Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Chronology of Episodic Accretion in Protostars -- an ALMA survey of the CO and H$_2$O snowlines

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that protostars accrete in bursts roughly every 2,400 years early on, slowing to every 8,000 years as they evolve.

desk verdict A large, careful snowline survey that makes the first statistical claim of declining burst frequency from Class 0 to I, but the trend rests on a small HCO+ subsample and a no-disk model, with the authors' own caveat that disk growth would erase it. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02706 v1 pith:YDKYNFS7 submitted 2019-09-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Tien-Hao Hsieh , Nadia M. Murillo , Arnaud Belloche , Naomi Hirano , Catherine Walsh , Ewine F. van Dishoeck , Jes K. , J{o}rgensen
show 1 more author
Shih-Ping Lai
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords episodicaccretionprotostarssnowlinesALMAsurveyClass0IN2H+HCO+
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 tries to establish a chronology for episodic accretion, the idea that young stars gain mass in violent bursts rather than steadily, by using the positions of carbon monoxide and water snowlines as chemical clocks in 39 protostars in the Perseus cloud. Because N2H+ is destroyed by gaseous CO and HCO+ by gaseous H2O, the radius at which each molecule's emission peaks marks where the relevant ice has recently sublimated; a snowline sitting much farther out than the current luminosity can produce is a fossil of a past accretion burst. The survey finds that nearly every Class 0 source shows such a fossil at the CO snowline (18 of 18) and most also at the shorter-lived water snowline (7 of 17), whereas the fractions fall to 9 of 10 and 1 of 8 in Class I sources. Interpreting the two snowline lifetimes as about 10,000 years for CO and about 1,000 years for H2O, the paper concludes that the average interval between bursts grows from about 2,400 years in the Class 0 phase to about 8,000 years in the Class I phase. If true, this means disk instability and fragmentation operate most vigorously in the earliest embedded phase, and a typical protostar experiences on the order of a hundred bursts that deliver much of its mass.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the chemical snowline fossil: N2H+ (1-0) emission is destroyed by gas-phase CO and therefore peaks just outside the CO sublimation front, while HCO+ (3-2) is destroyed by gas-phase H2O and peaks just outside the H2O snowline. Comparing the observed peak radii with the peak radii predicted by the companion radiation-transfer and chemical model grid (MHW19) for a given central luminosity turns a spatial offset into an estimate of the luminosity of the last accretion burst. The two molecules act as complementary stopwatches because CO refreezes in about 10,000 years and H2O in about 1,000 years at envelope densities, so a source showing an HCO+ fossil indicates a burst within the last millennium, an N2H+ fossil only indicates one within the last 10,000 years, and neither brackets the time since the last burst. The analysis adopts a rotationally flattened envelope without a disk, which makes the estimated burst luminosities lower limits and is the factor most likely to bias the Class 0 versus Class I comparison. Two sources independently thought to be bursting now, Per-emb-27 and Per-emb-44, fall near the model curve and serve as rough calibrators.

What would settle it

Measure disk radii and masses in the same 39 Perseus targets with long-baseline ALMA continuum and recompute the predicted snowline radii using disk-inclusive models; if Class I disks turn out to be systematically denser or larger and the disk models bring the Class I post-burst fractions up to the Class 0 level without any change in burst frequency, the chronological claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the burst frequency of episodic accretion declines as protostars evolve: the intervals between accretion bursts increase from about 2,400 years in the Class 0 stage to about 8,000 years in the Class I stage, under the assumption of refreeze-out timescales of 1,000 years for H2O and 10,000 years for CO. The evidence comes from a statistical comparison of measured N2H+ and HCO+ peak radii with radiative-transfer and chemical models of a rotationally flattened envelope at different luminosities: sources whose snowlines lie farther out than the current bolometric luminosity can explain are classified as post-burst. The survey identifies burst-fossil sources at rates of 100 percent (18 of 18) in Class 0 and 90 percent (9 of 10) in Class I from N2H+, and 58 percent (7 of 17) in Class 0 versus 20 percent (1 of 8) in Class I from HCO+. The authors explicitly note the rival interpretation that disk growth from Class 0 to Class I shrinks the inferred snowline radius, which would mimic a decline in burst frequency; they therefore frame the chronological result as conditional on comparable envelope structure across stages. They also derive burst luminosities of about 10 to 100 solar luminosities and estimate that bursts deliver a total of roughly 0.1 to 0.3 solar masses, leaving most of the final stellar mass to be accreted quiescently or in rare super-bursts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Class 0 and Class I envelopes have similar density structure, so the smaller snowline radii in Class I sources reflect a longer time since the last burst rather than a larger or denser disk shielding the envelope from the central star's radiation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the burst interval truly grows from about 2,400 years in Class 0 to about 8,000 years in Class I, a protostar experiences roughly 63 to 100 bursts in the Class 0 phase and 39 to 60 bursts in the Class I phase, implying disk fragmentation is far more vigorous in the earliest embedded stage.
  • The burst-phase accretion rate is about (7.6 to 16.2) x 10^-6 solar masses per year and appears roughly constant across stages, so the evolution is in burst frequency rather than burst strength.
  • Bursts deliver only about 0.1 to 0.3 solar masses total, which is less than the typical 0.3 to 0.5 solar mass star; the remainder must be accreted during quiescence or in rare FU-Orionis-type super-bursts.
  • The inferred burst duration of about 120 years (a 5 percent duty cycle at Class 0) matches the 100 to 200 year durations predicted by gravitational-instability simulations.
  • A declining burst frequency supports the picture in which gravitational instability is sustained by the high infall rates and cold disk conditions of the earliest embedded phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If disk evolution rather than a lower burst frequency explains the Class I deficit, then high-resolution images of Class I disks should show systematically larger or denser disks than Class 0 disks; current ALMA surveys could test this directly by measuring disk radii and masses in the same sample.
  • The chronology implies a testable luminosity distribution: Class 0 samples should contain a higher fraction of currently bursting, high-luminosity objects than Class I samples, something wide-field time-domain surveys could check statistically.
  • Because the two tracers bracket the time since the last burst, tallying sources with an N2H+ fossil but no HCO+ fossil gives a direct histogram of burst intervals rather than just an average; extending this binning to a larger sample would sharpen the 2,400 versus 8,000 year numbers.
  • The result suggests that inner-disk material is repeatedly heated and cooled during the Class 0 phase, so chemical models of complex organic molecule formation should incorporate burst frequencies that decline with time rather than a constant rate.
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. This paper presents ALMA observations of N2H+ (1−0) and HCO+ (3−2) toward 39 Class 0 and Class I protostars in Perseus. The observed emission-peak radii are compared with the no-disk MHW19 radiative/chemical model to map radii to luminosities; sources with inferred past-burst luminosity exceeding the current bolometric luminosity are classified as post-burst. The authors report that 18/18 Class 0 and 9/10 Class I sources show CO-snowline (N2H+) post-burst signatures, while 7/17 Class 0 and 1/8 Class I show H2O-snowline (HCO+) signatures when requiring Lburst > 10 L⊙. They conclude that the interval between bursts increases from ~2,400 yr in Class 0 to ~8,000 yr in Class I, with burst luminosities of ~10–100 L⊙ and burst-phase mass accretion rates of ~(7.6–16.2)×10−6 M⊙ yr−1, and use these to estimate the accumulated mass during the embedded phase. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the frequency decline could instead reflect disk growth and shielding if Class I disks are denser/larger.

Significance. If the chronological trend is robust, this survey would be the first statistical evidence that episodic accretion becomes less frequent as protostars evolve from Class 0 to Class I, directly informing models of disk gravitational instability and the mass assembly history of Sun-like stars. Strengths of the paper include the relatively large ALMA sample within a single cloud, the use of two chemical tracers with complementary refreeze-out timescales, explicit tabulation of per-source uncertainties, and unusually candid discussion of model caveats. The analysis is not machine-checked, but the data tables and figures are sufficiently detailed to reproduce the statistical statements. However, the central claim is currently conditional on the no-disk model and on the HCO+ subsample, and the paper's own caveats indicate that the evolutionary interpretation is one of two viable readings.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2.1, Fig. 8] The headline interval increase (2,400 yr to 8,000 yr) is derived only from the HCO+ subsample with Lburst > 10 L⊙ (7/17 Class 0 vs 1/8 Class I), while the N2H+ subsample at the same threshold yields 56±24% vs 50±25%, i.e., no significant difference. The paper presents the HCO+-based decline as the central chronological conclusion without a statistical significance test against the null hypothesis of equal fractions, and the authors' own numbers imply the CO-snowline tracer does not corroborate the claim. Please perform an explicit two-sample test (e.g., Fisher's exact test) on the 2×2 tables and report the resulting p-values for both tracers, and discuss the implications if the N2H+ data are consistent with no evolution.
  2. [§5.2.1 and §4.2] The paper's own caveat in §5.2.1 — that a denser/larger Class I disk would shrink the HCO+ peak and erase the burst-frequency decline — directly undermines the central claim because the adopted model is the no-disk MHW19 model (§4.2). Figure 6 shows a disk model shifts the Lburst–radius relation to higher luminosity, but the disk model is not quantified or applied to the sample. Without a quantitative demonstration that disk growth between Class 0 and Class I is negligible (e.g., by varying disk parameters in the model), the observed Class 0/I difference in HCO+ peak radii remains fully consistent with disk evolution rather than a change in burst frequency.
  3. [§4.4.2] The model's CO binding energy is set to 1307 K specifically to match the two currently bursting sources, Per-emb-27 and Per-emb-44, and the same model is then used to derive Lburst for every other source. Because the text also notes the binding energy is degenerate with the density structure, this calibration does not provide an independent test of the model; any resulting error in the temperature–radius mapping propagates directly into the post-burst classifications and the derived burst intervals. The fact that MHW19 is unpublished further prevents the reader from assessing the sensitivity of the conclusions to this calibration and to the disk variant.
  4. [§4.3 and §5.2.1] Sources whose measured peak radius falls below the half-beam size are classified as non-post-burst and assigned an upper-limit Lburst, and for Class I this includes most of the HCO+ sample (seven of eight non-post-burst sources). Since the inferred post-burst fraction depends entirely on the treatment of these unresolved sources, the derived 8,000-yr interval is not robust to the exact threshold used or to the placement of upper limits; a survival-analysis treatment that includes upper limits as censored data would provide a more defensible estimate of the Class I burst interval.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4.3/§5.2.1] The abstract reports the HCO+ fractions 7/17 and 1/8 without stating that these correspond to the Lburst > 10 L⊙ criterion; §4.3 initially reports 10/17 and 2/10 using Lburst > Lbol. Please state the criterion explicitly in the abstract or in Table 3 to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption reads "The dark and light blue area represent a range"; it should be "areas represent".
  3. [§4.2] The sentence "MHW19 have built a grid" should read "MHW19 has built" (or "Murillo et al., in prep., have built").
  4. [§5.2.1] The phrase "the intervals between bursts increases" should be "increase" for subject-verb agreement.
  5. [Equation (1)] The refreeze-out timescale formula in §5.2.1 is not numbered; please number it so that it can be referenced in the text and in the discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the burst-frequency trend is an observed count difference, not a fit or self-citation reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the inter-burst interval grows from ~2400 yr in Class 0 to ~8000 yr in Class I—is derived as T = tau_fr / f, where f is the observed fraction of post-burst sources (7/17 vs 1/8 for HCO+ with Lburst > 10 Lsun) and tau_fr is the assumed H2O refreeze-out time of 1000 yr. This is a standard statistical conversion, not a fit to the claim. The post-burst classification compares measured HCO+/N2H+ peak radii against the MHW19 no-disk model; the binding-energy parameters are chosen to match the two independent burst-phase calibrators Per-emb-27 and 44, which are then excluded from the statistical comparison. The Class 0-to-I trend is an observational count difference and is not encoded in the model, so it can be falsified; indeed, the authors explicitly note that a denser or larger Class I disk would erase the trend. The reliance on the in-prep MHW19 model and the calibration of binding energies are reproducibility and model-dependence concerns, but they do not make the derivation circular: Lburst is inferred from independently measured peak radii, not from the target conclusion, and the refreeze-out times are assumed inputs, not outputs. No equation in the paper reduces the claimed result to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard astrochemical reactions, a model-calibrated relation between luminosity and snowline radius, and assumed refreeze-out timescales. The most fragile inputs are the CO binding energy chosen to fit two calibrator sources and the no-disk envelope structure; both affect the derived burst luminosities and hence the post-burst classifications.

free parameters (5)
  • CO binding energy (sublimation temperature) = 1307 K (T_sub ~ 25 K)
    Chosen in Section 4.4.2 to make the modeled peak radius-luminosity curve fit the two burst-phase sources Per-emb-27 and Per-emb-44.
  • Biconical mask opening angle (per source) = 35-85 degrees (source-dependent)
    Hand-selected in Section 4.1 to exclude outflow-contaminated regions when measuring peak radii; the chosen angle directly affects the measured snowline radii.
  • Fiducial inclination angle = 45 degrees (uncertainty range 25-75)
    Used in Section 4.3 to derive Lburst from the model curve; the angle is not measured for each source and introduces systematic uncertainty in the burst luminosities.
  • H2O refreeze-out timescale = 1000 yr
    Assumed in Section 5.2.1 following Visser et al. 2015; directly converts the HCO+ post-burst fraction into a burst interval.
  • CO refreeze-out timescale = 10,000 yr
    Assumed in Section 5.2.1 following Visser et al. 2015; directly converts the N2H+ post-burst fraction into a burst interval.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption N2H+ emission is destroyed by gas-phase CO, so its peak radius traces the CO snowline.
    The destruction reaction CO + N2H+ -> HCO+ + N2 is standard chemistry. Valid for sources where N2H+ depletion is not caused by N2 freeze-out (flagged for Per-emb-4 in Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption HCO+ emission is destroyed by gas-phase H2O, so its peak radius traces the H2O snowline.
    The reaction H2O + HCO+ -> H3O+ + CO is standard. Confirmed for six sources with CH3OH detections, but not for all sources (Section 3.4).
  • domain assumption The observed snowline radius is set by the last burst and has not yet refrozen inward.
    Assumed from Lee 2007 and Visser et al. 2015; the basis for interpreting a large peak radius as evidence of a past burst.
  • domain assumption The no-disk Ulrich envelope model is an adequate representation for all sources.
    Adopted in Section 4.2 to keep the model simple; the paper acknowledges that disk shielding could change the inferred Lburst and the post-burst classification.
  • domain assumption The current bolometric luminosity Lbol represents the quiescent luminosity, and Lburst > Lbol implies a past burst.
    This is the criterion used in Section 4.3; the authors note that inclination effects can reduce the observed Lbol and cause misclassification.
  • domain assumption Per-emb-27 and Per-emb-44 are in the burst phase, so their current luminosity sets the snowline radii used for calibration.
    Used in Section 5.1 and 4.4.2; if these sources are not actually in a burst, the model calibration is invalid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chronology of Episodic Accretion in Protostars -- an ALMA survey of the CO and H$_2$O snowlines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDKYNFS7

@misc{pith2026190902706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chronology of Episodic Accretion in Protostars -- an ALMA survey of the CO and H$_2$O snowlines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDKYNFS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02706}
}
abstract

Episodic accretion has been used to explain the wide range of protostellar luminosities, but its origin and influence on the star forming process are not yet fully understood. We present an ALMA survey of N$_2$H$^+$ ($1-0$) and HCO$^+$ ($3-2$) toward 39 Class 0 and Class I sources in the Perseus molecular cloud. N$_2$H$^+$ and HCO$^+$ are destroyed via gas-phase reactions with CO and H$_2$O, respectively, thus tracing the CO and H$_2$O snowline locations. A snowline location at a much larger radius than that expected from the current luminosity suggests that an accretion burst has occurred in the past which has shifted the snowline outward. We identified 18/18 Class 0 and 9/10 Class I post-burst sources from N$_2$H$^+$, and 7/17 Class 0 and 1/8 Class I post-burst sources from HCO$^+$.The accretion luminosities during the past bursts are found to be $\sim10-100~L_\odot$. This result can be interpreted as either evolution of burst frequency or disk evolution. In the former case, assuming that refreeze-out timescales are 1000 yr for \ce{H2O} and 10,000 yr for CO, we found that the intervals between bursts increases from 2400 yr in the Class 0 to 8000 yr in the Class I stage. This decrease in the burst frequency may reflect that fragmentation is more likely to occur at an earlier evolutionary stage when the young stellar object is more prone to instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02706 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — 1.2 mm dust continuum emission in color scale. The color scales are artificially adjusted with the fluxes of each source listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Integrated intensity maps of N2H+ (1 − 0) emission in orange scale and contours. The contour levels are 3σ, 5σ, 10σ, 20σ, and 40σ with the rms noise level σ listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — CH3OH integrated intensity map (blue contours) over￾laid on that of HCO+ (green scale). The contour levels are 3σ, 5σ, 10σ, 30σ, and 70σ. The purple circles showing the radii of the measured HCO+ peak are the same as described in Figure A1. 4.2. MHW19 models To help the interpretation of the observational data, we construct a model framework for studying the rela￾tion between the luminosity and the emission peak r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Intensity profiles along cuts across the source center and the local minima from the integrated intensity maps toward four sources. The top panel shows the N2H+ and smoothed HCO+ profiles at large scales, and the bottom panel shows the HCO+ and CH3OH profiles at smal…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Measured N2H+ (top) and HCO+ peak radii (bottom) as a function of the bolometric luminosities of the sources. The peak positions measured in this work are shown by open circles (Class 0) and filled triangles (Class I), and that from Hsieh et al. (2018) are in red. Pe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Lburst/Lbol as a function of the bolometric tempera￾ture Tbol from N2H+ (top, Lburst,CO/Lbol) and HCO+ (bottom, Lburst,H2O/Lbol). The markers shown in this plot is the same as that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Luminosity during the past burst obtained from N2H+ (top) and HCO+ (bottom) as a function of bolometric tempera￾ture. The luminosity is derived by modeling the line-emission peak offset, and sources with an offset less than the half-beam are la￾beled with the half-be…

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. Hot water emission during an outburst on a classical T Tauri star

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    V557 Mon, a classical T Tauri star, underwent a year-long EXor outburst during which transient hot water vapor emission traced an inner disk cooling from about 3000 K to 2000 K.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J.\ 2007, , 462, L17

    Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J.\ 2007, , 462, L17

    2007

  2. [2]

    2004, , 419, L39

    \' A brah\' a m, P., K\' o sp\' a l, \' A ., Csizmadia, S., et al. 2004, , 419, L39

    2004

  3. [3]

    A., Kun, M., \' A brah\' a m, P., et al

    Acosta-Pulido, J. A., Kun, M., \' A brah\' a m, P., et al. 2007, , 133, 2020

    2007

  4. [4]

    2016, , 591, A3

    Anderl, S., Maret, S., Cabrit, S., et al. 2016, , 591, A3

    2016

  5. [5]

    M., Rothberg, B., & Simon, T

    Andrews, S. M., Rothberg, B., & Simon, T. 2004, , 610, L45

    2004

  6. [6]

    L., et al

    Aspin, C., Reipurth, B., Beck, T. L., et al. 2009, , 692, L67

    2009

  7. [7]

    2017 , 850, 2

    Aso, Y., Ohashi, N., Aikawa, Y., et al. 2017 , 850, 2

    2017

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al.\ 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33

    2013

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    J., Livio, M.,& Pringle J

    Armitage, P. J., Livio, M.,& Pringle J. E. 2001, , 324, 705

    2001

  2. [10]

    M., et al.\ 2014, arXiv: 1401.3368

    Audard, M., \' A brah\' a m, P., Dunham, M. M., et al.\ 2014, arXiv: 1401.3368

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Banzatti, A., Pinilla, P., Ricci, L., et al.\ 2015, , 815, L15

    2015

  4. [12]

    R.,& Lin, D

    Bell, K. R.,& Lin, D. N. C. 1994, , 427, 987

    1994

  5. [13]

    2004, , 418, L35

    Belloche, A., & Andr\' e , P. 2004, , 418, L35

    2004

  6. [14]

    Bianchi, E., Codella, C., Ceccarelli, C., et al.\ 2019, , 483, 1850

    2019

  7. [15]

    E., Fraser, H

    Bisschop, S. E., Fraser, H. J., \"O berg, K. I., et al.\ 2006, , 449, 1297

    2006

  8. [16]

    K., Bergin, E

    Bjerkeli, P., Jørgensen, J. K., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2016, , 595, 39

    2016

  9. [17]

    C.,& Durisen, R

    Boley, A. C.,& Durisen, R. H. 2008, , 685, 1193

    2008

  10. [18]

    2011, , 526, L1

    Caratti o Garatti, A., Garcia Lopez, R., Scholz, A., et al. 2011, , 526, L1

    2011

  11. [19]

    2016, NatPh, 13, 276

    Caratti o Garatti, A., Stecklum, B., Garcia Lopez, R., et al. 2016, NatPh, 13, 276

    2016

  12. [20]

    T., Y ld z, U

    Carney, M. T., Y ld z, U. A., Mottram, J. C., et al. 2016, , 586, A44

    2016

  13. [21]

    W., & Tobin, J

    Chiang, H.-F., Looney, L. W., & Tobin, J. J. 2012, , 756, 168

    2012

  14. [22]

    A., Casassus, S., Tobin, J., et al.\ 2016, , 535, 258

    Cieza, L. A., Casassus, S., Tobin, J., et al.\ 2016, , 535, 258

    2016

  15. [23]

    J., & Syer, D., 1996, , 278, L23

    Clarke, C. J., & Syer, D., 1996, , 278, L23

    1996

  16. [24]

    J., Gueth, F., et al.\ 2014, , 563, L3

    Codella, C., Maury, A. J., Gueth, F., et al.\ 2014, , 563, L3

    2014

  17. [25]

    I., Bergin, E

    Cleeves, L. I., Bergin, E. A., Alexander, C. M. O., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 1590

    2014

  18. [26]

    P., Dever, J

    Collings, M. P., Dever, J. W., Fraser, H. J., et al.\ 2003, , 583, 1058

    2003

  19. [27]

    P., Anderson, M

    Collings, M. P., Anderson, M. A., Chen, R., et al.\ 2004, , 354, 1133

    2004

  20. [28]

    Contreras Pe \ n a, C., Naylor, T., & Morrell, S.\ 2019, , 486, 4590

    2019

  21. [29]

    R., Hillenbrand, L

    Covey, K. R., Hillenbrand, L. A., Miller, A. A., et al. 2011, , 141, 40

    2011

  22. [30]

    J., Scholz, P., Lucas, P., Smith, M

    Davis, C. J., Scholz, P., Lucas, P., Smith, M. D., & Adamson, A.\ 2008, , 387, 954

    2008

  23. [31]

    De Simone, M., Codella, C., Testi, L., et al.\ 2017, , 599, A121

    2017

  24. [32]

    M., Evans, N

    Dunham, M. M., Evans, N. J., Bourke, T. L., et al.\ 2010, , 721, 995

    2010

  25. [33]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al.\ 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool, ascl:1202.015

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al.\ 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool, ascl:1202.015

    2012

  26. [34]

    M., Stutz, A

    Dunham, M. M., Stutz, A. M., Allen, L. E., et al.\ 2014, arXiv: 1401.1809

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M., Allen, L

    Dunham, M. M., Allen, L. E., Evans, N. J., II, et al.\ 2015, , 220, 11

    2015

  28. [36]

    G., Vorobyov, E

    Elbakyan, V. G., Vorobyov, E. I., & Glebova, G. M.\ 2016, Astronomy Reports, 60, 879

    2016

  29. [37]

    J., II, Dunham, M

    Evans, N. J., II, Dunham, M. M., J rgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, , 181, 321

    2009

  30. [38]

    L., Evans, N

    Enoch, M. L., Evans, N. J, II, Sargent, A. I., & Glenn, J. 2009, , 692, 973

    2009

  31. [39]

    C., Balfe, J., Loomis, R., et al

    Fayolle, E. C., Balfe, J., Loomis, R., et al. 2016, , 816, L28

    2016

  32. [40]

    E., Petr-Gotzens, M

    Fedele, D., van den Ancker, M. E., Petr-Gotzens, M. G., & Rafanelli, P. 2007, , 472, 207

    2007

  33. [41]

    R.\ 1999, , 305, 651

    Flower, D. R.\ 1999, , 305, 651

    1999

  34. [42]

    2010, , 402, 1349

    Forgan, D., & Rice, K. 2010, , 402, 1349

    2010

  35. [43]

    J., Collings, M

    Fraser, H. J., Collings, M. P., McCoustra, M. R. S., et al.\ 2001, , 327, 1165

    2001

  36. [44]

    K., Dunham, M

    Frimann, S., J rgensen, J. K., Dunham, M. M., et al.\ 2017, , 602, A120

    2017

  37. [45]

    Gaches, B. A. L., Offner, S. S. R., & Bisbas, T. G.\ 2019, , 878, 105

    2019

  38. [46]

    Green, S.\ 1975, , 201, 366

    1975

  39. [47]

    Hartmann, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 207

    1996

  40. [48]

    Herbig, G. H. 1966, Vistas Astron., 8, 109

    1966

  41. [49]

    Herbig, G. H. 1977, , 217, 693

    1977

  42. [50]

    J., Johnstone, D., Mairs, S., et al.\ 2017, , 849, 43

    Herczeg, G. J., Johnstone, D., Mairs, S., et al.\ 2017, , 849, 43

    2017

  43. [51]

    A., & Findeisen, K

    Hillenbrand, L. A., & Findeisen, K. P.\ 2015, , 808, 68

    2015

  44. [52]

    D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter, J. D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  45. [53]

    2013, , 205, 5

    Hsieh, T.-H., & Lai, S.-P. 2013, , 205, 5

    2013

  46. [54]

    2016, , 826, 68

    Hsieh, T.-H., Lai, S.-P., Belloche, A., & Wyrowski, F. 2016, , 826, 68

    2016

  47. [55]

    2017, , 153, 173

    Hsieh, T.-H., Lai, S.-P., & Belloche, A. 2017, , 153, 173

    2017

  48. [56]

    M., Belloche, A., et al

    Hsieh, T.-H., Murillo, N. M., Belloche, A., et al. 2018, , 854, 15

    2018

  49. [57]

    Hsieh, T.-H., Hirano, N., Belloche, A., et al.\ 2019, , 871, 100

    2019

  50. [58]

    K., Sch \"o ier, F

    J rgensen, J. K., Sch \"o ier, F. L., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2004, A&A, 416, 603

    2004

  51. [59]

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

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

    2013

  52. [60]

    K., Visser, R., Williams, J

    J rgensen, J. K., Visser, R., Williams, J. P., & Bergin, E. A. 2015, , 579, A23

    2015

  53. [61]

    J., Mairs, S., et al.\ 2018, , 854, 31

    Johnstone, D., Herczeg, G. J., Mairs, S., et al.\ 2018, , 854, 31

    2018

  54. [62]

    J., Evans, N

    Kim, H. J., Evans, N. J., II, Dunham, M. M., et al. 2011, , 729, 84

    2011

  55. [63]

    J., Evans, N

    Kim, H. J., Evans, N. J., II, Dunham, M. M., Lee, J.-E., & Pontoppidan, K. M. 2012, , 758, 38

    2012

  56. [64]

    2007, , 470, 211

    K\' o sp\' a l, \' A ., \' A brah\' a m, P., Prusti, T., et al. 2007, , 470, 211

    2007

  57. [65]

    A., et al

    K\' o sp\' a l, \' A ., \' A brah\' a m, P., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2011, , 527, A133

    2011

  58. [66]

    M., Matzner, C

    Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., & Krumholz, M. R.\ 2008, , 681, 375

    2008

  59. [67]

    M., Matzner, C

    Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., Krumholz, M. R., et al.\ 2010, , 708, 1585

    2010

  60. [68]

    M., & Murray-Clay, R

    Kratter, K. M., & Murray-Clay, R. A.\ 2011, , 740, 1

    2011

  61. [69]

    Kratter, K., & Lodato, G.\ 2016, , 54, 271

    2016

  62. [70]

    R., Bate, M

    Krumholz, M. R., Bate, M. R., Arce, H. G., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 234

    2014

  63. [71]

    T., Gutermuth, R

    Kryukova, E., Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R. A., et al. 2012, , 144,31

    2012

  64. [72]

    W., Mundy, L

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

    2009

  65. [73]

    Lin, D. N. C., Faulkner, J.,& Papaloizou J. 1985, , 212, 105

    1985

  66. [74]

    B., Takami, M., Kudo, T., et al

    Liu, H. B., Takami, M., Kudo, T., et al. 2016, Science Advances, 2, e1500875

    2016

  67. [75]

    B., Dunham, M

    Liu, H. B., Dunham, M. M., Pascucci, I., et al.\ 2018, , 612, A54

    2018

  68. [76]

    Liu, S.-Y., Su, Y.-N., Zinchenko, I., Wang, K.-S., & Wang, Y.\ 2018, , 863, L12

    2018

  69. [77]

    Lee, J.-E.\ 2007, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 40, 83

    2007

  70. [78]

    I., Dunham, M

    Lee, K. I., Dunham, M. M., Myers, P. C., et al.\ 2015, , 814, 114

    2015

  71. [79]

    I., Dunham, M

    Lee, K. I., Dunham, M. M., Myers, P. C., et al.\ 2016, , 820, L2

    2016

  72. [80]

    Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y.,Ho, P. T. P., et al. 2017, , 843, 1

    2017

  73. [81]

    2018, , 863,94

    Lee, C.-F., Li,, Z.-Y., Hirano, N., et al. 2018, , 863,94

    2018

  74. [82]

    J., et al.\ 2017, , 604, L1

    Lef \`e vre, C., Cabrit, S., Maury, A. J., et al.\ 2017, , 604, L1

    2017

  75. [83]

    J., 2004, , 353, 841

    Lodato, G., & Clarke, C. J., 2004, , 353, 841

    2004

  76. [84]

    N., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Matsumoto, T.\ 2011, , 729, 42

    Machida, M. N., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Matsumoto, T.\ 2011, , 729, 42

    2011

  77. [85]

    N., Matsumoto, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i.\ 2016, , 463, 4246

    Machida, M. N., Matsumoto, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i.\ 2016, , 463, 4246

    2016

  78. [86]

    J., et al.\ 2014, , 563, L1

    Maret, S., Belloche, A., Maury, A. J., et al.\ 2014, , 563, L1

    2014

  79. [87]

    Mauersberger, R., & Henkel, C.\ 1991, , 245, 457

    1991

  80. [88]

    J., Belloche, A., Andr \'e , P., et al.\ 2014, , 563, L2

    Maury, A. J., Belloche, A., Andr \'e , P., et al.\ 2014, , 563, L2

    2014

  81. [89]

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

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

    2019

  82. [90]

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

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

    2007

  83. [91]

    J., et al

    McElroy, D., Walsh, C., Markwick, A. J., et al. 2013, , 550, A36

    2013

  84. [92]

    2016, arXiv, 1610.08248

    Mercer, A., & Stamatellos, D. 2016, arXiv, 1610.08248

    2016 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A., Lada, E

    Muench, A. A., Lada, E. A., Lada, C. J., et al.\ 2002, , 573, 366

    2002

  86. [94]

    M., & Lai, S.-P

    Murillo, N. M., & Lai, S.-P. 2013, , 764, L15

    2013

  87. [95]

    M., Bruderer, S., van Dishoeck, E

    Murillo, N. M., Bruderer, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2015, , 579, A114

    2015

  88. [96]

    M., van Dishoeck, E

    Murillo, N. M., van Dishoeck, E. F., Tobin, J. J., et al.\ 2016, , 592, A56

    2016

  89. [97]

    A., Congiu, E., Dulieu, F., & Fraser, H

    Noble, J. A., Congiu, E., Dulieu, F., & Fraser, H. J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 768

    2012

  90. [98]

    Offner S. S. R., Klein R. I., McKee C. F., & Krumholz M. R., 2009, , 703, 131

    2009

  91. [99]

    Offner S. S. R., & McKee C. F. 2011, , 736, 53

    2011

  92. [100]

    Offner, S. S. R., Robitaille, T. P., Hansen, C. E., et al.\ 2012, , 753, 98

    2012

  93. [101]

    Offner, S. S. R., Dunham, M. M., Lee, K. I., Arce, H. G., & Fielding, D. B. 2016, , 827, L11

    2016

  94. [102]

    2014, , 796, 131

    Ohashi, N., Saigo, K., Aso, Y., et al. 2014, , 796, 131

    2014

  95. [103]

    N., Loinard, L., Dzib, S

    Ortiz-Le \'o n, G. N., Loinard, L., Dzib, S. A., et al.\ 2018, , 865, 73

    2018

  96. [104]

    Padoan, P., Haugb lle, T., & Nordlund, A .\ 2014, , 797, 32

    2014

  97. [105]

    Padovani, M., Marcowith, A., Hennebelle, P., et al.\ 2016, , 590, A8

    2016

  98. [106]

    2010, Sci, 329, 1622

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

    2010

  99. [107]

    L., Arce, H

    Plunkett, A. L., Arce, H. G., Corder, S. A., et al.\ 2013, , 774, 22

    2013

  100. [108]

    Reg \'a ly, Z., & Vorobyov, E.\ 2017, , 601, A24

    2017

  101. [109]

    A., Francesco, J

    Ridge, N. A., Francesco, J. D., Kirk, H., et al. 2006, , 131, 2921

    2006

  102. [110]

    Riaz, R., Vanaverbeke, S., & Schleicher, D. R. G.\ 2018, , 614, A53

    2018

  103. [111]

    P., Whitney, B

    Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., et al.\ 2006, , 167, 256

    2006

  104. [112]

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E.\ 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, ascl:1208.017

    2012

  105. [113]

    F., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al.\ 2019, , 483, 2563

    Rohde, P. F., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al.\ 2019, , 483, 2563

    2019

  106. [114]

    J., Fischer, W

    Safron, E. J., Fischer, W. J., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2015, , 800, L5

    2015

  107. [115]

    A., & Allamondola, L

    Sandford, S. A., & Allamondola, L. J. 1993, ApJ, 417, 815

    1993

  108. [116]

    Schnee, S., Sadavoy, S., Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., & Wei, L.\ 2012, , 755, 178

    2012

  109. [117]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2910

    Scholz, A., Froebrich, D., & Wood, K. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2910

    2013

  110. [118]

    M., Looney, L

    Segura-Cox, D. M., Looney, L. W., Tobin, J. J., et al.\ 2018, , 866, 161

    2018

  111. [119]

    L., van der Tak, F

    Sch \"o ier, F. L., van der Tak, F. F. S., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H.\ 2005, , 432, 369

    2005

  112. [120]

    P., & Hubber, D

    Stamatellos, D., Whitworth, A. P., & Hubber, D. A. 2011, , 730, 32

    2011

  113. [121]

    P., & Hubber, D

    Stamatellos, D., Whitworth, A. P., & Hubber, D. A. 2012, , 427, 1182

    2012

  114. [122]

    W., Dunham, M

    Stephens, I. W., Dunham, M. M., Myers, P. C., et al.\ 2018, , 237, 22

    2018

  115. [123]

    Taquet, V., L \'o pez-Sepulcre, A., Ceccarelli, C., et al.\ 2015, , 804, 81

    2015

  116. [124]

    S.,& Charnley S

    Taquet V., Wirstr\'' o m E. S.,& Charnley S. B., 2016, ApJ, 821, 46

    2016

  117. [125]

    B., et al.\ 2018, , 864, 20

    Takami, M., Fu, G., Liu, H. B., et al.\ 2018, , 864, 20

    2018

  118. [126]

    J., Hartmann, L., Chiang, H.-F., et al

    Tobin, J. J., Hartmann, L., Chiang, H.-F., et al. 2012a, , 492, 83

  119. [127]

    J., Dunham, M

    Tobin, J. J., Dunham, M. M., Looney, L. W., et al.\ 2015, , 798, 61

    2015

  120. [128]

    J., Looney, L

    Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2016, , 818, 73

    2016

  121. [129]

    J., Looney, L

    Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al.\ 2018, , 867, 43

    2018

  122. [130]

    N., Hosokawa, T., Sakurai, Y., & Lin, C

    Tomida, K., Machida, M. N., Hosokawa, T., Sakurai, Y., & Lin, C. H.\ 2017, , 835, L11

    2017

  123. [131]

    Ulrich, R. K. 1976, , 210, 377

    1976

  124. [132]

    van 't Hoff, M. L. R., Walsh, C., Kama, M., Facchini, S., & van Dishoeck, E. F.\ 2017, , 599, A101

    2017

  125. [133]

    van 't Hoff, M. L. R., Tobin, J. J., Trapman, L., et al.\ 2018a, , 864, L23

  126. [134]

    van 't Hoff, M. L. R., Persson, M. V., Harsono, D., et al.\ 2018b, , 613, A29

  127. [135]

    Visser, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2012, , 754, L18

    2012

  128. [136]

    A., & J rgensen, J

    Visser, R., Bergin, E. A., & J rgensen, J. K. 2015, , 577, A102

    2015

  129. [137]

    I., & Basu, S

    Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2005, , 633, L137

    2005

  130. [138]

    I., & Basu, S

    Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2010, , 719, 1896

    2010

  131. [139]

    I., DeSouza, A

    Vorobyov, E. I., DeSouza, A. L., & Basu, S, 2013a, 768, 131

  132. [140]

    I., Baraffe, I., Harries, T., & Chabrier, G.\ 2013b, , 557, A35

    Vorobyov, E. I., Baraffe, I., Harries, T., & Chabrier, G.\ 2013b, , 557, A35

  133. [141]

    I., & Basu, S

    Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2015, , 805, 115

    2015

  134. [142]

    I., Elbakyan, V

    Vorobyov, E. I., Elbakyan, V. G., Plunkett, A. L., et al.\ 2018, , 613, A18

    2018

  135. [143]

    A., Wood, K., Bjorkman, J

    Whitney, B. A., Wood, K., Bjorkman, J. E., et al.\ 2003, , 598, 1079

    2003

  136. [144]

    S., Molyarova, T

    Wiebe, D. S., Molyarova, T. S., Akimkin, V. V., Vorobyov, E. I., & Semenov, D. A.\ 2019, arXiv:1902.07475

    2019 arXiv

  137. [145]

    A., Kristensen, L

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

    2012

  138. [146]

    A., Kristensen, L

    Y ld z, U. A., Kristensen, L. E., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2015, , 576, A109

    2015

  139. [147]

    Yoo, H., Lee, J.-E., Mairs, S., et al.\ 2017, , 849, 69

    2017

  140. [148]

    2009, , 694, 1045

    Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L., & Gammie C. 2009, , 694, 1045

    2009

  141. [149]

    F., et al.\ 2010, , 713, 1134

    Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L., Gammie, C. F., et al.\ 2010, , 713, 1134

    2010

  142. [150]

    Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L., & Gammie, C.\ 2010, , 713, 1143

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.