Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 173 references

Spectropolarimetry of a local Little Red Dot reveals a 48-degree offset between continuum and broad-line polarization angles, forcing a break of axial symmetry in the object's inner structure.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:34 UTC pith:EZJWBEI7

load-bearing objection First spectropolarimetric dissection of a Little Red Dot: a new 48° continuum-to-line angle offset, carefully measured and argued to require broken axial symmetry — though the exact offset still lacks a systematic error for continuum-slope subtraction. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28715 v1 pith:EZJWBEI7 submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.GA

Misaligned or chaotic? A strong break of axial symmetry in the local LRD J1025 revealed with VLT/FORS2 spectropolarimetry

Francesco D'Eugenio , Gabriele Pezzulli , Roberto Maiolino , Alessandro Marconi , Xihan Ji , Cristina Ramos Almeida , Andrea Ferrara , Piero Madau
show 13 more authors
Xiaojing Lin Jos\'e A. Acosta-Pulido Fuyan Bian Matilde Brazzini Zheng Cai Stefano Carniani Xiaohui Fan Ignas Juod\v{z}balis Robert G. Pascalau Jan Scholtz Charlotte Simmonds Fengwu Sun Sandro Tacchella
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Little Red Dotsactive galactic nucleispectropolarimetrybroad-line regionpolarization angleaxial symmetryelectron scatteringdust dichroism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper uses optical spectropolarimetry of the nearest known Little Red Dot to test whether these enigmatic sources have a simple, symmetric inner geometry. It finds that the optical continuum is polarized at about 1.5%, while the broad H-alpha line is less polarized and its polarization angle is offset by ~48 degrees from the continuum. Because axisymmetric scattering or absorbing configurations can only yield polarization angles of 0 or 90 degrees relative to the symmetry axis, the observed intermediate offset implies that the axial symmetry of the inner structure is broken. If correct, this is the first direct polarimetric evidence that at least one Little Red Dot lacks a single symmetry axis, and it challenges all current models built on nested axisymmetric structures. The paper also shows that the depolarized, misaligned broad line rules out purely nebular or multi-source continuum models and leaves both virial and electron-scattering line broadening as viable.

Core claim

After subtracting a constant continuum Stokes vector measured in a 6200–6400 Å sideband, broad H-alpha shows a coherent polarization of 0.58–0.84 per cent at a position angle of -34±3 degrees, offset from the continuum angle of +12 degrees by -48±4 degrees. No blue-to-red swing in polarization angle is seen across the line, and the polarized-flux profile has an exponential wing width consistent with the total flux. Because reflection symmetry in any axisymmetric configuration forces the wavelength-integrated Stokes-U component to vanish in coordinates aligned with the symmetry axis, a polarization angle other than 0 or 90 degrees requires broken axial symmetry. The paper argues that the brea

What carries the argument

The central tool is the Stokes-continuum subtraction: the mean Stokes flux in a line-free sideband is subtracted from the line region to isolate the line-only Stokes vector, from which the line polarization degree and angle are computed. The load-bearing geometric argument is that in any axially symmetric configuration, reflection symmetry about the plane containing the symmetry axis and the line of sight forces the averaged Stokes-U component in the symmetry-aligned frame to be zero, so the polarization angle must be exactly 0 or 90 degrees; the observed 48-degree offset therefore demands a break in axial symmetry, independent of the specific polarizing mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The line-only polarization angle is derived by subtracting a constant continuum Stokes vector measured in a sideband; if the continuum polarization varies or rotates across H-alpha, the inferred 48-degree offset would be biased.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the data allowing the continuum Stokes vector to vary linearly (or with a more complex function) across H-alpha instead of assuming a constant sideband value. If the residual line polarization angle then becomes consistent with 0 or 90 degrees, the broken-symmetry claim would collapse. Alternatively, a future high-S/N observation with a wider wavelength baseline that precisely measures the continuum polarization slope and applies a wavelength-dependent subtraction would settle the issue.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, all existing LRD models built on nested, aligned axisymmetric structures are ruled out for this object; they must incorporate a misaligned BLR, a clumpy/asymmetric scattering region, or a magnetized dust screen with a misaligned field.
  • The approximately grey continuum polarization at ~1.5 per cent supports a single dominant continuum source, likely an intrinsically polarized accretion disc viewed at moderate inclination, over multi-source or pure nebular explanations.
  • The absence of a blue-to-red swing in the line polarization angle indicates that the broad-line region is not a simple rotating disc with a coplanar scattering region; if the BLR is a disc, it must be strongly misaligned with the accretion disc.
  • The consistency of the exponential wing widths between polarized and total light leaves both virial and electron-scattering broadening mechanisms viable; future high-S/N spectropolarimetry of objects with a larger core-to-wing ratio can discriminate.
  • A larger spectropolarimetric sample of LRDs would test whether this symmetry break is a general property of the class; a random distribution of offsets would favor chaotic BLRs, while a systematic offset would indicate a common misalignment mechanism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the broken symmetry is common across LRDs, it would severely weaken simple axisymmetric unification models for the entire class and instead favor chaotic accretion or magnetic-field-driven misalignments as generic features of these systems.
  • The polarization-angle offset could be developed into a geometric probe of the relative inclination between the broad-line region and the accretion disc, providing an independent constraint on black-hole mass measurements that assume virial broadening.
  • The magnetic-dust-screen interpretation predicts that the offset should be accompanied by wavelength-independent dichroic polarization and maybe polarimetric variability; searching for such correlations in a sample would test this mechanism against misalignment or clumpiness.
  • The same Stokes-subtraction technique could be applied to higher-redshift LRDs with next-generation spectropolarimetry, though the continuum polarization slope must be measured accurately to avoid a spurious offset.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents VLT/FORS2 optical spectropolarimetry of the closest known Little Red Dot, J1025 at z=0.1. The authors measure a nearly grey continuum polarisation of ~1.5%, a weaker broad Hα polarisation of 0.58–0.84%, and—after subtracting a constant continuum Stokes vector—a line-to-continuum polarisation angle offset of Δθ = 48° ± 4° with no blue-to-red swing. They argue that this offset requires a break of axial symmetry in the system, ruling out any single, globally axisymmetric configuration for both the continuum and broad-line polarisers. They discuss possible mechanisms (misaligned BLR, chaotic/clumpy BLR, dichroic dust screen with misaligned magnetic field) and also present a spatially resolved narrow Hα component and a toy electron-scattering model. The data are carefully reduced with several robustness tests, including null off-target spectra, leave-one-out stacking, and foreground/instrumental polarisation bounds.

Significance. If the central measurement holds, this is the first direct polarimetric evidence that at least one Little Red Dot is not symmetric about a single axis. This is a meaningful step for the field, because it places a new geometric constraint on LRD models (e.g., quasi-spherical cocoons, disc-plus-dust unification, chaotic BLR scenarios). The paper's strengths include the use of null off-target spectra (Appendix A), leave-one-out stacking, explicit foreground polarisation limits, Rice-bias control in the polarisation degree, and a transparent discussion of model limitations. The qualitative conclusion that the system lacks a single axial symmetry is robust to the identified systematics; the main concern is quantitative: the headline 48° offset and the 'nearly grey' continuum polarisation lack a full systematic error treatment, and one of the two results is sensitive to the stacking scheme.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.4, Table 1] The headline Δθ = 48° ± 4° is obtained by subtracting a constant continuum Stokes vector (mean over 6200–6400 Å) from the line region. The robustness tests in §3.4 add only constant Stokes offsets (p_MW = 0.2, 0.4%), not a wavelength-dependent continuum Stokes vector. The measured continuum slopes dq/dλ = −0.19 ± 0.15 and du/dλ = −0.21 ± 0.15 %/1000 Å are not propagated into the line subtraction. At the 3σ upper bound, a linear slope over the ~125–300 Å between sideband and line can shift the residual line Stokes vector by ≈10% of p_Hα (≈0.06% in q/u against p_Hα ≈ 0.6%) and bias Δθ by ~10–20°. The Table 1 footnote itself states that the exact line angle can be shifted by residual instrumental polarisation, yet no systematic error is quoted on Δθ. The authors should repeat the continuum subtraction using a sloped (and possibly rotating) Q/U model across the line, or otherwise provide a q
  2. [§3.2, Appendix B] The 'nearly grey' continuum polarisation is one of the five headline results, but it is not robust to the stacking scheme. The fiducial median stack yields dp/dλ = −0.26 ± 0.15 %/1000 Å (1.7σ), while the clipped-mean stack in Appendix B yields dp/dλ = −0.41 ± 0.12 (3.5σ) and Δβ = −1.31 ± 0.42, a qualitatively different result (a blue polarisation rise). The text notes this difference in passing but does not incorporate it into the Discussion, where §4.3.3 states 'we see no evidence of the corresponding steep blue rise in our polarisation curve' when arguing against a thermal photosphere and dust scattering. The authors should either reconcile the two stacks (e.g., identify what drives the median/mean difference) or explicitly carry this uncertainty into the abstract and conclusions, since the greyness is used to discriminate polarisation mechanisms. As written, the claim that the polaris
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says 'We rule out polarisation by Milky Way dust', but §4.1 only rules out a dominant Milky Way contribution and explicitly does not perform a Stokes-space subtraction. Please soften to 'rule out a dominant contribution from Milky Way dust'.
  2. [§4.4] The opening statement 'an axisymmetric configuration can only produce polarisation angles of 0° or 90°' is correct for a single global symmetry axis, but the observed offset could also arise from two separately axisymmetric structures with different axes. The following paragraphs make this clear, but the initial phrasing could be read as excluding any axisymmetric component; consider rewording to 'the system as a whole lacks a single symmetry axis common to both the continuum and line polarisers'.
  3. [§3.4, Fig. 5] The text warns of strong θ and p fluctuations near line centre (McLean effect, absorption, etc.). This caveat should be repeated in §4.5.2 when the absence of a blue-to-red swing is used to support the dichroic-screen scenario, to avoid over-interpreting a noisy region.
  4. [Table 1] The table quotes Δθ = −48° ± 4° with only a statistical error. The footnote acknowledges a possible shift from residual instrumental polarisation. Add a systematic error to this entry, or mark it as 'statistical only' more prominently.
  5. [Figure 4] The caption mentions 'Instrument polarisation' grey circles but does not explain their amplitude or angle. Please add a sentence describing the instrument polarisation vector shown.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the broken-symmetry claim is an observational result plus a general geometric theorem, not a reduction to fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central measurement, Δθ = θ_Hα − θ_cont ≈ −48°, is obtained from directly observed Stokes spectra after a stated constant continuum Stokes subtraction (Section 3.4), and the broken-axial-symmetry conclusion (Section 4.4) follows from a general reflection-symmetry argument: in an axisymmetric configuration the wavelength-integrated U' must vanish, so only polarisation angles 0° or 90° are allowed. The paper cites Goosmann & Gaskell (2007) for this theorem, but the argument is also stated and reasoned within the paper itself, so this is independent support rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The models invoked to explain the break (Madau & Maiolino 2026; Rusakov et al. 2026; Matthee et al. 2026) are explicitly presented as one possible interpretation, not as the source of the measured offset: Section 4.8 says the preferred picture is 'not unique', and Section 4.4 derives the symmetry requirement from data plus geometry before any model comparison. The toy electron-scattering fit in Section 3.6 is acknowledged to be statistically poor and is not used to predict the offset. The only caveat is the unquantified systematic from the assumption of a constant continuum Stokes vector under Hα (Section 3.4); this is a possible bias in the measurement, not a circular construction, because the residual line Stokes vector is not equal to the subtracted continuum vector by construction. The paper's foreground tests add arbitrary constant Stokes vectors, which is a limited but genuine robustness check. Self-citations appear in the interpretive sections, but none is load-bearing for the central claim, so the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; the symmetry-breaking options (tilted BLR, clumpy medium, misaligned dichroic screen) are pre-existing mechanisms. The central claim adds a new observable constraint, not a new entity.

free parameters (1)
  • Toy electron-scattering model parameters = tau_e=1.58±0.07, W=550±10 km/s, FWHM_BLR=500±30 km/s, p_broad=0.8±0.5%
    Section 3.6/Table 2; used only for an illustrative proof-of-concept mixed direct-plus-scattered Hα fit. The paper states the fit is not statistically acceptable and not a quantitative inference tool, so it is not load-bearing for the symmetry-break claim.
axioms (5)
  • standard math In an axisymmetric scattering/emitting geometry, reflection symmetry forces U'=0 and polarisation angles of only 0° or 90° relative to the projected symmetry axis.
    Section 4.4; this theorem converts the 48° offset into the broken-symmetry conclusion.
  • domain assumption Foreground (Milky Way) polarisation is bounded by the empirical Serkowski ceiling p/A_V ≤ 3% mag^-1.
    Section 2/4.1; used to rule out a purely Galactic origin (A_V,MW=0.14 mag gives p_MW<0.4%).
  • domain assumption Electron scattering yields grey polarisation while dust scattering rises steeply to the blue; Chandrasekhar plane-parallel atmospheres give p_max=11.7% and p≈1.5% near i≈45°.
    Sections 4.2–4.3; used to favour an intrinsically polarised accretion disc as simplest continuum model.
  • domain assumption The optical continuum of J1025 is not dominated by host-galaxy starlight.
    Inherited from Lin et al. 2026 and Ji et al. 2026c (Section 4.3.1); used to argue the polarised continuum is from a single dominant source.
  • domain assumption For N comparable randomly oriented polarised sources, net polarisation scales as p*/sqrt(N).
    Section 4.3.1; used to exclude a population of emission-line stars as the polarised continuum source.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 37498 in / 11569 out tokens · 112462 ms · 2026-08-03T00:34:54.384795+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Little Red Dots (LRDs) are compact active galactic nuclei (AGN) with unusual spectral energy distributions and broad Balmer emission, candidate signposts of rapid black-hole growth. We present VLT/FORS2 optical linear spectropolarimetry of the closest known LRD, SDSS J102530.29+140207.3, at z=0.1. In total light, we detect spatially extended narrow-H$\alpha$ emission, probably tracing the host galaxy. We measure a nearly grey continuum polarisation $p_{\rm cont}=1.53\pm0.04$(rand.)$\pm$0.20(syst.) per cent, while broad H$\alpha$ is less polarised, $p_{\rm H\alpha}=0.58-0.84$ per cent. We rule out polarisation by Milky Way dust and dilution by an unpolarised line. The polarised continuum with a depolarised line resembles local Seyfert-1 nuclei and favours a single dominant source over multi-source explanations. After Stokes-continuum subtraction, broad H$\alpha$ shows no blue-to-red swing, but there is a significant (48$\pm$4)$^\circ$ continuum-to-line offset in polarisation angle. This implies a break of axial symmetry inside this object, posing interesting geometrical challenges to all existing LRD models and frameworks. We discuss different possible origins of this symmetry break and possible paths to discriminate between them with future observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28715 by Alessandro Marconi, Andrea Ferrara, Charlotte Simmonds, Cristina Ramos Almeida, Fengwu Sun, Francesco D'Eugenio, Fuyan Bian, Gabriele Pezzulli, Ignas Juod\v{z}balis, Jan Scholtz, Jos\'e A. Acosta-Pulido, Matilde Brazzini, Piero Madau, Robert G. Pascalau, Roberto Maiolino, Sandro Tacchella, Stefano Carniani, Xiaohui Fan, Xiaojing Lin, Xihan Ji, Zheng Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flux-calibrated FORS2 spectrum of J1025 (black) compared with the archival SDSS spectrum (grey). The lower panel shows any residual flux￾calibration mismatch. The grey shaded band marks the telluric B absorption band. The two spectra agree well across most of the wavelength range; a localised flux deficit in FORS2 relative to SDSS is visible just blueward of H α. correcting for this velocity shift, the FOR… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Optical linear spectropolarimetry of J1025 (binned adaptively to a fixed 𝜎( 𝑝) ≃ 0.3 per cent, using the cross-OB median stack). The shaded vertical region encloses ±2000 km s−1 from systemic H α. The continuum displays nearly grey polarisation, with ⟨ 𝑝⟩ = 1.53 ± 0.04(rand.)±0.20(syst.) per cent and a consistent 𝜗 = +12° over the available wavelength range (panel d), while broad H α is even less polarised… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Continuum polarisation slope fit over the line-free continuum (the grey vertical bands are masked). In each panel, the black line and grey shaded band are the data and uncertainties, while the best-fit model is in red. Panels a and b show direct fits to 𝑞 and 𝑢. Panel c shows the slope derived from combining the models for 𝑢 and 𝑞, compared with the 𝑝(𝜆) expected for Markarian-231-type dust scattering (𝑝 ∝… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 𝑞–𝑢 plane diagram for the adaptively binned stacked spectrum. Small dots, coloured by rest-frame wavelength, show the continuum (𝜆 < 6400 Å; bins falling in the telluric B band and on the [O i]λλ6300,6364 doublet are excluded). Larger markers highlight the blue-tail (6400– 6500 Å) and H α (6500–6625 Å) windows. The black and red crosses mark the continuum and H α centroids (inverse-variance-weighted means)… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Continuum-subtracted Stokes-angle for broad H α in the adaptive￾binned median stack. We subtract the constant continuum Stokes vector (the mean of the binned Stokes-flux spectra 𝐼, 𝑄 = 𝑞𝐼, and 𝑈 = 𝑢𝐼 over 6200–6400 Å), before recomputing 𝑝H α and 𝜗H α. The top panels show the continuum and residual line-only Stokes fluxes. Panel c shows the continuum￾subtracted 𝑝H α (𝜆); the dash-dotted line and band mark … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fit to the adaptive-binned polarised-flux spectrum 𝑝 × 𝐼 around H α. Panel a shows the linear continuum plus narrow and broad Gaussian decomposition, yielding 𝐹𝑊𝐻𝑀broad ( 𝑝 × 𝐼) = 1740 ± 400 km s−1 and 𝐹𝑊𝐻𝑀narrow ( 𝑝 × 𝐼) = 214 ± 43 km s−1 . Panel b shows the residuals. Panel c compares the continuum-subtracted 𝑝 × 𝐼 to the (rescaled) 𝐼: the two profiles overlap along the entire line. The solid red curve i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustrative toy model for a mixed direct-plus-scattered H α pro￾file. Panel (a) compares the native-resolution median-stack total-flux spec￾trum (continuum-subtracted; black) with the best-fitting 𝐼-only model (red). Panel (b) shows the corresponding residuals. Panel (c) shows the resulting po￾larisation fraction 𝑝 across H α (model, red; data, black), which reproduces the core depolarisation and the reco… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatial profile comparison between narrow H α (black) and broad H α, which we use as a point-source reference. Each row shows a different OB, ordered by increasing image quality. The left column (panels a, c and e) shows the data, normalised to the peak flux density, with the blue and red wings of broad H α in blue and red, respectively (the inset in panel a displays the three spectral windows we averaged … view at source ↗

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

173 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1891 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1891 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1891

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , eprint =

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

  3. [3]

    arXiv , author =:1501.07730 , journal =

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/L35 , eid =. arXiv , author =:1501.07730 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2995 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2995 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2995

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/282.3.965 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/282.3.965

  6. [6]

    arXiv , author =:2406.10341 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2406.10341 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    arXiv , author =:1805.06922 , keywords =

    Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VII , doi =. arXiv , author =:1805.06922 , keywords =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    arXiv , author =:2404.19010 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2404.19010 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 , journal =

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414

  10. [10]

    doi:10.1086/163559 , journal =

    doi:10.1086/163559

  11. [11]

    doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 , journal =

    arXiv

  12. [12]

    arXiv , author =:2506.15027 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0744 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2506.15027 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    arXiv , author =:2601.10573 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.10573 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2601.10573 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10573

  14. [14]

    arXiv , author =:1307.6212 , journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , eid =. arXiv , author =:1307.6212 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    arXiv , author =:1801.02634 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , eid =. arXiv , author =:1801.02634 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    arXiv , author =:1605.04702 , journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628077 , eid =. arXiv , author =:1605.04702 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    doi:10.1002/asna.200310177 , eprint =

    Astronomische Nachrichten , keywords =. doi:10.1002/asna.200310177 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.200310177

  18. [18]

    arXiv , author =:2408.07745 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2408.07745 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  19. [19]

    doi:10.1086/170270 , journal =

    doi:10.1086/170270

  20. [20]

    doi:10.1086/307941 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1086/307941 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1086/307941

  21. [21]

    doi:10.1086/301055 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1086/301055 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1086/301055

  22. [22]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2230 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2230 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2230

  23. [23]

    arXiv , author =:2507.09085 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae274a , eid =. arXiv , author =:2507.09085 , journal =

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1927 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1927 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1927

  25. [25]

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf116 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf116 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf116

  26. [26]

    arXiv , author =:2601.22214 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.22214 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2601.22214 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22214

  27. [27]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab912 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab912 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab912

  28. [28]

    arXiv , author =:2511.16082 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b89 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2511.16082 , journal =

    arXiv

  29. [29]

    doi:10.1086/167900 , journal =

    doi:10.1086/167900

  30. [30]

    Radiative transfer , year =

  31. [31]

    arXiv , author =:2508.08768 , journal =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2131 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2508.08768 , journal =

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    doi:10.1086/169352 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1086/169352

  33. [33]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , eprint =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486

  34. [34]

    ascl , author =:1010.043 , howpublished =

  35. [35]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065390 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065390 , eprint =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065390

  36. [36]

    arXiv , author =:astro-ph/0505344 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    arXiv , author =:2503.16600 , journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554681 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2503.16600 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    arXiv , author =:2511.21820 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.21820 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2511.21820 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21820

  39. [39]

    arXiv , author =:2509.07100 , journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557164 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2509.07100 , journal =

    arXiv

  40. [40]

    arXiv , author =:2510.00101 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.00101 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2510.00101 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00101

  41. [41]

    arXiv , author =:2506.14870 , journal =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2117 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2506.14870 , journal =

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag401 , eid =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stag401 , eid =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag401

  43. [43]

    doi:10.1086/318264 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1086/318264 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1086/318264

  44. [44]

    doi:10.1086/324111 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1086/324111 , eprint =

    doi:10.1086/324111

  45. [45]

    doi:10.1086/670067 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1086/670067 , eprint =

    doi:10.1086/670067

  46. [46]

    doi:10.21105/joss.00024 , journal =

    doi:10.21105/joss.00024

  47. [47]

    doi:10.1086/324297 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1086/324297 , eprint =

    doi:10.1086/324297

  48. [48]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8 , eprint =

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8

  49. [49]

    arXiv , author =:2502.07875 , journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554110 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2502.07875 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    arXiv , author =:2606.21614 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.21614 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2606.21614 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.21614

  51. [51]

    arXiv , author =:2501.04912 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adddb9 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2501.04912 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Polarization from a Strongly Magnetized Accretion Disks: Asymptotic Wavelength Behaviour

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0503121 , eid =. arXiv , author =:astro-ph/0503121 , journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0503121

  53. [53]

    doi:10.1086/174706 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1086/174706

  54. [54]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053555 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053555 , eprint =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053555

  55. [55]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0731-9 , eprint =

    , month =. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0731-9 , eprint =

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0731-9

  56. [56]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4 , eprint =

    , month =. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4 , eprint =

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4

  57. [57]

    arXiv , author =:2509.13911 , journal =

    arXiv

  58. [58]

    arXiv , author =:2309.05714 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f , eid =. arXiv , author =:2309.05714 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac820 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac820 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac820

  60. [60]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3485 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3485 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3485

  61. [61]

    arXiv , author =:2303.11946 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e , eid =. arXiv , author =:2303.11946 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , eprint =

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

  63. [63]

    arXiv , author =:2201.12308 , journal =

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100586 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2201.12308 , journal =

    arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    doi:10.1086/323954 , journal =

    doi:10.1086/323954

  65. [65]

    arXiv , author =:1709.08467 , journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731531 , eid =. arXiv , author =:1709.08467 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , journal =

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  67. [67]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 , eprint =

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

  68. [68]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd , journal =

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd 2041

  69. [69]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2375 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2375 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2375

  70. [70]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1867 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1867 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1867

  71. [71]

    arXiv , author =:2505.12505 , journal =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2110 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2505.12505 , journal =

    arXiv

  72. [72]

    arXiv , author =:2507.23774 , journal =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2235 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2507.23774 , journal =

    arXiv

  73. [73]

    arXiv , author =:2604.03370 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    arXiv , author =:2012.01426 , journal =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2012.01426 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  75. [75]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.8230430 , eid =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8230430

  76. [76]

    Eric Jones and Travis Oliphant and Pearu Peterson and others , note =

  77. [77]

    arXiv , author =:2510.07376 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.07376 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2510.07376 , journal =

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07376

  78. [78]

    Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII , editor =

  79. [79]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2367 , eprint =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2367 , eprint =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2367

  80. [80]

    arXiv , author =:2504.03551 , journal =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag086 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2504.03551 , journal =

    arXiv

Showing first 80 references.