pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23393 · v1 · pith:3PY6OG7Mnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

A λ=1.3 millimeter Survey for Disks around Herbig Be Stars

David J. Wilner (1) , Joshua Bennett Lovell (1) , Sean M. Andrews (1) , Miguel Vioque (2) , Feng Long (3) , Luca Matra (4) ((1) Center for Astrophysics , Harvard & Smithsonian , (2) European Southern Observatory
show 4 more authors
(3) Kavli Institute for Astronomy Astrophysics Peking University (4) Trinity College Dublin)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords Herbig Be starscircumstellar disksmillimeter continuumplanet formationstellar mass scalingdisk dissipationyoung stellar objectsSubmillimeter Array
0
0 comments X

The pith

Millimeter detections from five Herbig Be stars match extrapolated disk scaling relations from lower-mass stars and indicate masses sufficient for giant planet formation.

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

This survey observed 24 Herbig Be stars at 1.3 millimeters with the Submillimeter Array to search for circumstellar disks. Emission was detected toward five stars spanning 4.3 to 12.9 solar masses. These signals align with the luminosity-mass and size relations seen in T Tauri and Herbig Ae stars when extended to higher masses. The implied disk masses reach levels needed to form giant planets. Detection rates show no decline with rising stellar mass, offering no support for faster disk loss driven by stronger radiation fields.

Core claim

The 1.3 mm detections toward five Herbig Be stars are compatible with an extrapolation of the scaling relation between millimeter luminosity and stellar host mass, and also millimeter continuum size, derived for lower-mass T Tauri and Herbig Ae stars, suggesting these detections represent emission from circumstellar disks. The implied disk masses are sufficient for giant planet formation. No decrease in the millimeter detection fraction with stellar host mass is evident within this sample that would implicate rapid disk dissipation by the radiation fields of the higher mass stars.

What carries the argument

The scaling relation between millimeter luminosity (and continuum size) and stellar host mass, extrapolated from lower-mass stars, which the 1.3 mm detections match to indicate a disk origin.

If this is right

  • The detected disks contain enough mass to form giant planets.
  • Disk occurrence shows no clear drop as stellar mass increases from 4 to 13 solar masses.
  • Most non-detections arise from survey sensitivity limits, photoevaporation, or the presence of stellar companions.
  • Spectral indices from 0.87 mm follow-up data remain consistent with partly optically thick dust.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Deeper surveys could reveal whether undetected disks around the remaining stars are simply faint or genuinely absent.
  • Stellar companions may dominate disk evolution more than radiation for stars above 3 solar masses.
  • These results suggest models of planet formation around high-mass stars can start from disk masses similar to those around solar-type stars.
  • The lack of a mass-dependent detection drop implies disk lifetimes may not shorten dramatically with increasing stellar luminosity in this range.

Load-bearing premise

The detected 1.3 mm emission originates from circumstellar disks rather than unrelated sources, and the scaling relations from lower-mass stars continue to apply here.

What would settle it

Deeper observations that either detect many more disks at higher stellar masses or show the 1.3 mm emission has a non-disk spectral signature would test the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23393 by (2) European Southern Observatory, (3) Kavli Institute for Astronomy, (4) Trinity College Dublin), Astrophysics, David J. Wilner (1), Feng Long (3), Harvard & Smithsonian, Joshua Bennett Lovell (1), Luca Matra (4) ((1) Center for Astrophysics, Miguel Vioque (2), Peking University, Sean M. Andrews (1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The sample of 24 SMA Herbig Be stars targeted by the SMA in the plane of distance and stellar mass. The distribution samples the full range of Herbig Be stellar masses. Note that uncertainties in the stellar masses are typically ±15% but can be larger (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SMA images of the Herbig Be stars that were significantly detected at 1.3 mm (top) and 0.87 mm (bottom). The ellipses in the lower left corner of each panel show the beams, and the contour levels are 3, 6, 9, ...× rms noise in each image (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The solid line traces the mean scaling relation between millimeter luminosity and stellar host mass, and the dotted lines indicate ±0.7 dex intrinsic scatter (S. M. Andrews et al. 2013). SMA 1.3 mm detections and upper limits for Herbig Be stars are indicated by the black circles and downward arrows, respectively. Additional results for Herbig Be stars in grey are from T. Alonso-Albi et al. (2009). constra… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a survey of 24 Herbig Be stars (young stellar objects $>3$ M$_{\odot}$) within 3 kpc at 1.3~millimeters using the Submillimeter Array at about $1''$ resolution to identify circumstellar disks and assess planet forming potential. We detect 1.3 mm emission toward 5 Herbig Be stars that range in mass from 4.3 to 12.9 M$_{\odot}$. Follow-up observations at 0.87 mm show spectral indices consistent with partly optically thick dust emission. These millimeter detections are compatible with an extrapolation of the scaling relation derived for lower-mass T Tauri and Herbig Ae stars between millimeter luminosity and stellar host mass, and also millimeter continuum size, suggesting these detections represent emission from circumstellar disks. The implied disk masses are sufficient for giant planet formation. No decrease in the millimeter detection fraction with stellar host mass is evident within this sample that would implicate rapid disk dissipation by the radiation fields of the higher mass stars. The high fraction of millimeter non-detections is likely due to the survey sensitivity limits together with photoevaporation and the dynamical impact of stellar companions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a 1.3 mm SMA survey of 24 Herbig Be stars (>3 M⊙, within 3 kpc), detecting continuum emission toward 5 sources (masses 4.3–12.9 M⊙). Follow-up 0.87 mm observations yield spectral indices consistent with partly optically thick dust. These detections lie on the extrapolated L_mm–M⋆ and size–M⋆ relations previously derived for T Tauri and Herbig Ae stars, supporting a circumstellar-disk origin. Implied disk masses are stated to be sufficient for giant-planet formation. No decline in millimeter detection fraction with stellar mass is found, arguing against rapid radiation-driven dissipation; non-detections are attributed to sensitivity limits, photoevaporation, and companions.

Significance. If the disk interpretation and scaling-relation consistency hold, the work extends millimeter-disk scaling relations into the Herbig Be regime and supplies direct evidence that disk masses around stars up to ~13 M⊙ remain adequate for giant-planet formation. The absence of a mass-dependent drop in detection rate within the sample constrains models of external photoevaporation and provides an observational anchor for population-synthesis studies of planets around intermediate-mass stars. The spectral-index check is a useful internal consistency test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] Results section (and any associated table/figure): individual 1.3 mm and 0.87 mm flux densities, uncertainties, and source positions are not reported for the five detections. Without these values it is impossible to verify the quoted spectral indices, compute L_mm, or assess whether the points truly lie on the extrapolated relations cited from lower-mass samples.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion of scaling relations: the manuscript states compatibility with the L_mm–M⋆ and size–M⋆ relations but does not show the actual data points overlaid on the prior fits, nor does it quantify the extrapolation (e.g., the slope and intercept adopted from the T Tauri/Herbig Ae literature or the uncertainty on the extrapolated locus). This information is required to evaluate the strength of the “compatible” claim that underpins the disk-mass and planet-formation conclusions.
  3. [Discussion] Detection-fraction analysis: the statement that “no decrease … is evident within this sample” is presented without a binned detection-rate plot or a simple statistical test (e.g., Spearman rank or contingency table) against stellar mass. Given the small number of detections (5/24), a quantitative assessment is needed to support the claim that radiation-driven dissipation is not operating.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] The abstract and introduction should explicitly cite the specific prior works whose scaling relations are being extrapolated (e.g., the T Tauri/Herbig Ae L_mm–M⋆ papers).
  2. [Observations] Figure captions and text should clarify the beam size, rms noise, and primary-beam correction applied to each target so that non-detection limits can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested information and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section (and any associated table/figure): individual 1.3 mm and 0.87 mm flux densities, uncertainties, and source positions are not reported for the five detections. Without these values it is impossible to verify the quoted spectral indices, compute L_mm, or assess whether the points truly lie on the extrapolated relations cited from lower-mass samples.

    Authors: We agree that these values should be reported. The revised manuscript will add a table listing the 1.3 mm and 0.87 mm flux densities with uncertainties, source positions, and derived spectral indices for the five detections, enabling verification of the indices and L_mm calculations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion of scaling relations: the manuscript states compatibility with the L_mm–M⋆ and size–M⋆ relations but does not show the actual data points overlaid on the prior fits, nor does it quantify the extrapolation (e.g., the slope and intercept adopted from the T Tauri/Herbig Ae literature or the uncertainty on the extrapolated locus). This information is required to evaluate the strength of the “compatible” claim that underpins the disk-mass and planet-formation conclusions.

    Authors: We agree that overlaying the points and quantifying the extrapolation is needed. The revision will include a figure showing our detections overlaid on the literature L_mm–M⋆ and size–M⋆ relations, and will explicitly state the adopted slopes, intercepts, and uncertainties from the T Tauri/Herbig Ae fits. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Detection-fraction analysis: the statement that “no decrease … is evident within this sample” is presented without a binned detection-rate plot or a simple statistical test (e.g., Spearman rank or contingency table) against stellar mass. Given the small number of detections (5/24), a quantitative assessment is needed to support the claim that radiation-driven dissipation is not operating.

    Authors: We agree a quantitative assessment strengthens the claim. The revised manuscript will add a binned detection-rate plot versus stellar mass and include a Spearman rank correlation test between detection status and mass (noting the limited power due to small sample size) to support that no decrease is evident. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational survey with external comparisons

full rationale

The paper reports new SMA 1.3 mm observations of 24 Herbig Be stars, with 5 detections whose spectral indices (from follow-up 0.87 mm data) are consistent with dust. It then compares these luminosities and sizes to scaling relations previously derived in independent studies of T Tauri and Herbig Ae stars. No equations fit parameters to a subset of the current data and then treat a closely related quantity as a 'prediction'; no self-citation chain supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the present work relies upon; no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. All load-bearing steps are direct measurements or external literature comparisons, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an observational survey that applies standard radio astronomy techniques and interpretations without introducing new parameters, entities, or ad hoc assumptions beyond domain standards.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Millimeter continuum emission at 1.3 mm traces thermal dust emission in circumstellar disks
    Invoked to link detections to disks and planet formation potential.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5811 in / 1258 out tokens · 39599 ms · 2026-06-26T07:20:26.418898+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M., Oudmaijer, R

    Ababakr, K. M., Oudmaijer, R. D., & Vink, J. S. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1891

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1891 2017

  2. [2]

    and Jensen, Eric L

    Akeson, R. L., Jensen, E. L. N., Carpenter, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6a 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6a 2019

  3. [3]

    2009, A&A, 497, 117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810401

    Alonso-Albi, T., Fuente, A., Bachiller, R., et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810401

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810401 2009

  4. [4]

    2018, A&A, 617, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731658

    Alonso-Albi, T., Riviere-Marichalar, P., Fuente, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731658

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731658 2018

  5. [5]

    Andrews, S. M. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 483, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302 2020

  6. [6]

    Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/129 2013

  7. [7]

    2018 , keywords =

    Andrews, S. M., Terrell, M., Tripathi, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9f 2018

  8. [8]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Pozzo, M. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 737, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10006.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10006.x 2006

  9. [9]

    1990, AJ, 99, 924, doi: 10.1086/115385 Beltr´ an, M

    Guesten, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 924, doi: 10.1086/115385 Beltr´ an, M. T., & de Wit, W. J. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-015-0089-z

    work page doi:10.1086/115385 1990

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012

  11. [11]

    D., Kamp, I., Meeus, G., Oudmaijer, R

    Brittain, S. D., Kamp, I., Meeus, G., Oudmaijer, R. D., & Waters, L. B. F. M. 2023, SSRv, 219, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00949-z CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00949-z 2023

  12. [12]

    C., & Caiazzo, I

    Cheng, S., Schlaufman, K. C., & Caiazzo, I. 2025, AJ, 170, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/addd21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/addd21 2025

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Chini, R., Hoffmeister, V. H., Nasseri, A., Stahl, O., & Zinnecker, H. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1925, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21317.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21317.x 2012

  14. [14]

    2024, A&A, 692, A263, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451461

    Delorme, P., Chomez, A., Squicciarini, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A263, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451461

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451461 2024

  15. [15]

    2006, ApJL, 649, L119, doi: 10.1086/508349

    Fuente, A., Alonso-Albi, T., Bachiller, R., et al. 2006, ApJL, 649, L119, doi: 10.1086/508349

    work page doi:10.1086/508349 2006

  16. [16]

    2009 , keywords =

    Gorti, U., & Hollenbach, D. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1539, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1539 Guzm´ an-D´ ıaz, J., Mendigut´ ıa, I., Montesinos, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039519

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/2/1539 2009

  17. [17]

    Kraus, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/115 2012

  18. [18]

    2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7482, doi: 10.21105/joss.07482

    Keating, G., Hazelton, B., Kolopanis, M., et al. 2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7482, doi: 10.21105/joss.07482

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07482 2025

  19. [19]

    Keating, G. K. 2025, SMA Newsletter, 39

    2025

  20. [20]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9746

    Komaki, A., & Yoshida, N. 2025, ApJ, 979, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9746

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9746 2025

  21. [21]

    2021, AJ, 162, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1355

    Kraus, M., Liimets, T., Moiseev, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1355

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1355 2021

  22. [22]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdb2a

    Kunitomo, M., Ida, S., Takeuchi, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdb2a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdb2a 2021

  23. [23]

    Jansky Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS)

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb 2020

  24. [24]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02181-9

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Beuther, H., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02181-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02181-9 2024

  25. [25]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021

  26. [28]

    Mind your Ps and Qs: the Interrelation between Period (P) and Mass-ratio (Q) Distributions of Binary Stars

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 2017

  27. [29]

    Protostars and Planets VII , year = 2023, editor =

    Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 539, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09930

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09930 2023

  28. [30]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77 2017

  29. [31]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.10066 2023

  30. [32]

    K., Kataza, H., Honda, M., et al

    Okamoto, Y. K., Kataza, H., Honda, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 665, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/665 Ould Rouis, L. B., Hermes, J. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad86bb 16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/665 2009

  31. [33]

    2022, A&A, 662, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243637

    Pinilla, P., Garufi, A., & G´ arate, M. 2022, A&A, 662, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243637

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243637 2022

  32. [34]

    2015, A&A, 574, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322360

    Trifonov, T., & K¨ unstler, A. 2015, A&A, 574, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322360

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322360 2015

  33. [35]

    Reynolds, S. P. 1986, ApJ, 304, 713, doi: 10.1086/164209

    work page doi:10.1086/164209 1986

  34. [36]

    A., & Hamidouche, M

    Sandell, G., Weintraub, D. A., & Hamidouche, M. 2011, ApJ, 727, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/1/26 2011

  35. [37]

    M., Hogerheijde, M

    Stapper, L. M., Hogerheijde, M. R., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Mentel, R. 2022, A&A, 658, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142164

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142164 2022

  36. [38]

    M., Hogerheijde, M

    Stapper, L. M., Hogerheijde, M. R., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A286, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450260

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450260 2025

  37. [39]

    J., Rodgers, B., van der Bliek, N

    Thomas, S. J., Rodgers, B., van der Bliek, N. S., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca803

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca803 2023

  38. [40]

    Wilner, D. J. 2017, ApJ, 845, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c62

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c62 2017

  39. [41]

    E., et al

    Ancker, M. E., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014916

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014916 2012

  40. [42]

    Oudmaijer, R. D. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 356, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05920.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05920.x 2002

  41. [43]

    D., Baines, D., Mendigut´ ıa, I., & P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, R

    Vioque, M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Baines, D., Mendigut´ ıa, I., & P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, R. 2018, A&A, 620, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832870

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832870 2018

  42. [44]

    D., Schreiner, M., et al

    Vioque, M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Schreiner, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037731

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037731 2020

  43. [45]

    D., Wichittanakom, C., et al

    Vioque, M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Wichittanakom, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5c46

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5c46 2022

  44. [46]

    Goodwin, S. P. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1199, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15708.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15708.x 2010

  45. [47]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8c

    Zhu, Z., Zhang, S., Jiang, Y.-F., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8c 2019