Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dialogue Concerning the Two Shock Codes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Shock models diverge because of how they track ionizing photons.

desk verdict A useful new benchmark comparison of two shock codes, but the causal story about radiative transfer is confounded by atomic-data differences and the conclusion overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03225 v1 pith:O5FVKAZI submitted 2025-07-04 astro-ph.GA

Yifei Jin , John Raymond This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords shockwavesradiativetransferphotoionizationcodesemission-linespectraMAPPINGSCox-Raymondcodesupernovaremnants
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

This paper compares two established shock codes, MAPPINGS V and the Cox/Raymond code, on identical benchmark shocks from 50 to 300 km/s. It finds that although both codes solve the same Rankine-Hugoniot flow equations and produce nearly identical immediate postshock conditions, they predict materially different ionization and thermal structures, cooling lengths, and emission-line fluxes. The paper argues that the differences trace to how each code handles radiative transfer, especially photoionization and recombination in the cooling and recombination zones. It further claims that MAPPINGS V, which tracks the ionizing spectrum in about 7000 energy bins, gives more accurate predictions of recombination-tail temperatures and shock emission lines. If true, this matters because shock models are widely used to interpret supernova remnants, Herbig-Haro objects, and extragalactic spectra, and the choice of radiative-transfer treatment introduces real systematic uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the radiative-transfer scheme, in particular how ionizing photons are binned and how hydrogen resonance lines are transferred. MAPPINGS V uses roughly 7000 fixed logarithmic bins from $10^{-6}$ eV to $10^{5}$ eV, computes absorption using each ion's cross-section, and treats Lyman lines as a linear combination of Case A and Case B based on the local optical depth of Ly γ. The CR code uses energy bins of order 1 eV, assumes Case B for hydrogen, and adopts on-the-spot absorption for Lyman continuum. These choices control the ionization balance in the recombination zone, which in turn sets the temperatures and line fluxes that differ between the two codes.

What would settle it

Run the two codes with identical atomic databases (or identical radiative-transfer treatments) and check whether the differences in cooling columns and line fluxes disappear; if they persist, radiative transfer is not the main driver. Alternatively, compare both codes to a radiative shock with independently known velocity and density, and measure the recombination-zone temperature and line fluxes; the code that matches the data would support its treatment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the treatment of radiative transfer in a shock model changes the predicted emission-line spectrum enough to affect astrophysical interpretation, and that the more finely binned treatment is the more accurate one. Specifically, MAPPINGS V tracks the ionizing radiation field with roughly 7000 bins and includes up to 30 elements, while the CR code uses on the order of 1 eV bins, assumes Case B for hydrogen, and applies the on-the-spot approximation to Lyman continuum photons. These differences produce systematically larger cooling columns in the CR code, hotter and thicker recombination tails, and different dependences of line ratios such as [O III]/Hβ on shock velocity. The paper concludes that MAPPINGS V's refined photoionization yields more accurate predictions of the temperature of recombination tails and of the shock emission-line spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that differences in the codes' radiative-transfer treatments are the main cause of the differences in their outputs, but the codes also use different atomic data sets, so the two are never separated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shock models used for interpreting spectra carry a code-dependent systematic uncertainty, with recombination-zone cooling columns differing by about 0.5 dex between the two codes.
  • Observers should not treat single-code grids as exact predictions for diagnostic line ratios such as [O III]/Hβ, because the same physical shock can yield different ratios depending on radiative-transfer detail.
  • Future shock codes, including 3D time-dependent versions, need to include detailed photoionization rather than simpler Case B or on-the-spot approximations if they are to match the temperatures of recombination tails.
  • The four benchmark models (50, 110, 150, and 300 km/s) provide a comparison standard that other shock codes can use to align their fundamental physics.
  • The pronounced difference in [O III]/Hβ behavior with shock velocity highlights an intrinsic uncertainty in interpreting extragalactic shock spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not vary radiative transfer while holding atomic data fixed, so its attribution of all output differences to radiative transfer is not strictly proven; some differences, such as the systematically larger CR cooling columns, are attributed by the authors to different atomic databases.
  • The claim that MAPPINGS V is more accurate relies on the assumption that finer photon binning and updated atomic data imply closer agreement with reality; a direct test would compare both codes against observations of shocks with independently known velocity, density, and magnetic field.
  • The differences in line ratios like [O III]/Hβ could be used empirically to decide which code's treatment better matches real shocks, provided independent shock-speed measurements are available.
  • The paper's focus on 1D steady flows leaves open whether turbulence or 3D structure, which the authors note can be important, would change the ranking of the two radiative-transfer treatments.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares two well-known radiative shock codes, MAPPINGS V and the Cox/Raymond (CR) code, for four shock velocities (50, 110, 150, and 300 km/s) with fixed density, magnetic field, and abundances. It describes their treatment of flow dynamics, precursors, atomic data, and radiative transfer, then compares preshock ionization states, postshock jump conditions, temperature and density profiles, cooling columns, cooling spectra, emission-line fluxes, and magnetic-field dependence. The central claim is that differences in radiative transfer/photoionization treatment drive differences in ionization and thermal structure and line fluxes, and that MAPPINGS V's more detailed photoionization treatment yields more accurate recombination-tail temperatures and emission-line spectra. The paper provides a useful benchmark comparison, but the attribution to radiative transfer is confounded by differing atomic databases, and the conclusion reverses the cooling-speed direction stated in Section 6.3.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would be a valuable reference for shock code users and developers, especially for the JWST era and for next-generation 3D shock codes. Its strengths are the openly described code treatments, the fixed benchmark grid, and the quantitative comparisons in Tables 2-4 and Figures 2-8. The paper also honestly notes limitations of 1D steady-flow models. However, the main causal conclusion and the accuracy claim go beyond what the benchmark can show, and the internal inconsistency in the cooling-speed statement weakens the paper's reliability. The comparison itself is a useful contribution even after the interpretive claims are softened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §6.4; §10; §3] The abstract and conclusion attribute the code-to-code differences to radiative transfer/photoionization, but §6.4 states that the systematically larger CR cooling columns (λ3, Figure 4) are due to 'different atomic data bases', not radiative transfer. The two codes also differ in atomic data (§3: MAPPINGS V uses CHIANTI 8; CR uses Summers 1974 rates). Since no run varies only the radiative-transfer treatment while holding atomic data fixed, the observed differences in cooling columns and Table 4 line fluxes cannot be uniquely attributed to radiative transfer. This is the load-bearing step for the central claim, so the attribution should be reworded or supported by controlled tests.
  2. [§6.3 vs §10] The conclusion states that 'the CR code models cool down faster than the MAPPINGS V models in the relaxing zone and the cooling zone', while §6.3 states 'the MAPPINGS V shock models cool down faster than the CR code models' and then describes the 110 and 150 km/s cases as having the CR code cool more efficiently over part of the flow, with the 300 km/s case having MAPPINGS start cooling earlier. The direction of the effect is therefore reported inconsistently; please reconcile these statements and state the result with quantitative support from Figure 2.
  3. [§10; §9] The claim that MAPPINGS V's refined photoionization 'gives more accurate predictions of the temperature of the recombination tails as well as the shock emission-lines' is not supported by the benchmark comparison, which only establishes differences. Section 9 discusses observational comparisons that favor the CR code (Raymond et al. 2020; Slavin & Raymond 2025) but does not test MAPPINGS V against the same data. Without a ground-truth comparison or a clear definition of accuracy, the 'more accurate' wording should be replaced by 'more detailed' or justified with a targeted test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1] The phrase 'The flow maintains the conversation of mass flux' should read 'conservation of mass flux'.
  2. [§1] The phrase 'grid of models from theCR code code' contains a typo; it should read 'the CR code'.
  3. [§6.3] The sentence 'As the shock velocity increases, the temperature drops quickly from 105 K to 103 K' is ambiguous; it likely refers to the cooling columns, not the temperature scale in Figure 4, and should be rephrased.
  4. [Table 4] The header 'Hβ =100 (Å)' is unclear; specify that fluxes are relative to Hβ = 100 and list absolute Hβ values in the last row as is done.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a benchmark comparison of two independently coded shock models; self-citations are ordinary code citations and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a benchmark comparison of two shock codes, not a derivation in which outputs are reinstated as inputs. Both codes are run from stated, independent assumptions (Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions, CHIANTI 8 versus Summers 1974 atomic rates, and different radiative-transfer schemes), and the paper reports the resulting differences in Tables 2–5 and Figures 2–8. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the compared outputs and then 'predicted' for the rest; the Hβ normalization in Table 4 is a common flux normalization, not a fitted input. The author's self-citation of the CR code (Raymond 1976, 1979; Raymond et al. 2020) is the ordinary citation of the code being benchmarked, and the comparison does not depend on the truth of those papers for its validity as a comparison. The claim that MAPPINGS V is 'more accurate' (Section 10) is an unsupported assertion, and the paper's attribution of code-to-code differences to radiative transfer is partially confounded by the different atomic databases acknowledged in Sections 3 and 6.4; however, confounding and overclaiming are correctness risks, not circular reductions. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The comparison is self-contained as a code-to-code benchmark, so no circularity is present.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters; it runs two established codes with standard ISM inputs. The main load-bearing choices are the representative magnetic field, density, abundance set, and the steady-flow assumption for fast shocks. The free parameters listed are setup choices, not numbers fitted to reproduce the paper's conclusions.

free parameters (5)
  • shock velocity grid = 50, 110, 150, 300 km/s
    Chosen by hand to sample slow, intermediate, and fast radiative shocks, not fitted to any target result.
  • magnetic field strength = 5 μG (plus 0.1 and 10 μG for comparison)
    Representative ISM value chosen by hand; the central comparison is not fitted to a target.
  • preshock gas density = 5 cm^-3
    Representative ISM density, chosen by hand.
  • chemical abundance set = Asplund et al. (2009) solar abundances, 12 coolants
    Standard abundance set from cited literature, not fitted.
  • H and He preionization fractions in CR code = Equilibrium values (default)
    Paper states these are free parameters in the CR code, though set to equilibrium values in these runs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Steady 1D flow and Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions apply to the shock models.
    Both codes solve steady flow; the paper cites thermal instability for shocks faster than about 150 km/s yet includes 150 and 300 km/s models without addressing the conflict.
  • domain assumption Electron and ion temperatures are equal (single-temperature plasma).
    Section 6 states electron-ion temperatures are locked together and a Maxwellian electron distribution is assumed.
  • domain assumption No thermal conduction and no cosmic-ray pressure contribution.
    Section 2.1 states neither code includes thermal conduction or cosmic-ray energy/pressure terms.
  • domain assumption Atomic rate data from CHIANTI 8 (MAPPINGS) and Summers 1974 (CR code) are adequate for the comparison.
    The paper notes systematic differences between the rate databases and later attributes part of the cooling-length offset to these atomic data differences.
  • domain assumption Hydrogen line transfer approximations (Case A/B mixing in MAPPINGS, Case B plus on-the-spot in CR) capture the relevant escape and absorption physics.
    Section 4 describes these approximations; the paper acknowledges they are less accurate in the narrow postshock region, which affects the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dialogue Concerning the Two Shock Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5FVKAZI

@misc{pith2026250703225,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dialogue Concerning the Two Shock Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5FVKAZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03225}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we summarize the shock physics and the treatment of radiative transfer in two well-established shock codes -- the MAPPINGS code (Dopita1976,Binette1985,Sutherland1993) and the Cox/Raymond code (hereafter CR code) (Cox1972,Raymond1976,Raymond1979). We compare the ionization states, temperatures, electron densities, and the energy transportation of the shock models with shock velocities of 50, 110, 150 and 300 km/s. In summary, both codes adopt the Rankine-Hugoniot flow equation to describe the shock flows, giving the same shock physical properties at the immediate area behind shock fronts. The different treatments of radiative transfer in these two codes leads to somewhat different computation of the ionization and thermal structures of shocks, as well as the emission-line fluxes. This work highlights the importance of the delicate treatment of photoionization in shock models, providing insight of the future development of shock codes, such as the 3D shock codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03225 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The electron temperature of a shock model as a function of the product of the distance and gas density. The shock velocity is 110 km s−1 , the preshock gas density is 5 cm−3 and the magnetic field is 5 µG. Four sub-structural zones: a) the immediate postshock region, b) the relaxing zone, c) the cooling zone and d) the recombination zone are labeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The comparison of the electron temperatures predicted by MAPPINGS V (solid) and CR code (dashed) as a function of the distance to the shock front. In the vshock=300 km s−1 panel, the small window shows the zoom-in cooling and recombination region between 6 × 1017 < r < 2 × 1018 cm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The comparison of the electron density predicted by MAPPINGS V (solid) and CR code (dashed) as a function of the distance to the shock front [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cooling columns as a function of shock velocities. The cooling column, λk=∆rk × nH, where ∆rk is the cooling length at which the temperature drops to a specific value. The k=3,4,5./ corresponding to Te = 103 , 104 , and 105 K. The solid line is the prediction of MA…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cooling spectra at the immediate postshock region and the positions of Te = 10000, 1000 K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of emission-line emissivities in the postshock regions of the 110 km s−1 MAPPINGS V shock model. The solid lines are the relative emissivities of each emission-lines where the peak is to be 1. The dashed line is the re-scaled temperature profile indica…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The temperature profiles of the CR code shock models (dashed lines) and the MAPPINGS V shock models (solid lines) with 0.1 µG, 5 µG and 10 µG magnetic strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: BPT diagram of the 110, 150 and 300km s−1 shock models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

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. Numerous bow shocks in the outer Helix Nebula

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Twenty-two bow shocks in the outer Helix Nebula trace the progressive fragmentation of AGB shell clumps and imply a ~10,000 year timescale for their disruption into the ISM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20, doi: 10.1086/589652

    doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  4. [4]

    A., & Tuohy, I

    Binette, L., Dopita, M. A., & Tuohy, I. R. 1985, ApJ, 297, 476, doi: 10.1086/163544

    doi:10.1086/163544 1985

  5. [5]

    P., Morse, J

    Blair, W. P., Morse, J. A., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, 667, doi: 10.1086/309077

    doi:10.1086/309077 2000

  6. [6]

    J., & Shull, J

    Borkowski, K. J., & Shull, J. M. 1990, ApJ, 348, 169, doi: 10.1086/168225

    work page doi:10.1086/168225 1990

  7. [7]

    J., Shull, J

    Borkowski, K. J., Shull, J. M., & McKee, C. F. 1989, ApJ, 336, 979, doi: 10.1086/167069

    work page doi:10.1086/167069 1989

  8. [8]

    1971, MNRAS, 153, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/153.4.471

    Brocklehurst, M. 1971, MNRAS, 153, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/153.4.471

    doi:10.1093/mnras/153.4.471 1971

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    C., Long, K

    Caldwell, N., Raymond, J. C., Long, K. S., & Lee, M. G. 2025, ApJ, 983, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf98

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Capriotti, E. R. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1101, doi: 10.1086/148381

    1965 doi

  3. [11]

    A., & Raymond, J

    Chevalier, R. A., & Raymond, J. C. 1978, ApJL, 225, L27, doi: 10.1086/182785

    1978 doi

  4. [12]

    Cox, D. P. 1972, ApJ, 178, 143, doi: 10.1086/151774

    1972 doi

  5. [13]

    P., & Raymond, J

    Cox, D. P., & Raymond, J. C. 1985, ApJ, 298, 651, doi: 10.1086/163649 Del Zanna, G., Dere, K. P., Young, P. R., Landi, E., &

    1985 doi

  6. [14]

    Mason, H. E. 2015, A&A, 582, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526827 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Mahatma, V. H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2545

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Dopita, M. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 395, doi: 10.1086/154732

    1976 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Sutherland, R. S., & Nicholls, D. C. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 61, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2657-8

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Seitenzahl, I

    Dopita, M. A., Seitenzahl, I. R., Sutherland, R. S., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf235

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    A., & Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 1995, ApJ, 455, 468, doi: 10.1086/176596 —. 1996, ApJS, 102, 161, doi: 10.1086/192255 —. 2017, ApJS, 229, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6542

    1995 doi

  11. [19]

    1995, in The Analysis of Emission Lines: A Meeting in Honor of the 70th Birthdays of D

    Ferland, G. 1995, in The Analysis of Emission Lines: A Meeting in Honor of the 70th Birthdays of D. E. Osterbrock & M. J. Seaton, ed. R. Williams & M. Livio, 83

    1995

  12. [20]

    Raymond, J. C. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2370

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06763, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06763

    Einsig, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06763, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06763

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Laming, J. M. 2013, SSRv, 178, 633, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9999-0

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Han, J. L. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 111, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055221

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    1987, ApJ, 316, 323, doi: 10.1086/165204

    Hartigan, P., Raymond, J., & Hartmann, L. 1987, ApJ, 316, 323, doi: 10.1086/165204

    1987 doi

  17. [25]

    2004, ApJL, 614, L69, doi: 10.1086/425322

    Hartigan, P., Raymond, J., & Pierson, R. 2004, ApJL, 614, L69, doi: 10.1086/425322

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    J., & Gaensler, B

    Harvey-Smith, L., Madsen, G. J., & Gaensler, B. M. 2011, ApJ, 736, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/83

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    Innes, D. E. 1992, A&A, 256, 660

    1992

  20. [28]

    Johnson, L. C. 1972, ApJ, 174, 227, doi: 10.1086/151486

    1972 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Tielens, A

    Jones, A. P., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Hollenbach, D. J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 740, doi: 10.1086/177823

    1996 doi

  22. [30]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Raymond, J. C. 2013, Science, 342, 1346, doi: 10.1126/science.1243823

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    C., & Kim, H.-J

    Koo, B.-C., Raymond, J. C., & Kim, H.-J. 2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 109, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2016.49.3.109

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    H., & Raymond, J

    Krolik, J. H., & Raymond, J. C. 1985, ApJ, 298, 660, doi: 10.1086/163650

    1985 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Blair, W

    Long, K. S., Blair, W. P., Milisavljevic, D., Raymond, J. C., & Winkler, P. F. 2018, ApJ, 855, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7e O’Sullivan, E., Appleton, P. N., Joshi, B. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada14b

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Raymond, J. C. 1976, PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison —. 1979, ApJS, 39, 1, doi: 10.1086/190562

    1976 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Chilingarian, I

    Raymond, J. C., Chilingarian, I. V., Blair, W. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab886d

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Wallerstein, G., & Balick, B

    Raymond, J. C., Wallerstein, G., & Balick, B. 1991, ApJ, 383, 226, doi: 10.1086/170778

    1991 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Ghavamian, P., Bohdan, A., et al

    Raymond, J. C., Ghavamian, P., Bohdan, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc528

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Federman, S

    Ritchey, A. M., Federman, S. R., & Lambert, D. L. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4490, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae180

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    M., & McKee, C

    Shull, J. M., & McKee, C. F. 1979, ApJ, 227, 131, doi: 10.1086/156712

    1979 doi

  33. [41]

    D., & Raymond, J

    Slavin, J. D., & Raymond, J. C. 2025, ApJ, 984, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbffe 19

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    Summers, H. P. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.3.663

    1974 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Bicknell, G

    Sutherland, R. S., Bicknell, G. V., & Dopita, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 591, 238, doi: 10.1086/375294

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823 —. 1995, ApJ, 439, 381, doi: 10.1086/175181 —. 2017, ApJS, 229, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6541

    1993 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Long, K

    Vancura, O., Blair, W. P., Long, K. S., & Raymond, J. C. 1992, ApJ, 394, 158, doi: 10.1086/171567

    1992 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2143

    Yan, R. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2143

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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