Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): II. Dust and Gas Disk Properties in the Ophiuchus Star-forming Region

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper claims that in 10 embedded protoplanetary disks in Ophiuchus, the gas traced by C18O and C17O J=2-1 emission extends 1.5–2.5 times farther than the 220 GHz dust continuum, showing that the gas-dust size separation already…

desk verdict New gas-size data for embedded Ophiuchus disks that is worth having, though the 1.5–2.5 gas/dust size ratio in the abstract overstates what the tables show. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10731 v2 pith:LFFT63KT submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Dary A. Ruíz-Rodríguez , Camilo González-Ruilova , Lucas A. Cieza , Ke Zhang , Leon Trapman , Anibal Sierra , Paola Pinilla , Ilaria Pascucci
show 12 more authors
Laura M. Pérez Dingshan Deng Carolina Agurto-Gangas John Carpenter Benoît Tabone Giovanni P. Rosotti Rossella Anania James Miley Kamber Schwarz Aleksandra Kuznetsova Miguel Vioque Nicolas Kurtovic
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksembeddeddustradialdriftCOisotopologuesdisksizesALMAOphiuchusplanetformation
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 analyzes ALMA Band-6 observations of 10 embedded protoplanetary disks in the Ophiuchus star-forming region to establish the gas and dust properties at the earliest observable evolutionary stage. It claims that the optically thinner CO isotopologues C18O and C17O trace gas extending about 1.5 to 2.5 times farther than the 220 GHz dust continuum, meaning the gas-dust size dichotomy already exists in disks younger than roughly 1 Myr. This matters because it implies that dust growth and inward radial drift begin during the embedded phase, not only in the older Class II disks where such a dichotomy was previously known.

What carries the argument

The curve-of-growth method for measuring the radius that encloses 90% of the total flux (R90) in elliptical apertures deprojected using the disk inclination and position angle derived from the 220 GHz continuum. This measurement is applied to moment-0 maps of the C18O and C17O J=2-1 lines, which trace the gaseous disk where the optically thicker 12CO and 13CO lines are contaminated by envelope, outflow, and cloud emission, and the resulting gas radii are compared with the same measurement on the dust continuum.

What would settle it

Compare the C18O/C17O R90 radii against a kinematic tracer of the disk outer edge in the same sources, such as resolved channel maps showing Keplerian rotation extending beyond the dust radius; if the gas beyond the dust radius does not follow Keplerian rotation, the size ratio would largely reflect envelope or cloud contamination. A simpler test is to recompute the ratios after excluding the velocity ranges where the paper documents cloud absorption toward Oph 1, Oph 6, and Oph 9 and check whether the 1.5–2.5 range persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that embedded Class I and Flat Spectrum disks in Ophiuchus already show a gas-dust size dichotomy: the radii enclosing 90% of the C18O and C17O J=2-1 flux are roughly 1.5 to 2.5 times larger than the 220 GHz dust continuum radius R90. The paper shows that these optically thinner tracers are less contaminated than 12CO and 13CO, that they give mutually consistent gas radii, and that gas mass estimates from C17O are on average 1.5 times higher than those from C18O, indicating C18O is partially optically thick. The authors conclude that significant dust growth and radial drift have already begun in embedded objects with ages less than about 1 Myr, although detailed modeling of the dust and gas around embedded disks is needed to test this scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The measured C18O and C17O emission is assumed to come predominantly from the disk rather than from the surrounding envelope, outflow, or molecular cloud; if a significant fraction of this emission is not disk material, the reported gas radii and masses, and hence the 1.5 to 2.5 gas-to-dust size ratios, would be overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The gas-dust size ratio of 1.5–2.5 in embedded disks suggests that dust growth and inward radial drift begin before about 1 Myr, providing an early starting point for the dust evolution seen in Class II disks.
  • C17O is presented as a more suitable tracer than C18O for estimating gas disk masses in highly embedded objects, since C18O appears partially optically thick.
  • The inclinations of the AGE-PRO Ophiuchus disks are statistically indistinguishable from an isotropic distribution, indicating that the embedded sample is not dominated by misclassified highly inclined Class II sources.
  • Outflows associated with Oph 3, Oph 5, and Oph 7 are detected in 12CO, and Oph 5 may host accretion streamers.
  • The C18O and C17O fluxes correlate with each other and with the 220 GHz continuum flux, supporting their use as gas tracers in the embedded phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the same C18O/C17O R90 measurement to the older Lupus and Upper Sco samples of the same survey could test whether the gas-dust size ratio grows with disk age, directly constraining the timescale of radial drift.
  • The suggested inclination bias that leaves face-on embedded sources looking like Class II objects implies that embedded-phase lifetimes estimated from SED class counts may be underestimates, which would also lengthen the apparent time available for early planet formation.
  • The lack of N2D+ detections may indicate that CO remains abundant in the gas phase in these warm embedded disks, which would raise uncertainty in translating CO fluxes into total gas masses.
  • A testable consequence of early radial drift is that embedded disks with the smallest dust radii should show evidence of larger maximum grain sizes or steeper dust surface density profiles, which could be probed with multi-wavelength continuum observations.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents new ALMA Band-6 (220/234 GHz) continuum and CO isotopologue observations of 10 embedded (Class I and Flat Spectrum) disks in Ophiuchus from the AGE-PRO Large Program. The authors measure dust continuum radii and masses, use C18O and C17O J=2-1 emission to estimate gas radii and slab-model gas masses, report correlations between line and continuum fluxes, and detect outflows in three sources. They also use inclination statistics and Herschel column densities to argue that their SED-selected embedded sample is not significantly contaminated by highly inclined Class II disks. The central quantitative claim is that C18O and C17O radii exceed the 220 GHz dust R90 by factors of about 1.5-2.5, implying early dust growth and radial drift in the embedded phase.

Significance. If the gas-dust size separation survives the contamination checks, this is an important result: it would demonstrate that a signature previously established for Class II disks is already present at ages below about 1 Myr. The sample is small but is shown to be representative of the Class I/FS M3-K6 population in Ophiuchus by a K-S test, and the data products are made public. The authors are unusually candid about cloud, envelope, and outflow contamination, and Appendix G provides a Keplerian-mask comparison that is a useful internal check. The significance is conditional, however, because the masked comparison in Table G6 shows non-negligible radius changes for some sources, and because the quoted 1.5-2.5 range applies to only a subset of the sample when Tables 3 and 4 are read per source.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.4, Appendix G, Table G6] The claim that Keplerian masking has only a minimal effect on the gas radii is not supported by the reported numbers. For Oph 3, R90(C18O) drops from 1.85 arcsec to 1.45 arcsec; for Oph 9, R90(C17O) drops from 1.62 arcsec to 1.35 arcsec; and for Oph 1, R90(C17O) drops from 2.10 arcsec to 1.85 arcsec. These are 12-22% changes, comparable to the size of the 1.5-2.5 gas-to-dust ratios quoted in the abstract and §6.2. Because a Keplerian mask also cannot remove systemic-velocity cloud emission, the central gas-radius comparison should be recomputed on masked or velocity-clipped cubes, or at minimum presented alongside the unmasked values, with the early-radial-drift interpretation scaled to this systematic uncertainty.
  2. [Abstract, §6.2, Tables 3 and 4] The stated gas-to-dust size ratio range of 1.5-2.5 is not the range spanned by the full sample. From Tables 3 and 4, Oph 2 has C18O/dust R90 = 1.29 and C17O/dust R90 = 1.21; Oph 9 has 1.19 and 1.42; Oph 10 has 1.34 and 1.33; and Oph 8 has upper limits near 1.15-1.38. The 1.5-2.5 range is seen mainly in Oph 1, Oph 3, Oph 6, and Oph 7. Please report per-source ratios, separate detections from upper limits, and revise the abstract and Section 6.2 so that the claim reflects the sample rather than a subset.
  3. [Abstract, §6.3, Figure 10] The abstract's statement that the C18O and C17O fluxes 'correlate well with each other and with the continuum fluxes' is stronger than the reported statistics. The C17O-continuum Kendall test gives tau = 0.50 with p = 10.25%, and the C18O-continuum test gives tau = 0.64 with p = 4.13% for a sample of only seven to eight sources; the text itself describes these as weak correlations. Please soften the abstract wording and report the p-values in the text so that the significance of the continuum correlations is not overstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2 and Table 1] The selection criterion is stated as spectral types M3-K6, but Table 1 lists Oph 4 as K6.5, Oph 6 as M2.5, Oph 9 as M2, and Oph 8 as M1; please align the text and the table.
  2. [Appendix G] The sentence stating that Keplerian masks have only a minimal effect on the gas radial extension but 'impact the integrated flux values' is hard to reconcile with Table G6, where several R90 values change by 12-22%; please clarify which quantities are affected, in which direction, and how this bears on the main conclusions.
  3. [Figure D13 and Table E5] There are small typographical errors: the caption of Figure D13 refers to 'C18CO' instead of C18O, and the Table E5 header reads 'V_LRSK' instead of 'V_LSRK'.
  4. [Table 4 and Figure 9] The lower and upper limits in Table 4 are indicated by red color and L/U labels, which may be lost in black-and-white printing; please add an explicit caption statement identifying which values are tentative or upper limits, and mark them consistently in Figure 9.
  5. [§5.6 and §6.3.1] The slab-model gas masses are described as lower limits, but they also depend on the assumed uniform temperature, emitting area, and CO abundance ratios; please state explicitly that these are model-dependent lower limits and refer readers to Trapman et al. (2025) for the chemical-model comparison before the values are used in the mass-radius discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gas and dust sizes are independently measured from different tracers, and the central gas/dust size comparison does not reduce to any fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim compares C18O/C17O J=2-1 gas radii with 220 GHz dust continuum radii. These are independent observables: dust R90 is measured from continuum images via a curve-of-growth method, while gas R90 is measured from line moment-0 maps using the same aperture definition. Neither quantity is defined in terms of the other, and no parameter fitted to one tracer is used to predict the other. The gas mass estimates in Section 5.6 are conversions of line fluxes using externally adopted abundance ratios and a slab model; they are not used to derive the radii with which they are compared, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern applies. Self-citations, such as the AGE-PRO overview (Zhang et al. 2025) for reduction methodology and the companion paper (Trapman et al. 2025) for chemical modeling, provide procedures or independent modeling rather than the paper's measured size ratios. The SED classification is checked against Herschel column densities and the 5-12 micron spectral index, so the embedded-phase assignment is not assumed by construction. The acknowledged contamination of the line emission by cloud/envelope material is a real accuracy risk for the reported radii, but it is a measurement uncertainty, not a circular derivation. No step in the paper's derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The absolute masses and physical sizes rest on adopted distance, dust temperature, opacity, CO abundance ratios, and the assumption that C18O and C17O trace disk gas. These are standard literature inputs, not fitted in this paper, but they propagate into every quantitative result. The central relative claims, such as gas-dust radius ratios, flux correlations, and the C18O versus C17O mass ordering, are less sensitive to these inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Dust temperature T_Dust = 20 K or 33-43 K (luminosity-scaled)
    Adopted in Eq. (1) to convert continuum flux to dust mass. The two choices bracket a factor of about 2-3 in dust mass. Not fitted in this paper, but directly scales all reported dust masses.
  • Dust opacity kappa_nu at 220 GHz = 2.2 cm^2 g^-1
    From kappa_nu = 2.3 (nu/230 GHz)^beta cm^2 g^-1 with beta = 1, adopted from prior literature. Enters Eq. (1) linearly and scales all dust masses.
  • CO/H2 abundance ratio = 1e-4
    Used in Eq. (2) to convert C18O and C17O column densities to gas mass. Canonical interstellar medium value from Wilson (1999), not measured here.
  • CO/C18O isotope ratio = 557
    Assumed in Eq. (2) and adopted from Wilson (1999). Directly scales the C18O-based gas masses.
  • C18O/C17O isotope ratio = 3.6
    Assumed to cross-calibrate C18O and C17O, adopted from Wilson (1999). The paper's finding that observed line flux ratios fall below 3.6 is used to argue that C18O is partially optically thick.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption All sources are at a common distance of 138.4 pc.
    Section 2 adopts the average Ophiuchus distance from Ortiz-Leon et al. (2018) for all targets because no individual Gaia distances are available. This affects all linear sizes and masses.
  • domain assumption All embedded sources are assumed to be 1 Myr old, with stellar masses and luminosities from Teff via Baraffe et al. (2015) tracks.
    Section 2 states that reliable ages and luminosities cannot be derived due to extinction, so a statistical age of 1 Myr is adopted. This affects luminosity-scaled dust temperatures and the interpretation of youth.
  • domain assumption SED classes (Class I and Flat Spectrum) correspond to an embedded, envelope-bearing evolutionary stage.
    Section 2 acknowledges that foreground extinction and inclination can alter SED classification. Section 6.1 tests this with Herschel column densities and alpha_5-12, but the classification is not independently proven for every source.
  • domain assumption C18O and C17O J=2-1 emission used for radii and masses originates mainly in the disk, not in the envelope, outflow, or cloud.
    Section 5.2 notes contamination of 12CO and 13CO and reliance on C18O and C17O as thinner tracers. Section 5.4 truncates contaminated molecules, but some sources (e.g., Oph 10) still show foreground absorption or non-detections.
  • domain assumption Dust continuum emission is optically thin and in the Rayleigh-Jeans regime for mass estimation.
    Eq. (1) assumes optically thin dust. Section 6.4 notes that the continuum may be optically thick for Oph 7, which would make its dust mass a lower limit.
  • domain assumption Standard interstellar CO isotope abundance ratios apply in these disks.
    Eq. (2) uses CO/H2 = 1e-4 and isotope ratios from Wilson (1999). Actual CO freeze-out and fractionation could change gas masses, and the authors acknowledge the masses are lower limits.
  • domain assumption Disk inclinations and position angles from 2D Gaussian fits to 220 GHz continuum are reliable enough for deprojection and aperture construction.
    Section 5.1 and 5.4 use these fits for all deprojections. High inclinations and marginally resolved sources (Oph 4 and Oph 5) increase the associated uncertainty.
  • standard math The null hypothesis for the inclination contamination test is an isotropic distribution of disk orientations.
    Section 6.1.2 compares observed inclinations to a uniform distribution of cos(i) using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The test assumes random orientations as the baseline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): II. Dust and Gas Disk Properties in the Ophiuchus Star-forming Region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LFFT63KT

@misc{pith2026250610731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): II. Dust and Gas Disk Properties in the Ophiuchus Star-forming Region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LFFT63KT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10731}
}
read the original abstract

The ALMA survey of Gas Evolution in PROtoplanetary disks (AGE-PRO) Large Program aims to trace the evolution of gas disk mass and size throughout the lifetime of protoplanetary disks. This paper presents Band-6 ALMA observations of 10 embedded (Class I and Flat Spectrum) sources in the Ophiuchus molecular cloud, with spectral types ranging from M3 to K6 stars, which serve as the evolutionary starting point in the AGE-PRO sample. While we find 4 nearly edge on disks (>70 deg.), and 3 highly inclined disks (>60 deg.) in our sample, we show that, as a population, embedded disks in Ophiuchus are not significantly contaminated by more evolved, but highly inclined sources. We derived dust disk masses from the Band 6 continuum and estimated gas disk masses from the C18O and C17O lines. The mass estimates from the C17O line are slightly higher, suggesting C18O emission might be partially optically thick. While the 12CO and 13CO lines are severely contaminated by extended emission and self-absorption, the C18O and C17O lines allowed us to trace the radial extent of the gaseous disks. From these measurements, we found that the C18O and C17O fluxes correlate well with each other and with the continuum fluxes. Furthermore, the C18O and C17O lines present a larger radial extension than disk dust sizes by factors ranging from 1.5 to 2.5, as it is found for Class II disks using the radial extension of the 12CO. In addition, we have detected outflows in three disks from 12CO observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Column density map of the Ophiuchus star-forming region derived from Herschel data (Ladjelate et al. 2020). The effective Half Power Beamwidth (HPBW) resolution is 18.2 arcsec. The zoomed-in rectangles show the location of the Ophiuchus targets studied in this paper. Magenta stars represent our 10 selected objects. Most objects are highly embedded into the molecular cloud, except for Oph 8 with a relatively low visu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In gray, histogram of the distribution of flux values at 1.33 mm for the Class I and FS population in the Ophiuchus star￾forming region (Cieza et al. 2019). The orange histogram shows all objects ranging from M3 and K6 spectral types, while the AGE￾PRO sample is shown in the blue histogram. After performing a two-sample K-S test, we find a P-value of 0.8, indicating that the AGE-PRO Ophiuchus sample is indeed repres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral energy distributions of the Ophiuchus sources observed in AGE-PRO. The cyan boxes represent the observed optical and IR photometry before correcting for extinction. Red dots show photometric data acquired from the literature and de-reddened using the Av values shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 220 GHz continuum images and CO isotopologue Moment-0 maps of the AGE-PRO Ophiuchus targets. These ALMA products are obtained with a robust parameter of 1 in the velocity ranges displayed in Table E5 and generate an average beam size of 0.5” . Disk￾integrated continuum…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zoom out of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CO isotopologue Moment-1 maps of the AGE-PRO Ophiuchus targets. These ALMA products are obtained with a robust parameter of 1, generating an average beam size of 0.5” . The resulting beam sizes are represented by the black dots at the lower left corner. The moment 1 ma…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Azimuthally averaged deprojected and normalized radial profiles for the 220 GHz continuum emission and CO isotopologues. Blue curves correspond to the disk detections in our sample while grey color curves correspond to the CO lines believed to be mostly associated with…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: cumulative distributions of the disk inclinations for embedded sources in the Ophiuchus star forming region and those studied in the eDisk Large Program (Ohashi et al. 2023). Class I and FS disks studied in the ODISEA project (Dasgupta et al. 2025) are show…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparisons between radii estimated at R90% of the total flux from 220 GHz continuum and C18O and C17O products. The gray solid line in the left panel represents a visual guide for the flux radial extension of dust and C18O and C17O lines. The best fit shown in the rig…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the 220 GHz emission and thin CO line fluxes. Cyan triangles represent upper limits. The results of pymccorrelation Kendall’s τ tests for the Ophiuchus sample are reported in each panel. We find positive correlations between the C18O and C17O fluxes with…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top panel: Gas masses of the Ophiuchus disks estimated from the slab model fitting of C18O and C17O J=2-1 line fluxes and gas masses estimated using 2-dimensional chemical models in Trapman et al. (2025). Upper limits of Oph 8 and 10 are presented as downward-pointing…

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. JWST/MIRI Reveals the Evolution from Molecular to Atomic Disk Winds

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

    Across 72 protoplanetary disks, JWST shows atomic jets and molecular winds dominate at high accretion rates and give way to predominantly atomic winds as accretion declines.

  2. A JWST, ALMA and VLA survey of the Ophiuchus-A star-forming region: Unveiling hidden dust mass and connecting infrared outflows to their radio origins

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multi-wavelength survey of 20 Ophiuchus protostars finds dust masses tens to hundreds of times larger than millimetre-only estimates, if the adopted dust-opacity model is correct.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M., Sierra, A., et al

    Agurto-Gangas, C., P´ erez, L. M., Sierra, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc7ab 2025

  2. [2]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Andrews, S. M. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 483, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302 2020

  4. [4]

    P., van der Marel, N., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/46

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/46 2016

  5. [5]

    J., Livio, M., & Pringle, J

    Armitage, P. J., Livio, M., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 705, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04356.x Artur de la Villarmois, E., Guzm´ an, V. V., Yang, Y. L.,

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 678, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346728 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Kristensen, L

    Zhang, Y., & Sakai, N. 2023, A&A, 678, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346728 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Kristensen, L. E., & Jørgensen, J. K. 2019, A&A, 627, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935575 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A....

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346728 2023

  7. [7]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bae, J., Isella, A., Zhu, Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 423, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13314 2023

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    A., Carpenter, J

    Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Ricci, L., & Isella, A. 2016, ApJ, 827, 142, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/142

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Savage, B

    Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 132, doi: 10.1086/156357

    1978 doi

  3. [11]

    P., & Henning, T

    Brauer, F., Dullemond, C. P., & Henning, T. 2008, A&A, 480, 859, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077759

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    S., & Hillenbrand, L

    Carvalho, A. S., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2022, ApJ, 940, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d8e

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    L., Stapelfeldt, K

    Cieza, L., Padgett, D. L., Stapelfeldt, K. R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, 308, doi: 10.1086/520698

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Kessler-Silacci, J

    Cieza, L. A., Kessler-Silacci, J. E., Jaffe, D. T., Harvey, P. M., & Evans, Neal J., I. 2005, ApJ, 635, 422, doi: 10.1086/497325

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Ru ´ ız-Rodr ´ ıguez, D., Perez, S., et al

    Cieza, L. A., Ru ´ ız-Rodr ´ ıguez, D., Perez, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3059

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Ru ´ ız-Rodr ´ ıguez, D., Hales, A., et al

    Cieza, L. A., Ru ´ ız-Rodr ´ ıguez, D., Hales, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2653

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Hales, A

    Cieza, L. A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Hales, A. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3787

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Cuello, N., M´ enard, F., & Price, D. J. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 11, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03602-w

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  13. [21]

    A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., et al

    Dasgupta, A., Cieza, L. A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb03c

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add43a

    Deng, D., Vioque, M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add43a

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Dominik, C., & Dullemond, C. P. 2024, A&A, 682, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347716

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    2003 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Drazkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 717, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    P., & Dominik, C

    Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2005, A&A, 434, 971, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042080

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    L., & Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., & Luhman, K. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8dbd

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Dunham, M

    Evans, N. J., Dunham, M. M., Jorgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/ApJS/181/321, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.21810321

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Flores, C., Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7c1

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    M., McClure, M

    Furlan, E., Watson, D. M., McClure, M. K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1964, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1964

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Ali, B., et al

    Furlan, E., Fischer, W. J., Ali, B., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 5, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/5

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456, doi: 10.1038/nature21360

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Harsono, D., van der Wiel, M. H. D., Bjerkeli, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038697

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  29. [37]

    2015, PASJ, 67, 88, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv071 Jørgensen, J

    Itoh, Y., Fukagawa, M., Shibai, H., Sumi, T., & Yamamoto, K. 2015, PASJ, 67, 88, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv071 Jørgensen, J. K., Sch¨ oier, F. L., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2004, A&A, 416, 603, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034440 58 Ruiz-Rodriguez et al

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., M¨ uller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Lada, C. J. 1987, in Star Forming Regions, ed. M. Peimbert & J. Jugaku, Vol. 115, 1

    1987

  32. [40]

    2020, A&A, 638, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936442

    Ladjelate, B., Andre, P., Konyves, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936442

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y., & Turner, N. J. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 142, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0905-x

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Rosotti, G., et al

    Long, F., Andrews, S. M., Rosotti, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac634e

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    F., Testi, L., Natta, A., & Alcal´ a, J

    Manara, C. F., Testi, L., Natta, A., & Alcal´ a, J. M. 2015, A&A, 579, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526169

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T

    Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T. 2010, Nature, 468, 1080, doi: 10.1038/nature09684

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Mathis, J. S. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 37, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.000345

    1990

  38. [46]

    2009, ApJL, 693, L81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/L81

    McClure, M. 2009, ApJL, 693, L81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/L81

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    K., Furlan, E., Manoj, P., et al

    McClure, M. K., Furlan, E., Manoj, P., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 75, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/75

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, A&A, 659, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141790

    Mercimek, S., Codella, C., Podio, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141790

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, A&A, 638, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037983

    Morbidelli, A. 2020, A&A, 638, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037983

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    2006, A&A, 452, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054706

    Natta, A., Testi, L., & Randich, S. 2006, A&A, 452, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054706

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Jørgensen, J

    Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd384 Ortiz-Le´ on, G. N., Loinard, L., Dzib, S. A., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf6ad

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2003, ApJ, 586, 1148, doi: 10.1086/367695

    Hartmann, L. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1148, doi: 10.1086/367695

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    L., Rebull, L

    Padgett, D. L., Rebull, L. M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 1013, doi: 10.1086/523883

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    J., et al

    Pascucci, I., Testi, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/125

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    Penzias, A. A. 1981, ApJ, 249, 518, doi: 10.1086/159311

    1981 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, A&A, 688, L22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450742

    Podio, L., Ceccarelli, C., Codella, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450742

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2005, A&A, 437, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042107

    Ratzka, T., K¨ ohler, R., & Leinert, C. 2005, A&A, 437, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042107

    2005 doi

  51. [59]

    2015, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/A+A/581/A30, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.35810030

    Rebollido, I., Merin, B., Ribas, A., et al. 2015, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/A+A/581/A30, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.35810030

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    Ricci, L., Testi, L., Natta, A., & Brooks, K. J. 2010, A&A, 521, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015039

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    M., Schmiedeke, A., Pineda, J

    Segura-Cox, D. M., Schmiedeke, A., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2020, Nature, 586, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2779-6

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    D., Tobin, J

    Sheehan, P. D., Tobin, J. J., Federman, S., Megeath, S. T., & Looney, L. W. 2020, ApJ, 902, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad5

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    2011, PASJ, 63, 1071, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.5.1071

    Shirono, C., Itho, Y., & Oasa, Y. 2011, PASJ, 63, 1071, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.5.1071

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, doi: 10.21105/joss.01632

    Teague, R. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, doi: 10.21105/joss.01632

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 173, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aae265

    Teague, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 173, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aae265

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    J., Sheehan, P

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

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    F., & Bruderer, S

    Dishoeck, E. F., & Bruderer, S. 2019, A&A, 629, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834723

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Trapman, L., Zhang, K., van’t Hoff, M. L. R., Hogerheijde, M. R., & Bergin, E. A. 2022, ApJL, 926, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4f47

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    P., et al

    Trapman, L., Zhang, K., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcd6e van ’t Hoff, M. L. R., Tobin, J. J., Harsono, D., & van

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    Dishoeck, E. F. 2018, A&A, 615, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732313

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    T., Trapman, L., et al

    Vioque, M., Kurtovic, N. T., Trapman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b0

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Vrba, F

    Wilking, B. A., Vrba, F. J., & Sullivan, T. 2015, ApJ, 815, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/2

    2015 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Cieza, L., Hales, A., et al

    Williams, J. P., Cieza, L., Hales, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1338

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    P., & Cieza, L

    Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102548

    2011 doi

  68. [76]

    Wilson, T. L. 1999, Reports on Progress in Physics, 62, 143, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/62/2/002

    1999 doi

  69. [77]

    B., Gu, P.-G., et al

    Yen, H.-W., Liu, H. B., Gu, P.-G., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L25

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    R., & Bergin, E

    Zhang, K., Schwarz, K. R., & Bergin, E. A. 2020, ApJL, 891, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7823

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    M., Pascucci, I., et al

    Zhang, K., P´ erez, L. M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addebe

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    Zhu, W., & Dong, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    A., P´ erez, S., et al

    Zurlo, A., Cieza, L. A., P´ erez, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1886

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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