Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 76 references

Impact of Cosmic-Ray Feedback on Accretion and Chemistry in Circumstellar Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Accreting T Tauri stars accelerate cosmic rays at their accretion shocks, producing disk ionization rates at least an order of magnitude above the Galactic background.

desk verdict A useful, transparent forward model of accretion-shock CR ionization in disks, whose main quantitative claim rests on an unvalidated attenuation-law extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08061 v2 pith:35FZSHIG submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

S. S. R. Offner , B. A. L. Gaches , J. Holdship This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords cosmicrayscircumstellardisksTTauristarsaccretionshocksmagneto-rotationalinstabilitydiskchemistryionizationrateprotoplanetary
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

An accreting young star's own accretion shock may be the dominant source of cosmic rays in its circumstellar disk. The paper argues that for T Tauri accretion rates, these locally accelerated cosmic rays produce disk-surface ionization rates at least ten times the Galactic cosmic-ray background, and up to $\zeta \sim 10^{-14}$ s$^{-1}$ inside 10 au. That extra ionization changes which ions dominate the disk chemistry and pushes the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) active region toward the midplane, where the MRI can drive accretion. The coupling between accretion rate, cosmic-ray attenuation by the accretion flow, and MRI activity forms a feedback loop that could naturally produce accretion variability. A sympathetic reader would care because ionization sets disk chemistry, gas-field coupling, and planet formation conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a three-stage propagation model for an accretion-shock cosmic-ray spectrum with energy dependence $E^{-2}$ and energies up to a few GeV. It is attenuated by inverse funneling and energy losses in the ionized accretion flow between the star and the inner disk, by geometric spreading and energy losses above the disk surface, and by a power-law column-density attenuation within the disk, $\zeta_{\rm CR} = \zeta_0 \, (N_{\rm H}/10^{18}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2})^{-0.34}$, taken from interstellar CR studies. The propagated spectrum feeds a gas-grain chemistry calculation that yields electron and ion abundances, which are then converted into magnetic Reynolds and Ambipolar numbers to locate MRI-active regions. The same machinery produces the proposed feedback loop: accretion rate sets CR luminosity, accretion-column column density sets CR attenuation, and MRI activity sets accretion rate.

What would settle it

Measure the cosmic-ray ionization rate in the inner ~10 au of a T Tauri disk, for example through H3+ line emission or absorption; if the rate is consistent with the shielded Galactic background (~1e-16 $s^{-1}$) rather than the predicted zeta >= 1e-14 $s^{-1}$, the accretion-shock CR source is not effective at the claimed level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that cosmic rays accelerated by the stellar accretion shock of a T Tauri star can dominate disk ionization in the inner ~10 au. For accretion rates $\dot{M}_* \sim 10^{-9}$ to $10^{-6}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, the paper computes surface ionization rates $\zeta \geq 10^{-15}$ s$^{-1}$, exceeding the Galactic background by at least an order of magnitude, with $\zeta \geq 10^{-14}$ s$^{-1}$ inside 10 au. This CR flux raises the ionization at intermediate to high column densities ($\Sigma > 10$ g cm$^{-2}$), makes C$^{+}$, S$^{+}$, and Mg$^{+}$ the surface ions and H$_3^+$ the ion above 1 g cm$^{-2}$, and extends the MRI-active region toward the midplane. Only with diffusive propagation ($\zeta \propto r^{-1}$) does the minimum-mass solar nebula midplane become MRI-active; otherwise it remains a dead zone. The paper concludes that the same accretion that accelerates CRs, the accretion column that attenuates them, and the MRI they enable form a feedback loop that can mediate accretion and drive luminosity variability.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the interstellar cosmic-ray attenuation law (ionization scales as column density to the -0.34 power) applies to the steeper, lower-energy spectrum accelerated at the accretion shock; if the true attenuation is materially different, the computed midplane ionization and MRI boundaries shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For accretion rates $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-6}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, shock-accelerated CRs give disk-surface ionization rates $\zeta \geq 10^{-15}$ s$^{-1}$, at least ten times the Galactic CR background, reaching about $10^{-14}$ s$^{-1}$ within 10 au.
  • CR ionization dominates over X-rays and FUV at surface densities above $10$ g cm$^{-2}$ inside roughly 10 au, shifting the ion-neutral transition and changing the dominant ions: C$^{+}$, S$^{+}$, and Mg$^{+}$ at the surface, H$_3^+$ above 1 g cm$^{-2}$.
  • The MRI-active region extends toward the midplane; in the fiducial model the disk is MRI-active at column densities near 1 g cm$^{-2}$ inside about 20 au, but the minimum-mass solar nebula midplane remains a dead zone.
  • If CRs propagate diffusively ($\zeta \propto r^{-1}$), the midplane can become MRI-active, enabling an accretion self-regulation loop.
  • At very high accretion rates the dense accretion flow attenuates the CRs, so CR feedback is strongest in T Tauri disks ($10^{-9}$ to $10^{-7}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$) and weaker in protostellar disks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: molecular-line observations of H$_3^+$ in the inner ~10 au of an accreting T Tauri disk could distinguish shock-accelerated CR ionization from X-ray ionization, since the paper predicts H$_3^+$ dominates above 1 g cm$^{-2}$ with a CR-driven floor.
  • If the CR feedback loop operates, young-star accretion should be self-limiting on timescales of a few years at the MRI-active boundary; this is an inference, as the paper only sketches the loop.
  • Applying a steeper or shallower attenuation law for the $E^{-2}$ shock spectrum would shift the MRI-active boundary; a particle-transport calculation through disk gas would directly test the assumed $-0.34$ power law.
  • The paper's discussion implies that CR-enhanced gas-phase CO could make CO observations of accreting sources overestimate the luminosity of past accretion bursts; this follows from its discussion but is not a central claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper uses the gas-grain chemistry code UCLCHEM to study whether cosmic rays accelerated at the accretion shock of a T Tauri star can ionize its circumstellar disk. Starting from the shock-accelerated E^-2 spectrum of Gaches & Offner (2018b), the authors propagate the spectrum through the accretion flow, the magnetosphere, and the disk, and compute the local ionization rate from cosmic rays together with FUV, X-rays, and radionuclides. They then run the chemistry at fixed density and temperature structure and map the electron fraction and ion abundances, using the magnetic Reynolds number and the ambipolar diffusion number to define the MRI-active region. The main claims are that local cosmic rays produce zeta >= 1e-15 to 1e-14 s^-1 at the disk surface within about 10 au, extend the MRI-active region to Sigma ~ 1 g cm^-2 inside about 20 au, and leave the MMSN midplane MRI-dead except for diffusive cosmic-ray propagation. The paper also proposes a feedback loop connecting accretion rate, cosmic-ray attenuation, and MRI activity.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper would establish a local, accretion-powered cosmic-ray source as a major term in the ionization budget of protoplanetary disks, with consequences for dead-zone structure, disk chemistry, and accretion variability. The modeling is transparent and forward-looking: the parameters are listed in Table 2, the chemistry code is public, the cosmic-ray spectrum is taken from an independent acceleration calculation rather than fitted to disk observables, and the paper states its main limitations explicitly. The predictions for dominant ions, H3+ abundances, CH3CN/HCN ratios, and the location of the MRI-active boundary are falsifiable and should stimulate observations. The quantitative MRI boundary is the key deliverable, and its robustness is the main thing the revision needs to establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4.1, Eq. (9)] The attenuation law zeta_CR = zeta_0 (N_H / 1e18 cm^-2)^-0.34 is adopted from Padovani et al. (2018) for interstellar cosmic-ray spectra and applied to the accretion-shock E^-2 spectrum, with the justification 'we assume the attenuation will be qualitatively similar in our case.' This assumption is load-bearing: the MRI-active boundary at Sigma ~ 1 g cm^-2 corresponds to N_H ~ 6e23 cm^-2, precisely the column range where the exponent matters. Changing the exponent from -0.34 to -0.6 lowers zeta by roughly a factor of 30 at that column and moves the CR-dominated active region to substantially lower surface density. The law is also applied beyond the stated validity range N_H < 1e25 cm^-2 when the MMSN midplane is evaluated. I ask for either a direct transport calculation of the post-shock spectrum through region III using the same loss-function machinery as regions I and II, or an explicit sensitivity study over the attenuation exponent and column range, with the resulting MRI boundaries reported. Without this, the quantitative MRI-active boundary and the midplane dead-zone conclusion remain conditional.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Section 4.6] The model assumes that photons and cosmic rays enter the disk only vertically and neglects side-entry at the inner rim. The authors acknowledge in Section 4.6 that this underestimates ionization at the midplane within the inner ~10 au and may extend the MRI-active region. This is not a minor caveat: the paper's negative conclusion that the MMSN midplane remains MRI-dead except for diffusive propagation is derived in the vertical-only geometry, and the proposed feedback loop depends on where the dead zone actually sits. Please quantify the side-entry contribution, at least with an approximate treatment of the inner-edge column, or explicitly restrict the midplane-dead-zone claim to the vertical-entry geometry.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions present a cosmic-ray feedback loop that 'mediates accretion and may produce luminosity variability,' but no time-dependent or even steady-state feedback model is presented. The paper demonstrates monotonic relationships between accretion rate, cosmic-ray production, attenuation, and MRI activity, but a negative-feedback loop that regulates accretion or produces variability requires an additional stability or timescale argument. Please add a simple estimate, such as the equilibrium accretion rate or the loop response time, or soften the wording to describe a possible feedback pathway rather than an established accretion-regulation mechanism.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The radial dependence in Eq. (11) appears inverted: as written G0 grows as r^2, whereas Eq. (10) gives G0 proportional to r^-2. This should presumably be (3 au / r)^2, and the implementation should be checked against the intended scaling.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The normalization column should be written with consistent units, N_H in cm^-2, and the meaning of N_H as the vertical hydrogen column from the disk surface should be stated at first use.
  3. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'a minor affect on the disk ionization' should read 'a minor effect.'
  4. [Section 4.6] The text 'grains colagulate and sediment' should read 'coagulate,' and 'ionization fraction of up to 10^-8 s^-1' should have dimensionless units for a fraction, not s^-1.
  5. [Section 3.4.2] In the sentence about large grains, 'Sigma ~ 10 g cm^-3' should be 'g cm^-2.'
  6. [References] The two Gaches & Offner references appear with identical bibliographic data (ApJ 861, 87); if 2018a and 2018b are distinct papers, the page or journal data should be corrected, and if they are the same paper, one citation should be removed.
  7. [Eq. (15)] The time unit in the radionuclide ionization expression should be specified explicitly, since the exponent 1.04 t is only sensible with t in a stated unit such as Myr.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward-modeled CR ionization and MRI predictions with acknowledged external attenuation assumptions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward model: an initial shock-accelerated CR spectrum from Gaches & Offner (2018b) is propagated through inverse funneling, accretion-flow energy losses, and disk attenuation using external loss functions and the Padovani et al. (2018) column-density relation; the resulting ionization rates drive UCLCHEM chemistry; electron fractions then set Re and Am and hence the MRI-active regions. No output quantity is fitted back into any input, and the proposed feedback loop is qualitative rather than a parameter used in the calculation. The CR spectrum from the authors' prior work is an independent physical model, not a fit to the disk observables being predicted. The application of the ISM-calibrated attenuation law to a different spectrum is explicitly acknowledged as an assumption ('we assume the attenuation will be qualitatively similar in our case'); that is a modeling uncertainty and correctness risk, not circularity. Self-citations are present but none make a derived result equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model chains together a CR spectrum from prior shock-acceleration work, a multipole-field funneling model, a disk attenuation law, a fixed temperature profile, and literature MRI thresholds. The most fragile is the ad hoc application of Eq. (9) to a non-ISM spectrum, since the MRI-active region depends directly on the resulting ionization depth. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Accretion hot-spot covering fraction facc = 0.001, 0.01, 0.1
    Assumed proportional to accretion rate (Sec. 2.2); sets the CR luminosity at the shock and therefore the surface ionization rate; not independently constrained.
  • CR accretion-column coupling epsilon = 1, 0.1, 0.01
    Parametrizes unknown CR energy losses in the accretion flow (Sec. 3.5); directly modulates the CR flux reaching the disk; unconstrained.
  • Radial CR attenuation exponent a = 2 (fiducial), 1 (diffusive)
    Free-streaming vs diffusive propagation (Sec. 2.4.1); determines whether the MMSN midplane becomes MRI-active; unconstrained.
  • Dust grain radius agr = 0.1, 1.0, 10.0 micron
    Fiducial 1 micron; controls electron recombination and hence the electron fraction and MRI-active region (Secs. 2.1, 3.4); unconstrained, grain growth is not modeled self-consistently.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration at the stellar accretion shock produces CRs with an E^-2 spectrum up to a few GeV (Gaches & Offner 2018b).
    Sets the injected CR spectrum; adopted from prior work by the same group, not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption The funneling attenuation factor ffunnel follows the multipole field model in Eq. (7).
    Determines CR flux loss between star and disk; simplified from observed T Tauri field topologies.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk CR attenuation law zeta = zeta0 (N_H/1e18)^-0.34 (Eq. 9) applies to the shock-accelerated spectrum.
    The paper acknowledges the spectrum differs from the ISM case but assumes 'qualitatively similar' attenuation.
  • domain assumption The disk is vertically isothermal with T = 384 r^-3/7 K (Eq. 2).
    Standard thin-disk temperature approximation; UCLCHEM does not solve thermal balance.
  • domain assumption CRs and radiation enter the disk only vertically through the surface; horizontal transport is neglected.
    The paper's own caveat (Sec. 4.6) notes this underestimates inner-disk midplane ionization.
  • domain assumption The MRI is active for Re > 3000 and Am > 0.1.
    Thresholds from MHD simulations (Flock et al. 2012b; Bai & Stone 2011); the dead-zone conclusion is sensitive to this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Cosmic-Ray Feedback on Accretion and Chemistry in Circumstellar Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35FZSHIG

@misc{pith2026190808061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Cosmic-Ray Feedback on Accretion and Chemistry in Circumstellar Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35FZSHIG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08061}
}
abstract

We use the gas-grain chemistry code UCLCHEM to explore the impact of cosmic-ray feedback on the chemistry of circumstellar disks. We model the attenuation and energy losses of the cosmic-rays as they propagate outwards from the star and also consider ionization due to stellar radiation and radionuclides. For accretion rates typical of young stars, $\dot M_* \sim 10^{-9}-10^{-6}$ M_\odot yr$^{-1}$, we show that cosmic rays accelerated by the stellar accretion shock produce a cosmic-ray ionization rate at the disk surface $\zeta \gtrsim 10^{-15}$ s$^{-1}$, at least an order of magnitude higher than the ionization rate associated with the Galactic cosmic-ray background. The incident cosmic-ray flux enhances the disk ionization at intermediate to high surface densities ($\Sigma > 10$ g cm$^{-2}$) particularly within 10 au of the star. We find the dominant ions are C$^+$, S$^+$ and Mg$^+$ in the disk surface layers, while the H$_3^+$ ion dominates at surface densities above 1.0 g cm$^{-2}$. We predict the radii and column densities at which the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) is active in T Tauri disks and show that ionization by cosmic-ray feedback extends the MRI-active region towards the disk mid-plane. However, the MRI is only active at the mid-plane of a minimum mass solar nebula disk if cosmic-rays propagate diffusively ($\zeta \propto r^{-1}$) away from the star. The relationship between accretion, which accelerates cosmic rays, the dense accretion columns, which attenuate cosmic rays, and the MRI, which facilitates accretion, create a cosmic-ray feedback loop that mediates accretion and may produce luminosity variability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of our model. which impact the ionization of the dense core and larger molecular cloud. Here, we explore the impact of CRs accelerated in accretion shocks on the chemistry and dynamics of circumstellar disks. Like photons, CRs attenuate geometrically as they propagate outward from the central star and also suffer energy losses via interactions with gas along their path. Exactly how CRs propagate outwards i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cosmic-ray spectrum at different regions for the fiducial model (left: m = 1M , r = 1.5R , M˙ ∗ = 10−7M yr−1 and facc = 0.01) and the high-accretion model (right: m = 1M , r = 1.5R , M˙ ∗ = 10−6M yr−1 and facc = 0.1). Therefore, we adopt ffunnel ∝ 0.5r −3 + 0.3r −7 + 0.1r −9 . (7) This implies that if CRs are well-coupled to the field, the spectrum declines more steeply than the often-assumed r −2 free-streaming lim… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ionization rate as a function of radius at the disk surface for various model parameters. One additional free parameter is the amount of tur￾bulence in the magnetic field. In principle, the CRs and field are well-coupled, since the Larmor radius is small: a proton with momentum 3 Gev/c in a 1 kG field has rL < 1.4 × 10−7 R . The particles would not be expected to scatter more than once per rL. How￾ever, turbulence i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ionization rates as a function of surface density and radius. Shading indicates the dominant source of ionization due to FUV radiation (black), X-ray radiation (dark gray), cosmic rays (CR, light gray) and short-lived radionuclides (RN, white). Top left: Fiducial model…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fraction of positive ions, nion/nH, annotated with the most abundant ion. Top: Fiducial model computed without metals (only H, He, C and O) after t ∼ 103 yr of evolution (left) and ∼ 105 yr of evolution (right). Bottom: Fiducial model including Mg, N and Si after t ∼ 1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electron fraction, ion number density, magnetic Reynolds number, Ambipolar diffusion number, viscosity parameter and accretion rate for our fiducial model (1M T Tauri star with accretion rate of M˙ ∗ = 10−7M yr−1 ). The dashed line indicates the surface density at the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Boundary between the MRI active (Re > 3000, Am > 0.1) and MRI dead zones for the fiducial model (thick black line) and variations. upper limits of vturb . 0.08 cs on the turbulence in the outer disk (r & 50 au) near the midplane (Flaherty et al. 2015, 2017, 2018). Even…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Magnetic Reynolds number for the fiducial model with the corresponding MRI-active region over-laid. The white solid lines indicate the MRI limit in the case of anti-aligned rotation and magnetic field vectors for Bz = 1 G (thick), Bz =0.1 G (intermediate) and Bz =0.01 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Cieza, L. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Audard, M., ´Abrah´ am, P., Dunham, M. M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 387 18 Offner et al

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    2011, ApJ, 739, 51 —

    Bai, X.-N. 2011, ApJ, 739, 51 —. 2014, ApJ, 791, 137

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    2009, ApJ, 701, 737

    Bai, X.-N., & Goodman, J. 2009, ApJ, 701, 737

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    C., Plotnikov, I., & Stone, J

    Bai, X.-N., Ostriker, E. C., Plotnikov, I., & Stone, J. M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.10219

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2011, ApJ, 736, 144 —. 2017, ApJ, 836, 46

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214

    1991

  8. [8]

    2014, ApJ, 790, L1

    Ceccarelli, C., Dominik, C., L´ opez-Sepulcre, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, L1

    work page 2014

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    I., Adams, F

    Cleeves, L. I., Adams, F. C., Bergin, E. A., & Visser, R. 2013b, ApJ, 777, 28 D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Franco-Hern´ andez, R., & Serv´ ın, H. 2006, ApJ, 638, 314

    2006

  2. [10]

    2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 12269

    Dalgarno, A. 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 12269

    2006

  3. [11]

    J., & Turner, N

    Desch, S. J., & Turner, N. J. 2015, ApJ, 811, 156

    2015

  4. [12]

    M., Gregory, S

    Donati, J.-F., Jardine, M. M., Gregory, S. G., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1234

    2008

  5. [13]

    P., & Dominik, C

    Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2004, A&A, 421, 1075

    2004

  6. [14]

    2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 317

    Dutrey, A., Semenov, D., Chapillon, E., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 317

    2014

  7. [15]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 136

    Favre, C., Ceccarelli, C., L´ opez-Sepulcre, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 136

    2018

  8. [16]

    D., Getman, K., Townsley, L., et al

    Feigelson, E. D., Getman, K., Townsley, L., et al. 2005, ApJS, 160, 379

    2005

  9. [17]

    A., & Mouschovias, T

    Fiedler, R. A., & Mouschovias, T. C. 1993, ApJ, 415, 680

    1993

  10. [18]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 99

    2015

  11. [19]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Teague, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 117

    2018

  12. [20]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rose, S. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 150

    2017

  13. [21]

    J., Cohen, O., & Garraffo, C

    Fraschetti, F., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., & Garraffo, C. 2018, ApJ, 853, 112

    2018

  14. [22]

    K., Padoan, P., & Haugbølle, T

    Frimann, S., Jørgensen, J. K., Padoan, P., & Haugbølle, T. 2016, A&A, 587, A60

    2016

  15. [23]

    Fromang, S., Terquem, C., & Balbus, S. A. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 18

    2002

  16. [24]

    Gaches, B. A. L., Offner, S. S. R., & Bisbas, T. G. 2019, ApJ, 878, 105

    2019

  17. [25]

    Gammie, C. F. 1996, ApJ, 457, 355

    1996

  18. [26]

    E., Lizano, S., & Galli, D

    Glassgold, A. E., Lizano, S., & Galli, D. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2447

    2017

  19. [27]

    E., Najita, J

    Glassgold, A. E., Najita, J. R., & Igea, J. 2007, ApJ, 656, 515

    2007

  20. [28]

    A., & Simon, J

    Gole, D. A., & Simon, J. B. 2018, ApJ, 869, 84

    2018

  21. [29]

    H., & Yan, M

    Gredel, R., Black, J. H., & Yan, M. 2001, A&A, 375, 553

    2001

  22. [30]

    P., & Turner, N

    Gressel, O., Nelson, R. P., & Turner, N. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1140

    2012

  23. [31]

    2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 135

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 135

    2016

  24. [32]

    A., & Findeisen, K

    Hillenbrand, L. A., & Findeisen, K. P. 2015, ApJ, 808, 68

    2015

  25. [33]

    2017, AJ, 154, 38

    Priestley, F. 2017, AJ, 154, 38

    2017

  26. [34]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  27. [35]

    Igea, J., & Glassgold, A. E. 1999, ApJ, 518, 848

    1999

  28. [36]

    R., Oka, T., & McCall, B

    Indriolo, N., Geballe, T. R., Oka, T., & McCall, B. J. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1736

    2007

  29. [37]

    Indriolo, N., & McCall, B. J. 2012, ApJ, 745, 91

    2012

  30. [38]

    A., Gerin, M., et al

    Indriolo, N., Neufeld, D. A., Gerin, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 40

    2015

  31. [39]

    Johns-Krull, C. M. 2007, ApJ, 664, 975

    2007

  32. [40]

    2001–, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, , , [Online; accessed ¡today¿]

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001–, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, , , [Online; accessed ¡today¿]. http://www.scipy.org/ Jørgensen, J. K., Visser, R., Williams, J. P., & Bergin, E. A. 2015, A&A, 579, A23

    2001

  33. [41]

    Kunz, M. W. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1494

    2008

  34. [42]

    W., & Fromang, S

    Lesur, G., Kunz, M. W., & Fromang, S. 2014, A&A, 566, A56

    2014

  35. [43]

    F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al

    Manara, C. F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A18

    2014

  36. [44]

    1994, A&A, 286, 983

    Mannheim, K., & Schlickeiser, R. 1994, A&A, 286, 983

    1994

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    McElroy, D., Walsh, C., Markwick, A. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A36 ¨Oberg, K. I., Guzm´ an, V. V., Furuya, K., et al. 2015, Nature, 520, 198 Offner, S. S. R., & Chaban, J. 2017, ApJ, 847, 104 Offner, S. S. R., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Krumholz, M. R. 2009, ApJ, 703, 131 Off...

    2013

  38. [46]

    2011, A&A, 530, A109

    Padovani, M., & Galli, D. 2011, A&A, 530, A109

    2011

  39. [47]

    Padovani, M., Galli, D., & Glassgold, A. E. 2009, A&A, 501, 619

    2009

  40. [48]

    V., Galli, D., & Caselli, P

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V., Galli, D., & Caselli, P. 2018, A&A, 614, A111

    2018

  41. [49]

    2016, A&A, 590, A8

    Padovani, M., Marcowith, A., Hennebelle, P., & Ferri` ere, K. 2016, A&A, 590, A8

    2016

  42. [50]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 8 Cosmic-Ray Mediated Disks 19

    Perez-Becker, D., & Chiang, E. 2011, ApJ, 735, 8 Cosmic-Ray Mediated Disks 19

    2011

  43. [51]

    2005, ApJS, 160, 401 Qu´ enard, D., Jim´ enez-Serra, I., Viti, S., Holdship, J., &

    Preibisch, T., Kim, Y.-C., Favata, F., et al. 2005, ApJS, 160, 401 Qu´ enard, D., Jim´ enez-Serra, I., Viti, S., Holdship, J., &

    2005

  44. [52]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2796

    Coutens, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2796

    2018

  45. [53]

    M., Cody, A

    Rebull, L. M., Cody, A. M., Covey, K. R., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 92

    2014

  46. [54]

    M., Ray, T

    Rodgers-Lee, D., Taylor, A. M., Ray, T. P., & Downes, T. P. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 26

    2017

  47. [55]

    M., & Owocki, S

    Romanova, M. M., & Owocki, S. P. 2015, SSRv, 191, 339

    2015

  48. [56]

    M., Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T

    Sano, T., Miyama, S. M., Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T. 2000, ApJ, 543, 486

    2000

  49. [57]

    Sano, T., & Stone, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 577, 534

    2002

  50. [58]

    2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics

    Schlickeiser, R. 2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics

    2002

  51. [59]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 89

    Schlickeiser, R., Caglar, M., & Lazarian, A. 2016, ApJ, 824, 89

    2016

  52. [60]

    2004, A&A, 417, 93

    Semenov, D., Wiebe, D., & Henning, T. 2004, A&A, 417, 93

    2004

  53. [61]

    2000, A&A, 358, 593

    Siess, L., Dufour, E., & Forestini, M. 2000, A&A, 358, 593

    2000

  54. [62]

    V., Padovani, M., & Caselli, P

    Silsbee, K., Ivlev, A. V., Padovani, M., & Caselli, P. 2018, ApJ, 863, 188

    2018

  55. [63]

    B., Bai, X.-N., Flaherty, K

    Simon, J. B., Bai, X.-N., Flaherty, K. M., & Hughes, A. M. 2018, ApJ, 865, 10

    2018

  56. [64]

    B., Lesur, G., Kunz, M

    Simon, J. B., Lesur, G., Kunz, M. W., & Armitage, P. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1117

    2015

  57. [65]

    M., Ostriker, E

    Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Gammie, C. F. 1998, ApJL, 508, L99

    1998

  58. [66]

    2016, A&A, 592, A49

    Teague, R., Guilloteau, S., Semenov, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A49

    2016

  59. [67]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 2977

    Thomas, T., & Pfrommer, C. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2977

    2019

  60. [68]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2005, The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium

    2005

  61. [69]

    J., Sano, T., & Dziourkevitch, N

    Turner, N. J., Sano, T., & Dziourkevitch, N. 2007, ApJ, 659, 729

    2007

  62. [70]

    1981, PASJ, 33, 617 —

    Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T. 1981, PASJ, 33, 617 —. 2009, ApJ, 690, 69 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22 van Dishoeck, E. F. 2014, Faraday Discussions, 168, 9

    1981

  63. [71]

    M., & Herbst, E

    Wakelam, V., Cuppen, H. M., & Herbst, E. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1309.7792

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    2012, ApJS, 199, 21

    Wakelam, V., Herbst, E., Loison, J.-C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 21

    2012

  65. [73]

    J., Nomura, H., et al

    Walsh, C., Millar, T. J., Nomura, H., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A33

    2014

  66. [74]

    2007, Ap&SS, 311, 35

    Wardle, M. 2007, Ap&SS, 311, 35

    2007

  67. [75]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 2737

    Wardle, M., & Salmeron, R. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2737

    2012

  68. [76]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 68

    Xu, R., & Bai, X.-N. 2016, ApJ, 819, 68

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.