Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Resolved hydrogen-line profiles from gas-giant accretion shocks are narrow, non-Gaussian, and bright enough to be detected in minutes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:21 UTC pith:QAZKHX7Y

load-bearing objection A transparent, carefully caveated forecast paper for METIS observations of accreting gas giants; the 15-minute Br-alpha detection claim is plausible but explicitly rests on a shock-only scenario the authors flag but do not quantify. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.10751 v5 pith:QAZKHX7Y submitted 2025-11-13 astro-ph.EP

Detectability of resolved hydrogen lines from the accretion shock at gas giants and their CPDs

Gabriel-Dominique Marleau , Thomas Henning , Roy van Boekel , Myriam Benisty , Yuhiko Aoyama , Inga Kamp This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords accretioncircumplanetary diskhydrogen linesBrackett alphaline profilesgas giant formationELT/METISshock emission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to show that the hydrogen recombination lines emitted by the shock where gas falls onto a forming gas giant (and its circumplanetary disc) can be resolved in wavelength with the ELT's METIS spectrograph, and that the line shape is a direct probe of the planet's mass and radius. The authors calculate that the total Br-alpha line profile—dominated by the planet-surface shock, with a smaller contribution from the disc shock—is much narrower than the free-fall velocity (FWHM ~30–40 km/s) and is non-Gaussian, with a Gaussian core and asymmetric wings. For the fiducial case of PDS 70 b, they predict the line peak excess reaches signal-to-noise ~3 in about 15 minutes of integration, and the planet continuum alone is detectable at S/N ~12 in 4 hours. If correct, resolved line profiles become a fast and independent tracer of ongoing planet formation, complementing photometric accretion tracers and distinguishing between shock and magnetospheric accretion. The paper is explicitly a limiting-case calculation that neglects magnetospheric accretion columns and extinction, which could broaden or reshape the line.

Core claim

The paper claims that for a super-thermal mass gas giant accreting from a gap in its protoplanetary disc, the Br-alpha line formed in the accretion shock on the planet surface and the inner circumplanetary disc has a distinctive profile: a nearly Gaussian core with FWHM ≈31 km/s (about one-third of the free-fall velocity from infinity), broadened wings, and a net redshift of about +3 km/s. The profile is the sum of many local shock spectra from regions with different preshock velocities and densities, computed by combining a semi-analytical multidimensional flow model with local non-LTE shock emission models. The paper shows that the line-integrated flux is consistent with observed PDS 70 b

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the computation of a resolved line profile by integrating local shock emission over the visible surfaces of the planet and its circumplanetary disc. The flow onto the planet and disc is described by a semi-analytical ballistic-infall model that supplies the preshock velocity and density at each surface point; a local non-LTE shock model converts these into flux per unit wavelength. The integration over the visible geometry (with a fixed inclination and planet rotation) yields the total Br-alpha profile, which the paper then compares to simulated METIS sensitivities to estimate exposure times.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction assumes the hydrogen line emission comes entirely from ballistic shock impact, with negligible contribution from magnetospheric accretion columns (and, in the fiducial numbers, negligible extinction); if magnetospheric columns contribute, the line would be broader and differently shaped, changing both the interpretation and the required integration time.

What would settle it

Measure the Br-alpha line profile of PDS 70 b with a R~100,000 spectrograph in about one hour of on-source time. If the FWHM is substantially larger than ~40 km/s or the profile shows a prominent blue wing beyond the redshifted shock signature, the pure-shock scenario is falsified and magnetospheric accretion must be included.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • PDS 70 b's Br-alpha line peak should be detectable with METIS at S/N≈3 in roughly 15 minutes, making resolved accretion-line spectroscopy a practical survey tool.
  • The narrow, near-constant FWHM of 30–40 km/s at low accretion densities means that a resolved line much broader than this (or with a strong blue wing) would signal that magnetospheric accretion contributes.
  • The line shape is mainly sensitive to planet mass and radius, so measured profiles give independent constraints on these quantities, complementing photometric accretion tracers.
  • Planet rotation flattens photospheric molecular features without broadening the shock line, improving the contrast of the line excess; a mid-latitude viewing inclination is optimal.
  • Pfund-series lines (Pf-beta, Pf-gamma, Pf-delta) are predicted to be far less useful than Br-alpha for this purpose, because the photosphere is relatively bright and the sensitivity poorer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the line shape indeed stays at FWHM≈30–40 km/s independent of accretion rate at low densities, then a narrow line is expected for any low-density shock-accreting planet, making a 'complex profile' a clean discriminator for magnetospheric accretion—an extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • The near-insensitivity of line shape to inclination and CPD geometry suggests the profile can be used as a mass/radius diagnostic without knowing the viewing geometry precisely, which is not the case for many other line diagnostics.
  • The strong dependence of the predicted continuum subtraction on the water (H2O) line list implies that future laboratory and theoretical opacity work near 4 μm could change the detectability of the line excess; this is testable by comparing different atmosphere models at R~100,000.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes high-resolution profiles of hydrogen recombination lines (mainly Brα) from the accretion shock at a gas-giant planet and its circumplanetary disc (CPD), using a semi-analytical ballistic-infall geometry (Marleau 2025) combined with the 1D non-LTE shock models of Aoyama et al. (2018). For fiducial PDS 70 b parameters, the total Brα profile is predicted to be non-Gaussian, redshifted by a few km/s, and much narrower (FWHM ≈ 31 km/s, ≈ 0.33 of the free-fall velocity) than often assumed. The CPD shock contributes a subdominant component. The photospheric continuum of PDS 70 b is predicted to be detectable at per-bin S/N ≈ 12 in 4 h with METIS, and the shock excess at S/N ≈ 3 in about 15 min. The paper also maps the parameter dependence of the line shape and provides a wider survey of required integration times as a function of planet mass and accretion rate.

Significance. If the predictions hold, resolved Brα spectroscopy with ELT/METIS would provide a new, powerful probe of ongoing gas-giant formation: line profiles would constrain planet mass and radius, distinguish shock from magnetospheric accretion, and yield detection times of order minutes for the best-known target. The paper is valuable for its detailed geometric integration, transparent treatment of the local shock physics, explicit parameter study, and honest listing of limitations. The existence of a concrete, falsifiable prediction (FWHM ≈ 30–40 km/s, asymmetric red wing) is a strength. However, the central detectability and profile-shape claims depend on (i) the assumption of negligible magnetospheric accretion, which is discussed but never modelled, and (ii) a surface-density normalization calibrated to observed Hα fluxes, so the predicted Brα flux is partly a rescaled empirical calibration rather than an independent prediction.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, §3.1, Abstract] The assumption of 'negligible contribution from magnetospheric accretion' is load-bearing. The paper's headline forecasts — FWHM≈31 km/s, a 15-min S/N≈3 detection, and the claim that line profiles 'constrain the mass and radius' (§6) — all rest on pure shock emission. Yet §5.1 concedes that magnetospheric accretion 'seems logically required even at planetary masses' and that narrow columns 'might be found on PDS 70 b'. Thanathibodee et al. (2019) fit PDS 70 b's Hα with a magnetospheric model at FWHM≈57 km/s, i.e., v≈0.46, which for the adopted v_ff=94 km/s is ≈40 km/s versus the shock-only ≈31 km/s. A 30–50% column contribution would broaden the composite line, add a blue wing, reduce the peak per-bin S/N by roughly 30–50%, and roughly double the required integration time, while also breaking the uniqueness of the profile→(M_p,R_p) inversion. Because this is the central scientific claim,
  2. [§3.2, §4.5, Table 1] The Brα flux and hence the detection time are calibrated rather than independently predicted. The fiducial Σ≈0.2 g cm⁻² is chosen so that the model reproduces observed Hα and other line fluxes (§3.2, Fig. 4), and the cross-check with Aoyama et al. (2021) is described by the authors as 'almost by construction'. Therefore the predicted peak excess of the Brα line and the '15 min to S/N≈3' headline inherit the Hα-inferred accretion luminosity. Given the observed factor-of-few Hα variability of PDS 70 b (Close et al. 2025a; Zhou et al. 2025), the detection-time estimate should be presented as a range (e.g., 15 min to a few hours) or explicitly conditioned on the epoch-dependent accretion rate. The line-shape and FWHM results are largely independent of this calibration, but the detectability claim is not.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs §3.3/§6] The abstract states that 'the line shape is barely sensitive to the planetary or system parameters', but Fig. 5 and the text (§3.3, §6) show that M_p and R_p noticeably affect the profile. The conclusion (point 2) correctly says 'sensitive mostly to the mass and radius'. Please harmonize the abstract with the body.
  2. [§2.3] The sentence 'Depending on the preshock velocity, which is v0∼100–150 km s−1 for planets, but also on the preshock velocity' contains a duplicated phrase and should be rewritten.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (4)] The symbol v is used both for velocity and for the normalized FWHM v≡FWHM/v_ff. Consider using a distinct symbol (e.g., w or η) to avoid confusion, especially since v_0, v_ff, and vsini appear nearby.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'WISPIT2b' while the text uses 'WISPIT 2 b' (and the official designation is WISPIT-2b per van Capelleveen et al. 2025). Please make this consistent.
  5. [§5.2] When discussing A_Brα≈2 mag from Alarcón et al. (2024), the paper says 'We will consider this a moderate value' and then concludes that neglecting extinction is 'an acceptable working approximation'. Given that 2 mag would reduce the line by a factor of ~6 and substantially lengthen the required integration time, this statement seems under-justified; at least a sentence explaining why this value is considered an outlier relative to other estimates would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central line-profile prediction is a forward-model output; the only non-independent element is an explicitly labeled 'almost by construction' cross-check.

specific steps
  1. other [Section 3.2, Fig. 4 (Aoyama et al. 2021 cross-check)]
    "This yields a range of values, shown as thick crosses in Figure 4, bounded by the integrated line flux of our detailed model. This is almost by construction, since the underlying physical model is the same in Aoyama et al. (2021), who used the one-zone predictions of Aoyama et al. (2018), as here, where we consider a spatial distribution of emitting patches."

    The Brα fluxes derived from the Aoyama et al. (2021) scalings are not independent of the paper's own line-flux calculation: both rest on the same Aoyama et al. (2018) shock model. Agreement between the scaled Hα-based estimates and the detailed model is therefore expected to first order, as the paper concedes ('almost by construction'). However, this is an optional 'very mild consistency check,' not the basis of the FWHM, line-shape, or SNR claims, so it is a minor non-load-bearing redundancy rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The central derivation is a forward calculation: ballistic-infall geometry (Marleau 2025, built on Adams & Batygin / Taylor & Adams) supplies preshock velocity and density; Aoyama et al. (2018) local shock models supply line emission as a function of (n0, v0); the Appendix A viewing integrals produce the spatially and spectrally resolved profile. No output quantity is fed back as an input. The fiducial Σ≈0.2 g cm−2 is calibrated to observed Hα and line upper limits, so the absolute Brα flux and the 15-min 3σ time inherit that empirical normalization; but the line profile's FWHM≈31 km/s, its non-Gaussian wings, and its near-constancy are not fitted and are governed by v_ff=94 km/s and the local shock widths. The Aoyama et al. (2021) comparison is explicitly flagged 'almost by construction' and is not load-bearing. Self-citations to Marleau et al. (2023) and Marleau (2025) are normal model anchors (hydro simulations, flow calibration), not unverified uniqueness theorems. Hence no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model is built on a chain of domain assumptions but introduces no new physical entities. The main imported ingredients are the Aoyama shock model and the ballistic inflow model; the most fragile assumptions are the neglect of magnetospheric accretion and the line-list-dependent photospheric continuum.

free parameters (6)
  • Hill-sphere gas surface density Σ = 0.2 g cm^-2
    Chosen so model line fluxes match PDS 70 b H-alpha detections and upper limits (§3.2, Table 1); controls the accretion rate and Br-alpha flux linearly.
  • CPD opening angle θ_CPD = 77°
    Free geometric parameter; affects the preshock velocity and CPD contribution; not directly constrained by observations.
  • centrifugal radius fraction f_cent = 0.03
    Set from prior simulations and Adams & Batygin; shown to affect the line shape only weakly (§3.3, Figure 6).
  • Planet effective temperature T_eff = 1400 K
    Fiducial atmospheric model for PDS 70 b, used for the photospheric continuum (§4.4, Table 1).
  • Photospheric normalization factor = 1.036
    Multiplicative factor applied to the CIFIST 1400 K model to match NB4.05 photometry (§4.4).
  • Projected rotation speed vsini = 10 km/s
    Assumed rotational broadening of the photosphere; flattens atmospheric features and aids line detectability (§4.4).
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Aoyama et al. (2018) local RHD shock model accurately predicts hydrogen line emission for planetary accretion shocks
    Used for all local line intensities and profiles; not independently verified within this paper.
  • domain assumption Ballistic infall model (Marleau 2025; Adams & Batygin) describes the 3D flow onto the planet and CPD
    Underlies the preshock velocity and density at the surfaces.
  • domain assumption Azimuthal symmetry of the inflow and emission
    Simplifies the flux integration; justified by timescale arguments in §2.2.
  • domain assumption Magnetospheric accretion contribution is negligible
    Explicitly assumed in Abstract, §2.1, §5.1; line shape and detectability are computed for pure shock emission only.
  • domain assumption No significant extinction toward the planet at L/M bands
    Assumed appropriate for gap-opening planets; discussed in §5.2 with caveats.
  • domain assumption CPD is geometrically thin with a constant opening angle and no flaring
    The emitting surface is taken as a cone at θ_CPD; thickness and flaring are unconstrained (§2.2).
  • domain assumption Line-emitting postshock gas does not rotate with the planet/CPD
    Only the photosphere is rotationally broadened; the shock line is treated as formed before coupling to Keplerian rotation (§2.2, Figure 2 caption).
  • domain assumption CIFIST model atmospheres with the BT2 H2O line list are representative of the true photospheric spectrum at Br-alpha
    The paper itself shows large differences between BT2, HITRAN2020, and POKAZATEL opacities (Appendix G), making this a fragile assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40106 in / 11068 out tokens · 100759 ms · 2026-08-03T22:21:04.067535+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fewer gas giants have been caught in their accretion phase than mature ones are known. Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) instruments will have a higher sensitivity and a smaller inner working angle than tools up to now, which should increase search yields. We examine what METIS, the first-generation ELT spectrograph with R=1e5, can reveal about accreting gas giants. We focus on the accessible hydrogen recombination lines, mainly Brackett alpha and Pfund-series lines. Our approach is general but we take PDS70b as a fiducial case. It is similar to WISPIT2b. To calculate high-resolution line profiles, we combine a semianalytical multi-D description of the flow onto an accreting planet and its circumplanetary disc (CPD) with local non-LTE shock-emission models. We assume the limiting scenario of no extinction, appropriate for gas giants in gaps, and negligible contribution from magnetospheric accretion. We use simulated detector sensitivities to compute needed observing times. Both the planet- and the CPD-surface shocks contribute to the line, which has a Gaussian core but wider, asymmetrical wings. The line is much narrower than the free-fall velocity, and in fact has a nearly constant FWHM=30--40 km/s at low densities. For our fiducial accretion rate onto PDS70b, the Br-a line peak excess is as strong as the photospheric continuum, modulated mostly by H2O features. At Br-a, already the continuum of PDS 70 b yields a per-bin S/N=12 in 4h. With ProDiMo, we estimate the CPD not to hinder the detection of the line emission. The peak excess should require only 10 min to reach S/N=3. For pure shock emission, the line shape is barely sensitive to the planetary or system parameters. A complex profile would indicate that magnetospheric accretion contributes significantly. The high spectral resolution of METIS will help reveal line shapes even of faint accretors with great fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.10751 by Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Inga Kamp, Myriam Benisty, Roy van Boekel, Thomas Henning, Yuhiko Aoyama.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: H i lines in the L and M bands of METIS, where it offers R = 105 . We show the Brackett (Br; lower level nℓ = 4), Pfund (Pf; nℓ = 5), and Humphries (Hu; nℓ = 6) series. Relative heights are schematic. 2.4. The accretion rate “The accretion rate” towards a planet has different meanings in different contexts and works. In (multidimensional) global hy￾drodynamics PPD simulations, it is often defined as the (n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Results for the shock excess line emission (i.e., without the thermal emission) in the fiducial case (for PDS 70 b-like parameters, including d = 113.4 pc and i = 50°; see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total emission line (thick black line), which sums the planetary￾and CPD-surface contributions (dashed red and blue, respectively) cor￾responding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Line-integrated luminosity in our models (blue circles) com￾pared to the observational constraints at PDS 70 b (gold symbols), not correcting for extinction. We use the fiducial parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Line shapes (solid: total, i.e., planet and CPD; dashed: CPD contribution), normalised to each maximum, varying respectively the gas surface density Σ, inclination i, opening angle of the CPD θCPD, planet mass Mp, and planet radius Rp, all at Br α, or for the fiducial values, the hydrogen line (last panel). See respective legends. The fiducial values (black line, same in each panel) are as in [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resolved continuum at Br α for Teff = 1200, 1400, 1600 K (blue to red) from the CIFIST models for log g = 3.5 and solar metallic￾ity, scaled to match, integrated over the filter, the Stolker et al. (2020b) NB4.05 photometry (see text), and without rotational broadening (pale lines) or broadened to vsin i ≈ 10 km s−1 (darker lines). The black dashed line is total shock emission for the fiducial case as in … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity (at 5 σ in 1 h) of METIS around three of the H i emission lines. Figure F.1 shows this for all lines over a narrower range. their break-up velocity (Bryan et al. 2020; Snellen 2025) vbrkp = s GMp Rp , (6) which translates into projected rotation velocities vsin i ≲ fcritvbrkp ≈ 10 fcrit 0.2 ! sin  i 50°  r M5 R2 km s−1 , (7) where M5 ≡ Mp/(5 MJ) and R2 ≡ Rp/(2 RJ). With the Keck Planet Imager… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted spectrum of PDS 70 b at Br α and noise for a 4-h integration (black line with 1-σ grey errorbars) on the detector wavelength grid. We sum for this the photosphere (CIFIST with Teff = 1400 K, log g = 3.5 broadened to vsin i = 10 km s−1 ; pale and dark orange, respectively) and the shock emission (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Peak excess flux at the Br α line for a range of planet masses and accretion rates M˙ 97% (defined in Section 2.4). The parameters Rp, θCPD, d, i are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Planetary formation tracks on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram: Visualising the processes of giant planet growth

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Planetary formation tracks on the HR diagram show three branches: ascending during solid accretion with L proportional to T to the 8th for in-situ planetesimals, near-horizontal during gas accretion, and descending du...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint doi url journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year adsurl label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'be...

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  5. [5]

    & Stegun , I

    Abramowitz , M. & Stegun , I. A. 1972, Handbook of Mathematical Functions , Applied Mathematics Series 55 (U.S.\@ Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards)

    1972

  6. [6]

    Adams , F. C. & Batygin , K. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a3e magenta , 934, 111 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..111A

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a3e 2022

  7. [7]

    Adams , F. C. & Batygin , K. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/adcf57 magenta , 137, 054401 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASP..137e4401A

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adcf57 2025

  8. [8]

    A., & Cugno , G

    Alarc \'o n , F., Bergin , E. A., & Cugno , G. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad3938 magenta , 966, 225 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..225A

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3938 2024

  9. [9]

    M., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Manara , C. F., Natta , A., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629929 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629929 2017

  10. [10]

    2013, , 84, 1053 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MmSAI..84.1053A

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., & Freytag , B. 2013, , 84, 1053 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MmSAI..84.1053A

    2013

  11. [11]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ae09a8 magenta , 992, L2 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...992L...2A

    Almendros-Abad , V., Scholz , A., Damian , B., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ae09a8 magenta , 992, L2 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...992L...2A

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae09a8 2025

  12. [12]

    & Ikoma , M

    Aoyama , Y. & Ikoma , M. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062 magenta , 885, L29 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885L..29A

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062 2019

  13. [13]

    2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11 magenta , 866, 84 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866...84A

    Aoyama , Y., Ikoma , M., & Tanigawa , T. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11 magenta , 866, 84 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866...84A

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11 2018

  14. [14]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ad67df magenta , 168, 155 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168..155A

    Aoyama , Y., Marleau , G.-D., & Hashimoto , J. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ad67df magenta , 168, 155 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168..155A

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad67df 2024

  15. [15]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd magenta , 917, L30 http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/2021ApJ...917L..30A

    Aoyama , Y., Marleau , G.-D., Ikoma , M., & Mordasini , C. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd magenta , 917, L30 http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/2021ApJ...917L..30A

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd 2021

  16. [16]

    2020, http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/2020arXiv201106608A http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2011.06608 magenta arXiv , arXiv:2011.06608

    Aoyama , Y., Marleau , G.-D., Mordasini , C., & Ikoma , M. 2020, http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/2020arXiv201106608A http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2011.06608 magenta arXiv , arXiv:2011.06608

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.06608 2020

  17. [17]

    Ayliffe , B. A. & Bate , M. R. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15002.x magenta , 397, 657 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..657A

    arXiv 2009

  18. [18]

    Azzam , A. A. A., Tennyson , J., Yurchenko , S. N., & Naumenko , O. V. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1133 magenta , 460, 4063 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.4063A

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1133 2016

  19. [19]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bae , J., Isella , A., Zhu , Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. Inutsuka , S., Aikawa , Y., Muto , T., Tomida , K., & Tamura , M., 423 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ASPC..534..423B

    2023

  20. [20]

    S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P

    Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Barman , T. S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  21. [21]

    J., Tennyson , J., Harris , G

    Barber , R. J., Tennyson , J., Harris , G. J., & Tolchenov , R. N. 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10184.x magenta , 368, 1087 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368.1087B

    arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    & Adams , F

    Batygin , K. & Adams , F. C. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-025-02512-y magenta Nature Astronomy , 9, 835 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9..835B

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02512-y 2025

  23. [23]

    & Morbidelli , A

    Batygin , K. & Morbidelli , A. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937 magenta , 894, 143 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894..143B

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937 2020

  24. [24]

    2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa95be magenta , 850, 150 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..150B

    Baudino , J.-L., Molli \`e re , P., Venot , O., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa95be magenta , 850, 150 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..150B

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95be 2017

  25. [25]

    2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200810395 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    Bayo , A., Rodrigo , C., Barrado Y Navascu \'e s , D., et al. 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200810395 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810395 2008

  26. [26]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 magenta , 916, L2 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916L...2B

    Benisty , M., Bae , J., Facchini , S., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 magenta , 916, L2 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916L...2B

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 2021

  27. [27]

    Bergez-Casalou , C., Bitsch , B., & Raymond , S. N. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202244988 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244988 2023

  28. [28]

    & Rafikov , R

    B \'e thune , W. & Rafikov , R. R. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1870 magenta , 488, 2365 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2365B

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1870 2019

  29. [29]

    K., Follette , K

    Betti , S. K., Follette , K. B., Ward-Duong , K., et al. 2022 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ef magenta , 935, L18 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935L..18B

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ef 2022

  30. [30]

    K., Follette , K

    Betti , S. K., Follette , K. B., Ward-Duong , K., et al. 2022 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aca331 magenta , 941, L20 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941L..20B

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca331 2022

  31. [31]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b94 magenta , 169, 137 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..137B

    Blakely , D., Johnstone , D., Cugno , G., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b94 magenta , 169, 137 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..137B

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b94 2025

  32. [32]

    P., Liu , M

    Bowler , B. P., Liu , M. C., Kraus , A. L., Mann , A. W., & Ireland , M. J. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/148 magenta , 743, 148 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..148B

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/148 2011

  33. [33]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.18727/0722-6691/5218 magenta The Messenger , 182, 22 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Msngr.182...22B

    Brandl , B., Bettonvil , F., van Boekel , R., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.18727/0722-6691/5218 magenta The Messenger , 182, 22 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Msngr.182...22B

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5218 2021

  34. [34]

    R., Bettonvil , F., van Boekel , R., et al

    Brandl , B. R., Bettonvil , F., van Boekel , R., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. Evans , C. J., Bryant , J. J., & Motohara , K., 1218421 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022SPIE12184E..21B

    2022

  35. [35]

    L., Ginzburg , S., Chiang , E., et al

    Bryan , M. L., Ginzburg , S., Chiang , E., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abc0ef magenta , 905, 37 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...37B

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc0ef 2020

  36. [36]

    F., Benisty , M., et al

    Campbell-White , J., Manara , C. F., Benisty , M., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acf0c0 magenta , 956, 25 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...25C

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf0c0 2023

  37. [37]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/167900 magenta , 345, 245 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  38. [38]

    & Johns-Krull , C

    Carvalho , A. & Johns-Krull , C. M. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/acd37e magenta , 7, 91 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RNAAS...7...91C

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acd37e 2023

  39. [39]

    2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200400056 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A.-M., Dumas , C., et al. 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200400056 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200400056 2004

  40. [40]

    Chiar , J. E. & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/498406 magenta , 637, 774 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...637..774C

    doi:10.1086/498406 2006

  41. [41]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1232 magenta , 486, 5819 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5819C

    Christiaens , V., Casassus , S., Absil , O., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1232 magenta , 486, 5819 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5819C

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1232 2019

  42. [42]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202349089 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A

    Christiaens , V., Samland , M., Henning , T., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202349089 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349089 2024

  43. [43]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451943e magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A

    Christiaens , V., Samland , M., Henning , T., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451943e magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451943e 2025

  44. [44]

    M., Males , J

    Close , L. M., Males , J. R., Li , J., et al. 2025 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ad8648 magenta , 169, 35 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169...35C

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8648 2025

  45. [45]

    M., van Capelleveen , R

    Close , L. M., van Capelleveen , R. F., Weible , G., et al. 2025 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5 magenta , 990, L9 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...990L...9C

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5 2025

  46. [46]

    2025, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250926617C http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.26617 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.26617

    Cugno , G., Facchini , S., Alarcon , F., et al. 2025, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250926617C http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.26617 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.26617

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.26617 2025

  47. [47]

    P., Hunziker , S., et al

    Cugno , G., Quanz , S. P., Hunziker , S., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201834170 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834170 2019

  48. [48]

    de Regt , S., Snellen , I. A. G., Allard , N. F., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202453190 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453190 2025

  49. [49]

    H., et al

    Delorme , P., Gagn \'e , J., Girard , J. H., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321169 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321169 2013

  50. [50]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A

    Demars , D., Bonnefoy , M., Dougados , C., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 2023

  51. [51]

    2025, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251101979D http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01979 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.01979

    Demars , D., Bonnefoy , M., Dougados , C., et al. 2025, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251101979D http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01979 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.01979

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.01979 2025

  52. [52]

    R., Bae , J., Konopacky , Q

    Do \'O , C. R., Bae , J., Konopacky , Q. M., et al. 2025, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251011021D http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.11021 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.11021

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11021 2025

  53. [53]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202554485 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A

    Dom \' nguez-Jamett , O., Casassus , S., Baobab Liu , H., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202554485 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554485 2025

  54. [54]

    F., Cristofari , P

    Donati , J. F., Cristofari , P. I., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae2506 magenta , 535, 3363 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.3363D

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2506 2024

  55. [55]

    Dong , J., Jiang , Y.-F., & Armitage , P. J. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac1941 magenta , 921, 54 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921...54D

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1941 2021

  56. [56]

    Draine , B. T. & Bertoldi , F. 1996, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/177689 magenta , 468, 269 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...468..269D

    doi:10.1086/177689 1996

  57. [57]

    C., Asensio Torres , R., Janson , M., et al

    Eriksson , S. C., Asensio Torres , R., Janson , M., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038131 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038131 2020

  58. [58]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10686-024-09968-2 magenta Experimental Astronomy , 58, 20 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ExA....58...20F

    Feldt , M., Bertram , T., Correia , C., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10686-024-09968-2 magenta Experimental Astronomy , 58, 20 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ExA....58...20F

    doi:10.1007/s10686-024-09968-2 2024

  59. [59]

    2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20034154 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    Fendt , C. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20034154 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034154 2003

  60. [60]

    B., Mulders , G

    Fernandes , R. B., Mulders , G. D., Pascucci , I., Mordasini , C., & Emsenhuber , A. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab0300 magenta , 874, 81 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...81F

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0300 2019

  61. [61]

    M., Manara , C

    Fiorellino , E., Alcal \'a , J. M., Manara , C. F., et al. 2025, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250921078F http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.21078 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.21078

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.21078 2025

  62. [62]

    T., et al

    Flores-Rivera , L., Flock , M., Kurtovic , N. T., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141664 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141664 2023

  63. [63]

    B., Close , L

    Follette , K. B., Close , L. M., Males , J. R., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/acc183 magenta , 165, 225 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..225F

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acc183 2023

  64. [64]

    J., Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Marley , M. S., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., & Lissauer , J. J. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asna.200510465 magenta Astron.\ Nachrichten , 326, 925 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AN....326..925F

    doi:10.1002/asna.200510465 2005

  65. [65]

    J., Rosenthal , L

    Fulton , B. J., Rosenthal , L. J., Hirsch , L. A., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1 magenta , 255, 14 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...14F

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1 2021

  66. [66]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab53da magenta , 887, 152 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..152F

    Fung , J., Zhu , Z., & Chiang , E. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab53da magenta , 887, 152 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..152F

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab53da 2019

  67. [67]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 2018

  68. [68]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  69. [69]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447 magenta , 966, 167 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..167G

    Gaidos , E., Thanathibodee , T., Hoffman , A., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447 magenta , 966, 167 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..167G

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447 2024

  70. [70]

    S., Batalha , N

    Gharib-Nezhad , E. S., Batalha , N. E., Chubb , K., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rasti/rzad058 magenta RAS Techniques and Instruments , 3, 44 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RASTI...3...44G

    work page doi:10.1093/rasti/rzad058 2024

  71. [71]

    E., Rothman , L

    Gordon , I. E., Rothman , L. S., Hargreaves , R. J., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949 magenta , 277, 107949 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JQSRT.27707949G

    arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    D., Clayton , G

    Gordon , K. D., Clayton , G. C., Decleir , M., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 magenta , 950, 86 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...86G

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 2023

  73. [73]

    L., Bettoni , G., Banzatti , A., et al

    Grant , S. L., Bettoni , G., Banzatti , A., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347905 magenta , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347905 2024

  74. [74]

    Y., Bohn , A

    Haffert , S. Y., Bohn , A. J., de Boer , J., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5 magenta , 3, 749 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..749H

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5 2019

  75. [75]

    J., et al

    Hammond , I., Christiaens , V., Price , D. J., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staf586 magenta , 539, 1613 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1613H

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf586 2025

  76. [76]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA

    Hartmann , L., Herczeg , G., & Calvet , N. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 2016

  77. [77]

    D., & Turner , N

    Hasegawa , Y., Kanagawa , K. D., & Turner , N. J. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac257b magenta , 923, 27 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...27H

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac257b 2021

  78. [78]

    & Aoyama , Y

    Hashimoto , J. & Aoyama , Y. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ad957e magenta , 169, 93 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169...93H

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad957e 2025

  79. [79]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e magenta , 159, 222 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159..222H

    Hashimoto , J., Aoyama , Y., Konishi , M., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e magenta , 159, 222 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159..222H

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e 2020

  80. [80]

    & Kley , W

    Hertfelder , M. & Kley , W. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201730847 magenta , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730847 2017

Showing first 80 references.