Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 121 references

The JCMT Gould Belt Survey: First results from the Corona Australis molecular cloud and evidence of variable dust emissivity indices in the Coronet region

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Combining SCUBA-2 450 and 850 micron images with Herschel maps, this paper measures the dust emissivity index across the Coronet and finds a well-constrained low value of $\beta = 1.55 \pm 0.35$ in the starless clump SMM-6, a hint of…

desk verdict Solid Gould Belt survey paper; the SMM-6 beta result is a hint, not a measurement, because single-temperature fits can't exclude line-of-sight temperature mixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11564 v1 pith:UXSFRC24 submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.GA

Kate Pattle , David Bresnahan , Derek Ward-Thompson , Helen Kirk , Jason M. Kirk , David S. Berry , Hannah Broekhoven-Fiene , Jenny Hatchell
show 42 more authors
Tim Jenness Doug Johnstone J. C. Mottram Ana Duarte-Cabral James Di Francesco M. R. Hogerheijde Pierre Bastien Harold Butner Michael Chen Antonio Chrysostomou Simon Coudé Malcolm J. Currie C. J. Davis Emily Drabek-Maunder M. Fich J. Fiege Per Friberg Rachel Friesen Gary A. Fuller Sarah Graves Jane Greaves Wayne Holland G. Joncas L. B. G. Knee Steve Mairs Ken Marsh Brenda C. Matthews Gerald Moriarty-Schieven C. Mowat Jonathan Rawlings B. Retter John Richer D. Robertson E. Rosolowsky Sarah Sadavoy H. Thomas N. Tothill Serena Viti G. J. White J. Wouterloot J. Yates M. Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords CoronaAustralisdustemissivityindexgraingrowthprestellarcoresSCUBA-2HerschelGouldBeltSurveymodifiedblackbodySEDfittingsubmillimetrecontinuum
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

This paper reports SCUBA-2 450 and 850 micron imaging of the Corona Australis molecular cloud, extracts a catalogue of 39 starless and protostellar cores, and combines the JCMT data with Herschel maps to measure dust temperature, emissivity index $\beta$, and column density across the Coronet cluster. The central result is that $\beta$ varies across the Coronet, with a well-constrained value of $\beta = 1.55 \pm 0.35$ in the cold, starless SMM-6 clump to the north of the B star R CrA, lower than the canonical $\beta = 2$ and suggestive of large dust grains. The authors argue that this low value survives the $T$–$\beta$ fitting degeneracy and the $^{12}$CO contamination that corrupt $\beta$ measurements elsewhere in the region, but they explicitly decline to interpret it as grain growth because the coagulation timescale in SMM-6 is much longer than the clump's freefall time. The catalogue analysis also shows that SCUBA-2 preferentially selects high-volume-density, likely prestellar cores, and finds no temperature-density anticorrelation among the starless cores.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-temperature modified blackbody spectral energy distribution $F_\nu = M B_\nu(T_d)\kappa_\nu(\beta)/D^2$, with the dust opacity law $\kappa_\nu = 0.1(\nu/1\,\mathrm{THz})^\beta$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, fit pixel by pixel to data from 160 to 850 $\mu$m. To make the datasets comparable, the Herschel maps are passed through the SCUBA-2 reduction pipeline so that the same spatial filtering and masking are applied to both, and all maps are then convolved to the 36-arcsecond resolution of the 500 $\mu$m band. The addition of the SCUBA-2 850 $\mu$m point is what makes $\beta$ constrainable, because it extends the Rayleigh-Jeans tail longward of 500 $\mu$m and, as the paper notes, improves the $\beta$ constraint by a factor of two relative to Herschel data alone. The SMM-6 result is secured by comparing fits with and without the 850 $\mu$m point and by Monte Carlo simulations of how an injected 850 $\mu$m excess shifts the recovered $\beta$.

What would settle it

Resolved 1.3 mm and 3 mm continuum imaging of SMM-6, fitted with a model that allows two temperature components along the line of sight: if the recovered $\beta$ returns to about 2 once temperature structure is included, the low-$\beta$ claim is an artifact of the single-temperature assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dust emissivity index $\beta$ is measurably and spatially variable across the Coronet cluster of Corona Australis, most cleanly in the starless clump SMM-6. Fitting a single-temperature modified blackbody to spatially filtered Herschel 160–500 $\mu$m data plus SCUBA-2 850 $\mu$m data gives $\beta = 1.55 \pm 0.35$ at $T = 15.3 \pm 2.3$ K, and the value is nearly identical when only Herschel data are used ($\beta = 1.53 \pm 0.79$), showing that the result is not driven by CO contamination of the 850 $\mu$m band. A $\beta$ below the canonical 2.0 in a cold, starless clump is the signature expected from large dust grains, because grain emission falls off more shallowly at long wavelengths once grains have grown. The authors stop short of claiming grain growth has occurred: using the coagulation timescale of Chakrabarti and McKee, they estimate that growing micron-sized grains in SMM-6 would take about $10^7$ years, more than 100 times the freefall time, so the clump would have to be unusually long-lived. Elsewhere in the Coronet, near R CrA and SMM-2 and at the IRS 2 protostar, $\beta$ drops to artificially low values driven by the $T$–$\beta$ degeneracy and CO contamination, and IRS 2 shows an unexplained long-wavelength flux excess.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assumption that line-of-sight temperature variation inside SMM-6 is minimal, so that a single-temperature modified blackbody fit recovers the true $\beta$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $\beta$ of about 1.55 in a starless clump means the canonical $\beta = 2$ assumption is not universally valid, so core masses derived from single-temperature submillimetre fits can be biased wherever dust properties differ.
  • The Coronet offers a clean laboratory for dust evolution studies because SMM-6's low-$\beta$ region is spatially separated from the contamination-dominated zones around R CrA and SMM-2, and its value agrees with the Planck-based $\beta$ for the whole Coronet area.
  • The IRS 2 protostar's unexplained long-wavelength excess, if due to cold dust rather than shock-driven fitting degeneracy, would mark it as a candidate for particularly early grain growth in an envelope.
  • The method of filtering Herschel maps through the SCUBA-2 pipeline and adding the 850 $\mu$m point, which tightens $\beta$ constraints by a factor of two, transfers directly to other Gould Belt clouds observed by the same survey.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If low $\beta$ in starless cores turns out to be common, dust mass estimates across whole clouds would need recalibration, since fixing $\beta = 2$ would systematically overestimate masses wherever large grains have already formed before collapse.
  • A direct test of the SMM-6 result is within reach of current instruments: ALMA continuum observations at 1.3 mm and 3 mm would measure $\beta$ at wavelengths free of $^{12}$CO contamination and with enough resolution to expose any warm component hidden along the line of sight.
  • The timescale tension the authors identify could be resolved if SMM-6 is magnetically supported or otherwise long-lived; measuring the clump's internal velocity dispersion and magnetic field strength would test whether its lifetime can exceed the freefall time.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents SCUBA-2 450 and 850 micron observations of the Corona Australis molecular cloud from the JCMT Gould Belt Legacy Survey. The authors extract a catalogue of 39 starless, prestellar, and protostellar cores with getsources, classify them using Spitzer/WISE associations, and derive temperatures and masses using SCUBA-2 flux ratios and Herschel-derived temperature maps. They then perform pixel-by-pixel SED fitting from 160 to 850 microns across the Coronet region, fitting dust temperature, column density, and dust emissivity index with several combinations of data and constraints. The headline result is a relatively low value of beta in the starless clump SMM-6 (beta = 1.55 +/- 0.35 with SCUBA-2 data, or 1.53 +/- 0.79 from Herschel alone), which the authors suggest may indicate the presence of large dust grains, while explicitly cautioning in Section 7 that the grain-growth interpretation is not secure and that line-of-sight temperature variations cannot be ruled out.

Significance. If robust, the SMM-6 measurement would be one of the few well-resolved estimates of a low dust emissivity index in a starless core, with implications for grain growth prior to star formation and for the interpretation of submillimetre continuum surveys. The paper has real strengths: the catalog and derived core properties are a useful dataset; the SCUBA-2 and Herschel maps are carefully brought to a common spatial filtering; contamination by 12CO is assessed with a Monte Carlo model; and the fitted beta values are cross-checked against Planck imaging. However, the headline claim is not yet quantitatively secure. The quoted uncertainty places beta only about 1.3 sigma below the canonical value of 2.0, and the single-temperature modified blackbody model is acknowledged in Section 6.1.3 to be vulnerable to line-of-sight temperature mixing, which can bias beta low in exactly the kind of externally heated, starless clump that SMM-6 is.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §6.4] The central result that SMM-6 has a low dust emissivity index is derived by fitting a single-temperature modified blackbody to 160-850 micron data, and this is exactly the assumption most vulnerable to systematic bias. The authors state in Section 6.1.3 that line-of-sight temperature variations cannot be ruled out in CrA, and the Malinen et al. (2011) work they cite finds that such variations can bias beta low by up to 0.5 dex in starless cores. SMM-6 is a starless clump in the vicinity of the B star R CrA, so a warm component along the line of sight could broaden the SED and lower the fitted beta without any change in grain properties. The agreement between the Herschel-only value (beta = 1.53 +/- 0.79) and the Herschel+SCUBA-2 value (beta = 1.55 +/- 0.35) does not remove this concern, because both fits share the same single-temperature model. The Planck comparison in Section 6.5 has a beam of about 5 arcmin and reports a mean over the Coronet rather than a resolved SMM-6 value. I request an explicit test of the temperature-mixing bias, for example two-component modified blackbody fits toward SMM-6 or synthetic SEDs built from a plausible radial temperature gradient, or a revision that withdraws the altered-dust-properties interpretation and presents the measurement only as a tentative result.
  2. [Abstract; §6.4] The statistical evidence for a low beta in SMM-6 is modest. The quoted value beta = 1.55 +/- 0.35 is only about 1.3 sigma below the canonical beta = 2.0 used for the source temperatures and masses, and it is consistent within errors with the Planck mean over the Coronet (beta = 1.50 +/- 0.03; Section 6.5). The abstract's phrase 'beta varies across the Coronet' and the claim that the low value is 'suggestive of the presence of large dust grains' therefore overstate the current evidence. I recommend reporting a confidence interval or posterior for beta in SMM-6, and ideally a comparison of fits with beta fixed to 2.0 versus beta free, so that the reader can judge whether the data actually exclude a constant beta.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.4] The column densities quoted for SMM-6 are 2.5 x 10^-22 cm^-2 and 2.8 x 10^22 cm^-2; the first value is presumably a typo for 2.5 x 10^22 cm^-2, and the units should be checked throughout the paragraph.
  2. [§6.1.3] The phrase 'underestimated by up to 0.5 dex' is ambiguous: if 'dex' means a logarithmic factor, the expected bias is much larger than the offsets discussed in Sections 6.1.6 and 6.4, while if a linear offset is intended the word 'dex' should be removed.
  3. [Table 1] Peak flux densities are given in Jy/arcsec^2 and total flux densities in Jy, but the column headers repeat 'Flux Density' for both; adding explicit units to each column header would reduce ambiguity.
  4. [Section 7 versus Abstract] The abstract says the low beta is 'suggestive of the presence of large dust grains,' while Section 7 says the authors 'cannot confidently ascribe this to grain growth, since the timescale for grain coagulation is significantly longer than the freefall time'; the abstract should be aligned with the more cautious summary in Section 7.
  5. [§6.1.4 and §6.4] The RxB CO contamination map is described as having about 20 percent calibration uncertainty, but the quoted CO contamination fraction for SMM-6, 14 +/- 3 percent, does not include this systematic term; it should be added to the reported uncertainty budget.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SMM-6 beta measurement is a fitted observable from Herschel+SCUBA-2 SEDs, cross-checked against independent Planck data, with the grain-growth interpretation explicitly qualified.

full rationale

The paper's central new result, beta = 1.55 ± 0.35 in SMM-6, is a free parameter obtained by fitting the modified blackbody SED (Eq. 7) to 160–850 μm data. This is a measurement, not a prediction derived from an input that already contains the answer: beta is allowed to vary pixel-by-pixel and is not set to the reported value by construction. The authors do not present the fit as a prediction; instead they systematically quantify T–beta degeneracy (Sec. 6.1.2), CO contamination (Sec. 6.1.4), and line-of-sight temperature variations (Sec. 6.1.3), and they explicitly weaken the grain-growth interpretation on timescale grounds (Sec. 7). The Planck comparison (Sec. 6.5) is an external, lower-resolution check, not a restatement of the same fit. Although the paper relies on prior GBLS/HGBS methodology with overlapping authorship (e.g., Sadavoy et al. 2013; Pattle et al. 2015; Bresnahan et al. 2018), those papers provide reduction and extraction procedures rather than the target beta result; the central claim therefore has independent empirical content. The acknowledged possibility that line-of-sight temperature gradients bias beta low is a correctness risk, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities. The model has three fitted parameters (T, M, beta) at each pixel; these are legitimate measurements but mean the beta result is model-dependent. The fragile input premises are the single-temperature assumption, the approximate CO-correction map, the adopted distance, and the assumed opacity law. These are disclosed, but they cap the strength of the grain-growth interpretation.

free parameters (3)
  • Dust emissivity index beta (fitted) = 1.55 +/- 0.35 in SMM-6; maps over Coronet
    Free parameter in Eq. 7 modified blackbody fits to 160-850 um data; its spatial variation is the paper's central result.
  • Dust temperature T (fitted) = 15.3 +/- 2.3 K in SMM-6; maps over Coronet
    Fitted simultaneously with beta in Eq. 7; T-beta degeneracy (Section 6.1.2) directly affects the recovered beta.
  • Mass and column density M (fitted) = N(H2) ~ 2.8e22 cm^-2 in SMM-6 (fitted)
    Third free parameter in Eq. 7; column density inferred from fitted M and pixel area.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption A single-temperature modified blackbody with kappa_nu = 0.1(nu/1THz)^beta describes dust emission from 160 to 850 um.
    Used in Eq. 7 for pixel-by-pixel fits; line-of-sight temperature variations can bias beta low (Section 6.1.3).
  • domain assumption Line-of-sight temperature variation is minimal and the two wavelengths trace the same dust population.
    Assumed in Eq. 1 for SCUBA-2 temperatures (Section 4.1); the authors concede this cannot be ruled out in CrA (Section 6.1.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The RxB 12CO J=3-2 map provides a usable estimate of SCUBA-2 850 um CO contamination.
    Used in Section 6.1.4 because HARP data are unavailable; the correction is uncertain by roughly 20% and likely systematically overestimated (Section 6.4).
  • domain assumption Passing Herschel maps through the SCUBA-2 pipeline makes them directly comparable to SCUBA-2 data.
    Sadavoy et al. (2013) method used in Section 2.3; central to combining wavelengths in the SED fits.
  • domain assumption The distance to CrA is 130 pc.
    Adopted in Section 1 for consistency with Bresnahan et al. (2018); masses scale as D^2 and densities as D^-1, but beta and column density are unaffected.
  • domain assumption Beta is fixed to 2.0 when deriving SCUBA-2 and Herschel temperatures.
    Sections 4.1 and 4.2; chosen for consistency with the Herschel Gould Belt Survey. The paper later relaxes this in Section 6, so the central beta result does not depend on it.
  • domain assumption Dust mass opacity follows kappa_nu = 0.1(nu/1THz)^beta cm^2/g (Beckwith et al. 1990).
    Used in Eqs. 2 and 7 to convert flux to mass; an external calibration from prior literature that scales masses but does not determine beta.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The JCMT Gould Belt Survey: First results from the Corona Australis molecular cloud and evidence of variable dust emissivity indices in the Coronet region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXSFRC24

@misc{pith2026250111564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The JCMT Gould Belt Survey: First results from the Corona Australis molecular cloud and evidence of variable dust emissivity indices in the Coronet region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXSFRC24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11564}
}
abstract

We present 450$\mu$m and 850$\mu$m James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) observations of the Corona Australis (CrA) molecular cloud taken as part of the JCMT Gould Belt Legacy Survey (GBLS). We present a catalogue of 39 starless and protostellar sources, for which we determine source temperatures and masses using SCUBA-2 450$\mu$m/850$\mu$m flux density ratios for sources with reliable 450$\mu$m detections, and compare these to values determined using temperatures measured by the Herschel Gould Belt Survey (HGBS). In keeping with previous studies, we find that SCUBA-2 preferentially detects high-volume-density starless cores, which are most likely to be prestellar (gravitationally bound). We do not observe any anti-correlation between temperature and volume density in the starless cores in our sample. Finally, we combine our SCUBA-2 and Herschel data to perform SED fitting from 160-850$\mu$m across the central Coronet region, thereby measuring dust temperature $T$, dust emissivity index $\beta$ and column density $N({\rm H}_2)$ across the Coronet. We find that $\beta$ varies across the Coronet, particularly measuring $\beta = 1.55 \pm 0.35$ in the colder starless SMM-6 clump to the north of the B star R CrA. This relatively low value of $\beta$ is suggestive of the presence of large dust grains in SMM-6, even when considering the effects of $T-\beta$ fitting degeneracy and $^{12}$CO contamination of SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m data on the measured $\beta$ values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Finding chart of the Corona Australis molecular cloud. The background image shows IRAS 100-𝜇m emission (Miville-Deschênes & Lagache 2005). The overlaid red contours show 𝐴V extinctions of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 magnitudes (Dobashi et al. 2005). The regions observed as part of the JCMT GBLS are shown as white contours. Four subregions are labeled where data were taken. The white star towards the west of the image, in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 850 𝜇m flux density data with a square root scaling. Top panel: CrA-A. Lower left panel: CrA-B and CrA-C. Lower right panel: CrA-E. The following colours are used for the ellipses marking our identified cores: red for CrA-A, yellow for CrA-B (one source at 19ℎ02𝑚58.𝑠9 -37◦07′37′′), green for CrA-C and dark blue for CrA-E. The yellow stars represent YSO/protostellar candidates as found by Peterson et al. (2011), who … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 450 𝜇m flux density data with a square root scaling. We show the three regions of obvious emission contained within the SCUBA-2 data. Overlaid are the contours from the high resolution column density maps from Bresnahan et al. (2018), as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: JCMT-Herschel three-colour images of three most visible regions within Corona Australis. Red channel: SCUBA-2 850 𝜇m data. Green channel: Herschel 250-𝜇m data. Blue channel: Herschel 160-𝜇m data. Larger scale structure is observed by Herschel, and the dynamic range of …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the SCUBA-2-derived temperatures and Herschel￾derived temperatures, taken from the Herschel GBS survey results. Sources are colour-coded as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of our SCUBA-2-temperature-derived masses, and Herschel-temperature-derived masses, taken from the Herschel GBS temper￾ature maps discussed in Section 4.2. Sources are colour-coded as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The mass-size diagram for the population of 39 dense cores extracted by getsources from the SCUBA-2 data. The open circles represent cores that were classified as unbound starless cores, and are coloured by subregion. The prestellar cores are indicated by circles fille…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temperature against density of the SCUBA-2 starless cores. Sources are labelled and colour-coded as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The best-fit temperatures in the Coronet (left) and their uncertainties (right) as determined using five different sets (a)–(e) of SED fitting constraints. The cases are as follows: (a, top) filtered-Herschel data only, with 𝛽 = 2; (b) filtered-Herschel and SCUBA-2 850…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The best-fit 𝛽 values in the Coronet (left) and their uncertainties (right). Cases (a)–(e) are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The best-fit column densities in the Coronet (left) and their uncertainties (right). Cases (a)–(e) are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Filled contours of CO contamination fraction in the Coronet clus￾ter, with open contours of uncorrected 850 𝜇m continuum emission overlaid. CO contamination values are shown where 850𝜇m intensities are greater than 0.01 mJy arcsec−2 . 850𝜇m contours show 10, 20, 30, 4…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: In this figure, we show the results of our Monte Carlo modelling of the effects of CO/free-free contamination on SED fitting. Top panel: input 𝛽 vs. returned 𝛽. Bottom panel: input 𝛽 vs. the difference between best￾fit and input 𝛽. The case in which 14% of the total e…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Planck 𝛽 map of CrA. White contours are Herschel column density. Grey outline shows regions observed using SCUBA-2. 6.5 Comparison with Planck imaging We compared our results to the 𝛽 values determined across CrA by the Planck Observatory (Planck Collaboration et al. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ALMA Partnership et al., 2015, , 808, L3

    2015

  2. [2]

    D., et al., 2010, , 518, L99

    Anderson L. D., et al., 2010, , 518, L99

    2010

  3. [3]

    Andr \'e P., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 , 518, L102

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 2010

  4. [4]

    T., Gordon K

    Aniano G., Draine B. T., Gordon K. D., Sandstrom K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1086/662219 , 123, 1218

    doi:10.1086/662219 2011

  5. [5]

    Appenzeller I., Jankovics I., Jetter R., 1986, A&AS, 64, 65

    1986

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al.\ 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz, B

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip o cz, B. M., et al.\ 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L. et al.\ 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    R., 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2145

    Bate M. R., 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2145. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1391

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Beckwith S. V. W., Sargent A. I., Chini R. S., Guesten R., 1990, , 99, 924

    1990

  3. [11]

    Proc SPIE, 9153, p

    Bintley D., et al., 2014, in Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII. Proc SPIE, 9153, p. 915303, @doi 10.1117/12.2055231

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    B., 1956, , 116, 351

    Bonnor W. B., 1956, , 116, 351

    1956

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731117

    Bracco A., Palmeirim P., Andr \'e P., Adam R., Ade P., Bacmann A., Beelen A., et al., 2017, A&A, 604, A52. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731117

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    et al.\ 2020, , 644, A5

    Bracco , A., Bresnahan , D., Palmeirim , P. et al.\ 2020, , 644, A5

    2020

  7. [15]

    M., et al., 2018, arXiv:1801.07805

    Bresnahan D., Ward-Thompson D., Kirk J. M., et al., 2018, arXiv:1801.07805

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    V., Hills, R

    Buckle, J. V., Hills, R. E., Smith, H., et al.\ 2009, , 399, 1026

    2009

  9. [17]

    W., Mathieu R

    Casey B. W., Mathieu R. D., Vaz L. P. R., Andersen J., Suntzeff N. B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300270 , 115, 1617

    1998 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Caselli P., Bizzocchi L., Gutermuth R

    Chac \'o n-Tanarro A., Pineda J. E., Caselli P., Bizzocchi L., Gutermuth R. A., Mason B. S., G \'o mez-Ruiz A. I., et al., 2019, A&A, 623, A118. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833385

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    F., 2005, ApJ, 631, 792

    Chakrabarti S., McKee C. F., 2005, ApJ, 631, 792. doi:10.1086/432659

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Berry D

    Chapin E. L., Berry D. S., Gibb A. G., Jenness T., Scott D., Tilanus R. P. J., Economou F., Holland W. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt052 , 430, 2545

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    C.-Y., Di Francesco J., Johnstone D., et al., 2016, , 826, 95

    Chen M. C.-Y., Di Francesco J., Johnstone D., et al., 2016, , 826, 95

    2016

  14. [22]

    Chini R., et al., 2003, , 409, 235

    2003

  15. [23]

    Coud \'e , S., Bastien , P., Kirk , H., et al., 2016, , 457, 2139

    2016

  16. [24]

    J., Berry, D

    Currie, M. J., Berry, D. S., Jenness, T., et al.\ 2014, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ASP Conference Series, 485, 391

    2014

  17. [25]

    M., et al., 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  18. [26]

    T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt090 , 430, 2534

    Dempsey J. T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt090 , 430, 2534

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Leroux H., Depecker C., et al., 2017, A&A, 600, A123

    Demyk K., Meny C., Lu X.-H., Papatheodorou G., Toplis M. J., Leroux H., Depecker C., et al., 2017, A&A, 600, A123. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629711

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730944

    Demyk K., Meny C., Leroux H., Depecker C., Brubach J.-B., Roy P., Nayral C., et al., 2017, A&A, 606, A50. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730944

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Petitprez D., et al., 2022, A&A, 666, A192

    Demyk K., Gromov V., Meny C., Ysard N., Paradis D., Jones A. P., Petitprez D., et al., 2022, A&A, 666, A192. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243815

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    D \'e sert F.-X., et al., 2008, , 481, 411

    2008

  23. [31]

    Dobashi K., Uehara H., Kandori R., Sakurai T., Kaiden M., Umemoto T., Sato F., 2005, , 57, S1

    2005

  24. [32]

    Drabek E., et al., 2012, , 426, 23

    2012

  25. [33]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M.\ 1984, , 285, 89

    1984

  26. [34]

    T., & Li, A.\ 2007, , 657, 810

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A.\ 2007, , 657, 810

    2007

  27. [35]

    Ebert R., 1955, , 37, 217

    1955

  28. [36]

    G., Falgarone E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/178009 , 471, 816

    Elmegreen B. G., Falgarone E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/178009 , 471, 816

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    Esplin , T. L. & Luhman , K. L., 2022, , 163, 64

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., Dunham M

    Evans N. J., Dunham M. M., J rgensen J. K., Enoch M. L., Mer \' n B., van Dishoeck E. F., Alcal \'a J. M., et al., 2009, ApJS, 181, 321. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    Forbrich, J., & Preibisch, T.\ 2007, , 475, 959

    2007

  32. [40]

    F., Petrov P

    Gahm G. F., Petrov P. P., Tambovsteva L. V., Grinin V. P., Stempels H. C., Walter F. M., 2018, A&A, 614, A117. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832891

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    J., 1992, , 262, 258

    de Geus E. J., 1992, , 262, 258

    1992

  34. [42]

    A., Phillips A

    Graham J. A., Phillips A. C., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131959 , 99, 91

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    O., Corbally C

    Gray R. O., Corbally C. J., Garrison R. F., McFadden M. T., Bubar E. J., McGahee C. E., O'Donoghue A. A., Knox E. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504637 , 132, 161

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014519 , 518, L3

    Griffin M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014519 , 518, L3

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    K., Mattila K., Mauersberger R., Booth R

    Harju J., Haikala L. K., Mattila K., Mauersberger R., Booth R. S., Nordh H. L., 1993, , 278, 569

    1993

  38. [46]

    Hatchell J., et al., 2013, , 429, L10

    2013

  39. [47]

    S., Draine B

    Hensley B. S., Draine B. T., 2023, ApJ, 948, 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    H., 1960, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190050 , 4, 337

    Herbig G. H., 1960, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190050 , 4, 337

    1960 doi

  41. [49]

    H., 1983, , 24, 267

    Hildebrand R. H., 1983, , 24, 267

    1983

  42. [50]

    S., et al., 1999, , 303, 659

    Holland W. S., et al., 1999, , 303, 659

    1999

  43. [51]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts612 , 430, 2513

    Holland W. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts612 , 430, 2513

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    et al., 2015, , 580, A49

    Inutsuka , S.-i., Inoue, T., Iwasaki , K. et al., 2015, , 580, A49

    2015

  45. [53]

    P., K \"o hler M., Ysard N., Bocchio M., Verstraete L., 2017, A&A, 602, A46

    Jones A. P., K \"o hler M., Ysard N., Bocchio M., Verstraete L., 2017, A&A, 602, A46. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630225

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    H., 1945, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144749 , 102, 168

    Joy A. H., 1945, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144749 , 102, 168

    1945 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Meny C., et al., 2015, A&A, 584, A94

    Juvela M., Demyk K., Doi Y., Hughes A., Lef \`e vre C., Marshall D. J., Meny C., et al., 2015, A&A, 584, A94. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425269

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Kirk , H., Hatchell , J., Johnstone , D., et al., 2018, , 238, 8

    2018

  49. [57]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt561 , 432, 1424

    Kirk J. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt561 , 432, 1424

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.808608

    Knee L., 2017, sfcc.conf, 31. doi:10.5281/zenodo.808608

    2017 doi

  51. [60]

    o hler R., Neuh \

    K \"o hler R., Neuh \"a user R., Kr \"a mer S., Leinert C., Ott T., Eckart A., 2008, , 488, 997

    2008

  52. [61]

    K \"o nyves V., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014689 , 518, L106

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    K \"o nyves V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525861 , 584, A91

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    E., J rgensen J

    Lindberg J. E., J rgensen J. K., 2012, , 548, A24

    2012

  55. [64]

    Mairs, S., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., et al.\ 2015, , 454, 2557

    2015

  56. [65]

    S., Broekhoven-Fiene H., Currie M

    Mairs S., Johnstone D., Kirk H., Buckle J., Berry D. S., Broekhoven-Fiene H., Currie M. J., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4022. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1550

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    T., Bell G

    Mairs S., Dempsey J. T., Bell G. S., Parsons H., Currie M. J., Friberg P., Jiang X.-J., et al., 2021, AJ, 162, 191. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac18bf

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    C., Lunttila T., Padoan P., 2011, A&A, 530, A101

    Malinen J., Juvela M., Collins D. C., Lunttila T., Padoan P., 2011, A&A, 530, A101. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015767

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    G., Rydgren A

    Marraco H. G., Rydgren A. E., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/112856 , 86, 62

    1981 doi

  60. [69]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw301 , 459, 342

    Marsh K. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw301 , 459, 342

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    G., Roy, A., Bontemps, S., et al.\ 2012, , 751, 28

    Martin, P. G., Roy, A., Bontemps, S., et al.\ 2012, , 751, 28

    2012

  62. [71]

    V., Magnus McGehee P., Kun M., 2015, IAU General Assembly, 22, 2256704

    Marton G., Zahorecz S., Toth L. V., Magnus McGehee P., Kun M., 2015, IAU General Assembly, 22, 2256704

    2015

  63. [72]

    Maschberger T., Kroupa P., 2009, , 395, 931

    2009

  64. [73]

    M., NED Team 2007, in Shaw R

    Mazzarella J. M., NED Team 2007, in Shaw R. A., Hill F., Bell D. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI. p. 153

    2007

  65. [74]

    Men'shchikov A., Andr \'e P., Didelon P., Motte F., Hennemann M., Schneider N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218797 , 542, A81

    2012 doi

  66. [75]

    Miville-Desch \^e nes M.-A., Lagache G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427938 , 157, 302

    2005 doi

  67. [76]

    M., Liu S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014752 , 530, A133

    Molinari S., Schisano E., Faustini F., Pestalozzi M., di Giorgio A. M., Liu S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014752 , 530, A133

    2011 doi

  68. [77]

    Motte F., Andr \'e P., Ward-Thompson D., Bontemps S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010543 , 372, L41

    2001 doi

  69. [78]

    Neuh \"a user R., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:2000272 , 146, 323

    2000 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Ward-Thompson D., Andr \'e P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08711.x , 357, 975

    Nutter D. J., Ward-Thompson D., Andr \'e P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08711.x , 357, 975

    2005

  71. [80]

    Ossenkopf V., Henning T., 1994, , 291, 943

    1994

  72. [81]

    N., Accomazzi A., Mink D

    Ott S., 2011, in Evans I. N., Accomazzi A., Mink D. J., Rots A. H., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX. p. 347

    2011

  73. [82]

    T., Thomas, H

    Parsons, H., Dempsey, J. T., Thomas, H. S., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 22

    2018

  74. [83]

    Pattle K., et al., 2015, , 450, 1094

    2015

  75. [84]

    Pattle K., et al., 2017, , 464, 4255

    2017

  76. [85]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/43 , 194, 43

    Peterson D. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/43 , 194, 43

    2011 doi

  77. [86]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014759 , 518, L1

    Pilbratt G. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014759 , 518, L1

    2010 doi

  78. [87]

    E., Arzoumanian , D., Andr\'e , P

    Pineda , J. E., Arzoumanian , D., Andr\'e , P. et al., 2023, in Inutsuka , S., Aikawa , Y., Muto , T., Tomida , K. & Tamura , M., eds., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, p. 233

    2023

  79. [88]

    Planck Collaboration, Abergel A., Ade P. A. R., Aghanim N., Arnaud M., Ashdown M., Aumont J., et al., 2011, A&A, 536, A25. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116483

    2011 doi

  80. [89]

    Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al.\ 2014, , 571, A11

    2014

  81. [90]

    Poglitsch A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014535 , 518, L2

    2010 doi

  82. [91]

    Posch , L., Miret-Roig , N., Alves , J. et al. , 2023, , 679, L10

    2023

  83. [92]

    H., 1916, , 76, 645

    Reynolds J. H., 1916, , 76, 645

    1916

  84. [93]

    Rumble, D., Hatchell, J., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2016, , 460, 4150

    2016

  85. [94]

    I., et al., 2010, , 710, 1247

    Sadavoy S. I., et al., 2010, , 710, 1247

    2010

  86. [95]

    I., et al., 2013, , 767, 126

    Sadavoy S. I., et al., 2013, , 767, 126

    2013

  87. [96]

    I., Stutz A

    Sadavoy S. I., Stutz A. M., Schnee S., Mason B. S., Di Francesco J., Friesen R. K., 2016, , 588, A30

    2016

  88. [97]

    J., et al., 2015, , 449, 1782

    Salji C. J., et al., 2015, , 449, 1782

    2015

  89. [98]

    Sandell , G., Reipurth , B., Vacca , W. D. et al., 2021, , 920, 7

    2021

  90. [99]

    Schnee S., Mason B., Di Francesco J., Friesen R., Li D., Sadavoy S., Stanke T., 2014, , 444, 2303

    2014

  91. [100]

    A., Ercolano B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2234 , 696, 2234

    Shetty R., Kauffmann J., Schnee S., Goodman A. A., Ercolano B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2234 , 696, 2234

    2009 doi

  92. [101]

    A.\ 2009, , 696, 676

    Shetty, R., Kauffmann, J., Schnee, S., & Goodman, A. A.\ 2009, , 696, 676

    2009

  93. [102]

    J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220170 , 551, A34

    Sicilia-Aguilar A., Henning T., Linz H., Andr \'e P., Stutz A., Eiroa C., White G. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220170 , 551, A34

    2013 doi

  94. [103]

    V., Testi L., Gong M., Caselli P., 2022, ApJ, 940, 188

    Silsbee K., Akimkin V., Ivlev A. V., Testi L., Gong M., Caselli P., 2022, ApJ, 940, 188. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac978b

    2022 doi

  95. [104]

    J., Johnstone, D., Nutter, D., Ward-Thompson, D., & Whitworth, A

    Simpson, R. J., Johnstone, D., Nutter, D., Ward-Thompson, D., & Whitworth, A. P.\ 2011, , 417, 216

    2011

  96. [105]

    Staguhn J., et al., 2008, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 151, 709

    2008

  97. [106]

    D., Wilson G

    Tang Y., Wang Q. D., Wilson G. W., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2377. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3230

    2021 doi

  98. [107]

    Taylor K. N. R., Storey J. W. V., 1984, , 209, 5P

    1984

  99. [108]

    doi:10.2458/azu\_uapress\_9780816531240-ch015

    Testi L., Birnstiel T., Ricci L., Andrews S., Blum J., Carpenter J., Dominik C., et al., 2014, prpl.conf, 339. doi:10.2458/azu\_uapress\_9780816531240-ch015

    2014 doi

  100. [109]

    T., Wright C

    Ubach C., Maddison S. T., Wright C. M., Wilner D. J., Lommen D. J. P., Koribalski B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21603.x , 425, 3137

    2012

  101. [110]

    F., Scarrott S

    Ward-Thompson D., Warren-Smith R. F., Scarrott S. M., Wolstencroft R. D., 1985, , 215, 537

    1985

  102. [111]

    M., 2002, , 329, 257

    Ward-Thompson D., Andr \'e P., Kirk J. M., 2002, , 329, 257

    2002

  103. [112]

    Ward-Thompson D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521277 , 119, 855

    2007 doi

  104. [113]

    Ward-Thompson D., et al., 2016, , 463, 1008

    2016

  105. [114]

    A., Harvey P

    Wilking B. A., Harvey P. M., Joy M., Hyland A. R., Jones T. J., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163223 , 293, 165

    1985 doi

  106. [115]

    A., Taylor K

    Wilking B. A., Taylor K. N. R., Storey J. W. V., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114140 , 92, 103

    1986 doi

  107. [116]

    A., Greene T

    Wilking B. A., Greene T. P., Lada C. J., Meyer M. R., Young E. T., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171808 , 397, 520

    1992 doi

  108. [117]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118420

    Ysard N., Juvela M., Demyk K., Guillet V., Abergel A., Bernard J.-P., Malinen J., et al., 2012, A&A, 542, A21. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118420

    2012 doi

  109. [118]

    P., Demyk K., Bout \'e raon T., Koehler M., 2018, A&A, 617, A124

    Ysard N., Jones A. P., Demyk K., Bout \'e raon T., Koehler M., 2018, A&A, 617, A124. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833386

    2018 doi

  110. [119]

    P., Verstraete L., 2019, A&A, 631, A88

    Ysard N., Koehler M., Jimenez-Serra I., Jones A. P., Verstraete L., 2019, A&A, 631, A88. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936089

    2019 doi

  111. [120]

    P., Guillet V., Demyk K., Decleir M., Verstraete L., Choubani I., et al., 2024, A&A, 684, A34

    Ysard N., Jones A. P., Guillet V., Demyk K., Decleir M., Verstraete L., Choubani I., et al., 2024, A&A, 684, A34. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348391

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    S., Schlafly , E

    Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., Schlafly , E. F. et al., 2019, , 879, 125

    2019

  113. [122]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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