Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

FAUST XXVII: The circumbinary disk and the outflow of the L 1551 IRS 5 binary system

T0 review · 4 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 ALMA maps of the young binary L1551 IRS5 show its disk, envelope, and outflow can be explained by one rotating-infalling disk with constant angular momentum and a jet-driven cavity, yielding a central mass of 0.8 solar masses.

desk verdict Solid FAUST data paper but the headline r_CB, j, and M rest on an inconsistent PV-diagram origin that could shift them by ~25%. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11363 v1 pith:K2EL2TB6 submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Aurora Durán , Laurent Loinard , Pedro R. Rivera-Ortiz , Geovanni Cortés-Rangel , Eleonora Bianchi , Paola Caselli , Cecilia Ceccarelli , Claire J. Chandler
show 16 more authors
Claudio Codella Nicolás Cuello Marta De Simone Tomoyuki Hanawa Doug Johnstone François Menard Maria José Maureira Anna Miotello Linda Podio Takeshi Sakai Giovanni Sabatini Leonardo Testi Charlotte Vastel Ziwei Zhang Nami Sakai Satoshi Yamamoto
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords circumbinarydiskprotostellarbinarycentrifugalbarrierspecificangularmomentumoutflowcavityC18O(2-1)ALMAstarformation
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 of the young binary protostar L1551 IRS5 to show that a single simple kinematic picture can account for the system's disk, envelope, and outflow. From the rotation curve of the circumbinary disk, the authors derive a centrifugal barrier at about 55 au, a specific angular momentum of about 270 au km/s, and a central mass of about 0.8 solar masses, consistent with the mass obtained from the binary's orbital motion. The paper also shows that an analytic outflow model whose cavity shape depends on a density power-law index of 1.7, combined with an envelope rotating at about 2 km/s, reproduces the observed C18O emission morphology and kinematics. If correct, this ties the binary's dynamical mass to the disk's angular momentum and explains the complex X-shaped outflow emission as a rotation-induced distortion of the cavity walls.

What carries the argument

Two analytic constructions carry the argument. The first is a rotating-infalling envelope model in which the line-of-sight velocity of a particle at radius $r$ is a combination of rotation velocity $v_\theta = j/r$ and infall velocity $v_r = \sqrt{2GM/r - (j/r)^2}$, under the assumption that the specific angular momentum $j$ is constant with radius. At the centrifugal barrier $r_{\rm CB}=j^2/(2GM)$, the infall velocity vanishes and the rotation velocity peaks, so the turning point of the position–velocity diagram directly yields $r_{\rm CB}$, $j$, and $M$. The second construction is the jet-driven outflow cavity locus $y = \pm(V_{y0}/V_j)(x/x_0)^{\alpha/2}(L-x)$, derived from ballistic lateral expansion against a stratified envelope with density $n \propto x^{-\alpha}$; the position of its maximum width gives $\alpha=1.7$ independent of projection, and adding a constant rotation $v_c\approx2$ km s$^{-1}$ reproduces the X-shaped channel morphology.

What would settle it

A rotation curve from a finer-resolution, optically thin line that deviates systematically from the constant-j model near the inner edge, or an astrometric binary mass falling outside 0.8 ± 0.2 solar masses, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the C18O(2-1) emission from L1551 IRS5 is described by two components: a rotation-plus-infall disk/envelope with constant specific angular momentum $j\simeq270$ au km s$^{-1}$, giving a centrifugal barrier at $r_{\rm CB}=55$ au and a central mass $M=0.8\pm0.2$ M$_\odot$, and a jet-driven outflow cavity with density stratification $\alpha=1.7$ and envelope rotation $v_c=2$ km s$^{-1}$ that produces the observed X-shaped morphology. The paper argues that the consistency between the disk-derived mass and the astrometric orbital mass validates the constant-$j$ model for the circumbinary disk, and that the analytic outflow model can reproduce the main features of the moment zero and moment one maps, allowing outflow and binary-interaction contributions to be separated.

Load-bearing premise

The kinematic model assumes the disk's specific angular momentum is constant with radius; if tidal effects from the binary make it vary, the derived mass and barrier radius would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The circumbinary disk's nearly constant specific angular momentum of ~270 au km/s implies a centrifugal barrier at 55 au, locating where material is fed to the binary.
  • The disk-derived mass of 0.8 ± 0.2 solar masses agrees with the astrometric orbital mass, supporting constant-j disk models for young binaries.
  • The outflow model with density index α = 1.7 and envelope rotation v_c = 2 km/s reproduces the observed X-shaped C18O morphology, indicating the shape is a rotation-induced distortion of the cavity walls.
  • The inferred density power-law index ties the outflow cavity shape to the envelope's radial density profile, consistent with infalling-envelope models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If tidal torques make the disk's angular momentum increase inward, the true mass could be higher than 0.8 solar masses, and the centrifugal barrier could lie closer to the binary than 55 au; a multi-transition line study that maps j(r) inward of 55 au could test this.
  • The same analytic outflow model could be applied to other FUor-like binaries to see whether their X-shaped emission is also a rotation effect; the model predicts a specific antisymmetry in channel maps that scales with v_c.
  • Because the disk-derived mass matches the orbital mass, circumbinary disks may serve as accurate dynamical mass probes for young binaries even when they are tidally perturbed; extending this approach to a sample of systems could calibrate the method.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes ALMA Band 6 continuum and C18O(2-1) observations of the L1551 IRS5 binary system from the FAUST program, deriving physical properties from ~30 to ~3000 au: dust+gas masses for the circumbinary and circumstellar disks, a circumbinary disk size and inclination, a centrifugal barrier radius r_CB = 55 au, specific angular momentum j = 270 au km/s, and central mass M = 0.8 +/- 0.2 Msun from a PV diagram, plus a density power-law index alpha = 1.7 and an envelope rotation velocity Vc = 2 km/s from an analytical outflow toy model. The paper also presents synthetic model cubes and compares their moment maps to observations.

Significance. If the derived quantities hold, the paper provides a useful multi-scale view of a prototypical Class I binary system, updating the specific angular momentum and constraining the central mass with a method independent of the orbital solution. The analytical outflow model, while simplified, offers a transparent framework for separating outflow and binary/envelope contributions and makes falsifiable predictions about channel-map morphology. The use of multiple ALMA configurations and the cross-check against the orbital mass of Hernandez Garnica et al. (2024) are notable strengths. However, the central kinematic claims rest on a PV-diagram extraction whose coordinate origin is ambiguously described, and the derived masses carry systematic uncertainties from assumed dust temperature and dust-to-gas ratio that are not fully propagated, limiting the strength of the quantitative conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Figure 5 caption] The manuscript is internally inconsistent about the origin of the PV diagram: the text states that positions are 'relative to the location of the northern binary component,' while the Figure 5 caption states they are 'relative to the location of the center of the binary component.' With M_N = 0.8 Msun, M_S = 0.3 Msun, and a separation of ~50 au, the center of mass lies ~14 au from the northern star, about 25% of the derived r_CB = 55 au. Equations (2)-(6) assume a single point mass at the origin, so if the former description is correct, the read-off of r_CB and v_max is biased and the quoted M = 0.8 +/- 0.2 Msun carries a systematic offset comparable to the stated uncertainty; if the latter is correct, the extraction documented in the text is not the one performed. The authors must clarify the actual origin, re-derive or justify r_CB, j, and M accordingly, and quantify the resulting systematic error.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (3)-(6)] Even with the origin fixed at the binary center of mass, the single point-mass model used to interpret the PV diagram is a strong approximation given that r_CB = 55 au is comparable to the binary separation of ~50 au. In the potential of two separated masses, the specific angular momentum is not generally conserved along the trajectories used in Eqs. (3)-(4), and the relation r_CB = j^2/(2GM) is not exact. The consistency with the orbital mass of 0.96 +/- 0.17 Msun is encouraging, but it does not quantify the systematic error from the binary potential; the quoted uncertainty of +/- 0.2 Msun should be revised to include this modeling error or the claim should be limited to an order-of-magnitude estimate.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (1) and Tables 2-3] The disk mass estimates assume T_dust = 100 K and a dust-to-gas ratio of 100, yet the quoted uncertainties (e.g., M_CBD = 0.018 +/- 0.008 Msun) do not include the factor-of-several systematic uncertainty from these assumptions. The paper itself notes that T_dust = 35 K gives M_CBD = 0.064 Msun and that a lower dust-to-gas ratio would increase the mass, so the quoted error bars are not representative of the true uncertainty. The authors should report the masses as ranges over plausible T_dust and dust-to-gas values, or explicitly state that the quoted errors are statistical only.
  4. [Section 4.4 and Figure 9] The value Vc = 2 km/s is presented as an outcome of fitting the analytical model to the observations, but the fitting procedure is not described quantitatively: the model parameters (V_y0, x0, V_j, and the rotation law) are varied 'arbitrarily' or by eye, and the same moment-zero maps used for the fit are then compared to the model as evidence of reproduction. This makes the inferred Vc and alpha circular to a degree, and no uncertainty is given for Vc. A concrete test would be to perform a grid search over (V_y0/V_j, x0, Vc, inclination) with a well-defined likelihood or residual metric, and to show that the claimed values are uniquely preferred rather than that the model family merely contains a realization resembling the data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The specific angular momentum is quoted as j = 270 +/- 60 au km/s in Section 4.3 but as j = 270 +/- 30 au km/s in the abstract and in the conclusions; these values should be reconciled.
  2. [General] There are several typographical errors, such as 'sensibility' for 'sensitivity' in Section 4.1, 'doubletunning fork' for what appears to be 'double turning fork' in Section 5, and '0.8 system solar mass' in the Figure 5 caption.
  3. [Section 4.4, Eq. (8)] The derivation of alpha = 1.7 from x_max/L is stated to be independent of projection effects, but the identification of x_max,p/L_p with x_max/L assumes that the projected outflow axis is not significantly foreshortened; this should be stated explicitly, especially because the term V_j/V_y0 depends on the unknown inclination of the outflow.
  4. [Section 3, Figure 1] The brightness asymmetry of the circumbinary disk is described as tidal in origin, but no quantitative characterization (e.g., flux ratio of northern to southern halves) is given; adding such a number would make the claim more reproducible and comparable with future models.
  5. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The gas masses derived from C18O are about an order of magnitude lower than the dust-derived masses; the text attributes this to optical depth and dust-to-gas ratio, but it would be helpful to state explicitly whether the line-based masses are lower limits and whether the differences are consistent within the systematic ranges discussed in Section 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central kinematics are data-driven and cross-checked against an independent orbital mass.

full rationale

The paper's central kinematic results (r_CB, j, M) are read directly from the C18O(2-1) PV diagram using the ballistic infall/rotation model of Sakai et al. (2014) and Oya (2022); these are standard conservation laws rather than a fitted result derived from self-citations. The derived M=0.8±0.2 Msun is explicitly compared with the independent orbital mass from Hernández Garnica et al. (2024), providing an external benchmark. The outflow model is presented as a toy model: alpha is inferred from the measured outflow width ratio in an optical image, and Vc is a free parameter fitted to the channel maps; the subsequent moment-zero comparison is a demonstration of consistency, not a first-principles prediction. The paper transparently labels the synthetic cubes as using 'a set of arbitrary parameters' and acknowledges that reproducing the detailed structure will require more components. Although there are self-citations to prior works by co-authors (Sakai et al. 2014; Oya 2022; Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2019), these are not load-bearing in a circular way; they provide standard model equations and an external comparison. An internal inconsistency exists between the text (offsets relative to the northern binary component) and Fig. 5 caption (offsets relative to the center of the binary component), which is a systematic-error concern for the derived r_CB and M but is not a circular derivation. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. Therefore, no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a standard set of model assumptions: a constant-j kinematic disk model, an optically thin dust mass formula with fixed temperature and dust-to-gas ratio, and a ballistic lateral expansion outflow model. Several parameters (Vc, alpha, Vy0/Vj, x0) are fitted or chosen by hand, which makes the outflow model results more calibrated than predictive.

free parameters (7)
  • dust-to-gas ratio = 100
    Adopted to convert continuum flux to dust+gas masses (Sec. 3). Authors note values as low as 10 are plausible, which would directly change all mass estimates.
  • dust temperature Tdust = 100 K
    Assumed for all disks in the Bergin and Williams (2017) mass formula (Sec. 3). Authors note 35 K would raise M_CBD from 0.018 to 0.064 Msun.
  • envelope rotation velocity Vc = 2 km/s
    Fitted to reproduce the level of antisymmetry in the moment-zero map of the outflow model (Sec. 4.4); no fit statistic or uncertainty is provided.
  • density power-law index alpha = 1.7 +/- 0.2
    Inferred from x_max_p/L_p = 0.45 using the assumed outflow cavity formula, Eq. 9; depends on the model's assumed scaling V_y proportional to x^{alpha/2}.
  • lateral expansion ratio Vy0/Vj = 0.1
    Used for synthetic cubes in Figs. 8 and 9, described as a set of arbitrary parameters (Sec. 4.4).
  • core size x0 = 500 au
    Assumed internal core size for estimating Vj/Vy0 about 100 (Sec. 4.4); authors note the assumption needs revision.
  • C18O abundance and excitation temperature = X_r = 5e6, Tex = 20 K
    Assumed for the C18O gas mass estimates (Sec. 4.2); authors note C18O may be optically thick, so gas masses are lower limits.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The specific angular momentum j is constant over the disk in the Sakai et al. (2014) and Oya (2022) kinematic model used to interpret the PV diagram.
    Sec. 4.3 relies on this to read off r_CB and to derive j and M from Eqs. 3-6; if j varies with radius, the inferred values are not unique.
  • ad hoc to paper Outflow cavity material is ballistically ejected laterally with V_y proportional to x^{alpha/2}, where n(x) is proportional to x^{-alpha}.
    Sec. 4.4 uses this to derive the cavity shape, Eq. 7, and from it the inferred alpha = 1.7 and the synthetic cube geometry.
  • domain assumption The optical H-alpha image of the outflow traces the same cavity walls as the C18O molecular emission.
    Sec. 4.4 measures y_max and x_max from the Subaru H-alpha image and applies them to a model of the C18O cavity.
  • domain assumption The dust continuum emission is optically thin with a single constant dust temperature, following the Bergin and Williams (2017) mass method.
    Sec. 3 assumes this for all disk mass estimates; the paper later notes dust is optically thick in inner regions, which would bias masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FAUST XXVII: The circumbinary disk and the outflow of the L 1551 IRS 5 binary system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2EL2TB6

@misc{pith2026250611363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FAUST XXVII: The circumbinary disk and the outflow of the L 1551 IRS 5 binary system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2EL2TB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11363}
}
abstract

Using continuum and $\text{C}^{18}\text{O}\:(2-1)$ line data obtained from the large ALMA program FAUST, we studied the structure of the protostellar binary system L1551 IRS5 at scales between 30 and 3,000 au to constrain its properties, from the circumstellar and circumbinary disks up to the envelope and outflow scales, which exhibits complex and entangled structures at the scales of its inner and outer envelopes, presumably caused by the influence of the central binary. Assuming a dust-to-gas ratio of 100, we calculated the dust+gas mass for the circumbinary disk and each circumstellar disk of the binary, obtaining 0.018 M$_{\odot}$, for the circumbinary disk, 0.004 M$_{\odot}$, and 0.002 M$_{\odot}$, for the northern and southern circumstellar disk respectively. From the line emission, we retrieved the gas masses for each structure component. With the $\text{C}^{18}\text{O}\:(2-1)$ PV diagram along the circumbinary disk, we were able to constrain the centrifugal barrier, $r_{CB}=55$ au, update the specific angular momentum, $j\sim270$~au~km~s$^{-1}$. We built an analytical model that can be used to predict the influence of the morphology of the outflow and a few dynamic features that can reproduce the system emission, allowing us to explain and discern the outflow contribution from the complex emission due to the binary. Additionally, we inferred the density power law index, $\alpha=1.7$, and the envelope rotation velocity, $v_{c}=2$~km~s$^{-1}$. Finally, the observations gave us the physical constraints to obtain a coherent outflow model for L1551 IRS5.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel (a) illustrates L 1551 IRS 5 across a broad field of view. In addition to the prominent central source, a faint and elongated structure can be discerned towards the southern region of the source. Panel (b) presents a close-up view of the source L 1551 IRS 5 revealing its internal components, such as the circumbinary disk, and the circumstellar disks of the northern (N) and southern (S) sources. The dashed squa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Velocity channel maps of the C18O (2 − 1) line observed in L 1551 IRS 5 . The velocity [km s−1 ] for each channel is shown in the lower right corner. The synthesized beam is shown at the bottom left of each panel. The intensity scale is indicated by the color bar to the right of the figure. The systemic velocity is 𝑣𝑙𝑠𝑟 = 6.45 km s−1 . 4.2 Gas masses obtained from the C18O (2 − 1) line We obtained the observational … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. C 18O (2 − 1) moment zero map towards L 1551 IRS 5 . The circumbinary disk is shown in contours at the image center. The contour levels are 15, 20, 50, 70, 100 ×𝜎𝑟𝑚𝑠, where 𝜎𝑟𝑚𝑠= 0.16 mJy beam −1 . The dashed green lines represent the extension of the jets reported by Rodríguez et al. (2003b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Position-Velocity diagram of the C18O (2 − 1) line emission along the circumbinary disk major axis. Positions are in arcsec relative to the loca￾tion of the center of the binary component, in the direction of the southern side. Contours are 3 𝜎, 10𝜎, 20𝜎, 50𝜎, 100𝜎, wh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The outflow model (solid line for the upper panel, and dashed line for the lower panel) superimposed to a L 1551 IRS 5 optical image. Note that the main source is located at the left of the image, represented by the green star. Image captured by Bo Reipurth using the 8…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synthetic cubes with 𝑉𝑦0 = 0.1𝑉𝑗 . Left panels (a and c) represent a single channel map from the analytical model, and right panels (b and d) represent the moment zero from the corresponding model. The upper panels represent a non-rotating model, while the lower panels…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Moment zero contours from our analytic toy model overlaid onto (upper panel): moment zero from the C18O (2 − 1) line observations of L 1551 IRS 5 ; (bottom panel): moment zero from the analytical model itself. analyzed and compared with the observations, obtaining mome…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Lada C

    Adams F. C., Lada C. J., Shu F. H., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...312..788A 312, 788

    doi:10.1086/164924 1987

  2. [2]

    C., Ruden S

    Adams F. C., Ruden S. P., Shu F. H., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...347..959A 347, 959

    doi:10.1086/168187 1989

  3. [3]

    pp 145--152

    Andr \'e P., Motte F., Bacmann A., Belloche A., 1999, in Nakamoto T., ed., Star Formation 1999. pp 145--152

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    P., Russell S

    Andre P., Ward-Thompson D., Barsony M., 2000, in Mannings V., Boss A. P., Russell S. S., eds, Protostars and Planets IV. p. 59 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9903284 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903284

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9903284 2000

  5. [5]

    P., Manara C

    Ansdell M., Williams J. P., Manara C. F., Miotello A., Facchini S., van der Marel N., Testi L., van Dishoeck E. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa69c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153..240A 153, 240

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa69c0 2017

  6. [6]

    A., Williams J

    Bergin E. A., Williams J. P., 2017, in Pessah M., Gressel O., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 445, Formation, Evolution, and Dynamics of Young Solar Systems. p. 1, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-60609-5_1

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60609-5_1 2017

  7. [7]

    Bianchi E., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.tmpL.141B

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa130 2020

  8. [8]

    C., Savage B

    Bohlin R. C., Savage B. D., Drake J. F., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..132B 224, 132

    doi:10.1086/156357 1978

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Chou T.-L., Takakuwa S., Yen H.-W., Ohashi N., Ho P. T. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796...70C 796, 70

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    Codella C., Ceccarelli C., Chandler C., Sakai N., Yamamoto S., FAUST Team 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2021.782006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...8..227C 8, 227

    2021

  3. [11]

    Codella C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7383C 528, 7383

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Reipurth B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaba7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861..145C 861, 145

    Connelley M. S., Reipurth B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaba7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861..145C 861, 145

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Toal \'a J

    Cortes-Rangel G., Zapata L. A., Toal \'a J. A., Ho P. T. P., Takahashi S., Mesa-Delgado A., Masqu \'e J. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...62C 159, 62

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Crimier N., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...516A.102C 516, A102

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    B., Takami M., 2019, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab39ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882L...4C 882, L4

    Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera F., K \'o sp \'a l \'A ., \'A brah \'a m P., Liu H. B., Takami M., 2019, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab39ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882L...4C 882, L4

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Ghez A

    Duch \^e ne G., Bontemps S., Bouvier J., Andr \'e P., Djupvik A. A., Ghez A. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...476..229D 476, 229

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    Feeney-Johansson A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..97F 677, A97

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Dullemond C

    Frank A., et al., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI. pp 451--474 ( @eprint arXiv 1402.3553 ), @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch020

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Galli P. A. B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A.137G 630, A137

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Whitworth A

    Goodwin S. P., Whitworth A. P., Ward-Thompson D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031594 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...414..633G 414, 633

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    Hern \'a ndez Garnica R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2948H 535, 2948

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Lim J., Yeung P. K. H., Hanawa T., Takakuwa S., Matsumoto T., Saigo K., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826..153L 826, 153

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Liseau R., Fridlund C. V. M., Larsson B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619..959L 619, 959

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Mundy L

    Looney L. W., Mundy L. G., Welch W. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...484L.157L 484, L157

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    Mart \' nez-Henares A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acebcd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955..119M 955, 119

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Pineda J

    Maureira M. J., Pineda J. E., Segura-Cox D. M., Caselli P., Testi L., Lodato G., Loinard L., Hern \'a ndez-G \'o mez A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab960b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897...59M 897, 59

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Ostriker E

    McKee C. F., Ostriker E. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..565M 45, 565

    2007 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Momose M., Ohashi N., Kawabe R., Nakano T., Hayashi M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504..314M 504, 314

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    Motte F., Andr \'e P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365..440M 365, 440

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Strom K

    Mundt R., Stocke J., Strom S. E., Strom K. M., Anderson E. R., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...297L..41M 297, L41

    1985 doi

  23. [31]

    Okuzumi S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psae107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASJ...77..162O 77, 162

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp 31--50, @doi 10.1007/978-981-19-1708-0_3 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1708-0_3

    Oya Y., 2022, Model Calculation. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp 31--50, @doi 10.1007/978-981-19-1708-0_3 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1708-0_3

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Oya Y., Sakai N., L \'o pez-Sepulcre A., Watanabe Y., Ceccarelli C., Lefloch B., Favre C., Yamamoto S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824...88O 824, 88

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Norman M

    Padoan P., Nordlund A ., Kritsuk A. G., Norman M. L., Li P. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..972P 661, 972

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Park W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920..132P 920, 132

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    E., et al., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Pineda J. E., et al., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 233 ( @eprint arXiv 2205.03935 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2205.03935

    2023 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Raga A., Cabrit S., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...278..267R 278, 267

    1993

  30. [38]

    J., Boss A

    Reipurth B., Clarke C. J., Boss A. P., Goodwin S. P., Rodr \' guez L. F., Stassun K. G., Tokovinin A., Zinnecker H., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI. p. 267 ( @eprint arXiv 1403.1907 ), @doi 10.2458/azu\_uapress\_...

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R., Rodr \' guez-Gonz \'a lez A., Hern \'a ndez-Mart \' nez L., Cant \'o J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...38R 874, 38

    Rivera-Ortiz P. R., Rodr \' guez-Gonz \'a lez A., Hern \'a ndez-Mart \' nez L., Cant \'o J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...38R 874, 38

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    F., Canto J., Torrelles J

    Rodriguez L. F., Canto J., Torrelles J. M., Ho P. T. P., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...301L..25R 301, L25

    1986 doi

  33. [41]

    F., Curiel S., Cant \'o J., Loinard L., Raga A

    Rodr \' guez L. F., Curiel S., Cant \'o J., Loinard L., Raga A. C., Torrelles J. M., 2003a, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/344833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...583..330R 583, 330

    doi

  34. [42]

    F., Porras A., Claussen M

    Rodr \' guez L. F., Porras A., Claussen M. J., Curiel S., Wilner D. J., Ho P. T. P., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586L.137R 586, L137

    doi

  35. [43]

    Roueff A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A..26R 645, A26

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Sakai N., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.507...78S 507, 78

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Evans II N

    Shirley Y. L., Evans II N. J., Rawlings J. M. C., Gregersen E. M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..131..249S 131, 249

    2000 doi

  38. [46]

    H., Adams F

    Shu F. H., Adams F. C., Lizano S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ARA&A..25...23S 25, 23

    1987

  39. [47]

    H., Ruden S

    Shu F. H., Ruden S. P., Lada C. J., Lizano S., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...370L..31S 370, L31

    1991 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Loren R

    Snell R. L., Loren R. B., Plambeck R. L., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...239L..17S 239, L17

    1980 doi

  41. [49]

    W., Korycansky D

    Stahler S. W., Korycansky D. G., Brothers M. J., Touma J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...431..341S 431, 341

    1994 doi

  42. [50]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , 134, 114501

    Team T. C., et al., 2022, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , 134, 114501

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...73T 818, 73

    Tobin J. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...73T 818, 73

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    Vastel C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A.171V 664, A171

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

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