Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Jets are the most robust observable ingredient of common envelope evolution

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Jets outnumber dense rings in post-common-envelope nebulae by about 40 percent, making them the most robust observable signature of common envelope evolution.

desk verdict The first systematic count of jets vs. rings in post-CEE PNe, yielding a ratio that is plausible but rests on subjective classification and an image-selected subset. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04017 v2 pith:U5HS5TNQ submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords planetarynebulaecommonenvelopeevolutionjetsbinarycentralstarsequatorialoutflowspost-AGBaccretion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that jets, not dense equatorial rings, are the most frequent and diagnostically strong outflow signature left by common envelope evolution. It counts morphologies in 50 planetary nebulae with post-common-envelope binary central stars and good images, finding jet signatures in 72% of them versus equatorial outflow signatures in 50%, an observed ratio of about 1.4. Because fast jets fade or disperse within a few thousand years while rings stay bright, and because jets can themselves compress an equatorial ring, the author argues the true jet-to-ring ratio from the common envelope process is at least 3. If true, any simulation of common envelope evolution that omits jet feedback is missing a central ingredient in envelope removal and final orbital shrinkage.

What carries the argument

The counting device is a morphological classification of public images into robust jet signatures (1), likely jet signatures (0.5), and no jets (0), with a parallel classification for equatorial rings, tori, and disks. Its output is the ratio $Q_{\mathrm{JR,obs}} = (N_{\rm jets} + N_{\rm likely\ jets})/(N_{\rm rings} + N_{\rm likely\ rings}) \simeq 1.4$, corrected to $Q_{\mathrm{JR,CEE}} \simeq 2\,Q_{\mathrm{JR,obs}} \gtrsim 3$ to account for fast jet dispersal and for rings compressed by jets. The physical mechanism invoked is a main-sequence companion accreting mass from the giant envelope and launching jets through an accretion disk, with accretion energy $E_{\rm acc} = G M_{\rm MS} M_{\rm acc}/(2R_{\rm MS})$ able to dominate the orbital energy $E_{\rm orb} = G M_{\rm MS} M_{\rm core}/(2a)$ for $a \gtrsim (M_{\rm core}/M_{\rm acc}) R_{\rm MS} \simeq 10\,(M_{\rm core}/20M_{\rm acc})\,(R_{\rm MS}/0.5R_\odot)\,R_\odot$.

What would settle it

Re-score the same 50 images in a blind, multi-rater study with clear jet and ring criteria; the central claim stands only if the median jetted-to-ring ratio remains above 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that jets are the most robust observable ingredient of common envelope evolution: in a sample of 50 planetary nebulae with known post-common-envelope binary central stars, 28 show clear jet morphologies and 8 more show likely jets, while only 25 show a dense equatorial outflow in the form of a disk, torus, or ring. This gives an observed jetted-to-ring ratio $Q_{\mathrm{JR,obs}}\simeq 1.4$. The author argues the underlying common envelope process launches jets even more often, roughly twice the observed ratio, because jets disperse quickly and because some equatorial outflows are compressed by jets rather than ejected directly by the common envelope. The jets are attributed to accretion onto the main-sequence companion before, during, or shortly after the common envelope phase, and this accretion carries an energy budget comparable to or larger than the orbital energy released at the relevant orbital radii.

Load-bearing premise

The count rests on the author's visual reading of public images, assuming that morphologies robustly suggesting jets are true jets and that the 50 nebulae with high-quality images are not biased toward jet-shaped objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Numerical simulations of common envelope evolution that omit jets are missing an ingredient that appears in at least 72% of the best-studied post-common-envelope nebulae.
  • Accretion onto the companion, required to launch the jets, deposits energy comparable to the orbital energy released during inspiral, so jet-launching should be included in mass-removal and final-orbit calculations.
  • The observed 40% excess of jets over rings is a lower limit; deeper, younger, or Doppler-resolved observations should push the jetted-to-ring ratio toward 3 or higher.
  • Some planetary nebulae classified as having equatorial rings may have acquired those rings from jet compression rather than direct common-envelope ejection, so ring counts may not directly measure the equatorial ejection rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true jet-to-ring ratio is at least 3, jet feedback may be a deciding factor in whether the envelope is ejected and how much the orbit shrinks, so population-synthesis predictions for post-common-envelope binaries should treat jet-launching as the default rather than the exception.
  • A direct test of the detection-bias correction would be deep radial-velocity mapping of a sample of the nebulae classified as having no jets: if hidden jet pairs appear in even a few, the observed ratio will move toward the paper's corrected value.
  • The same accretion-jet mechanism may operate in other common-envelope outcomes, such as subdwarf binaries or merging white dwarfs, where jet-launched outflows could be observable in a similar morphological census.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper examines images of 50 planetary nebulae with known binary central stars from the Jones catalog and classifies each for the presence of jets (robust or likely) and equatorial outflows/rings (robust, likely, or absent). The author reports that 36 of 50 show jet signatures and 25 of 50 show ring signatures, giving a jetted-to-ring ratio QJR,obs ≈ 1.4, and argues that after correcting for detectability biases and the possibility that jets create some rings, the true ratio from common envelope evolution (CEE) is at least 3. The paper concludes that jets are a more robust observable ingredient of CEE than equatorial outflows and that numerical simulations of CEE must include jets. It also sketches an energy-budget argument showing that accretion energy from the companion can dominate orbital energy at large radii.

Significance. If the reported ratio holds, it would strengthen the case that jet-launching is a frequent, even dominant, outcome of common envelope interactions and would provide a direct observational constraint on CEE simulations. The table of 50 classified PNe with references is a useful community resource, and the author is explicitly transparent that the correction factor in Eq. (2) is a crude estimate. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a subjective, single-author morphological classification and on a sample of only 50 of 108 available binary PNe selected by image quality, without analysis of selection effects. The paper also overreaches in its title and abstract by presenting the speculative correction as a firm conclusion. These issues are fixable in revision, but they currently limit the strength of the claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] Sample selection bias is load-bearing: the sample consists of 50 of 108 binary PNe from the Jones catalog for which the author could find high-quality images, with no comparison between the 50 included and the 58 excluded objects. Because jet features are extended and may fade with nebular age while equatorial rings remain bright, an image-availability selection could systematically inflate the observed jet fraction. The paper acknowledges this by encouraging further studies, but it does not quantify the possible effect on QJR,obs. The central claim of the paper therefore has no demonstrated robustness to the 58 excluded systems.
  2. [Section 2 and Table 1] The morphological classifications are performed by the author alone, without a pre-defined objective rubric, blind conditions, or inter-rater check. The reported ratio QJR,obs = 36/25 = 1.44 counts the '0.5' (likely) category as positive for both jets and rings; if only 'robust' classifications are used, the ratio becomes 28/13 ≈ 2.2, which is materially different. The paper provides no error bars or sensitivity analysis to the classification threshold, so the reader cannot assess whether the conclusion that jets are more common by 40% is stable under alternative reasonable classifications.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] The corrected ratio QJR,CEE ≈ 2 × QJR,obs ≳ 3 is based on the argument that jets can create equatorial rings (citing Akashi et al. 2015 and Shiber 2018), yet the observed ratio in Eq. (1) counts rings as a separate, independent outcome. If jets can produce rings, then the same observed PNe contain both features, and the correction is not an inference from the data but an assumption that the underlying CEE process produces even more jets. The paper calls this a crude estimate, but the abstract elevates it to a conclusion ('likelier to launch jets than to eject a dense equatorial outflow by a larger factor than 1.4'). This extrapolation should be clearly separated from the measured census, and the abstract should not present Eq. (2) as an established result.
  4. [Sections 1 and 3.3] The paper defines 'CEE jets' to include jets launched during a pre-CEE grazing envelope evolution (GEE) phase and during the post-CEE phase. However, the sample of binary PNe includes systems with orbital periods as long as 142 days (NGC 1360), which may have undergone GEE rather than a full CEE. Because the title and abstract claim a conclusion about CEE specifically, the inclusion of non-CEE systems without separate analysis weakens the direct inference. The authors should either restrict the claim to systems where CEE is confirmed, or reframe the conclusion as applying to the broader binary-interaction process.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The text refers to 'NGC 2392 (panel c of Figure 1)', but NGC 2392 is panel (d); the Necklace is panel (c).
  2. [Table 2] The table presents counts as percentages but the numbers are integers summing to 100; the note should explicitly state that entries are percentages (e.g., 18% = 9 of 50 objects).
  3. [Acknowledgements] The sentence 'Our group, whose recent proposal was rejected' is inappropriate for a scientific paper and should be removed.
  4. [References] The reference 'Scolnic, A., Bear, E., Soker, N., 2025, arXiv, to be posted on January 7' cites a paper not yet available; this should be updated once posted.
  5. [General] The paper uses a journal template header 'RAA Vol.0 (20xx) No.0' which should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the jet/ring counts are external observations and the factor-2 correction is an explicitly crude estimate, not a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The central observational result, QJR,obs ≃ 1.4, is obtained by classifying images of 50 PNe from Jones's external binary-CSPN catalog (Section 2, Table 1, Table 2, Eq. 1). These counts are not derived from any model parameter fitted in this paper, and no equation in the paper reduces to its own input. The Section 3.1 correction QJR,CEE ≈ 2 × QJR,obs is not a prediction forced by construction: the factor 2 is introduced as a crude estimate ('I crudely estimate') based on the presence of barely detected jets, and the cited support for jet-shaped rings (Akashi et al. 2015; Shiber 2018) consists of three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations from prior work rather than an unverified assumption of the present result. Although several references are to the author's own group, they are background or independent numerical evidence, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The Acknowledgements' note that the group's recent proposal was rejected is a resource limitation, not circularity. The absence of an inter-rater reliability check is a methodological limitation affecting classification robustness, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, though selection and classification biases remain a separate correctness risk.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The statistical claim relies on image classification and public catalog data. The hand-chosen inputs are the correction factor of 2 in Eq. (2) and the illustrative binary parameters in Section 3.3. The main soft spots are the morphological assumptions listed above, which determine how the observed counts are converted into claims about the CEE itself.

free parameters (3)
  • Intrinsic-to-observed jetted-to-ring correction factor = 2 (QJR,CEE ≈ 2 × QJR,obs ≈ 3)
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.1 to account for jet dispersal, orientation, and jet-made rings; no measurement or simulation fixes this factor.
  • Typical CEE binary parameters for energy-budget illustration = MMS=0.15-0.4 Msun; RMS=0.4-0.7 Rsun; Mcore=0.5-0.7 Msun; Macc≈0.03 Msun
    Taken from cited studies (Hillwig et al. 2010; De Marco et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2015) for the illustrative comparison in Eq. (5); these are not fitted to the morphological counts and do not affect the central ratio.
  • Fraction of accretion energy carried by jets = 0.1-0.2
    Stated in Section 3.3 as a rough range; used to argue jets deposit significant energy, but not tied to the central counting claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PNe with short-period binary central stars experienced common envelope evolution, so the sample probes post-CEE systems.
    Used in Section 1 and 2 to identify the sample; standard in the field but not independently proven for each system.
  • domain assumption Morphological signatures such as opposite lobes, ansae, and point-symmetric structures are produced by jets.
    Invoked in Section 2 when classifying 28 PNe as robust jet cases and 8 as likely jet cases; if some bipolar structures are formed by wind collimation by equatorial gas, jet counts are overestimated.
  • domain assumption Dense equatorial rings remain observable longer than fast dispersing jets, so the observed ratio underestimates the true CEE jetted-to-ring ratio.
    Section 3.1 argument (1.1) that justifies QJR,CEE ≈ 2 × QJR,obs; it is qualitative and no timescale calculation is given.
  • domain assumption Jets can shape or compress ambient gas into equatorial rings, so some observed rings may be jet products rather than direct CEE equatorial ejections.
    Section 3.1 argument (2), supported by Akashi et al. 2015 and Shiber 2018 from the author's group; if this process is rare, the correction factor is weaker.
  • domain assumption The common envelope itself does not launch the precessing jets; an accreting companion does.
    Section 3.2 argues the common envelope has fixed angular momentum and cannot produce point-symmetric morphology, so jets come from the companion's accretion disk; this assumption underlies the interpretation of what the jets imply about accretion and energy deposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jets are the most robust observable ingredient of common envelope evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U5HS5TNQ

@misc{pith2026241204017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jets are the most robust observable ingredient of common envelope evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U5HS5TNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04017}
}
read the original abstract

I examine images of 50 planetary nebulae (PNe) with observable post-common envelope evolution (CEE) binary central stars and find that jets are about 40 percent more common than dense equatorial outflows. Because, in some cases, energetic jets can compress an equatorial outflow and because fast jets might disperse early in the PN evolution and avoid detection, the CEE process is likelier to launch jets than to eject a dense equatorial outflow by a larger factor than 1.4. In most cases, the companion, mainly a main sequence star, launches the jets as it accretes mass from the envelope of the giant star. By CEE jets, I also refer to jets launched shortly before the onset of the CEE, likely a grazing envelope evolution phase, and shortly after the CEE. The jets and the accretion of mass by the companion before, during, and after the CEE affect envelope mass removal and the final orbital separation. Most numerical simulations of the CEE ignore jets, and those that include jets omit other processes. Despite the considerable progress in the last decade with tens of hydrodynamical simulations of the CEE, we are still far from correctly simulating the CEE. Including jets in simulations of the CEE requires heavy computer resources, but it must be the next step.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four PNe demonstrating jets and equatorial outflows. (a) An image of M 2-19 adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

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. Hyperaccreting Magnetised Neutron Stars inside Rotating Massive Envelopes: Low-Power Jets and Precursor Flares

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

    In 2D GRMHD simulations, magnetised neutron stars hyperaccreting inside massive envelopes can halt accretion above B_surf ~2.3e13 G and launch ~1e46 erg/s precursor jets that still cannot unbind the envelope.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 2115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stv1666 Akashi, M., & Soker, N

    Akashi, M., Sabach, E., Yogev, O., & Soker, N. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stv1666 Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2479 Aller, A., Lillo-Box, J., & Jones, D. 2024, A&A, 690, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450942 Aller, A., Lillo-Box, J., Jones, D., Miranda, L. F., & Barcel´o Forteza, S. 2020, A&A, 635...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2015

  2. [4]

    G., & Lucchini, S

    48550/arXiv.2410.03589 Blackman, E. G., & Lucchini, S. 2014, MNRAS, 440, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu001 Boffin, H. M. J., & Jones, D. 2019, The Importance of Binaries in the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Nebulae, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25059-1 Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., Rauch, T., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 773, doi: 10.1126/science. 1225386...

    arXiv 2014

  3. [5]

    1086/307768 Corradi, R. L. M., Sabin, L., Miszalski, B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966. 2010.17523.x Corradi, R. L. M., Rodr´ıguez-Gil, P., Jones, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu703 Danehkar, A. 2022, ApJS, 260, 14, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4365/ac5cca De Marco O., Passy J.-C., Moe M., Herwig F., Mac Low M.-M....

    work page arXiv 2011

  4. [7]

    T., L ´opez, J

    1051/0004-6361/202348383 Gagnier D., Pejcha O., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2412.04419 Garc´ıa-D´ıaz, M. T., L ´opez, J. A., Garc ´ıa-Segura, G., Richer, M. G., & Steffen, W. 2008, ApJ, 676, 402, doi: 10.1086/527468 Garc´ıa-Segura, G., Taam, R. E., & Ricker, P. M. 2020, ApJ, 893, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8006 —. 2021, ApJ, 914, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ab...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [8]

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

    1093/mnras/stac2301 Guerrero, M. A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc ´ıa, J. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ abe2aa Guerrero, M. A., & Miranda, L. F. 2012, A&A, 539, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117923 Guerrero, M. A., Suzett Rechy-Garc ´ıa, J., & Ortiz, R. 2020, ApJ, 890, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ab61fa Gurjar, D., Chamandy, L. R., Zo...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2021

  6. [10]

    A., Imai, H., & Orosz, G

    1051/0004-6361/201937118 Baan, W. A., Imai, H., & Orosz, G. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 275, doi: 10.1088/ 1674-4527/21/11/275 Balick, B. 2006, Planetary Nebula Image Catalogue: HST data, HST Proposal ID 10933. Cycle 15 Balick, B., Frank, A., & Liu, B. 2020, ApJ, 889, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651 Balick B., Rugers M., Terzian Y ...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651 2021

  7. [11]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 3166, doi:

    1093/mnras/stz2312 Iaconi, R., Maeda, K., Nozawa, T., De Marco, O., & Reichardt, T. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3166, doi:

    work page 2020

  8. [13]

    48550/arXiv.2411.06831 Jones, D., & Boffin, H. M. J. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0117, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0117 Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322797 Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. J., Rodr ´ıguez-Gil, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201425454 Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. ...

    arXiv 2017

Show all 21 references
  1. [14]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, 2312, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966

    1093/mnras/stv2519 Jones, D., Lloyd, M., Santander-Garc ´ıa, M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2312, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966. 2010.17277.x Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. J., Hibbert, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 202038778 Jones, D., Munday, J., Corradi, R. L....

    2010

  2. [15]

    A., Roth, M., & Tapia, M

    48550/arXiv.2011.06630 Lopez, J. A., Roth, M., & Tapia, M. 1993, A&A, 267, 194 L´opez-C´amara, D., De Colle, F., & Moreno M ´endez, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ sty2959 L´opez-C´amara, D., De Colle, F., Moreno M ´endez, E., Shiber, S., & Iaconi, R. 2022, MNRA...

    2011 arXiv

  3. [16]

    2019a, PASA, 36, e042, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.36 Miszalski, B., Manick, R., Van Winckel, H., & Escorza, A

    1017/pasa.2018.23 Miszalski, B., Manick, R., Rauch, T., et al. 2019a, PASA, 36, e042, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.36 Miszalski, B., Manick, R., Van Winckel, H., & Escorza, A. 2019b, PASA, 36, e018, doi:10.1017/pasa.2019. 11 Jets are the most robust observables of CEE 9 Miszalski, B...

    2018 arXiv

  4. [17]

    A., Redman, M

    48550/arXiv.2406.04118 O’Connor, J. A., Redman, M. P., Holloway, A. J., et al. 2000, ApJ, 531, 336, doi: 10.1086/308452 Ohlmann, S. T., R ¨opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2016, ApJL, 816, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/ 816/1/L9 Ondratschek, P. A., R¨opke, F. K., Schneide...

    2000

  5. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 4361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stx2272 Sahai, R., Claussen, M., S ´anchez Contreras, C., Morris, M., & Sarkar, G

    48550/arXiv.2404.08037 Sabach, E., Hillel, S., Schreier, R., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stx2272 Sahai, R., Claussen, M., S ´anchez Contreras, C., Morris, M., & Sarkar, G. 2008, ApJ, 680, 483, doi: 10.1086/ 587638 Sahai, R., Morris, M. R., & Villar,...

    2017 arXiv

  6. [20]

    1086/300504 Sahai, R., Vlemmings, W. H. T., & Nyman, L. ˚A. 2017, ApJ, 841, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d86 Sahai, R., Alcolea, J., Balick, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2409.06038. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2409.06038 Santander-Garc´ıa, M., Rodr ´ıguez-Gil, P., Corr...

    2017 arXiv

  7. [21]

    A., Guerrero, M

    1051/0004-6361/201834632 Toal´a, J. A., Guerrero, M. A., Bianchi, L., Chu, Y . H., & De Marco, O. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3784, doi: 10.1093/ mnras/staa1024 10 N. Soker Tocknell, J., De Marco, O., & Wardle, M. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2014, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu079 Van Winckel H., Jorisse...

    2020 doi arXiv

  8. [22]

    C., & Nordhaus, J

    1093/mnras/sty1871 Wilson, E. C., & Nordhaus, J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz601 —. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ staa2088 —. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stac2300 Zou, Y ., Chamandy, L., Carroll-Nellenback, J., Blackman, E. G., &...

    2019 doi

  9. [23]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 2855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2145

    1093/mnras/stac1529 Zou, Y ., Frank, A., Chen, Z., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2145

    2020 doi

  10. [96]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 692, doi:10

    doi:10.3390/galaxies6030096 Shiber, S., & Iaconi, R. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 692, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stae1500 Shiber, S., Iaconi, R., De Marco, O., & Soker, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stz2013 Shiber, S., Schreier, R., & Soker, N. 2016, Research in Astronomy and A...

    2024

  11. [319]

    C., Frew, D

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/319 Hillwig, T. C., Frew, D. J., Louie, M., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/30 Hillwig, T. C., Frew, D. J., Reindl, N., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/24 Hillwig, T. C., Jones, D., De Marco, O., et al. ...

    2015 doi

  12. [778]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.03182 Berm´udez-Bustamante, L

    doi:10.1086/172881 Bear E., Soker N., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2407.03182. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.03182 Berm´udez-Bustamante, L. C., De Marco, O., Siess, L., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 533, 464, doi: 10.1093/ mnras/stae1841 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stae1841 Bhattach...

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [2277]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Estrella-Trujillo, D., Hern ´andez-Mart´ınez, L., Vel ´azquez, P

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17891.x Derlopa, S., Akras, S., Amram, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Estrella-Trujillo, D., Hern ´andez-Mart´ınez, L., Vel ´azquez, P. F., Esquivel, A., & Raga, A. C. 2019, ApJ, 876, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12e...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.