Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Outflow of the B335 Protostar II: After the Outburst

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The bright shock front 3E in the B335 protostellar jet was launched around 2014, when the protostar's still-ongoing accretion outburst began, making jet shock strings readable as an eruption timeline.

desk verdict A careful two-epoch JWST study that gives B335's jet a credible eruption timeline; the 3E launch date is the main claim, and it rests on an assumption the authors state clearly. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.12060 v2 pith:P3LB6TT2 submitted 2026-02-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Klaus W. Hodapp , Adwin Boogert , Doug Johnstone , Valentin J. M. Le Gouellec , Eleni Tsiakaliari , Helen J. Fraser , Laurie L. Chu , Thomas Greene
show 1 more author
Marcia J. Rieke
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords protostarsFUOrionisstarsstellarjetsshockfrontspropermotionsicespectroscopyextinctionB335
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 combines two epochs of JWST/NIRCam images with NIRSpec spectra to show that the brightest shock front, 3E, in the jet of the young protostar B335 was launched around 2014, matching the onset of the protostar's ongoing accretion outburst. It also demonstrates that the outflow has hollowed out a cavity in the surrounding cloud: background-star photometry and scattered-light spectra both show reduced dust extinction and ice column densities inside the outflow cones. If correct, the chain of shock fronts in a protostellar jet provides a direct, decade-scale record of accretion eruptions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the two-epoch proper-motion measurement: NIRCam F444W images from April 2023 and April 2024 were aligned using background stars and compact extragalactic sources, corrected for the protostar's own 16.7 km/s proper motion measured from archival ALMA and VLA data, and the shift of each shock front between epochs yields a transverse velocity. Dividing each shock's projected distance from the protostar by this velocity gives a kinematic age — the inferred time since ejection — which is then matched against the NEOWISE infrared light curve. The ice and extinction maps rest on NIRCam photometry of background stars in four filters, using the F300M filter's position inside t

What would settle it

Obtain a third epoch of NIRCam imaging of B335 in 2025 or later and re-measure the position of shock 3E: if its speed has decreased since 2023–2024, the constant-velocity back-projection is invalid and the claimed 2014 launch coincident with the outburst is not established. Alternatively, the ALMA 'molecular bullet' seen in 2017 with a kinematic age of 1.7 yr (launch ~2016) provides a direct cross-check; if it traces the same ejection as 3E, the two ages must agree.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using two epochs of JWST/NIRCam F444W images bracketing the protostar B335, the authors measure the proper motions of a string of shock fronts in the protostar's jet. The brightest and most compact shock, 3E, moves at 208 km/s; dividing its distance from the protostar by this speed gives a kinematic age of about 8.6 years at the epoch of the 2023 image, placing its ejection around 2014. The NEOWISE light curve shows B335 rising into a major outburst near that time, so the authors conclude that 3E is the working surface where the fast, hot wind from the current accretion event is slamming into slower material ejected earlier. Spectra from NIRSpec IFU show that 3E is uniquely rich in CO emissi

Load-bearing premise

The ejection date of shock 3E assumes each shock front has moved at constant speed in a straight line from the protostar since launch, and that B335 is at 165 pc; if the jet has decelerated, precessed, or the distance is wrong, the launch epoch shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The chain of shock fronts in a protostellar jet becomes a readable timeline of accretion eruptions, with the spacing and brightness of knots encoding when the star gulped material.
  • The excitation sequence along the jet — CO-dominated at 3E, H2-dominated at 4E and beyond — charts the evolution of the eruption's wind from hot and fast to cooler and slower.
  • The outflow cavity is confirmed as a dust-and-ice-poor channel; sight lines through it will show lower extinction and weaker ice features, a geometric effect that must be included when deriving protostellar ice abundances.
  • The inferred 1999–2001 ejection of shock 4E, together with the 2004 Spitzer brightness, suggests B335's eruptions are recurrent on roughly decadal timescales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If shock strings really are eruption chronometers, then applying the same two-epoch technique to a sample of embedded protostars could map the frequency and amplitude of FUor/EXor outbursts across the low-mass population, a measurement that is currently almost impossible by monitoring alone.
  • The authors' own association of the ALMA 'molecular bullet' (launch ~2016) with shock 3E (back-projected launch ~2014) is an untested joint story; a dedicated model of that connection — or a third imaging epoch — could discriminate between constant-velocity propagation and deceleration.
  • The fast-moving shadow features in the reflection nebula, interpreted as absorbing clumps at a few AU, could be tracked in future epochs to measure their Keplerian orbits, offering a kinematic probe of disk-wind launch radii.
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. This paper presents JWST/NIRCam two-epoch (2023 and 2024) imaging and NIRSpec IFU spectroscopy of the embedded protostar B335 and its outflow. The authors measure proper motions of a chain of near-infrared shock fronts, derive kinematic ages from angular separation divided by proper motion, and argue that the brightest inner shock, 3E, was launched during the early phase of the ongoing accretion outburst (Table 1, §3.5). They also construct maps of continuum extinction and H2O ice column density from background-star photometry, and extract scattered-light spectra of the outflow cavity, concluding that the outflow has carved a cavity with reduced dust and ice. A secondary result is a very large extinction increase toward the protostar (~200 mag A_V in the inner 4"). The paper frames the shock string as a timeline of episodic accretion events.

Significance. If the kinematic-age interpretation is correct, this is one of the first direct connections between a protostellar accretion outburst and individual jet shock fronts, made possible by ~2 mas astrometry from a one-year JWST baseline. The cavity-carving conclusion is carefully supported by three largely independent tracers: background-star photometry, coreshine imaging, and scattered-light spectroscopy. The authors are appropriately cautious about many calibration issues (absolute extinction, photometric ice calibration, background reference frame), and the proper-motion measurements themselves are a valuable addition. The paper also demonstrates the utility of public JWST data and includes a thoughtful analysis of variable shadow effects in the reflection nebula.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Table 1] The kinematic ages are computed as θ/μ, which assumes constant-velocity straight-line motion from the protostar. For an internal shock such as 3E — explicitly identified as a working surface between fast newly ejected wind and slower older jet gas (§3.6.3) — the measured proper motion is a pattern speed, not necessarily the launch speed of the ejecta. If the shock has decelerated, t_kin = θ/μ is an upper limit on the true age, and the ejection date could be later than 2014. The one-year NIRCam baseline cannot detect acceleration. The paper should either justify constant-velocity propagation (e.g., with a simple two-flow model of internal shocks in a pulsed jet) or explicitly present the ages as upper/lower limits. This is load-bearing because the central claim — that 3E was launched in the early outburst phase — depends on the precise ejection date.
  2. [§3.5, §3.6.3, ALMA bullet] The paper states that the ALMA 'molecular bullet' with a 2017 kinematic age of 1.7 yr (launch ~2015.3) is 'almost certainly related to shock front 3E'. However, Table 1 gives a 2014 ejection for 3E, a ~1.3 yr offset. If both tracers refer to the same event, this discrepancy may indicate that the simple θ/μ age is biased. The authors should discuss this comparison quantitatively and assess whether the offset is consistent with the quoted uncertainties and with the deceleration concern raised above.
  3. [§3.7.1, Summary] The absolute A_V values toward the protostar are derived assuming a flat intrinsic protostar spectrum, as the paper acknowledges ('nominal extinction values that incorrectly assume a flat spectrum'). The relative increase between apertures is more robust because the illuminating spectrum is assumed common. However, the Summary states that the ~200 mag increase 'establishes a lower limit for the total extinction towards the protostar.' This is not strictly supported: if the intrinsic spectrum were redder than assumed, the derived extinction could be lower. Please rephrase to avoid an unwarranted lower-limit claim, or state the explicit assumption under which it holds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The 7E row lists Kin. Age = 130 yr and Eject Year = 1983. Relative to the 2023 epoch, 130 yr implies 1893, not 1983. Other rows are consistent with Eject Year = 2023 − Kin. Age. Please check and correct this apparent typo.
  2. [Figure 5] The vertical line for the 'Shock 3E Ejection' relies on the kinematic age from Table 1. Given the major-comment concern about the constant-velocity assumption, the figure caption should note that this is a model-dependent estimate, not a direct measurement.
  3. [§3.2, Appendix B] The photometric H2O ice column density map uses a single calibration star (NIRS38) to convert photometric τ to spectroscopic τ. The paper appropriately states this map is used only qualitatively, but the factor 1.44 is presented as 'our best estimate.' Please state the systematic uncertainty associated with this single-star calibration.
  4. [§3.7.1, Figure 19] The baseline level of A_V = 130 at 3.5'' is mentioned only in the figure caption. The text would be clearer if the baseline and the resulting total extinction toward the protostar were stated explicitly in the body of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: kinematic ages are measured from independent two-epoch astrometry and compared with an external light curve, not fitted to it.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that shock 3E was launched in the early phase of the current outburst—is derived from an independent chain: two-epoch JWST/NIRCam astrometry gives proper motions, the ALMA-registered protostar position gives separations, and the kinematic age is computed as angular separation divided by proper motion. The resulting date is then overlaid on the published WISE/NEOWISE light curve (Evans et al. 2023). No parameter is fitted to the light curve, the ejection date is not defined in terms of the outburst, and the comparison is therefore not self-definitional. The extinction and ice maps are also independent observables: background-star photometry and NIRSpec spectra of scattered light both show reduced column density in the outflow cavity, and the 1.44 photometric calibration factor in Appendix B is taken from an external spectrum (McClure et al. 2023), not from B335's own target result. Self-citations to Paper I (Hodapp et al. 2024) are used for shock identification and nomenclature, but the new proper-motion measurements do not depend on Paper I's values; the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation. The skeptical concern about deceleration of the shock working surface is a physical assumption that could weaken the interpretation, but it is not a circularity: the paper does not assume the conclusion when deriving the kinematic age. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and externally anchored; no circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard observational assumptions and a few external calibrations. The only fitted calibration introduced in this paper is the photometric-to-spectroscopic H2O tau factor (1.44), used only qualitatively. Distance and extinction-law inputs are adopted from prior work; they are assumptions, not free fits. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Photometric-to-spectroscopic H2O ice tau calibration factor = 1.44
    Appendix B: derived from one Chamaeleon I spectrum (McClure et al. 2023) and applied to all B335 background-star photometry to convert NIRCam photometric optical depths into true ice column densities. Not validated on B335; affects the H2O ice map used only qualitatively.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Distance to B335 is 165 pc
    §1: 'Most recent papers on B335 use the rounded value of 165 pc...' Used to convert proper motions to km/s and kinematic ages; an error of tens of pc scales velocities and ages linearly.
  • domain assumption Shock fronts propagate at constant velocity in a straight line from the protostar since ejection
    §3.5: kinematic ages computed from distance from protostar divided by proper motion; deceleration, precession/wiggles, or lateral expansion would bias inferred ejection dates. The authors note jet wiggles (Federman et al. 2026).
  • domain assumption Background stars and extragalactic sources define an inertial reference frame, with protostar proper motion applied from ALMA
    §2.1.1: background star ensemble assumed to approximate celestial frame; streaming motions cannot be excluded; protostar motion from ALMA is applied as a final alignment step.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic near-IR colors of background stars are approximately constant
    §2.2.1: relies on Lada et al. 1994; observed color excess is interpreted as extinction.
  • domain assumption All cavity positions are illuminated by the same protostar spectrum
    §3.7.1: needed for relative A_V; the text states absolute values are nominal because the protostar SED is unknown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Outflow of the B335 Protostar II: After the Outburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3LB6TT2

@misc{pith2026260212060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Outflow of the B335 Protostar II: After the Outburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3LB6TT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12060}
}
abstract

The B335 protostar has recently undergone a major, still ongoing, outburst detected in scattered light from its outflow cavity, offering a rare opportunity to study its impact on a protostellar jet. We use JWST/NIRCam photometry of background stars behind B335 from 2.7 to 4.4 $\mu$m to map extinction and H$_2$O ice absorption, showing that the outflow has carved a cavity in the molecular core. We measure proper motions of shock fronts emerging from the protostar of 131--227 km s$^{-1}$. The kinematic age of the most prominent shock front, 3E, corresponds to the early phase of the current outburst. JWST/NIRSpec IFU data show that the youngest shock, 2E, exhibits ionic lines but no molecular emission. Shock 3E shows strong CO emission together with H$_2$ and [\ion{Fe}{2}], whereas older shocks show weaker CO and are dominated by H$_2$ and [\ion{Fe}{2}]. The feature 0E, closest to the protostar, appears to be a stationary shock. CO-line-removed spectra near the protostar show that the unsaturated absorption features of $^{13}$CO$_2$, OCN$^-$, and OCS increase strongly toward the source. The ice properties are otherwise similar to those along lower-extinction sight lines. In the central bipolar reflection nebula, CO gas is seen in scattered emission from the immediate protostellar surroundings, but a few arcsec farther out, absorption by cooler CO gas in the outflow cavity is detected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RGB color composite sky-subtracted image of the B335 outflow: F277W, F150W, F090W. This image clearly shows the “core shine” scattered light from the interstellar radiation field outlining the B335 cloud and core. The densest parts of the core, where the protostar is located, are seen as a depression in the scattered interstellar light, showing in a brownish color. In the center of this dark region, in the F277W fil… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Crosscuts in declination direction centered on the protostellar source (offset 0), between the dashed lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Cutout of the F356W image with smoothed (σ = 15 pixels) contours of the continuum extinction overlaid, to demonstrate the relation between the outflow cavity and the cloud structure. The outflow cavity is traced by the bipolar reflection nebula. Bottom: The continuum extinction map in its original resolution shown in greyscale with smoothed contours of that map overlaid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (25 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NEOWISE W1 and W2 light curve in Vega magnitudes. The epoch of the NIRSpec IFU (MJD 59838.0, 2022 Sept. 16, black line) and the two epochs of NIRCam imaging 2023 04 25 UTC (MJD 60059.1, 2023 Apr. 25, brown line, and MJD 60424.3, 2024 Apr. 24, green line) are indicated …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top Panel: Wide field difference image of Spitzer channel 2 images of B335 taken in 2004 and 2016. The coordinates are offset from the position of the protostar. Moving shock fronts are seen adjacent pairs of black (2004) and white (2026) images of the same object. The…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Crosscut from south to north through the B335 outflow cavity along the line indicated in blue in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Positions of the regions for NIRSpec IFU datacube spectrum extraction. The color coding corresponds to the colors of the spectra in Figures 9 to 14. The image is the data cube slice at a wavelength of 5.053 µm, centered on an H2 emission line. Thick outlines and labels…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The spectra closest to the protostar in the eastern lobe of B335. Knot 0E, in particular, shows strong CO emission, but less H2 and [Fe II] emission than the other knots. For shock 0E, background subtraction was not possible. For the other shocks, the nearby cavity bac…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: NIRSpec spectra of shock 3E. Light blue is the original spectrum at the position of 3E. Black is the spectrum in the nearby reference position showing mainly a continuum with ice absorption features, and dark blue is the background-subtracted, almost pure emission spe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: For different integration apertures, this figure shows spectra over a small wavelength range to illustrate the particular blue-shifted velocity of shock 3E. The spectra are in units of flux, but are both scaled and shifted for clarity. The CO emission lines in shock 3…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: NIRSpec spectra of shock 4E. Light violet is the original spectrum at the position of 4E. Black is the spectrum in the nearby reference position, and dark violet is the background-subtracted, almost pure emission spectrum of shock 4E itself. 3.6.5. Knots 0Wn and 0Ws T…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The western lobe of the outflow. Shock 0Ws (brown) appears to have higher CO excitation than 0Wn (red). 4 4 44 4 4   "  μ        !#$              [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The western lobe of the outflow. Shock 2W (violet) and 3W (cyan) show relatively weak CO emission and are dominated by H2 and [Fe II] emission lines. The tendency of decreasing CO emission with distance from the protostar is similar to the trend in the eastern lobe. 3…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: This figure shows both the line flux as large circles and the spatial distribution of the line flux as small image cutouts, for the four innermost shock regions in B335: 0E, 2E, 3E, and 4E. The color coding, both for the line flux symbols and for the image frames, is …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Extraction apertures in the reflection nebula other than shock fronts. The image is the NIRSpec IFU data cube slice at a wavelength of 5.053 µm, centered on an H2 emission line. The extraction boxes are color coded (blue-green-yellow-red￾brown-black) in a sequence sug…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: A schematic cross-section illustrating the scattering geometry for light scattered on the outflow cavity walls, and then suffering extinction in the outer regions of the flattened molecular core surrounding the protostar. The direction toward the observer is verticall…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The spectra extracted from the reflection nebula positions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Plot of the AV in the selected apertures in the blue-shifted outflow cavity walls ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The spectra extracted from the reflection nebula positions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Ice column density vs. distance from protostar for three ice species 13CO2, OCN−, and OCS that are not saturated in the B335 cavity and have sufficient strength for a significant detection. distant regions of the blue-shifted lobe, but within the outflow cavity define…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Maps of the dust absorption near the B335 protostar based on the NIRSpec IFU data cube. The top left panel is a flux image of shock-excited H2 emission, corrected for CO gas emission. It shows the shocked interface between the outflow cone and the surrounding molecula…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: For different integration apertures, this figure shows spectra over a small wavelength range to illustrate both the CO emission and CO absorption in different regions of the outflow cavity. The spectra are in units of flux, but are both scaled and shifted for clarity.…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Maps of CO emission in the R and P branches. Red to brown indicates position difference signal, i.e., emission in CO lines. Violet to blue indicates negative difference signal, i.e., absorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Proper motion of the B335 protostar from public ALMA data and one published VLA data point. B. H2O ICE COLUMN DENSITY FROM BACKGROUND STAR PHOTOMETRY We obtained aperture photometry of most stars in our imaging field around B335. We compiled a list of star coordinates…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Top: spectrum of NIRS38 from McClure et al. (2023) shown as a black line. The continuum regions for the polynomial continuum fit are shown in grey. The transmission curves of the NIRCam filters are the smooth thin colored lines. The product of the spectrum and the tra…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Polynomial baseline (green) used to derive the optical depth spectra for the ice features. The spectrum for position 8 in the B335 cavity is shown in the top figure, offset for clarity, and position 0 is shown at the bottom. Position 8, like most positions at larger d…
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Optical depth spectra of two sight-lines (top and bottom) within the B335 outflow cavity: full scales in the left panels, and vertical zoom-ins on the right. Gaussian and Lorentzian fits to the CO ice bands (green: COblue, green dashed: COapolar, black: COpolar) are s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. IPA: Morphology and Kinematics of Molecular Hydrogen Winds in Five Young Protostars across the Mass Spectrum Observed with JWST

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Five protostars from 0.16 to 10,000 solar luminosities show nested, onion-like H2 outflows, with higher-excitation gas more collimated and faster, consistent with MHD disk wind launching.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015999

    Aikawa, Y., Kamuro, D., Sakon, I., et al.\ 2012, , 538, A57. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015999

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015999 2012

  2. [2]

    L., et al.\ 2009, , 692, 2, L67

    Aspin, C., Reipurth, B., Beck, T. L., et al.\ 2009, , 692, 2, L67. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/L67

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/l67 2009

  3. [3]

    F., & Curiel, S.\ 2001, , 37, 201

    Avila, R., Rodr \' guez, L. F., & Curiel, S.\ 2001, , 37, 201

    2001

  4. [4]

    E., Frost, E

    Barnard, E. E., Frost, E. B., & Calvert, M. R.\ 1927, [Washington] Carnegie institution of Washington, 1927

    1927

  5. [5]

    S.\ 2014, , 565, A94

    Bertrang, G., Wolf, S., & Das, H. S.\ 2014, , 565, A94. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323091

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323091 2014

  6. [6]

    P., Harsono, D., et al.\ 2019, , 631, A64

    Bjerkeli, P., Ramsey, J. P., Harsono, D., et al.\ 2019, , 631, A64. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935948

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935948 2019

  7. [7]

    P., Harsono, D., et al.\ 2023, , 677, A62

    Bjerkeli, P., Ramsey, J. P., Harsono, D., et al.\ 2023, , 677, A62. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245195

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245195 2023

  8. [8]

    Boogert, A. C. A., Brewer, K., Brittain, A., et al.\ 2022, , 941, 1, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4a 2022

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1021

    Bouilloud, M., Fray, N., B \'e nilan, Y., et al.\ 2015, , 451, 2145. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1021

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    J., Gear, W

    Chandler, C. J., Gear, W. K., Sandell, G., et al.\ 1990, , 243, 330

    1990

  4. [12]

    M., et al.\ 2021, , 653, A166

    Cabedo, V., Maury, A., Girart, J. M., et al.\ 2021, , 653, A166. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140754

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Chu, L. E. U. & Hodapp, K. W.\ 2021, , 918, 2. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ae8

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Hodapp, K

    Connelley, M. S., Hodapp, K. W., & Fuller, G. A.\ 2009, , 137, 3494. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/3/3494

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.5303/JKAS.2025.58.2.209

    Contreras Pe \ n a, C., Lee, J.-E., Herczeg, G., et al.\ 2025, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 58, 209. doi:10.5303/JKAS.2025.58.2.209

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Ysard, N., et al.\ 2022, , 666, A153

    Dartois, E., Noble, J. A., Ysard, N., et al.\ 2022, , 666, A153. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243929

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Caselli, P., et al.\ 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 359

    Dartois, E., Noble, J. A., Caselli, P., et al.\ 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 359. doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02155-x

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    J., & Fraser, H

    Dawes, A., Mason, N. J., & Fraser, H. J.\ 2016, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (Incorporating Faraday Transactions), 18, 2, 1245. doi:10.1039/C5CP05299H

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Yang, Y.-L., Green, J

    Evans, N. J., Yang, Y.-L., Green, J. D., et al.\ 2023, , 943, 90. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaa38

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    A., Megeath, S

    Federman, S. A., Megeath, S. T., Caratti o Garatti, A., Narang, M., Tyagi, H., Evans, N. J.\,II, Kimmig, C. N., Tychoniec, L., Beuther, H., Stutz, A., Manoj, P., Gutermuth, R., Bourke, T. L., Green, J., Hartmann, L., Klaassen, P., Kuiper, R., Looney, L. W., Nazari, P., Stanke,...

    2026

  14. [22]

    Frerking, M. A. & Langer, W. D.\ 1982, , 256, 523. doi:10.1086/159928

    1982 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Langer, W

    Frerking, M. A., Langer, W. D., & Wilson, R. W.\ 1987, , 313, 320. doi:10.1086/164970

    1987 doi

  16. [24]

    & Olofsson, G.\ 2007, , 475, 281

    G \^a lfalk, M. & Olofsson, G.\ 2007, , 475, 281. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077889

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al.\ 2023, , 135, 068001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Materese, C

    Gerakines, P. A., Materese, C. K., & Hudson, R. L.\ 2025, , 537, 3, 2918. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf192

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    9, 2022)

    Goudfrooij, P, 2022, Doc: JWST-STScI-008116, SM-12, (Feb. 9, 2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    F., Snell, R

    Goldsmith, P. F., Snell, R. L., Hemeon-Heyer, M., et al.\ 1984, , 286, 599. doi:10.1086/162635

    1984 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Cernicharo, J., et al.\ 2002, , 386, 1074

    Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso, E., Wright, C. M., Cernicharo, J., et al.\ 2002, , 386, 1074. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020362

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.1086/192110

    Goorvitch, D.\ 1994, , 95, 535. doi:10.1086/192110

    1994 doi

  23. [31]

    Le Gouellec, V. J. M., Lew, B. W. P., Greene, T. P., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2410.11095o

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D., Evans, N

    Green, J. D., Evans, N. J., J rgensen, J. K., et al.\ 2013, , 770, 2, 123. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/123

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    P., Kelly, D

    Greene, T. P., Kelly, D. M., Stansberry, J., et al.\

  26. [34]

    Hillenbrand, L. A. & Rodriguez, A. C.\ 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 1, 6. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac4807

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    doi:10.1086/185142

    Hirano, N., Kameya, O., Nakayama, M., et al.\ 1988, , 327, L69. doi:10.1086/185142

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    Hodapp, K.-W.\ 1984, , 141, 255

    1984

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1086/165502

    Hodapp, K.-W.\ 1987, , 319, 842. doi:10.1086/165502

    1987 doi

  30. [38]

    L., Rayner, J

    Hodapp, K.-W., Hora, J. L., Rayner, J. T., et al.\ 1996, , 468, 861. doi:10.1086/177742

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.1086/311412

    Hodapp, K.-W.\ 1998, , 500, L183. doi:10.1086/311412

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    Hodapp, K. W. & Bressert, E.\ 2009, , 137, 3501. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/3/3501

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Chini, R., Watermann, R., et al.\ 2012, , 744, 1, 56

    Hodapp, K. W., Chini, R., Watermann, R., et al.\ 2012, , 744, 1, 56. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/56

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    Hodapp, K. W. & Chini, R.\ 2014, , 794, 169. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/169

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Hodapp, K. W. & Chini, R.\ 2018, , 864, 172. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad636

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Chu, L

    Hodapp, K. W., Chu, L. L., Greene, T., et al.\ 2024, , 167, 102. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1b55

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    & McKee, C

    Hollenbach, D. & McKee, C. F.\ 1979, , 41, 555. doi:10.1086/190631

    1979 doi

  38. [46]

    & McKee, C

    Hollenbach, D. & McKee, C. F.\ 1980, , 241, L47. doi:10.1086/183358

    1980 doi

  39. [47]

    & McKee, C

    Hollenbach, D. & McKee, C. F.\ 1989, , 342, 306. doi:10.1086/167595

    1989 doi

  40. [48]

    P.\ 1916, , 44, 190

    Hubble, E. P.\ 1916, , 44, 190. doi:10.1086/142284

    1916 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c20

    Imai, M., Oya, Y., Sakai, N., et al.\ 2019, , 873, L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c20

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Bourke, T

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

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f07

    Kandori, R., Saito, M., Tamura, M., et al.\ 2020, , 891, 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f07

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Harper, D

    Keene, J., Davidson, J. A., Harper, D. A., et al.\ 1983, , 274, L43. doi:10.1086/184147

    1983 doi

  45. [53]

    C., et al.\ 2024, , 961, 1, 108

    Kim, C.-H., Lee, J.-E., Pe \ n a, C. C., et al.\ 2024, , 961, 1, 108. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1400

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., Lada, E. A., Clemens, D. P., et al.\ 1994, , 429, 694. doi:10.1086/174354

    1994 doi

  47. [55]

    & Scholz, A.\ 2025, , 540, 1, 52

    Lightfoot, J. & Scholz, A.\ 2025, , 540, 1, 52. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf708

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    F.\ 1989, , 239, 665

    Lightfoot, J. F.\ 1989, , 239, 665. doi:10.1093/mnras/239.2.665

    1989 doi

  49. [57]

    Le Gouellec, V. J. M., Maury, A. J., & Hull, C. L. H.\ 2023, , 671, A167. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244865

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Le Gouellec, V. J. M., Lew, B. W. P., Greene, T. P., et al.\ 2025, , 985, 2, 225. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcac4

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Girart, J

    Maury, A. J., Girart, J. M., Zhang, Q., et al.\ 2018, , 477, 2760. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty574

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    1956, MNRAS, 116, 503

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 503

    1956

  54. [62]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff4

    Okoda, Y., Oya, Y., Imai, M., et al.\ 2022, , 935, 136. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff4

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    I., Boogert, A

    \"O berg, K. I., Boogert, A. C. A., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al.\ 2011, , 740, 2, 109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/109

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    & Olofsson, G.\ 2009, , 498, 455

    Olofsson, S. & Olofsson, G.\ 2009, , 498, 455. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811574

    2009 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Sch \"o ier, F

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Sch \"o ier, F. L., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al.\ 2002, , 393, 585. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021056

    2002 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Fraser, H

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Fraser, H. J., Dartois, E., et al.\ 2003, , 408, 981. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031030

    2003 doi

  59. [67]

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

    2021

  60. [68]

    Reipurth, B., Heathcote, S., & Vrba, F.\ 1992, , 256, 225

    1992

  61. [69]

    F., Anglada, G., et al.\ 2002, , 124, 1045

    Reipurth, B., Rodr \' guez, L. F., Anglada, G., et al.\ 2002, , 124, 1045. doi:10.1086/341172

    2002 doi

  62. [70]

    2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed

    Reipurth, B. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 847

    2008

  63. [71]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al.\ 2023, , 135, 028001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    Rocha, W. R. M., Perotti, G., Kristensen, L. E., et al.\ 2021, , 654, A158. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039360

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    E., Evans, N

    Rubinstein, A. E., Evans, N. J., Tyagi, H., et al.\ 2024, , 974, 112. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b92

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Fischer, W

    Safron, E. J., Fischer, W. J., Megeath, S. T., et al.\ 2015, , 800, 1, L5. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/800/1/L5

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S.\ 1987, , 25, 23. doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323

    1987

  68. [76]

    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

  69. [77]

    Slavi c insk\' a , K., Coone, C., Benz, B., Linnartz, H., Boogert, A. C. A., & Chuang, K.-J. 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem., 9, 2148, doi:10.1021/acsearthspacechem.5c00134

    2025 doi

  70. [78]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  71. [79]

    M., Rubin, M., Werner, M

    Stutz, A. M., Rubin, M., Werner, M. W., et al.\ 2008, , 687, 389. doi:10.1086/591789

    2008 doi

  72. [80]

    Tyagi, H., Manoj, P., Narang,

  73. [81]

    Tomita, Y., Saito, T., & Ohtani, H.\ 1979, , 31, 407

    1979

  74. [82]

    A., Pontoppidan, K

    van Broekhuizen, F. A., Pontoppidan, K. M., Fraser, H. J., et al.\ 2005, , 441, 1, 249. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041711

    2005 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Luginbuhl, C

    Vrba, F. J., Luginbuhl, C. B., Strom, S. E., et al.\ 1986, , 92, 633. doi:10.1086/114194

    1986 doi

  76. [84]

    & Chen, X.\ 2019, , 877, 116

    Wang, S. & Chen, X.\ 2019, , 877, 116

    2019

  77. [85]

    author Wang, W. et al. year 2025 , howpublished arXiv:2502.20442

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    M.\ 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 88

    Watson, D. M.\ 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 88. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab9df4

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K. et al., , 140, 1868

  80. [88]

    Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., Ohashi, N., & Ho, P. T. P. 2015, , 799, 193

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.