Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 81 references

A framework for modeling the evolution of young stellar objects

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 the way a young star accretes its mass leaves a distinguishable imprint in its 100-micron and 3-millimeter fluxes, so surveys can test competing star-formation theories directly.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new framework that overreaches slightly in its headline claim about distinguishing accretion histories—the separation isn't tested against the paper's own error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16944 v1 pith:TUNFZXWT submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Theo Richardson , Adam Ginsburg , Erik Rosolowsky , Joshua Peltonen , Rémy Indebetouw This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords youngstellarobjectsprotostellaraccretionradiativetransferspectralenergydistributionsstarformationhistoriesClassandStageclassificationfluxpredictions
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 develops a framework for predicting how a young stellar object's observable flux evolves as it accretes mass, without committing in advance to any one theory of star formation. The framework joins a large, theory-agnostic set of radiative-transfer spectral energy distribution (SED) models to protostellar evolutionary tracks, so that any assumed accretion history can be turned into predicted fluxes. Applying it to isothermal-sphere, turbulent-core, and competitive accretion histories for birth masses from 0.2 to 50 solar masses, the authors argue that the three histories leave distinguishable tracks in the 100-micron versus 3-millimeter flux plane, primarily because they assemble mass on different timescales. If correct, this gives observers a direct, multi-wavelength test of which accretion mechanism actually operates, and it provides physically grounded confusion matrices for translating observed YSO classes into evolutionary stages.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a three-parameter nearest-neighbor matching procedure. Each protostellar evolutionary track is converted into a sequence of points in the space of source temperature $T_\star$, total luminosity $L_\star$, and circumstellar mass $M_{\rm core}$ within roughly 10,000 au; a quantile transform maps each coordinate to a uniform distribution so that distances in different physical units are comparable, and the ten nearest radiative-transfer models are averaged as the median SED separately by inclination to produce a predicted SED at each time step. The accretion-rate parameterization behind the tracks has the common form $\dot{m} = \dot{m}_1 (m/m_f)^j m_f^{j_f}$, with history-specific scaling parameters, so the same machinery can host any accretion prescription. The 100-micron versus 3-mm plane is the diagnostic output because the former traces the luminosity that heats the dust while the latter traces the mass of optically thin dust.

What would settle it

Take a nearby embedded cluster with a well-determined age, distance, and membership, measure each YSO at 100 $\mu$m and 3 mm, and plot the sources against the predicted flux tracks and isochrones for the appropriate age and mass. If the observed population does not fall into the predicted IS/TC/CA patterns, or if a single cluster's sources scatter across the whole plane rather than following one history, the claim that the accretion mechanism can be distinguished this way would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mechanism by which a protostar gains mass can be read off from long-wavelength observations of the forming star. By matching evolutionary tracks that follow the standard isothermal-sphere, turbulent-core, and competitive accretion rate laws to a broad grid of radiative-transfer SED templates in the space of stellar temperature, total luminosity, and circumstellar mass, the framework produces, for each history and for final stellar masses between 0.2 and 50 $M_\odot$, a time-ordered sequence of 100-micron and 3-mm fluxes. The three histories trace similar shapes in this plane but advance along it at very different speeds: low-mass stars deplete their dust reservoirs on timescales that differ by factors of two to three, while high-mass stars take several million years to accrete under isothermal-sphere conditions but only a few hundred thousand years under turbulent-core or competitive accretion. Because 100-micron flux tracks luminosity and 3-mm flux tracks dust mass, the authors argue that these timescale differences translate into observationally distinguishable flux tracks, and that a mixed population using different accretion modes in different mass regimes would appear distinct as well.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the standard steady, non-episodic accretion prescriptions used here, combined with the assumption that each star forms from a single collapsing core with a finite mass reservoir, describe the observable behavior of real protostars well enough for the predicted flux tracks to be meaningful; if real accretion is episodic or slows over time, the tracks and their distinguishability could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Survey data at 100 $\mu$m and 3 mm can, in principle, distinguish whether a YSO population accretes via isothermal-sphere, turbulent-core, or competitive accretion, with the largest separation for massive stars whose accretion timescales differ by roughly an order of magnitude.
  • Low-mass stars of 0.2 $M_\odot$ are predicted to be visible at long wavelengths for differing durations of about 0.13 Myr (IS), 0.25 Myr (TC), and 0.36 Myr (CA), so the same flux measurement implies different ages under different histories.
  • The Stage 0/I boundary defined by half-mass assembly corresponds to a knee in the predicted flux tracks, offering a photometric way to separate the earliest evolutionary phases rather than relying solely on Class.
  • Class-to-Stage confusion matrices let observers convert observed Class counts into Stage counts under each accretion history; applying them to a c2d-like sample shifts the inferred population strongly toward Stage 0/I.
  • The framework's own 1-mm flux recovery is accurate to roughly 20-30% on average, and the systematic offset found when reproducing an independent turbulent-core grid can be explained by differences in dust opacity and disk structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: because the distinguishing power comes from accretion timescales, adding episodic or tapered accretion would blur or shift the predicted tracks; a synthetic-population test mixing histories would show how much separation survives real variability.
  • My inference: the same quantile-transform matching could attach other evolutionary tracks, such as externally fed or episodic accretion models, to the existing SED grid, an extension the authors note is deferred to future work.
  • My inference: the confusion matrices imply that published Class 0/I lifetimes inferred from Class counts may be systematically misestimated if the true population is not isothermal-sphere-like; the paper's c2d example points in this direction but does not make it a final conclusion.
  • My inference: the strong inclination dependence seen in reproducing an independent grid suggests that edge-on, disk-dominated YSOs may be systematically overbright at millimeter wavelengths, so flux-plane diagnostics should be applied to populations or with inclination control rather than to individual sources.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework that links the R24 radiative-transfer YSO model grid to protostellar evolutionary tracks generated with a modified Klassen et al. (2012) code, for isothermal-sphere (IS), turbulent-core (TC), and competitive accretion (CA) histories. The framework predicts flux evolution at 100 um and 3 mm for stellar masses from 0.2 to 50 solar masses, claims that these accretion histories may be observationally distinguished, characterizes prediction uncertainty through leave-one-out recovery, compares the framework against the Zhang & Tan (2018) grid to attribute a systematic offset to dust-model differences, and constructs Class/Stage confusion matrices for interpreting observed YSO populations. The paper also critically evaluates alternative Class and Stage definitions.

Significance. If the central distinguishability claim is established, the framework would be a valuable theory-agnostic bridge between protostellar evolution models and direct observables over a much wider mass range than most prior work. The paper has notable strengths: it ships public confusion-matrix data, it performs a careful leave-one-out validation against its own grid, it quantifies wavelength-dependent accuracy and precision honestly, and it tests the impact of dust opacities by rerunning a subset of models with the ZT18 dust configuration. These elements make the methodology reusable and the caveats transparent. However, the headline claim that IS, TC, and CA histories can be observationally distinguished is not supported by a quantitative test against the framework's own flux uncertainties, and the underlying accretion models are acknowledged by the authors to be simplified in ways that directly affect the claimed distinguishing timescales.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Figure 3] The central claim that IS, TC, and CA accretion histories can be observationally distinguished via 100-um and 3-mm fluxes is asserted from visual separation of tracks in Figure 3, but the paper never performs a quantitative separation test against its own uncertainty budget. Section 3.2 and Figure 5 show that the 16th-84th percentile recovery ratio at 1 mm is 0.83-1.28 (about 20-30% spread), and Figure 4 reports a mean fractional sigma_MAD of approximately 0.5. The tracks in Figure 3 are also smoothed with a rolling median, which can reduce apparent scatter. The paper should compute, for representative masses and ages, whether the inter-history separations in the S100um-S3mm plane exceed the propagated neighbor-scatter uncertainties, and how inclination, distance, and population mixture affect the distinguishability. Without such a test, the statement in Section 3.1 that 'it is theoretically possible to distinguish the mechanism of accretion at play through observation' remains an untested prediction rather than a demonstrated result.
  2. [Section 2.2] The distinguishability claim depends on the accretion timescales predicted by the three M10 prescriptions, but the authors themselves state that 'the IS/TC/CA models utilized here are therefore not, as implemented, fully consistent with the modern understanding of star formation.' In particular, the implementation assumes steady, nonepisodic accretion, monolithic collapse, and a finite mass reservoir, and the CA model is implemented under monolithic-collapse assumptions that are at odds with the hierarchical nature of competitive accretion. Because the flux tracks in Figure 3 differ primarily in the timescale of mass assembly, these acknowledged simplifications are load-bearing for the distinguishability claim. The paper should either test the sensitivity of the predicted tracks to episodic or tapered accretion and to reservoir replenishment, or explicitly reframe the results as a proof-of-concept under the stated simplified assumptions rather than as a robust observational discriminant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] In the first paragraph, 'following the the Offner et al. (2009) implementation' contains a duplicated article and should read 'following the Offner et al. (2009) implementation.'
  2. [Section 3.2] The paragraph beginning 'Overestimates in the flux recovery distribution are thick disks —' is a sentence fragment and reads as an incomplete heading; it should be rewritten as a complete sentence or integrated into the surrounding text.
  3. [Figure 13 caption] The caption contains the typo 'efficiency' (non-standard ligature and spelling); it should be 'efficiency'.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The abstract states that the histories 'may be observationally distinguished,' while Section 3.1 states that it is 'theoretically possible to distinguish' them; the conclusion then states that the framework 'found' observable differences. These phrasings should be made consistent with the level of quantitative support actually provided, especially given the lack of a separation test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: flux tracks are a forward model from independent M10 accretion prescriptions through the R24 RT grid, with external ZT18 benchmarking.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a forward mapping: K12 protostellar evolutionary tracks are generated from McKee & Offner (2010) accretion-rate prescriptions (Eq. 1), with the scaling parameters (T=10 K, Sigma_cl=0.1 g/cm2, nH=1e4 cm-3) stated as the fiducial values from that external work rather than fitted here. These tracks produce T*, L*, and Mcore, which select neighboring R24 radiative-transfer models via a quantile-transformed Cartesian distance (Eq. 2); the predicted flux is then the median SED of those neighbors. No parameter in this chain is fitted to the target IS/TC/CA histories or to the flux tracks, so the claimed 100 micron vs 3 mm separation is not equivalent to an input by construction. The main self-citation is to Richardson et al. (2024), the R24 grid; this is prior published data used as input, not an unverified uniqueness claim, and it is externally benchmarked in Section 4.1, where the framework reproduces Zhang & Tan (2018) long-wavelength fluxes with a characterized ~30% offset traced to dust and disk construction. The leave-one-out recovery in Section 3.2 is an internal consistency test and is not the source of the distinguishability claim; it excludes the target model and is supplemented by the ZT18 comparison. Appendix B explicitly labels its power-law flux ansatz as an ansatz and tests it as an alternative distance metric rather than presenting it as a derivation. Therefore no step reduces to its own inputs; the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the existing R24 SED grid and K12/M10 evolutionary codes, which are taken as inputs. The new parameters introduced here are the scaling parameters for the three accretion histories, the star-formation efficiency, and the matching choices (aperture, number of neighbors). These are chosen by hand from the literature rather than fitted to data. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • epsilon_SF (star formation efficiency) = 1/3 (fiducial); varied in Section 4.2 over {1/6, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1, 2, 3}
    Controls the mapping from initial core mass to final stellar mass and hence the envelope mass evolution. It is a free parameter of the framework, fixed to 1/3 for the main results.
  • Gas temperature T (IS scaling) = 10 K
    Scaling parameter for the isothermal-sphere accretion rate, taken from the M10 fiducial value. It sets the absolute accretion timescale.
  • Clump surface density Sigma_cl (TC scaling) = 0.1 g cm^-2
    Scaling parameter for the turbulent-core accretion rate, taken from M10 fiducial. It sets the accretion rate and timescale.
  • Mean hydrogen density n_H (CA scaling) = 10^4 cm^-3
    Scaling parameter for the competitive accretion rate, taken from M10 fiducial. It sets the accretion rate and timescale.
  • Number of nearest neighbors = 10
    Number of RTMs averaged to produce each predicted SED. Chosen as the point where adding neighbors stops improving precision.
  • Aperture index for circumstellar mass = 11th aperture, about 10,000 au
    The RTM aperture used to define Mcore for matching. This choice affects which RTMs are selected.
  • Detectability threshold = 1 mJy at 1 mm in about 2000 au aperture
    Threshold used to define 'detectable' in the Section 4.2 confusion matrices; a definition choice rather than a fitted physical parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The R24 radiative-transfer models accurately predict SEDs given source temperature, luminosity, and circumstellar mass, with M10kAU as a proxy for the latter.
    This is the foundation of the matching procedure; the paper relies on R24/R17 for the SEDs and masses without re-validating the RT models.
  • domain assumption The K12 code, modified with M10 accretion-rate prescriptions, produces valid protostellar evolutionary tracks for IS, TC, and CA histories.
    The authors modified the K12 code but do not release or fully specify the modifications; the tracks are the input to the matching procedure.
  • ad hoc to paper The envelope mass evolves as Mcore(t) = Mcore,initial minus Mstar(t)/epsilon_SF, i.e., the core is a finite reservoir being drained by accretion with a fixed efficiency.
    This simple bookkeeping ignores infall from outside, outflows, and dynamical effects; the authors acknowledge it paints a picture inconsistent with modern star-formation understanding.
  • ad hoc to paper The quantile-transform distance metric (Equation 2) preserves physical proximity in the T-star, L-star, Mcore space.
    The distance is defined relative to the distribution of the R24 grid, which is randomly sampled and includes unphysical models; the paper justifies this choice through comparisons in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Accretion is steady and nonepisodic during the main accretion phase.
    All three M10 models assume steady accretion; the paper explicitly notes this is an idealization given observed variability and episodic accretion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A framework for modeling the evolution of young stellar objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUNFZXWT

@misc{pith2026250716944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A framework for modeling the evolution of young stellar objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUNFZXWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16944}
}
abstract

Measuring properties of young stellar objects (YSOs) is necessary for probing the pre-main-sequence evolution of stars. As YSOs exhibit complex geometry, measurement generally entails comparing observed radiation to template populations of radiative-transfer model YSO spectral energy distributions (SEDs). Due to uncertainty on the precise mechanics of star formation, the properties inferred for YSOs using these models often depend strongly on the assumed accretion history. We develop a framework for predicting observable properties of YSOs that is agnostic to the underlying accretion history, enabling comparison between theories. This framework links a set of radiative-transfer SEDs with protostellar evolutionary tracks to create models of evolving YSOs. Unlike previous works, we directly relate evolution models to observables through theoretical physical parameters rather than through intermediate, observationally derived analogues. We make flux predictions for YSOs corresponding to stars with birth masses from 0.2 to 50 $M_\odot$ during their accretion phase following isothermal-sphere, turbulent-core, and competitive accretion histories, showing that these histories may be observationally distinguished by examining the 100-$\mu$m and 3-mm fluxes of a YSO. We discuss the impact of dust models and parameter ranges on the output of radiative transfer simulations through a comparison to another SED model grid. We quantify the degree of confusion between YSO Stages and Classes across a wide range of physical scenarios; for each, we calculate confusion matrices that enable inference of the number of objects of a given Stage from an observed population. Finally, we critically examine the physical significance of various literature Stage and Class definitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Accretion rates from PEMs generated from our modified K12 code, following prescriptions from M10. The lines show isothermal-sphere (IS), turbulent-core (TC), and competitive (CA) accretion rates as a function of time for a star with a final stellar mass of 1 M⊙, attained at the end of each line. we assume that each modeled protostar accretes via monolithic collapse, a paradigm where one core forms one star. (This as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2D projections of the 3D parameter space constructed from stellar temperature, stellar luminosity, and surrounding core mass of all models in one of the R24 geometries. Evolutionary tracks for 1M⊙ stars generated by our modified K12 code are traced in red. We show IS (left), TC (middle), and CA (right) histories. The nearest-neighbor RTM (per §2.3) to the track at each time step is highlighted. Coloration is determi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 3-mm vs. 100-µm flux of evolving YSOs, constructed through our selection procedure (§2.2). We show IS (top left), TC (top right), and CA (bottom left) histories. Tracks correspond to zero-age stellar masses evenly log-spaced between 0.2 − 50 M⊙. Each line spans the ignition of a source to depletion of the surrounding mass reservoir, roughly from left to right. Coloration is determined by final stellar mass (MZAM… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: An SED from the s-u-hmi geometry in the R24 model set (blue) plotted against our recovered SED (gray, dashed). The shaded region indicates the region between the 16th and 84th percentile of the SEDs used in the reconstruction; percentiles are plotted here to a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: our recovered 1-mm fluxes within an aperture of ∼10,000 au as a fraction of true 1-mm flux. Dotted lines indicate the locations of the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles of the distribution to indicate its mean and spread. The histogram is broken down into models w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top left: the SED of a model in ZT18 (blue), along with our reproduction (gray) and its uncertainty (shaded), as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dust opacities (in cm2 g −1 ) for each dust type used in the RTMs of ZT18, compared to the D03 dust used in R24. We assume a GDR of 100 to place all values in terms of dust opacity, as opposed to total material opacity. The ZT18 opacity models originate from Kim et al.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: the 1-mm fluxes of R24 models rerun with the ZT18 dust configuration, plotted against the original fluxes. We separate the models into two regimes based on the fraction of total model mass contained in the disk. Models with disks comprising less than 0.1% of the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The ratio of 1-mm R24 flux to rerun flux for our set of rerun models, plotted against the fraction of mass in the model in W02 dust. Models are colored by the average disk column density. The x-axis is limited to mass fractions of over 10−6 ; some models have lower W02…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Class/Stage confusion matrices for RTMs consistent with our IS (top), TC (middle), and CA (bottom) PEMs. We show matrices that include all selected models (left) as well as ones restricted to models that are plausibly ALMA-detectable at 5 kpc (right). their accretion …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The line-of-sight mass-weighted temperatures and ratios of submillimeter to bolometric luminosity for R24 models. Regions corresponding to different definitions of Class 0 are shaded, and divisions between Tbol Class 0/I/II and Lsmm/Lbol Class 0/I are plotted as dashe…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: One of the plots from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Intrinsic luminosity as a fraction of total luminosity for two PEMs following an isothermal-sphere accretion history. Plotted for protostars with final masses of one (left) and five (right) M⊙. APPENDIX A. THE IMPACT OF ACCRETION LUMINOSITY In Section 2.2, we outlined…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: 100-µm vs. 3-mm flux tracks for a set of modeled YSOs as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of the quality of 1-mm flux reproductions, as derived from plots like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alves , J., Lombardi , M., & Lada , C. J. 2007, , 462, L17, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066389

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066389 2007

  2. [2]

    1993, , 406, 122, 10.1086/172425

    Andre , P., Ward-Thompson , D., & Barsony , M. 1993, , 406, 122, 10.1086/172425

    doi:10.1086/172425 1993

  3. [3]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  5. [5]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  6. [6]

    2005, , 129, 2281, 10.1086/429098

    Bally , J., & Zinnecker , H. 2005, , 129, 2281, 10.1086/429098

    work page doi:10.1086/429098 2005

  7. [7]

    A., & Maeder , A

    Bernasconi , P. A., & Maeder , A. 1996, , 307, 829

    1996

  8. [8]

    A., Bate , M

    Bonnell , I. A., Bate , M. R., Clarke , C. J., & Pringle , J. E. 1997, , 285, 201, 10.1093/mnras/285.1.201

    doi:10.1093/mnras/285.1.201 1997

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    2001, , 323, 785, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x

    ---. 2001, , 323, 785, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x

    2001

  2. [10]

    1996, , 311, 858

    Bontemps , S., Andre , P., Terebey , S., & Cabrit , S. 1996, , 311, 858

    1996

  3. [11]

    C., Ladd , E

    Chen , H., Myers , P. C., Ladd , E. F., & Wood , D. O. S. 1995, , 445, 377, 10.1086/175703

    1995 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Whitney , B

    Cotera , A. S., Whitney , B. A., Young , E., et al. 2001, , 556, 958, 10.1086/321627

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Hogerheijde , M

    Crapsi , A., van Dishoeck , E. F., Hogerheijde , M. R., Pontoppidan , K. M., & Dullemond , C. P. 2008, , 486, 245, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078589

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling

    Dask Development Team . 2016, Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling. http://dask.pydata.org

    2016

  7. [15]

    Draine , B. T. 2003 a , , 598, 1017, 10.1086/379118

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    2003 b , , 598, 1026, 10.1086/379123

    ---. 2003 b , , 598, 1026, 10.1086/379123

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, , 558, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321393

    Duarte-Cabral , A., Bontemps , S., Motte , F., et al. 2013, , 558, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321393

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Evans , II, N

    Dunham , M. M., Evans , II, N. J., Terebey , S., Dullemond , C. P., & Young , C. H. 2010, , 710, 470, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/470

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    M., & Vorobyov , E

    Dunham , M. M., & Vorobyov , E. I. 2012, , 747, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/52

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Arce , H

    Dunham , M. M., Arce , H. G., Allen , L. E., et al. 2013, , 145, 94, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/94

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Stutz , A

    Dunham , M. M., Stutz , A. M., Allen , L. E., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 195--218, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch009

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, , 518, L97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014651

    Elia , D., Schisano , E., Molinari , S., et al. 2010, , 518, L97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014651

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    M., J rgensen , J

    Evans , Neal J., I., Dunham , M. M., J rgensen , J. K., et al. 2009 a , , 181, 321, 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    2009 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0901.1691, 10.48550/arXiv.0901.1691

    Evans , N., Calvet , N., Cieza , L., et al. 2009 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0901.1691, 10.48550/arXiv.0901.1691

    2009 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    T., Tobin , J

    Federman , S., Megeath , S. T., Tobin , J. J., et al. 2023, , 944, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f4b

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Hillenbrand , L

    Fischer , W. J., Hillenbrand , L. A., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 355, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Megeath , S

    Fischer , W. J., Megeath , S. T., Furlan , E., et al. 2017, , 840, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d69

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Battersby , C., Johnstone , D., et al

    Fischer , W. J., Battersby , C., Johnstone , D., et al. 2024, , 167, 82, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad188b

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Ali , B., et al

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

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, , 662, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141681

    Ginsburg , A., Csengeri , T., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., et al. 2022, , 662, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141681

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Wilking , B

    Greene , T. P., Wilking , B. A., Andre , P., Young , E. T., & Lada , C. J. 1994, , 434, 614, 10.1086/174763

    1994 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Lada , E

    Haisch , Jr., K. E., Lada , E. A., & Lada , C. J. 2001, , 553, L153, 10.1086/320685

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2016, , 54, 135, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    Hartmann , L., Herczeg , G., & Calvet , N. 2016, , 54, 135, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Clarke , C

    Haworth , T. J., Clarke , C. J., Rahman , W., Winter , A. J., & Facchini , S. 2018, , 481, 452, 10.1093/mnras/sty2323

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2007, , 662, 1067, 10.1086/513735

    Hern \'a ndez , J., Hartmann , L., Megeath , T., et al. 2007, , 662, 1067, 10.1086/513735

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    2009, , 691, 823, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/823

    Hosokawa , T., & Omukai , K. 2009, , 691, 823, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/823

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    W., & Omukai , K

    Hosokawa , T., Yorke , H. W., & Omukai , K. 2010, , 721, 478, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/478

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    C., & Evans , N

    Kennicutt , R. C., & Evans , N. J. 2012, , 50, 531, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    G., & Hendry , P

    Kim , S.-H., Martin , P. G., & Hendry , P. D. 1994, , 422, 164, 10.1086/173714

    1994 doi

  34. [42]

    E., & Peters , T

    Klassen , M., Pudritz , R. E., & Peters , T. 2012, , 421, 2861, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20523.x

    2012

  35. [43]

    2024, , 690, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345986

    Louvet , F., Sanhueza , P., Stutz , A., et al. 2024, , 690, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345986

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

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

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

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    F., & Offner , S

    McKee , C. F., & Offner , S. S. R. 2010, , 716, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/167

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    F., & Tan , J

    McKee , C. F., & Tan , J. C. 2002, , 416, 59, 10.1038/416059a

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    2003, , 585, 850, 10.1086/346149

    ---. 2003, , 585, 850, 10.1086/346149

    2003 doi

  40. [48]

    2008, , 481, 345, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078661

    Molinari , S., Pezzuto , S., Cesaroni , R., et al. 2008, , 481, 345, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078661

    2008 doi

  41. [49]

    1998, , 336, 150

    Motte , F., Andre , P., & Neri , R. 1998, , 336, 150

    1998

  42. [50]

    C., & Ladd , E

    Myers , P. C., & Ladd , E. F. 1993, , 413, L47, 10.1086/186956

    1993 doi

  43. [51]

    2000, , 534, 976, 10.1086/308765

    Nakano , T., Hasegawa , T., Morino , J.-I., & Yamashita , T. 2000, , 534, 976, 10.1086/308765

    2000 doi

  44. [52]

    1995, , 450, 183, 10.1086/176130

    Nakano , T., Hasegawa , T., & Norman , C. 1995, , 450, 183, 10.1086/176130

    1995 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, , 609, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731918

    Nandakumar , G., Schultheis , M., Feldmeier-Krause , A., et al. 2018, , 609, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731918

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2007, , 374, 1413, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11246.x

    Nutter , D., & Ward-Thompson , D. 2007, , 374, 1413, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11246.x

    2007

  47. [55]

    Offner , S. S. R., Klein , R. I., McKee , C. F., & Krumholz , M. R. 2009, , 703, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/131

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    Offner , S. S. R., & McKee , C. F. 2011, , 736, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/53

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    P., et al

    Otter , J., Ginsburg , A., Ballering , N. P., et al. 2021, , 923, 221, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c2

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  51. [59]

    T., Gutermuth , R

    Pokhrel , R., Megeath , S. T., Gutermuth , R. A., et al. 2023, , 266, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/acbfac

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Richardson , T., Ginsburg , A., Indebetouw , R., & Robitaille , T. P. 2024, , 961, 188, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad072d

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Robitaille , T. P. 2011, , 536, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117150

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    2017, , 600, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425486

    ---. 2017, , 600, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425486

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    P., Whitney , B

    Robitaille , T. P., Whitney , B. A., Indebetouw , R., & Wood , K. 2007, , 169, 328, 10.1086/512039

    2007 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Whitney , B

    Robitaille , T. P., Whitney , B. A., Indebetouw , R., Wood , K., & Denzmore , P. 2006, , 167, 256, 10.1086/508424

    2006 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Hunter , T

    S \'a nchez-Monge , \'A ., Brogan , C. L., Hunter , T. R., et al. 2025, , 696, A150, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452703

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    D., Tobin , J

    Sheehan , P. D., Tobin , J. J., Looney , L. W., & Megeath , S. T. 2022, , 929, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac574d

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    Shu , F. H. 1977, , 214, 488, 10.1086/155274

    1977 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Covino , E., et al

    Spezzi , L., Alcal \'a , J. M., Covino , E., et al. 2008, , 680, 1295, 10.1086/587931

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Tobin , J

    Stutz , A. M., Tobin , J. J., Stanke , T., et al. 2013, , 767, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/36

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    C., & McKee , C

    Tan , J. C., & McKee , C. F. 2004, , 603, 383, 10.1086/381490

    2004 doi

  63. [71]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    C., & Draine , B

    Weingartner , J. C., & Draine , B. T. 2001, , 563, 842, 10.1086/324035

    2001 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Indebetouw , R., Bjorkman , J

    Whitney , B. A., Indebetouw , R., Bjorkman , J. E., & Wood , K. 2004, , 617, 1177, 10.1086/425608

    2004 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Robitaille , T

    Whitney , B. A., Robitaille , T. P., Bjorkman , J. E., et al. 2013, , 207, 30, 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/30

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Wood , K., Bjorkman , J

    Whitney , B. A., Wood , K., Bjorkman , J. E., & Cohen , M. 2003 a , , 598, 1079, 10.1086/379068

    2003 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Wood , K., Bjorkman , J

    Whitney , B. A., Wood , K., Bjorkman , J. E., & Wolff , M. J. 2003 b , , 591, 1049, 10.1086/375415

    2003 doi

  69. [77]

    J., Bjorkman , J

    Wood , K., Wolff , M. J., Bjorkman , J. E., & Whitney , B. 2002, , 564, 887, 10.1086/324285

    2002 doi

  70. [78]

    H., & Evans , II, N

    Young , C. H., & Evans , II, N. J. 2005, , 627, 293, 10.1086/430436

    2005 doi

  71. [79]

    Zhang , Y., & Tan , J. C. 2011, , 733, 55, 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/55

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    2018, , 853, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa24a

    ---. 2018, , 853, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa24a

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    C., & McKee , C

    Zhang , Y., Tan , J. C., & McKee , C. F. 2013, , 766, 86, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/86

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.