Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 126 references

FAUST XXVI. The dust opacity spectral indices of protostellar envelopes bridge the gap between interstellar medium and disks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dust opacity spectral indices measured in protostellar envelope emission from the ALMA FAUST program fill the gap between interstellar medium and disk values, showing mostly ISM-like β and a significant decrease of β with envelope mass.

desk verdict Nine new envelope beta measurements are a real advance, but the headline correlation rests on pooling two statistically incompatible samples and an internal RCrA-IRS7B inconsistency needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06865 v1 pith:EHHHG4BA submitted 2025-06-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Luca Cacciapuoti , L. Testi , A.J. Maury , C. Chandler , N. Sakai , C. Ceccarelli , C. Codella , M. De Simone
show 31 more authors
L. Podio G. Sabatini E. Bianchi E. Macias A. Miotello C. Toci L. Loinard D. Johnstone H.B. Liu Y. Aikawa Y. Shirley B. Svoboda T. Sakai T. Hirota S. Viti B. Lefloch Y. Oya S. Ohashi S. Feng F. Fontani Y. Watanabe A. Lopez-Sepulcre Y. Zhang C. Vastel D. Segura-Cox J. Pineda A. Isella R.S. Klessen P. Hennebelle S. Molinari S. Yamamoto
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords dustopacityspectralindexprotostellarenvelopesgraingrowthALMAClass0/Iprotostarsmillimetrecontinuumuv-planemodellingstarformation
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 uses ALMA observations at 1.2 and 3.1 mm to measure the dust opacity spectral index $\beta$ in the envelopes around 11 Class 0/I protostars, nine of which had never been measured before. The authors find that most envelopes have $\beta \approx 1.4$–$1.7$, close to typical interstellar-medium values, while a few massive or peculiar sources have lower $\beta$ approaching disk-like values. Combining their measurements with the nine literature values, they argue that envelope spectral indices smoothly bridge the gap between ISM and disk values, and they report a statistically significant correlation between $\beta$ and envelope mass. If correct, this implies that the dust feeding planet-forming disks has not yet grown to large sizes in most envelopes.

What carries the argument

The central tool is a uv-plane decomposition of the ALMA continuum visibilities at 1.2 mm and 3.1 mm into a Plummer envelope model and one or more Gaussian components representing the optically thick inner disk. The spectral index $\alpha$ is computed from the binned flux ratios of the envelope emission after the compact component is subtracted, and $\beta$ is derived from $\alpha$ using an assumed dust temperature profile $T(R)=38\,(L/L_\odot)^{0.2}\,(R/100\,\mathrm{au})^{-0.4}\,\mathrm{K}$ (Eq. 4). This decomposition is what lets the authors isolate the envelope emission uncontaminated by the bright disk.

What would settle it

Measure the envelope dust spectral index at a third wavelength, for example at 0.8 mm or 7 mm, for the same FAUST sources and check whether the inferred beta and its correlation with envelope mass remain unchanged; if the derived beta shifts systematically with wavelength or when the temperature profile is replaced by temperatures measured directly from resolved molecular-line or dust-emission maps, the claim of ISM-like envelope dust would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors measure the dust opacity spectral index $\beta$ at roughly 500 au scales in the envelopes of 11 FAUST protostars by modeling the uv-visibilities with a Plummer envelope plus Gaussian disk components and subtracting the compact optically thick emission. Eight of the eleven envelopes have $\beta$ values consistent with ISM-like dust ($\beta \approx 1.4$–$1.7$), while three sources (IRAS4A, L1551-IRS5, L1527 IRS) show lower $\beta$ ($\lesssim 1.1$), indicating either large grains or optical-depth effects. Pooling their results with the nine envelopes from the CALYPSO sample (total n=18), they confirm at p=0.01 that $\beta$ decreases with envelope mass and that the spatial gradient of $\beta$ correlates with envelope mass at p=0.001. They interpret the overall distribution as evidence that dust optical properties vary continuously from the ISM to protoplanetary disks.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of the measured flux spectral index into the dust opacity index assumes a specific temperature profile for the envelope dust; if the envelopes are actually warmer or cooler than this profile by more than about 10 K, all the reported beta values shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dust growth to sizes larger than about 100 $\mu$m does not appear to be the norm in protostellar envelopes, so the large grain populations seen in many disks must form within the disk itself.
  • The significant anti-correlation between $\beta$ and envelope mass, if real, suggests that either more massive envelopes host larger grains or their inner regions are partially optically thick at 1 mm.
  • The bridging distribution from ISM to disks provides a reference for theoretical models of dust evolution during collapse, which currently struggle to grow grains beyond roughly 2 $\mu$m in envelopes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the FAUST and CALYPSO samples have statistically different $\beta$ distributions (KS p=0.003), the pooled correlation with envelope mass may partly reflect the sample composition; a single sample with uniform selection is needed to test the correlation within a homogeneous population.
  • If the low $\beta$ values in massive envelopes are due to optical depth rather than large grains, longer-wavelength observations (e.g., at 7 mm) should recover higher $\beta$, which would resolve the degeneracy.
  • The ISM-like envelope $\beta$ values for most sources imply that the dust-to-gas ratio and grain-size distribution delivered to planet-forming disks may be close to pristine ISM, with implications for early planetesimal formation models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses ALMA FAUST 1.2 and 3.1 mm continuum observations of 13 Class 0/I protostars to measure the dust opacity spectral index beta in their envelopes. The method models the visibilities with a Plummer envelope plus one or more Gaussian compact components, subtracts the compact component, and derives alpha and beta as functions of uv-distance (physical scale). Envelope beta values are reported for 11 sources (9 new), with most values in the range 0.9-1.7. Combining these with the Galametz et al. (2019) CALYPSO measurements (total n=18), the paper argues that envelope beta values bridge the ISM (beta~1.5-1.9) and disk (beta<1) regimes, and reports a significant correlation between beta and envelope mass (p=0.01) and between the beta gradient and envelope mass (p=0.001).

Significance. If the measurements are robust, this is a valuable contribution: it effectively doubles the number of protostellar envelope beta measurements with a consistent, benchmarked methodology, and it provides an observational anchor for dust evolution models between cloud and disk scales. The paper has concrete strengths: the uv-plane modeling separates compact and extended emission; the results for IRAS4A and L1527 are cross-checked against G19; flux calibration uncertainties are propagated; and a temperature-profile robustness test is attempted. The 'bridge' claim is qualitatively supported by the new FAUST data alone, since the measured beta values (0.9-1.7) lie between typical ISM and disk values. However, the claimed statistical correlation between beta and envelope mass is not yet established because the two pooled samples have incompatible beta distributions, and the internal RCrA-IRS7B inconsistency must be resolved before the pooled statistics can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.4, Figs. 11-12] The headline correlation between beta and envelope mass is computed on the pooled FAUST+G19 sample, yet the paper itself reports a KS test that the two samples' beta distributions are inconsistent (p=0.003). Since CALYPSO selected bright, massive envelopes and FAUST includes fainter, lower-mass envelopes, the pooled correlation could be an artifact of concatenating a high-beta/low-mass cluster with a low-beta/high-mass cluster. Please report the correlation within the FAUST sample alone and within the G19 sample alone, and/or perform a regression that includes a sample indicator or a partial correlation controlling for sample membership. Without such a test, the statement 'we statistically confirm a significant correlation' (abstract and Section 5.4) is not supported.
  2. [Table 4 and Section 4.4] There is an internal inconsistency for RCrA-IRS7B: Section 4.4 states that the measured spectral index is alpha=3.3±0.1 and, assuming high temperatures along the cavity walls, beta=alpha-2=1.3, while Table 4 lists beta=3.3±0.1 for the same source. The Table 4 entry appears to be alpha, not beta. This is not a purely cosmetic issue: the value feeds into the FAUST mean beta and into the correlation analysis. Please correct Table 4 and recompute the affected mean values and correlation statistics.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4), and Section 4.4] The temperature robustness test described in Section 4 varies the normalization of Eq. (4) by ±10 K and the power-law index within [-0.3,-0.6], but it does not cover the localized high-temperature regions along outflow cavity walls that the authors invoke for IRAS15398-3359, Elias 29, and RCrA-IRS7B. For IRAS15398-3359 the reported alpha~3.6 would give beta=alpha-2=1.6, whereas Table 4 reports beta=1.41±0.09 based on the Eq. (4) temperature correction; the difference (about 0.2) is comparable to the stated uncertainties. Please quantify the systematic shift in beta for these cavity-wall sources using a hotter temperature profile, or state explicitly in Table 4 and Section 4.4 which temperature assumption is used for each source.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2] The text states 'we find five for which no envelope is detected either at 3.1 mm or in both bands', but Section 4.1 identifies only two such sources (GSS30 and IRS63), and Table 4 reports envelope beta values for ten sources plus a lower limit for IRAS4C. Please correct the count.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The figure mixes beta values for the ISM and envelopes with alpha values for disks; because beta and alpha differ by approximately 2, the comparison is only meaningful if the temperature correction is explicitly stated. Please clarify in the caption and text which quantity is plotted for each class of object.
  3. [Section 4.4 heading] The heading 'Dust emission along outflow cavity walls: IRAS15398-3359, IRAS4C, Elias 29, RCrA-IRS7B, L1551-IRS' uses 'L1551-IRS' while the text and Table 4 use 'L1551-IRS5'; please make the source name consistent.
  4. [Section 5.4] The quoted FAUST mean beta of 1.42±0.06 does not appear to be reproducible from Table 4 values (including or excluding RCrA-IRS7B and IRAS4C). Please specify exactly which sources and weighting are used to compute the reported mean.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the envelope β measurements and the β–Menv correlation rest on externally anchored inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The envelope dust opacity index β is obtained from measured uv-plane flux ratios (Eq. 3) after subtracting a modeled compact component, and the conversion to β uses the temperature profile of Eq. 4, taken from Adams & Shu (1985) and Motte & André (2001), with a robustness test for the assumed temperature normalization and power-law index. The ISM anchor (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014), disk anchors (Tazzari et al. 2021), and the envelope comparison sample (Galametz et al. 2019) are all external; the overlap checks for IRAS4A and L1527 are consistency tests rather than fitted inputs. Envelope masses in the correlation analysis come from independent literature references in Table 1, and the Pearson tests use those literature masses against the measured β values; no parameter is fitted so as to force the reported p-values. The self-citations, Cacciapuoti et al. (2023) for the pilot L1527 measurement and methodology and Cacciapuoti et al. (2024b) for an outflow-entrainment interpretation, are not load-bearing: the pilot is a prior published measurement, the method is additionally benchmarked by Maury et al. (2018), Galametz et al. (2019), and Tung et al. (2024), and the 2024b scenario is presented as an interpretation of, rather than the source of, the correlation. The known concern that pooling FAUST and CALYPSO samples with different β distributions (KS p=0.003) may affect the correlation is a sample-selection/statistical issue, not a circularity in the derivation. Likewise, the internal inconsistency for RCrA-IRS7B (Table 4 lists β=3.3±0.1 while Section 4.4 gives β=α−2=1.3) is an error, not a circular step. Under the requirement to exhibit a specific reduction of a result to its own inputs, no circular step is identifiable in this paper.

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

The central measurements rest on three modeling choices: an assumed dust temperature profile (Eq. 4) used to convert alpha to beta, the optically thin assumption, and per-source Plummer plus Gaussian decompositions whose fitted parameters absorb the compact disk flux before the envelope spectrum is measured. The beta-envelope mass correlation additionally assumes that literature envelope masses and the CALYPSO beta measurements are on a common scale. No new physical entities are introduced; all inputs are observational or from prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Dust temperature normalization T0 = 38 K at 100 au
    Eq. 4 (Adams and Shu 1985): T(R)=38(L/Lsun)^0.2(R/100 au)^-0.4. Converts alpha to beta; the paper tests 38±10 K and reports <10% changes in beta.
  • Dust temperature power-law index q_T = -0.4
    Same equation; tested over [-0.3,-0.6]. Controls the correction term dlogB/dnu that separates alpha from beta.
  • Envelope brightness profile index p+q (per source, per band) = 1.72 to 3.18
    Table 2: fitted Plummer power-law index for each source in each band. Determines how much flux is assigned to the envelope after removing the compact component.
  • Compact component parameters (Gaussian sigma, inclination, PA, flux) = Varies per source; sigma=0.03 to 0.37 arcsec
    Table 2: the fitted disk or compact component is subtracted before computing envelope alpha; its parameter uncertainties are not propagated into the beta error bars.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Envelope emission is optically thin at 1.2-3.1 mm (except IRAS4A with tau up to about 0.3)
    Section 4: 'The resulting optical depths are always much lower than unity, except for the most massive envelope of IRAS4A.' The formula beta=alpha-dlogB(T)/dnu assumes tau much less than 1.
  • domain assumption Dust temperature profile follows T(R)=38(L/Lsun)^0.2(R/100 au)^-0.4 (Eq. 4)
    Section 4, from Adams and Shu 1985 and Motte and Andre 2001; used to convert alpha to beta at each radius.
  • domain assumption Envelope brightness is described by a spherical Plummer profile (Eq. 1)
    Section 3: authors note this fails for asymmetric envelopes (IRAS4A, VLA1623A, L1551-IRS5 with chi2=11-35); the model is used to subtract the compact component.
  • domain assumption Flux calibration uncertainties of 2.5% (Band 3) and 5% (Band 6) with a systematic error of 0.1 on alpha
    Section 4, from the ALMA Cycle 6 Technical Handbook; the systematic term is added to all spectral index uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Envelope masses Menv from heterogeneous literature (Table 1) are comparable across samples
    Section 5.4: Menv values come from different studies with different methods (Jorgensen 2009, Alves 2017, Sadavoy 2014, and others); pooling with CALYPSO assumes a consistent mass scale.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FAUST XXVI. The dust opacity spectral indices of protostellar envelopes bridge the gap between interstellar medium and disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EHHHG4BA

@misc{pith2026250606865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FAUST XXVI. The dust opacity spectral indices of protostellar envelopes bridge the gap between interstellar medium and disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EHHHG4BA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06865}
}
read the original abstract

The sub-millimetre dust opacity spectral index is a critical observable to constrain dust properties, such as the maximum grain size of an observed dust population. It has been widely measured at galactic scales and down to protoplanetary disks. However, because of observational and analytical challenges, quite a gap exists in measuring dust properties in the envelopes that feed newborn protostars and their disks. To fill this gap, we use sensitive dust continuum emission data at 1.2 and 3.1 mm from the ALMA FAUST Large Program and constrain the dust opacity millimetre spectral index around a sample of protostars. Our high-resolution data, along with a more refined methodology with respect to past efforts, allow us to disentangle disk and envelope contributions in the uv-plane, and thus measure spectral indices for the envelopes uncontaminated by the optically thick emission of the inner regions. First, we find that the young disks are small and optically thick. Secondly, we measure the dust opacity spectral index at envelope scales for n=11 sources: the beta of n=9 sources had never been constrained in the literature. We effectively double the number of sources for which the dust opacity spectral index beta has been measured at these scales. Third, combining the available literature measurements with our own (total n=18), we show how envelope spectral indices distribute between ISM-like and disk-like values, bridging the gap in the inferred dust evolution. Finally, we statistically confirm a significant correlation between beta and the mass of protostellar envelopes, previously suggested in the literature. Our findings indicate that the dust optical properties smoothly vary from the ISM, through envelopes and all the way down to disks. Multi-wavelength surveys are needed to further this study and make more general claims on dust evolution in its pathway from cloud to disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06865 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dust continuum emission of the ALMA FAUST large program sample at 1.2 mm, colorbar units in Jy/beam. The synthesised beam is depicted in the lower left as a white ellipse and reported, along with the rms of each map, in Tab. A.1. The white contours are at [5, 10, 50]σ levels. The panels are centred on the source and cover 20 arcsec across. The first two rows are Class 0 sources, the third row is for Class 0/I so… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plummer plus Gaussian best fit (orange) is overplotted on the real and imaginary parts of the visibilities for the B3 (upper panel, black points) and B6 (lower panel) observations of CB68. The Plummer only (violet line) and Gaussian only (green line) components of the total model are also shown. The wiggles in the model are due to its sampling on the uv-points of the observations. The residuals of the model are show… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The binned azimuthally averaged amplitude profiles in orange (B6) and violet (B3) for each source refer to the left y-axis of each panel. The total emission spectral index (black line) of the emission as a function of uv-distance (bottom) or, equivalently, probed physical scale θ = 1.22λ/uv￾distance (top), refers to the right y-axis of each panel. Note: L1527 IRS is from Cacciapuoti et al. (2023), where only 1.2 and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The binned azimuthally averaged amplitude profiles after subtraction of the model compact component, hence of the envelope flux alone, in orange (B6) and violet (B3) for each source refer to the left y-axis of each panel. The envelope spectral index (black line) as a f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The derived dust opacity spectral indices for the sources studied in this work, as a function of uv-distance (bottom) or traced physical scales (top). The black lines represent the β = α − 2 approximation, while the purple dots are derived as β = α − d log B(T)/dν in e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A 2D map of the spectral index α around the protostar IRAS15398-3359, the position of which is shown by a white star. Pixels are non-zero where both 1.2 mm and 3.1 mm emission is present at 3σ level, at least. The lower panel profile has been obtained by azimuthally av…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectral indices distributions ordered following spatial and time evolution of dust in star- and planet-forming environments: (i) α in the submillimetre (<350 GHz) for the diffuse ISM (grey dotted representative distribution from Planck Collaboration et al. (2014)); (i…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams , F. C. & Shu , F. H. 1985, , 296, 655

    1985

  2. [2]

    E., Sz u cs , L., et al

    Agurto-Gangas , C., Pineda , J. E., Sz u cs , L., et al. 2019, , 623, A147

    2019

  3. [3]

    O., Girart , J

    Alves , F. O., Girart , J. M., Caselli , P., et al. 2017, , 603, L3

    2017

  4. [4]

    O., Girart , J

    Alves , F. O., Girart , J. M., Padovani , M., et al. 2018, , 616, A56

    2018

  5. [5]

    G., Lazarian , A., & Vaillancourt , J

    Andersson , B. G., Lazarian , A., & Vaillancourt , J. E. 2015, , 53, 501

    2015

  6. [6]

    2010, , 518, L102

    Andr \'e , P., Men'shchikov , A., Bontemps , S., et al. 2010, , 518, L102

    2010

  7. [7]

    Bate , M. R. 2022, , 514, 2145

    2022

  8. [8]

    Mixing is easy: New insights for cosmochemical evolution from pre-stellar core collapse

    Bhandare , A., Commer c on , B., Laibe , G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.09257

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    2024, , 62, 157

    Birnstiel , T. 2024, , 62, 157

    2024

  2. [10]

    1996, , 311, 858

    Bontemps , S., Andre , P., Terebey , S., & Cabrit , S. 1996, , 311, 858

    1996

  3. [11]

    Boogert , A. C. A., Hogerheijde , M. R., Ceccarelli , C., et al. 2002, , 570, 708

    2002

  4. [12]

    2017, , 604, A52

    Bracco , A., Palmeirim , P., Andr \'e , P., et al. 2017, , 604, A52

    2017

  5. [13]

    S., Wong , T

    Bussmann , R. S., Wong , T. W., Hedden , A. S., Kulesa , C. A., & Walker , C. K. 2007, , 657, L33

    2007

  6. [14]

    2024 a , , 682, A61

    Cacciapuoti , L., Macias , E., Gupta , A., et al. 2024 a , , 682, A61

    2024

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Cacciapuoti , L., Macias , E., Maury , A. J., et al. 2023, , 676, A4

    2023

  8. [16]

    2024 b , , 961, 90

    Cacciapuoti , L., Testi , L., Podio , L., et al. 2024 b , , 961, 90

    2024

  9. [17]

    2019, , 883, 71

    Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Sierra , A., Flock , M., et al. 2019, , 883, 71

    2019

  10. [18]

    2022, , 134, 114501

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501

    2022

  11. [19]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.13270

    Ceccarelli , C., Codella , C., Balucani , N., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.13270

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2024, , 531, 2653

    Chahine , L., Ceccarelli , C., De Simone , M., et al. 2024, , 531, 2653

    2024

  13. [21]

    C., Ladd , E

    Chen , H., Myers , P. C., Ladd , E. F., & Wood , D. O. S. 1995, , 445, 377

    1995

  14. [22]

    M., Gurwell , M

    Chung , C.-Y., Andrews , S. M., Gurwell , M. A., et al. 2024, , 273, 29

    2024

  15. [23]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 227

    Codella , C., Ceccarelli , C., Chandler , C., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 227

    2021

  16. [24]

    2022, , 515, 543

    Codella , C., L \'o pez-Sepulcre , A., Ohashi , S., et al. 2022, , 515, 543

    2022

  17. [25]

    2024 a , , 528, 7383

    Codella , C., Podio , L., De Simone , M., et al. 2024 a , , 528, 7383

    2024

  18. [26]

    2024 b , , 528, 7383

    Codella , C., Podio , L., De Simone , M., et al. 2024 b , , 528, 7383

    2024

  19. [27]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy

    Comrie , A., Wang , K.-S., Hsu , S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy

    2021

  20. [28]

    J., Rosotti , G

    Cridland , A. J., Rosotti , G. P., Tabone , B., et al. 2022, , 662, A90

    2022

  21. [29]

    B., & Takami , M

    Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera , F., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., \'A brah \'a m , P., Liu , H. B., & Takami , M. 2019, , 882, L4

    2019

  22. [30]

    A., Caselli , P., et al

    Dartois , E., Noble , J. A., Caselli , P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 359

    2024

  23. [31]

    2020, , 896, L3

    De Simone , M., Ceccarelli , C., Codella , C., et al. 2020, , 896, L3

    2020

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.14501

    Delussu , L., Birnstiel , T., Miotello , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.14501

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Draine , B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  26. [34]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.07040

    Duchene , G., Menard , F., Stapelfeldt , K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.07040

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2023, , 678, A160

    Evans , L., Vastel , C., Fontani , F., et al. 2023, , 678, A160

    2023

  28. [36]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  29. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19188

    Frediani , J., De Simone , M., Testi , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19188

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2005, , 156, 169

    Froebrich , D. 2005, , 156, 169

    2005

  31. [39]

    J., Valdivia , V., et al

    Galametz , M., Maury , A. J., Valdivia , V., et al. 2019, , 632, A5

    2019

  32. [40]

    2025, , 694, A290

    Garufi , A., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Mac \' as , E., et al. 2025, , 694, A290

    2025

  33. [41]

    M., van der Marel , N., Di Francesco , J., et al

    Guerra-Alvarado , O. M., van der Marel , N., Di Francesco , J., et al. 2024, , 681, A82

    2024

  34. [42]

    2020, , 643, A17

    Guillet , V., Hennebelle , P., Pineau des For \^e ts , G., et al. 2020, , 643, A17

    2020

  35. [43]

    Hall , J. S. 1949, Science, 109, 166

    1949

  36. [44]

    & Ciardi , A

    Hennebelle , P. & Ciardi , A. 2009, , 506, L29

    2009

  37. [45]

    2022 a , , 934, 70

    Imai , M., Oya , Y., Svoboda , B., et al. 2022 a , , 934, 70

    2022

  38. [46]

    2022 b , , 934, 70

    Imai , M., Oya , Y., Svoboda , B., et al. 2022 b , , 934, 70

    2022

  39. [47]

    D., Moriarty-Schieven , G., et al

    Johnstone , D., Wilson , C. D., Moriarty-Schieven , G., et al. 2000, , 545, 327

    2000

  40. [48]

    K., Sch \"o ier , F

    J rgensen , J. K., Sch \"o ier , F. L., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2002, , 389, 908

    2002

  41. [49]

    K., van Dishoeck , E

    J rgensen , J. K., van Dishoeck , E. F., Visser , R., et al. 2009, , 507, 861

    2009

  42. [50]

    K., Visser , R., Sakai , N., et al

    J rgensen , J. K., Visser , R., Sakai , N., et al. 2013, , 779, L22

    2013

  43. [51]

    2015, , 584, A94

    Juvela , M., Demyk , K., Doi , Y., et al. 2015, , 584, A94

    2015

  44. [52]

    B., Lai , S.-P., et al

    Ko , C.-L., Liu , H. B., Lai , S.-P., et al. 2020, , 889, 172

    2020

  45. [53]

    W., Mundy , L

    Kwon , W., Looney , L. W., Mundy , L. G., Chiang , H.-F., & Kemball , A. J. 2009, , 696, 841

    2009

  46. [54]

    M., Schmiedeke , A., et al

    Launhardt , R., Stutz , A. M., Schmiedeke , A., et al. 2013, , 551, A98

    2013

  47. [55]

    & Hoang , T

    Lazarian , A. & Hoang , T. 2007, , 669, L77

    2007

  48. [56]

    M., Commer c on , B., & Ebel , D

    Lebreuilly , U., Mac Low , M. M., Commer c on , B., & Ebel , D. S. 2023, , 675, A38

    2023

  49. [57]

    Lee , S., Lee , J.-E., & Bergin , E. A. 2015, , 217, 30

    2015

  50. [58]

    I.-H., Liu , H

    Li , J. I.-H., Liu , H. B., Hasegawa , Y., & Hirano , N. 2017, , 840, 72

    2017

  51. [59]

    D., Li , Z.-Y., Stephens , I

    Lin , Z.-Y. D., Li , Z.-Y., Stephens , I. W., et al. 2024, , 528, 843

    2024

  52. [60]

    Liu , H. B. 2019, , 877, L22

    2019

  53. [61]

    2021, , 648, A33

    Mac \' as , E., Guerra-Alvarado , O., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., et al. 2021, , 648, A33

    2021

  54. [62]

    F., Morbidelli , A., & Guillot , T

    Manara , C. F., Morbidelli , A., & Guillot , T. 2018, , 618, L3

    2018

  55. [63]

    S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K

    Mathis , J. S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K. H. 1977, , 217, 425

    1977

  56. [64]

    J., Pineda , J

    Maureira , M. J., Pineda , J. E., Liu , H. B., et al. 2024, , 689, L5

    2024

  57. [65]

    Maury , A., Hennebelle , P., & Girart , J. M. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 949223

    2022

  58. [66]

    J., Andr \'e , P., Testi , L., et al

    Maury , A. J., Andr \'e , P., Testi , L., et al. 2019, , 621, A76

    2019

  59. [67]

    J., Girart , J

    Maury , A. J., Girart , J. M., Zhang , Q., et al. 2018, , 477, 2760

    2018

  60. [68]

    K., Rocha , W

    McClure , M. K., Rocha , W. R. M., Pontoppidan , K. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 431

    2023

  61. [69]

    2023, , 522, 2384

    Mercimek , S., Podio , L., Codella , C., et al. 2023, , 522, 2384

    2023

  62. [70]

    2014, , 567, A32

    Miotello , A., Testi , L., Lodato , G., et al. 2014, , 567, A32

    2014

  63. [71]

    & Andr \'e , P

    Motte , F. & Andr \'e , P. 2001, , 365, 440

    2001

  64. [72]

    C., van Dishoeck , E

    Mottram , J. C., van Dishoeck , E. F., Kristensen , L. E., et al. 2017, , 600, A99

    2017

  65. [73]

    C., Adams , F

    Myers , P. C., Adams , F. C., Chen , H., & Schaff , E. 1998, , 492, 703

    1998

  66. [74]

    2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed

    Natta , A., Testi , L., Calvet , N., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 767

    2007

  67. [75]

    J., J rgensen , J

    Ohashi , N., Tobin , J. J., J rgensen , J. K., et al. 2023, , 951, 8

    2023

  68. [76]

    2022, , 927, 54

    Ohashi , S., Codella , C., Sakai , N., et al. 2022, , 927, 54

    2022

  69. [77]

    2021, , 910, 11

    Okoda , Y., Oya , Y., Francis , L., et al. 2021, , 910, 11

    2021

  70. [78]

    2018, , 864, L25

    Okoda , Y., Oya , Y., Sakai , N., et al. 2018, , 864, L25

    2018

  71. [79]

    W., Paszun , D., Dominik , C., & Tielens , A

    Ormel , C. W., Paszun , D., Dominik , C., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2009, , 502, 845

    2009

  72. [80]

    2025, , 980, 263

    Oya , Y., Saiga , E., Miotello , A., et al. 2025, , 980, 263

    2025

  73. [81]

    2018, , 863, 72

    Oya , Y., Sakai , N., Watanabe , Y., et al. 2018, , 863, 72

    2018

  74. [82]

    2010, Science, 329, 1622

    Pagani , L., Steinacker , J., Bacmann , A., Stutz , A., & Henning , T. 2010, Science, 329, 1622

    2010

  75. [83]

    D., et al

    Perotti , G., Cacciapuoti , L., Tung , N. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03520

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 564, A45

    2014

  77. [85]

    Plummer , H. C. 1911, , 71, 460

    1911

  78. [86]

    2024, , 688, L22

    Podio , L., Ceccarelli , C., Codella , C., et al. 2024, , 688, L22

    2024

  79. [87]

    2020, , 640, A118

    Reissl , S., Guillet , V., Brauer , R., et al. 2020, , 640, A118

    2020

  80. [88]

    Reissl , S., Meehan , P., & Klessen , R. S. 2023, , 674, A47

    2023

  81. [89]

    Ricci , L., Testi , L., Natta , A., & Brooks , K. J. 2010, , 521, A66

    2010

  82. [90]

    2012, , 540, A6

    Ricci , L., Trotta , F., Testi , L., et al. 2012, , 540, A6

    2012

  83. [91]

    G., Polychroni , D., et al

    Roy , A., Martin , P. G., Polychroni , D., et al. 2013, , 763, 55

    2013

  84. [92]

    J., et al

    Sabatini , G., Bianchi , E., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13596

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    2024, , 684, L12

    Sabatini , G., Podio , L., Codella , C., et al. 2024, , 684, L12

    2024

  86. [94]

    I., Di Francesco , J., Andr \'e , P., et al

    Sadavoy , S. I., Di Francesco , J., Andr \'e , P., et al. 2014, , 787, L18

    2014

  87. [95]

    I., Stephens , I

    Sadavoy , S. I., Stephens , I. W., Myers , P. C., et al. 2019, , 245, 2

    2019

  88. [96]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20885

    Santamaria-Miranda , A., de Gregorio-Monsalvo , I., Ohashi , N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20885

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    E., Booth , R

    Scardoni , C. E., Booth , R. A., Clarke , C. J., Rosotti , G. P., & Ribas , \'A . 2024, , 970, 109

    2024

  90. [98]

    Schwartz , P. R. 1982, , 252, 589

    1982

  91. [99]

    M., Harris , R

    Segura-Cox , D. M., Harris , R. J., Tobin , J. J., et al. 2016, , 817, L14

    2016

  92. [100]

    M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J

    Segura-Cox , D. M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J. E., et al. 2020 a , , 586, 228

    2020

  93. [101]

    M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J

    Segura-Cox , D. M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J. E., et al. 2020 b , , 586, 228

    2020

  94. [102]

    Sheehan , P. D. & Eisner , J. A. 2018, , 857, 18

    2018

  95. [103]

    L., Evans , Neal J., I., & Rawlings , J

    Shirley , Y. L., Evans , Neal J., I., & Rawlings , J. M. C. 2002, , 575, 337

    2002

  96. [104]

    & Lizano , S

    Sierra , A. & Lizano , S. 2020, , 892, 136

    2020

  97. [105]

    F., et al

    Steinacker , J., Andersen , M., Thi , W. F., et al. 2015, , 582, A70

    2015

  98. [106]

    2010, , 511, A9

    Steinacker , J., Pagani , L., Bacmann , A., & Guieu , S. 2010, , 511, A9

    2010

  99. [107]

    2024, , 964, 24

    Takakuwa , S., Saigo , K., Kido , M., et al. 2024, , 964, 24

    2024

  100. [108]

    2018, , 476, 4527

    Tazzari , M., Beaujean , F., & Testi , L. 2018, , 476, 4527

    2018

  101. [109]

    J., Testi , L., et al

    Tazzari , M., Clarke , C. J., Testi , L., et al. 2021, , 506, 2804

    2021

  102. [110]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Testi , L., Birnstiel , T., Ricci , L., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 339

    2014

  103. [111]

    Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2010, The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium

    2010

  104. [112]

    Tobin , J. J. & Sheehan , P. D. 2024, , 62, 203

    2024

  105. [113]

    N., & Inutsuka , S.-i

    Tsukamoto , Y., Machida , M. N., & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2021, , 920, L35

    2021

  106. [114]

    2024, , 684, A36

    Tung , N.-D., Testi , L., Lebreuilly , U., et al. 2024, , 684, A36

    2024

  107. [115]

    F., Rosotti , G

    Tychoniec , ., Manara , C. F., Rosotti , G. P., et al. 2020, , 640, A19

    2020

  108. [116]

    2019, , 488, 4897

    Valdivia , V., Maury , A., Brauer , R., et al. 2019, , 488, 4897

    2019

  109. [117]

    P., Bastien , P., & Greaves , J

    Vall \'e e , J. P., Bastien , P., & Greaves , J. S. 2000, , 542, 352

    2000

  110. [118]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00124

    Vallucci-Goy , V., Lebreuilly , U., & Hennebelle , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00124

    2024 arXiv

  111. [119]

    A., van Dishoeck , E

    van Kempen , T. A., van Dishoeck , E. F., Hogerheijde , M. R., & G \"u sten , R. 2009, , 508, 259

    2009

  112. [120]

    E., Bruderer , S., et al

    Visser , R., Kristensen , L. E., Bruderer , S., et al. 2012, , 537, A55

    2012

  113. [121]

    A., Kristensen , L

    Y ld z , U. A., Kristensen , L. E., van Dishoeck , E. F., et al. 2012, , 542, A86

    2012

  114. [122]

    Youdin , A. N. & Goodman , J. 2005, , 620, 459

    2005

  115. [123]

    P., & Verstraete , L

    Ysard , N., Koehler , M., Jimenez-Serra , I., Jones , A. P., & Verstraete , L. 2019, , 631, A88

    2019

  116. [124]

    2023, , 953, 96

    Zhang , S., Zhu , Z., Ueda , T., et al. 2023, , 953, 96

    2023

  117. [125]

    E., Sakai , N., et al

    Zhang , Y., Higuchi , A. E., Sakai , N., et al. 2018, , 864, 76

    2018

  118. [126]

    2016, , 460, 2050

    Zhao , B., Caselli , P., Li , Z.-Y., et al. 2016, , 460, 2050

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.