Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

An embedded Disk (eDisk) in the IceAge: Investigating the jet and outflow from CED 110 IRS4

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The embedded protostar Ced 110 IRS4A drives a wide, fast atomic jet that JWST has now resolved for the first time, alongside a molecular outflow whose shape argues against MHD disk winds.

desk verdict A genuinely new resolved jet detection from Ced 110 IRS4A with solid morphology, but the headline velocity and timescale rest on a fragile deprojection and should be revised before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00394 v1 pith:VHBNXXX2 submitted 2025-02-01 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Mayank Narang , Nagayoshi Ohashi , John J. Tobin , M. K. McClure , Jes K. J{o}rgensen , Jinshi Sai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords protostellarjetsClass0protostarsJWSTMIRIMRSALMAeDiskmolecularoutflowsH2emissionembeddeddisksCed110IRS4
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 the first well-resolved detection of a jet from the embedded protostellar binary Ced 110 IRS4, combining JWST mid-infrared spectroscopy with ALMA millimeter imaging. The jet from the primary, IRS4A, is traced in multiple [Fe II] lines and in [Ni II], [Ar II], and [Ne II]; it is no wider than about $51$ au at its base, opens at $23^\circ \pm 4^\circ$, and moves at roughly $124$ km s$^{-1}$ after correcting for the $76^\circ$ disk inclination, implying a dynamical age of about 25 years. The molecular hydrogen outflow around the same source has a different morphology, two back-to-back hemispheres whose width does not change with excitation, which the authors argue is hard to reconcile with MHD disk winds as the launching mechanism. If correct, these results tie the earliest embedded stage of star formation to the jets and outflows that remove angular momentum and reshape the envelope.

What carries the argument

The analysis rides on three observational tools. MIRI MRS integral-field spectroscopy resolves the atomic jet and molecular hydrogen lines at roughly 50 au scales, letting the authors measure jet width and velocity as functions of position. The 5.34 $\mu$m [Fe II] transition offers the finest spatial and spectral resolution among the detected lines and anchors the kinematic analysis. ALMA eDisk data supply the disk scale and orientation: the 1.3 mm dust continuum gives disk radii and the $76^\circ$ inclination used to deproject the jet velocity, while the position of the dust disk defines the jet axis. The Sobel--Feldman edge-detection filter applied to the H$_2$ images measures outflow widths across transitions, and the MIRI PSF is subtracted in quadrature to obtain deconvolved jet widths.

What would settle it

Measure the blue- and red-shifted jet velocities independently at higher spectral resolution and compare them, and fit the ALMA velocity field to get an independent disk inclination; if the two jet sides are not symmetric or the inclination differs significantly from $76^\circ$, the claimed 124 km s$^{-1}$ jet velocity and 25-year dynamical timescale would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Ced 110 IRS4A, a Class 0/I protostar in the Chamaeleon I cloud, drives an atomic jet that is now resolved for the first time. MIRI MRS observations detect the jet in four [Fe II] transitions as well as [Ni II] at 6.64 $\mu$m, [Ar II] at 6.99 $\mu$m, and [Ne II] at 12.81 $\mu$m; the 5.34 $\mu$m [Fe II] line shows a goblet-like morphology that widens from an upper-limit base width of $51 \pm 8.6$ au to an opening angle of $23^\circ \pm 4^\circ$. A position--velocity analysis of the same line gives a peak-to-peak velocity of about 60 km s$^{-1}$, which the authors divide by $\cos(76^\circ)$ to obtain a deprojected jet velocity of about $124$ km s$^{-1}$ and, from the 1324 au jet length, a dynamical timescale of about 25 years. The molecular hydrogen outflow is morphologically distinct: rather than the usual hourglass, it appears as two hemispheres meeting at a neck at the protostar, and its measured width is roughly constant across the 0-0 S(1), S(4), and S(7) transitions. The authors interpret this transition-independent width as evidence that MHD disk winds may not drive the H$_2$ outflow, and report that the outflow width at the protostar ($130 \pm 10$ au) lies between the jet width and the 183.4 au dust disk diameter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the disk is tilted at $76^\circ$ and the jet is symmetric, so dividing the observed 30 km s$^{-1}$ line-of-sight velocity by $\cos(76^\circ)$ gives the true speed; a different tilt or an asymmetric jet would change the derived 124 km s$^{-1}$ speed and the 25-year dynamical timescale substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ced 110 IRS4A joins the small set of Class 0 protostars whose atomic jets are spatially resolved, allowing direct comparison of jet and disk sizes during the main accretion phase.
  • The $23^\circ \pm 4^\circ$ opening angle is much larger than the roughly $4.6^\circ$ expected for a ballistically confined jet at $124$ km s$^{-1}$, implying the jet is not confined or is precessing.
  • If MHD disk winds drove the H$_2$ outflow, higher-excitation lines should appear more collimated than lower-excitation ones; the equal widths across S(1), S(4), and S(7) argue against that launching mechanism.
  • The outflow width at the protostar ($130 \pm 10$ au) being smaller than the 183.4 au disk diameter but larger than the 51 au jet width constrains where the outflow is launched relative to the disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If equal H$_2$ width across excitation transitions is found in other Class 0 sources, the general case for MHD disk winds as the primary outflow driver would weaken, and alternative mechanisms such as entrainment by wide-angle winds would need more attention.
  • The large opening angle could be a sign of jet precession driven by the binary companion at 250 au separation; multi-epoch JWST imaging over a few years could look for a wobble in the jet position angle.
  • The 30 km s$^{-1}$ line-of-sight velocity could be checked with higher spectral resolution observations of the [Fe II] lines, which would directly test the symmetry assumption without relying on the $76^\circ$ inclination.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents JWST NIRCam and MIRI MRS observations, combined with ALMA eDisk data, of the Class 0/I protostellar binary Ced 110 IRS4. The main claims are: detection of an atomic jet from Ced 110 IRS4A in multiple [Fe II] lines plus [Ni II], [Ar II], and [Ne II], marking the first well-resolved jet from the system; a jet width upper limit of 51 au and an opening angle of 23° ± 4°; an inclination-corrected jet velocity of 124 km/s and a dynamical timescale of 25 years; a molecular H2 outflow with a back-to-back hemisphere morphology whose extent is similar across transitions, interpreted as a possible sign that MHD disk winds do not drive the outflow; and an outflow width at the protostar of 130 ± 10 au. The paper also reports disk shadows, arc-like envelope structures, and tentative evidence for a jet from IRS4B.

Significance. The reported detection of a well-resolved atomic/fine-structure jet from Ced 110 IRS4A is a concrete observational advance: it adds a deeply embedded Class 0 source to the small sample of jets mapped with JWST, and the width and opening-angle measurements are valuable, especially when combined with the ALMA disk characterization. The multi-line consistency of the jet morphology and the explicit astrometric alignment between JWST and ALMA are strengths of the paper. However, the more quantitative claims — the 124 km/s deprojected velocity, the 25-year timescale, and the inference about MHD disk winds — are not yet as secure as the morphological detection. In particular, the kinematic numbers in the abstract and summary rest on an imposed symmetry assumption and an unpropagated inclination, and should be treated as order-of-magnitude estimates pending revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Figure 11] The derived jet velocity of 124 km/s and the dynamical timescale of 25 years rest on two steps that are not defended: (i) the assumption that the jet velocity is symmetric and the average velocity is set to zero, rather than using the ALMA systemic velocity of 4.67 km/s that is cited in the same section; and (ii) deprojection by cos(76°) with no uncertainty propagation. Because 1/cos i is about 4.1 at i = 76°, an inclination uncertainty of only ±5° changes the deprojected velocity from roughly 90 to 190 km/s and the derived timescale by a similar factor. Please re-derive the jet velocity relative to the known systemic velocity, propagate the inclination and any velocity-measurement uncertainties, or explicitly state that 124 km/s and 25 years are order-of-magnitude estimates rather than measured results.
  2. [Abstract; Section 3.2; Summary item 4] The abstract states that MIRI MRS observations reveal a jet from 'both protostars' and calls this the first detection of a jet from the system, but the body of the paper only reports 'hints of weak [Fe II] emission' from Ced 110 IRS4B and notes that it is difficult to separate the emission between IRS4A and IRS4B. Summary item 4 correctly uses the word 'hints.' The abstract overstates the evidence for an IRS4B jet and should be revised to attribute the well-resolved jet to IRS4A and to describe the IRS4B emission as tentative.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Figure 14] The conclusion that the similar extent of H2 emission across the S(1), S(4), and S(7) transitions suggests that MHD disk winds may not drive the outflow is not established by the presented analysis. The three transitions have PSF FWHMs that differ by more than a factor of two (0.668″ for S(1) versus 0.288″ for S(7); Table 4), and the comparison in Figure 14(a) uses 10% of peak contours, which conflates intrinsic spatial structure with resolution, excitation, and optical-depth effects. A quantitative test, such as forward-convolving a model intrinsic width with each line's PSF or checking the sensitivity of the derived extents to the contour level, is needed before this can be used as a constraint on the launching mechanism. At minimum, the abstract and Section 4.2 should present this as a tentative suggestion rather than a stated result.
  4. [Section 4.1] The dynamical timescale derivation is ambiguous. The text says the 26 µm [Fe II] emission has a spatial extent of 6.8″ (1285 au) from tip to tip and that after inclination correction the 'total jet length' is 1324 au, but then obtains a timescale of about 25 years using v = 124 km/s. If 1324 au is the full bipolar extent, the relevant length for a single lobe is about 662 au, giving roughly 25 years; if the full extent is used instead, the timescale is about 50 years. Please define whether the quoted length is one-sided or two-sided and make the calculation of the reported 25-year value explicit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The filter is referred to as 'F410' in one place; this should be 'F410M' to match Table 2 and the rest of the text.
  2. [Section 3.4] The text first states that the bulk blue- and red-shifted velocities are about 30–40 km/s, then adopts 30 km/s from the PV peak-to-peak shift of about 60 km/s. Please state how the 30–40 km/s range was obtained and why the lower value is used for the deprojection.
  3. [Table 3] The uncertainties for the IRS4B line fluxes are quoted to 0.005 × 10^-15 erg s^-1 cm^-2; these appear to be formal photometric uncertainties and do not include the significant aperture/PSF contamination from IRS4A noted in Section 3.2. A systematic uncertainty should be added or the caveat made explicit in the table or text.
  4. [Section 4.1] The statement that the jet from Ced 110 IRS4B 'seems to be more extended and brighter on the southern side' is based on marginal detections; given the contamination issues acknowledged in Section 3.2, this should be explicitly labeled as tentative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct JWST/ALMA observations with an external ALMA inclination input.

full rationale

The paper's central results—jet detection, width, opening angle, and velocity—are direct measurements from JWST MIRI MRS line maps, moment maps, and PV diagrams, not outputs of a self-referential fit. The deprojected velocity v_jet=124 km/s is obtained by dividing the measured LOS shift (~30 km/s) by cos(76°) using the disk inclination from Sai et al. (2023); that inclination is an ALMA-based geometric measurement from prior work that does not incorporate the jet velocity or any quantity predicted here, so it functions as an external input rather than a circular premise. The symmetry assumption in §3.4 ('assume that the velocity of the jet is symmetric and set the average velocity of the jet to be zero') sets the velocity zero-point but does not determine the peak-to-peak amplitude of ~60 km/s, which is measured from the PV diagram; hence the 30 km/s value is not defined into existence. Similarly, the H2 outflow width and the jet opening angle are derived from direct spatial fitting of observed emission and PSF deconvolution, with no fitted parameter later relabeled as a prediction. The repeated citation of Sai et al. (2023) for disk properties and systemic velocity is same-team prior work, but it is used as a geometric/kinematic reference, not as a load-bearing self-citation that substitutes for evidence. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction. Robustness concerns about the inclination uncertainty and the symmetry assumption are validity/uncertainty issues, not circularity.

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

The paper is observational and introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are fits to the images, and its kinematics depend on the disk inclination and systemic velocity from a same-team prior paper, which are used as external inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • Opening angle of [Fe II] jet = 23° ± 4°
    Fitted to the deconvolved jet width versus distance within 150 au in Section 3.3.
  • Jet half-velocity from PV diagram = 30 km/s
    Set as half of the 60 km/s peak-to-peak velocity after assuming jet symmetry about the systemic velocity (Section 3.4).
  • Deconvolved jet width at base = ≤51 ± 8.6 au
    Observed width with MIRI MRS PSF subtracted in quadrature; reported as an upper limit (Section 3.3).
  • Outflow width at protostar from H2 S(7) = 130 ± 10 au
    Extrapolated from a linear fit to the H2 0-0 S(7) width versus distance (Section 4.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The disk inclination is 76 degrees and the systemic velocity is 4.67 km/s, from Sai et al. (2023).
    Used in Section 3.4 to convert the line-of-sight jet velocity to 124 km/s; a same-team prior paper supplies the input without propagated uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper The jet's velocity is symmetric about the systemic velocity, so the average velocity is set to zero.
    Explicit assumption in Section 3.4 PV analysis; it sets the zero point for the velocity scale.
  • domain assumption The MIRI MRS PSF widths from Law et al. (2023) are accurate enough for quadrature deconvolution.
    Used in Section 3.3 to derive the deconvolved jet width; an incorrect PSF changes the width and opening angle.
  • domain assumption The H2 0-0 S(1), S(4), and S(7) transitions trace the same outflow structure.
    Basis for the conclusion in Section 4.2 that similar extents across transitions argue against MHD disk winds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An embedded Disk (eDisk) in the IceAge: Investigating the jet and outflow from CED 110 IRS4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VHBNXXX2

@misc{pith2026250200394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An embedded Disk (eDisk) in the IceAge: Investigating the jet and outflow from CED 110 IRS4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VHBNXXX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00394}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive study of the large-scale structure, jet and outflow morphology, and kinematics of the Class 0/I protostellar binary Ced 110 IRS4, using JWST NIRCam (F150W and F410M) and MIRI MRS observations from the JWST ERC program IceAge, along with ALMA data from the Early Planet Formation in Embedded Disks (eDisk) program. NIRCam images, combined with ALMA continuum and CO data, reveal arc-like structures ($\sim$1100 au), suggesting a dense envelope around the protostars. We detect disk shadows from both protostars in F150W. The MIRI MRS IFU data reveal a jet from both protostars in multiple [Fe II] lines, [Ar II] 6.99 $\mu$m and [Ne II] 12.81 $\mu$m, marking the first detection of a jet from the system. The [Fe II] (5.34 $\mu$m) jet from Ced 110 IRS4A has a width of $\leq$ 51~au at the protostellar location, with a large opening angle of 23\arcdeg{} $\pm$ 4\arcdeg. After inclination correction, the jet velocity is 124 km s$^{-1}$, corresponding to a dynamical timescale of 25 years. The molecular H$_2$ outflow displays a distinct morphology resembling two hemispheres placed back-to-back. The consistent H$_2$ emission extent across transitions, differing from previous observations of protostellar outflows detected with JWST, suggests that MHD disk winds may not drive the observed outflow. We find that the upper limit to the width of the outflow at the protostellar location is 130 $\pm$ 10 au which is smaller than the disk diameter of 183.4 {$\pm$ 0.4 au} but much larger than the width of the [Fe II] jet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00394 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The NIRCam F150W and F410M filter image of the Ced 110 IRS4 region in Greyscale. The NIRCam FWHM is shown in the bottom left corner as blue. The scale bar in white is also shown in the bottom right corner. The beam sizes are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The NIRCam F150W and F410M filter image of the Ced 110 IRS4 region in Greyscale is shown with the ALMA 1.3 mm continuum map overlaid as magenta contours. The 1.3 mm continuum maps, with robust parameters of 2.0 and 0.0, are overlaid on the wide and zoomed-in views of the NIRCam image, respectively. The contours are 3, 10, 30, 70, and 100 × σ, with σrobust=2 = 14 µJy and σrobust=0 = 16 µJy with 10, 30, 70, and 100 × … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The NIRCam F150W filter image of the Ced 110 IRS4 region with the ALMA (SB) CO isotopologues integrated intensity image overlaid as magenta contours. The contours for 12CO and 13CO are 15%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, and 99% ×Fmax, where Fmax for 12CO is 0.36 Jy/beam km.s−1 ; Fmax for 13CO is 0.17 Jy/beam km.s−1 . The contours for C18O are 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, and 99% ×Fmax, where Fmax for C18O is 0.07 Jy/beam km.s−1 . The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The NIRCam F150W filter image of the Ced 110 IRS4 region with the ALMA (SBLB) CO isotopologues integrated intensity image overlaid as magenta contours. The contours for are 15%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, and 99% ×Fmax, where Fmax for 12CO is 150 mJy/beam km.s−1 ; Fmax for 13…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The MIRI MRS continuum image of the Ced 110 IRS4 region in Greyscale. The ALMA 1.3 mm position for Ced 110 IRS4A is shown as a red circle and for IRS4B is shown as yellow circle. The scale bar corresponding to 100 au is shown in the bottom right corner. The MIRI FWHM b…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The morphology of the [Fe II] lines detected towards Ced 110 IRS4. All images are cropped to the same spatial scale of 7.2′′by 7.2′′and have the same color scale. The ALMA 1.3 mm contours are shown in lime. The scale bar corresponding to 100 au is shown in the bottom r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The morphology of the atomic fine-structure lines detected towards Ced 110 IRS4. All images are cropped to the same spatial scale of 7.2′′by 7.2′′and have the same color scale. The ALMA 1.3 mm contours are shown in lime. The scale bar corresponding to 100 au is shown i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The atomic jet has traced in [Fe II] at 5.34 µm and [Ne II] at 12.81 µm with NIRCam F150W emission overlaid on top in magenta. The MIRI FWHM based on Law et al. (2023) is shown in the bottom left corner as a blue circle, while the NIRCam FWHM is shown as a red circle …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) The horizontal slices in green marked on top of the jet traced in [Fe II] at 5.34 µm. The white circle represents the protostellar position. The cyan dashed line marks the jet axis which is perpendicular to the disk as traced in ALMA dust continuum. (b) The observe…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The moment 1 map for the [Fe II] line at 5.34 µm. The contours mark the velocities in km s−1 . 1 2 tan−1  Deconvolved jet width Distance from the central source ), also varies. The deconvolved jet width in the central region is ≤ 51 ± 8.6 au. However, this measureme…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) The [Fe II] jet at 5.35 µm shown in Blue overlaid with a red rectangle that denoted the region considered for making the PV diagram. The black solid circle is the ALMA continuum position. (b) The PV diagram for the [Fe II] line at 5.34 µm as a function of the dist…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The morphology of H2 0-0 S line from S(1) to S(8) covering the MIRI MRS. All images are cropped to the same spatial scale of 5. ′′7 × 5. ′′7 and have the same color scale. The ALMA 1.3 mm position for Ced 110 IRS4A is shown as a blue circle and for IRS4B is shown as a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The molecular H2 0-0 S(7) line with the NIRCam F150W emission, the SBLB 1.3 mm ALMA continuum and the ALMA 12CO observations. The MIRI FWHM based on Law et al. (2023) is shown in the bottom left corner as a red circle, while the NIRCam/ALMA beam is a blue ellipse. whi…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) The molecular H2 0-0 S(1) line with contours of 0-0 S(4) and 0-0 S(7) overlaid on top. The H2 0-0 S(4) and H2 0-0 S(7) contours are at 10% of the peak flux density (3.55 and 8.5 ×10−4 ergs/s/cm2 /sr respectively) of the emission. (b) The edge detected (in red) on …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Using Scattered Near-Infrared Light to Map Water Ice in Prestellar Cores with SPHEREx

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Coreshine SPHEREx spectra map 3 µm H2O ice across four prestellar cores; the two densest show an unexplained central drop in ice absorption that standard Bonnor-Ebert scattering models cannot reproduce.

  2. JWST/MIRI Detection of Molecular H$_2$ Winds from an Edge-on Class II Source HV Tau C

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The edge-on Class II disk HV Tau C hosts a spatially extended, wide-angled molecular hydrogen wind with warm (~600 K) and hot (~2000 K) components and a mass-loss rate near 1e-8 solar masses per year.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    B !̕3g#ۺN_8 p Cۻ |U <Ҹqxsn .q ! n p1_ XS 3Jι ss<ιó i

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220488

    Agra-Amboage, V., Cabrit, S., Dougados, C., et al.\ 2014, , 564, A11. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220488

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220488 2014

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1086/172425

    Andre, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M.\ 1993, , 406, 122. doi:10.1086/172425

    doi:10.1086/172425 1993

  6. [6]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.18334

    Assani, K., Harsono, D., Ramsey, J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2404.18334. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.18334

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.18334 2024

  7. [7]

    D.\ 2008, , 391, L64

    Alexander, R. D.\ 2008, , 391, L64. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00556.x

    arXiv 2008

  8. [9]

    M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V

    Appel, S. M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V. A., et al.\ 2023, , 954, 93. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace897

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace897 2023

Show all 105 references
  1. [10]

    R., et al.\ 2023, , 675, A111

    Argyriou, I., Glasse, A., Law, D. R., et al.\ 2023, , 675, A111. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346489

    2023 doi

  2. [11]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    Bally, J.\ 2016, , 54, 491. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    R.\ 2009, , 392, 1363

    Bate, M. R.\ 2009, , 392, 1363. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14165.x

    2009

  4. [13]

    F., Tychoniec, L., et al.\ 2023, , 673, A121

    Beuther, H., van Dishoeck, E. F., Tychoniec, L., et al.\ 2023, , 673, A121. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346167

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    Blandford, R. D. & Payne, D. G.\ 1982, , 199, 883. doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    1982 doi

  6. [15]

    L., Crapsi, A., Myers, P

    Bourke, T. L., Crapsi, A., Myers, P. C., et al.\ 2005, , 633, L129. doi:10.1086/498449

    2005 doi

  7. [16]

    Brunken, N. G. C., Rocha, W. R. M., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A27. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348718

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    & Moosman, A.\ 1981, , 48, 353

    Cassen, P. & Moosman, A.\ 1981, , 48, 353. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(81)90051-8

    1981 doi

  9. [18]

    P., Kavanagh, P

    Caratti o Garatti, A., Ray, T. P., Kavanagh, P. J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2409.16061. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.16061

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    A., Manoj, P., Tyagi, H., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2404.07299

    Neufeld, D. A., Manoj, P., Tyagi, H., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2404.07299. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.07299

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    doi:10.1086/523645

    Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., et al.\ 2008, , 175, 277. doi:10.1086/523645

    2008 doi

  12. [22]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.15346

    Dutta, S., Lee, C.-F., Johnstone, D., et al.\ 2023, arXiv:2306.15346. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.15346

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [23]

    J., Dunham, M

    Evans, N. J., Dunham, M. M., J rgensen, J. K., et al.\ 2009, , 181, 321. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    2009 doi

  14. [24]

    M., Krumholz, M

    Fall, S. M., Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D.\ 2010, , 710, L142. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/710/2/L142

    2010 doi

  15. [25]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv941

    Federrath, C.\ 2015, , 450, 4035. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv941

    2015 doi

  16. [26]

    A., Megeath, S

    Federman, S. A., Megeath, S. T., Rubinstein, A. E., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 41. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fa0

    2024 doi

  17. [27]

    F., et al.\ 2022, , 937, L9

    Fiorellino, E., Tychoniec, ., Manara, C. F., et al.\ 2022, , 937, L9. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8fee

    2022 doi

  18. [28]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca320

    Fiorellino, E., Tychoniec, ., Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera, F., et al.\ 2023, , 944, 135. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca320

    2023 doi

  19. [29]

    P., Cabrit, S., et al.\ 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 451

    Frank, A., Ray, T. P., Cabrit, S., et al.\ 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 451. doi:10.2458/azu\_uapress\_9780816531240-ch020

    2014 doi

  20. [30]

    E., Najita, J

    Glassgold, A. E., Najita, J. R., & Igea, J.\ 2007, , 656, 515. doi:10.1086/510013

    2007 doi

  21. [31]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hargreaves, R. J., et al.\ 2022, , 277, 107949. doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949

    2022

  22. [32]

    D., Pontoppidan, K

    Green, J. D., Pontoppidan, K. M., Reiter, M., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2406.13084. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.13084

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [33]

    Y., Offner, S

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi \'c , M. Y., Offner, S. S. R., et al.\ 2022, , 515, 4929. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2060

    2022 doi

  24. [34]

    K., Bourke, T

    J rgensen, J. K., Bourke, T. L., Myers, P. C., et al.\ 2007, , 659, 479. doi:10.1086/512230

    2007 doi

  25. [35]

    K., van Dishoeck, E

    J rgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., Visser, R., et al.\ 2009, , 507, 861. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912325

    2009 doi

  26. [36]

    M., Megeath, S

    Habel, N. M., Megeath, S. T., Booker, J. J., et al.\ 2021, , 911, 153. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abded8

    2021 doi

  27. [37]

    P., et al.\ 2023, , 951, L32

    Harsono, D., Bjerkeli, P., Ramsey, J. P., et al.\ 2023, , 951, L32. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdfca

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N.\ 2016, , 54, 135. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    2016 doi

  29. [39]

    Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1998

    Hartmann, L.\ 1998, Accretion processes in star formation / Lee Hartmann. Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1998. (Cambridge astrophysics series ; 32) ISBN 0521435072

    1998

  30. [40]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfab

    Hennebelle, P., Commer c on, B., Lee, Y.-N., et al.\ 2020, , 904, 194. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfab

    2020 doi

  31. [41]

    doi:10.1086/519269

    Hiramatsu, M., Hayakawa, T., Tatematsu, K., et al.\ 2007, , 664, 964. doi:10.1086/519269

    2007 doi

  32. [42]

    & Gorti, U.\ 2009, , 703, 1203

    Hollenbach, D. & Gorti, U.\ 2009, , 703, 1203. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1203

    2009 doi

  33. [43]

    W.\ 2005, , 5904, 30

    Huff, L. W.\ 2005, , 5904, 30. doi:10.1117/12.619909

    2005 doi

  34. [44]

    NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver

    Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Yu., Reader, J., and NIST ASD Team (2023). NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.11), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2023, December 19]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18434/T4W30F

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    C., & Kim, H.-J.\ 2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 109

    Koo, B.-C., Raymond, J. C., & Kim, H.-J.\ 2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 109. doi:10.5303/JKAS.2016.49.3.109

    2016 doi

  36. [46]

    F., J rgensen, J

    Lahuis, F., van Dishoeck, E. F., J rgensen, J. K., et al.\ 2010, , 519, A3. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913957

    2010 doi

  37. [47]

    D., Morrison, J

    Law, D. D., Morrison, J. E., Argyriou, I., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 45. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdddc

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347913

    Lebreuilly, U., Hennebelle, P., Maury, A., et al.\ 2024, , 683, A13. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347913

    2024 doi

  39. [49]

    Lee, C.-F., Ho, P. T. P., Li, Z.-Y., et al.\ 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0152. doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0152

    2017 doi

  40. [50]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abda38

    Lee, C.-F., Tabone, B., Cabrit, S., et al.\ 2021, , 907, L41. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abda38

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    doi:10.1007/s00159-020-0123-7

    Lee, C.-F.\ 2020, , 28, 1. doi:10.1007/s00159-020-0123-7

    2020 doi

  42. [52]

    H., Furlan, E., et al.\ 2011, , 193, 11

    Manoj, P., Kim, K. H., Furlan, E., et al.\ 2011, , 193, 11. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/1/11

    2011 doi

  43. [53]

    N., et al.\ 2019, , 871, 221

    Matsushita, Y., Takahashi, S., Machida, M. N., et al.\ 2019, , 871, 221. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1b6

    2019 doi

  44. [54]

    & Pudritz, R

    Matt, S. & Pudritz, R. E.\ 2005, , 632, L135. doi:10.1086/498066

    2005 doi

  45. [55]

    K., Rocha, W

    McClure, M. K., Rocha, W. R. M., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al.\ 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 431. doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01875-w

    2023 doi

  46. [56]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., et al.\ 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 127

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., et al.\ 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 127

    2007

  47. [57]

    E., & Najita, J

    Meijerink, R., Glassgold, A. E., & Najita, J. R.\ 2008, , 676, 518. doi:10.1086/527411

    2008 doi

  48. [58]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1de3

    Narang, M., Manoj, P., Tyagi, H., et al.\ 2024, , 962, L16. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1de3

    2024 doi

  49. [59]

    doi:10.1007/s12036-023-09982-4

    Narang, M., Manoj, P., Tyagi, H., et al.\ 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 92. doi:10.1007/s12036-023-09982-4

    2023 doi

  50. [60]

    Nazari, P., Rocha, W. R. M., Rubinstein, A. E., et al.\ 2024, , 686, A71. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348695

    2024 doi

  51. [61]

    G., Giannini, T., et al.\ 2024, , 967, 168

    Nisini, B., Navarro, M. G., Giannini, T., et al.\ 2024, , 967, 168. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d5a

    2024 doi

  52. [62]

    Offner, S. S. R. & Arce, H. G.\ 2014, , 784, 61. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/61

    2014 doi

  53. [63]

    J., J rgensen, J

    Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., J rgensen, J. K., et al.\ 2023, , 951, 8. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd384

    2023 doi

  54. [64]

    L., Cabrit, S., et al.\ 2024, Nature Astronomy

    Pascucci, I., Beck, T. L., Cabrit, S., et al.\ 2024, Nature Astronomy. doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02385-7

    2024 doi

  55. [65]

    R., G \'o mez, M., et al.\ 2001, , 376, 907

    Persi, P., Marenzi, A. R., G \'o mez, M., et al.\ 2001, , 376, 907. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010962

    2001 doi

  56. [66]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    Pinte, C., M \'e nard, F., Duch \^e ne, G., et al.\ 2018, , 609, A47. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    2018 doi

  57. [67]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038429

    Podio, L., Tabone, B., Codella, C., et al.\ 2021, , 648, A45. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038429

    2021 doi

  58. [68]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Pokhrel, R., Gutermuth, R. A., Krumholz, M. R., et al.\ 2021, , 912, L19. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf564

    2021 doi

  59. [69]

    T., Gutermuth, R

    Pokhrel, R., Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R. A., et al.\ 2023, , 266, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbfac

    2023 doi

  60. [70]

    T., Gutermuth, R

    Pokhrel, R., Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R. A., et al.\ 2023, Extension of HOPS Out to 500 ParSecs, IPAC, doi:10.26131/IRSA553

    2023 doi

  61. [71]

    Pontoppidan, K. M. & Dullemond, C. P.\ 2005, , 435, 595. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042059

    2005 doi

  62. [72]

    O., Whittet, D

    Prusti, T., Clark, F. O., Whittet, D. C. B., et al.\ 1991, , 251, 303. doi:10.1093/mnras/251.2.303

    1991 doi

  63. [73]

    Pudritz, R. E. & Norman, C. A.\ 1983, , 274, 677. doi:10.1086/161481

    1983 doi

  64. [74]

    E., Ouyed, R., Fendt, C., et al.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 277

    Pudritz, R. E., Ouyed, R., Fendt, C., et al.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 277. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603592

    2007 doi arXiv

  65. [75]

    Ray, T. P. & Ferreira, J.\ 2021, , 93, 101615. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2021.101615

    2021

  66. [76]

    P., McCaughrean, M

    Ray, T. P., McCaughrean, M. J., Caratti o Garatti, A., et al.\ 2023, , 622, 48. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06551-1

    2023 doi

  67. [77]

    A., Andrews, S

    Rosenfeld, K. A., Andrews, S. M., Hughes, A. M., et al.\ 2013, , 774, 16. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/16

    2013 doi

  68. [78]

    E., Tyagi, H., Nazari, P., et al.\ 2023, arXiv:2312.07807

    Rubinstein, A. E., Tyagi, H., Nazari, P., et al.\ 2023, arXiv:2312.07807. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.07807

    2023 doi arXiv

  69. [79]

    doi:10.1086/324738

    Reipurth, B., Heathcote, S., Morse, J., et al.\ 2002, , 123, 362. doi:10.1086/324738

    2002 doi

  70. [80]

    J., Bally, J., et al.\ 2019, , 158, 107

    Reipurth, B., Davis, C. J., Bally, J., et al.\ 2019, , 158, 107. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2d25

    2019 doi

  71. [81]

    & Smith, N.\ 2013, , 433, 2226

    Reiter, M. & Smith, N.\ 2013, , 433, 2226. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt889

    2013 doi

  72. [82]

    H., Wright, G

    Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., B \"o ker, T., et al.\ 2015, , 127, 584. doi:10.1086/682252

    2015 doi

  73. [83]

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al.\ 2023, , 135, 048001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  74. [84]

    Rocha, W. R. M., McClure, M. K., Sturm, J. A., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2411.19651. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.19651

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [85]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace52d

    Sai, J., Yen, H.-W., Ohashi, N., et al.\ 2023, , 954, 67. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace52d

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    F., Tychoniec, ., et al.\ 2024, , 688, A29

    Slavicinska, K., van Dishoeck, E. F., Tychoniec, ., et al.\ 2024, , 688, A29. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449785

    2024 doi

  77. [87]

    Shang, H., Li, Z.-Y., & Hirano, N.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 261

    2007

  78. [88]

    Sobel, Irwin and Feldman, Gary\ 2015, An Isotropic 3x3 Image Gradient Operator doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1912.4965

    2015

  79. [89]

    H., Lizano, S., Ruden, S

    Shu, F. H., Lizano, S., Ruden, S. P., et al.\ 1988, , 328, L19. doi:10.1086/185152

    1988 doi

  80. [90]

    H., Najita, J

    Shu, F. H., Najita, J. R., Shang, H., et al.\ 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 789

    2000

  81. [91]

    Stahler, S. W. & Palla, F.\ 2004, The Formation of Stars, by Steven W. Stahler, Francesco Palla, 865 pp. ISBN 3-527-40559-3. Wiley-VCH, 2004

    2004

  82. [92]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/47

    Szul \'a gyi, J., Pascucci, I., \'A brah \'a m, P., et al.\ 2012, , 759, 47. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/47

    2012 doi

  83. [93]

    Tayal, S. S. & Zatsarinny, O.\ 2018, , 98, 012706. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.012706

    2018 doi

  84. [94]

    J., Sheehan, P

    Tobin, J. J., Sheehan, P. D., Megeath, S. T., et al.\ 2020, , 890, 130. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f64

    2020 doi

  85. [95]

    Tobin, J. J. & Sheehan, P. D.\ 2024, arXiv:2403.15550. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.15550

    2024 doi arXiv

  86. [96]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.06697

    Tyagi, H., Manoj, P., Narang, M., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2410.06697. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.06697

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [97]

    L., van Dishoeck, E

    Tychoniec, ., van Gelder, M. L., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al.\ 2024, , 687, A36. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348889

    2024 doi

  88. [98]

    K.\ 1976, , 210, 377

    Ulrich, R. K.\ 1976, , 210, 377. doi:10.1086/154840

    1976 doi

  89. [99]

    E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261. doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  90. [100]

    A., van Dishoeck, E

    van Kempen, T. A., van Dishoeck, E. F., Hogerheijde, M. R., et al.\ 2009, , 508, 259. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811099

    2009 doi

  91. [101]

    M., Calvet, N

    Watson, D. M., Calvet, N. P., Fischer, W. J., et al.\ 2016, , 828, 52. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/52

    2016 doi

  92. [102]

    L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al.\ 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453

    van der Walt, S., Sch \"o nberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al.\ 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453. doi:10.7717/peerj.453

    2014 doi

  93. [103]

    White, R. J. & Hillenbrand, L. A.\ 2004, , 616, 998. doi:10.1086/425115

    2004 doi

  94. [104]

    J., Greene, T

    White, R. J., Greene, T. P., Doppmann, G. W., et al.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 117. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0604081

    2007 doi arXiv

  95. [105]

    S., Wright, D., Goodson, G

    Wright, G. S., Wright, D., Goodson, G. B., et al.\ 2015, , 127, 595. doi:10.1086/682253

    2015 doi

  96. [106]

    D., Pontoppidan, K

    Yang, Y.-L., Green, J. D., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al.\ 2022, , 941, L13. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca289

    2022 doi

  97. [107]

    J., et al.\ 1999, , 352, L73

    Zinnecker, H., Krabbe, A., McCaughrean, M. J., et al.\ 1999, , 352, L73

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.