., Hirai , R., & Price , D. J. 2022, , 517, 3181, 10.1093/mnras/stac2301

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, , 922, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23dd

    Grichener , A., Cohen , C., & Soker , N. 2021, , 922, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23dd

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Suzett Rechy-Garc \' a , J., & Ortiz , R

    Guerrero , M. A., Suzett Rechy-Garc \' a , J., & Ortiz , R. 2020, , 890, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fa

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Zou , A., et al

    Gurjar , D., Chamandy , L. R., Zou , A., et al. 2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 438

    2024

  24. [32]

    2022, , 514, 3212, 10.1093/mnras/stac1341

    Hillel , S., Schreier , R., & Soker , N. 2022, , 514, 3212, 10.1093/mnras/stac1341

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, , 955, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf19a

    ---. 2023, , 955, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf19a

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Frew , D

    Hillwig , T. C., Frew , D. J., Reindl , N., et al. 2017, , 153, 24, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/24

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2017, , 464, 4028, 10.1093/mnras/stw2377

    Iaconi , R., Reichardt , T., Staff , J., et al. 2017, , 464, 4028, 10.1093/mnras/stw2377

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Bauer , E

    Jermyn , A. S., Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 28, 10.3390/galaxies8020028

    Jones , D. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 28, 10.3390/galaxies8020028

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06831, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06831

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06831, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06831

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Jones , D., Boffin , H. M. J., Rodr \' guez-Gil , P., et al. 2015, , 580, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425454

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    C., & Reindl , N

    Jones , D., Hillwig , T. C., & Reindl , N. 2023, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics XI, ed. M. Manteiga , L. Bellot , P. Benavidez , A. de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres , M. A. Fuente , M. J. Mart \' nez , M. V \'a zquez Acosta , & C. Dafonte , 216, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.06355

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jones , D., Boffin , H. M. J., Hibbert , J., et al. 2020, , 642, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038778

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Jones , D., Munday , J., Corradi , R. L. M., et al. 2022, , 510, 3102, 10.1093/mnras/stab3736

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, , 516, 3193, 10.1093/mnras/stac1912

    Kashi , A., Michaelis , A., & Kaminetsky , Y. 2022, , 516, 3193, 10.1093/mnras/stac1912

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Fesen , R

    Kimeswenger , S., Thorstensen , J. R., Fesen , R. A., et al. 2021, , 656, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039787

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Staff , J., & De Marco , O

    Kuruwita , R. L., Staff , J., & De Marco , O. 2016, , 461, 486, 10.1093/mnras/stw1414

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Renzo , M., Rau , S., & Vigna-G \'o mez , A

    Landri , C., Ricker , P. M., Renzo , M., Rau , S., & Vigna-G \'o mez , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15932, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15932

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Lau , M. Y. M., Hirai , R., Gonz \'a lez-Bol \' var , M., et al. 2022 a , , 512, 5462, 10.1093/mnras/stac049

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Lau , M. Y. M., Hirai , R., Price , D. J., & Mandel , I. 2022 b , , 516, 4669, 10.1093/mnras/stac2490

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Law-Smith , J. A. P., Everson , R. W., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.06630, 10.48550/arXiv.2011.06630

    2020 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    1986, 222, 235, 10.1093/mnras/222.2.235

    Livio, M., Soker, N., de Kool , M., & Savonije, G. 1986, 222, 235, 10.1093/mnras/222.2.235

    1986 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, , 482, 3646, 10.1093/mnras/sty2959

    L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., De Colle , F., & Moreno M \'e ndez , E. 2019, , 482, 3646, 10.1093/mnras/sty2959

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, , 513, 3634, 10.1093/mnras/stac932

    L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., De Colle , F., Moreno M \'e ndez , E., Shiber , S., & Iaconi , R. 2022, , 513, 3634, 10.1093/mnras/stac932

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, , 497, 2057, 10.1093/mnras/staa1983

    L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., Moreno M \'e ndez , E., & De Colle , F. 2020, , 497, 2057, 10.1093/mnras/staa1983

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, , 838, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117

    MacLeod , M., Antoni , A., Murguia-Berthier , A., Macias , P., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2017, , 838, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, , 798, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L19

    MacLeod , M., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2015, , 798, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L19

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    F., V \'a zquez , R., Olgu \' n , L., Guill \'e n , P

    Miranda , L. F., V \'a zquez , R., Olgu \' n , L., Guill \'e n , P. F., & Mat \' as , J. M. 2024, , 687, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348173

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2019, , 487, 1040, 10.1093/mnras/stz1315

    Miszalski , B., Manick , R., Van Winckel , H., & Miko ajewska , J. 2019, , 487, 1040, 10.1093/mnras/stz1315

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Balick , B., Montez , R., & Bublitz , J

    Moraga Baez , P., Kastner , J. H., Balick , B., Montez , R., & Bublitz , J. 2023, , 942, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2017, , 470, 2929, 10.1093/mnras/stx1385

    Moreno M \'e ndez , E., L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., & De Colle , F. 2017, , 470, 2929, 10.1093/mnras/stx1385

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    1987, , 99, 1115, 10.1086/132089

    Morris , M. 1987, , 99, 1115, 10.1086/132089

    1987 doi

  53. [61]

    T., R \"o pke , F

    Ohlmann , S. T., R \"o pke , F. K., Pakmor , R., & Springel , V. 2016, , 816, L9, 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L9

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    2017, , 153, 119, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/119

    Orosz , G., Imai , H., Dodson , R., et al. 2017, , 153, 119, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/119

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    Parker , Q. A. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 895287, 10.3389/fspas.2022.895287

    2022

  56. [64]

    A., Boji c i \'c , I

    Parker , Q. A., Boji c i \'c , I. S., & Frew , D. J. 2016, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 728, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 032008, 10.1088/1742-6596/728/3/032008

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  58. [66]

    2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    B., et al

    Paxton , B., Schwab , J., Bauer , E. B., et al. 2018, , 234, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    S., Guerrero , M

    Rechy-Garc \' a , J. S., Guerrero , M. A., Duarte Puertas , S., et al. 2020, , 492, 1957, 10.1093/mnras/stz3326

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    M., & Taam, R

    Ricker, P. M., & Taam, R. E. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 672, L41, 10.1086/526343

    2007 doi

  64. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08037, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08037

    Rosselli-Calderon , A., Yarza , R., Murguia-Berthier , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08037, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08037

    2024 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    2008, , 680, 483, 10.1086/587638

    Sahai , R., Claussen , M., S \'a nchez Contreras , C., Morris , M., & Sarkar , G. 2008, , 680, 483, 10.1086/587638

    2008 doi

  66. [74]

    2007, , 134, 2200, 10.1086/522944

    Sahai , R., Morris , M., S \'a nchez Contreras , C., & Claussen , M. 2007, , 134, 2200, 10.1086/522944

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    R., & Villar , G

    Sahai , R., Morris , M. R., & Villar , G. G. 2011, , 141, 134, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/134

    2011 doi

  68. [76]

    Sahai , R., & Trauger , J. T. 1998, , 116, 1357, 10.1086/300504

    1998 doi

  69. [77]

    Sahai , R., Vlemmings , W. H. T., & Nyman , L. A . 2017, , 841, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d86

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038

    Sahai , R., Alcolea , J., Balick , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038. 2409.06038

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    2023, , 520, 4182, 10.1093/mnras/stad360

    Schreier , R., Hillel , S., & Soker , N. 2023, , 520, 4182, 10.1093/mnras/stad360

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09663, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09663

    ---. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09663, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09663

    2025 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    E., Corradi , R

    Schwarz , H. E., Corradi , R. L. M., & Melnick , J. 1992, , 96, 23

    1992

  74. [82]

    2025, , 137, 034201, 10.1088/1538-3873/adb5c2

    Scolnic , A., Bear , E., & Soker , N. 2025, , 137, 034201, 10.1088/1538-3873/adb5c2

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    2024, , 532, 692, 10.1093/mnras/stae1500

    Shiber , S., & Iaconi , R. 2024, , 532, 692, 10.1093/mnras/stae1500

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    2019, , 488, 5615, 10.1093/mnras/stz2013

    Shiber , S., Iaconi , R., De Marco , O., & Soker , N. 2019, , 488, 5615, 10.1093/mnras/stz2013

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 117, 10.1088/1674-4527/16/7/117

    Shiber , S., Schreier , R., & Soker , N. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 117, 10.1088/1674-4527/16/7/117

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    2018, , 477, 2584, 10.1093/mnras/sty843

    Shiber , S., & Soker , N. 2018, , 477, 2584, 10.1093/mnras/sty843

    2018 doi

  79. [87]

    1990, , 99, 1869, 10.1086/115465

    Soker , N. 1990, , 99, 1869, 10.1086/115465

    1990 doi

  80. [88]

    2016, , 75, 1, 10.1016/j.newar.2016.08.002

    ---. 2016, , 75, 1, 10.1016/j.newar.2016.08.002

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 26, 10.3390/galaxies8010026

    ---. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 26, 10.3390/galaxies8010026

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 122003, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9782

    ---. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 122003, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9782

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    2025 a , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025023, 10.1088/1674-4527/adb15b

    ---. 2025 a , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025023, 10.1088/1674-4527/adb15b

    2025 doi

  84. [92]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22621

    ---. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22621. 2505.22621

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    E., De Marco , O., Macdonald , D., et al

    Staff , J. E., De Marco , O., Macdonald , D., et al. 2016, , 455, 3511, 10.1093/mnras/stv2548

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    Tafoya , D., Orosz , G., Vlemmings , W. H. T., Sahai , R., & P \'e rez-S \'a nchez , A. F. 2019, , 629, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834632

    2019 doi

  87. [95]

    2014, , 439, 2014, 10.1093/mnras/stu079

    Tocknell , J., De Marco , O., & Wardle , M. 2014, , 439, 2014, 10.1093/mnras/stu079

    2014 doi

  88. [96]

    K., Schneider , F

    Vetter , M., Roepke , F. K., Schneider , F. R. N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07841, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07841

    2024 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    K., Schneider , F

    Vetter , M., Roepke , F. K., Schneider , F. R. N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12213, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12213

    2025 doi arXiv

  90. [98]

    G., & Frank , A

    Zou , Y., Chamandy , L., Carroll-Nellenback , J., Blackman , E. G., & Frank , A. 2022, , 514, 3041, 10.1093/mnras/stac1529

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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