Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

The distribution of misalignment angles in multipolar planetary nebulae

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Planetary nebula lobe misalignments fit a bounded random distribution between 22 and 60 degrees.

desk verdict Useful empirical result: multipolar PN misalignment is non-random, but the claimed 22–60° bounded random range is not statistically distinguished from a constant ~43° angle. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04549 v2 pith:PSEPYOBZ submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Ido Avitan , Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords multipolarplanetarynebulaemisalignmentanglesbipolarjetsbinaryinteractioncommonenvelopeevolutionangularmomentumAGBconvectioncumulativedistributionfunction
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 measures the angle projected on the sky between adjacent symmetry axes in 40 multipolar planetary nebulae and 5 proto-planetary nebulae, then builds the cumulative distribution of those angles. The paper argues that a fully random three-dimensional orientation of successive axes does not reproduce the observed distribution, while a random orientation confined to the range roughly 22–60 degrees fits it well. The authors interpret this bounded random distribution as evidence that each jet-launching episode receives angular momentum from two comparable sources: a fixed one (the binary orbit) and a stochastic one (convection in the evolved star's envelope). If correct, the result turns a morphological oddity into a quantitative constraint on how binary companions accrete and launch jets at the end of stellar life.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the cumulative distribution function Wα(α) for projected angles, built from the 58 measured angles, compared against theoretical curves derived by projecting a random three-dimensional angle distribution onto the plane of the sky. The paper computes the best fit by minimizing the maximum vertical distance Dmax between the theoretical and observed cumulative functions, excluding α<15° to avoid the known incompleteness at small projected angles. This yields the bounded random function Wα(22,60), a uniform random three-dimensional angle δ in the interval 22°≲δ≲60°, as the best description of the data.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to measure the three-dimensional orientations of a larger, kinematically complete sample of multipolar planetary nebulae (using radial velocities to deproject the axes) and construct the actual distribution of the angle δ between adjacent axes; if a substantial number of adjacent axes fall below 22° or above 60°, the bounded random distribution claimed here would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cumulative distribution of projected misalignment angles α between adjacent symmetry axes of multipolar planetary nebulae is best described by a 'limited random distribution' of the true three-dimensional angle δ, uniform between about 22° and 60°. An entirely random distribution of δ, corresponding to uncorrelated jet directions, is explicitly rejected by the data (the green-dotted curve in the paper's Figure 6 lies far from the observed step function). A constant three-dimensional angle of 43° gives a poorer fit than the bounded random distribution, which reaches a maximum vertical distance of Dmax = 0.056 from the data once projected angles below 15° are excluded because such small-angle pairs are likely missed in images. The authors propose that the bounded range arises because the accretion disk that launches each pair of jets receives comparable contributions from a fixed-direction angular momentum (the binary orbital angular momentum) and a stochastic component (convective cells protruding from the AGB envelope), so each successive jet axis wanders by tens of degrees rather than freely.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the 45 nebulae gathered from literature images fairly represent all multipolar planetary nebulae except for a known shortage of projected angles below about 15 degrees.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bounded random distribution is correct, successive jet-launching episodes in multipolar planetary nebulae are not independent in direction; each keeps a memory of a previous axis within tens of degrees.
  • A fully isotropic or uncorrelated source of angular momentum cannot be the sole driver of jet reorientation in these systems.
  • The fit supports a binary-companion picture in which periastron passages launch jets, with the orbital plane providing a stable reference direction.
  • Observations should find additional multipolar nebulae with small projected angles (α<15°) if current images are simply missing them, rather than such systems being intrinsically absent.
  • The same cumulative-distribution comparison can be applied to larger future samples or to other jet-shaping objects (proto-planetary nebulae, symbiotic outflows) to test whether the 22–60° range is universal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the width of the allowed δ range encodes the ratio of stochastic to fixed angular momentum: a narrower range would mean the stochastic component is weaker, while a range approaching 90° would mean the two components are nearly equal or the random component dominates.
  • If the convection-based stochastic source operates on a convective turn-over timescale, the model predicts that multipolar nebulae formed from very different primaries (e.g., low-mass versus intermediate-mass AGB stars) might show systematically different misalignment ranges, because convective cell sizes and velocities vary with stellar parameters.
  • The paper's exclusion of messy nebulae such as NGC 5189, NGC 6210, and NGC 6058 suggests a testable extension: a systematic re-analysis of those objects with resolved kinematics could either extend the same distribution or reveal a distinct population with larger, possibly random, misalignments.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compiles measurements of the projected angle α between adjacent symmetry axes in 40 multipolar planetary nebulae and 5 pre-PNe, yielding 58 angles from the literature and private communications. It constructs the empirical cumulative distribution function Wα(α) and compares it with three families of 3D misalignment models: fully random (uncorrelated) axes, a constant 3D angle δ, and a random δ uniformly distributed within a bounded interval [δd, δu]. The authors report that the fully random model does not fit the observed CDF, and that the best bounded-random model, Wα(22, 60) with δd = 22° and δu = 60°, gives Dmax = 0.056, which they contrast with Dmax = 0.115 for the best constant-δ model (δ = 43°). They propose that the apparent limited random distribution arises from two comparable angular momentum sources feeding the accretion disks that launch the jet pairs: a fixed-direction binary orbital component and a stochastic component due to convective envelope motions, with order-of-magnitude estimates in Eqs. (1)–(3).

Significance. If the bounded-random claim were statistically established, it would provide a new observational constraint on jet-launching misalignment in multipolar PNe and would support a physical picture in which a fixed angular momentum source is perturbed by a stochastic one. The paper's clear contribution is the assembly and transparent presentation of a sizeable sample of measured projected misalignment angles, together with a direct CDF comparison. The qualitative rejection of fully random, uncorrelated axes appears robust from the figures and is a useful falsifiable result. However, the specific quantitative claim of a 22–60° bounded random 3D distribution is not supported by the statistical analysis as presented; the data are also consistent with a single characteristic 3D angle near 43°, and the fitted bounds carry no confidence interval. The physical scenario is explicitly speculative, which is appropriate, but it is currently tied to an empirical range whose statistical status needs strengthening.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 5 and 6] The data do not distinguish the bounded-random model Wα(22, 60) from a constant 3D angle δ = 43°. For N = 58, the 5% one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov critical value is about 0.178, whereas the best constant-δ model has Dmax = 0.115, so that model is not rejected at the 5% level. The improvement in Dmax from 0.115 to 0.056 is not calibrated, because δd and δu were chosen by minimizing Dmax on the same data, and no bootstrap, likelihood-ratio, or other model-comparison test is provided. The paper should either supply such a calibrated test or soften the claim that the distribution is random in 22–60° rather than consistent with a single characteristic angle.
  2. [Section 3 and Tables 1–2] The 58 angles are not independent: 13 angles are second or third misalignment angles measured from the same nebula (e.g., M 1-61, J320, Pe 1-1, Hen 2-158, NGC 6072, He 2-47, M1-37, Me 2-2, NGC 5307, M 1-31, and IRAS16594-4656). The Dmax values and any significance statements therefore use an overestimated effective sample size. In addition, the comparison excludes α ≲ 15° because of suspected incompleteness, but the theoretical CDFs are not renormalized to the conditional distribution for α > 15°, so the Dmax statistic is computed against a truncated observed CDF without a matching truncated model. The sensitivity of the fitted δd and δu to these choices should be quantified, for instance by repeating the analysis with one angle per nebula and with explicit completeness corrections for small projected angles.
  3. [Section 2, fourth paragraph] The sample is a heterogeneous literature compilation, and three known multipolar PNe (NGC 5189, NGC 6210, and NGC 6058) are excluded because their morphologies are called 'messy' or lack clearly definable projected axes. If the missing small-α systems or the excluded nebulae have a different underlying misalignment distribution, the fitted 22–60° range could shift. Since the numerical range is the central claim of the abstract, the paper should provide a completeness assessment or demonstrate that the fitted bounds are robust to plausible inclusion of the excluded objects and to the authors' stated incompleteness at small projected angles.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 3] The abstract quotes the range as '20 < δ < 60 degrees', while Section 3 gives δd = 22° and δu = 60°; these numbers should be aligned.
  2. [Figure captions and text] The figure captions contain the typo 'green-doted' (should be 'green-dotted'), and the legend in Figure 5 labels the fully random model simply as 'Random' while the text uses 'fully random'; the terminology should be consistent.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (4) area] The functional form of Wα(22, 60) is never written down; the paper should define the bounded-random CDF explicitly before quoting its best-fit parameters.
  4. [Section 4, around Eq. (3)] The sentence 'The specific angular momentum of the fixed-axis component one j^z_orb' contains a typo ('component one'); it should read 'component is'.
  5. [Section 3, uncertainty discussion] The stated typical uncertainty of ±3° in projected angles is said to have negligible influence on the CDF, but no quantitative support is given; a sentence explaining why the uncertainty is small compared with the binning or Dmax scale would be helpful.
  6. [Section 4, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The order-of-magnitude estimates of the angular momentum components are not connected quantitatively to the fitted δd–δu range; the authors should either state explicitly that no such quantitative mapping is claimed or provide a rough relation between the j_random/j_fixed ratio and the resulting spread in δ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the angle-distribution models are fits to the observed CDF, not first-principles predictions; the physical scenario is explicitly speculative and not used to derive the fit parameters.

full rationale

The paper measures projected misalignment angles in multipolar planetary nebulae and compares the observed cumulative distribution function with three model families: fully random, constant three-dimensional angle, and random angle bounded between lower and upper cutoffs. The bounded random model Wα(22,60) is selected as the best fit by minimizing Dmax, and the abstract and conclusions present it as a good fit to the data rather than as an independent prediction derived from theory. The later scenario involving a fixed plus a stochastic angular-momentum component is introduced as a possible explanation of the fitted range, with the paper explicitly saying it 'might account for our findings' and calling the discussion speculative. There is no equation or definition that makes the fitted angle range equivalent to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The rejection of the fully random model is also based directly on the measured CDF, not on a self-citation. Self-citations to prior work by one author appear only as contextual supporting claims about multipolar prevalence and morphology; they are not load-bearing for the statistical angle analysis. Statistical concerns raised in the skeptical commentary, such as the lack of a calibrated test distinguishing the bounded-random model from a constant-angle model or the non-independence of multiple angles from the same nebula, concern the strength and robustness of the empirical inference, not circularity. Under the stated rules, this is an honest non-finding: no circular step is exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on four fitted or chosen numerical values (delta_d, delta_u, delta_f, and the 15-deg exclusion threshold). The physical interpretation relies on several domain assumptions about jet launching, sample representativeness, and AGB convection parameters. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • delta_d (lower bound of random 3D angle distribution) = 22 deg
    Best-fit lower bound of the uniform distribution in delta, found by minimizing Dmax between the projected CDF model and the observed CDF (excluding alpha<15 deg).
  • delta_u (upper bound of random 3D angle distribution) = 60 deg
    Best-fit upper bound of the uniform distribution in delta; the abstract summarizes this as '<60 deg'.
  • delta_f (constant 3D angle, alternative model) = 43 deg
    Best-fit constant angle model in Figure 5, a worse fit than the bounded random model but used to show the data are not consistent with a single fixed angle either.
  • small-angle exclusion threshold = 15 deg
    Hand-chosen cutoff: projected angles below 15 deg are excluded when computing Dmax because the authors assume such pairs are missed in images due to merging lobes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each symmetry axis in a multipolar PN is produced by a pair of jets launched along the angular momentum axis of an accretion disk around a binary companion.
    Section 3: 'We assume that a pair of jets along the angular momentum axis of an accretion disk around the companion shape each symmetry axis.' This links the measured morphology to the jet-disk model and underlies the discussion.
  • domain assumption The measured projected angles are independent draws from a single underlying distribution of 3D misalignment angles.
    Section 3 constructs W_alpha by pooling 58 angles from 45 nebulae; angles from the same nebula (e.g., three axes in J320) are treated as independent observations.
  • standard math The 3D-to-2D projection of a misalignment angle delta for randomly oriented nebulae follows the standard geometric transformation used implicitly in the theoretical CDFs.
    Figures 5 and 6 compare projected-angle CDFs computed from 3D random distributions; the projection geometry is standard but not explicitly derived.
  • domain assumption The sample is representative of the multipolar PN population except for a deficit at alpha<15 deg.
    Section 2 assembles the sample from literature and private communications and excludes messy nebulae; Section 3 assumes the small-angle deficit is the only incompleteness when fitting.
  • domain assumption Order-of-magnitude estimates for AGB convection and orbital angular momentum (lP ~ 0.3 RG, hc ~ 0.15 RG, vconv ~ 0.2 vorb) are valid.
    Equations (1)-(3) in Section 4 use these values to argue the stochastic angular momentum is several tens of percent of the fixed component; if these stellar parameters are wrong, the scenario's consistency with the 20-60 deg range is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The distribution of misalignment angles in multipolar planetary nebulae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSEPYOBZ

@misc{pith2026250104549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The distribution of misalignment angles in multipolar planetary nebulae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSEPYOBZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04549}
}
read the original abstract

We measure the projected angle on the plane of the sky between adjacent symmetry axes of tens of multipolar planetary nebulae and find that the distribution of these misalignment angles implies a random three-dimensional angle distribution limited to <60 degrees. We identify a symmetry axis as a line connecting two opposite lobes (bubbles) or clumps. We build a cumulative distribution function of the projected angles alpha and find that an entirely random distribution of the three-dimensional angles delta between adjacent symmetry axes, namely, uncorrelated directions, does not fit the observed one. A good fit to the observed distribution is a limited random distribution of the three-dimensional angle between adjacent symmetry axes, i.e., random distribution in the range of 20<delta<60 degrees. We assume that a pair of jets along the angular momentum axis of an accretion disk around the companion shape each symmetry axis. The limited random distribution might result from two sources of angular momentum to the accretion disks with comparable magnitude: one with a fixed direction and one with a stochastic direction variation. We discuss a scenario where the fixed-axis angular momentum source is the binary orbital angular momentum, while the stochastic source of angular momentum is due to the vigorous envelope convection of the mass-losing giant progenitor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04549 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. — An image of the multipolar PN KjPn 8 adapted from L´opez et al. (2000) with their marks in black and our marks in red. The three rims suggest three jet-launching episodes that inflated the large lobes. In this study, we consider them to be one event. jets probably compressed these three rims; we do not find evidence of three jet-launching episodes in the west￾ern lobe. These three rims without counterparts in the … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. — An image of the multipolar (Quadrupolar) PN M 2-46 adapted from Manchado et al. (1996a) with our marks in red. This is an example of one pair of lobes entirely inside the other. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — An image of the multipolar J320 adapted from Harman et al. (2004) with our marks in red. This PN demonstrates uncer￾tainties in the exact poles: the location of the four clumps forming two pairs and the two bubbles of the third pair. The lines we chose by the bright zone of the poles of each axis do not cross exactly at the center. Angles between axes are in degrees. The uncertainties here are about 2◦. However, t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Cumulative distribution functions Wα of projected an￾gels between symmetry axes. The black step function and the green-doted lines are the data and fully random distribution, re￾spectively, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Cumulative distribution functions Wα of projected an￾gels between symmetry axes. The black step function is Wα from the data of 40 PNe and 5 pre-PNe with 58 angles. The green-doted line is Wα for a fully random distribution of angles in their dimen￾sion δ; namely, th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03985, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03985

    Ablimit, I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03985, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03985

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.03985 2024

  2. [2]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2479

    Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2479

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2479 2018

  3. [3]

    Akras, S., & Gon¸ calves, D. R. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2139

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2139 2016

  4. [4]

    A., Imai, H., & Orosz, G

    Baan, W. A., Imai, H., & Orosz, G. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 275, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/275

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/275 2021

  5. [5]

    2006, Planetary Nebula Image Catalogue: HST data, HST Proposal ID 10933

    Balick, B. 2006, Planetary Nebula Image Catalogue: HST data, HST Proposal ID 10933. Cycle 15

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    Balick, B., Frank, A., & Liu, B. 2020, ApJ, 889, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651 2020

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1897

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Das, R., Parthasarathy, M., & Kar, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1897

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1897 2023

  8. [8]

    Boffin, H. M. J., & Jones, D. 2019, The Importance of Binaries in the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Nebulae, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25059-1

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25059-1 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., Rauch, T., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 773, doi: 10.1126/science.1225386

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06056

    Chen, P., Fang, X., Chen, X., & Liu, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06056. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06056

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    N., Kwok, S., Imai, H., Tafoya, D., & Chibueze, J

    Chong, S. N., Kwok, S., Imai, H., Tafoya, D., & Chibueze, J. 2012, ApJ, 760, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/115

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    Clairmont, R., Steffen, W., & Koning, N. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    M., L´ opez, J

    Clark, D. M., L´ opez, J. A., Steffen, W., & Richer, M. G. 2013, AJ, 145, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/57

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    Danehkar, A. 2022, ApJS, 260, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013

    Derlopa, S., Akras, S., Amram, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Esquivel, A., & Raga, A. C. 2019, ApJ, 876, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12e1

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Schmidt, D

    Gold, K. R., Schmidt, D. R., & Ziurys, L. M. 2024, ApJ, 976, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83be G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, V. M. A., Toal´ a, J. A., Guerrero, M. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1542 G´ omez-Mu˜ noz, M. A., V´ azquez, R., Sabin, L., et al. 202...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J

    Guerrero, M. A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2aa

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    A., & Manchado, A

    Guerrero, M. A., & Manchado, A. 1998, ApJ, 508, 262, doi: 10.1086/306407

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Miranda, L

    Guerrero, M. A., Miranda, L. F., Ramos-Larios, G., & V´ azquez, R. 2013, A&A, 551, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220592

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Suzett Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J., & Ortiz, R

    Guerrero, M. A., Suzett Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J., & Ortiz, R. 2020, ApJ, 890, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fa

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Miranda, L

    Guerrero, M. A., Miranda, L. F., Riera, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 272, doi: 10.1086/588632 Guill´ en, P. F., V´ azquez, R., Miranda, L. F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt612

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    Holloway, A. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1047, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07427.x

    2004

  16. [24]

    C., Frew, D

    Hillwig, T. C., Frew, D. J., Reindl, N., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/24

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Kwok, S., & Su, K

    Hrivnak, B. J., Kwok, S., & Su, K. Y. L. 1999, ApJ, 524, 849, doi: 10.1086/307822

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/25

    Hsia, C.-H., Chau, W., Zhang, Y., & Kwok, S. 2014, ApJ, 787, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/25

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 134, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/134

    Huang, P.-S., Lee, C.-F., Moraghan, A., & Smith, M. 2016, ApJ, 820, 134, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/134

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06831, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06831

    Jones, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06831, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06831

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Jones, D., & Boffin, H. M. J. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0117, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0117

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    C., & Reindl, N

    Jones, D., Hillwig, T. C., & Reindl, N. 2023, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics XI, ed. M. Manteiga, L. Bellot, P. Benavidez, A. de Lorenzo-C´ aceres, M. A. Fuente, M. J. Mart ´ ınez, M. V´ azquez Acosta, & C. Dafonte, 216, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.06355

    2023 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. J., Hibbert, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038778

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Jones, D., Munday, J., Corradi, R. L. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3736

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 39, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040039

    Kwok, S. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 39, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040039

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/93 L´ opez, J

    Kwok, S., Chong, S.-N., Hsia, C.-H., Zhang, Y., & Koning, N. 2010, ApJ, 708, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/93 L´ opez, J. A., Meaburn, J., Bryce, M., & Holloway, A. J. 1998, ApJ, 493, 803, doi: 10.1086/305155 L´ opez, J. A., Meaburn, J., Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F., et al. 2000, Ap...

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Manchado, A., Stanghellini, L., & Guerrero, M. A. 1996b, ApJ, 466, L95, doi: 10.1086/310170

    doi

  28. [36]

    F., Guerrero, M

    Miranda, L. F., Guerrero, M. A., & Torrelles, J. M. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 195, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04145.x

    2001

  29. [37]

    F., Torrelles, J

    Miranda, L. F., Torrelles, J. M., Guerrero, M. A., Aaquist, O. B., & Eiroa, C. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 243, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01611.x

    1998

  30. [38]

    F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu ´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P

    Miranda, L. F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu ´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P. F., & Mat ´ ıas, J. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348173 Moraga Baez, P., Kastner, J. H., Balick, B., Montez, R., &

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    Bublitz, J. 2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089 Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J

    Morris, M. 1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089 Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J. S., Guerrero, M. A., Duarte Puertas, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3326 Rechy-Garc ´ ıa, J. S., Pe˜ na, M., & Vel´ azquez, P. F. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2758

    1987 doi

  33. [41]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2201

    Rubio, G., V´ azquez, R., Ramos-Larios, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2201

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, Rev

    Ramos-Larios, G. 2012, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 48, 165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1203.1297

    2012 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    2000, ApJ, 537, L43, doi: 10.1086/312748

    Sahai, R. 2000, ApJ, 537, L43, doi: 10.1086/312748

    2000 doi

  36. [44]

    D., & Chaffee, F

    Sahai, R., Le Mignant, D., S´ anchez Contreras, C., Campbell, R. D., & Chaffee, F. H. 2005a, ApJ, 622, L53, doi: 10.1086/429586

    doi

  37. [45]

    2007a, AJ, 134, 2200, doi: 10.1086/522944 7

    Sahai, R., Morris, M., S´ anchez Contreras, C., & Claussen, M. 2007a, AJ, 134, 2200, doi: 10.1086/522944 7

    doi

  38. [46]

    R., & Villar, G

    Sahai, R., Morris, M. R., & Villar, G. G. 2011, AJ, 141, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/134

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    2005b, ApJ, 620, 948, doi: 10.1086/426469

    Sahai, R., S´ anchez Contreras, C., & Morris, M. 2005b, ApJ, 620, 948, doi: 10.1086/426469

    doi

  40. [48]

    2007b, ApJ, 658, 410, doi: 10.1086/511294

    Sahai, R., S´ anchez Contreras, C., Morris, M., & Claussen, M. 2007b, ApJ, 658, 410, doi: 10.1086/511294

    doi

  41. [49]

    Sahai, R., & Trauger, J. T. 1998, AJ, 116, 1357, doi: 10.1086/300504

    1998 doi

  42. [50]

    Sahai, R., Vlemmings, W. H. T., & Nyman, L. ˚A. 2017, ApJ, 841, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d86

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038

    Sahai, R., Alcolea, J., Balick, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06038

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    E., Corradi, R

    Schwarz, H. E., Corradi, R. L. M., & Melnick, J. 1992, A&AS, 96, 23

    1992

  45. [53]

    1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —

    Soker, N. 1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15785, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.15785 —. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15785, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.15785

    1990 doi

  46. [54]

    Sowicka, P., Jones, D., Corradi, R. L. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1697

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1583

    Steffen, W., Koning, N., Esquivel, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1583

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    Tafoya, D., Orosz, G., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Sahai, R., & P´ erez-S´ anchez, A. F. 2019, A&A, 629, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834632

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    R., & Goodrich, R

    Trammell, S. R., & Goodrich, R. W. 2002, ApJ, 579, 688, doi: 10.1086/342943 Vel´ azquez, P. F., Raga, A. C., Riera, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3529, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19991.x

    2002

  50. [58]

    2024, A&A, 687, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449751

    Wen, S., Wang, Y.-Z., Hsia, C.-H., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449751

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acbe95 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template

    Wen, S.-B., Hsia, C.-H., Kang, X.-X., Chen, R., & Luo, T. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acbe95 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy pee...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.