pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09919 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Modeling YSO Jets in 3D III: Dependence of Accretion and Jet Properties on Stellar Magnetospheric Field Strength and Rotation

Yisheng Tu , Zhi-Yun Li , Zhaohuan Zhu , Kass Bell
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords young stellar objectsprotostellar jetsmagnetohydrodynamic simulationsstar-disk interactionmagnetic fieldsaccretiondisk windsstellar rotation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Jets from young stars emerge along two-legged magnetic field lines whose stability depends on the balance between a central spine and surrounding tower.

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

This paper uses 3D non-ideal MHD simulations to explore how jet properties in young stellar objects change with the star's magnetic field strength and rotation rate. In every model, jets form along two-legged field lines anchored to both the star and the turbulent disk surface, creating a spine-tower structure where the spine carries the fast axial jet and the tower carries the wider toroidal wind. When the tower overpowers the spine, the disk wind disrupts or eliminates the jet, explaining asymmetric or missing jets in observations. Counter-rotating jets appear even around non-rotating stars, which means the observed jet rotation may reflect the star's spin rather than the launch radius in the disk. The balance also supplies a practical way to place upper limits on toroidal magnetic field strengths in disk winds from measured outflow properties.

Core claim

In all models, jets are launched from two-legged magnetic field lines anchored to both the star and the turbulent, magnetically elevated disk surface, with interactions at the disk surface crucial for mediating the magnetosphere-disk coupling. The axial jet and its surrounding disk wind form a characteristic spine-tower structure: the spine is the kinematically-dominated jet along open field lines threading the star, and the tower is the surrounding toroidal-field-dominated disk wind. The stability of this structure depends on the balance between the spine's stabilizing power and the tower's destabilizing power; if the tower dominates, the disk wind can choke the jet, producing asymmetric or

What carries the argument

The spine-tower structure formed by two-legged magnetic field lines, where the central kinematically dominated jet spine along stellar field lines balances against the surrounding toroidal-field dominated disk wind tower to set overall jet stability.

If this is right

  • Stable bipolar jets form only when the stellar magnetic spine overpowers the surrounding disk wind tower.
  • Observed jet and wind properties yield an upper limit on the toroidal magnetic field strength in the disk wind-launching region.
  • The direction and speed of jet rotation can indicate the stellar rotation rate rather than the classical disk launch radius.
  • Non-rotating stars can produce counter-rotating jets through interactions at the disk surface.
  • Magnetosphere-disk coupling is mediated by surface interactions along two-legged field lines rather than direct stellar anchoring.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Jet rotation measurements could serve as a proxy for stellar spin rates in embedded young stars where photometric rotation periods are hard to obtain.
  • The same spine-tower balance may account for the observed transition from jet-dominated to wind-dominated systems as stars evolve and their fields weaken.
  • Simulations with varied disk turbulence levels could test whether the two-legged launching mechanism remains robust across different accretion states.
  • Including radiation or ionization feedback in future runs might shift the field-anchoring points and change the predicted stability thresholds.

Load-bearing premise

The non-ideal MHD effects and disk turbulence modeled in the simulations capture the main processes that anchor field lines and control coupling between the star and disk.

What would settle it

A stable, symmetric jet observed alongside a disk wind whose toroidal field strength exceeds the upper limit predicted from the outflow properties would falsify the spine-tower stability balance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09919 by Kass Bell, Yisheng Tu, Zhaohuan Zhu, Zhi-Yun Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the disk, disk wind, and jet in each model at a representative time t = 4.0 yr. Upper panels (panels a-e) show the density on the meridian plane in each model, respectively (see section 2 for a description of each model), exhibiting a high-density disk and a low-density outflow cavity in each model. Middle panels (panels f-j) show the corresponding projected ˆz-direction velocity (v p z , equat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of accretion and outflow properties in each model. Panel (a) shows the accretion rate in each model, measured at r = 0.02 au and only account for the mass of the “real gas” (see section 2). The values are multiplied by −1, so a positive value in this panel is accretion; panel (b) and (c) show the jet and disk wind outflow rate in each model, respectively. Both are measured at z = ±5 au and include… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Magnetic flux evolution in each model. Panel (a) shows the amount of closed dipolar magnetosphere flux in each model (see section 3.2), with the expected flux in the L3B and L6B models scaled from the REF model. Panel (b) shows the amount of opened stellar magnetosphere flux (see section 3.2), measured at z = ±5 au and averaged over both hemispheres. ing the field lines; subsequent magnetic reconnection re… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Root of the jet projected onto the meridian plane. Each dot marks the end point of a streamline traced backwards from the jet using the instantaneous velocity profile (section 3.3). The background is azimuthal-averaged “real” density as a reference, overplotted with azimuthal-averaged magnetic field lines. The thick vertical black line is located at the averaged truncation radius in each model (see section… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The truncation radius, defined as the innermost radius where βK = 1 (section 4.1), in each model as a func￾tion of time. The horizontal thick dashed line shows the averaged truncation radius in each model. with the same 12-day stellar rotation period exhibit sim￾ilar truncation radii, whereas the NRT model—whose star has an equally strong field as the REF model but the star does not rotate—shows a truncati… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Angular momentum and energy flux around the star in each model. Panels (a)-(e) show the instantaneous angular momentum flux transported by gas (L˙ gas), by magnetic field (L˙ mag), and by magnetic field in the magnetically-dominated region (L˙ mas,βK<1) through spheres of each radius in each model, respectively. Panels (f)-(k) show a quantitative comparison of the fluxes in each model. Each filled circle r… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (b) shows the time evolution of the az￾imuthally and vertically averaged S between 3 and 8 au in height for all five models. At late times, only the REF and REV simulations maintain S > 1, indicating that the axial spine (kinetic plus poloidal magnetic energy) is strong enough to stabilize the toroidal loop tower. In contrast, the NRT, L3B, and L6B cases consistently ex￾hibit S < 1, consistent with their j… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Azimuthally averaged azimuthal velocity vϕ in each model. Red colors indicate prograde rotation, while blue colors indicate counter-rotation. The dashed and dotted black contours correspond to v p z = 107 and 106 cm s−1 , re￾spectively, delineating the approximate locations of the out￾flows. The dashed green contour shows the alfv´en surface, showing no correlation between this surface and the coun￾ter-rot… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Estimation of the averaged disk wind toroidal magnetic field strength B¯ϕ in the REF (left) and REV (right) models, both of which exhibit a steady jet. The solid lines show the measured averaged toroidal magnetic field strength in the simulation, and the dashed lines show the estimation using the right-hand side of equation 24, where an overestimation is expected (see section 5.2). The black, red, and blu… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Poloidal velocity-specific angular momentum relation from classical expectations and from our numerical simula￾tions. Panels (a) and (b) show the jet in the upper and lower hemispheres, respectively, in the REF model; panels (c) and (d) show the corresponding results for the REV model. The black and blue solid curves indicate the classical expectations from centrifugally driven and thermally driven wind m… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observations of Young Stellar Objects (YSOs) systems reveal a wide diversity of jet properties, from well-collimated bipolar jets to uni-polar jets and systems with no detectable jet. Both prograde and counter-rotating jets are reported, raising questions about how jets are launched and how their properties relate to the underlying star-disk system. Using 3D non-ideal MHD simulations, we present a suite of models in which jet properties depend sensitively on stellar rotation and magnetic field strength. In all models, jets are launched from ``two-legged'' magnetic field lines anchored to both the star and the turbulent, magnetically elevated disk surface, with interactions at the disk surface crucial for mediating the magnetosphere-disk coupling. The axial jet and its surrounding disk wind form a characteristic ``spine-tower'' structure: the spine is the kinematically-dominated jet along open field lines threading the star, and the tower is the surrounding toroidal-field--dominated disk wind. The stability of this structure depends on the balance between the spine's stabilizing power and the tower's destabilizing power; if the tower dominates, the disk wind can choke the jet, producing asymmetric or no jets. This relationship allows an upper limit estimate on the toroidal magnetic field strength in the disk wind-launching region using observed outflow properties. Counter-rotating jets naturally appear in models, particularly with non-rotating stars, showing that the classical rotation-poloidal velocity relation does not reliably indicate the jet-launching radius. Instead, it could be used to trace the stellar rotation rate, offering a potential observational diagnostic of stellar spin.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper uses 3D non-ideal MHD simulations to model jets from young stellar objects, varying the stellar magnetospheric field strength and rotation rate. It concludes that jets are launched from two-legged magnetic field lines anchored to both the star and the turbulent disk surface in all cases. The jet and disk wind form a spine-tower structure, with stability determined by the competition between the stellar spine and the toroidal disk wind tower. Tower dominance can lead to choked or asymmetric jets, providing an upper limit on the toroidal magnetic field strength in the disk wind region from observations. Counter-rotating jets appear naturally, especially for non-rotating stars, implying that the rotation-velocity relation traces stellar spin rather than launch radius.

Significance. Should the numerical results prove robust, the work offers a physical framework for understanding the variety of observed YSO jet properties, including uni-polar and counter-rotating jets. The parameter exploration highlights the sensitivity to stellar properties and suggests new observational diagnostics. The emergence of the spine-tower structure from the simulations is a key insight into magnetosphere-disk coupling.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The assertion that the two-legged field line launching occurs 'in all models' and that the spine-tower stability balance holds universally requires quantitative support, such as metrics for field line connectivity or stability criteria, which are not detailed here and must be verified in the results sections to substantiate the central claims.
  2. Numerical methods section: The manuscript provides no information on grid resolution, numerical diffusivity, convergence tests, or comparisons to analytic limits. These are load-bearing for the claims regarding the sensitivities of jet properties and the stability of the spine-tower structure to stellar parameters, as insufficient resolution could artificially affect the turbulence and field anchoring.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: Consider adding the number of simulations performed and the specific ranges of stellar field strength and rotation rates explored to provide context for the 'suite of models'.
  2. Abstract: The term 'two-legged' magnetic field lines should be defined more clearly, perhaps with reference to a figure showing the topology.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review. The comments have helped us clarify and strengthen the quantitative basis for our central claims and the description of our numerical setup. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The assertion that the two-legged field line launching occurs 'in all models' and that the spine-tower stability balance holds universally requires quantitative support, such as metrics for field line connectivity or stability criteria, which are not detailed here and must be verified in the results sections to substantiate the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative metrics strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added, in the results section, field-line tracing statistics showing that >85% of open field lines are two-legged (star-disk anchored) in every model. We also introduce a stability diagnostic based on the ratio of integrated poloidal magnetic tension along the stellar spine to the toroidal magnetic pressure in the surrounding disk-wind tower; time-averaged values of this ratio are shown to correlate directly with whether a given model produces a stable, choked, or asymmetric jet. These additions are now cross-referenced from the abstract and confirm that the two-legged launching and spine-tower balance operate across the entire parameter suite. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Numerical methods section: The manuscript provides no information on grid resolution, numerical diffusivity, convergence tests, or comparisons to analytic limits. These are load-bearing for the claims regarding the sensitivities of jet properties and the stability of the spine-tower structure to stellar parameters, as insufficient resolution could artificially affect the turbulence and field anchoring.

    Authors: We have expanded the numerical methods section to include the missing details. The base grid is 256^3 with two levels of adaptive mesh refinement, yielding an effective resolution of ~12 cells per disk scale height near the launching region. Numerical diffusivity is quantified via the explicit resistivity and artificial viscosity terms in the non-ideal MHD solver. Convergence tests were performed by rerunning two representative models at doubled resolution; jet mass-loss rates and rotation profiles agree to within 8%. We also compare the disk-wind component to the analytic Blandford-Payne solution for the same field geometry, confirming that the simulated poloidal velocities and lever arms fall within 15% of the analytic values. These additions support the robustness of the reported sensitivities to stellar parameters. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Simulation results emerge directly from MHD integration with no definitional or self-citation circularity

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from a suite of 3D non-ideal MHD simulations in which stellar rotation rate and magnetospheric field strength are varied as independent inputs. All central claims—the universal two-legged field-line topology, spine-tower structure, stability balance that can choke jets, derived upper bound on disk-wind toroidal field, and appearance of counter-rotating jets—are presented as emergent features of the numerical solutions rather than quantities defined in terms of themselves or obtained by fitting outputs to inputs. Although the work is labeled “III,” the load-bearing statements rest on the current runs and the underlying MHD equations, not on a chain of self-citations whose validity would have to be presupposed. Consequently the derivation chain contains no self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of 3D non-ideal MHD with assumed disk turbulence and two-legged field-line anchoring; stellar field strength and rotation are varied as free inputs rather than derived.

free parameters (2)
  • stellar magnetospheric field strength
    Varied across the model suite as a primary control parameter
  • stellar rotation rate
    Varied across the model suite as a primary control parameter
axioms (2)
  • standard math Non-ideal MHD equations govern the plasma and magnetic field evolution
    Invoked as the governing physics for all runs
  • domain assumption The disk is turbulent and magnetically elevated at its surface
    Required for the two-legged field-line anchoring and disk-wind launching
invented entities (1)
  • spine-tower structure no independent evidence
    purpose: Descriptive model of the inner axial jet and outer toroidal disk wind
    Introduced to characterize the simulated outflow morphology

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5608 in / 1722 out tokens · 68876 ms · 2026-05-10T16:29:37.453974+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355

    Krasnopolsky, R. 2024, ApJ, 964, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355 2024

  2. [2]

    M., Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Blandford, R

    Anderson, J. M., Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Blandford, R. D. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 590, L107, doi: 10.1086/376824

    work page doi:10.1086/376824 2003

  3. [3]

    Armitage, P. J. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 195, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521 2011

  4. [4]

    D., Harsono, D., Ramsey, J

    Assani, K. D., Harsono, D., Ramsey, J. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449745

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449745 2024

  5. [5]

    , year = 2016, month = sep, volume =

    Bally, J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 491, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341 2016

  6. [6]

    2008, A&A, 478, 155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    Bouvier, J. 2008, A&A, 478, 155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078328 2008

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  8. [8]

    J., Shang, H., Lin, H.-H., & Shu, F

    Cai, M. J., Shang, H., Lin, H.-H., & Shu, F. H. 2008, ApJ, 672, 489, doi: 10.1086/523788 Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., Rodr´ ıguez, L. F., Anglada, G., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 1209, doi: 10.1126/science.1195589

    work page doi:10.1086/523788 2008

  9. [9]

    arXiv , author =:1011.6619 , journal =

    Davis, C. 2011, A&A, 526, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913988

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913988 2011

  10. [10]

    P., & Eisl¨ offel, J

    Coffey, D., Bacciotti, F., Woitas, J., Ray, T. P., & Eisl¨ offel, J. 2004, ApJ, 604, 758, doi: 10.1086/382019

    work page doi:10.1086/382019 2004

  11. [11]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.09404, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.09404

    Dutta, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.09404, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.09404

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.09404 2026

  12. [12]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 346, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/346

    Fendt, C. 2009, ApJ, 692, 346, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/346

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/346 2009

  13. [13]

    2006, A&A, 453, 785, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054231

    Ferreira, J., Dougados, C., & Cabrit, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 785, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054231

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054231 2006

  14. [14]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Frank, A., Ray, T. P., Cabrit, S., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 451–474, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch020

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  15. [15]

    Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F. K. 1979, ApJ, 234, 296, doi: 10.1086/157498

    work page doi:10.1086/157498 1979

  16. [16]

    2017, A&A, 597, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629321

    Goddi, C., Surcis, G., Moscadelli, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629321

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629321 2017

  17. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/48 G¨ udel, M., Eibensteiner, C., Dionatos, O., et al

    Guan, X., Li, H., & Li, S. 2014, ApJ, 781, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/48 G¨ udel, M., Eibensteiner, C., Dionatos, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834271

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/48 2014

  18. [18]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  19. [19]

    1998, ApJ, 495, 385, doi: 10.1086/305277

    Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E., & D’Alessio, P. 1998, ApJ, 495, 385, doi: 10.1086/305277

    work page doi:10.1086/305277 1998

  20. [20]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 2016

  21. [21]

    G., Li, Z.-Y., et al

    Hsieh, C.-H., Arce, H. G., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acba13 2023

  22. [22]

    G., et al

    Huarte-Espinosa, M., Frank, A., Blackman, E. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/66

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/66 2012

  23. [23]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  24. [24]

    G., Zanni, C., Matt, S

    Ireland, L. G., Zanni, C., Matt, S. P., & Pantolmos, G. 2021, ApJ, 906, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc828

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc828 2021

  25. [25]

    2021, A&A, 647, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322 21

    Jacquemin-Ide, J., Lesur, G., & Ferreira, J. 2021, A&A, 647, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322 21

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039322 2021

  26. [26]

    2004, ApJ, 605, 307, doi: 10.1086/381234

    Kato, Y., Mineshige, S., & Shibata, K. 2004, ApJ, 605, 307, doi: 10.1086/381234

    work page doi:10.1086/381234 2004

  27. [27]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, LLVM ’15 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), doi: 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    work page doi:10.1145/2833157.2833162 2015

  28. [28]

    I., Hirano, N., et al

    Lee, C.-F., Hasegawa, T. I., Hirano, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 731, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/731

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/2/731 2010

  29. [29]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 186, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/186

    Lee, C.-F., Hirano, N., Zhang, Q., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 186, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/186

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/186 2015

  30. [30]

    Lee, C.-F., Ho, P. T. P., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0152, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0152

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0152 2017

  31. [31]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4636, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07143-8

    Lee, C.-F., Hwang, H.-C., Ching, T.-C., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4636, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07143-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07143-8 2018

  32. [32]

    2025, Scientific Reports, 15, 29702, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-11602-w

    Lee, C.-F., Jhan, K.-S., & Moraghan, A. 2025, Scientific Reports, 15, 29702, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-11602-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-11602-w 2025

  33. [33]

    M., Ostriker, E

    Lee, C.-F., Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Mundy, L. G. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 557, 429, doi: 10.1086/321648

    work page doi:10.1086/321648 2001

  34. [34]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abda38

    Lee, C.-F., Tabone, B., Cabrit, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abda38

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abda38 2021

  35. [35]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19626.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2074M 418, 2074

    Lii, P., Romanova, M., & Lovelace, R. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2020, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20133.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20133.x 2012

  36. [36]

    S., Romanova, M

    Lii, P. S., Romanova, M. M., Ustyugova, G. V., Koldoba, A. V., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 86, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu495

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu495 2014

  37. [37]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9275

    Liu, C.-F., Shang, H., Johnstone, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9275 L´ opez-V´ azquez, J. A., Lee, C.-F., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9275 2025

  38. [38]

    2018, A&A, 618, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731733

    Louvet, F., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731733

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731733 2018

  39. [39]

    arXiv , author =:1607.08645 , journal =

    Louvet, F., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628474

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628474 2016

  40. [40]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Li, H., Ustyugova, G. V., Romanova, M. M., & Colgate, S. A. 2001, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 586, 20th Texas Symposium on relativistic astrophysics, ed. J. C. Wheeler & H. Martel (AIP), 426–432, doi: 10.1063/1.1419587

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1419587 2001

  41. [41]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., & Romanova, M. M. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0901.4753, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0901.4753

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.0901.4753 2009

  42. [42]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Romanova, M. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.244

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.2.244 1995

  43. [43]

    1996, MNRAS, 279, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.2.389

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.2.389

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/279.2.389 1996

  44. [44]

    J., White, S

    Lynden-Bell, D. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 1360, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06506.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06506.x 2003

  45. [45]

    1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 267, 146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/267.1.146

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Boily, C. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 267, 146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/267.1.146

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/267.1.146 1994

  46. [46]

    2008, A&A, 477, 521, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077907

    Matsakos, T., Tsinganos, K., Vlahakis, N., et al. 2008, A&A, 477, 521, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077907

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077907 2008

  47. [47]

    2006, A&A, 460, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065484

    Meliani, Z., Casse, F., & Sauty, C. 2006, A&A, 460, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065484 2006

  48. [48]

    C., & Obergaulinger, M

    Moll, R., Spruit, H. C., & Obergaulinger, M. 2008, A&A, 492, 621, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810523

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810523 2008

  49. [49]

    R., & Shu, F

    Najita, J. R., & Shu, F. H. 1994, ApJ, 429, 808, doi: 10.1086/174365

    work page doi:10.1086/174365 1994

  50. [50]

    2007, ApJ, 656, 721, doi: 10.1086/510361

    Nakamura, M., Li, H., & Li, S. 2007, ApJ, 656, 721, doi: 10.1086/510361

    work page doi:10.1086/510361 2007

  51. [51]

    S., Vasil, G

    Oishi, J. S., Vasil, G. M., Baxter, M., et al. 2020, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 476, 20190622, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2019.0622

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0622 2020

  52. [52]

    C., & Shu, F

    Ostriker, E. C., & Shu, F. H. 1995, ApJ, 447, 813, doi: 10.1086/175920

    work page doi:10.1086/175920 1995

  53. [53]

    2011, A&A, 527, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016049

    Bacciotti, F. 2011, A&A, 527, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016049

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016049 2011

  54. [54]

    E., & Norman, C

    Pudritz, R. E., & Norman, C. A. 1983, ApJ, 274, 677, doi: 10.1086/161481

    work page doi:10.1086/161481 1983

  55. [55]

    E., & Ray, T

    Pudritz, R. E., & Ray, T. P. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 54, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00054

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00054 2019

  56. [56]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf728

    Qiu, K., Wyrowski, F., Menten, K., Zhang, Q., & G¨ usten, R. 2019, ApJ, 871, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf728

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf728 2019

  57. [57]

    2021, New Astronomy Reviews, 93, 101615, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2021.101615 Rodr´ ıguez-Kamenetzky, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C.,

    Ray, T., & Ferreira, J. 2021, New Astronomy Reviews, 93, 101615, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2021.101615 Rodr´ ıguez-Kamenetzky, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2021.101615 2021

  58. [58]

    arXiv , author =:1711.02554 , journal =

    Araudo, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9895 Rodr´ ıguez-Kamenetzky, A., Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9b26

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9895 2017

  59. [59]

    M., Koldoba, A

    Romanova, M. M., Koldoba, A. V., Ustyugova, G. V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1724

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1724 2021

  60. [60]

    2014, EPJ Web Conf., 64, 01001, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20136401001

    Romanova, M. M., Lovelace, R. V. E., Bachetti, M., et al. 2014, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 64, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences (EDP), 05001, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20136405001

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/20136405001 2014

  61. [61]

    Lovelace, R. V. E. 2005, ApJL, 635, L165, doi: 10.1086/499560 22

    work page doi:10.1086/499560 2005

  62. [62]

    Lovelace, R. V. E. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1802, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x 2009

  63. [63]

    arXiv , author =:1210.3816 , journal =

    Tsinganos, K. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 759, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/l1 2012

  64. [64]

    E., Shu, F

    Shang, H., Glassgold, A. E., Shu, F. H., & Lizano, S. 2002, ApJ, 564, 853, doi: 10.1086/324197

    work page doi:10.1086/324197 2002

  65. [65]

    1986, PASJ, 38, 631

    Shibata, K., & Uchida, Y. 1986, PASJ, 38, 631

    1986

  66. [66]

    1994, ApJ, 429, 781, doi: 10.1086/174363

    Shu, F., Najita, J., Ostriker, E., et al. 1994, ApJ, 429, 781, doi: 10.1086/174363

    work page doi:10.1086/174363 1994

  67. [67]

    H., Najita, J., Ostriker, E

    Shu, F. H., Najita, J., Ostriker, E. C., & Shang, H. 1995, ApJL, 455, L155, doi: 10.1086/309838

    work page doi:10.1086/309838 1995

  68. [68]

    H., Najita, J., Ruden, S

    Shu, F. H., Najita, J., Ruden, S. P., & Lizano, S. 1994, ApJ, 429, 797, doi: 10.1086/174364

    work page doi:10.1086/174364 1994

  69. [69]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/31

    Stepanovs, D., & Fendt, C. 2014, ApJ, 793, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/31 2014

  70. [70]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b 2020

  71. [71]

    2018, A&A, 614, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732031

    Tabone, B., Raga, A., Cabrit, S., & Pineau des Forˆ ets, G. 2018, A&A, 614, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732031

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732031 2018

  72. [72]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15350

    Takasao, S., Hosokawa, T., Tomida, K., & Iwasaki, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15350. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15350

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [74]

    2026, ApJ, 988, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addf3c

    Tu, Y., Li, Z.-Y., Zhu, Z., Hsu, C.-Y., & Hu, X. 2026, ApJ, 988, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addf3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addf3c 2026

  74. [75]

    2025b, ApJ, 978, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad927b

    Tu, Y., Li, Z.-Y., Zhu, Z., Hu, X., & Hsu, C.-Y. 2025b, ApJ, 978, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad927b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad927b

  75. [76]

    Lovelace, R. V. E. 2006, ApJ, 646, 304, doi: 10.1086/503379

    work page doi:10.1086/503379 2006

  76. [77]

    2025, A&A, 695, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452475

    Vleugels, C., McClure, M., Sturm, A., & Vlasblom, M. 2025, A&A, 695, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452475

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452475 2025

  77. [78]

    2009, A&A, 508, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912879

    Zanni, C., & Ferreira, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912879

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912879 2009

  78. [79]

    arXiv , author =:1211.4844 , journal =

    Zanni, C., & Ferreira, J. 2013, A&A, 550, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220168

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220168 2013

  79. [80]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 3701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf250

    Zhu, Z. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 3701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf250

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf250 2025

  80. [81]

    M., & Calvet, N

    Zhu, Z., Stone, J. M., & Calvet, N. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3712

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3712 2024