Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multi-Wavelength Dust Characterization of the HL Tau Disk and Implications for Planet Formation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Six-wavelength maps pin HL Tau's outer dust to ~100 micron grains, making pebble accretion fast enough to build giant-planet cores within 1 Myr.

desk verdict The paper delivers a genuine data improvement—corrected 2.1 mm and new 3.1 mm images—that revises the outer-disk grain size downward, but its stronger claims about porosity and pebble accretion rest on a polarization prior the authors themselves flag as approximate. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14443 v1 pith:F4ATNITS submitted 2025-07-19 astro-ph.EP

Takahiro Ueda , Sean M. Andrews , Carlos Carrasco-González , Osmar M. Guerra-Alvarado , Satoshi Okuzumi , Ryo Tazaki , Akimasa Kataoka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords HLTauprotoplanetarydisksdustopacityporositypebbleaccretionspectralindexmillimeterinterferometryscatteringpolarization
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

Using six wavelengths from 0.45 to 7.9 mm at 0.05 arcsecond resolution, this paper tries to pin down what the dust in the HL Tau disk is made of, how porous it is, how big the grains are, and how much mass sits in the disk. The key new observational inputs are a corrected 2.1 mm image that recovers flux lost when only long baselines were used, and a new 3.1 mm image; together they show that the outer disk ($r\gtrsim40$ au) has a steep spectral slope $\alpha\sim3.7$ at long wavelengths. The authors argue that this slope, combined with the scattering polarization already observed at 0.87 mm, rules out compact grains made mostly of amorphous carbon and favors moderately porous, organics-rich grains with an effective maximum size near $100\,\mu$m beyond 40 au. If that dust model is correct, the inferred surface density and grain size imply pebble accretion rates near $10\,M_\oplus\,{\rm Myr}^{-1}$, enough to grow a giant-planet core within about a million years. If the dust is instead amorphous-carbon-rich, pebble accretion is too slow, and planet formation in this disk would need another route such as gravitational instability.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is a one-dimensional, scattering-inclusive radiative transfer model for the radial intensity, with dust temperature, surface density, maximum grain size, amorphous-carbon fraction, filling factor, and size-distribution index treated as free parameters in Markov chain Monte Carlo fits at each radius. Opacities come from a standard dust mixture of water ice, silicates, troilite, and refractory organics, in which part of the carbonaceous material is replaced by amorphous carbon (parameter $f_{\rm AC}$); porosity is included as vacuum mixed into the grains, and the key grain-scale quantity is $a_{\rm max}f_{\rm fill}$, the mass-to-area ratio that controls both opacity and aerodynamic drift. The decisive additional input is a polarization-based prior that converts the modeled polarization efficiency $P_{90}\omega^{\rm eff}_{345\,{\rm GHz}}$ into a probability, using the observed ring polarization to exclude parameter combinations that scatter too little. The corrected 2.1 mm image built from concatenated short- and long-baseline data is also part of this machinery, because the old long-baseline-only image artificially suppressed outer-disk flux and steepened the spectral index.

What would settle it

Measure the radial profile of 0.87 mm scattering polarization in HL Tau at higher signal-to-noise: if the polarization efficiency in the rings falls below the threshold where the adopted prior drops to zero, or varies strongly with radius, the prior in Eq. (15) is invalidated and the porous-dust conclusion must be rederived. Alternatively, a 1.3 cm intensity measurement beyond 40 au that falls outside the factor-of-two separation predicted between the $f_{\rm AC}=0.3$ and $f_{\rm AC}=0.8$ models would falsify one of the two compositional branches.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the HL Tau disk's outer region is populated by small, fluffy, organic-rich grains rather than the millimeter-sized compact grains suggested by earlier four-wavelength fits. Modeling six azimuthally averaged intensity profiles (0.45, 0.87, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, and 7.9 mm) with a scattering-aware radiative transfer formula, the paper finds a spectral index $\alpha\sim3.7$ between 0.87 and 3.1 mm beyond 40 au, which drives the product of maximum grain radius and filling factor, $a_{\rm max} f_{\rm fill}$, down to roughly $100\,\mu$m for compact or amorphous-carbon-rich dust. Adding a prior constructed from the observed 0.87 mm scattering polarization, the compact amorphous-carbon-rich branch becomes unlikely, and the filling factor is bracketed between 0.03 and 0.3. With moderately porous organic-rich dust, the same intensity profiles imply a high enough dust surface density and small enough drift speeds that the radial pebble flux reaches up to $\sim10^3\,M_\oplus\,{\rm Myr}^{-1}$, and the authors conclude that pebble accretion could build a giant-planet core within 1 Myr. The amorphous-carbon-rich scenario instead leaves gravitational instability as the more plausible formation mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the observed 0.87 mm scattering polarization maps onto dust properties through one global conversion formula applied across the entire disk, even though the true polarization profile likely varies with radius; if that conversion is wrong, the preference for porous organics-rich dust and the fast-pebble-accretion scenario lose their main independent observational anchor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The steep spectral slope at long wavelengths in the outer disk rules out mm-sized compact grains as the dominant population; the remaining solutions are small grains with $a_{\rm max}f_{\rm fill}\sim100\,\mu$m or moderately porous dust with sizes up to roughly 1 mm.
  • If the porous organics-rich interpretation holds, the HL Tau gaps are leaky: neither dust surface density nor grain size drops sharply across the gaps, so the gaps do not efficiently trap pebbles and the inner disk is not starved of dust.
  • Pebble accretion at roughly $10\,M_\oplus\,{\rm Myr}^{-1}$ allows a few-Earth-mass seed to grow into a giant-planet core in under 1 Myr, making pebble accretion a viable formation path in this disk.
  • If the dust is instead amorphous-carbon-rich, the low surface density and small grain size keep pebble accretion far slower, favoring disk fragmentation by gravitational instability as the origin of the observed substructures.
  • Centimeter-wavelength observations near 1.3 and 2.0 cm should separate the organics-rich and amorphous-carbon-rich models by roughly a factor of two in brightness beyond 40 au, so the compositional ambiguity is testable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The polarization prior carries much of the weight: if future imaging resolves a radially varying scattering-polarization profile or finds ring polarization below the threshold used here, the inferred porosity range and the fast-pebble-accretion conclusion would need to be revisited.
  • The short-baseline correction may matter beyond HL Tau: other disks analyzed with long-baseline-only ALMA data could have artificially depressed outer-disk fluxes and overstated spectral indices, so re-reducing those datasets might change dust-size estimates elsewhere.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply the same six-parameter fitting with a polarization prior to other disks that have measured ring polarization, checking whether the porous organic-rich solution is generic or specific to HL Tau.
  • The leaky-gap result implies that dust surface density inside gap regions is not strongly depleted; combining these opacity-based densities with gas tracers could test whether the gaps are carved by planets or by dust evolution effects.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a resolved multi-wavelength study of the HL Tau disk, modeling azimuthally averaged radial intensity profiles at 0.45, 0.87, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, and 7.9 mm with a common 0.05 arcsec resolution. The authors fit, independently at each radius, six dust parameters (temperature, surface density, maximum grain size, amorphous-carbon fraction, filling factor, and size-distribution power-law index) using a standard scattering-aware intensity model and an MCMC implementation. They introduce a corrected 2.1 mm image that includes short-baseline ALMA data and add new 3.1 mm data. The principal claims are that the outer disk (r ≳ 40 au) has a long-wavelength spectral index of about 3.7; that amax ffill is about 100 μm for compact or amorphous-carbon-rich dust; that the 0.87 mm scattering polarization, encoded in a prior p2, favors moderately porous (ffill ~ 0.03-0.3), organics-rich (fAC ≲ 0.4) dust; and that, under that branch, the inferred surface density and grain size imply pebble accretion rates near 10 M⊕/Myr at r > 40 au, enabling giant-planet cores to form within 1 Myr. The paper also predicts that 1.3 and 2.0 cm ngVLA observations can distinguish the organic-rich and amorphous-carbon-rich models.

Significance. If the dust-property inference is robust, this is a valuable contribution: it combines the broadest wavelength coverage (0.45-7.9 mm) yet used for a resolved HL Tau analysis, corrects a known short-baseline problem in the 2.1 mm data, and provides quantitative posterior distributions rather than single best-fit models. The new 3.1 mm data and the Band 4 correction are concrete observational improvements, and the ngVLA predictions in Section 5.5 are a useful falsifiable output. The main significance is conditional, however: Section 4.2 shows that the Stokes I data alone do not distinguish compact, porous, organic-rich, and amorphous-carbon-rich models, so the paper's headline planet-formation conclusion rests largely on the approximate polarization prior in Eq. (15). The pebble accretion rates in Section 5.4 are also a remapping of the same MCMC posteriors rather than an independent test. With sensitivity analyses for the prior and a more careful framing of the planet-formation implications, the paper would be a solid advance; in its current form, the central claims are plausible but not fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (15)] The polarization prior p2 is load-bearing but is applied as a single global function of P90 ω_eff at 0.87 mm, with C ≈ 0.02 and one threshold profile for the entire disk, even though the paper itself states that 'the actual value of P90ωeff in the disk is expected to vary with radius' and that Eq. (15) is adopted because a definitive profile has not been obtained. Section 4.2 shows that all four fixed composition/porosity models reproduce the observed Stokes I profiles at similar quality, so the exclusion of compact amorphous-carbon-rich dust and the preference for 0.03 ≲ ffill ≲ 0.3 are effectively determined by this approximate prior. Because the Section 5.4 pebble accretion conclusion is then evaluated on the porous organics-rich branch selected by this prior, the headline claim is not robust as presented. Please add sensitivity tests that vary C over a plausible range (e.g., 0.01 and 0.04), vary the location and width of the threshold in Eq. (15), and adopt a radially varying prior informed by the observed ring/gap polarization fractions; report how the 68% credible intervals for ffill, fAC, and the pebble accretion rate shift under these changes.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] At each radius, six free parameters are constrained by six observed intensities through Eq. (6), so the posterior is inevitably shaped by the priors in Eqs. (9) and (15). The paper acknowledges this in part, and Section 4.2 shows that fixing fAC and ffill leaves the intensity fits essentially unchanged, but the reported 68% intervals for ffill, fAC, and pd (Figures 3 and 6) are presented as empirical constraints even though Figures 3, 5, and 11 show broad, often multimodal posteriors. Please quantify the effective information added by the data, for example by comparing the full six-parameter model with reduced models using the Bayesian information criterion or nested-sampling evidence, and report prior-sensitivity runs (e.g., uniform versus log-uniform priors on T, Σd, and amax) so the reader can distinguish data-driven constraints from prior-driven constraints.
  3. [Section 5.4, Eqs. (16)-(24)] The pebble accretion rate and the statement that 'a giant planet core can form within 1 Myr' are computed by feeding the MCMC-fitted Σd and amax into Eqs. (16)-(24); they are therefore not an independent test of planet formation but a remapping of the same posterior that already selected the porous organics-rich branch. The paper is partly careful in using conditional language and noting the 3 M⊕ seed assumption, but the abstract and Section 6 state the 10 M⊕/Myr rate and the 1 Myr core formation as general conclusions. Please restate these as model-dependent consequences of the polarization-prior-selected branch, propagate the full posterior including model uncertainty among the four branches rather than only the favored branch, and test sensitivity to the assumed gas surface density from 13C17O, since the Stokes numbers and drift velocities in Eqs. (14), (17), and (18) scale with Σg.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The rendered title contains typographical artifacts: 'Multi-W avelength' and 'T au' should be corrected to 'Multi-Wavelength' and 'Tau'.
  2. [Section 2, Figure 1] The 3.1 mm beam is described as 0.061 × 0.041 arcsec and then said to have a beam area equivalent to 0.05 × 0.05 arcsec; please state the effective circular beam size explicitly in the caption to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence introducing Eq. (15) derives the threshold from P ≈ C P90ω_eff with C ~ 0.02 in a single clause; please give the uncertainty in C and in the observed scattering polarization fraction (≳0.5%) in the main text, since these directly set the prior in Eq. (15).
  4. [Section 5.5] The ngVLA integration-time estimates assume ffill = 0.1 and only compare fAC = 0.3 and 0.8; the quoted times are therefore conditional on the porous branch and do not include the full posterior spread in ffill and fAC. Please clarify this in the text.
  5. [Section 6, summary item 3] The statement that the inferred surface density is 'consistent with the gravitational instability threshold' should explicitly note the adopted fd2g = 0.01 and Q = 1.4 values, since Eq. (11) scales with these assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MCMC inference is anchored in external observations, and the derived planet-formation rates are stated implications, not independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is an MCMC fit of the observed six-wavelength intensity profiles to a parameterized dust model, with temperature, surface density, maximum grain size, amorphous-carbon fraction, filling factor, and size-distribution index as free parameters. The fits are evaluated against the observed intensities with no fitted quantity reused as an observed constraint: the intensity model in Eq. (1) is a standard radiative-transfer expression, and the opacities are computed from published dust models via OpTool. The polarization-based prior p2 in Eq. (15) is an input prior derived from an external calibration (C ~ 0.02, Kataoka et al. 2016) and from the observed 0.87 mm scattering polarization; it is not constructed from the paper's own fitted outputs, and the paper explicitly discloses its approximate, radius-independent nature. The Section 5.4 pebble-accretion rates are computed from the fitted posterior distributions through Eqs. (16)–(24); these are derived consequences of the inferred dust properties rather than predictions tested against a withheld dataset, so they do not constitute a fitted input being relabeled as a prediction. The longer-wavelength predictions in Section 5.5 extrapolate the fitted models to 1.3 and 2.0 cm, outside the fitted wavelength range, and are therefore genuine predictions rather than circular restatements. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent by construction to an input, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain. The analysis is self-contained with respect to its observational inputs and external opacity and polarization models.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fitting uses six free parameters per radius against six intensity measurements, so the constraints are largely shaped by priors. The main external inputs are the analytic scattering model, the DSHARP-based opacity library with f_AC, the approximate polarization conversion, and the adopted gas disk model for pebble accretion. These are reasonable and standard, but they are assumptions the reader must buy.

free parameters (7)
  • T (dust temperature at each radius) = r=20 au: 65.9 K; r=80 au: 31.6 K
    MCMC free parameter with a luminosity-based prior (Eq. 9); drives the optically thick emission interpretation.
  • log Sigma_d (dust surface density) = r=20 au: -0.25; r=80 au: -0.58 (g cm^-2)
    MCMC free parameter; directly enters the pebble flux calculation (Eq. 16).
  • log a_max (maximum grain radius) = r=20 au: 1.91; r=80 au: -0.15 (mm)
    MCMC free parameter; together with ffill controls opacity and Stokes number.
  • f_AC (amorphous carbon fraction in carbonaceous material) = r=20 au: 0.57; r=80 au: 0.23
    MCMC free parameter interpolating between DSHARP organics and amorphous carbon; central to the compositional preference.
  • f_fill (filling factor) = r=20 au: 10^-0.68; r=80 au: 10^-1.21
    MCMC free parameter controlling porosity; the polarization prior favors 0.03 to 0.3 in the outer disk.
  • p_d (power-law index of grain size distribution) = r=20 au: 3.16; r=80 au: 3.29
    MCMC free parameter sampled over 2.5 to 4; weakly constrained in the outer disk.
  • Polarization conversion C and p2 thresholds = C=0.02, thresholds 0.15 and 0.1 in Eq. 15
    Adopted by hand from the literature, not fitted to HL Tau data; determines how strongly the polarization prior favors porous dust.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer model Eq. 1-4 with a vertical isothermal slab and two-stream scattering closure accurately represents disk emission.
    All intensity fits use this analytic model from Sierra et al. (2024); vertical temperature and opacity gradients and full 3D scattering are not modeled. Invoked in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Dust optical properties are computed from the DSHARP composition extended with f_AC, Bruggeman mixing, and DHS with fmax=0.8.
    Opacity tables (Figure 2) map amax, ffill, fAC, and pd to observed spectral indices; incorrect optical constants would shift all inferred sizes and masses. Invoked in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption Polarization degree is approximately P = C times P90_omega_eff with C=0.02, and Eq. 15 applies uniformly in radius.
    Shapes the posterior used for the main conclusions (Section 4.3); the paper explicitly notes this is approximate and radial variation is expected.
  • domain assumption Gas disk structure: M*=2.1 Msun, gas surface density from 13C17O (Eq. 12), smooth radial profile, and alpha_vert=1e-4.
    Pebble flux and accretion rates (Eqs. 16-24) depend on Sigma_g, cs, and turbulence; substructures are ignored in the eta calculation. Invoked in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption A single power-law size distribution and a single porosity apply along the line of sight and across all grain sizes.
    The paper notes in Section 5.2 that filling factor may depend on grain size, but the model assumes one ffill for all sizes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Wavelength Dust Characterization of the HL Tau Disk and Implications for Planet Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4ATNITS

@misc{pith2026250714443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Wavelength Dust Characterization of the HL Tau Disk and Implications for Planet Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4ATNITS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14443}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of the HL Tau dust disk by modeling its intensity profiles across six wavelengths (0.45 to 7.9 mm) with a resolution of 0.05 arcsec ($\sim7$ au). Using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach, we constrain key dust properties including temperature, surface density, maximum grain size, composition, filling factor, and size distribution. The full fitting, with all parameters free, shows a preference for organics-rich dust with a low filling factor in the outer region ($r \gtrsim 40$ au), where the spectral index is $\sim3.7$, but amorphous-carbon-rich dust also reasonably reproduces the observed intensity profiles. Considering the scattering polarization observed at 0.87 mm, compact, amorphous-carbon-rich dust is unlikely, and moderately porous dust is favored. Beyond 40 au, the maximum dust size is likely $\sim100~{\rm \mu m}$ if dust is compact or amorphous-carbon rich. However, if the dust is moderately porous and organics-rich, both the predicted dust surface density and dust size can be sufficiently large for the pebble accretion rate to reach $\sim10M_{\oplus}~{\rm Myr^{-1}}$ in most regions, suggesting that pebble accretion could be a key mechanism for forming planets in the disk. In contrast, if the dust is amorphous-carbon-rich, forming a giant planet core via pebble accretion is unlikely due to the combined effects of low dust surface density and small dust size required to match the observed emission, suggesting other mechanisms, such as disk fragmentation due to gravitational instability, may be responsible for planet formation in the HL Tau disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: images of dust continuum emission of the HL Tau disk. An arcsinh stretch is applied to the color scale. Bottom left: azimuthally-averaged radial intensity profiles. The thin and thick transparent regions denote the 1σ and 2σ RMS uncertainty, respectively. The beam size is 0. ′′061×0. ′′041 at 3.1 mm and 0. ′′05×0. ′′05 at other wavelengths (with equal beam areas). Bottom right: Spectral behavior of the intensit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical properties of our dust model with ffill = 1 (left) and 0.1 (right). Top: absorption opacity at 1.3 mm. Middle: opacity index between 0.87 and 3.1 mm. Bottom: polarization efficiency at 0.87 mm. The power-law index of dust-size distribution is set to 3.0. The black and gray dashed lines denote opacities calculated with dust composition used in Ricci et al. (2010) and Woitke et al. (2016), respectively. Althou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MCMC fitting results with all parameters free. Left: comparison of observed intensities (gray) with MCMC￾derived models (red), computed using the 68% confidence interval of the posterior distributions. Right two columns: marginal posterior distributions of all parameters. The orange dashed lines in all posterior plots denote the 68% confidence interval. In panel (b), the yellow dotted line indicates the power-law te… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Line-of-sight optical depth at each observing wavelength, calculated using the 68% confidence interval of the posterior distributions. The horizontal dashed line marks an optical depth of unity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MCMC fitting results with the dust composition and filling factor fixed to fAC = 0.3 and ffill = 0.8 (left), fAC = 0.3 and ffill = 0.1 (second left), fAC = 0.8 and ffill = 0.8 (second right), and fAC = 0.8 and ffill = 0.1 (right). Top: comparison of observed intensitie…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginalized posterior distributions of the radial pebble flux (top), pebble accretion rate onto a 3M⊕ planet (middle), pebble lifetime (bottom) derived from the posterior distributions based on the polarization-based prior. with vr being the radial drift velocity of d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the 68% confidence interval of the pre￾dicted intensity profiles at 1.3 and 2.0 cm, estimated from the posterior distributions sampled by the MCMC analysis. It can be seen that the model with amorphous￾carbon-rich dust (fAC = 0.8) predicts the intensity about twi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the 2.1 mm intensity map from long-baseline ALMA Science Verification data (left) and our concatenated data (center). Right: Azimuthally averaged radial intensity profiles obtained from the concatenated (red) and long-baseline data (black), respectively. …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Corner plots showing the posterior distributions of six fitting parameters at 20 (left) and 80 au (right) obtained from the MCMC analysis with all parameters free. The median values and 68% confidence intervals for each parameter are indicated in the upper right of ea…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Detailed Microwave Continuum Spectra from Bright Protoplanetary Disks in Taurus

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dense 4-360 GHz spectra of eight Taurus disks reveal steep cm-wavelength dust spectra, implying millimeter fluxes are optically thick and standard disk dust masses are underestimated by about 10x.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    , ;w8 "X8e mr߷mN On|mco _ ?ҿ>> ӟ;_ x9^gb ͰXt8 wۯ6,vx| ^ v /wqoZ mݖ9 [v,y_ wo|ގvd ; _?p bx en' OoqB>a Z弮Ƿ v Nz oG1^ |oyW` ˀiݮÞ ;Ηi ; w ;N-o0w vlX>! q vza.EFk0#b;_K; ƻ !y®

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756, 10.1143/PTP.56.1756

    Adachi , I., Hayashi , C., & Nakazawa , K. 1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756, 10.1143/PTP.56.1756

    doi:10.1143/ptp.56.1756 1976

  5. [5]

    L., P \'e rez , L

    ALMA Partnership , Brogan , C. L., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2015, , 808, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l3 2015

  6. [6]

    Andrews , S. M. 2020, , 58, 483, 10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302

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

  7. [7]

    M., & Williams , J

    Andrews , S. M., & Williams , J. P. 2005, , 631, 1134, 10.1086/432712

    doi:10.1086/432712 2005

  8. [8]

    M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L

    Andrews , S. M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Beckwith , S. V. W., Sargent , A. I., Chini , R. S., & Guesten , R. 1990, , 99, 924, 10.1086/115385

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, , 62, 157, 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052705

    Birnstiel , T. 2024, , 62, 157, 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052705

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    P., & Brauer , F

    Birnstiel , T., Dullemond , C. P., & Brauer , F. 2010, , 513, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913731

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Zhu , Z., et al

    Birnstiel , T., Dullemond , C. P., Zhu , Z., et al. 2018, , 869, L45, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf743

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    1993, , 106, 151, 10.1006/icar.1993.1163

    Blum , J., & M \"u nch , M. 1993, , 106, 151, 10.1006/icar.1993.1163

    1993

  6. [14]

    2000, , 143, 138, 10.1006/icar.1999.6234

    Blum , J., & Wurm , G. 2000, , 143, 138, 10.1006/icar.1999.6234

    2000

  7. [15]

    2008, , 46, 21, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152

    ---. 2008, , 46, 21, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152

    2008

  8. [16]

    F., & Huffman , D

    Bohren , C. F., & Huffman , D. R. 1998, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles

    1998

  9. [17]

    S., & Ilee , J

    Booth , A. S., & Ilee , J. D. 2020, , 493, L108, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa014

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Bergin , E

    Calahan , J. K., Bergin , E. A., van't Hoff , M., et al. 2024, , 975, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78d1

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, , 883, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d33

    Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Sierra , A., Flock , M., et al. 2019, , 883, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d33

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Ciesla , F. J. 2007, Science, 318, 613, 10.1126/science.1147273

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    2009, , 200, 655, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.009

    ---. 2009, , 200, 655, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.009

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Sandford , S

    Ciesla , F. J., & Sandford , S. A. 2012, Science, 336, 452, 10.1126/science.1217291

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Lambrechts , M., van Kooten , E., & Johansen , A

    Colmenares , M. J., Lambrechts , M., van Kooten , E., & Johansen , A. 2024, , 685, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347737

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2001, , 553, 321, 10.1086/320655

    D'Alessio , P., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 2001, , 553, 321, 10.1086/320655

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, , 688, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450328

    Delussu , L., Birnstiel , T., Miotello , A., et al. 2024, , 688, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450328

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    Dominik , C., Min , M., & Tazaki , R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    2021

  20. [28]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00167, 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00167

    Dominik , C., Paszun , D., & Borel , H. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00167, 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00167

    2016 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Draine , B. T. 2003, , 598, 1017, 10.1086/379118

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    M., & Birnstiel , T

    Dr a \.z kowska , J., Stammler , S. M., & Birnstiel , T. 2021, , 647, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039925

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Dominik , C., & Natta , A

    Dullemond , C. P., Dominik , C., & Natta , A. 2001, , 560, 957, 10.1086/323057

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Eriksson , L. E. J., Johansen , A., & Liu , B. 2020, , 635, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937037

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Gail , H. P. 2001, , 378, 192, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011130

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    2017, , 606, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730480

    Gail , H.-P., & Trieloff , M. 2017, , 606, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730480

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Galli , P. A. B., Loinard , L., Ortiz-L \'e on , G. N., et al. 2018, , 859, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf91

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Garcia , A. J. L., & Gonzalez , J.-F. 2020, , 493, 1788, 10.1093/mnras/staa382

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, , 953, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc97

    Ginski , C., Tazaki , R., Dominik , C., & Stolker , T. 2023, , 953, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc97

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Mac \' as , E., et al

    Guerra-Alvarado , O. M., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Mac \' as , E., et al. 2024, , 686, A298, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349046

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, , 664, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142303

    Guidi , G., Isella , A., Testi , L., et al. 2022, , 664, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142303

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2019, , 630, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834751

    G \"u ttler , C., Mannel , T., Rotundi , A., et al. 2019, , 630, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834751

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    1996, , 311, 291

    Henning , T., & Stognienko , R. 1996, , 311, 291

    1996

  35. [43]

    G., & Greenstein , J

    Henyey , L. G., & Greenstein , J. L. 1941, , 93, 70, 10.1086/144246

    1941 doi

  36. [44]

    Hildebrand , R. H. 1983, , 24, 267

    1983

  37. [45]

    2023, , 521, 5826, 10.1093/mnras/stad866

    Houge , A., & Krijt , S. 2023, , 521, 5826, 10.1093/mnras/stad866

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, , 527, 9668, 10.1093/mnras/stad3758

    Houge , A., Mac \' as , E., & Krijt , S. 2024, , 527, 9668, 10.1093/mnras/stad3758

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    M., & Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C

    Jiang , H., Mac \' as , E., Guerra-Alvarado , O. M., & Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C. 2024, , 682, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348271

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    D., & Banzatti , A

    Kalyaan , A., Pinilla , P., Krijt , S., Mulders , G. D., & Banzatti , A. 2021, , 921, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e96

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Kataoka , A., Muto , T., Momose , M., Tsukagoshi , T., & Dullemond , C. P. 2016, , 820, 54, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/54

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2014, , 568, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323199

    Kataoka , A., Okuzumi , S., Tanaka , H., & Nomura , H. 2014, , 568, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323199

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    2013 a , , 557, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322151

    Kataoka , A., Tanaka , H., Okuzumi , S., & Wada , K. 2013 a , , 557, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322151

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    2013 b , , 554, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321325

    ---. 2013 b , , 554, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321325

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    2017, , 844, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e33

    Kataoka , A., Tsukagoshi , T., Pohl , A., et al. 2017, , 844, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e33

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, , 809, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/78

    Kataoka , A., Muto , T., Momose , M., et al. 2015, , 809, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/78

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Keller , C., & Gail , H. P. 2004, , 415, 1177, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034629

    2004 doi

  48. [56]

    2004, , 93, 021103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.021103

    Krause , M., & Blum , J. 2004, , 93, 021103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.021103

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    W., Dominik , C., & Tielens , A

    Krijt , S., Ormel , C. W., Dominik , C., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2015, , 574, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425222

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Bergin , E

    Krijt , S., Schwarz , K. R., Bergin , E. A., & Ciesla , F. J. 2018, , 864, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad69b

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    W., Mundy , L

    Kwon , W., Looney , L. W., Mundy , L. G., & Welch , W. J. 2015, , 808, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/102

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    2012, , 544, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    Lambrechts , M., & Johansen , A. 2012, , 544, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    2014, , 572, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424343

    ---. 2014, , 572, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424343

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    A., et al

    Lambrechts , M., Morbidelli , A., Jacobson , S. A., et al. 2019, , 627, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834229

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    A., & Nomura , H

    Lee , J.-E., Bergin , E. A., & Nomura , H. 2010, , 710, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/L21

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    D., Li , Z.-Y., Stephens , I

    Lin , Z.-Y. D., Li , Z.-Y., Stephens , I. W., et al. 2024, , 528, 843, 10.1093/mnras/stae040

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Liu , B., & Ormel , C. W. 2018, , 615, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732307

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Liu , H. B. 2019, , 877, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8e

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    2017, , 607, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629786

    Liu , Y., Henning , T., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., et al. 2017, , 607, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629786

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    2018, , 611, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630175

    Lorek , S., Lacerda , P., & Blum , J. 2018, , 611, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630175

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2021, , 648, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039812

    Mac \' as , E., Guerra-Alvarado , O., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., et al. 2021, , 648, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039812

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K

    Mathis , J. S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K. H. 1977, , 217, 425, 10.1086/155591

    1977 doi

  63. [71]

    B., Henning , T., & Fischer , O

    Men'shchikov , A. B., Henning , T., & Fischer , O. 1999, , 519, 257, 10.1086/307333

    1999 doi

  64. [72]

    Michoulier , S., Gonzalez , J.-F., & Price , D. J. 2024, , 688, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449719

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    W., & de Koter , A

    Min , M., Hovenier , J. W., & de Koter , A. 2005, , 432, 909, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041920

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    1993, , 106, 20, 10.1006/icar.1993.1156

    Miyake , K., & Nakagawa , Y. 1993, , 106, 20, 10.1006/icar.1993.1156

    1993

  67. [75]

    2016, , 818, 16, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/16

    Musiolik , G., Teiser , J., Jankowski , T., & Wurm , G. 2016, , 818, 16, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/16

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    2003, , 592, 1252, 10.1086/375856

    Nakano , H., Kouchi , A., Tachibana , S., & Tsuchiyama , A. 2003, , 592, 1252, 10.1086/375856

    2003 doi

  69. [77]

    2012, , 752, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    Okuzumi , S., Tanaka , H., Kobayashi , H., & Wada , K. 2012, , 752, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    2019, , 878, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204d

    Okuzumi , S., & Tazaki , R. 2019, , 878, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204d

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    W., & Klahr , H

    Ormel , C. W., & Klahr , H. H. 2010, , 520, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014903

    2010 doi

  72. [80]

    W., Spaans , M., & Tielens , A

    Ormel , C. W., Spaans , M., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2007, , 461, 215, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065949

    2007 doi

  73. [81]

    2016, , 530, 63, 10.1038/nature16535

    P \"a tzold , M., Andert , T., Hahn , M., et al. 2016, , 530, 63, 10.1038/nature16535

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    T., & Stammler , S

    Pinilla , P., Lenz , C. T., & Stammler , S. M. 2021, , 645, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038920

    2021 doi

  75. [83]

    Pinte , C., Dent , W. R. F., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2016, , 816, 25, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/25

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    B., Hollenbach , D., Beckwith , S., et al

    Pollack , J. B., Hollenbach , D., Beckwith , S., et al. 1994, , 421, 615, 10.1086/173677

    1994 doi

  77. [85]

    2010, , 512, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913403

    Ricci , L., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al. 2010, , 512, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913403

    2010 doi

  78. [86]

    E., Banzatti , A., \"O berg , K

    Romero-Mirza , C. E., Banzatti , A., \"O berg , K. I., et al. 2024, , 975, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad769e

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    2020, , 892, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d32

    Sierra , A., & Lizano , S. 2020, , 892, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d32

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    M., Zhang , K., et al

    Sierra , A., P \'e rez , L. M., Zhang , K., et al. 2021, , 257, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1431

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    M., Sotomayor , B., et al

    Sierra , A., P \'e rez , L. M., Sotomayor , B., et al. 2024, , 974, 306, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7460

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    2022, , 668, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243338

    Stadler , J., G \'a rate , M., Pinilla , P., et al. 2022, , 668, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243338

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    M., Lichtenberg , T., Dr a \.z kowska , J., & Birnstiel , T

    Stammler , S. M., Lichtenberg , T., Dr a \.z kowska , J., & Birnstiel , T. 2023, , 670, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    W., Yang , H., Li , Z.-Y., et al

    Stephens , I. W., Yang , H., Li , Z.-Y., et al. 2017, , 851, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa998b

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    W., Lin , Z.-Y

    Stephens , I. W., Lin , Z.-Y. D., Fern \'a ndez-L \'o pez , M., et al. 2023, , 623, 705, 10.1038/s41586-023-06648-7

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    2008, , 684, 1310, 10.1086/590143

    Suyama , T., Wada , K., & Tanaka , H. 2008, , 684, 1310, 10.1086/590143

    2008 doi

  87. [95]

    2023, , 945, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb92b

    Tanaka , H., Anayama , R., & Tazaki , R. 2023, , 945, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb92b

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    2023, , 944, L43, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb824

    Tazaki , R., Ginski , C., & Dominik , C. 2023, , 944, L43, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb824

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    2019, , 885, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45f0

    Tazaki , R., Tanaka , H., Kataoka , A., Okuzumi , S., & Muto , T. 2019, , 885, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45f0

    2019 doi

  90. [98]

    J., van't Hoff , M

    Tobin , J. J., van't Hoff , M. L. R., Leemker , M., et al. 2023, , 615, 227, 10.1038/s41586-022-05676-z

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    1964, , 139, 1217, 10.1086/147861

    Toomre , A. 1964, , 139, 1217, 10.1086/147861

    1964 doi

  92. [100]

    2020, , 893, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8223

    Ueda , T., Kataoka , A., & Tsukagoshi , T. 2020, , 893, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8223

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    2022, , 930, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac634d

    ---. 2022, , 930, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac634d

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1148, 10.1038/s41550-024-02308-6

    Ueda , T., Tazaki , R., Okuzumi , S., Flock , M., & Sudarshan , P. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1148, 10.1038/s41550-024-02308-6

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    M., & Ciesla , F

    Van Clepper , E., Price , E. M., & Ciesla , F. J. 2025, , 980, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a4

    2025 doi

  96. [104]

    van 't Hoff , M. L. R., Tobin , J. J., Trapman , L., et al. 2018, , 864, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aadb8a

    2018 doi

  97. [105]

    2013, , 559, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322259

    Wada , K., Tanaka , H., Okuzumi , S., et al. 2013, , 559, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322259

    2013 doi

  98. [106]

    G., & Brandt , R

    Warren , S. G., & Brandt , R. E. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 113, D14220, 10.1029/2007JD009744

    2008 doi

  99. [107]

    Weidenschilling , S. J. 1977, , 180, 57, 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57

    1977 doi

  100. [108]

    2025, , 537, 831, 10.1093/mnras/staf075

    Williams , J., & Krijt , S. 2025, , 537, 831, 10.1093/mnras/staf075

    2025 doi

  101. [109]

    2016, , 586, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526538

    Woitke , P., Min , M., Pinte , C., et al. 2016, , 586, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526538

    2016 doi

  102. [110]

    2019, , 880, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29f8

    Yen , H.-W., Gu , P.-G., Hirano , N., et al. 2019, , 880, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29f8

    2019 doi

  103. [111]

    N., & Goodman , J

    Youdin , A. N., & Goodman , J. 2005, , 620, 459, 10.1086/426895

    2005 doi

  104. [112]

    N., & Lithwick , Y

    Youdin , A. N., & Lithwick , Y. 2007, , 192, 588, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012

    2007 doi

  105. [113]

    D., & Bergin , E

    Zhang , K., Bosman , A. D., & Bergin , E. A. 2020, , 891, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab77ca

    2020 doi

  106. [114]

    2023, , 953, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e

    Zhang , S., Zhu , Z., Ueda , T., et al. 2023, , 953, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    Zhou , T., Deng , H.-P., Chen , Y.-X., & Lin , D. N. C. 2022, , 940, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bf6

    2022 doi

  108. [116]

    2019, , 877, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8c

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

    2019 doi

  109. [117]

    Zubko , V., Dwek , E., & Arendt , R. G. 2004, , 152, 211, 10.1086/382351

    2004 doi

  110. [118]

    G., Mennella , V., Colangeli , L., & Bussoletti , E

    Zubko , V. G., Mennella , V., Colangeli , L., & Bussoletti , E. 1996, , 282, 1321, 10.1093/mnras/282.4.1321

    1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.