Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 33 references

Supernova light can drive dust polarization flares, angle rotations, and lasting fossil imprints in nearby clouds, turning dust polarization into a time-domain probe of grain physics and pre-shock magnetic fields.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 12:38 UTC pith:P5WVH72H

load-bearing objection Solid, falsifiable time-domain RAT predictions for SN-illuminated clouds; the distinctive angle-rotation claim rests on unpublished TransRAT machinery whose only cited validation cannot test axis switching. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24517 v1 pith:P5WVH72H submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Time-Domain Dust Astrophysics. I. Polarization Flares, Polarization-Angle Reverberation, and Fossil Imprints in Supernova-Illuminated Clouds

Thiem Hoang (KASI/UST) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords interstellar duststarlight polarizationthermal dust polarizationradiative torquessupernovaemolecular cloudsinterstellar magnetic fieldsgrain alignment
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.

This paper argues that when a Type IIP supernova suddenly lights up a dense cloud, the dust does not stay in its usual steady alignment state. Within days to weeks, stronger radiative torques can rapidly align smaller grains, boost both starlight and thermal polarization, then destroy the largest aligned grains and leave a dip; the peak wavelength of extinction polarization drifts blueward as smaller grains join the aligned population. In the closest clouds the alignment axis can flip from the magnetic field to the radiation direction, producing an abrupt polarization-angle jump, then swing back as the flash fades—a reverberation whose recovery speed diagnoses how magnetic the grains are. Farther out, the elevated polarization and blue-shifted peak can survive long after the light has gone, as a fossil imprint lasting roughly ten gas-damping times. If these signatures are real, polarimetry of transient-lit clouds and of molecular gas near young supernova remnants becomes a practical way to watch grain alignment and disruption in action and to read pristine magnetic fields before the shock arrives.

Core claim

For a dense cloud illuminated by a Type IIP supernova, time-dependent dust polarization shows four linked signatures: a flare then dip in extinction and thermal polarization at distances under about one parsec; a blueward shift of the extinction-polarization peak wavelength as the minimum aligned grain size falls; an abrupt polarization-angle rotation when alignment switches from the magnetic field to the radiation direction; and a later angle reverberation, governed by Larmor precession, that recovers faster for superparamagnetic than paramagnetic grains. Beyond about one parsec the elevated polarization and blue-shifted peak can persist as a fossil after the radiation fades.

What carries the argument

TransRAT (Transient Radiative Torque): a time-domain model that jointly evolves grain heating, spin-up, rotational disruption, and the competition between Larmor and radiative precession that chooses whether grains align with the magnetic field (B-RAT) or the radiation direction (k-RAT), then maps that state into polarization observables.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted light curves and the visible angle jump rest on the claim that the coupled time-dependent model correctly orders grain disruption relative to the magnetic-versus-radiation alignment switch and that the adopted grain magnetic responses are realistic.

What would settle it

Map starlight polarization and the peak wavelength of the polarization spectrum in molecular clouds just outside the blast waves of young supernova remnants (ages of hundreds to a few thousand years): if the claim is right, those clouds should still show elevated polarization fraction and a blue-shifted peak relative to matched unexposed clouds of similar density.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Real-time optical and submillimeter polarimetry of clouds within about one parsec of a core-collapse supernova should catch a polarization flare within days to weeks, sometimes followed by a disruption-driven dip.
  • A measured polarization-angle swing and its recovery time would constrain whether dust grains are paramagnetic or superparamagnetic.
  • The blueward drift of the extinction-polarization peak wavelength offers a geometry-independent clock of how small an aligned grain population becomes under the flash.
  • Clouds near supernova remnants younger than roughly ten gas-damping times should retain fossil elevated polarization and blue-shifted peaks today, enabling an archaeological test without a live transient.
  • During the light-travel window before the blast wave arrives, B-RAT polarization can map the undisturbed plane-of-sky magnetic field in the illuminated clump.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If fossil polarization is common around historical remnants, wide-field starlight polarimetry surveys could become a census of past radiative processing of dust, complementary to remnant catalogs.
  • The same flare–dip–reverberation logic should rescale to other fast radiation pulses (novae, tidal disruption events, gamma-ray burst afterglows) whenever dense dust sits within a parsec-scale light-travel time.
  • A nondetection of angle rotation in a well-monitored nearby event would most cleanly pressure the disruption-before-axis-switch ordering rather than alignment theory as a whole.

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

4 major / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a new time-domain grain-alignment framework (TransRAT, deferred to a companion Paper II "to be submitted") to a dense molecular cloud illuminated by a Type IIP supernova at distances D = 0.01–20 pc. It predicts four time-dependent polarization signatures: (1) a polarization flare followed by a RAT-D-driven dip in both V-band extinction polarization and 850 μm thermal-emission polarization for D ≲ 1 pc; (2) a blueward drift of the extinction-polarization peak wavelength λ_max; (3) an abrupt ~45° polarization-angle rotation as the alignment axis switches from B-RAT to k-RAT; and (4) a late-time polarization-angle "reverberation" back to B-RAT whose recovery timing distinguishes paramagnetic from superparamagnetic grains. For D > 1 pc, the elevated polarization and blueshifted λ_max are predicted to persist as a "fossil imprint" for ~10 t_gas after the radiation fades, enabling an archaeological test around young supernova remnants. All quantitative results (Figures 2–6, Table 1) are outputs of the TransRAT engine coupled to DustPOL_py.

Significance. If the framework is correct, this paper opens a genuinely new observational channel: time-resolved polarimetry as a real-time test of the dynamical core of RAT theory (fast alignment and rotational disruption), which steady-state observations can only probe in their end states. Several strengths deserve explicit credit. The predictions are forward and falsifiable — light-curve shapes, angle timing, and fossil lifetimes are outputs, not fitted quantities. The paper ships control experiments (low initial f_hiJ^ISRF; RAT-D disabled; the k∥B geometry) that are used to attribute the angle rotation specifically to disruption physics. The λ_max drift is a deliberately geometry-independent diagnostic, and the fossil-imprint proposal (§4.4.2) is a concrete, near-term, differential observational test with existing facilities (PASIPHAE, Gaia dust maps, POL-2) that requires no serendipitous trigger. The memory-hierarchy framing (alignment-axis vs. fast-alignment vs. disruption memory, §4.2) is a useful organizing contribution. The main structural weakness is that every quantitative prediction rests on an unpublished, unsubmitted companion framework whose only stated validation geometry is theo

major comments (4)
  1. [§2 and §3.3 (dependence on unpublished TransRAT; degenerate validation geometry)] All four headline signatures are generated by TransRAT, which is deferred to Paper II ('to be submitted') and described here only qualitatively (one paragraph in §2). The only validation cited is the k∥B configuration (§2, §3.3) — but k∥B is precisely the geometry in which B-RAT and k-RAT coincide in projection, so it cannot exercise or test the axis-switching machinery that produces the paper's most distinctive predictions (the 45° rotation in §3.3 and the PM/SPM reverberation timing in §3.4). The validated subset of the code and the load-bearing physics are therefore disjoint. At minimum, this paper should include (a) the key time-dependent equations (spin-up, τ_k vs τ_Lar competition with χ(T_d), disruption-window evolution) in an appendix, and (b) one validation test at general ψ — e.g., against an analytic two-population (high-J/low-J) limiting case — demonstrating that the axis swi
  2. [§3.3 (ordering assumption underlying the angle-rotation signature)] The paper asserts that 'the angle remains at its pre-SN value during the fast-alignment flare and rotates only as the system enters the disruption-driven polarization dip,' because large high-J grains dominating the signal retain B-RAT alignment until RAT-D destroys them, while some other population has already switched to k-RAT. This ordering is not obviously self-consistent: large grains at high-J attractors are the most strongly torqued population, and whether they switch to k-RAT before or after entering the disruption window [a_disr^min, a_disr^max] depends on the size- and temperature-dependent race between τ_k and τ_Lar with χ(T_d). If large high-J grains switch before disruption, the rotation should begin during the flare, not after it, changing both the signature's timing and its claimed uniqueness (§4.5: 'the cleanest real-time discriminator'). The paper should show explicitly,
  3. [§2 (thermal-coupling axiom T_gas = T_d)] The assumption T_gas = T_d(t_r) after illumination is stated without justification. Gas–dust collisional coupling at n_H = 10^4 cm^-3 is generally weak, and dust temperatures during the flare reach tens to hundreds of K; equating T_gas to T_d directly enters t_gas and hence the gas-damping and relaxation timescales (Eqs. 3–4, 9) that set the fossil-imprint lifetime — the paper's flagship near-term observational test. The author should either justify the coupling (e.g., via photoelectric/dust-gas heating rates at the relevant U and n_H) or quantify how the fossil lifetimes and the D ≥ 5 pc light curves change if T_gas remains near its pre-SN value. As written, the ∼10 t_gas fossil clock in Eq. (9), and the conclusion that clouds around Cas A/Tycho/SN 1006 retain memory, inherit this unexamined assumption.
  4. [§3.5/Table 1 (parameter robustness)] The sensitivity of the four signatures to the adopted free parameters (S_max, B, ψ, N_cl, f_hiJ^ISRF) is only partially explored. The f_hiJ^ISRF = 0.01 control (§3.1) and the no-RAT-D control (§3.3) are valuable, but both are cited as 'Paper II' rather than shown. Given that the angle rotation requires RAT-D and thus depends on S_max (adopted 10^9 erg cm^-3, but values down to ~10^7 appear in the author's own prior work for porous aggregates), the robustness of the flare–dip–rotation sequence to S_max and B should be demonstrated in this paper, at least at one fiducial distance, since it is the basis of the 'hardest-to-mimic' claim in §4.5.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§4.2, Eqs. (4) and (9)] t_gas is grain-size dependent (t_gas ∝ a), so the single relaxation time in Eqs. (4) and (9) is schematic. §4.2 acknowledges that smaller grains relax first, but Table 1 and Eq. (9) quote one number; please state the grain size (or range) to which the quoted τ_relax applies, since the fossil-detection window in §4.4.2 depends on it.
  2. [§2] The fiducial value f_hiJ^ISRF = 0.5 is described as 'typical' with a citation to the author's own review; a brief justification from observational constraints (e.g., Planck polarization fractions) would strengthen this, since the flare amplitude is controlled by f_hiJ^fast.
  3. [Figures 2–5] Figures 2–5: the five magnetic-model curves are not distinguishable in grayscale and the figure captions do not define the line styles per N_cl value. Please add a legend mapping line style/color to PM, N_cl = 10^2, 10^3, 10^4, and the power-law cluster model, and state which curve is which in at least one panel.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1: the column 'p_ext(V)/N_H (%/10^21 cm^-2) peak' mixes a flare peak and a decline to zero for D = 0.01 pc ('>1.3 → 0'); please separate peak value and asymptotic state into distinct columns or clarify in the note. Also state the epoch at which 'peak' is evaluated.
  5. [§4.4.1] The occulting-geometry discussion (§2, §4.4.1) is easy to miss but observationally crucial, since most extragalactic applications are occulting. Consider promoting the 'p_ext drop at constant position angle' prediction to the abstract or §4.5 as a fifth signature, since it is the realistic near-term extragalactic test.
  6. [Acknowledgments/Software] The Software section cites ChatGPT and Claude Code. Please specify the capacity in which these tools were used (e.g., text editing vs. code generation), per AAS journals' current guidance on AI-assistance disclosure.
  7. [References] Several references render the journal name as 'å' (encoding artifact for A&A) — Dinçel et al. 2026, Floris et al. 2025, Patat et al. 2015; 'natas' for Hoang et al. 2019 (Nat. Astron.) should also be expanded for clarity. The manuscript header still reads 'Draft version July 28, 2026.'
  8. [Terminology] The term 'polarization-angle reverberation' is introduced without explicit definition on first use (abstract/§1); a one-sentence definition at first occurrence would help readers outside the RAT literature. Similarly 'fossil imprint' vs. 'polarization echo' vs. 'disruption echo' (§4.2) are used somewhat interchangeably.
  9. [§3.2/Fig. 6] §3.2: for D = 0.01 pc the λ_max curve is truncated at ~3 days due to sublimation; please mark the sublimation cutoff explicitly in Fig. 6(a) so the truncated blueward drift (0.8 → ~0.12 µm in Table 1) is not misread as a model artifact.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No meaningful circularity: forward model predictions from RAT physics, not inputs renamed as outputs; mild self-citation dependence on unpublished TransRAT (Paper II) is a completeness issue, not a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

This paper applies the author's time-domain TransRAT machinery to a Type IIP SN illuminating a dense cloud and reports four polarimetric signatures (flare/dip, blueward λ_max, B→k angle rotation, angle reverberation/fossil memory). None of the central claims reduce to fitted inputs or definitional identities. There is no data fitting at all; quantities such as p_ext(V)/N_H, p_em(850 μm), λ_max(t), and angle evolution are forward outputs of an assumed grain model, light curve, geometry (ψ=45°), and magnetic-susceptibility cases. The oft-quoted 45° rotation is explicitly the fiducial projected angle between B and k once the dominant aligned population switches axis—not an independent numerical discovery. The fossil lifetime τ_relax ∼ ln(Ω_max/Ω_T) t_gas ∼ 1–10 t_gas follows directly from exponential gas damping (Eqs. 3–4) with an order-of-magnitude range for Ω_max/Ω_T; it is not tuned to equal a target observable. Heavy citation of the author's prior RAT/RAT-D/k-RAT series and of the unsubmitted companion Paper II is real and load-bearing for reproducibility and for the internal ordering (disruption before net angle jump), but those citations supply the dynamical engine rather than a uniqueness theorem or a quantity that is definitionally identical to the claimed prediction. Under the stated rules this is ordinary theory application with an unpublished methods dependency, not circular derivation. Score 1 only to flag that mild self-citation dependence; steps are empty because no step meets the quote-and-reduce standard for the enumerated circularity kinds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 8 axioms · 3 invented entities

Central claims are numerical predictions of a time-domain RAT model. They rest on the standard RAT/Larmor/radiative-precession apparatus, on hand-chosen cloud and grain microphysical parameters, and on the unpublished TransRAT integrator. No new fundamental force or particle is postulated; the 'invented' pieces are the named phenomenological signatures and the TransRAT framework itself as a computational object.

free parameters (8)
  • S_max (grain tensile strength) = 10^9 erg cm^{-3}
    Set to 10^9 erg cm^{-3}; controls RAT-D onset and thus the polarization-dip and angle-rotation timing. Not derived from the SN or cloud data.
  • B (magnetic field strength) = 100 μG
    Fiducial 100 μG; sets Larmor rate and therefore B-RAT vs k-RAT boundary and reverberation recovery.
  • n_H (gas density) = 10^4 cm^{-3}
    Fiducial 10^4 cm^{-3}; sets t_gas and fossil lifetime τ_relax ~ 10 t_gas.
  • ψ (angle between B and k) = 45°
    Fiducial 45°; directly sets the reported 45° polarization-angle jump amplitude.
  • f_ISRF_hiJ and (R_low-J, R_high-J) = 0.5; (0.1, 1.0)
    Pre-SN high-J fraction 0.5 and Rayleigh reduction factors (0.1, 1.0) chosen as 'typical'; control with 0.01 is mentioned but baseline is hand-set.
  • N_cl (iron cluster size in SPM models) = 10^2–10^4
    Discrete suite 10^2, 10^3, 10^4 plus power-law; chosen to span PM–SPM dichotomy that drives the magnetism diagnostic.
  • L_max / Type IIP light-curve normalization = 5.8e9 L_sun
    L_max = 5.8e9 L_sun, peak ~0.3 L_max, 10-day rise + plateau + 56Co tail adopted from literature templates; amplitude sets U(D) and all onset times.
  • U_pre-SN (ambient radiation strength) = 0.1
    U=0.1 for dense cloud; sets pre-SN a_ali and quiescent λ_max ~0.8 μm.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Radiative torques align grains on the radiative-precession timescale, enabling 'fast alignment' of grains down to ~0.01 μm under intense radiation.
    Core of the Lazarian & Hoang RAT framework; invoked throughout §1–3 as the driver of the polarization flare and λ_max drift.
  • domain assumption Alignment axis is set by competition between Larmor precession about B and radiative precession about k; the faster wins (B-RAT vs k-RAT).
    Stated in §1 and Figure 1; load-bearing for the angle-rotation and reverberation claims.
  • domain assumption RAT-D irreversibly disrupts grains in [a_min_disr, a_max_disr] when centrifugal stress exceeds S_max; only high-J attractor grains are disrupted.
    From Hoang et al. 2019; required for the polarization dip and for the angle jump (no-RAT-D control kills rotation).
  • domain assumption Paramagnetic susceptibility follows Curie law χ_0 ∝ T_d^{-1}; SPM grains with large N_cl have approximately temperature-independent effective susceptibility.
    §3.4; drives the PM vs SPM dichotomy in switch onset and recovery timing (Hoang 2026 cited).
  • ad hoc to paper After illumination, gas and dust are thermally coupled: T_gas = T_d(t_r).
    Explicit modeling choice in §2; affects damping time and magnetic susceptibility via T_d.
  • ad hoc to paper Cloud may be treated as an idealized plane-parallel slab with B and k both in the plane of the sky for the extinction-polarization geometry.
    §2; isolates dust physics but fixes the projected angle jump to ψ and ignores 3D radiative-transfer and limb effects.
  • domain assumption Post-transient grain angular velocity decays as Ω(t)=Ω_max exp(-t/t_gas), so enhanced-alignment fossil lasts ~1–10 t_gas.
    §4.2 Eqs. 3–4; sets the archaeological window ~10^3–10^4 yr at n_H=10^4 cm^{-3}.
  • domain assumption astrodust+PAH grain model with a=3.5 Å–0.5 μm and oblate s=1.4 is an adequate dust representation.
    §2 citing Hensley & Draine 2023; underpins absolute p_ext and p_em amplitudes in Table 1.
invented entities (3)
  • TransRAT (Transient Radiative Torque) time-domain framework no independent evidence
    purpose: Self-consistently evolve grain heating, spin-up, RAT-D, high-J/low-J populations, and B↔k axis switching under an arbitrary bolometric light curve, then feed DustPOL py.
    Named computational framework whose full formulation is deferred to unpublished Paper II; all quantitative figures are TransRAT outputs.
  • Polarization-angle reverberation no independent evidence
    purpose: Named B→k→B angle excursion whose recovery timing is proposed as the cleanest probe of grain iron content/magnetism.
    Phenomenological label for a predicted light-curve feature; falsifiable with multi-epoch polarimetry but not yet observed.
  • Polarization fossil imprint / polarization echo and disruption echo no independent evidence
    purpose: Long-lived post-transient elevation of p and blueshift of λ_max (and reduced R_V) used as the near-term archaeological test near young SNRs.
    Named lasting signatures derived from the relaxation hierarchy; independent_evidence false until SNR-cloud surveys test them.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 18582 in / 5164 out tokens · 118637 ms · 2026-07-31T12:38:14.135179+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-Domain Dust Astrophysics. I. Polarization Flares, Polarization-Angle Reverberation, and Fossil Imprints in Supernova-Illuminated Clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5WVH72H

@misc{pith2026260724517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-Domain Dust Astrophysics. I. Polarization Flares, Polarization-Angle Reverberation, and Fossil Imprints in Supernova-Illuminated Clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5WVH72H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24517}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Cosmic transients can dramatically enhance the local radiation field on timescales of days to months. Using the time-domain TransRAT framework, which self-consistently evolves grain heating, alignment, rotational disruption, and switching of the alignment axis between the magnetic field (B-RAT) and the radiation direction (k-RAT), we predict the time-dependent dust polarization of a dense cloud illuminated by a Type~IIP supernova at different distances. We identify four key signatures. First, for $D\lesssim1$ pc, a polarization flare develops within days to weeks, marked by sharp increases in both thermal dust polarization and extinction-polarization efficiency; this is followed by a polarization dip as radiative torque disruption (RAT-D) destroys the large aligned grains. Second, the peak wavelength of extinction polarization, $\lambda_{\rm max}$, shifts blueward as the minimum aligned-grain size decreases, providing a diagnostic largely independent of magnetic-field geometry. Third, the transition from B-RAT to k-RAT produces an abrupt polarization-angle rotation of $45^{\circ}$ in our fiducial geometry. Fourth, as the transient fades, the return to B-RAT generates a polarization-angle reverberation governed by Larmor precession. This reverberation is the most sensitive probe of grain magnetism, with superparamagnetic grains recovering more rapidly than paramagnetic grains. At $D>1$ pc, SN-induced polarization properties persist long after the radiation has faded, leaving a fossil imprint. This imprint offers the most practical near-term observational test: clouds near supernova remnants younger than the relaxation timescale of $\sim10\,t_{\rm gas}$ with $t_{\rm gas}$ gas damping time, should exhibit elevated polarization and blueshifted $\lambda_{\rm max}$ today.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24517 by Thiem Hoang (KASI/UST).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the two possible align￾ment axes of grains exposed to a transient, set by the com￾petition between Larmor precession around the magnetic field B and radiative precession around the radiation direc￾tion k. Before the transient, Larmor precession dominates and grains align with B (B-RAT alignment). The intense transient radiation accelerates radiative precession, and once it outpace… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Polarization light curves of background starlight extincted by nearby SN-illuminated clouds at D = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 pc (left to right columns), for the fiducial geometry ψ = 45◦ (the angle between B and k in the plane of the sky): dichroic polarization efficiency pext(V )/NH (upper panels, a–c) and polarization angle (lower panels, d–f). Lines show the five magnetic-susceptibility cases, from PM to SPM wit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time evolution of the peak wavelength λmax of the extinction polarization spectrum for clouds at different distances from the SN (panels a–f: D = 0.01–20 pc) and the five magnetic-susceptibility cases (ψ = 45◦ ). The rapid blueward drift of λmax from its quiescent value ≈ 0.8 µm traces the decreasing minimum size of aligned grains driven by fast alignment. are dispersed throughout the silicate matrix, the … view at source ↗

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

33 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andersson, B.-G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501

    2015

  2. [2]

    C., Doney, K

    Andersson, B.-G., Clayton, G. C., Doney, K. D., et al. 2022, Astrophysics and Space Science, 367, 127, doi: 10.1007/s10509-022-04153-3 Anthropic. 2026, Claude Code,, https://claude.com/claude-code

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-022-04153-3 2022

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 2421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1634 Din¸ cel, B., Paylı, G., Yerli, S

    Dastidar, R., Misra, K., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1634 Din¸ cel, B., Paylı, G., Yerli, S. K., et al. 2026, ˚ a, 707, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556086

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1634 2018

  4. [4]

    Z., & Mitrofanov, I

    Dolginov, A. Z., & Mitrofanov, I. G. 1976, Ap&SS, 43, 291

    1976

  5. [5]

    T., & Weingartner, J

    Draine, B. T., & Weingartner, J. C. 1997, ApJ, 480, 633

    1997

  6. [6]

    Floris, A., Liodakis, I., Koljonen, K. I. I., et al. 2025, ˚ a, 703, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555626

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555626 2025

  7. [7]

    C., Hoang, T., & Tram, L

    Giang, N. C., Hoang, T., & Tram, L. N. 2020, ApJ, 888, 93

    2020

  8. [8]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55

    2023

  9. [9]

    T., Shappee, B

    Hinkle, J. T., Shappee, B. J., Auchettl, K., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadt0074, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adt0074

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adt0074 2025

  10. [10]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 13 12

    Hoang, T. 2017, ApJ, 836, 13 12

    2017

  11. [11]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a1a

    Hoang, T. 2025, ApJ, 994, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a1a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a1a 2025

  12. [12]

    2026, arXiv:2602.14101

    Hoang, T. 2026, arXiv:2602.14101

    arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    C., & Tram, L

    Hoang, T., Giang, N. C., & Tram, L. N. 2020, ApJ, 895, 16

    2020

  14. [14]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 117

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 117

    2008

  15. [15]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 680

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 680

    2014

  16. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 831, 159

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 159

    2016

  17. [17]

    N., Lee, H., & Ahn, S.-H

    Hoang, T., Tram, L. N., Lee, H., & Ahn, S.-H. 2019, natas, 3, 766

    2019

  18. [18]

    N., Lee, H., Diep, P

    Hoang, T., Tram, L. N., Lee, H., Diep, P. N., & Ngoc, N. B. 2021, ApJ, 908, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd54f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd54f 2021

  19. [19]

    N., Minh Phan, V

    Hoang, T., Tram, L. N., Minh Phan, V. H., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9af5 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., & et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9af5 2022

  20. [20]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., Nilsson, K., Liodakis, I., & Lindfors, E. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1340

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1340 2025

  21. [21]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910

    Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 910

    2007

  22. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 122

    Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2019, ApJ, 883, 122

    2019

  23. [23]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 44 OpenAI

    Lee, H., Hoang, T., Le, N., & Cho, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 44 OpenAI. 2026, Introducing ChatGPT, doi: https://openai.com/index/chatgpt/

    2020

  24. [24]

    Patat, F., Taubenberger, S., Cox, N. L. J., et al. 2015, ˚ a, 577, A53

    2015

  25. [25]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15

    Pattle, K., & Fissel, L. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15

    2019

  26. [26]

    T., Tram, L

    Reach, W. T., Tram, L. N., DeWitt, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d59 2024

  27. [27]

    C., Dubner, G., & Castro, D

    Slane, P., Bykov, A., Ellison, D. C., Dubner, G., & Castro, D. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 188, 187, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0062-6

    doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0062-6 2015

  28. [28]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.14258

    Tahani, M., Hollberg, L., Akitaya, H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.14258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    N., Readhead, A

    Tassis, K., Ramaprakash, A. N., Readhead, A. C. S., & et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.05652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    N., & Hoang, T

    Tram, L. N., & Hoang, T. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 923927, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.923927

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    N., Lee, H., Hoang, T., et al

    Tram, L. N., Lee, H., Hoang, T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abccbe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abccbe 2021

  32. [32]

    2025, arXiv

    Uno, K., Maeda, K., Nagao, T., et al. 2025, arXiv

    2025

  33. [33]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acee7f

    Zhou, X., Su, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acee7f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acee7f 2023