Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): III. Dust and Gas Disk Properties in the Lupus Star-forming Region

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ten Lupus disks share one CO chemistry, with a single outlier, so deep C18O observations can weigh disk gas on their own.

desk verdict Strong new ALMA data and careful reductions, but the 'similar CO abundances' claim rests on a post-hoc exclusion and only two secure N2H+ detections; worth a serious referee, though the abstract should be softened or the statistics tightened. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10734 v2 pith:T4I26X27 submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Dingshan Deng , Miguel Vioque , Ilaria Pascucci , Laura M. Pérez , Ke Zhang , Nicolás T. Kurtovic , Leon Trapman , Estephani E. TorresVillanueva
show 15 more authors
Carolina Agurto-Gangas John Carpenter Paola Pinilla Uma Gorti Benoît Tabone Anibal Sierra Giovanni P. Rosotti Lucas A. Cieza Rossella Anania Camilo González-Ruilova Michiel R. Hogerheijde James Miley Dary A. Ruiz-Rodriguez Maxime Ruaud Kamber Schwarz
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksastrochemistryplanetformationmillimeterastronomysubmillimeterCOisotopologuesN2H+Lupusstar-formingregion
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 presents deep ALMA Band 6 and Band 7 observations of ten planet-forming disks around M3-K6 stars in the Lupus star-forming region, a sample that represents the roughly 1-3 Myr-old disk population there. Its central claim is that, with one exception, the disks share similar carbon monoxide chemistry: the C18O J=2-1 and N2H+ J=3-2 integrated fluxes are strongly correlated once the X-ray-bright disk Lupus 3 is excluded, which is the signature of disks that differ in gas mass rather than in CO abundance. Building on that, gas disk masses estimated from C18O line fluxes alone, using the self-consistent thermo-chemical models of Ruaud et al. (2022), agree with masses derived by Trapman et al. (2025a) from combined CO isotopologue and N2H+ fitting. Both methods put gas-to-dust mass ratios between 10 and 100, and the two well-resolved disks show gas radii about twice their dust radii, evidence against strong radial drift. If right, the paper establishes that deep C18O observations can serve as a practical gas mass census for young disks around low-mass stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the line pair C18O J=2-1 and N2H+ J=3-2. In disk chemistry, CO is the main destroyer of N2H+, so a disk with less CO in its warm molecular layer lets N2H+ survive; the two line fluxes therefore move oppositely with CO abundance and together with gas mass. The observed positive correlation (Lupus 3 excluded) is the prediction of the Trapman et al. (2022) models for disks of similar CO abundance and different gas masses, and it licenses the paper's mass estimates: C18O luminosities are scaled onto the Ruaud et al. (2022) grid of self-consistent disk models, which iterate density, temperature, and chemistry and include isotope-selective photodissociation and grain-surface CO-to-CO2 conversion, and the results are checked against the DALI grid of Trapman et al. (2025a), where CO abundance is a free parameter. Fluxes and radii come from a curve-of-growth aperture method applied to the images, and correlations are tested with Kendall's tau including upper limits.

What would settle it

Compile X-ray luminosities for the nine correlated disks and test whether the N2H+/C18O flux ratio rises with X-ray brightness; a positive trend would show that ionization is driving the correlation. A second, independent gas mass probe, such as HD line emission or dynamical masses in the brightest disks, could check whether the C18O-based masses are correct where they matter most.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a flux-flux relationship with a chemical interpretation: across nine of the ten Lupus disks, the C18O J=2-1 flux rises with the N2H+ J=3-2 flux (Kendall's tau test with p<1% once Lupus 3 is removed), and because CO destroys N2H+, the positive slope places the sample on the branch where line brightness tracks gas mass while the CO abundance stays roughly constant. Lupus 3 breaks the pattern, showing strong N2H+ and weak C18O relative to its dust continuum, and the paper reads it as a disk with depleted CO, consistent with it being the brightest X-ray source in the sample. The same logic extends to dust: CO isotopologue fluxes correlate with the 234 GHz continuum flux density, implying a roughly uniform gas-to-dust ratio across the sample, again with Lupus 3 as the outlier. Gas masses follow from scaling C18O luminosities onto the Ruaud et al. (2022) grid, and they match the DALI-based masses of Trapman et al. (2025a), with the largest differences at the faint end still inside the quoted uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The correlation argument assumes that N2H+ J=3-2 emission in the nine non-outlier disks is set by how much CO destroys N2H+, not by differences in how strongly each disk is ionized; if ionization varies from disk to disk, the flux correlation could trace ionization rather than uniform CO abundance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deep C18O J=2-1 observations alone can estimate gas disk masses for comparable young disks around low-mass stars, within the uncertainties of the two model grids.
  • Earlier Lupus gas masses from Miotello et al. (2017) were too low; the new estimates push gas-to-dust mass ratios to 10-100, near or below the interstellar value for the most massive disks.
  • The two well-resolved disks confirm a gas-to-dust size ratio near 2, placing them below the drift-dominated regime and consistent with the wider Lupus population.
  • Disks like Lupus 3 are identifiable as CO-depleted through their high N2H+/C18O ratio, and they would be mis-measured by any C18O-only gas mass recipe.
  • The strong correlations between CO isotopologue fluxes and continuum flux density give predictable detectability, which can guide the design of future gas surveys in other star-forming regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test the paper leaves implicit: compare N2H+ (3-2) fluxes against X-ray luminosities across all nine correlated disks. If N2H+ excess tracks X-ray brightness, ionization is driving part of the correlation and Lupus 3 is the bright end of a continuum rather than a chemistry anomaly.
  • The same two-line recipe could be applied to the AGE-PRO samples in Ophiuchus and Upper Sco, which use identical setups. If the C18O-N2H+ correlation persists across regions, C18O-only observations become a practical age-sequence census of disk gas, with N2H+ reserved for spotting outliers.
  • If CO-depleted disks like Lupus 3 exist at a rate of order one in ten, surveys that rely on C18O alone will systematically under-report gas masses for that subpopulation, skewing gas-to-dust ratio statistics toward the interstellar value.
  • The paper's own bootstrapping check shows that V1094 Sco's line fluxes could carry about ten times larger uncertainties than the reported RMS values; downstream mass-luminosity scalings built on these ten points should give the largest disk at least that much weight.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA Band 6 and Band 7 observations of ten protoplanetary disks in the Lupus star-forming region as part of the AGE-PRO Large Program. The authors measure continuum flux densities and CO isotopologue (12CO, 13CO, C18O) J=2-1 line fluxes, plus N2H+ J=3-2 fluxes, and derive dust masses, disk radii, and gas masses. The main claims are: (1) strong correlations between CO isotopologue fluxes and continuum flux densities; (2) a strong C18O-N2H+ flux correlation after excluding one disk (Lupus 3), interpreted as similar CO abundances across the sample; (3) gas-to-dust size ratios consistent with a larger Lupus sample; and (4) gas masses estimated from C18O with the Ruaud et al. (2022) grid are consistent with the Trapman et al. (2025a) DALI masses, with gas-to-dust mass ratios of 10-100. The data reduction, flux measurements, and uncertainty treatments (including bootstrapping) are carefully presented, and the authors are transparent about upper limits and cloud contamination.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper provides a valuable homogeneous dataset of deep CO isotopologue and N2H+ observations for disks in a young (1-3 Myr) region, with clear potential for future evolutionary studies when combined with the AGE-PRO Ophiuchus and Upper Sco samples. The careful validation of flux uncertainties, the public release of data products and scripts, and the explicit handling of cloud contamination are strengths. The correlation analyses and the comparison between two thermochemical model grids address an important question about whether C18O can serve as a gas-mass tracer in comparable disks. However, the headline 'similar CO abundances' conclusion is currently not robust to small-number statistics and a plausible ionization confounder, and the model comparison is not a fully independent cross-check. The paper's significance is therefore conditional on strengthening these points.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figure 11, Table 3] The claim of a strong F_C18O(2-1) versus F_N2H+(3-2) correlation rests on very sparse detections. In Table 3, N2H+ is detected above 5 sigma in only Lupus 2, 3, and 10, with Lupus 1 at roughly 3 sigma and the remaining six sources as upper limits; after excluding Lupus 3, the correlation is computed from nine points of which only two have secure N2H+ detections. A censored Kendall test can return p<1% in this configuration even when the two bright detections dominate the trend and the upper limits add little independent information. Please report the correlation statistic with and without each secure detection, perform a sensitivity analysis (e.g., jackknife or bootstrap p-values), and state explicitly how many detections drive the result. This is load-bearing because the Abstract and Section 6 point 4 use this correlation to conclude similar CO abundances.
  2. [Section 5.1, N2H+ discussion] The interpretation of the F_C18O(2-1)-F_N2H+(3-2) relation as evidence of similar CO abundances assumes that N2H+ emission is controlled by CO-destruction chemistry rather than by variations in ionization. The authors themselves note that N2H+ can be enhanced by X-ray ionization and that Lupus 3, the excluded disk, is X-ray bright. If the remaining nine disks differ in ionization, the positive trend could track ionization rather than CO abundance or gas mass. Please quantify this with available ionization tracers (e.g., the N2D+ and DCO+ fluxes presented in Appendix C) or with a model grid spanning X-ray/cosmic-ray ionization rates, or explicitly weaken the conclusion accordingly.
  3. [Section 5.3, Eq. (3), Figure 14] The consistency between gas masses from the Ruaud et al. (2022) grid and the Trapman et al. (2025a) DALI grid is not an independent validation. Both methods use the same C18O (and, for the DALI fits, N2H+) measurements from this paper, and both grids are products of the AGE-PRO collaboration. Additionally, Eq. (3) linearly scales a sparse model track to the observed C18O luminosity and assigns ad hoc factor-of-three uncertainties. Please reframe Figure 14 as a comparison between two thermochemical model grids, specify which input constraints are shared and which are independent (e.g., 13CO versus C18O versus N2H+), and discuss how the ad hoc uncertainty assignment affects the claimed agreement. The present wording in the Abstract and Section 5.3 overstates the degree of independent confirmation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, summary item 2] The statement that C18O is detected in 4 targets with SNR>3 sigma, in 5 with SNR~2-3 sigma, and in 1 with SNR~1 sigma is inconsistent with Table 3, which yields >3 sigma detections for seven sources (Lupus 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10).
  2. [Section 4.1, paragraph after Figure 9] The sentence 'we have detections of 13CO (2-1) for Lupus 4, 5, and 9, and C18O (2-1) for Lupus 7 and 8' is garbled and contradicts the preceding text and Table 3; please rephrase and check the intended detections.
  3. [Section 5.1, Figure 11] The orange and green arrows labeled 'decreasing CO abundance' and 'decreasing Mgas' should be defined in the caption or text with the direction of the trend, since the axes show log fluxes and the arrows are otherwise ambiguous.
  4. [Appendix E] The bootstrapping uncertainty validation is applied only to the three CO isotopologue cubes, not to N2H+; please state whether this was due to computational cost and how the N2H+ flux uncertainties were validated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's flux measurements, external model grids, and independent DALI comparison support the central claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from directly measured ALMA fluxes and from two thermochemical model grids. The C18O-N2H+ correlation is interpreted using the published Trapman et al. (2022) model, whose predictions do not incorporate the Lupus data; the authors also explicitly note the ionization alternative (Anderson et al. 2019, 2022) and the post-hoc exclusion of Lupus 3, so the 'similar CO abundance' step is an inference from an external model rather than a self-defined tautology. The Ruaud et al. (2022) grid used for the C18O-based gas masses is external to this work, and equation (3) scales model luminosities to observed fluxes without fitting parameters to force agreement; the consistency check against the Trapman et al. (2025a) DALI masses uses a different code and treats CO abundance as a free parameter, so the agreement is informative rather than forced. While both mass estimates share the same C18O and N2H+ line measurements, this is a shared-data caveat, not a circular reduction by construction; dust masses, radii, and fluxes are independently measured, and the claimed gas-to-dust ratio range is a model-based inference, not a renaming of the grid's assumed endpoints. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by definition.

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

The central claims rest on standard but unverified assumptions: optically thin dust with fixed T_dust and kappa_nu, model-based C18O-to-mass scaling, and an N2H+/CO chemistry interpretation. No new physical entities are introduced; the only hand-chosen numbers are T_dust, kappa_nu, and a cloud-contamination correction factor.

free parameters (3)
  • Dust temperature T_dust = 20 K
    Adopted in Eq. 2 to convert Band 6 continuum flux to dust disk mass; the assumed average dust temperature directly scales Mdust and therefore the gas-to-dust ratios.
  • Dust opacity kappa_nu = 2.3 (nu/230 GHz) cm2/g
    Assumed opacity law in Eq. 2 for dust mass derivation; a different opacity law changes Mdust by a constant factor.
  • 12CO cloud-contamination flux correction factor = 2 (multiply uncontaminated half flux)
    Applied in Section 4.3 to correct F12CO for Lupus 2, 3, and 6 by doubling the flux measured from the less contaminated half, assuming azimuthal symmetry.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption C18O J=2-1 luminosity traces gas disk mass through the Ruaud et al. (2022) grid, with linear scaling Mgas_derived = Mgas_model * L_C18O_observed / L_C18O_model.
    Section 5.3, Eq. 3. If the model C18O flux per unit gas mass is incorrect, all these gas mass estimates shift by the same factor.
  • domain assumption Dust continuum at 234 GHz is optically thin, so Mdust = d^2 F_nu / (B_nu(T_dust) kappa_nu) is valid.
    Section 4.3. The paper itself notes in Section 5.1 that some disks may not be optically thin even at longer wavelengths; if so, Mdust is underestimated and gas-to-dust ratios are overestimated.
  • domain assumption N2H+ emission is primarily regulated by CO abundance and gas mass, with ionization assumed similar across the sample except Lupus 3.
    Section 5.1. The conclusion of similar CO abundances depends on this; the authors note N2H+ can be enhanced by X-ray ionization and that Lupus 3 is X-ray bright.
  • domain assumption Image-plane curve-of-growth radii are appropriate measures of disk sizes even when sources are unresolved; they are upper limits for compact disks.
    Section 4.3 and Appendix F. The authors acknowledge that radii are not deconvolved and can be overestimated by up to a factor of about 2 for unresolved disks.
  • ad hoc to paper For Lupus 2, 3, and 6, doubling the flux measured from the less cloud-contaminated half recovers the true total 12CO flux.
    Section 4.3. The factor 2 is an ad hoc symmetry assumption; the authors compare with deconvolved sizes to argue the resulting radii are insensitive, but the absolute flux correction is not independently calibrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): III. Dust and Gas Disk Properties in the Lupus Star-forming Region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4I26X27

@misc{pith2026250610734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): III. Dust and Gas Disk Properties in the Lupus Star-forming Region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4I26X27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10734}
}
abstract

We present Band 6 and Band 7 observations of 10 Lupus disks around M3-K6 stars from the ALMA survey of Gas Evolution in PROtoplanetary disks (AGE-PRO) Large Program. In addition to continuum emission in both bands, our Band 6 setup covers the $\mathrm{{}^{12}CO}$, $\mathrm{{}^{13}CO}$ and $\mathrm{C^{18}O}\,J$=2-1 lines, while our Band 7 setup covers the $\mathrm{N_2H^+}\,J$=3-2 line. All of our sources are detected in $\mathrm{{}^{12}CO}$ and $\mathrm{{}^{13}CO}$, 7 out of 10 are detected in $\mathrm{C^{18}O}$, and 3 are detected in $\mathrm{N_2H^+}$. We find strong correlations between the CO isotopologue line fluxes and the continuum flux densities. With the exception of one disk, we also identify a strong correlation between the $\mathrm{C^{18}O}\,J$=2-1 and $\mathrm{N_2H^+}\,J$=3-2 fluxes, indicating similar CO abundances across this sample. For the two sources with well-resolved continuum and $\mathrm{{}^{12}CO}\,J$=2-1 images, we find that their gas-to-dust size ratio is consistent with the median value of $\sim 2$ inferred from a larger sample of Lupus disks. We derive dust disk masses from continuum flux densities. We estimate gas disk masses by comparing $\mathrm{C^{18}O}\,J$=2-1 line fluxes with those predicted by the limited grid of self-consistent disk models of Ruaud et al. (2022). A comparison of these mass estimates with those derived by Trapman et al. (2025), using a combination of CO isotopologue and $\mathrm{N_2H^+}$ line emission, shows that the masses are consistent with each other. Some discrepancies appear for small and faint disks, but they are still within the uncertainties. Both methods find gas disk masses increase with dust disk masses, and gas-to-dust mass ratios are between $10-100$ in the AGE-PRO Lupus sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lupus disks (pink; as selected in the Manara et al. 2023 table) and the selected AGE-PRO sample (blue stars with assigned IDs) on the top of Planck dust map (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014). Green crosses on top of the pink circles show the Class II sources, and orange squares mark the disks around stars with SpT M3-K6. The four green dashed squares mark the boundaries of the four different sub-clouds in the Lupus… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hertzsprung–Russell diagram for the Lupus tar￾gets, marked with blue points and magenta labels for their IDs (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral Energy Distributions for the AGE-PRO Lupus disks. The gray lines are the stellar photospheric spectra from PHOENIX models (Husser et al. 2013) corresponding to their Teff . We also apply the extinction ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The AGE-PRO Lupus sample vs. the Lupus Class II sample that summarized in Manara et al. (2023). Mass accretion rates are from Alcal´a et al. (2014, 2017, 2019), mm fluxes from Ansdell et al. (2016, 2018); Tsukagoshi et al. (2019); Sanchis et al. (2020). The spectral in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Continuum and CO isotopologue gas line images for the AGE-PRO Lupus targets. The 12CO (2 − 1) images use robust 0.5 with circularized beam, while the 13CO (2 − 1) and C18O (2 − 1) images use robust 1.0 with circularized beam. The beams are shown in the lower-left corne…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Image gallery for Lupus 10, including contin￾uum images in both bands, N2H + J=3-2 and CO isotopo￾logues with larger image size to show the extent of the full disk. The robust values are shown at the lower-right corner of each panel. We also use larger robust values fo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Disk-integrated line spectra of CO isotopologues for AGE-PRO Lupus targets. To boost the SNR in spectra, the channel width of 13CO (2 − 1) is re-binned to 0.4 km s−1 , and that of C18O (2 − 1) is re-binned to 0.8 km s−1 . We use the aperture corresponding to the gas di…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The gas line velocity stacked spectra (created with GoFish) of CO isotopologues for AGE-PRO Lupus targets. We adopt the stellar parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gas line radial profiles of CO isotopologues for the Lupus targets extracted by GoFish. These images are de￾projected using the stellar parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Band 7 continuum and N2H + (3−2) zeroth-moment maps gallery of Band 7. The disks with clear N2H + (3−2) detections are in rainforest color and non-detections in gray color. This Figure follows the same notations as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparisons between different fluxes. The results of pymccorrelation Kendall’s τ tests for the Lupus sample are reported in each panel: There are positive correlations between the CO isotopologue fluxes with the Band 6 continuum flux densities. Removing the outlier Lu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: R68 (left) and R90 (right) comparisons between CO and Band 6 continuum in the units of AU. Typical beam sizes are shown in dashed vertical and horizontal lines. The three dashed lines show where the 12CO radius is ×1, ×2 and ×4 of the dust disk radius. The shaded regi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: C 18O luminosities compared with model predictions (top) and gas masses estimated from these models (bottom) versus the dust masses In the top panel, blue points are the AGE-PRO Lupus sample, and the gray points are the large Lupus disks discussed in Pascucci et al. (…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Estimated gas masses (top) and gas-to-dust mass ratios (bottom) compared with literature values in a sequence of increasing dust masses (Mdust) from left to right. The orange points are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Angular Momentum of Planet-Forming Disks: Implications for Infall Driven Misalignments

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most planet-forming disks have less angular momentum than late-infalling cloud gas is predicted to carry, so infalling streamers are a plausible cause of the observed misalignments.

  2. ALMA High-resolution Observation for the Transitional Disk around IRAS 04125+2902

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALMA resolves a ring-gap disk around the youngest transiting planet host and suggests, tentatively, that a faint inner disk is misaligned by about 10 degrees with the outer ring.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M., Sierra, A., et al

    Agurto-Gangas, C., P´ erez, L. M., Sierra, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc7ab 2025

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e Alcal´ a, J

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e Alcal´ a, J. M., Manara, C. F., France, K., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 629, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935657 Alcal´ a, J. M., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322254 Alcal´ a, J. M., Manara,...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  3. [3]

    E., Blake, G

    Anderson, D. E., Blake, G. A., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cb5 34Deng et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cb5 2019

  4. [4]

    E., Cleeves, L

    Anderson, D. E., Cleeves, L. I., Blake, G. A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac517e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac517e 2022

  5. [5]

    M., Rosenfeld, K

    Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/129

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/129 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  7. [7]

    P., van der Marel, N., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/46

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/46 2016

  8. [8]

    P., Trapman, L., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Trapman, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab890 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab890 2018

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Carpenter, J

    Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Ricci, L., & Isella, A. 2016, ApJ, 827, 142, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/142

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, A&A, 619, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833364

    Benedettini, M., Pezzuto, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833364

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Cleeves, L

    Bergin, E. A., Cleeves, L. I., Gorti, U., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 644, doi: 10.1038/nature11805

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    B., ¨Oberg, K

    Bergner, J. B., ¨Oberg, K. I., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab141e

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, A&A, 559, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321171

    Bruderer, S. 2013, A&A, 559, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321171

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    F., Doty, S

    Bruderer, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., Doty, S. D., & Herczeg, G. J. 2012, A&A, 541, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118218

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, A&A, 578, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424073 Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., Henning, T., Chandler, C

    Bustamante, I., Mer ´ ın, B., Ribas,´A., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424073 Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., Henning, T., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 821, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L16

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    W., & Tobin, J

    Chiang, H.-F., Looney, L. W., & Tobin, J. J. 2012, ApJ, 756, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/168

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    I., ¨Oberg, K

    Cleeves, L. I., ¨Oberg, K. I., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/110 Comer´ on, F. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth, Vol. 5 (ASP Monograph Publications), 295

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  14. [22]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328

    2021

  15. [23]

    2024, A&A, 688, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450328

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

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Deng, D., Pascucci, I., & Fernandes, R. B. 2025, Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7493, doi: 10.21105/joss.07493

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdfcc

    Deng, D., Ruaud, M., Gorti, U., & Pascucci, I. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdfcc

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Draine, B. T. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 636, 1114, doi: 10.1086/498130 Drka˙ zkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tom...

    2006 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    M., Allen, L

    Dunham, M. M., Allen, L. E., Evans, Neal J., I., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/11

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Blake, G

    Evans, Neal J., I., Allen, L. E., Blake, G. A., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 965, doi: 10.1086/376697

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Jørgensen, J

    Evans, Neal J., I., Dunham, M. M., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 321, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    Feiden, G. A. 2016, A&A, 593, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527613 Gaia Collaboration. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/355

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Galli, P. A. B., Bouy, H., Olivares, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038717

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    G., & Tognelli, E

    Gennaro, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Tognelli, E. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 986, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19945.x

    2012

  25. [33]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    K., et al

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Inoue, A. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94bd

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D

    Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D. L. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #225, 336.16

    2015

  28. [36]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab70ba

    Hendler, N., Pascucci, I., Pinilla, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab70ba

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    J., & Hillenbrand, L

    Herczeg, G. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/97

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  31. [39]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    D., & Nelson, P

    Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., & Nelson, P. I. 1986, ApJ, 306, 490, doi: 10.1086/164359 AGE-PRO III: Lupus Disks35 Jørgensen, B. R., & Lindegren, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042185

    1986 doi

  33. [41]

    Krautter, J., Wichmann, R., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., et al. 1997, A&AS, 123, 329, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997163

    1997 doi

  34. [42]

    T., & Pinilla, P

    Kurtovic, N. T., & Pinilla, P. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449667

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    T., Pinilla, P., Long, F., et al

    Kurtovic, N. T., Pinilla, P., Long, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038983

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    T., G´ arate, M., Pinilla, P., et al

    Kurtovic, N. T., G´ arate, M., Pinilla, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1d0

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Lattanzi, M

    Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 735, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Teague, R., Loomis, R

    Law, C. J., Teague, R., Loomis, R. A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1439

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3223

    Lodato, G., Rampinelli, L., Viscardi, E., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3223

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Pascucci, I., et al

    Long, F., Herczeg, G. J., Pascucci, I., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa78fc

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Rosotti, G., et al

    Long, F., Andrews, S. M., Rosotti, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac634e

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    L., & Esplin, T

    Luhman, K. L., & Esplin, T. L. 2020, AJ, 160, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9599

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 539, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09930

    2023 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12236, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12236

    Martire, P., Longarini, C., Lodato, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12236, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12236

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    K., Bergin, E

    McClure, M. K., Bergin, E. A., Cleeves, L. I., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 167, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/167 Mer ´ ın, B., Jørgensen, J., Spezzi, L., et al. 2008, ApJS, 177, 551, doi: 10.1086/588042

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Carpenter, J., Booth, R., et al

    Miley, J. M., Carpenter, J., Booth, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347135

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Kataoka, A. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 501, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09818

    2023 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    2021, A&A, 651, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140550

    Miotello, A., Rosotti, G., Ansdell, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140550

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    F., Williams, J

    Miotello, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., Williams, J. P., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629556

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2012, A&A, 541, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117350

    Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 541, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117350

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Brindle, C., Talavera, A., et al

    Page, M. J., Brindle, C., Talavera, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21706.x

    2012

  52. [60]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pascucci, I., Cabrit, S., Edwards, S., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 567, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10068

    2023 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    J., et al

    Pascucci, I., Testi, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/125

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    N., Deng, D., et al

    Pascucci, I., Skinner, B. N., Deng, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace4bf

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    E., Arzoumanian, D., Andre, P., et al

    Pineda, J. E., Arzoumanian, D., Andre, P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 233, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.03935

    2023 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2020, A&A, 635, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937003 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P

    Pinilla, P., Pascucci, I., & Marino, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937003 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323195

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01741-9

    Powell, D., Gao, P., Murray-Clay, R., & Zhang, X. 2022, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01741-9

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033

    1981

  59. [67]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 512, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913403

    Ricci, L., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 512, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913403

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Espaillat, C

    Rilinger, A. M., Espaillat, C. C., Xin, Z., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca905

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    Ruaud, M., Gorti, U., & Hollenbach, D. J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3826

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Cieza, L

    Ruiz-Rodriguez, D. A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Cieza, L. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add2ec

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    2020, A&A, 633, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936913 —

    Sanchis, E., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936913 —. 2021, A&A, 649, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039733

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Calahan, J

    Schwarz, K. R., Calahan, J. K., Zhang, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac143b 36Deng et al

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    2022, A&A, 668, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243338

    Stadler, J., G´ arate, M., Pinilla, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243338

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    2016, A&A, 596, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628955

    Guillot, T. 2016, A&A, 596, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628955

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    P., Lodato, G., et al

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Lodato, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L74, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab124

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    P., Trapman, L., et al

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Trapman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b1

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, doi: 10.21105/joss.01632

    Teague, R. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, doi: 10.21105/joss.01632

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    2014, Dust Evolution in Protoplanetary Disks (eprint: arXiv:1402.1354: University of Arizona Press), doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch015

    Testi, L., Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., et al. 2014, Dust Evolution in Protoplanetary Disks (eprint: arXiv:1402.1354: University of Arizona Press), doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch015

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 818, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2112

    Toci, C., Rosotti, G., Lodato, G., Testi, L., & Trapman, L. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 818, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2112

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    2025, AGEPRO obs: Initial Release, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14925816

    Trapman, L. 2025, AGEPRO obs: Initial Release, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14925816

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    R., et al

    Trapman, L., Ansdell, M., Hogerheijde, M. R., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 638, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834537

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    R., Van Dishoeck, E

    Trapman, L., Facchini, S., Hogerheijde, M. R., Van Dishoeck, E. F., & Bruderer, S. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 629, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834723

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    Trapman, L., Zhang, K., van ’t Hoff, M. L. R., Hogerheijde, M. R., & Bergin, E. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 926, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4f47

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    P., et al

    Trapman, L., Zhang, K., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 989, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcd6e

    doi

  77. [85]

    T., et al

    Trapman, L., Vioque, M., Kurtovic, N. T., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 989, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7af

    doi

  78. [86]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4f1

    Tsukagoshi, T., Momose, M., Kitamura, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4f1

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 018001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.1.018001

    Tsukui, T., Iguchi, S., Mitsuhashi, I., & Tadaki, K. 2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 018001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.1.018001

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    T., Trapman, L., et al

    Vioque, M., Kurtovic, N. T., Trapman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b0

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    1999 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    P., & Cieza, L

    Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102548

    2011 doi

  84. [92]

    J., Benisty, M., Manara, C

    Winter, A. J., Benisty, M., Manara, C. F., & Gupta, A. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 691, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452120

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 064301, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf4e5

    Woitke, P., Kamp, I., Antonellini, S., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 064301, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf4e5

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    C., Rilinger, A

    Xin, Z., Espaillat, C. C., Rilinger, A. M., Ribas, A., & Mac ´ ıas, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca52b

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    M., Liu, H

    Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Liu, H. B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 204, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/204

    2016 doi

  88. [96]

    S., Law, C

    Zhang, K., Booth, A. S., Law, C. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1580

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    M., Pascucci, I., et al

    Zhang, K., P´ erez, L. M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addebe

    2025 doi

  90. [98]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8c

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

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.