pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17779 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

Exploring Polarized Millimeter Emission from Protoplanetary Disks with Irregular Dust Grains

Jes\'us Miguel J\'aquez-Dom\'inguez , Carlos Carrasco-Gonz\'alez , Daniel Guirado , Olga Mu\~noz , Enrique Mac\'ias , Gonzalo Vargas , Julia Martikainen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetary diskspolarized emissiondust grain morphologyself-scatteringmillimeter wavelengthsscattering opacityirregular grainsgrain size distribution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Switching to irregular dust grains leaves polarization nearly the same but raises scattering opacity by a factor of 2.5

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

This paper tests if irregular grain shapes can resolve the problem of low predicted polarization from self-scattering in protoplanetary disks. For grain sizes where scattering polarization peaks, the morphology and degree of polarization turn out to be almost identical to spherical grain models. The key difference is that irregular grains scatter more, up to 2.5 times more opacity, which implies lower dust masses than inferred from spherical assumptions. Yet even irregular grains fall short of matching the high polarization fractions observed, indicating that grain shape changes alone are not the solution. Readers should care because this guides what properties of dust, such as porosity, need to be explored next to understand planet formation environments.

Core claim

Models using solid irregular hexahedral particles drawn from the TAMUdust2020 database produce polarization patterns and fractions that are nearly indistinguishable from those using solid spherical grains when the maximum grain size is approximately the observing wavelength divided by 2 pi. These irregular grains enhance the scattering opacity by up to a factor of about 2.5 and suppress the polarization reversal expected from Mie theory at size parameters greater than 1. However, the modifications from grain geometry are not sufficient to reproduce the observed polarization fractions in a pure self-scattering framework across optically thick, thin, and hybrid regimes.

What carries the argument

Comparison of self-scattering induced polarization using populations of solid spherical grains versus solid irregular hexahedral grains sharing the same size distribution and material density

Load-bearing premise

The two grain types are modeled with identical size distributions and the same internal material structure so that only the external shape differs.

What would settle it

If self-scattering models using irregular grains successfully match the observed high polarization fractions in protoplanetary disks, this would falsify the conclusion that grain geometry alone is insufficient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17779 by Carlos Carrasco-Gonz\'alez, Daniel Guirado, Enrique Mac\'ias, Gonzalo Vargas, Jes\'us Miguel J\'aquez-Dom\'inguez, Julia Martikainen, Olga Mu\~noz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of the ensemble irregular hexahedra particles used by the TAMUdust2020 database to calculate the properties of the solid irregular particles used in our models. Figure adapted from TAMUdust2020 web page8 . Model R0 (au) τ0 γ Mass (M⊙) Optically thick 50 100 0.2 1.39 × 10−3 Optically thin 50 10 0.2 1.39 × 10−4 Hybrid 40 6.0 0.2 3.61 × 10−5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Computed scattering matrix elements for a size distribution, with a amax = 160 µm, composed of spherical particles (blue) and irregular particles (orange) at a wavelength of 1 mm. In both cases, the complex refractive index is equal to m = 2.2995 + i 0.02031. The vertical dust density profile is assumed to follow a Gaussian distribution, ρ(R, z) = Σ(R) H(R) √ 2π exp " − 1 2  z H(R) 2 # , (3) with a scale… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total and polarized intensity maps for the disk models with different grain geometries at 1 mm. The first and third columns show the total intensity (I) for the models with spherical (top) and hexahedral (bottom) grains in the face-on and inclined (45◦ ) views, respectively. The second and fourth columns display the corresponding polarized intensity (P I). Both grain size distribution has a amax = 160 µm, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Polarized fraction maps at 1 mm are shown for the optically thick (upper row), hybrid (middle row), and optically thin (bottom row) disk models. The left column displays maps for models using a size distribution of spherical grains, while the center column shows models using irregular grains. Both grain size distribution has a amax = 160 µm, utilize the DSHARP compositions and share the complex refractive … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scattering matrix elements for spherical (blue) and irregular (orange) grains with amax = 300 (solid), 500 (dashed), and 1000 µm (dotted). despite strong total emission. At intermediate radii, where the optical depth becomes moderate and the anisotropy of the radiation field is strongest, scattering becomes most efficient and the polarization fraction reaches a maximum. The ring therefore traces the transi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Polarization fraction (solid) and albedo (dashed) as a function of amax for spherical (blue) and irregular (orange) grains at an angle of 90◦ . Spherical grains lose polarization efficiency beyond amax ≈ 300 µm, while irregular grains maintain detectable polarization up to millimeter sizes despite similar albedo trends. Dashed vertical lines indicate the maximum grain sizes used in the analysis (amax = 160… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Polarized fraction maps at 1 mm for models with amax = 500 µm and disk inclination i = 45◦ . Rows correspond to the optically thick, hybrid, and optically thin disk models, respectively. The left column displays maps for models using spherical grains, while the center column shows models using irregular grains. Both grain size distribution has a amax = 500 µm, utilize the DSHARP compositions and share the … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Polarization at millimeter wavelengths provides a powerful diagnostic of dust grain properties in protoplanetary disks. Standard models based on solid spherical grains often struggle to reproduce the observed polarization fractions and morphologies in systems where self-scattering is expected to dominate. We investigate the impact of grain morphology on polarized millimeter emission by comparing models that adopt solid spherical grains with models that employ solid irregular hexahedral particles drawn from the TAMUdust2020 database. Both grain populations share identical size distributions, enabling us to isolate the effects of geometry while preserving the same internal structure and material density. We explore three optical-depth regimes-optically thick, optically thin, and an intermediate hybrid case-to assess how grain morphology modifies the polarization structure under different conditions. For size distributions with $a_{\mathrm{max}} \sim \lambda / 2\pi$, where scattering-induced polarization is expected to peak, we find that the polarization morphology and fraction are nearly indistinguishable between spherical and irregular grains. The primary quantitative difference is an enhancement of the scattering opacity by up to a factor of $\sim 2.5$ for irregular particles, implying that disk dust masses inferred under the assumption of spherical grains may be systematically overestimated. Irregular grains also suppress the polarization reversal predicted by Mie theory at large size parameters ($x>1$). Nevertheless, modifying grain geometry alone is insufficient to reproduce the observed polarization fractions within a pure self-scattering framework. These results suggest that additional physical effects, such as dust porosity, warrant dedicated investigation.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares polarized millimeter emission from protoplanetary disks using solid spherical grains versus solid irregular hexahedral grains from the TAMUdust2020 database. Both populations share identical size distributions, internal structure, and material density to isolate geometry effects. The study examines three optical depth regimes and reports that for a_max ∼ λ/2π (where scattering polarization peaks), the polarization morphology and fraction are nearly indistinguishable between grain types. Irregular grains enhance scattering opacity by up to a factor of ∼2.5, suppress polarization reversal at x>1, and the authors conclude that grain geometry modification alone cannot reproduce observed polarization fractions in a pure self-scattering framework, suggesting additional effects such as porosity are required.

Significance. If the results hold, this work isolates grain shape effects on self-scattering polarization while controlling for size distribution, showing limited impact on morphology/fraction at relevant sizes but a systematic bias in dust mass estimates from spherical-grain assumptions. The use of independent grain databases (TAMUdust2020), exploration of multiple optical depth regimes, and identification of a clear limitation of pure self-scattering models provide a useful benchmark for disk modeling. It motivates targeted follow-up on porosity and other complexities, with direct implications for interpreting ALMA polarization observations.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The claim that polarization morphology and fraction are 'nearly indistinguishable' for a_max ∼ λ/2π is load-bearing for the central result. The abstract does not state whether disk models fix surface density Σ or optical depth τ across grain types. Given the reported ∼2.5× scattering opacity enhancement for irregular grains, fixing Σ would yield τ_irregular ≈ 2.5 τ_spherical. Since self-scattering polarization fraction is non-monotonic in τ (peaking near τ∼1), this could place the cases in different regimes, making the similarity specific to the chosen normalization rather than a general geometry-independent finding. The methods or results section must clarify the normalization choice and report the actual τ values realized in each regime for both grain types.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The three optical-depth regimes are described only qualitatively ('optically thick, optically thin, and an intermediate hybrid case'); providing the specific τ ranges or example values used would improve reproducibility and allow readers to assess regime placement.
  2. Abstract: The statement that grain geometry modification 'is insufficient to reproduce the observed polarization fractions' would be strengthened by citing specific observed fractions or representative literature values for comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The major comment raises a valid point about clarifying the normalization in our models, and we will revise the manuscript to address it explicitly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The claim that polarization morphology and fraction are 'nearly indistinguishable' for a_max ∼ λ/2π is load-bearing for the central result. The abstract does not state whether disk models fix surface density Σ or optical depth τ across grain types. Given the reported ∼2.5× scattering opacity enhancement for irregular grains, fixing Σ would yield τ_irregular ≈ 2.5 τ_spherical. Since self-scattering polarization fraction is non-monotonic in τ (peaking near τ∼1), this could place the cases in different regimes, making the similarity specific to the chosen normalization rather than a general geometry-independent finding. The methods or results section must clarify the normalization choice and report the actual τ values realized in each regime for both grain types.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out this potential ambiguity. Our models are constructed by fixing the optical depth τ to the same target values for both spherical and irregular grain populations in each of the three regimes (optically thin, intermediate, and optically thick). This normalization isolates the geometric effects of grain shape at equivalent optical depths, which is the appropriate basis for comparing polarization morphology and fraction. The surface density Σ is then scaled downward for the irregular grains to achieve the same τ given their higher scattering opacity. We will revise the abstract to state that the disk models are normalized to fixed optical depth τ across grain types. We will also add explicit reporting of the realized τ values (identical for both grain types) in the methods and results sections, along with a brief note on the corresponding Σ adjustment. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are independent modeling outputs

full rationale

The paper conducts radiative transfer simulations comparing spherical and irregular grains drawn from the external TAMUdust2020 database, using identical size distributions and material densities to isolate geometry effects. The reported near-indistinguishability of polarization morphology for a_max ~ λ/2π, the factor of ~2.5 scattering opacity enhancement, and suppression of reversal at x>1 are direct numerical outputs across the three explicitly explored optical-depth regimes, not reductions of fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to justify the central claims; the conclusion that geometry modification alone is insufficient is likewise an empirical modeling result rather than a tautology. The comparison is self-contained against external grain-property benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the grain property database and the assumption that size distributions are identical and representative; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • maximum grain size a_max
    Set to approximately λ/2π to target the regime where scattering-induced polarization peaks
  • optical depth regimes
    Explored in thick, thin, and hybrid regimes as chosen parameters for the study
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dust grains in protoplanetary disks can be modeled as solid particles with given size distributions and optical properties for radiative transfer calculations
    Standard assumption in the field for millimeter emission modeling
  • domain assumption The TAMUdust2020 database provides accurate scattering properties for irregular hexahedral particles
    Relies on the validity of the pre-computed database

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5606 in / 1662 out tokens · 69041 ms · 2026-05-10T04:33:32.768238+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

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015 , pages =

    ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l3 2015

  2. [2]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 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., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration...

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  3. [3]

    P., Zhu, Z., et al

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., Zhu, Z., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf743 Carrasco-González, C., Henning, T., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 821, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L16 Carrasco-González, C., Sierra, A., Flock, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d33

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf743 2018

  4. [4]

    I., & Goldreich, P

    Chiang, E. I., & Goldreich, P. 1997, ApJ, 490, 368, doi: 10.1086/304869

    work page doi:10.1086/304869 1997

  5. [5]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1085, doi: 10.1086/521805 Cortés, P

    Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1085, doi: 10.1086/521805

    work page doi:10.1086/521805 2007

  6. [6]

    1980, A&A, 87, 204

    Daniel, J.-Y. 1980, A&A, 87, 204

    1980

  7. [7]

    Protostars and Planets VII , year = 2023, editor =

    Dominik, C., Min, M., & Tazaki, R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010 Drążkowska, 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...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09759 2021

  8. [8]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015

    2012

  9. [9]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6303

    Escobar-Cerezo, J., Palmer, C., Muñoz, O., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6303

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6303 2017

  10. [10]

    Nature Astronomy 3, 749–754 (2019)

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5 2019

  11. [11]

    E., Lin, Z.-Y

    Harrison, R. E., Lin, Z.-Y. D., Looney, L. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ec 2024

  12. [12]

    E., Looney, L

    Harrison, R. E., Looney, L. W., Stephens, I. W., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1e46

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1e46 2019

  13. [13]

    W., Van Der Mee, C., & Domke, H

    Hovenier, J. W., Van Der Mee, C., & Domke, H. 2004, Transfer of polarized light in planetary atmospheres : basic concepts and practical methods, Vol. 318 (Springer Dordrecht), doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2856-4 15

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2856-4 2004

  14. [14]

    M., Wilner, D

    Hughes, A. M., Wilner, D. J., Cho, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1204, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1204

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1204 2009

  15. [15]

    Hull, C. L. H., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfeb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfeb 2018

  16. [16]

    Dullemond, C. P. 2016a, ApJ, 820, 54, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/54

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/54

  17. [17]

    2019, ApJL, 874, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c9a

    Kataoka, A., Okuzumi, S., & Tazaki, R. 2019, ApJL, 874, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c9a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c9a 2019

  18. [18]

    2017, ApJL, 844, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e33

    Kataoka, A., Tsukagoshi, T., Pohl, A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 844, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e33

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e33 2017

  19. [19]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/78

    Kataoka, A., Muto, T., Momose, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/78

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/78 2015

  20. [20]

    2016b, ApJL, 831, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L12

    Kataoka, A., Tsukagoshi, T., Momose, M., et al. 2016b, ApJL, 831, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/l12 2041

  21. [21]

    DOI 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., Müller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832957 2018

  22. [22]

    Kirchschlager, F., & Bertrang, G. H. M. 2020, A&A, 638, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037943

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037943 2020

  23. [23]

    Kirchschlager, F., Bertrang, G. H. M., & Flock, M. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1763

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1763 2019

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

    Lin, Z.-Y. D., Li, Z.-Y., Yang, H., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 534, 3713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2248

  25. [25]

    D., Li, Z.-Y., Yang, H., et al

    Lin, Z.-Y. D., Li, Z.-Y., Yang, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad173

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad173 2023

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    Lin, Z.-Y. D., Li, Z.-Y., Stephens, I. W., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 528, 843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae040

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae040

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Liu, Y., Roussel, H., Linz, H., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451981

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451981 2024

  28. [28]

    J., et al

    Long, F., Pinilla, P., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e1 2018

  29. [29]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 Macías, E., Guerra-Alvarado, O., Carrasco-González, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039812

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 1974

  30. [30]

    C., et al

    Martikainen, J., Muñoz, O., Gómez Martín, J. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf108

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf108 2025

  31. [31]

    I., Hovenier, J

    Mishchenko, M. I., Hovenier, J. W., & Travis, L. D., eds. 2000, Light Scattering by Nonspherical Particles: Theory, Measurements, and Applications (San Diego: Academic Press) Muñoz, O., Frattin, E., Jardiel, T., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0efa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac0efa 2000

  32. [32]

    2009, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 110, 1628, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.03.012 Müller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al

    Videen, G. 2009, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 110, 1628, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.03.012 Müller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833584

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.03.012 2009

  33. [33]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad632

    Ohashi, S., Kataoka, A., Nagai, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad632 Pérez, L. M., Carpenter, J. M., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 760, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad632 2018

  34. [34]

    Potapov, A., McCoustra, M. R. S., Tazaki, R., et al. 2025, A&A Rv, 33, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-025-00164-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-025-00164-5 2025

  35. [35]

    U., Fritz, J., González-Martín, O., et al

    Reyes-Amador, O. U., Fritz, J., González-Martín, O., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1281

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1281 2024

  36. [36]

    2021, TAMUdust2020 Database, 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4711247

    Saito, M. 2021, TAMUdust2020 Database, 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4711247

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4711247 2021

  37. [37]

    2021, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 78, 2089, doi: 10.1175/JAS-D-20-0338.1

    Saito, M., Yang, P., Ding, J., & Liu, X. 2021, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 78, 2089, doi: 10.1175/JAS-D-20-0338.1

    work page doi:10.1175/jas-d-20-0338.1 2021

  38. [38]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d32

    Sierra, A., & Lizano, S. 2020, ApJ, 892, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d32 2020

  39. [39]

    W., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al

    Stephens, I. W., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa998b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa998b 2017

  40. [40]

    W., Lin, Z.-Y

    Stephens, I. W., Lin, Z.-Y. D., Fernández-López, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 705, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06648-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06648-7 2023

  41. [41]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/839/1/56

    Tazaki, R., Lazarian, A., & Nomura, H. 2017, ApJ, 839, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/839/1/56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/839/1/56 2017

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Tazaki, R., Tanaka, H., Kataoka, A., Okuzumi, S., & Muto, T. 2019, ApJ, 885, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab45f0 2019

  43. [43]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 70, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/70

    Nomura, H. 2016, ApJ, 823, 70, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/70

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/70 2016

  44. [44]

    2016a, MNRAS, 456, 2794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2633

    Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., Looney, L., & Stephens, I. 2016a, MNRAS, 456, 2794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2633

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2633

  45. [45]

    W., et al

    Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., Looney, L. W., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 460, 4109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1253

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1253

  46. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3263

    Looney, L. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3263

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3263 2019

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Ueda, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e 2023