Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 111 references

Line ratio identification of external photoevaporation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Emission-line ratios can identify external photoevaporation in stellar clusters without resolving the discs.

desk verdict A useful, honest new diagnostic atlas for external photoevaporation in unresolved proplyds, with the main caveat that the observability threshold omits nebular background; deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19788 v1 pith:CFKV3GVH submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Tyger Peake , Thomas J. Haworth , Mari-Liis Aru , William J. Henney This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords externalphotoevaporationprotoplanetarydiscsproplydsemission-linediagnosticslineratiosphotoionizationmodellingstellarclustersFUVradiation
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 tries to give observers a way to detect external photoevaporation of protoplanetary discs in distant clusters where proplyds cannot be spatially resolved. It builds a deliberately simple model of the ionized wind streaming off a disc, computes emission-line luminosities with a photoionization code, and ranks all line ratios by how strongly they change as the FUV field from a nearby O star drops from $10^{6}$ to $10^{3}$ G0. The central result is quantitative: the ratio [SII] 6731 Å / [OIII] 5007 Å changes by a factor of 470 over that range, and Monte Carlo cluster simulations show that ratios with f ≳ 10 retain a detectable spatial gradient after projection and inclination effects. If this is right, spatially unresolved spectroscopy alone can locate regions of ongoing external photoevaporation in massive, distant star-forming clusters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a one-dimensional model of the ionized proplyd wind: mass conservation with a constant sound-speed outflow gives n ∝ $r^{-2}$, a precomputed grid of mass-loss rates fixes the wind density from disc radius, host mass, FUV field, and surface density, and a photoionization code computes the radial emissivity profile of every line outside the hydrogen ionization front. Observables are obtained by integrating emissivity over a hemisphere, mimicking an unresolved proplyd. A line-selection metric combines the fractional slope of each line ratio with distance, its Spearman monotonicity, and its luminosity relative to Hα, producing sensitivity tables whose entries log10(f) give the factor by which a ratio changes between $10^{3}$ and $10^{6}$ G0. Three physical effects drive the strongest ratios: emission-volume shifts across the ionization fronts of different metals, critical-density effects that change whether emissivity scales as n or $n^{2}$, and temperature sensitivity of high-excitation lines.

What would settle it

Take spatially unresolved spectra of proplyd candidates in a distant massive cluster where the FUV field can be estimated, subtract the nebular background, and plot [SII] 6731 Å / [OIII] 5007 Å against projected distance from the O star; if the ratio does not rise monotonically by roughly two to three orders of magnitude as the FUV field drops from $10^{6}$ to $10^{3}$ G0, or the gradient disappears once [OI] 6300 Å and background emission are included, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that external photoevaporation leaves a specific, monotonic fingerprint in spatially unresolved emission-line ratios. In the model, the ratio [SII] 6731 Å / [OIII] 5007 Å swings by a factor of 470 as the FUV field goes from $10^{6}$ to $10^{3}$ G0, because the volume where S II dominates shrinks roughly 25-fold and the volume where O III dominates shrinks roughly 7-fold relative to the hydrogen ionization front. Monte Carlo populations of proplyds with realistic stellar masses, disc radii, disc masses, and viewing geometries still show a clean spatial gradient for this ratio and for [NII] 6583 Å / [SII] 6731 Å (f = 8.5), while ratios with f ≈ 4 or 1.2 wash out. The paper therefore claims that line ratios with f ≳ 10 can identify ongoing external photoevaporation in stellar clusters even when individual proplyds are unresolvable, and that this conclusion barely depends on the spectral type of the ionizing star.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that all chosen diagnostic lines come only from the ionized wind outside the hydrogen ionization front, ignoring emission from the photodissociation region, the disc, and the surrounding nebula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Line ratios with f ≳ 10, led by [SII] 6731 Å / [OIII] 5007 Å, should show observable spatial gradients in unresolved cluster spectroscopy.
  • The gradient shape is largely insensitive to whether the ionizing star is B0, O7, or O3, so the same diagnostic can be applied to clusters with different OB populations.
  • The best diagnostic lines are predicted to lie in the optical and UV, with [OII] 3726 Å particularly promising for future blue-optical and UV facilities.
  • The sensitivity tables provide a ready-made list of ratio pairs, letting observers choose the brightest and most sensitive tracers for their wavelength coverage.
  • An initial test against five ONC proplyds shows the expected trend of [SII] 6731 Å / [OIII] 4959 Å increasing with projected distance, with one anomalous proplyd attributed to a jet and line-of-sight geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same logic suggests a two-step survey strategy: use unresolved line-ratio gradients to identify clusters with ongoing external photoevaporation, then target those clusters with resolved follow-up spectroscopy.
  • Because the model excludes emission from inside the ionization front, the practical diagnostic may be a composite that combines an ionized-wind ratio like [SII]/[OIII] with a PDR tracer such as [OI] 6300 Å to suppress contamination.
  • A testable extension would be to search for these gradients in existing wide-field IFU data of known clusters, checking whether the ratio rises monotonically outward once nebular background lines are subtracted.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a fast 1D model of emission lines from the ionized wind of externally photoevaporating protoplanetary discs. The wind density is assumed to follow n ∝ r^{-2} with a constant sound-speed velocity, the mass loss rate is taken from the FRIED grid, and CLOUDY is used to compute radial emissivity profiles. After benchmarking against VLT/MUSE observations of the ONC proplyd 177-341W, the authors run the model over FUV fields 10^3–10^6 G0, rank thousands of lines by a line-selection metric, and produce sensitivity tables for MUSE and broader wavelength ranges. They then perform Monte Carlo cluster simulations with projected distances, inclinations, and PDR obscuration, and argue that line ratios varying by f≳10 over the FUV range should show observable spatial gradients in unresolved cluster spectroscopy. The headline diagnostic is [SII] 6731 Å / [OIII] 5007 Å, which varies by a factor of 470 in the base model.

Significance. The proposed diagnostic addresses a real and timely observational need: external photoevaporation is currently studied mostly in resolved ONC proplyds, while more distant massive clusters require unresolved spectral diagnostics. The model is computationally efficient, and the sensitivity tables, data release, and use of public CLOUDY/FRIED codes make the work reproducible and immediately usable by the community. The physical interpretation in terms of ionization-front radii, critical densities, and temperature sensitivity provides a useful framework for understanding why certain ratios are sensitive to the FUV field. The predictions are falsifiable with existing and planned instruments. The paper is appropriately cautious about the simplicity of the wind model and the exclusion of interior-I-front emission in several places, although the observability analysis does not fully carry this caution through to the detectability claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3.1, Table 2] The detectability simulations in Section 4.3.1 include projection and inclination effects but omit nebular background emission, even though Section 1 acknowledges that high-UV environments are associated with substantial nebular emission. The benchmark in Table 2 shows that the model underpredicts [SII] 6716 relative to Hα by a factor of about 3.3 (Hα/[SII] observed 400 vs simulated 1300). Since [SII] 6731 is the numerator of the headline ratio [SII]/[OIII], any unresolved background with its own [SII]/[OIII] gradient will dilute or modify the predicted trend. The f≳10 threshold stated in Section 4.3.1 is therefore an internal model threshold, not a demonstrated detectability limit for real unresolved cluster spectroscopy. Please add a contaminant model, or otherwise quantify how the predicted gradients survive the level of background implied by the benchmark discrepancy.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The benchmark forces agreement by scaling the mass loss rate by a factor of 1.79 to match the Hα peak radius and by deriving extinction from the observed Hα/Hβ ratio. The Hα peak-position match is therefore enforced by construction. The factor-of-3 discrepancies in [SII] 6716 and [NII] 6583 line ratios show that the model is not calibrated for absolute line ratio levels. This is acceptable for trend predictions, but the paper should state clearly that the benchmark validates the ionization structure rather than the line-ratio normalization, and it should explain why the [SII]/[OIII] predictions are expected to be robust to a factor-of-3 level of contamination from processes not included in the model.
  3. [Section 4.1.3, Table 5] The observational test of the [SII] 6731 / [OIII] 4959 trend uses only five proplyds and shows very large scatter: 177-341W at 0.049 pc has a ratio of 0.0095, while 173-236 at 0.095 pc has 19. Even after excluding the anomalous 170-337, the implied change over 0.05 pc is far steeper than the base-case model trend in Figure 5. The paper should either provide a quantitative comparison with the model, including the expected Monte Carlo spread in mass loss rates and distances, or describe this as an illustrative anecdote rather than a 'preliminary trend' that supports the model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The surface density normalization is listed as Σau = 100 g/cm3, but surface density should be in units of g/cm^2; please correct the unit.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (17)] The statement that r_m/r_IF 'always' increases when moving to larger distance (Y>1, X<1) does not follow from Eq. (17) in general, since X^{1/6}Y^{1/3} can be less than 1 if the mass loss rate falls steeply with distance. The plotted base-case results support the trend, but the 'always' claim should be replaced by a statement about the FRIED-grid dependence.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The notation for the optically thin limit, 'dτ(r)=0 for all r', is inconsistent with the definition of τ(x,y0) in Eq. (5); please clarify that the limit reduces the projected intensity integrals to volume integrals of j(r).
  4. [Section 5.4] The caveats list jets, bow shocks, tail emission, abundance variations, and multiple OB stars as additional noise sources, but do not explicitly list nebular background emission from the H II region itself, despite its prominence in the Introduction and its likely contribution to the benchmark [SII] discrepancy.
  5. [Section 4.1.1, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The line-selection measure RM uses an ad hoc weighting function h(x); the robustness of the selected line set to this choice of weighting is not tested. A brief sensitivity test, or at least a statement that the full tables are available for users to apply other metrics, would strengthen the methodology.
  6. [Section 5.3] The sentence 'Störzer & Hollenbach (1998); Ballabio et al. (2023) found that G ≳ 5000 G0 the [Oi] 6300 Å line luminosity rises significantly' is missing a word; it should read 'found that for G ≳ 5000 G0 ...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predicted line ratios are independent CLOUDY/FRIED outputs, not fitted to the trends they claim to diagnose.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: the FRIED grid supplies a mass-loss rate for the proplyd/UV-source parameters; mass conservation gives an n∝r^-2 wind density; CLOUDY performs the photoionization/radiative-transfer calculation and returns radial emissivities; line ratios are integrated volume luminosities. Section 3 benchmarks against the ONC proplyd 177-341W by rescaling the FRIED mass-loss rate by 1.79 so that the H-alpha intensity-peak radius matches the observed 82 au and by normalizing the H-alpha intensity, but those normalizations are not carried into the Section 4.1 base-case line-ratio predictions, and the observed line-ratio trends are never used as fitting constraints. The line-selection metric RM_ij in Section 4.1.1 ranks model outputs by sensitivity and luminosity; reporting the top-ranked ratios is a data-reduction/ranking step, not a circular derivation, and Sections 4.2.1-4.2.4 independently attribute the trends to ionization-front radii, critical densities, and temperature. The Monte Carlo observability study in Section 4.3 uses the same model plus projection, inclination, and PDR obscuration; it is an internal feasibility estimate with explicit caveats in Section 5.4, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The FRIED grid and MUSE observations are from overlapping author groups, but they are public, independently tested resources, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation forces the conclusions. The exclusion of [OI] 6300, PDR/interior emission, and nebular background is a completeness limitation correctly acknowledged in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central line ratio predictions depend on the wind density normalization via FRIED, the assumption that all useful lines form outside the ionization front, and generic Orion abundances. The benchmark introduces a scaling factor and extinction parameters that are not used in the predictions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Benchmark mass loss rate scaling factor = 1.79
    Section 3.1: Mdot_FRIED was multiplied by 1.79 so that r_Halpha,sim equals r_Halpha,obs = 82 au. This is a fit to the benchmark target, not to the line ratio predictions.
  • Surface density normalization Sigma_au = 100 g/cm^2 (representative)
    Table 1 and Section 2.1: the authors choose a representative value due to uncertainty in the disc mass. It sets the FRIED mass loss rate and therefore the density profile.
  • Extinction law parameters = CCM89, R_V = 5.5, A(Halpha) from Halpha/Hbeta = 6.1
    Section 3.1: wavelength-dependent extinction is applied so that the simulated Hbeta approximately matches the observed Balmer decrement; this ties the benchmark comparison to an observed line ratio.
  • Base-case proplyd parameters = M_h = 0.7 M_sun, r_d = 50 au, i = 90 deg
    Section 4.1: the central sensitivity tables are computed for this single base-case proplyd. These values are not fitted to data, but the headline factor 470 depends on them.
  • Monte Carlo sampling distributions = uniform FUV 10^3 to 10^6 G0, uniform r_d 10 to 50 au, disc mass 10 to 50% M_max
    Section 4.3 and Table 7: these distributions define the synthetic clusters. Different cluster geometries would change the scatter and the inferred f threshold.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The ionized wind starts at the hydrogen ionization front with constant velocity equal to the sound speed, so n is proportional to r^-2 (Eq. 1).
    Section 2.1. The density profile determines all emissivities. Appendix A checks a Parker wind variant and finds similar line ratio trends, so this assumption is partially stress-tested.
  • domain assumption All selected diagnostic lines originate in the ionized wind outside r_IF; emission from the PDR, disk, and neutral region is negligible for those lines.
    Sections 2.3 and 5.3. The model deliberately excludes [OI] 6300 and other interior-I-front tracers. If such emission contaminates unresolved spectra, the gradients weaken.
  • domain assumption CLOUDY with Orion abundances adequately predicts the ionization and temperature structure of proplyd winds.
    Section 2.2. The benchmark uses generic ONC abundances and achieves line ratios within a factor of about 3, but abundances vary between clusters.
  • domain assumption FRIED mass loss rates are accurate for the sampled proplyd parameters.
    Section 2.1. The density normalization comes from the FRIED grid, a published coauthored grid that is not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption For metal ionization fronts, the ionizing photon intensity is approximately constant, giving U_IF n_IF = U_m n_m (Section 4.2.1).
    Used to derive Eq. 17, which underpins the physical explanation of why SII/OIII ratios are sensitive. The central predictions do not depend on this derivation.
  • domain assumption Cluster observability can be approximated by random isotropic viewing angles, projected distances, and binary PDR/disc obscuration.
    Section 4.3.1. This omits real cluster geometry, multiple OB stars, nebular background, jets, and tails. The paper lists these as caveats.
  • standard math Mass conservation for a spherical outflow and case B recombination balance (Eqs. 1 and 2).
    Standard nebular physics used to set the density profile and the analytical r_IF estimate. Not in question.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Line ratio identification of external photoevaporation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CFKV3GVH

@misc{pith2026250619788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Line ratio identification of external photoevaporation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CFKV3GVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19788}
}
abstract

External photoevaporation of protoplanetary discs, by massive O stars in stellar clusters, is thought to be a significant process in the evolution of a disc. It has been shown to result in significant mass loss and disc truncation, ultimately reducing the lifetime of the discs, and possibly affecting potential planet populations. It is a well-studied process in the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) where the cometary morphology of proplyds is spatially resolvable due to its proximity to Earth. However, we need to study external photoevaporation in additional stellar clusters to better understand its prevalence and significance more globally. Unfortunately, more massive stellar clusters where the majority of stars form are much farther away than the ONC. In these more distant clusters the proplyds are spatially unresolvable with current facilities, hence the cometary morphology is not a useful identification of external photoevaporation. Therefore, in order to identify and interpret external photoevaporation, the only observations we have are of spatially unresolved emission lines. To resolve this issue we have used the CLOUDY code to develop an approximate general model of the emission lines emanating from the hot ionized wind of a proplyd. We have used the model to determine which line ratios are most sensitive to the distance from an OB star, and found that the most sensitive line ratios vary by multiple orders of magnitude over an FUV field of between 10$^3$ G$_0$ to 10$^6$ G$_0$. By identifying spatial gradients of line ratios in stellar clusters, we can identify regions of ongoing external photoevaporation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19788 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the system. (𝑥, 𝑦) define a Cartesian coordinate grid and 𝑟 is the radial coordinate. The proplyd is the light gray hemisphere, with radius 𝑟IF, facing the dark gray UV source. The UV source emits a blackbody spectrum 𝐵(𝜆, 𝑇) which propagates down to the ionization front. The density profile is a function of radius only and is defined from 𝑟IF until the edge of the simulation domain (light blue line). T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RGB image of proplyd 177-341W in the ONC, which combines [Ci], H𝛼, and [S ii] emission lines (Aru et al. 2024b). We use this proplyd for comparison with our simplified model in section 3.1. resultant line luminosity is not a function of 𝑟max. In the following sections, we will determine which lines have a strongly varying line ratio 𝑙1 𝑙2 (𝑑) as a function of distance 𝑑 from the UV source, and if we expect such tren… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial profiles of proplyd 177-341W. The upper plot shows the temperature, the total number density, and the number density of the most abundant species: 𝑒 −, H i, H ii, He i, He ii. The bottom plot gives the fraction of O, C, and S, in each ionization state. plotting equation 4 with the normalization 𝐼(𝑦0) 𝐼(𝑟H𝛼,sim) = 2 𝐼(𝑟H𝛼,sim) ∫ ∞ 𝑦0 𝑟 𝑗(𝑟)d𝑟 √︁ 𝑟 2 − 𝑟0 2 . (8) In columns 2 and 3 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial intensity profiles for proplyd 177-341W. The blue lines are from cloudy simulations, while the red are observations. We emphasize that the model has not been designed to accurately reproduce any single proplyd, but rather as a tool to predict general trends as a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Five example line ratios as a function of distance between our base-case proplyd and the UV source Θ1 Ori C. We spanned 𝑑 = 0.05 pc to 𝑑 = 1.41 pc corresponding to FUV fields of between 103 G0 and 106 G0. where the signs simply correspond to positive if a line ratio in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Transition radii (I-fronts) as a function of distance between the base-case proplyd and the UV source, 𝑑 = 0.05 pc – 𝑑 = 1.41 pc, for the transitions: O ii-O iii, N ii-N iii, He i-He ii, S ii-S iii. These are normalized by the radius of the hydrogen ionization front, h…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Line ratios for our population of randomly sampled proplyds against their physical separation from the UV source. Vertical dotted lines show where the FUV field is 106 , 105 , 104 , and 103 G0 from left to right. The left hand panel shows the line ratio [S ii] 6731 Å /…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Populations of line ratios which account for observational effects. We plot the line ratio against the projected distance and account for the proplyds angle of inclination. We consider the line ratios: [S ii] 6731 Å / [O iii] 5007 Å, [N ii] 6583 Å / [S ii] 6731 Å, [Ar …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Populations of line ratios, accounting for observational effects, for the stellar parameters shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    C., Hollenbach D., Laughlin G., Gorti U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611..360A 611, 360

    Adams F. C., Hollenbach D., Laughlin G., Gorti U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611..360A 611, 360

    doi:10.1086/421989 2004

  3. [3]

    Allen M., et al., 2025, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.137538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E..54A 8, 54

    doi:10.33232/001c.137538 2025

  4. [4]

    Anania R., Winter A. J., Rosotti G., Vioque M., Zari E., Pantaleoni Gonz \'a lez M., Testi L., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...695A..74A 695, A74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453011 2025

  5. [5]

    L., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A..93A 687, A93

    Aru M. L., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A..93A 687, A93

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349004

  6. [6]

    L., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.137A 692, A137

    Aru M. L., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.137A 692, A137

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451737

  7. [7]

    S., Ramsay S

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773508 ( @eprint arXiv 2211.16795 ), @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    J., Henney W

    Ballabio G., Haworth T. J., Henney W. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.5563B 518, 5563

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3467 2023

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..127B 954, 127

    Ballering N. P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..127B 954, 127

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    R., McCaughrean M

    Bally J., O'Dell C. R., McCaughrean M. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....119.2919B 119, 2919

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    Bern \'e O., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac604c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134e4301B 134, 054301

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Bern \'e O., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06307-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.621...56B 621, 56

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Bern \'e O., et al., 2024, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.adh2861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Sci...383..988B 383, 988

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1ad4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...16B 257, 16

    Booth A. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1ad4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...16B 257, 16

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Eisner J

    Boyden R. D., Eisner J. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894...74B 894, 74

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Eisner J

    Boyden R. D., Eisner J. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947....7B 947, 7

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Eisner J

    Boyden R. D., Eisner J. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3cd5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967..103B 967, 103

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Emig K

    Boyden R. D., Emig K. L., Ballering N. P., Law C. J., Haworth T. J., Tan J. C., Cleeves L. I., Li Z.-Y., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250302979B p. arXiv:2503.02979

    2025 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    R., et al., 2024, in Bryant J

    Brandl B. R., et al., 2024, in Bryant J. J., Motohara K., Vernet J. R. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X. p. 1309612, @doi 10.1117/12.3018975

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    Chatzikos M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RMxAA..59..327C 59, 327

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11547.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.376.1350C 376, 1350

    Clarke C. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11547.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.376.1350C 376, 1350

    2007

  15. [23]

    Coleman G. A. L., Haworth T. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2315C 514, 2315

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Concha-Ram \' rez F., Wilhelm M. J. C., Portegies Zwart S., Haworth T. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.5678C 490, 5678

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    J., 2023, @doi [European Physical Journal Plus] 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03602-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023EPJP..138...11C 138, 11

    Cuello N., M \'e nard F., Price D. J., 2023, @doi [European Physical Journal Plus] 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03602-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023EPJP..138...11C 138, 11

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Guzm \'a n V

    D \' az-Berr \' os J. K., Guzm \'a n V. V., Walsh C., \"O berg K. I., Cleeves L. I., Artur de la Villarmois E., Carpenter J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969..165D 969, 165

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  20. [28]

    E., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00656009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968Ap&SS...1..388D 1, 388

    Dyson J. E., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00656009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968Ap&SS...1..388D 1, 388

    1968 doi

  21. [29]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac3e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...77E 860, 77

    Eisner J. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac3e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...77E 860, 77

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Emsenhuber A., Mordasini C., Burn R., Alibert Y., Benz W., Asphaug E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A..69E 656, A69

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Ercolano B., Pascucci I., 2017, @doi [Royal Society Open Science] 10.1098/rsos.170114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RSOS....470114E 4, 170114

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Bisbas T

    Facchini S., Clarke C. J., Bisbas T. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3593F 457, 3593

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Pascucci I., Apai D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcec8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908...49F 908, 49

    Fang M., Kim J. S., Pascucci I., Apai D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcec8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908...49F 908, 49

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675.1361F 675, 1361

    Fatuzzo M., Adams F. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675.1361F 675, 1361

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    2013 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    2017 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Flores-Rivera L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.126F 670, A126

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Facchini S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..84G 681, A84

    G \'a rate M., Pinilla P., Haworth T. J., Facchini S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..84G 681, A84

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689L...4G 689, L4

    Goicoechea J. R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689L...4G 689, L4

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Gorti U., Hollenbach D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...690.1539G 690, 1539

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Greve A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518A..62G 518, A62

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Cleeves L

    Gross R. E., Cleeves L. I., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ada939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980..189G 980, 189

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Birnstiel T., Kuffmeier M., Yen H.-W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.133G 683, A133

    Gupta A., Miotello A., Williams J. P., Birnstiel T., Kuffmeier M., Yen H.-W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.133G 683, A133

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Haisch Jr. K. E., Lada E. A., Lada C. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553L.153H 553, L153

    2001 doi

  37. [45]

    J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9aa1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..120H 979, 120

    Hallatt T., Lee E. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9aa1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..120H 979, 120

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Clarke C

    Haworth T. J., Clarke C. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3895H 485, 3895

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Owen J

    Haworth T. J., Owen J. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.5030H 492, 5030

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Clarke C

    Haworth T. J., Clarke C. J., Rahman W., Winter A. J., Facchini S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..452H 481, 452

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Cadman J., Meru F., Hall C., Albertini E., Forgan D., Rice K., Owen J

    Haworth T. J., Cadman J., Meru F., Hall C., Albertini E., Forgan D., Rice K., Owen J. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4130H 494, 4130

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Kim J

    Haworth T. J., Kim J. S., Winter A. J., Hines D. C., Clarke C. J., Sellek A. D., Ballabio G., Stapelfeldt K. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3502H 501, 3502

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2594H 512, 2594

    Haworth T. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2594H 512, 2594

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    J., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.4129H 525, 4129

    Haworth T. J., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.4129H 525, 4129

    doi

  45. [53]

    J., Coleman G

    Haworth T. J., Coleman G. A. L., Qiao L., Sellek A. D., Askari K., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.4315H 526, 4315

    doi

  46. [54]

    J., 2001, in Cant \'o J., Rodr \' guez L

    Henney W. J., 2001, in Cant \'o J., Rodr \' guez L. F., eds, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series Vol. 10, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. pp 57--60

    2001

  47. [55]

    J., Arthur S

    Henney W. J., Arthur S. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116..322H 116, 322

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    J., O'Dell C

    Henney W. J., O'Dell C. R., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118.2350H 118, 2350

    1999 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Arthur S

    Henney W. J., Arthur S. J., Williams R. J. R., Ferland G. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...621..328H 621, 328

    2005 doi

  50. [58]

    Huang S., Portegies Zwart S., Wilhelm M. J. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.338H 689, A338

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Itrich D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A.100I 685, A100

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Johnstone D., Hollenbach D., Bally J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...499..758J 499, 758

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537..598K 537, 598

    Keyte L., Haworth T. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537..598K 537, 598

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    S., Clarke C

    Kim J. S., Clarke C. J., Fang M., Facchini S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826L..15K 826, L15

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    Kirwan A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245428 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.166K 673, A166

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    Ralchenko Reader J., and NIST ASD Team 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver

    Kramida A., Yu. Ralchenko Reader J., and NIST ASD Team 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2025, May 24]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2024

  57. [66]

    S., Haugb lle T., 2023, @doi [European Physical Journal Plus] 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-03880-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023EPJP..138..272K 138, 272

    Kuffmeier M., Jensen S. S., Haugb lle T., 2023, @doi [European Physical Journal Plus] 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-03880-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023EPJP..138..272K 138, 272

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    R., et al., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211115608K p

    Kulkarni S. R., et al., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211115608K p. arXiv:2111.15608

    2021 doi arXiv

  59. [68]

    J., Lada E

    Lada C. J., Lada E. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA&A..41...57L 41, 57

    2003 arXiv

  60. [69]

    C., Mellema G., Henney W

    L \'o pez-Mart \' n L., Raga A. C., Mellema G., Henney W. J., Cant \'o J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..288L 548, 288

    2001 doi

  61. [70]

    E., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.168..603L 168, 603

    Lynden-Bell D., Pringle J. E., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.168..603L 168, 603

    1974 doi

  62. [71]

    F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591L...3M 591, L3

    Manara C. F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591L...3M 591, L3

    2016 doi

  63. [72]

    F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.196M 650, A196

    Manara C. F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.196M 650, A196

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    F., Ansdell M., Rosotti G

    Manara C. F., Ansdell M., Rosotti G. P., Hughes A. M., Armitage P. J., Lodato G., Williams J. P., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 539 ( @eprint a...

    2023 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    Mauc \'o K., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A..87M 693, A87

    2025 doi

  66. [75]

    J., Pearson S

    McCaughrean M. J., Pearson S. G., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231003552M p. arXiv:2310.03552

    2023 doi arXiv

  67. [76]

    E., Esteban C., Garc \' a-Rojas J., Henney W

    M \'e ndez-Delgado J. E., Esteban C., Garc \' a-Rojas J., Henney W. J., Mesa-Delgado A., Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1703M 502, 1703

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    E., Esteban C., Garc \' a-Rojas J., Henney W

    M \'e ndez-Delgado J. E., Esteban C., Garc \' a-Rojas J., Henney W. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..744M 514, 744

    2022 doi

  69. [78]

    G., Henney W

    Mesa-Delgado A., N \'u \ n ez-D \' az M., Esteban C., Garc \' a-Rojas J., Flores-Fajardo N., L \'o pez-Mart \' n L., Tsamis Y. G., Henney W. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21230.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..614M 426, 614

    2012

  70. [79]

    Mordasini C., Alibert Y., Benz W., Klahr H., Henning T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...541A..97M 541, A97

    2012 doi

  71. [80]

    R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115..263O 115, 263

    O'Dell C. R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115..263O 115, 263

    1998 doi

  72. [81]

    R., Wen Z., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...436..194O 436, 194

    O'Dell C. R., Wen Z., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...436..194O 436, 194

    1994 doi

  73. [82]

    R., Wen Z., Hu X., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...410..696O 410, 696

    O'Dell C. R., Wen Z., Hu X., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...410..696O 410, 696

    1993 doi

  74. [83]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  75. [84]

    E., Clarke C

    Owen J. E., Clarke C. J., Ercolano B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20337.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.1880O 422, 1880

    2012

  76. [85]

    J., Nelson R

    Paine S., Haworth T. J., Nelson R. P., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1414P 539, 1414

    2025 doi

  77. [86]

    E., Weber M

    Picogna G., Ercolano B., Owen J. E., Weber M. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..691P 487, 691

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    J., Sellek A

    Qiao L., Haworth T. J., Sellek A. D., Ali A. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac684 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3788Q 512, 3788

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    Qiao L., Coleman G. A. L., Haworth T. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.1939Q 522, 1939

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad03f8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958L..30R 958, L30

    Ram \' rez-Tannus M. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad03f8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958L..30R 958, L30

    2023 doi

  81. [90]

    M., Bally J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv634 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..564R 450, 564

    Reiter M., Smith N., Kiminki M. M., Bally J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv634 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..564R 450, 564

    2015 doi

  82. [91]

    Reiter M., Smith N., Bally J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.4344R 463, 4344

    2016 doi

  83. [92]

    R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2136R 136, 2136

    Ricci L., Robberto M., Soderblom D. R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2136R 136, 2136

    2008 doi

  84. [93]

    arXiv:1906.01657

    Richard J., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1906.01657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190601657R p. arXiv:1906.01657

    2019 doi

  85. [94]

    arXiv:2412.05650

    Rogers C., de Marchi G., Brandl B., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241205650R p. arXiv:2412.05650

    2024 doi arXiv

  86. [95]

    Scally A., Clarke C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04274.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..449S 325, 449

    2001

  87. [96]

    D., Grassi T., Picogna G., Rab C., Clarke C

    Sellek A. D., Grassi T., Picogna G., Rab C., Clarke C. J., Ercolano B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.296S 690, A296

    2024 doi

  88. [97]

    Shu F., Najita J., Ostriker E., Wilkin F., Ruden S., Lizano S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...429..781S 429, 781

    1994 doi

  89. [98]

    Sim \'o n-D \' az S., Herrero A., Esteban C., Najarro F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...448..351S 448, 351

    2006 doi

  90. [99]

    Skidmore W., Bernstein R., Dumas C., Goodrich R., Millan-Gabet R., Ramsay S., Travouillon T., Vernet J., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.021510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JATIS...8b1510S 8, 021510

    2022 doi

  91. [100]

    L., Pauldrach A

    Sternberg A., Hoffmann T. L., Pauldrach A. W. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599.1333S 599, 1333

    2003 doi

  92. [101]

    J., Hummer D

    Storey P. J., Hummer D. G., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.272...41S 272, 41

    1995 doi

  93. [102]

    St \"o rzer H., Hollenbach D., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...502L..71S 502, L71

    1998 doi

  94. [103]

    arXiv:2408.16396

    Sturm E., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240816396S p. arXiv:2408.16396

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [104]

    G., Flores-Fajardo N., Henney W

    Tsamis Y. G., Flores-Fajardo N., Henney W. J., Walsh J. R., Mesa-Delgado A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.3406T 430, 3406

    2013 doi

  96. [105]

    J., Nomura H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/766/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766L..23W 766, L23

    Walsh C., Millar T. J., Nomura H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/766/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766L..23W 766, L23

    2013 doi

  97. [106]

    Wang L., Bai X.-N., Goodman J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06fd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...90W 874, 90

    2019 doi

  98. [107]

    Wilhelm M. J. C., Portegies Zwart S., Cournoyer-Cloutier C., Lewis S. C., Polak B., Tran A., Mac Low M.-M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.5331W 520, 5331

    2023 doi

  99. [108]

    J., Haworth T

    Winter A. J., Haworth T. J., 2022, @doi [European Physical Journal Plus] 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03314-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022EPJP..137.1132W 137, 1132

    2022 doi

  100. [109]

    J., Clarke C

    Winter A. J., Clarke C. J., Rosotti G. P., Hacar A., Alexander R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.5478W 490, 5478

    2019 doi

  101. [110]

    J., Kruijssen J

    Winter A. J., Kruijssen J. M. D., Chevance M., Keller B. W., Longmore S. N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..903W 491, 903

    2020 doi

  102. [111]

    J., Haworth T

    Winter A. J., Haworth T. J., Coleman G. A. L., Nayakshin S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.4287W 515, 4287

    2022 doi

  103. [112]

    J., Benisty M., Andrews S

    Winter A. J., Benisty M., Andrews S. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6d5d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972L...9W 972, L9

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.