Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): VIII. The impact of external photoevaporation on disk masses and radii in Upper Scorpius

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read External photoevaporation at moderate FUV fluxes reproduces the compact gas disks of Upper Scorpius, matching 7 of 10 observed CO radii within a factor of 2.

desk verdict A solid, honest test showing moderate-FUV external photoevaporation can explain Upper Sco's compact gas disks; the qualitative result holds, but the 7/10 success count depends on an uncalibrated CO-radius proxy interpolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10743 v2 pith:RCA6X2BV submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Rossella Anania , Giovanni P. Rosotti , Matías Gárate , Paola Pinilla , Miguel Vioque , Leon Trapman , John Carpenter , Ke Zhang
show 13 more authors
Ilaria Pascucci Lucas A. Cieza Anibal Sierra Nicolas T. Kurtovic James Miley Laura M. Pérez Benôit Tabone Michiel Hogerheijde Dingshan Deng Carolina Agurto-Gangas Dary A. Ruiz-Rodriguez Camilo González-Ruilova Estephani E. TorresVillanueva
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksexternalphotoevaporationdiskradiimassesUpperScorpiusFUVirradiationviscousevolution12COemission
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 sets out to explain a puzzle: the protoplanetary disks in Upper Scorpius, the oldest nearby star-forming region, are smaller than viscous evolution predicts at their ages. It argues that external photoevaporation by moderate far-ultraviolet radiation, 2 to 12 $G_0$ from nearby B-type stars, is the missing process. In one-dimensional viscous simulations with an outside-in photoevaporative wind, the modeled gas disk radii match the observed 12CO radii within a factor of 2 for 7 of the 10 AGE-PRO disks, provided the initial disk mass is between 1% and 10% of the stellar mass. Pure viscous models fail on the same comparison. The paper concludes that even moderate irradiation truncates disks and suppresses viscous spreading, so Upper Sco cannot be treated as an age-only endpoint of lower-irradiation regions.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a one-dimensional viscous disk evolution model with an external photoevaporative wind added as an outside-in sink term. Mass loss is set by interpolating the FRIEDv2 grid of photoevaporation rates, a precomputed grid of mass-loss rates as a function of stellar mass, FUV flux, and disk surface density; the truncation radius is where that rate peaks, and gas exterior to it is removed weighted by the mass outside the truncation radius. The observable counterpart is the modeled CO radius, obtained not from full thermochemistry but from an analytic critical column density relation that gives the H2 column at which 12CO stops self-shielding, interpolated to each source's FUV flux. The FUV input fluxes are computed by summing blackbody FUV luminosities of all OB stars in a wide ~55-degree box, with parallax-based distances and Monte Carlo uncertainties.

What would settle it

Run the same simulations but replace the analytic critical column density with full thermochemical post-processing at each source's actual FUV flux of 2 to 12 $G_0$ and recompute the modeled 12CO radii; if the 7-of-10 within-factor-of-2 agreement disappears, the central claim fails. A targeted version is to measure the 12CO column-density turnover radius directly in UppSco 3, 4, and 5, the sources the model overpredicts, and test whether the analytic relation overestimates the critical column there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the compact gas disks of Upper Scorpius are a signature of ongoing external photoevaporation, not a pure evolutionary stage. The authors estimate the FUV flux at each of the ten AGE-PRO targets from the summed contributions of all OB stars in a wide box around the region, obtaining median fluxes from about 2 to 12 $G_0$. They then evolve disks with viscous spreading plus a photoevaporative mass loss that removes gas outside a truncation radius. The resulting radius enclosing 90% of the 12CO flux agrees with the observed gas radius within a factor of 2 for 7 of 10 sources when the initial disk mass is 1 to 10% of the stellar mass, while the same models without external photoevaporation predict substantially larger disks. The paper does not claim viscosity is the accretion driver; it claims that environmental irradiation must be included before drawing conclusions about disk evolution from size measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that 7 of 10 disks are reproduced hangs on the analytic relation that turns a simulated gas surface density into a CO radius, a relation calibrated at 1 $G_0$ and then interpolated to each source's higher FUV flux; if that proxy is biased for moderate-flux, low-mass disks, the match could be an artifact of the comparison rather than evidence for photoevaporation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gas disk size, not mass, is the earliest and clearest observable signature of moderate external photoevaporation: in the test simulations size suppression appears within 2 to 4 Myr, while mass differences become significant only after 6 to 8 Myr.
  • Upper Scorpius disks should be modeled as environmentally irradiated objects, not as the old-age descendants of regions like Lupus; comparisons of disk populations across star-forming regions must include irradiation level alongside age.
  • The initial disk radius cannot be recovered from final sizes in irradiated regions, because disks with initial characteristic radii of 10, 40, and 100 AU converge to nearly the same radius once the photoevaporative mass loss balances accretion.
  • The persistence of the gas-to-dust size discrepancy after photoevaporation is included implies that unresolved dust substructures or pressure bumps are still required to slow radial drift in these disks.
  • The model predicts that UppSco 2, exposed to roughly 12 $G_0$ around a 0.13 solar-mass star, should be nearly dispersed by 6 Myr; its observed detection points to a lower or time-varying FUV exposure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: applying the same model to Lupus disks at their measured FUV fluxes would test the environmental term directly, since Lupus should show milder radius suppression and the Lupus-versus-Upper Sco size gap should close when both are run at the same flux.
  • Beyond the paper: the convergence of final disk size across initial radii suggests that in irradiated regions a measured CO radius may be inverted to estimate the present-day FUV field, offering a check of photoevaporation that does not rely on stellar catalogs.
  • Beyond the paper: the delayed-exposure test implies that disks carry no lasting memory of irradiation before roughly 1 Myr once they reach equilibrium, so cluster kinematics and migration history matter more than birth environment for observed sizes.
  • Beyond the paper: the marginal anti-correlation between FUV flux and disk size should strengthen in a larger sample; a survey of 50 or more Upper Sco disks could turn the trend into a statistically established constraint.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies whether external photoevaporation can explain the gas and dust properties of the ten AGE-PRO disks in Upper Scorpius. The authors compute the FUV flux at each disk from the surrounding OB stars, obtaining median fluxes between about 2 and 12 G0, and run 1D viscous evolution models with an external photoevaporation module based on the FRIEDv2 mass-loss grid. They compare the predicted gas masses, CO radii, millimeter fluxes, and dust radii at 2 and 6 Myr with the AGE-PRO observations. The central result is that pure viscous models fail to reproduce the observed small gas radii, while models including external photoevaporation reproduce the gas disk sizes for 7 of 10 sources within a factor of 2, assuming initial disk masses of 1-10% of the stellar mass. The dust masses and radii are not reproduced, which the authors attribute to the absence of dust substructures in the models.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is robust, the paper makes an important contribution: it shows that even moderate FUV irradiation of 1-10 G0 can suppress viscous spreading and truncate protoplanetary disks, so Upper Sco disks cannot be treated as a clean age-only comparison sample for disks in low-irradiation regions. The qualitative evolution shown in Figures 3-5, where external photoevaporation halts viscous spreading at moderate fluxes, is convincing and independently visible in the surface-density evolution. The paper is also transparent: it reports the dust-model failure clearly and identifies dust substructures as the likely missing ingredient. The main quantitative claim, however, rests on a semi-empirical CO-radius proxy whose FUV extension is not validated or assigned an uncertainty; this weakens the headline 7/10 statistic until the proxy is checked against thermochemical models at the actual FUV fluxes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The headline success metric (7/10 gas sizes within a factor <2) is evaluated against a predicted R12CO obtained from the semi-empirical critical column density relation of Eq. (9), which is calibrated with DALI thermochemical models at FUV = 1 G0 and then adjusted to the source-specific 2-12 G0 fields by interpolating Figure 2 of Trapman et al. (2023). The text itself notes that Eq. (9) depends on the initial carbon abundance and disk temperature, and no uncertainty from those dependencies or from the FUV interpolation is propagated into the reported success count. Because Eq. (10) sets R12CO at the radius where Sigma = Sigma_crit, a systematic offset in log N_gas translates almost directly into an offset in R12CO, and because the FUV correction is applied only in the external-photoevaporation runs, any bias in the interpolation preferentially makes those runs appear more compact. Before the quantitative 7/10 claim can be relied upon, the authors should either recompute R12CO with DALI (or an equivalent thermochemical model) at the actual FUV fluxes and disk masses of the sample, or quantify and propagate the systematic uncertainty from carbon abundance, temperature, and the interpolation.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Section 7, item 6] The paper states in Section 5.2 that UppSco 2 is predicted to be almost entirely dispersed by external photoevaporation in less than 6 Myr, and the caption of Figure 8 indicates that no model point is connected to this source; the observed source, however, has a measured 12CO radius of about 51 AU at an age of about 2.1 Myr. The conclusion counts 7 out of 10 sizes as reproduced and lists only UppSco 3, 4, and 5 as predicted too large, which implies UppSco 2 is counted as a success or is silently excluded. This inconsistency needs to be resolved explicitly: if UppSco 2 is a failure, the success rate is 6/10; if it is excluded, the rationale (e.g., large FUV flux uncertainty) should be stated and the headline count adjusted accordingly.
  3. [Section 5.2, Figures 6-8] The comparison is made only at the two fixed ages t = 2 and 6 Myr, while the individual isochronal ages in Table 1 range from about 1.8 to about 5.9 Myr with asymmetric uncertainties that in several cases span a factor of several in age. For sources whose predicted radius evolves strongly between 2 and 6 Myr, the statement that the radius is reproduced within a factor <2 depends on which endpoint (or intermediate age) is used. The authors should quantify how many of the ten sources have a model radius within a factor <2 of the observed value at an age consistent with the source's isochronal age and its uncertainties, rather than quoting a binary success count at two arbitrarily chosen ages.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The word 'protoplaneraty' should be 'protoplanetary'.
  2. [Section 5.1] The phrase 'a greater decrease in mass (hundreds of M_sun)' appears to use solar masses; in the context of protoplanetary disk masses it should presumably read 'hundreds of Earth masses' (hundreds of M_Earth).
  3. [Section 5.3] The text 'M_gas,0 = 0.1 M_sun' should presumably be '0.1 M_star', because the parameter grid in Table 3 defines M_disk,0 in units of stellar mass, and 0.1 M_sun would exceed the stellar mass for several of the low-mass targets.
  4. [Figure 13] The diagonal labels 'Rdust', '5 Rdust', and '10 Rdust' are visually confusing; please relabel them with explicit subscripts or with text such as 'R_gas = 5 R_dust'.
  5. [Section 4.1, Eq. (3)] A single representative luminosity L_star = 0.3 L_sun is used for all models even though the stellar masses in Table 1 range from about 0.13 to 0.56 M_sun; a short sensitivity test or an estimate of the resulting offset in the predicted R12CO would help the reader assess this approximation.
  6. [Section 6.1] In the sentence 'with the latest showing gas mass consistent with the model', 'latest' should be 'latter'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is a forward simulation with externally calibrated inputs, and the same-author R12CO proxy is a thermochemical calibration, not a fit to the Upper Sco data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The FUV fluxes are computed from Gaia/Hipparcos astrometry plus the Winter & Haworth (2022) empirical LFUV(M) relation; the photoevaporative mass-loss rates come from the FRIEDv2 grid; and the gas/dust evolution is integrated with DustPy. The predicted gas radius is not obtained by matching observed radii: Eq. (10) sets R12CO by equating the model surface density to the critical column density from Eq. (9), which is a fit to DALI thermochemical models at FUV = 1 G0, subsequently adjusted by interpolating Figure 2 of Trapman et al. (2023). Although Trapman is a co-author here, that relation is calibrated on DALI models, not on the AGE-PRO Upper Sco data, and it does not encode the claimed 7/10 success. The paper explicitly flags the dependence of Eq. (9) on initial carbon abundance and disk temperature as a caveat rather than a hidden fit. The headline comparison is a broad grid search over initial disk mass (1-10% M*), viscosity, initial radius, and age (2-6 Myr), not a per-source optimization, and the same framework fails for dust radii and millimeter fluxes, which the paper attributes to missing substructures—evidence that the comparison is not constructed to match. Self-citations to Trapman et al. (2020, 2022, 2023) provide context or a model-based proxy; no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain or a uniqueness theorem. The FUV-interpolated R12CO proxy introduces systematic uncertainty in the quantitative 'within factor <2' count, but that is a robustness concern, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on standard 1D disk physics, an externally calibrated mass-loss grid, and a fitted CO-radius proxy. There are no new particles, forces, or invented physical entities. The main free choices are the initial disk mass fraction (per-source preference selected post hoc), alpha, the initial radius, and a single representative stellar luminosity for all ten sources.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial disk mass fraction M_disk,0 / M_star = 0.01 and 0.1 (per-source preference assigned post hoc)
    Table 3 and Section 6.1; six sources are said to prefer 0.01 Msun and four prefer 0.1 Msun, based on which grid point matches the observations.
  • Alpha viscosity = 10^-3 fiducial; 10^-4 and 10^-2 scanned
    Table 3; chosen from the empirical accretion range (Rosotti 2023), not measured for these disks.
  • Initial characteristic radius R_c,0 = 10 AU (fiducial)
    Table 3 and Section 5.6; authors fix R_c,0=10 AU for the main comparison after arguing it cannot be constrained.
  • Representative stellar luminosity L* = 0.3 Lsun
    Section 4.3; used for all ten sources in the temperature profile and Eq. (9).
  • Critical column density coefficients (Eq. 9) = 10^21.27 cm^-2 coefficient, exponent 0.3
    Equation (9) adopted from Trapman et al. (2023); these are fitted parameters from DALI models and are load-bearing for the radius comparison.
  • Fragmentation velocity v_frag = 10 m/s
    Section 4.3; laboratory-based value (Wada et al. 2011), not fitted here.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gas evolution follows the 1D Lynden-Bell-Pringle viscous diffusion equation with a constant alpha viscosity and no internal photoevaporation (Eq. 2).
    Invoked in Section 4.1; alternative wind-driven accretion models are not simulated, so the success of the viscous plus photoevaporation model does not uniquely identify viscosity as the accretion driver.
  • domain assumption FRIEDv2 grid mass-loss rates with PAH-to-dust ratio 1 and grain-growth model describe the external photoevaporation of these disks.
    Section 4.1, bi-linear interpolation of the FRIEDv2 grid; these rates set the truncation radii and disk lifetimes, and the grid is not validated against Upper Sco data in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk temperature profile is T(R) proportional to R^-1/2 from a passively heated flared disk with a single representative stellar luminosity L*=0.3 Lsun (Eq. 3).
    Section 4.3; the sample spans 0.1 to 0.6 Msun, so one luminosity for all ten sources is a simplification that affects both viscous spreading and the CO-radius proxy.
  • domain assumption The observable CO radius is set by the Trapman et al. (2023) critical column density relation (Eq. 9), interpolated to the source FUV flux.
    Section 4.4; the relation is a fit to DALI thermochemical models and depends on initial carbon abundance and disk temperature; the interpolation to 2-12 G0 is a further extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Each disk experiences a constant FUV flux equal to the current median value over its whole lifetime.
    Sections 3.2 and 6.3; cluster dynamics and time-variable stellar FUV luminosity are acknowledged as caveats, and only a 1-Myr delayed-onset test is run, not a time-varying flux.
  • standard math The disk is geometrically thin, axisymmetric, and initially follows the Lynden-Bell-Pringle self-similar profile (Eq. 8).
    Section 4.3; standard initial condition for 1D disk models, a mild assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): VIII. The impact of external photoevaporation on disk masses and radii in Upper Scorpius." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RCA6X2BV

@misc{pith2026250610743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): VIII. The impact of external photoevaporation on disk masses and radii in Upper Scorpius},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RCA6X2BV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10743}
}
abstract

Protoplanetary disk evolution can be deeply influenced by the UV radiation emitted by neighboring massive stars (mainly of spectral type O and B). We show that the process of external photoevaporation, which causes an outside-in depletion of disk material due to environmental UV radiation, can lead to a significant decrease in disk size, and moderate in disk mass and lifetime even at moderate irradiation levels (1-10 G$_{0}$). In this work we investigate the role of external photoevaporation in shaping the masses and sizes of the ten AGE-PRO disks in the Upper Scorpius region, which we estimate to be subject to FUV fluxes ranging between 2 and 12 G$_{0}$, on average. We compare the disk masses and sizes resulting from 1D numerical viscous evolution simulations in which the effect of external photoevaporation is included, to the values retrieved from the AGE-PRO observations. While the pure viscous framework fails in adequately explaining the observed disk properties in Upper Scorpius, with the inclusion of external photoevaporation we can successfully reproduce gas disk sizes for 7 out of 10 sources within a factor <2, when the initial disk mass is 1-10% of the stellar mass. We emphasize the importance of accounting for the environmental irradiation when comparing star-forming regions of different ages, even when moderate FUV irradiation fields are experienced, as in the case of Upper Scorpius.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of the ten AGE-PRO sources in Upper Sco and the O and B stars closest to them. B-type stars are color-coded based on their spectral sub-class (from B0 to B9). The only O-type star survived in the considered region is ζ Oph, flagged in red. Left: projected-sky map. Right: 3D map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FUV fluxes experienced by the ten AGE-PRO targets in Upper Sco. Error bars extend from the 16th per￾centile to the 84th percentile of the distribution, while purple dots refers to the median values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the disk surface density when an external FUV field of 1, 10, 100 and 1000 G0 is applied. Lines are color-coded based on the age, while the dashed gray lines corresponds to the 0 G0 pure viscous evolution from 0 to 10 Myr. 0 2 4 6 8 10 t [Myr] 0 200 400 600 800 R12 C O [A U] 0 G0 1 G0 10 G0 100 G0 1000 G0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the disk radius when the FUV flux experienced is [0, 1, 10, 100, 1000] G0. In the pure vis￾cous model (0 G0) the radius increases with time, but even low/moderate FUV fluxes (1-10 G0) can halt viscous spread￾ing. In the case of 1000 G0, we stopped the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: and 8). Furthermore, in the range [1-10] G0, disk sizes are significantly reduced by the first 2-4 Myr, whereas the difference in disk mass becomes relevant after 6-8 Myr. Therefore, particular attention should be directed towards size-related studies, especially if we…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio between the observed gas masses and the those predicted when external photoevaporation is included in the model. The colored lines refer to the values in the range of ages [2 - 6] Myr (with arrows pointing from younger to older ages) considering an initial disk m…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: R12CO from our simulations in the purely viscous scenario (orange crosses) and adding external photoevapora￾tion (red dots). Comparison with the radius enclosing the 90% of the 12CO flux, observed by AGE-PRO. Top and Bot￾tom panels refer to models with initial disk mas…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gas disk masses (top panel) and radii (bottom panel) resulting from models where α = 10−4 . The results from using the viscous model and adding external photoe￾vaporation are compared to the AGE-PRO observations. pected to be more relevant if the disk is more viscous. …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gas disk masses (top panel) and radii (bottom panel) considering α = 10−2 in our simulations. We compare the results from the viscous model with those including exter￾nal photoevaporation and AGE-PRO observations. Dotted lines without end point means that disks are di…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dust radius: enclosing the 90% of the 1.3 mm continuum flux, determined through AGE-PRO visibilities (black diamonds, where the values for UppSco 2, UppSco 4 and UppSco 5 are upper limits), and from our simulation with and without the effect of external photoevaporati…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The gas and dust sizes detected by AGE-PRO in Upper Sco (black diamonds) are compared with the sim￾ulations results after 2 Myr (in light colors) and 6 Myr (in dark colors). The simulations refer to an initial disk mass of 1% and 10% of the stellar mass on the top and…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: UppSco 6. Time evolution of the disk mass, radius, and M˙ ext/M˙ acc, when the initial Rc is set to 10 AU, 40 AU, and 100 AU. The top and bottom rows refer to simulations in which the initial disk mass is 1% and 10% of the stellar mass, respectively. The AGE-PRO obser…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: UppSco 8. Time evolution of the disk mass, radius, and M˙ ext/M˙ acc, when the initial Rc is set to 10 AU, 40 AU, and 100 AU. The top and bottom rows refer to simulations in which the initial disk mass is 1% and 10% of the stellar mass, respectively. The AGE-PRO obser…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The estimated FUV flux experienced by the ten AGE-PRO sources in Upper Sco is plotted against the gas radius (top left), dust radius (top right), gas mass (bottom left), 1.3 mm flux (bottom right). The disk properties are those retrieved from the AGE-PRO observations.…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Time evolution of the gas radius when a con￾stant FUV flux is experienced from the beginning of the disk lifetime, and after 1 Myr (shown in blue and green lines, respectively). Application to the case of UppSco 6 (top panel) and UppSco 8 (bottom panel), with initial …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: For each AGE-PRO target in Upper Sco, we show the distribution of FUV fluxes as resulting from applying the method detailed in Sec. 3. the astrometric goodness-of-fit associated with the parallax measurements considering the Renormalised Unit Weight Error (RUWE). As s…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison between distances obtained with the parallax inversion and the Bailer-Jones method. Blue dots mark the sources showing RUWE> 1.4 (i.e. with not good parallax measurements), while red dots refer to sources with good defined parallax measurements. It is impor…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FUV fluxes and uncertainties for the ten AGE-PRO targets in Upper Sco, evaluated using Monte Carlo sampling of parallaxes (purple, same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. JWST Edge-on Disk Ice (JEDIce): Vibrationally hot, rotationally cold H$_2$ in the outer disk of Oph 163131 non-thermally excited by UV and cosmic rays

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Outer-disk H2 in Oph 163131 is v-hot and J-cold from combined UV and cosmic-ray excitation plus collisions, implying an effective CR ionization rate of order 10^{-15} s^{-1}.

  2. Star formation and accretion rates within 500 pc as traced by Gaia DR3 XP spectra

    astro-ph.SR 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An all-sky Gaia XP-spectra catalogue of 145,975 Hα-emitting young stellar object candidates within 500 pc yields homogeneous accretion luminosities and rates and reveals a spatially dispersed, low-accreting population.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C., Hollenbach, D., Laughlin, G., & Gorti, U

    Adams, F. C., Hollenbach, D., Laughlin, G., & Gorti, U. 2004, ApJ, 611, 360, doi: 10.1086/421989

    doi:10.1086/421989 2004

  2. [2]

    A., & Harries, T

    Ali, A. A., & Harries, T. J. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1673

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1673 2019

  3. [3]

    R., Adams, F

    Anderson, K. R., Adams, F. C., & Calvet, N. 2013, ApJ, 774, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/9 2013

  4. [4]

    P., Manara, C

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Manara, C. F., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa69c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa69c0 2017

  5. [5]

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

  6. [6]

    Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2013, ApJ, 769, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/76

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/76 2013

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  8. [8]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

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

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    P., & Brauer, F

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., & Brauer, F. 2010a, A&A, 513, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913731 —. 2010b, A&A, 513, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913731

    doi

  4. [12]

    2012, A&A, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    Birnstiel, T., Klahr, H., & Ercolano, B. 2012, A&A, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Zhu, Z., et al

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

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A, 565, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323043

    Breslau, A., Steinhausen, M., Vincke, K., & Pfalzner, S. 2014, A&A, 565, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323043

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Clarke, C. J. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1350, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11547.x

    2007

  8. [16]

    J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M

    Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M. 2001a, MNRAS, 328, 485, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04891.x —. 2001b, MNRAS, 328, 485, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04891.x

    2001

  9. [17]

    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

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Coleman, G. A. L., & Haworth, T. J. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1513 Concha-Ram ´ ırez, F., Wilhelm, M. J. C., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1733

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Cuello, N., M´ enard, F., & Price, D. J. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 11, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03602-w

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, A&A, 658, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141689

    Dzyurkevich, N. 2022, A&A, 658, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141689

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Arce, H

    Eisner, J. A., Arce, H. G., Ballering, N. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac3e2

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Raymond, J

    Ercolano, B., Drake, J. J., Raymond, J. C., & Clarke, C. C. 2008, ApJ, 688, 398, doi: 10.1086/590490

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Bisbas, T

    Facchini, S., Clarke, C. J., & Bisbas, T. G. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw240

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c9

    Fang, M., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c9

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Fatuzzo, M., & Adams, F. C. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1361, doi: 10.1086/527469

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Feiden, G. A. 2016, A&A, 593, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527613 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gaia Collaboration, Creevey, O. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004...

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    O., & Corbally, Christopher, J

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, Christopher, J. 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification

    2009

  20. [28]

    G., Drake, J

    Guarcello, M. G., Drake, J. J., Wright, N. J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd67

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34

    Gundlach, B., & Blum, J. 2015, ApJ, 798, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, Icarus, 214, 717, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.05.005

    Gundlach, B., Kilias, S., Beitz, E., & Blum, J. 2011, Icarus, 214, 717, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.05.005

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Clarke, C

    Haworth, T. J., Clarke, C. J., Rahman, W., Winter, A. J., & Facchini, S. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2323

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Coleman, G

    Haworth, T. J., Coleman, G. A. L., Qiao, L., Sellek, A. D., & Askari, K. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03097, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03097

    2023 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    1998, ApJ, 499, 758, doi: 10.1086/305658 26

    Johnstone, D., Hollenbach, D., & Bally, J. 1998, ApJ, 499, 758, doi: 10.1086/305658 26

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdb2a

    Kunitomo, M., Ida, S., Takeuchi, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdb2a

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, AAS

    Kurtovic, N., et al. 2025, AAS

    2025

  30. [38]

    Luhman, K. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac35e3

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    L., & Esplin, T

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

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 Mauc´ o, K., Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347627

    1974 doi

  33. [41]

    2025, AAS O’Dell, C

    Miley, J., et al. 2025, AAS O’Dell, C. R., Wen, Z., & Hu, X. 1993, ApJ, 410, 696, doi: 10.1086/172786

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    P., et al

    Otter, J., Ginsburg, A., Ballering, N. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c2 Pantaleoni Gonz´ alez, M., Ma ´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Barb´ a, R. H., & Reed, B. C. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab688

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Perryman, M. A. C. 1997, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 402, Hipparcos - Venice ’97, ed. R. M. Bonnet, E. Høg, P. L. Bernacca, L. Emiliani, A. Blaauw, C. Turon, J. Kovalevsky, L. Lindegren, H. Hassan, M. Bouffard, B. Strim, D. Heger, M. A. C. Perryman, & L. Woltjer, 1–4

    1997

  38. [46]

    Picogna, G., Ercolano, B., & Espaillat, C. C. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2883

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    E., & Weber, M

    Picogna, G., Ercolano, B., Owen, J. E., & Weber, M. L. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1166

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2012, A&A, 538, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118204

    Pinilla, P., Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118204

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

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

    1981

  42. [50]

    Qiao, L., Coleman, G. A. L., & Haworth, T. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad944

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Sellek, A

    Qiao, L., Haworth, T. J., Sellek, A. D., & Ali, A. A. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac684 Ratzenb¨ ock, S., Großschedl, J. E., Alves, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346901

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

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

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

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    Rosotti, G. P. 2023, NewAR, 96, 101674, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2023.101674

    2023

  46. [54]

    P., Dale, J

    Rosotti, G. P., Dale, J. E., de Juan Ovelar, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu679

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    A., et al

    Ruiz-Rodriguez, D. A., et al. 2025, AAS

    2025

  48. [56]

    2021, A&A, 649, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039733

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

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    1992, A&AS, 96, 269 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Asplund, M

    Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 1992, A&AS, 96, 269 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Asplund, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1281, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20113.x

    1992

  50. [58]

    D., Booth, R

    Sellek, A. D., Booth, R. A., & Clarke, C. J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3528

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    D., Clarke, C

    Sellek, A. D., Clarke, C. J., & Ercolano, B. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1148

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  53. [61]

    M., Agurto-Gangas, C., et al

    Sierra, A., P´ erez, L. M., Agurto-Gangas, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16651, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16651

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    Smith, N., Bally, J., & Morse, J. A. 2003, ApJL, 587, L105, doi: 10.1086/375312

    2003 doi

  55. [63]

    Smoluchowski, M. V. 1916, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 17, 557

    1916

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    M., & Birnstiel, T

    Stammler, S. M., & Birnstiel, T. 2022, ApJ, 935, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d58

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Cridland, A

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Cridland, A. J., Armitage, P. J., & Lodato, G. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3442

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    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

  60. [68]

    D., Hogerheijde, M

    Trapman, L., Rosotti, G., Bosman, A. D., Hogerheijde, M. R., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2020, A&A, 640, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037673

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7d1

    Trapman, L., Rosotti, G., Zhang, K., & Tabone, B. 2023, ApJ, 954, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7d1

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ed5

    Trapman, L., Tabone, B., Rosotti, G., & Zhang, K. 2022, ApJ, 926, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ed5

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2025b, AAS van Terwisga, S

    Trapman, L., Vioque, M., Kurtovic, N., et al. 2025b, AAS van Terwisga, S. E., & Hacar, A. 2023, A&A, 673, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346135

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    T., Trapman, L., et al

    Vioque, M., Kurtovic, N. T., Trapman, L., et al. 2025, AAS

    2025

  65. [73]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/36

    Yamamoto, T. 2011, ApJ, 737, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/36

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977, in IAU Colloq. 39: Comets,

    1977

  67. [75]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332 27

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332 27

    2000 doi

  68. [76]

    Whipple, F. L. 1972, in From Plasma to Planet, ed. A. Elvius, 211

    1972

  69. [77]

    Wilhelm, M. J. C., Portegies Zwart, S., Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad445

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Clarke, C

    Winter, A. J., Clarke, C. J., Rosotti, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2700, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty984

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 5478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2545

    Alexander, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2545

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    J., & Haworth, T

    Winter, A. J., & Haworth, T. J. 2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1132, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03314-1

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    N., & Lithwick, Y

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

    2007 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, A&A, 672, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346164

    Zagaria, F., Facchini, S., Miotello, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346164

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    2025, AAS

    Zhang, K., P´ erez, L., Pascucci, I., et al. 2025, AAS

    2025

Pith tools

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