Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Shedding light on the origin of the broken misaligned circumtriple disk around GW Ori

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The broken misaligned circumtriple disk around GW Ori is unlikely to have been produced by the torque of its three stars, because the disk is too thick to break under those forces.

desk verdict A useful reconciliation of the GW Ori disk-breaking disagreement, but the analytic H/r estimate likely overestimates the disk thickness by using the primary mass instead of the total triple mass, making the central conclusion fragile. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14955 v1 pith:I7SS2CRS submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Jeremy L. Smallwood , Stephen H. Lubow , Rebecca G. Martin , Rebecca Nealon This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords circumtriplediskGWOribreakingprotoplanetarydiskshydrodynamicalsimulationsaspectratiomisalignedplanet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper re-examines whether the observed broken, misaligned circumtriple disk around GW Ori is caused by the gravitational torque of its three stars. It shows that previous simulations disagree only because they used different disk aspect ratios: a thin disk (H/r = 0.02) breaks, while a thicker disk (H/r = 0.05) does not. Because an irradiated flaring disk model for GW Ori's parameters gives H/r ~ 0.06 at the inner edge, the paper concludes that the stellar torque alone is unlikely to have broken the disk. This shifts the explanation for the gap to a giant circumtriple planet or planets, which would be a new class of planet formation.

What carries the argument

The disk aspect ratio H/r is the controlling quantity. It determines whether the warp evolves in the bending wave regime (H/r > alpha) or the diffusive regime (H/r < alpha), and thinner disks break more easily because pressure communicates less effectively across radii. The paper estimates H/r from the irradiated flaring disk temperature profile (Equations 4 and 5) and compares it to a simulation threshold between 0.02 and 0.05.

What would settle it

A measurement of GW Ori's disk scale height from resolved gas kinematics (e.g., millimeter-wave CO observations) at radii 40-100 au that yields H/r below 0.05 would place the disk in the regime where the stellar torque breaks it, supporting the stellar-torque interpretation over the planet interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the GW Ori circumtriple disk is too thick to be torn apart by differential precession driven by the triple star system. Using 3D hydrodynamic simulations with two initial disk misalignments (38 and 28 degrees) and two disk aspect ratios, the paper finds that H/r = 0.02 leads to disk breaking while H/r = 0.05 remains intact. The observationally motivated aspect ratio from a simple irradiated flaring disk model, with a flaring angle of 0.02 and stellar luminosity of 48 solar luminosities, is H/r ~ 0.06 at 40 au, and never as low as 0.02. Therefore the broken inner disk most plausibly results from a circumtriple planet, not the stars.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumption that the irradiated flaring disk model with flaring angle 0.02, luminosity 48 solar luminosities, and mean molecular weight 2.3 gives the true vertical thickness of GW Ori's disk, so the real H/r is about 0.06 at 40 au and never as low as 0.02.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The earlier claim that GW Ori's disk was torn by stellar torques rested on an atypically thin disk (H/r = 0.02); with the physically motivated thicker disk the torque does not break it.
  • The observed misaligned rings and gap around GW Ori are more plausibly produced by one or more giant circumtriple planets, as proposed in earlier work.
  • The disk breaking radius depends on the initial misalignment: about 70 au for a 38-degree tilt and 95 au for a 28-degree tilt.
  • Protoplanetary disks generally have H/r above 0.05 and lie in the bending wave regime, so similar disks around other multiple-star systems may resist breaking by stellar torques.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same aspect-ratio threshold could apply to other misaligned disks around binary and triple stars, making the disk's vertical thickness a quick discriminant between star-driven and planet-driven gap origins.
  • If circumtriple planets are confirmed around GW Ori, it would imply that planet formation can proceed around the entire triple system, rather than only around individual stars.
  • A testable extension is to run the same simulations with self-consistent vertical temperature structure from stellar irradiation, which may alter the breaking threshold.
  • The dependence of breaking radius on initial tilt suggests that measuring the break location could constrain the original misalignment history of the disk.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This letter revisits the origin of the misaligned broken disk around GW Ori. The authors run four 3D SPH simulations with Phantom for a circumtriple disk, varying the initial disk tilt (38 and 28 degrees) and the constant aspect ratio H/r (0.02 and 0.05). They report that the thin disks break at 70-95 au while the thick disks do not. They then estimate the actual disk aspect ratio of GW Ori using an irradiated flaring-disk model (Eqs. 4 and 5), obtaining H/r ~ 0.06 at 40 au, and conclude that H/r ~ 0.02 is observationally unlikely. Therefore, they argue, stellar torques alone are unlikely to explain the observed gap, and a giant circumtriple planet scenario remains the most plausible alternative. The paper also claims that earlier conflicting SPH results are reconciled once the same parameters are used.

Significance. If the numerical result holds, the letter is a useful step: it isolates the disk aspect ratio as the key parameter controlling disk breaking in GW Ori and resolves an apparent contradiction between previous SPH studies. The four simulations are clearly designed, and the thin-versus-thick dichotomy is physically expected from warp-propagation theory. The paper does not, however, establish the planet hypothesis; that relies on prior work. The main new quantitative bridge to GW Ori is the Section 4 estimate of H/r, and this is the weakest part of the paper: the stellar mass used in Eq. (5) is unspecified, and when the total triple mass is used the estimated H/r drops to about 0.04 at 40 au, close to the numerical no-break threshold rather than comfortably above it. The observational-motivation claim therefore needs substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eq. (5)] The stellar mass M_* in Eq. (5) is never stated. Reproducing the quoted H/r ~ 0.06 at 40 au requires M_* ~ 2.4 M_sun, i.e., approximately the primary mass M_A alone. For a circumtriple disk at r = 40 au, roughly 4.5 times the outer binary separation, the appropriate mass entering the vertical hydrostatic balance is the total system mass M_A + M_B + M_C ~ 5.26 M_sun. With this mass and T_d ~ 52 K, Eq. (5) gives H/r ~ 0.04 at 40 au and H/r ~ 0.05 at 70-95 au, which are exactly the radii where the H/r = 0.02 simulations break. The observationally estimated disk is thus essentially at the H/r = 0.05 no-break threshold of Table 1, not safely above it. The authors should state M_* explicitly, justify its value for a circumtriple disk, recompute Figure 3, and propagate uncertainties in L_sun, phi, and mu. If the corrected value is below about 0.05, the abstract's conclusion that the disk is unlikely to break is not supported by the present simulations.
  2. [§2, Eq. (1) and §3] The initial surface density index is inconsistent. Section 2 states 'We set p = 0.5,' while Section 3 and the caption of Figure 2 state 'the initial power-law index is set to p = 1.5.' Because the surface density profile controls the angular-momentum distribution and can affect both the location and depth of a break, the authors must state which value was actually used, correct the contradiction, and comment on whether the breaking outcome is sensitive to p.
  3. [§4] The H/r estimate has no propagated errors and no sensitivity analysis. The claim that H/r = 0.02 is 'unlikely' rests on the fixed choices phi = 0.02, L_star = 48 L_sun, and mu = 2.3, with no uncertainty budget. After correcting Eq. (5) to use the total triple mass, the margin above the 0.05 threshold disappears, so the robustness of the conclusion depends on parameters such as the flaring angle, luminosity, and possible self-shadowing. A parameter scan over plausible phi and luminosity values, or at least an explicit statement of the resulting range in H/r, is needed before the observational-motivation argument can carry the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption describes the initial surface density profile as a 'flat black line,' but a power-law profile with p = 0.5 or 1.5 is not flat in a log-log plot; this wording should be clarified.
  2. [References] The reference list contains two entries for Kraus et al. (2020) with different arXiv identifiers and no clear labeling of version 1 versus version 2; the text should make the version distinction explicit and consistent.
  3. [Title and abstract] The title uses 'circum triple disk' while the abstract and body use 'circumtriple disk'; the spelling should be harmonized.
  4. [Figure 3] The red-hatched 'tidal torque truncation' region is not defined quantitatively; the authors should state the criterion used, for example the cavity size estimate of Artymowicz and Lubow (1994).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the no-break result is a genuine simulation outcome; Section 4's H/r estimate carries a parameter-identification caveat (M*) that is a robustness risk, not a circular construction.

full rationale

The paper's new claim (unlikely break for observationally motivated H/r) is not circular. The break/no-break dichotomy in Table 1 is a numerical outcome for fixed inputs (H/r=0.02 vs 0.05, i0=28/38 degrees, alpha~0.015), not a quantity fitted to match GW Ori's rings. The Section 4 aspect-ratio estimate is computed from standard passive-disk formulas (Eqs. 4-5) with literature values (phi=0.02, L*=48 Lsun, mu=2.3), and no parameter is tuned to force H/r>=0.05; the stated H/r~0.06 at 40 au is a direct substitution into those equations. The strongest caveat is a missing-support issue rather than circularity: the M* entering Eq. 5 is never specified, although the value 0.06 is consistent with using the primary mass M_A~2.47 Msun, while using the total triple mass ~5.26 Msun gives H/r~0.04 at 40 au and about 0.05 near the simulation break radius (70-95 au), eroding the margin above the no-break threshold. This is a robustness/correctness concern, not a construction in which the conclusion equals the input. The self-citation to Smallwood et al. (2021) supports the alternative planet scenario, but that scenario is an independent published simulation study, and the new stellar-torque result is demonstrated by the present runs.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed thickness of GW Ori's disk and on standard hydrodynamic simulation assumptions. The main hand-chosen inputs are the two aspect ratios, the flaring angle, luminosity, viscosity, surface density index, and disk mass. No new entities are introduced; the circumtriple planet scenario is cited from previous work.

free parameters (6)
  • Disk aspect ratio H/r = 0.02 and 0.05
    Simulation inputs chosen to bracket the Kraus et al. (2020) claimed value and typical protoplanetary disk thickness; the no-break conclusion depends on the 0.05 case.
  • Flaring angle phi = 0.02
    Used in Eq. 4 to estimate disk temperature and hence H/r; chosen from previous models, with no uncertainty propagated. A smaller flaring angle would lower H/r and could weaken the conclusion.
  • Stellar luminosity Lstar = 48 Lsun
    Assumed primary-dominated bolometric luminosity from Fang et al. (2014), Bi et al. (2020), and Kraus et al. (2020); uncertainty is not propagated into the H/r estimate.
  • Viscosity parameter alpha = about 0.0151
    Set to match Kraus et al. (2020); affects whether the disk is in the bending wave or diffusive regime, though the paper notes that a lower observed alpha would not change the regime conclusion.
  • Surface density power-law index p = 0.5 in Section 2, 1.5 in Figure 2 caption
    The paper is internally inconsistent on the initial surface density index; this affects the initial density and angular momentum distribution of the simulated disk.
  • Disk mass = 0.1 Msun
    Derived from observed dust mass with an assumed gas-to-dust ratio of 100; uncertain, though the paper states self-gravity is negligible.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Protoplanetary disks typically have H/r greater than or similar to 0.05.
    Used in Sections 4 and 5 to argue H/r=0.02 is unlikely for GW Ori; if the disk is abnormally thin, the no-break conclusion fails.
  • domain assumption The simple irradiated flaring disk model with flaring angle phi=0.02 describes GW Ori's temperature structure.
    Basis for the H/r(r) estimate in Figure 3 via Eqs. 4 and 5; self-shadowing, accretion heating, or dust properties could change the estimate.
  • domain assumption Self-gravity is negligible and does not affect the nodal precession rate.
    Invoked in Section 2 based on the adopted disk mass; if the disk is more massive or self-gravity matters, the breaking behavior could change.
  • domain assumption The disk can be modeled as locally isothermal with a constant aspect ratio.
    Simulation setup in Section 2; real disks have radially varying H/r, which could alter wave propagation and breaking.
  • domain assumption Truncating the outer disk at 200 au preserves the relevant angular momentum distribution.
    Stated in Section 2; if the outer disk contributes significantly to precession or breaking, the truncation could bias results.
  • standard math The Phantom SPH code correctly implements the equations of gas hydrodynamics for warped disks.
    Assumed as the numerical foundation; the code is widely used and cited, but no verification artifact is shipped with this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shedding light on the origin of the broken misaligned circumtriple disk around GW Ori." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7SS2CRS

@misc{pith2026241214955,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shedding light on the origin of the broken misaligned circumtriple disk around GW Ori},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7SS2CRS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14955}
}
abstract

We revisit the origin of the observed misaligned rings in the circumtriple disk around GW Ori. Previous studies appeared to disagree on whether disk breaking is caused by the differential precession driven in the disk by the triple star system. In this letter, we show that the previous studies are in agreement with each other when using the same set of parameters. But for observationally motivated parameters of a typical protoplanetary disk, the disk is unlikely to break due to interactions with the triple star system. We run 3-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of a circumtriple disk around GW Ori with different disk aspect ratios. For a disk aspect ratio typical of protoplanetary disks, $H/r \gtrsim 0.05$, the disk does not break. An alternative scenario for the gap's origin consistent with the expected disk aspect ratio involves the presence of giant circumtriple planets orbiting GW Ori.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14955 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Circumtriple disk evolution around GW Ori with an initial misalignment between the disk and the outer binary of the triple star of i0 = 38◦ (first two columns) and i0 = 28◦ (last two columns) at time t = 2000 Porb. The upper row represents disks with H/r = 0.02, while the bottom row shows those with H/r = 0.05. The triple stars are depicted by blue dots. Columns 1 and 3 show the view looking down onto the outer bina… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The disk surface density, Σ as a function of radius, r, for initial circumtriple disk misalignment of i0 = 38◦ (left plot) and i0 = 28◦ (right plot). The initial surface density profile is given by the flat black line. The thin yellow and thick purple lines denote H/r = 0.02 and H/r = 0.05, respectively. For each disk misalignment, the disk breaks when H/r = 0.02. the location of the break. At the end of the simulat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The observationally estimated disk aspect ratio, H/r, as a function of disk radius, r, for GW Ori from Equa￾tion 5. The black double-hatched area represents the orbital extent of the AB-C binary. The red single-hatched area de￾notes the area where the tidal torque truncates the disk. The hydrodynamical simulations show that a disk with an initial aspect ratio of H/r = 0.02 breaks due to interactions with the GW Ori … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651, doi: 10.1086/173679

    doi:10.1086/173679 1994

  2. [2]

    Bate, M. R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty169 2018

  3. [3]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362

    doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  4. [4]

    L., Cameron, A

    Benz, W., Bowers, R. L., Cameron, A. G. W., & Press, W. H. . 1990, ApJ, 348, 647, doi: 10.1086/168273

    doi:10.1086/168273 1990

  5. [5]

    P., Monnier, J

    Berger, J. P., Monnier, J. D., Millan-Gabet, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 529, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016219

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016219 2011

  6. [6]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8eb4

    Bi, J., van der Marel, N., Dong, R., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8eb4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8eb4 2020

  7. [7]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 906, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1390

    Ceppi, S., Cuello, N., Lodato, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 906, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1390

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1390 2022

  8. [8]

    I., & Goldreich, P

    Chiang, E. I., & Goldreich, P. 1997, ApJ, 490, 368, doi: 10.1086/304869 D’Alessio, P., Cant¨ o, J., Calvet, N., & Lizano, S. 1998, ApJ, 500, 411, doi: 10.1086/305702

    doi:10.1086/304869 1997

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Lodato, G

    Dipierro, G., Laibe, G., Price, D. J., & Lodato, G. 2016, MNRAS, 459, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw032

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadadd Doˇ gan, S., Nixon, C

    Dong, R., Li, S., Chiang, E., & Li, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadadd Doˇ gan, S., Nixon, C. J., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1519, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty155

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Dominik, C., & Natta, A

    Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C., & Natta, A. 2001, ApJ, 560, 957, doi: 10.1086/323057

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Birnstiel, T., Huang, J., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Birnstiel, T., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf742

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Facchini, S., Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt877

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    20 14, A&A, 570, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424146

    Fang, M., Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Roccatagliata, V., et al. 20 14, A&A, 570, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424146

    doi

  7. [15]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/99

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Teague, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab615 Garufi, A., Ginski, C., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347586

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57 7

    Ginski, C., Facchini, S., Huang, J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57 7

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    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

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06578

    Kraus, S. 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06578

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    K., et al

    Kraus, S., Kreplin, A., Young, A. K., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.01204. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.01204

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    K., et al

    Kraus, S., Kreplin, A., Young, A. K., et al. 2020 v1, A triple star system with a misaligned and warped circumstellar disk shaped by disk tearing, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba4633 Kuffmeier, M., Dullemond, C. P., Reissl, S., & Goicovic, F. G. 2021, A&A, 656, A161, d...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    D., & Papaloizou, J

    Larwood, J. D., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.2.288

    1997 doi

  15. [23]

    G., & Lubow, S

    Lepp, S., Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2023, ApJL, 943, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf6d

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

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

    Lesur, G., Flock, M., Ercolano, B., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09821

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    J., & Nixon, C

    Nealon, R., Price, D. J., & Nixon, C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv014

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Nixon, C., & King, A. 2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. F. Haardt, V. Gorini, U. Moschella, A. Treves, & M. Colpi, Vol. 905, 45, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19416-5 2

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    2013a, MNRAS, 434, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1136 —

    Nixon, C., King, A., & Price, D. 2013a, MNRAS, 434, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1136 —. 2013b, MNRAS, 434, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1136

    1946 doi

  20. [29]

    Nixon, C. J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2597, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21072.x

    2012

  21. [30]

    Ogilvie, G. I. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 557, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02340.x

    1999

  22. [31]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1181

    1983 doi

  23. [32]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Terquem, C. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.4.987

    1995 doi

  24. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06520, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06520

    Pelkonen, V.-M., Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚ A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06520, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06520

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    Pinte, C., Dent, W. R. F., M´ enard, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 25, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/25

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    Price, D. J. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 759, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011

    2012 doi

  27. [36]

    J., & Federrath, C

    Price, D. J., & Federrath, C. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1659, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16810.x

    2010

  28. [37]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    Rabago, I., Zhu, Z., Lubow, S., & Martin, R. G. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1787

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    L., Nealon, R., Chen, C., et al

    Smallwood, J. L., Nealon, R., Chen, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2624

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    2016, A&A, 592, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628550

    Teague, R., Guilloteau, S., Semenov, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628550

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    Whitworth, A. P. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1817, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19390.x

    2011

  33. [42]

    K., Stevenson, S., Nixon, C

    Young, A. K., Stevenson, S., Nixon, C. J., & Rice, K. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2451

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.