Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 123 references

Episodic accretion in high-mass star formation: An analysis of thermal instability for axially symmetric disks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resolving a disk's vertical structure shows thermal-instability bursts in high-mass protostars are too weak, too long, and too slow to match observed outbursts, so another mechanism is needed.

desk verdict Genuinely new 2D vertical-structure results, but an internal contradiction about the equation of state in Section 2 versus Appendix C undercuts the central claim about classical thermal instability. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20781 v1 pith:P7WWK6T6 submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.SR

Vardan Elbakyan , Dennis Wehner , Rolf Kuiper , Sergei Nayakshin , Alessio Caratti o Garatti , Zhen Guo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords thermalinstabilityepisodicaccretionhigh-massstarformationoutburstsprotostellardisksradiationhydrodynamicstwo-dimensionalsimulationsHMYSO
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 asks whether the hydrogen-ionization thermal instability that drives outbursts in low-mass young stars can also power the accretion bursts observed in high-mass young stellar objects. To answer it, the authors run two-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of the inner 10 au of a disk around a 10 solar-mass protostar, resolving the vertical structure that one-dimensional studies must parametrize. They find that thermal instability does produce repeated, observable outbursts, but with peak accretion rates of only $2\text{--}3\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ and durations of 15–30 years, about an order of magnitude weaker in peak rate and several times longer than observed HMYSO bursts. The paper concludes that thermal instability alone cannot explain the full diversity of observed outbursts and that other mechanisms must be at work. The value of the result is that it quantifies what thermal instability can do once vertical dynamics, including convection and vertical outflow, are included.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the classical hydrogen-ionization thermal instability, encoded in an S-curve of disk surface density versus midplane temperature, and realized here in a two-dimensional axially symmetric radiation-hydrodynamic simulation. The S-curve is created by a bimodal viscosity prescription in which the dimensionless $\alpha$ viscosity parameter jumps from $\alpha_c=0.05$ on the cold branch to $\alpha_h=0.5$ on the hot branch across a critical temperature $T_{cr}=25000$ K, mimicking the opacity change when hydrogen ionizes; this prescribed jump is what makes the disk cycle between a cool, weakly accreting state and a hot, vigorously accreting state. The two-dimensional setup with flux-limited radiative transport and explicit vertical resolution is what lets the paper see how convection, vertical puffing, and midplane-versus-surface flows alter the burst energetics, the effects that soften and lengthen the outbursts compared with one-dimensional treatments.

What would settle it

A single well-observed HMYSO burst with a measured peak accretion rate above $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ and a rise time below one year, in a system showing no sign of clump or companion-driven accretion, would contradict the claim that thermal instability alone cannot produce such bursts; alternatively, re-running the same two-dimensional model with an $\alpha_h/\alpha_c$ contrast larger than 10 would reveal whether the burst deficit is simply a parameter choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Resolving the disk's vertical structure in two dimensions transforms the predicted shape of thermal-instability outbursts. Instead of the short, bright spikes of vertically averaged one-dimensional models, the energy released by hydrogen ionization is distributed gradually through a disk that puffs up to $z/r\sim1$, develops steep midplane-to-surface temperature gradients, and drives vigorous convection that carries mass between the midplane and upper layers and even outward during the burst. The result is a burst of roughly 19 years with a peak accretion rate near $2\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\text{yr}^{-1}$, followed by a sharp drop as the inner disk is depleted and then a slow recovery as fresh material is transported inward. While these bursts are bright enough to be detected in the infrared with about 1.5 magnitudes of variation, observed HMYSO outbursts reach $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ and rise in weeks to a year, not 5–10 years, so the modeled bursts cannot account for them. The paper's central claim is therefore that thermal instability, modeled with full vertical structure, is a real contributor to episodic accretion in high-mass protostars but appears insufficient on its own to explain the observed outburst phenomena.

Load-bearing premise

The whole thermal-instability cycle rests on the assumed jump in disk viscosity between the cold and hot states, a factor of 10 with a 25 000 K transition temperature, so if the real viscosity contrast in high-mass disks is weaker or stronger, the burst amplitudes, durations, and the paper's mismatch with observations would all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed HMYSO bursts with peak accretion rates around $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ and rise times of weeks to a year likely require an additional driver, since the thermal-instability-only bursts here cap out near $2\text{--}3\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ with 5–10 year rise times.
  • Vertical resolution matters: predictions from one-dimensional vertically averaged TI models (shorter, brighter bursts with reflares) are replaced by longer, gentler two-dimensional bursts, so future modeling of episodic accretion should resolve the vertical structure or justify why it does not.
  • The thermally unstable region extends farther out than one-dimensional models place on the cold branch, so the radius that participates in a TI burst grows once vertical energy transport is resolved.
  • In the 20 $M_\odot$ stellar-mass model, the peak accretion rate falls below the observable threshold, implying TI-driven bursts may be undetectable for the most massive protostars.
  • Burst peak and duration scale with the inner disk radius ($\dot{M}_{\rm peak}\propto r_{\rm in}^{1.37}$, duration $\propto r_{\rm in}^{0.5}$), so the inner truncation radius is a key control on whether and how brightly TI bursts appear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the viscosity contrast is the controlling knob, an observational campaign that measures burst statistics across many HMYSOs could indirectly constrain $\alpha_c$ and $\alpha_h$, turning TI burst properties into a viscosity diagnostic.
  • A directly testable extension: the model predicts outflow mass rates exceeding the accretion rate during the burst peak, so radio or CO observations timed to an outburst could look for this characteristic outflow-to-inflow reversal.
  • The absence of reflares in two dimensions suggests that reflares in one-dimensional TI models may be artifacts of vertical averaging; if true, similar checks in other TI applications, such as dwarf novae or FU Ori disks, might change their predicted light curves.
  • Coupling TI with gravitational instability could resolve the discrepancy: clump-driven luminosity may heat the disk onto the hot branch, producing the slow decay observed without requiring pure TI alone.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents two-dimensional, axially symmetric radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of the inner 10 au of a circumstellar disk around a 10 Msun protostar, with the aim of assessing whether the classical thermal instability (TI) can explain episodic accretion bursts in high-mass young stellar objects (HMYSOs). The model uses the PLUTO code, flux-limited diffusion for radiation transport, a Shakura-Sunyaev alpha viscosity with a prescribed cold/hot jump (Eq. 9), and mass deposition at a constant rate. The fiducial run produces periodic bursts with peak accretion rates of 1.9-2.6e-4 Msun/yr, durations of 15-30 years, and recurrence times of 20-50 years. Synthetic infrared light curves show ~1.5 mag brightening. Comparing these bursts with observed HMYSO outbursts, which show peak accretion rates of a few times 10^-3 Msun/yr and faster rise times, the authors conclude that TI alone is insufficient to explain the full range of observed outburst phenomena. Appendices provide a parameter study, resolution tests, and a comparison with earlier 1D models.

Significance. If the central claim stands, the paper is a valuable negative result: it shows that resolving the vertical structure in 2D moderates TI burst amplitudes and durations compared with 1D models, and that the resulting bursts are too faint and too slow to explain the observed rapid, bright HMYSO outbursts. The work is strengthened by a broad parameter study (Appendix A), explicit resolution convergence tests (Appendix A.4), and synthetic observations that include viewing-angle effects. The conclusion is a falsifiable prediction about burst properties, not a fit to the observed bursts. However, the significance is conditional on resolving an internal inconsistency in the equation of state used for the 2D runs and on the robustness of the assumed viscosity prescription.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Section 2.1, Appendix C] There is a direct internal contradiction about the equation of state. Section 2 states that the 2D runs use the non-perfect ideal EoS of D'Angelo & Bodenheimer (2013), which accounts for hydrogen ionization and dissociation with a non-constant adiabatic index. Appendix C, however, states that the 2D model uses a simplified equation of state with a fixed mean molecular weight (mu=2.353), while the 1D calculations use the more detailed EoS that accounts for hydrogen dissociation and ionization. If the fixed-mu description is the correct one, then the 2D bursts are driven by the imposed alpha(T) jump of Eq. (9), not by the additional specific heat and opacity-thermodynamics coupling that defines classical hydrogen-ionization TI. The central quantitative comparison in Section 4.2 would then be a statement about the prescribed viscosity-transition model rather than about classical TI in HMYSO disks. Please reconcile these two descriptions; if the simplified EoS was indeed used, either rerun the fiducial model with the full EoS or explicitly restrict the conclusions to the simplified model.
  2. [Appendix C] The 1D versus 2D comparison is confounded by two simultaneous changes: the 1D run uses a lower mass deposition rate (10^-4 Msun/yr) than the 2D fiducial run (8x10^-4 Msun/yr), and the equations of state differ between the two setups. The claim that full vertical structure is responsible for the longer, gentler burst profiles is therefore not uniquely supported by this comparison. The authors acknowledge that EoS differences may partly explain the difference, but the conclusion in Sections 5.2 and 6 still attributes the difference primarily to dimensionality. Please provide a matched comparison (same deposition rate and same EoS), or state explicitly that the comparison is illustrative and that the 2D-specific effect has not been isolated.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (9); Appendix A.3] The load-bearing quantitative result—peak accretion rates of 2-3x10^-4 Msun/yr and durations of 15-30 years—depends on the assumed viscosity parameters alpha_c=0.05, alpha_h=0.5, and Tcr=25000 K in Eq. (9). The sensitivity study in Appendix A.3 shows that lowering alpha_h to 0.1 yields only low-amplitude variability rather than true outbursts, while raising alpha_c to 0.2 suppresses bursts entirely. Since MHD simulations and observations allow a range of alpha values, the conclusion that TI is too weak is not shown to be robust to plausible parameter variations. Please either justify the chosen values as tightly constrained for high-mass disks or extend the parameter study (e.g., alpha_h=0.2, alpha_c=0.02, a range of Tcr) and demonstrate that the mismatch with observed peak accretion rates persists.
  4. [Section 4.2] The comparison between predicted and observed peak accretion rates relies on observationally inferred values of a few times 10^-3 Msun/yr. These inferred rates are model-dependent (derived from luminosities, distances, and extinction assumptions), and the paper does not state the inference method or its uncertainties. Since the central negative claim rests on this order-of-magnitude discrepancy, please specify how the observed peak accretion rates were obtained and, where possible, compare directly with observed light curves or luminosities rather than with derived accretion rates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous LaTeX spacing artifacts in the text, such as "di fferent", "V orobyov", "e ffect", and "pu ffed-up"; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Section 5.3] The argument that stellar irradiation mainly affects the surface layers and does not change the midplane temperature is plausible but not quantified; a simple test with an irradiation temperature floor would strengthen this claim.
  3. [Appendix A.4] The statement that the fiducial and high-resolution runs have "effectively converged" is based on a 25% shorter duration at 4x resolution (TI_12, about 14 years versus 15-30 years); please state explicitly why this difference is acceptable given the central claim about burst durations.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (10)] The detectability threshold Mth uses R* = rin = 0.08 au, but the text also invokes a mass-radius relation R* proportional to M^0.7; please clarify which expression is used for each of the stellar-mass models and justify the choice.
  5. [Section 5.2 and Appendix C] The term "reflares" is used without a definition in the main text; a one-sentence definition and a reference to the 1D context would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the core derivation; the burst properties are genuine simulation outputs, though an internal EoS inconsistency in Appendix C weakens the classical-TI interpretation.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims (peak accretion rates of 1.9-2.6e-4 Msun/yr and durations of 15-30 years) are outputs of a time-dependent 2D radiation-hydrodynamics simulation and are explicitly compared with, not fitted to, observed HMYSO bursts; the reported mismatch is therefore a genuine prediction. The viscosity parameters of Eq. (9) and the chosen alpha values are inputs adopted from external constraints and are varied in a parameter study, not fitted to reproduce the target observables, so the conclusion that TI is too weak is not forced by construction. Self-citations (Elbakyan et al. 2021, 2024; Nayakshin et al. 2024) are used for context and for 1D/2D comparisons and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper itself flags a limitation in Appendix C: Section 2 states the 2D model uses the D'Angelo and Bodenheimer EoS accounting for hydrogen ionization and dissociation, while Appendix C states that the 2D model uses a simplified equation of state with a fixed mean molecular weight, whereas the 1D calculations employ a more detailed equation of state that accounts for hydrogen dissociation and ionization. If the latter is correct, the simulated bursts are driven by the imposed alpha(T) jump and opacity tables rather than by the full hydrogen-ionization thermodynamics, which is a model-fidelity concern affecting how the classical-TI-insufficient conclusion should be interpreted. This is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard thermal instability picture plus the specific numerical implementation. The bimodal alpha viscosity (Eq. 9) is the most important ad hoc ingredient because it prescribes the S-curve that determines burst amplitudes and durations. Other free parameters (Mdot_dep, r_in, alpha_c, alpha_h, Tcr) are varied in the appendices, showing the conclusions are robust within the tested ranges but sensitive to r_in and the alpha values.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha_cold (alpha_c) = 0.05 (fiducial); 0.01, 0.2 tested
    Cold-branch viscosity in Eq. (9); chosen from observational and MHD literature range; controls quiescent disk state and burst triggering.
  • alpha_hot (alpha_h) = 0.5 (fiducial); 0.1 tested
    Hot-branch viscosity in Eq. (9); set at upper end of literature values to maximize burst strength; directly sets peak accretion rate.
  • Tcr = 25000 K
    Critical temperature for the viscosity transition in Eq. (9); adopted from Hameury et al. (1998) style parametrization; shapes the S-curve and hence burst behavior.
  • Mdot_dep = 8e-4 Msun/yr (fiducial); 3e-4 and 5e-3 Msun/yr tested
    Mass deposition rate; chosen at upper end of observed infall rates to test maximum TI strength; strongly controls burst amplitude.
  • r_in = 0.08 au (fiducial); 0.04, 0.12, 0.16 au tested
    Inner disk radius (truncation); treated as free parameter; Mdot_peak scales as r_in^1.37, so it materially affects the central conclusion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Axial symmetry about the rotation axis and equatorial symmetry at the midplane reduce the disk to a 2D (r, theta) domain, excluding non-axisymmetric modes.
    Section 2.1; this is the defining approximation of the model; 3D effects such as spiral waves and non-axisymmetric MRI are not captured.
  • ad hoc to paper Angular momentum transport is described by the Shakura-Sunyaev alpha prescription with a bimodal cold/hot viscosity (Eq. 9).
    Section 2; this replaces explicit MHD or gravitational torques. The bimodal form is imposed to create the S-curve needed for TI.
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer is treated with the gray flux-limited diffusion approximation in LTE.
    Section 2; an approximation valid for optically thick disks but less accurate in surface layers where irradiation and photon transport matter.
  • domain assumption Direct stellar irradiation and magnetic fields are neglected.
    Section 5.3; argued to affect only the surface layers, but could alter the S-curve knee and burst triggering if irradiation penetrates deeper.
  • domain assumption The hydrogen ionization opacity jump is the cause of the thermal instability (standard TI mechanism).
    Sections 1 and 3; this is the physical premise inherited from Bell & Lin (1994) and prior TI models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Episodic accretion in high-mass star formation: An analysis of thermal instability for axially symmetric disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7WWK6T6

@misc{pith2026250720781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Episodic accretion in high-mass star formation: An analysis of thermal instability for axially symmetric disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7WWK6T6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20781}
}
abstract

High-mass young stellar objects exhibit episodic accretion bursts similar to their low-mass counterparts. Understanding these outbursts is crucial for elucidating massive star formation and disk evolution around high-mass protostars. We investigate thermal instability's role in triggering accretion outbursts using a two-dimensional hydrodynamical model that fully resolves the vertical structure of the inner disk. This approach provides a more realistic depiction of axially symmetric disk dynamics and assesses observable burst signatures. We simulate the inner 10 astronomical units of a circumstellar disk around a high-mass protostar, incorporating viscous heating and radiative transport in radial and vertical directions. Unlike previous one-dimensional studies, our two-dimensional model resolves time-dependent vertical disk structure, capturing complex radial-vertical dynamics. Our simulations show thermal instability causes significant structural changes. Steep temperature gradients and vigorous convection develop at outburst onset, with gas flows differing between midplane and upper layers. Energy release produces 15-30 year outbursts with peak accretion rates of $2-3\times10^{-4}~\rm M_{\odot}~\rm{yr}^{-1}$. While observable, these bursts are insufficiently bright with rise times differing from rapid observed events. Our models lack the "reflares" seen in one-dimensional calculations. Resolving full vertical disk structure is essential for accurate thermal instability modeling. While thermal instability significantly influences episodic accretion, it appears insufficient alone to explain observed HMYSO outburst diversity. Additional mechanisms are required for comprehensive understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20781 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass accretion history and TI outbursts in our fiducial model TI_1. Top panel: The blue line (left axis) shows the mass accretion rate, while the red line (right axis) displays the protostellar disk mass over 1000 years of stellar evolution, revealing the periodic occurrence of TI outbursts. The time origin, t = 0, is chosen arbitrarily. Bottom panel: A detailed view of a single TI outburst (highlighted in orange in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density and temperature during the bursts in 2D Two￾dimensional distributions (r-z plane) of density (left panels) and tem￾perature (right panels) at four different time instances during a TI out￾burst. Black arrows in the right panels show the total velocity field. As the outburst progresses, the inner disk heats up and expands vertically, while the density structure adjusts to the higher temperatures. Later, the d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass accretion rate and spatial distribution of disk density and temperature during a TI outburst. Top panel: The mass accretion rate is shown for the TI outburst (highlighted in orange in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Absolute mass transport rate as a function of radial distance at t = 14.8 yr, integrated over the polar direction. Inflow (blue) represents material moving inward toward the star, while outflow (red) represents material being driven outward by the TI outburst. inner di…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two-dimensional view of the inner disk at the beginning of a TI outburst in high-resolution model TI_13. Top panel: Radial velocity vr , with red indicating outflow and blue indicating inflow. Black arrows show the total velocity field. Middle and bottom panel: Volume …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, , 677, A171

    Ahmadi , A., Beuther , H., Bosco , F., et al. 2023, , 677, A171

    2023

  2. [2]

    2019, , 632, A50

    Ahmadi , A., Kuiper , R., & Beuther , H. 2019, , 632, A50

    2019

  3. [3]

    P., Trapman , L., et al

    Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., Trapman , L., et al. 2018, , 859, 21

    2018

  4. [4]

    Armitage , P. J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1509.06382

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Audard , M., \'A brah \'a m , P., Dunham , M. M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 387

    2014

  6. [6]

    & Stone , J

    Bai , X.-N. & Stone , J. M. 2013, , 769, 76

    2013

  7. [7]

    J., & Simon , J

    Beckwith , K., Armitage , P. J., & Simon , J. B. 2011, , 416, 361

    2011

  8. [8]

    Bell , K. R. & Lin , D. N. C. 1994, ApJ, 427, 987

    1994

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16866

    Beuther , H., Kuiper , R., & Tafalla , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16866

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2013, , 558, A81

    Beuther , H., Linz , H., & Henning , T. 2013, , 558, A81

    2013

  3. [11]

    J., Johnston , K

    Beuther , H., Walsh , A. J., Johnston , K. G., et al. 2017, , 603, A10

    2017

  4. [12]

    P., Zhu , Z., et al

    Birnstiel , T., Dullemond , C. P., Zhu , Z., et al. 2018, , 869, L45

    2018

  5. [13]

    & Bastien , P

    Bonnell , I. & Bastien , P. 1992, , 401, L31

    1992

  6. [14]

    Bonnell , I. A. & Bate , M. R. 2006, , 370, 488

    2006

  7. [15]

    K., Smale , A

    Cannizzo , J. K., Smale , A. P., Wood , M. A., Still , M. D., & Howell , S. B. 2012, , 747, 117

    2012

  8. [16]

    2017, Nature Physics, 13, 276

    Caratti o Garatti , A., Stecklum , B., Garcia Lopez , R., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 276

    2017

  9. [17]

    & Flock , M

    Cecil , M. & Flock , M. 2024, , 692, A171

    2024

  10. [18]

    M., & Zhang , Q

    Cesaroni , R., Galli , D., Lodato , G., Walmsley , C. M., & Zhang , Q. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 197

    2007

  11. [19]

    2021, , 922, 90

    Chen , Z., Sun , W., Chini , R., et al. 2021, , 922, 90

    2021

  12. [20]

    A., Ru \' z-Rodr \' guez , D., Perez , S., et al

    Cieza , L. A., Ru \' z-Rodr \' guez , D., Perez , S., et al. 2018, , 474, 4347

    2018

  13. [21]

    Coleman , M. S. B., Blaes , O., Hirose , S., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2018, , 857, 52

    2018

  14. [22]

    Coleman , M. S. B., Kotko , I., Blaes , O., Lasota , J. P., & Hirose , S. 2016, , 462, 3710

    2016

  15. [23]

    Connelley , M. S. & Reipurth , B. 2018, , 861, 145

    2018

  16. [24]

    J., Ashraf , M., et al

    Contreras Pe \ n a , C., Herczeg , G. J., Ashraf , M., et al. 2023, , 521, 5669

    2023

  17. [25]

    D'Angelo , C. R. & Spruit , H. C. 2010, , 406, 1208

    2010

  18. [26]

    & Bodenheimer , P

    D'Angelo , G. & Bodenheimer , P. 2013, , 778, 77

    2013

  19. [27]

    W., Stone , J

    Davis , S. W., Stone , J. M., & Pessah , M. E. 2010, , 713, 52

    2010

  20. [28]

    M., & Lasota , J

    Dubus , G., Hameury , J. M., & Lasota , J. P. 2001, , 373, 251

    2001

  21. [29]

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

    Dullemond , C. P., Birnstiel , T., Huang , J., et al. 2018, , 869, L46

    2018

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    G., Nayakshin , S., Caratti o Garatti , A., Kuiper , R., & Guo , Z

    Elbakyan , V. G., Nayakshin , S., Caratti o Garatti , A., Kuiper , R., & Guo , Z. 2024, , 692, A256

    2024

  24. [32]

    G., Nayakshin , S., Meyer , D

    Elbakyan , V. G., Nayakshin , S., Meyer , D. M. A., & Vorobyov , E. I. 2023, , 518, 791

    2023

  25. [33]

    G., Nayakshin , S., Vorobyov , E

    Elbakyan , V. G., Nayakshin , S., Vorobyov , E. I., Caratti o Garatti , A., & Eisl \"o ffel , J. 2021, , 651, L3

    2021

  26. [34]

    2023, , 676, A107

    Fedriani , R., Caratti o Garatti , A., Cesaroni , R., et al. 2023, , 676, A107

    2023

  27. [35]

    J., Hillenbrand , L

    Fischer , W. J., Hillenbrand , L. A., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2023, 534, 355

    2023

  28. [36]

    M., Simon , J

    Flaherty , K., Hughes , A. M., Simon , J. B., et al. 2020, , 895, 109

    2020

  29. [37]

    J., & Henning , T

    Flock , M., Dzyurkevich , N., Klahr , H., Turner , N. J., & Henning , T. 2011, , 735, 122

    2011

  30. [38]

    J., & Benisty , M

    Flock , M., Fromang , S., Turner , N. J., & Benisty , M. 2017, , 835, 230

    2017

  31. [39]

    P., Cabrit , S., et al

    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

    2014

  32. [40]

    & Nelson , R

    Fromang , S. & Nelson , R. P. 2006, , 457, 343

    2006

  33. [41]

    1998, , 492, 323

    Gullbring , E., Hartmann , L., Brice \ n o , C., & Calvet , N. 1998, , 492, 323

    1998

  34. [42]

    1998, , 298, 1048

    Hameury , J.-M., Menou , K., Dubus , G., Lasota , J.-P., & Hure , J.-M. 1998, , 298, 1048

    1998

  35. [43]

    & Kenyon , S

    Hartmann , L. & Kenyon , S. J. 1996, , 34, 207

    1996

  36. [44]

    Herbig , G. H. 1977, , 217, 693

    1977

  37. [45]

    Herbig , G. H. 1989, in European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 33, European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, ed. B. Reipurth , 233--246

    1989

  38. [46]

    Herbig , G. H. 2008, , 135, 637

    2008

  39. [47]

    2015, , 448, 3105

    Hirose , S. 2015, , 448, 3105

    2015

  40. [48]

    H., Coleman , M

    Hirose , S., Blaes , O., Krolik , J. H., Coleman , M. S. B., & Sano , T. 2014, , 787, 1

    2014

  41. [49]

    H., & Stone , J

    Hirose , S., Krolik , J. H., & Stone , J. M. 2006, , 640, 901

    2006

  42. [50]

    1994, , 428, 654

    Hollenbach , D., Johnstone , D., Lizano , S., & Shu , F. 1994, , 428, 654

    1994

  43. [51]

    1979, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 61, 1307

    H \= o shi , R. 1979, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 61, 1307

    1979

  44. [52]

    & Omukai , K

    Hosokawa , T. & Omukai , K. 2009, , 691, 823

    2009

  45. [53]

    R., Brogan , C

    Hunter , T. R., Brogan , C. L., De Buizer , J. M., et al. 2021, , 912, L17

    2021

  46. [54]

    R., Brogan , C

    Hunter , T. R., Brogan , C. L., MacLeod , G., et al. 2017, , 837, L29

    2017

  47. [55]

    D., Cyganowski , C

    Ilee , J. D., Cyganowski , C. J., Brogan , C. L., et al. 2018, , 869, L24

    2018

  48. [56]

    M., Wehner , D., & Kuiper , R

    Jordan , L. M., Wehner , D., & Kuiper , R. 2024, , 689, A354

    2024

  49. [57]

    2020, , 895, 41

    Kadam , K., Vorobyov , E., Reg \'a ly , Z., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., & \'A brah \'a m , P. 2020, , 895, 41

    2020

  50. [58]

    R., Pringle , J

    King , A. R., Pringle , J. E., & Livio , M. 2007, , 376, 1740

    2007

  51. [59]

    & Sudnik , N

    Kochukhov , O. & Sudnik , N. 2013, , 554, A93

    2013

  52. [60]

    & Lasota , J

    Kotko , I. & Lasota , J. P. 2012, , 545, A115

    2012

  53. [61]

    R., Klein , R

    Krumholz , M. R., Klein , R. I., & McKee , C. F. 2007, , 665, 478

    2007

  54. [62]

    2010 a , , 722, 1556

    Kuiper , R., Klahr , H., Beuther , H., & Henning , T. 2010 a , , 722, 1556

    2010

  55. [63]

    2011, , 732, 20

    Kuiper , R., Klahr , H., Beuther , H., & Henning , T. 2011, , 732, 20

    2011

  56. [64]

    2010 b , , 511, A81

    Kuiper , R., Klahr , H., Dullemond , C., Kley , W., & Henning , T. 2010 b , , 511, A81

    2010

  57. [65]

    & Yorke , H

    Kuiper , R. & Yorke , H. W. 2013, , 772, 61

    2013

  58. [66]

    W., & Mignone , A

    Kuiper , R., Yorke , H. W., & Mignone , A. 2020, , 250, 13

    2020

  59. [67]

    2001, , 45, 449

    Lasota , J.-P. 2001, , 45, 449

    2001

  60. [68]

    2020, , 641, A112

    Lebreuilly , U., Commer c on , B., & Laibe , G. 2020, , 641, A112

    2020

  61. [69]

    Lin , D. N. C., Papaloizou , J., & Faulkner , J. 1985, , 212, 105

    1985

  62. [70]

    B., Takami , M., Kudo , T., et al

    Liu , H. B., Takami , M., Kudo , T., et al. 2016, Science Advances, 2, e1500875

    2016

  63. [71]

    & Clarke , C

    Lodato , G. & Clarke , C. J. 2004, , 353, 841

    2004

  64. [72]

    E., Manara , C

    Lodato , G., Scardoni , C. E., Manara , C. F., & Testi , L. 2017, , 472, 4700

    2017

  65. [73]

    G., Kuiper , R., Klahr , H., Dullemond , C

    Malygin , M. G., Kuiper , R., Klahr , H., Dullemond , C. P., & Henning , T. 2014, , 568, A91

    2014

  66. [74]

    2000, , 314, 498

    Menou , K., Hameury , J.-M., Lasota , J.-P., & Narayan , R. 2000, , 314, 498

    2000

  67. [75]

    Meyer , D. M. A., Kreplin , A., Kraus , S., et al. 2019 a , , 487, 4473

    2019

  68. [76]

    Meyer , D. M. A., Vorobyov , E. I., Elbakyan , V. G., et al. 2019 b , , 482, 5459

    2019

  69. [77]

    M.-A., Vorobyov , E

    Meyer , D. M.-A., Vorobyov , E. I., Kuiper , R., & Kley , W. 2017, , 464, L90

    2017

  70. [78]

    & Meyer-Hofmeister , E

    Meyer , F. & Meyer-Hofmeister , E. 1981, , 104, L10

    1981

  71. [79]

    2007, , 170, 228

    Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., et al. 2007, , 170, 228

    2007

  72. [80]

    Miller , K. A. & Stone , J. M. 2000, , 534, 398

    2000

  73. [81]

    2021, , 647, A114

    Moscadelli , L., Beuther , H., Ahmadi , A., et al. 2021, , 647, A114

    2021

  74. [82]

    2018, , 56, 41

    Motte , F., Bontemps , S., & Louvet , F. 2018, , 56, 41

    2018

  75. [83]

    Mulders , G. D. & Dominik , C. 2012, , 539, A9

    2012

  76. [84]

    Najita , J. R. & Bergin , E. A. 2018, , 864, 168

    2018

  77. [85]

    2024, , 530, 1749

    Nayakshin , S., Cruz S \'a enz de Miera , F., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al. 2024, , 530, 1749

    2024

  78. [86]

    & Lodato , G

    Nayakshin , S. & Lodato , G. 2012, , 426, 70

    2012

  79. [87]

    & Kuiper , R

    Oliva , A. & Kuiper , R. 2023, , 669, A80

    2023

  80. [88]

    Oliva , G. A. & Kuiper , R. 2020, , 644, A41

    2020

  81. [89]

    B., et al

    P \'e rez , S., Hales , A., Liu , H. B., et al. 2020, , 889, 59

    2020

  82. [90]

    Pinte , C., Dent , W. R. F., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2016, , 816, 25

    2016

  83. [91]

    C., Heever , S

    Proven-Adzri , E., MacLeod , G. C., Heever , S. P. v. d., et al. 2019, , 487, 2407

    2019

  84. [92]

    E., Ouyed , R., Fendt , C., & Brandenburg , A

    Pudritz , R. E., Ouyed , R., Fendt , C., & Brandenburg , A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 277

    2007

  85. [93]

    Rafikov , R. R. 2017, , 837, 163

    2017

  86. [94]

    Rosotti , G. P. 2023, , 96, 101674

    2023

  87. [95]

    P., Teague , R., Dullemond , C., Booth , R

    Rosotti , G. P., Teague , R., Dullemond , C., Booth , R. A., & Clarke , C. J. 2020, , 495, 173

    2020

  88. [96]

    2021, , 652, A71

    Sabatini , G., Bovino , S., Giannetti , A., et al. 2021, , 652, A71

    2021

  89. [97]

    2018, , 609, A77

    Scepi , N., Lesur , G., Dubus , G., & Flock , M. 2018, , 609, A77

    2018

  90. [98]

    2003, , 410, 611

    Semenov , D., Henning , T., Helling , C., Ilgner , M., & Sedlmayr , E. 2003, , 410, 611

    2003

  91. [99]

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

    1973

  92. [100]

    H., & Hirose , S

    Shi , J., Krolik , J. H., & Hirose , S. 2010, , 708, 1716

    2010

  93. [101]

    B., Beckwith , K., & Armitage , P

    Simon , J. B., Beckwith , K., & Armitage , P. J. 2012, , 422, 2685

    2012

  94. [102]

    1999, , 49, 391

    Smak , J. 1999, , 49, 391

    1999

  95. [103]

    2024, , 633, 58

    Speedie , J., Dong , R., Hall , C., et al. 2024, , 633, 58

    2024

  96. [104]

    2021, , 646, A161

    Stecklum , B., Wolf , V., Linz , H., et al. 2021, , 646, A161

    2021

  97. [105]

    2021, , 655, A110

    Steiner , D., Gehrig , L., Ratschiner , B., et al. 2021, , 655, A110

    2021

  98. [106]

    Tanaka , K. E. I., Tan , J. C., & Zhang , Y. 2017, , 835, 32

    2017

  99. [107]

    2015, , 446, 4088

    Tapia , M., Roth , M., & Persi , P. 2015, , 446, 4088

    2015

  100. [108]

    2017, , 838, 151

    Tsukamoto , Y., Okuzumi , S., & Kataoka , A. 2017, , 838, 151

    2017

  101. [109]

    2015, , 580, A110

    Vaidya , B., Mignone , A., Bodo , G., & Massaglia , S. 2015, , 580, A110

    2015

  102. [110]

    Vorobyov , E. I. & Basu , S. 2006, ApJ, 650, 956

    2006

  103. [111]

    Vorobyov , E. I. & Basu , S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1896

    2010

  104. [112]

    I., Khaibrakhmanov , S., Basu , S., & Audard , M

    Vorobyov , E. I., Khaibrakhmanov , S., Basu , S., & Audard , M. 2020, , 644, A74

    2020

  105. [113]

    A., Neiner , C., Alecian , E., et al

    Wade , G. A., Neiner , C., Alecian , E., et al. 2016, , 456, 2

    2016

  106. [114]

    Wells , M. R. A., Beuther , H., Molinari , S., et al. 2024, , 690, A185

    2024

  107. [115]

    2024, , 688, A8

    Wolf , V., Stecklum , B., Caratti o Garatti , A., et al. 2024, , 688, A8

    2024

  108. [116]

    Yorke , H. W. & Sonnhalter , C. 2002, , 569, 846

    2002

  109. [117]

    J., Henshaw , J

    Zhang , S., Cyganowski , C. J., Henshaw , J. D., et al. 2024, [ [arXiv] 2407.19552 ]

    2024 arXiv

  110. [118]

    M., et al

    Zhang , Y.-K., Chen , X., Sobolev , A. M., et al. 2022, , 260, 34

    2022

  111. [119]

    2009 a , , 694, 1045

    Zhu , Z., Hartmann , L., & Gammie , C. 2009 a , , 694, 1045

    2009

  112. [120]

    Zhu , Z., Hartmann , L., Gammie , C., & McKinney , J. C. 2009 b , , 701, 620

    2009

  113. [121]

    & Yorke , H

    Zinnecker , H. & Yorke , H. W. 2007, , 45, 481

    2007

  114. [122]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  115. [123]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.