Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 50 references

JWST observations support the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) for the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read JWST observations of SNR 0540-69.3 reveal point-symmetric inner ejecta shaped by at least three jet pairs launched by the neutron star.

desk verdict The paper spots a 189-degree rotational symmetry and offset center in SNR 0540-69.3 ejecta and reads them as support for multiple post-kick jet pairs under JJEM, but the link stays interpretive without controls against other CCSN models. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.28286 v2 pith:SO6QM2YN submitted 2026-06-26 astro-ph.HE

Dmitry Shishkin , Noam Soker This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaremnantcore-collapsejitteringjetsJWSTobservationspoint-symmetricmorphologyneutronstarkickSNR0540-69.3jetpairs
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 analyzes JWST images of the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3 and identifies a point-symmetric morphology in the inner ejecta. The authors interpret this structure, including cavities surrounded by clumps and a pair of opposing nozzles, as the result of multiple pairs of jets ejected by the central neutron star. They note an offset between the symmetry center and the current pulsar position, which they link to a kick velocity acquired by the neutron star before the jets launched. A sympathetic reader would care because confirming multiple jet episodes would tie the remnant's shape directly to the jittering-jets explosion mechanism and the formation process of the neutron star.

What carries the argument

The jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM), in which the neutron star launches successive pairs of jets that carve out the observed point-symmetric structures and cavities in the ejecta.

What would settle it

High-resolution velocity mapping showing that the gas motions along the cavity and nozzle axes do not match the directions expected for collimated jets, or a hydrodynamic simulation reproducing the exact 189-degree symmetry and offset center without any jet activity, would falsify the multiple jet-pairs claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the jittering-jets explosion mechanism framework, the inner ejecta of SNR 0540-69.3 were shaped by at least three jet pairs launched by the neutron star after it acquired its kick velocity, as evidenced by the point-symmetric morphology, rotational symmetry of approximately 189 degrees between redshifted northeastern and blueshifted southwestern regions, surrounding clumps, cavities, and a pair of opposing nozzles.

Load-bearing premise

The observed point-symmetric morphology, cavities, and nozzles are produced by multiple jet-launching episodes from the neutron star rather than by other hydrodynamic instabilities, projection effects, or unrelated processes in the remnant evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The offset symmetry center from the pulsar position confirms that the neutron star acquired a kick velocity prior to launching the jets.
  • At least three distinct jet pairs are required, with one pair forming the cavities and another forming the nozzles at a large angle.
  • The morphology is consistent with three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the JJEM.
  • The structures resemble point-symmetric features in planetary nebulae known to be shaped by jets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the JJEM interpretation holds, targeted symmetry searches in other young supernova remnants could reveal similar jet signatures.
  • The mechanism may link neutron-star kicks directly to the timing and direction of subsequent jet episodes.
  • This case suggests that jet activity after the initial explosion phase could be common enough to influence the diversity of observed remnant shapes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper examines JWST observations of the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3 and reports a point-symmetric morphology in the inner ejecta, with an approximate 189° rotational symmetry between northeastern redshifted and southwestern blueshifted components, an offset symmetry center from the pulsar, cavities surrounded by clumps, and a pair of opposing nozzles. Within the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) framework, these features are interpreted as evidence that the ejecta were shaped by at least three pairs of jets launched by the neutron star after it acquired its kick velocity.

Significance. If the attribution of the observed morphology to multiple post-kick jet pairs holds after rigorous testing, the result would provide targeted morphological support for the JJEM in a specific young CCSN remnant, complementing the authors' prior claims and analogies to jet-shaped planetary nebulae. The quantitative symmetry method adds a layer of objectivity, but the overall significance remains constrained by the interpretive step linking features uniquely to jets rather than other processes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the morphology supports at least three jet pairs under JJEM rests on visual inspection plus a quantitative symmetry method, but provides no quantitative comparison (e.g., false-positive rates or recovered symmetry statistics) to 3D hydrodynamical simulations of competing mechanisms such as neutrino-driven explosions with Rayleigh-Taylor or SASI instabilities. This leaves the attribution untested against alternatives like projection effects or unrelated remnant evolution.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The number of jet pairs (two, and likely three or more) is selected to match the observed cavities, clumps, and nozzles, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that this count is required by the data rather than being a free parameter tuned to the features; this weakens the uniqueness of the JJEM interpretation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract references a 'recently developed quantitative symmetry-identification method' but does not summarize its error analysis, validation on synthetic data, or specific application metrics (e.g., symmetry score for the 189° rotation) to this remnant.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address the two major comments point by point below, clarifying the scope of our observational analysis and the basis for our interpretations while agreeing to strengthen the discussion of limitations where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the morphology supports at least three jet pairs under JJEM rests on visual inspection plus a quantitative symmetry method, but provides no quantitative comparison (e.g., false-positive rates or recovered symmetry statistics) to 3D hydrodynamical simulations of competing mechanisms such as neutrino-driven explosions with Rayleigh-Taylor or SASI instabilities. This leaves the attribution untested against alternatives like projection effects or unrelated remnant evolution.

    Authors: We agree that a direct quantitative comparison of our symmetry statistics against 3D simulations of neutrino-driven explosions (including RT and SASI instabilities) would provide a stronger test and is currently absent. Our analysis applies the symmetry method to the JWST data and notes consistency with published JJEM simulations that produce point-symmetric ejecta, but we do not perform equivalent tests on alternative models. Such a comparison lies beyond the scope of this observational study, as it would require new, dedicated hydrodynamical runs with post-processing for symmetry metrics. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion section to explicitly state this limitation, note that projection effects and remnant evolution remain possible contributors, and call for future comparative simulation work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The number of jet pairs (two, and likely three or more) is selected to match the observed cavities, clumps, and nozzles, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that this count is required by the data rather than being a free parameter tuned to the features; this weakens the uniqueness of the JJEM interpretation.

    Authors: The minimum number of jet pairs is inferred from the distinct observed structures rather than chosen freely: the pair of opposing cavities with surrounding clumps is attributed to one jet-pair episode, while the separate pair of opposing nozzles at a large angle to the cavities requires an additional jet pair at a different orientation. This yields at least two, and likely three or more when accounting for the full point symmetry. The quantitative symmetry analysis (189° rotation) and the offset center further constrain the geometry. We acknowledge that the precise mapping of each feature to a jet pair involves interpretive steps guided by planetary-nebula analogies and JJEM simulations. In revision we will add explicit language clarifying that the count represents the minimum required by the number of independent symmetric structures and will discuss the possibility of alternative attributions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; interpretive attribution within stated framework

full rationale

The paper performs visual and quantitative symmetry analysis on JWST imaging data of SNR 0540-69.3 and attributes features to jet pairs under the JJEM framework. No derivation chain, equation, or fitted parameter reduces by construction to its own inputs. The symmetry method is applied to external observations; conclusions are framed as interpretation guided by prior simulations rather than a self-referential prediction. Self-citations to JJEM and an earlier kick claim exist but are not load-bearing for any mathematical reduction. The analysis is self-contained against the provided data and does not manufacture a first-principles result from its assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the JJEM model assumptions and the attribution of specific morphological features to jet activity without quantitative hydrodynamical matching in this work.

free parameters (1)
  • jet pair count = at least three
    Inferred from the number of identified cavities and nozzle pairs to fit the JJEM.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Point-symmetric morphologies in supernova ejecta are shaped by jet pairs launched by the central neutron star.
    Invoked throughout the interpretation in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The quantitative symmetry-identification method accurately detects jet-induced structures.
    Used to confirm the 189 degree rotation symmetry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST observations support the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) for the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SO6QM2YN

@misc{pith2026260628286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST observations support the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) for the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SO6QM2YN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.28286}
}
read the original abstract

We examine published JWST observations of the core-collapse supernova (CCSN) remnant SNR 0540-69.3 and identify a point-symmetric morphology in its inner ejecta. Within the framework of the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM), we interpret this morphology as evidence that the ejecta were shaped by two, and likely three or more, pairs of jets during the explosion process. Both visual inspection and a recently developed quantitative symmetry-identification method for astrophysical imaging reveal an approximate rotational symmetry between the northeastern redshifted ejecta and the southwestern blueshifted ejecta. Each side contains clumps (knots) surrounding a previously identified cavity, with the best quantitative correspondence obtained for a rotation of 189{\deg}. We further identify a symmetry center that is offset from the current pulsar position, strengthening an earlier claim for a pulsar kick. We interpret the pair of cavities and their surrounding clumpy structures as having been shaped by multiple jet-launching episodes. In addition, we identify a pair of opposing nozzles at a large angle to the cavities, which we attribute to another jet pair. Guided by the similarities to point-symmetric planetary nebulae shaped by jets and by recent three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the JJEM, we conclude that the inner ejecta were shaped by at least three jet pairs launched by the neutron star after it acquired its kick velocity, consistent with the JJEM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A figure adapted from Larsson et al. (2026) of images of SNR 0540-69.3 in [Fe ii] 1.644 µm emission in three Doppler shift intervals, from left to right: [−600, −100] km s−1 [100, 500] km s−1 , and [550, 1200] km s−1 . The white star marks the pulsar’s position. The white region just south of the pulsar was masked out due to contamination by a star. We marked the two cavities identified by Larsson et al. (2026). On … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Application of the symmetry-identification method to the blue-shifted stacked image and the red-shifted stacked image. The lower-right panel is the red-shifted image of the surroundings of the northeast/far cavity, but at a slightly different velocity range than in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Images of SNR 0540-69.3 adapted from Larsson et al. (2026), with our marks of the nozzles by two double-headed arrows. We attribute the nozzles to a pair of jets at the end of the explosion process. The axis of the nozzles is at a large angle to the axis connecting the…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reproducing morphological features in the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 by simulating jittering jets

    Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29527. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29527 —. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.12356, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.12356

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12356

  2. [2]

    Parameter Estimation Horizon of Core-Collapse Supernovae with Current and Next-Generation Gravitational-Wave Detectors

    Akhmetali, A., Sultan Abylkairov, Y., Orel, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.04896. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04896

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., Rauch, T., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 773, doi: 10.1126/science.1225386

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1225386 2012

  4. [4]

    2000, Dr

    Bradski, G. 2000, Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    L., Bozzetto, L

    Brantseg, T., McEntaffer, R. L., Bozzetto, L. M., Filipovic, M., & Grieves, N. 2014, ApJ, 780, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/50 2014

  6. [6]

    2025, , 137, 054201, 10.1088/1538-3873/add08e

    Braudo, J., Michaelis, A., Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2025, PASP, 137, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/add08e —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.14364. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14364

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/add08e 2025

  7. [7]

    Impacts of Multidimensional Progenitor Perturbations on Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions

    Chen, C.-H., Lentz, E. J., Hix, W. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09906. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09906 8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2375 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Kovalenko, L.,

    Derlopa, S., Akras, S., Amram, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Kovalenko, L.,

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Andresen, H., & Couch, S. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.01405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01405 Garc´ ıa-Segura, G., Taam, R. E., & Ricker, P. M. 2020, ApJ, 893, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8006 —. 2021, ApJ, 914, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc4e

    2026 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796

    Giudici, B., Gabler, M., & Janka, H.-T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11796

    2025

  4. [12]

    A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J

    Guerrero, M. A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2aa

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    A., & Manchado, A

    Guerrero, M. A., & Manchado, A. 1998, ApJ, 508, 262, doi: 10.1086/306407

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    2025, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 75, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    Janka, H.-T. 2025, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 75, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    D., et al

    Larsson, J., Sollerman, J., Lyman, J. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a41

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae644d

    Larsson, J., Tegkelidis, C., Fransson, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae644d

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    Lundqvist, P., Lundqvist, N., & Shibanov, Y. A. 2022, A&A, 658, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141931

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 023024, doi: 10.1103/7ytg-wzl8

    Luo, Y., Zha, S., & Kajino, T. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 023024, doi: 10.1103/7ytg-wzl8

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Dopita, M

    Mathewson, D. S., Dopita, M. A., Tuohy, I. R., & Ford, V. L. 1980, ApJL, 242, L73, doi: 10.1086/183406

    1980 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625

    2007 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24970

    Mezzacappa, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24970. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24970

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P

    Miranda, L. F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P. F., & Mat´ ıas, J. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348173 Moraga Baez, P., Kastner, J. H., Balick, B., Montez, R., &

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    Bublitz, J. 2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089

    Morris, M. 1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089

    1987 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Smith, N., Blair, W

    Morse, J. A., Smith, N., Blair, W. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 188, doi: 10.1086/503313

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Brinkman, E., Richardson, C

    Murphy, R. D., Brinkman, E., Richardson, C. J., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 084005, doi: 10.1103/2bdz-783t

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Hix, W

    Neopane, S., Sandoval, M. A., Hix, W. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.19490. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19490

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    Mignone, A. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17499

    Orlando, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17499

    2026 doi

  24. [32]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25846

    Pan, K.-C., & Li, Y.-F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25846. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25846

    2026

  25. [33]

    A., Vallejo, S., & Coughlin, E

    Paradiso, D. A., Vallejo, S., & Coughlin, E. R. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b85

    2026 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Slane, P

    Park, S., Hughes, J. P., Slane, P. O., Mori, K., & Burrows, D. N. 2010, ApJ, 710, 948, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/948

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    2017, SSRv, 207, 137, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x

    Porth, O., Buehler, R., Olmi, B., et al. 2017, SSRv, 207, 137, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    S., & Keppens, R

    Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S., & Keppens, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1082 Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., Guerrero, M. A., Duarte Puertas, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3326 Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., Pe˜ na, M., & Vel´ azquez, P. F. 2019, MNR...

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    2026, ApJ, 1003, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae61ac

    Rusakov, A., Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae61ac

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    D., & Chaffee, F

    Campbell, R. D., & Chaffee, F. H. 2005, ApJL, 622, L53, doi: 10.1086/429586

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Villar, G

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

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

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

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038

    Sahai, R., Alcolea, J., Balick, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06038

    2024

  34. [42]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07913, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07913

    Shishkin, D., & Michaelis, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07913, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07913

    2026 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —

    Soker, N. 1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac49e6 —. 2024a, Universe, 10, 458, doi: 10.3390/universe10120458 —. 2024b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 49, doi: 10.33232/001c.120279 ...

    1990 doi

  36. [44]

    2025a, PASA, 42, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.39 —

    Soker, N., & Shishkin, D. 2025a, PASA, 42, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.39 —. 2025b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 035008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adb4cc

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Tafoya, D., Orosz, G., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Sahai, R., & P´ erez-S´ anchez, A. F. 2019, A&A, 629, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834632

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 2830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1390

    Tenhu, L., Larsson, J., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1390

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    Tsai, T.-W., & Yang, H.-Y. K. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag727

    2026 doi

  40. [48]

    2026, MNRAS, 548, stag626, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag626

    Varma, V., & M¨ uller, B. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag626, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag626

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    Wang, N. Y. N., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.02203

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    2026, MNRAS, 548, stag325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag325

    Wesson, R., Gabler, M., Lyons, M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag325

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.