Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Eruptive YSOs in Cygnus-X: a mid-infrared variability study with NEOWISE and SPICY

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A decade of NEOWISE mid-infrared light curves shows that embedded protostars in Cygnus-X erupt with high amplitude at about ten times the rate of more evolved young stars, and that FUor-like candidates are correspondingly an order of…

desk verdict Useful candidate catalogue with a handful of genuinely new slow-risers, but the abstract's 'order of magnitude' FUor claim is not supported by the body and needs a proper rate calculation before this is ready. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03929 v1 pith:2NCGF5UA submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

C. Morris , Z. Guo , P. W. Lucas , N. Miller , C. Contreras Peña , M. A. Kuhn This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords youngstellarobjectseruptivevariablesFUOrionisstarsmid-infraredvariabilityNEOWISEprotostarsCygnus-Xstarformation
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

The paper searches a decade of NEOWISE mid-infrared light curves for eruptive young stellar objects in the Cygnus-X star-forming complex, comparing embedded Class I protostars with more evolved flat-spectrum and Class II stars. It reports 48 candidate eruptive variables (plus 20 of less certain classification), 14 of which have photometric behaviour resembling FU Orionis outbursts. The key statistical claim is that FUor-like candidates are roughly an order of magnitude more common among the youngest Class I systems than among more evolved objects. A broader variability comparison finds 22.46% of Class I sources reach $\Delta W1 > 1$ mag versus 4.94% of flat-spectrum/Class II sources, supporting the view that episodic accretion is most vigorous at the earliest stages.

What carries the argument

The machine for the search is the NEOWISE time series in the 3.4 $\mu$m ($W1$) and 4.6 $\mu$m ($W2$) bands, cleaned and binned into ~6-month epochs over ten years, together with a template-fitting routine that models a FUor-type outburst as a two-component rising slope plus a linear decay, with an e-folding timescale $\tau$ fit by Markov-chain Monte Carlo. The companion samples are the embedded YSO catalogue of Kryukova et al. (2014a), defined by a 24 $\mu$m detection, and the SPICY catalogue of Kuhn et al. (2021) for the non-embedded comparison. The templates and the amplitude threshold of 1 mag in either WISE band are what separate candidate eruptive variables from ordinary MIR variability.

What would settle it

Recalculate the rate of $\Delta W1 > 1$ mag variability for a sample of Class I sources selected without the 24 $\mu$m requirement, matched to the SPICY sample in quiescent $W1$ brightness and extinction. If the 22.46% rate drops to the ~5% level of the Class II sample, the stage-dependence claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the basis of photometric light curves alone, the authors identify a population of 48 candidate eruptive variables in Cygnus-X, split between embedded Class I objects selected by a 24 $\mu$m detection and non-embedded sources from the SPICY catalogue. Fourteen of these show FUor-like morphologies: a fast rise followed by a long decay or plateau, with several showing an unusually slow rise longer than five years. The central comparative result is that candidate FUors are about an order of magnitude more common among Class I systems than among flat-spectrum/Class II sources, and that high-amplitude ($\Delta W1 > 1$ mag) mid-infrared variability is much more frequent in the embedded group (22.46%) than in the evolved group (4.94%). A large fraction of the short-duration eruptive sources become redder when brighter, in contrast with optically discovered EXors, and the paper presents three near-infrared spectra of two candidate variables indicating FUor-like red continua and CO bandhead absorption.

Load-bearing premise

The rate comparison in Section 4.3 assumes that the embedded Class I sample, defined by a 24 $\mu$m detection, and the SPICY comparison sample, selected by IRAC colours and a random forest classifier, probe the same underlying physics; if the selection functions differ in luminosity or extinction, the observed difference in high-amplitude variability could be a selection effect rather than an evolutionary stage effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The candidate FUor population in Cygnus-X is roughly doubled, providing new targets for near-infrared spectroscopy to confirm outburst spectra.
  • The order-of-magnitude excess of FUor-like candidates among Class I systems means models of protostellar accretion and the luminosity spread problem should weight embedded-stage events much more heavily.
  • The slow-rising (>5 yr) Class I outbursts extend the known range of FUor rise times and imply that some FUors brighten in the mid-infrared long before any optical rise.
  • The 22.46% versus 4.94% rate for $\Delta W1 > 1$ mag sets a quantitative benchmark for future time-domain surveys of star-forming regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The redder-when-brighter colour behaviour in most short-duration eruptive sources may be a general MIR signature of accretion events, one that is invisible at optical wavelengths; this could be tested by extending the same colour analysis to other star-forming regions with NEOWISE data.
  • If even a fraction of the slow-rising Class I sources are pre-outburst FUors, the estimated recurrence time of FUor events (~10^5 yr) may need to be revised downward, with consequences for the total mass accreted in episodic bursts.
  • A direct spectroscopic follow-up of the 14 FUor candidates would turn a photometric classification into a physical taxonomy, and could reveal whether the MIR-selected embedded FUors are spectroscopically distinct from optically discovered FUors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 presents a decade-long NEOWISE mid-infrared variability study of Spitzer-selected YSOs in Cygnus-X, comparing an embedded Class I sample (1332 sources with MIPS [24] detections from Kryukova et al. 2014) with a sample of more evolved flat-spectrum/Class II/III YSOs (4935 sources from SPICY without [24] detections). The authors identify 68 candidate eruptive variables (33 in the embedded sample and 35 in the SPICY sample), of which 14 are classified as likely FUor candidates and 20 as less-certain candidates. They report that candidate FUors are an order of magnitude more common among Class I systems, that embedded Class I sources have a higher incidence of high-amplitude (ΔW1 > 1 mag) variability than Class II sources (22.46% vs 4.94%), and that many short-duration eruptive YSOs become redder when brighter. The paper includes light curves of individual sources, spectra of two objects, structure-function analysis, and a public data release of the light curves.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper roughly doubles the available set of photometric FUor-like candidates and provides a statistical stage-dependence for large-amplitude MIR variability, with implications for the protostellar luminosity spread problem and for accretion-instability models. The study has notable strengths: the catalogue is built from public NEOWISE photometry with transparent cleaning cuts, the light curves and fitting code (aptare) are publicly released, the authors explicitly flag uncertain candidates, and they candidly acknowledge the limited utility of their template-fitting method. The comparison of amplitude distributions using structure functions and the redder-when-brighter colour behaviour of many SDEs are interesting observational results. However, the headline 'order of magnitude' claim for FUor incidence is not quantified in the body, and the rate comparison is affected by small counts and asymmetric discovery channels.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §4.3] The claim that candidate FUors are 'an order of magnitude more common' among Class I systems is never derived in the body. Using Table 4 and the sample sizes in §2.1, the raw counts are 13 FUor candidates among 1332 [24]-selected sources versus 1 among 4935 SPICY sources, a crude rate ratio of about 48. A Poisson 95% confidence interval for this ratio is roughly (6, 370), whose lower bound is below 10, so the 'order of magnitude' statement is not supported at standard significance. The paper should either present an explicit rate comparison with confidence intervals and a significance test, or soften the claim to reflect the large uncertainty.
  2. [§2.1 and §3.1] The discovery channels are asymmetric between the two samples. Sources 362 and 1964 were found via a two-epoch UGPS search that was applied only to the Kryukova [24]-selected sample, with no equivalent search of the SPICY sample. These two sources constitute 2 of the 13 embedded FUor candidates, so the rate comparison is inflated by an un-matched detection method. Additionally, the [24]-detection selection criterion is physically tied to envelope luminosity, while the SPICY sample is defined by the complement of that sample; the two samples may therefore differ in luminosity and extinction regimes as well as in evolutionary stage. The rate comparison should be repeated excluding the UGPS-discovered sources and with a discussion of how selection functions affect the result.
  3. [§4.3] The statistical support for the 'higher incidence' claim is marginal. The Mann-Whitney U test is performed on two equal-sized samples resampled from Gaussian KDEs of the amplitude distributions, yielding an average p-value of 3.46%; this is borderline, and the resampling procedure does not propagate the covariance between the samples. The headline percentages 22.46% versus 4.94% are quoted without confidence intervals. I recommend adding bootstrap confidence intervals for the two proportions, a direct two-sample test on the amplitude distributions, and a sensitivity test with respect to the ΔW1 > 1 mag threshold and the adopted completeness criteria.
  4. [§3, §4.2, §5, and Table 4] The candidate counts are internally inconsistent. The abstract and §3 report 68 candidate EVs with 14 FUor-like sources and 20 less-certain objects; §5 says 'we discovered 14 eruptive sources' that are FUor candidates, but also mentions 'up to 16 candidate members' and 'six other sources' that are plausible FUor candidates. Table 4 lists 14 'likely' candidates and 6 'potential' candidates. The numbers 13/1, 14/6, and 16 are used in different places without reconciliation. The authors should define a single, consistent hierarchy of candidate classes and make the sample counts in the abstract, body, tables, and summary agree.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1 and Appendix A] The RMSE threshold is inconsistent: §2.1 states a cut-off of RMSE > 0.1 (10% of the normalized amplitude), while Appendix A states that candidates were marked if the reduced mean squared error was less than 0.15. Please unify the description.
  2. [Table 2 and Table 3] Cross-references to tables in the text read 'Table 2.2' and 'Table 3.1.5', which do not correspond to the numbered tables; these should be corrected to the actual table numbers.
  3. [§3.1 and §3.2] The number of stars in each duration category is described differently in the text (e.g., '11 long-duration, 8 intermediate-duration, and 11 short-duration' in §3.1) and in Table 1; please ensure the counts and category labels in tables and text are fully consistent.
  4. [§4.1] The Kendall tau values for the ΔW2–colour correlation are reported without uncertainties or sample sizes; adding these would let the reader judge the claimed difference between the NIR-selected and MIR-selected samples.
  5. [References] The reference list uses both 'Kryukova et al. 2014a' and 'Kryukova et al. 2014b' for the same work in different places; unify these citations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are measured from public NEOWISE photometry, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The load-bearing results in this paper are observational comparisons made from public NEOWISE light curves and published YSO catalogues. The FUor-candidate selection is a template plus visual inspection procedure, not a derivation whose output is equivalent to its input. The redder-when-brighter behaviour and the higher incidence of high-amplitude variability among Class I sources are measured directly from the light-curve statistics. The RMSE threshold used in the FUor fit was calibrated to recover visually identified candidates, but the paper explicitly states that all visually identified EV candidates were retained regardless of the fit, so the candidate count is not forced by the fitted threshold. Self-citations to SPICY, to Source 257 via Contreras Peña et al. (2023), and to the Lucas et al. (2024) light-curve fitting form are reuse of published tools, catalogues, or a single previously known object; none of these carries the argument by itself. The abstract's 'order of magnitude' incidence claim is not supported by an explicit rate calculation in the body, and the two samples have asymmetric selection and discovery channels, but that is a statistical and interpretational weakness, not circularity: no equation reduces to a fitted constant, and no prediction is identical to a training label by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claims rest on domain assumptions about YSO classification and light-curve interpretation, plus hand-chosen selection thresholds. The biggest quantitative gap is the abstract's FUor incidence ratio, which is presented without an explicit rate calculation or uncertainty estimate.

free parameters (3)
  • FUor template fit parameters (tau, t0, m_q, s, final magnitude) = per-source MCMC fits
    Descriptive parameters for classifying long-duration events; used only for candidate selection, not for physical constants.
  • RMSE candidate threshold = 0.1 (Section 2.1) vs 0.15 (Appendix A)
    Hand-chosen cut for FUor candidate selection; the two stated values are inconsistent.
  • Outburst amplitude threshold = Delta W1 or Delta W2 > 1 mag
    Selection cut for candidate EVs, corresponding to roughly 2 mag in optical bandpasses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption YSO evolutionary classes (Class I, FS, Class II) defined by the Spitzer/IRAC spectral index alpha track evolutionary age.
    Used throughout to split samples and to interpret rate differences; standard in the field but not a direct age measurement.
  • domain assumption Photometric light-curve morphology (fast rise, slow decay) in the MIR is a reliable indicator of accretion-driven FUor-like outbursts, and >1 mag MIR amplitude is not dominated by extinction or stellar variability.
    Underpins candidate selection; the paper acknowledges dipper contamination for 19 uncertain sources, but the strong candidate list relies on this premise.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian KDE resampled Mann-Whitney U test yields valid p-values for comparing the two amplitude distributions.
    Nonstandard resampling scheme; the reported average p=3.46% is marginal and depends on KDE bandwidth choices.
  • domain assumption The RMSE threshold and FUor template from Lucas et al. (2024) are appropriate for identifying FUor-like light curves in NEOWISE data.
    Borrowed template; the paper itself notes in Appendix A that the fit is of questionable utility and fails for slow risers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eruptive YSOs in Cygnus-X: a mid-infrared variability study with NEOWISE and SPICY." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NCGF5UA

@misc{pith2026250103929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eruptive YSOs in Cygnus-X: a mid-infrared variability study with NEOWISE and SPICY},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NCGF5UA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03929}
}
read the original abstract

The mass accretion process controls pre-main-sequence evolution, although its intrinsic instability has yet to be fully understood, especially towards the protostellar stage. In this work, we have undertaken a thorough examination of the mid-infrared variability of Spitzer-selected YSOs in the Cygnus-X star-forming region over the last decade, using the NEOWISE time series. This work compares two groups of young stars: embedded Class I objects, and the more evolved flat-spectrum/Class II sources. We report on 48 candidate eruptive variables within these groups, including 14 with characteristics that resemble the photometric behaviour of FUors. We also include an additional 20 YSOs, which are of a less certain categorisation. We find the candidate FUors to be an order of magnitude more common among the younger Class I systems than more evolved objects. A large number of the identified short-duration eruptive YSOs display mid-infrared colour behaviour that is redder-when-brighter, which contrasts with optically bright outbursts seen in YSOs. Finally, we note the unusual long-term rising behaviours of four Class I YSOs, with rise timescales longer than five years, which is far slower than 6-12 month timescale for the majority of optically discovered FUors. Additionally, our broader investigation of MIR variability for embedded class I YSOs shows that there is a higher incidence of high amplitude variability for these stars, than is seen in class II sources. This holds true for all variable class I YSOs, not just the eruptive sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03929 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. NEOWISE 𝑊1 & 𝑊2 light curves for the two LDE candidates identified with UGPS photometry. The arrows represent the upper limits of UGPS for each field. key differences between each star. For example, Source 812 displays at least 5 yr of a gradual increase in luminosity, before a very short (<6 months) outburst. This behaviour is similar to FUors like Gaia17bpi (with the 2-stage initial outburst) as discussed earlier.… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. NEOWISE 𝑊1 & 𝑊2 light curves for three of the candidate eruptive variables with FUor type light curve morphologies. Each plot also contains a 𝑊1 − 𝑊2 colour indicator (red line), with the error included as the pink-shaded region. details). We still prefer the eruptive classification for these sources owing to the higher observed amplitudes, and longer durations than the previously observed ‘dippers’. 3.1.2 Intermedi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: NEOWISE 𝑊1 & 𝑊2 light curves for four of the short-duration outbursts that have only one or two eruptive events. 3.1.5 Eruptive YSOs with Ambiguous Outburst Durations The final three stars in this sample have ongoing outbursts, that are yet to reach the plateau, making…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 𝐾 and 𝐾′ bandpass spectra for Source 232, taken in 2015 and 2017. Note the absence of lines from sodium in the 2017 spectrum, normally seen as a tracer of the accretion stream. of 2 lower in amplitude than those seen in optical band-passes, and as such this corresponds…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gemini/NIFS spectrum for SPICY 111892. The spectrum is FUor￾type, with a featureless red continuum and strong 12CO absorption features. associated with FUor spectra (the emission line at 2.282𝜇m is likely spurious, as it had appeared in a large number of other YSOs in …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NEOWISE 𝑊1 & 𝑊2 light curves for three FUor candidates from the SPICY selected Class II/Flat-spectrum sources. mag (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 𝑊2-band amplitude against quiescent 𝑊1-𝑊2 colour for EVs discussed in §3.1. The NIR selected FUors are adopted from Guo et al. (2024a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: NEOWISE 𝑊1 & 𝑊2 light curves for four EXor candidate erup￾tive variables. These are selected because they demonstrate a wide range of behaviours and outburst durations. Of particular note is Source 112533, which had periodic small outbursts after a much larger, long-d…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Histograms displaying peak amplitudes in 𝑊1 & 𝑊2 for both of the two samples discussed in Section 3. The left plot is the [24] detected sample, and the SPICY selected C2 and FS sources are in the right panel. Each individual histogram is presented with a probability d…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 𝑊1 and 𝑊2 amplitude histograms for the combined YSO sample, split by SED slope class (𝛼) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Structure functions across a range of timescales for the combined YSO sample. Each point is the median structure in each timescale bin, aver￾aged for both 𝑊1 and 𝑊2. These are once again separated by the value of the 𝛼 parameter for the SED slope mation (fitted to all…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top: 𝑊2-bandpass amplitudes for the stars in the sample with outbursts labelled as IDEs or LDEs (detected during outburst), against the pre-outburst SED slopes. The colour change during outburst is pre￾sented as the marker colour, with red points reddening during outb…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Contreras Pe \ n a C., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3011C 465, 3011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2801

  2. [1]

    A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133.2020A 133, 2020

    Acosta-Pulido J. A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133.2020A 133, 2020

    doi:10.1086/512101 2007

  3. [2]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...90A 151, 90

    Arulanantham N. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...90A 151, 90

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/90 2016

  4. [3]

    J., Liu H., Johnstone D., Lee J.-E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52711651A 527, 11651

    Ashraf M., Jose J., Lee H.-G., Contreras Pe \ n a C., Herczeg G. J., Liu H., Johnstone D., Lee J.-E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52711651A 527, 11651

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3900 2024

  5. [4]

    Aspin C., Briceno C., Downes J., Hernandez F., Rojas R., Nakano M., 2009, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IAUC.9079....1A 9079, 1

    2009

  6. [5]

    S., Dullemond C

    Audard M., et al., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI. pp 387--410 ( @eprint arXiv 1401.3368 ), @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch017

    arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    Barentsen G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3230B 444, 3230

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1651 2014

  8. [7]

    M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..679B 720, 679

    Beerer I. M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..679B 720, 679

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/679 2010

Show all 94 references
  1. [8]

    R., Lin D

    Bell K. R., Lin D. N. C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...427..987B 427, 987

    1994 doi

  2. [9]

    A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..953B 115, 953

    Benjamin R. A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..953B 115, 953

    2003 doi

  3. [10]

    Borchert E. M. A., Price D. J., Pinte C., Cuello N., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510L..37B 510, L37

    doi

  4. [11]

    Borchert E. M. A., Price D. J., Pinte C., Cuello N., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.4436B 517, 4436

    doi

  5. [12]

    Bourdarot G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.124B 676, A124

    2023 doi

  6. [13]

    Bouvier J., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...463.1017B 463, 1017

    2007 doi

  7. [14]

    E., Bouy H., Barrado D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..77B 557, A77

    Bouvier J., Grankin K., Ellerbroek L. E., Bouy H., Barrado D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..77B 557, A77

    2013 doi

  8. [15]

    Bozhinova I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.4459B 463, 4459

    2016 doi

  9. [16]

    Brice \ n o C., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606L.123B 606, L123

    2004 doi

  10. [17]

    K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..263...14C 263, 14

    Capistrant B. K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..263...14C 263, 14

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Cleaver J., Hartmann L., Bae J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1784 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.5522C 523, 5522

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Reipurth B., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaba7b , 861, 145

    Connelley M. S., Reipurth B., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaba7b , 861, 145

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    E., 2015, PhD thesis, University of Hertfordshire, UK

    Contreras Pe \ n a C. E., 2015, PhD thesis, University of Hertfordshire, UK

    2015

  14. [22]

    Contreras Pe \ n a C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.1829C 439, 1829

    2014 doi

  15. [26]

    Contreras Pe \ n a C., et al., 2023, @doi [Journal of Korean Astronomical Society] 10.5303/JKAS.2023.56.2.253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JKAS...56..253C 56, 253

    2023 doi

  16. [27]

    W., Guo Z., Smith L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1823C 528, 1823

    Contreras Pe \ n a C., Lucas P. W., Guo Z., Smith L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1823C 528, 1823

    2024 doi

  17. [28]

    Contreras Peña C., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2802 , 465, 3039

    2017 doi

  18. [29]

    J., Mairs S., Scholz A., Lee J.-E., Team T

    Contreras Peña C., Johnstone D., Baek G., Herczeg G. J., Mairs S., Scholz A., Lee J.-E., Team T. J. T., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1254 , 495, 3614

    2020 doi

  19. [30]

    R., Larson K

    Covey K. R., Larson K. A., Herczeg G. J., Manara C. F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abcc73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161...61C 161, 61

    2021 doi

  20. [31]

    Cuello N., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4114C 483, 4114

    2019 doi

  21. [32]

    L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1926D 484, 1926

    Davies C. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1926D 484, 1926

    2019 doi

  22. [33]

    E., et al., 2005, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09330.x , 362, 753

    Drew J. E., et al., 2005, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09330.x , 362, 753

    2005

  23. [34]

    G., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154...10F 154, 10

    Fazio G. G., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154...10F 154, 10

    2004 doi

  24. [35]

    M., Hillenbrand L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...89F 798, 89

    Findeisen K., Cody A. M., Hillenbrand L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...89F 798, 89

    2015 doi

  25. [36]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...69F 840, 69

    Fischer W. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...69F 840, 69

    2017 doi

  26. [37]

    J., Hillenbrand L

    Fischer W. J., Hillenbrand L. A., Herczeg G. J., Johnstone D., K \'o sp \'a l \'A ., Dunham M. M., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220311257F p. arXiv:2203.11257

    2022 doi arXiv

  27. [38]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  28. [39]

    P., Lada C

    Greene T. P., Lada C. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.2184G 112, 2184

    1996 doi

  29. [40]

    Guo Z., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492..294G 492, 294

    2020 doi

  30. [41]

    Guo Z., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504..830G 504, 830

    2021 doi

  31. [42]

    Guo Z., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1015G 513, 1015

    2022 doi

  32. [43]

    Guo Z., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1769G 528, 1769

    doi

  33. [44]

    Guo Z., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529L.115G 529, L115

    doi

  34. [45]

    J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ARA&A..34..207H 34, 207

    Hartmann L., Kenyon S. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ARA&A..34..207H 34, 207

    1996 doi

  35. [46]

    arXiv:1106.3343

    Hartmann L., Zhu Z., Calvet N., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1106.3343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1106.3343H p. arXiv:1106.3343

    2011 doi arXiv

  36. [47]

    S., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118.1043H 118, 1043

    Herbst W., Shevchenko V. S., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118.1043H 118, 1043

    1999 doi

  37. [48]

    A., Rodriguez A

    Hillenbrand L. A., Rodriguez A. C., 2022, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ac4807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022RNAAS...6....6H 6, 6

    2022 doi

  38. [49]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..146H 869, 146

    Hillenbrand L. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..146H 869, 146

    2018 doi

  39. [50]

    Hora J., et al., 2007, A Spitzer Legacy Survey of the Cygnus-X Complex , Spitzer Proposal ID \#40184

    2007

  40. [51]

    Kiwy F., 2022, unTimely\_Catalog\_explorer: A search and visualization tool for the unTimely Catalog , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2211.005 ( @eprint ascl 2211.005 )

    2022

  41. [52]

    F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Kobayashi N., et al., 2000, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors. pp 1056--1066, @doi 10.1117/12.395423

    2000 doi

  42. [53]

    P., Leisawitz D

    Koenig X. P., Leisawitz D. T., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/131 , 791, 131

    2014 doi

  43. [54]

    Kratter K., Lodato G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..271K 54, 271

    2016 doi

  44. [56]

    Kryukova E., et al., 2014b, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/11 , 148, 11

    doi

  45. [57]

    A., de Souza R

    Kuhn M. A., de Souza R. S., Krone-Martins A., Castro-Ginard A., Ishida E. E. O., Povich M. S., Hillenbrand L. A., COIN Collaboration 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...33K 254, 33

    2021 doi

  46. [58]

    A., Benjamin R

    Kuhn M. A., Benjamin R. A., Ishida E. E. O., de Souza R. S., Peloton J., Veneri M. D., 2023, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/acc4c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RNAAS...7...57K 7, 57

    2023 doi

  47. [59]

    S., Naylor T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2736L 514, 2736

    Lakeland B. S., Naylor T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2736L 514, 2736

    2022 doi

  48. [60]

    Li J., Wang T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2683L 532, 2683

    2024 doi

  49. [61]

    Liu H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac84d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936..152L 936, 152

    2022 doi

  50. [62]

    Lorenzetti D., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/188 , 749, 188

    2012 doi

  51. [63]

    W., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13924.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..136L 391, 136

    Lucas P. W., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13924.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..136L 391, 136

    2008

  52. [64]

    W., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/MNRAS/STX2058 , 472, 2990

    Lucas P. W., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/MNRAS/STX2058 , 472, 2990

    2017 doi

  53. [65]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.1805L 499, 1805

    Lucas P. W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.1805L 499, 1805

    2020 doi

  54. [66]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1789L 528, 1789

    Lucas P. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1789L 528, 1789

    2024 doi

  55. [67]

    Mainzer A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...30M 792, 30

    2014 doi

  56. [68]

    J., et al., 2003, in Iye M., Moorwood A

    McGregor P. J., et al., 2003, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. pp 1581--1591, @doi 10.1117/12.459448

    2003 doi

  57. [69]

    M., Lang D., Schlegel D

    Meisner A. M., Lang D., Schlegel D. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aacbcd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...69M 156, 69

    2018 doi

  58. [70]

    M., Caselden D., Schlafly E

    Meisner A. M., Caselden D., Schlafly E. F., Kiwy F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca2ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...36M 165, 36

    2023 doi

  59. [71]

    Minniti D., et al., 2010, @doi [New Astronomy] 10.1016/j.newast.2009.12.002 , 15, 433

    2010 doi

  60. [72]

    Morales-Calder \'o n M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733...50M 733, 50

    2011 doi

  61. [73]

    Nayakshin S., Elbakyan V., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.2182N 528, 2182

    2024 doi

  62. [74]

    Nayakshin S., Cruz S \'a enz de Miera F., K \'o sp \'a l \'A ., \'C alovi \'c A., Eisl \"o ffel J., Lin D. N. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1749N 530, 1749

    2024 doi

  63. [75]

    P., Ojha D

    Ninan J. P., Ojha D. K., Bhatt B. C., Ghosh S. K., Mohan V., Mallick K. K., Tamura M., Henning T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778..116N 778, 116

    2013 doi

  64. [76]

    Park W., et al., 2021a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1745 , 920, 132

    doi

  65. [77]

    Park S., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..171P 923, 171

    doi

  66. [78]

    Park S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca01e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..165P 941, 165

    2022 doi

  67. [79]

    Park G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5e6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168..122P 168, 122

    2024 doi

  68. [80]

    P., Henning T., Bouwman J., van Boekel R., Juh \'a sz A., Linz H., Pontoppidan K

    Quanz S. P., Henning T., Bouwman J., van Boekel R., Juh \'a sz A., Linz H., Pontoppidan K. M., Lahuis F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..359Q 668, 359

    2007 doi

  69. [81]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...97R 848, 97

    Rodriguez J. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...97R 848, 97

    2017 doi

  70. [82]

    Rygl K., et al., 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 539, A79

    2012

  71. [83]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa3e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...39S 234, 39

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa3e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...39S 234, 39

    2018 doi

  72. [84]

    Scholz A., Froebrich D., Wood K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2910S 430, 2910

    2013 doi

  73. [85]

    J., Naylor T., Littlefair S

    Sergison D. J., Naylor T., Littlefair S. P., Bell C. P. M., Williams C. D. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5035S 491, 5035

    2020 doi

  74. [86]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  75. [87]

    Stauffer J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147...83S 147, 83

    2014 doi

  76. [88]

    Szegedi-Elek E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899..130S 899, 130

    2020 doi

  77. [89]

    T., et al., 1998, in Fowler A

    Tokunaga A. T., et al., 1998, in Fowler A. M., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 3354, Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation. pp 512--524, @doi 10.1117/12.317277

    1998 doi

  78. [90]

    Tran V., De K., Hillenbrand L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2076T 530, 2076

    2024 doi

  79. [91]

    Venuti L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A..46V 632, A46

    2019 doi

  80. [92]

    I., Basu S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1896V 719, 1896

    Vorobyov E. I., Basu S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1896V 719, 1896

    2010 doi

  81. [93]

    W., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154....1W 154, 1

    Werner M. W., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154....1W 154, 1

    2004 doi

  82. [94]

    Whitney B., et al., 2011, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#217. p. 241.16

    2011

  83. [95]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa6c4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...99W 155, 99

    Wolk S. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa6c4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...99W 155, 99

    2018 doi

  84. [96]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  85. [97]

    C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701..620Z 701, 620

    Zhu Z., Hartmann L., Gammie C., McKinney J. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701..620Z 701, 620

    2009 doi

  86. [98]

    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 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.