Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 67 references

On the protostellar mass-luminosity relation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Many protostars with disk-derived masses sit near the no-accretion birthline, implying low mass-growth rates.

desk verdict A short, honest observational paper that builds a new empirical birthline from Orion and compiles existing dynamical masses; the central claim of low accretion rates is plausible but rests on a hand-drawn curve, so the 'at most comparable' phrasing is stronger than the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18728 v1 pith:HNXO6OMG submitted 2025-07-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Lee Hartmann , John J. Tobin , Patrick Sheehan , Marina Kounkel , Claire Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords protostarsmass-luminosityrelationbirthlineaccretionluminositydynamicalmassesprotostellardisksstarformationmassrates
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 asks how much of a protostar's luminosity is starlight and how much is the glow of infalling gas, using objects whose masses were measured from the rotation of their surrounding disks. It constructs an empirical "birthline," an estimate of the luminosity and radius a protostar would have if it were not accreting, by drawing a curve above almost all Orion Nebula Cluster stars and calibrating it with pre-main-sequence evolutionary tracks. Comparing observed protostars to this birthline, the paper finds that many lie close to it, so their accretion luminosities are at most comparable to their photospheric radiation. Through the standard relation between accretion luminosity, mass, radius, and accretion rate, that places typical accretion rates below what would be needed to build up the final stellar mass in a 0.5 Myr protostellar lifetime. A minority of objects are much brighter and consistent with rapid, evolutionarily important accretion, hinting at a bimodal distribution that the authors caution is not yet definitive.

What carries the argument

The central object is the empirical birthline: an assumed $L_*(M_*)$ and $R_*(M_*)$ relation for a protostar radiating only from its photosphere. It is constructed by drawing a curve by eye through the upper envelope of the Orion Nebula Cluster in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram and calibrating it in mass with the Siess et al. (2000) pre-main-sequence tracks, with an alternative version built from starspot-included SPOTS models. The argument is carried by the accretion-luminosity equation $L_{\rm bol} = L_* + 0.8 G M_* \dot{M}/R_*$: with observed $L_{\rm bol}$ and birthline $L_*$ and $R_*$ fixed, each object's vertical offset from the birthline is converted directly into an allowed accretion rate, so the clustering near the birthline forces the low inferred rates.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be direct measurements of accretion luminosity, for instance spectral veiling or hydrogen recombination-line excesses, for the same protostars that have dynamical masses; if objects sitting on the birthline show accretion luminosities comparable to their bolometric luminosities, the low-accretion-rate conclusion would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery claim is that most protostars with dynamical mass estimates cluster near an empirical birthline, a hand-drawn locus in the luminosity–temperature diagram placed just above nearly all Orion Nebula Cluster stars and calibrated in mass with the Siess et al. (2000) tracks, alongside an alternative starspot-inclusive locus. Because the birthline represents the expected photospheric luminosity $L_*$ and radius $R_*$ at zero accretion, objects near it must have accretion luminosity $L_{\rm acc} \lesssim L_*$. Using $L_{\rm bol} = L_* + 0.8 G M_* \dot{M}/R_*$, this translates to accretion rates around $10^{-7}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ or lower for most sources, rates too small to build up the final stellar mass within typical estimated protostellar lifetimes. A small subset lies roughly an order of magnitude above the birthline and is interpreted as undergoing evolutionarily significant mass accretion. The resulting bimodal appearance is presented as a hint, explicitly limited by small-number statistics and probable selection biases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-drawn birthline, placed above nearly all Orion Nebula Cluster stars, faithfully represents the zero-accretion luminosity and radius of protostars as a function of mass; if that curve sits too high, the inferred accretion luminosities and rates are systematically too low, and the central conclusion would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If most protostars with measured masses sit near the birthline, their current accretion rates are roughly $10^{-7}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ or less, too small to increase the stellar mass significantly over a typical 0.5 Myr protostellar lifetime.
  • The small subset with luminosities an order of magnitude above the birthline must be accreting at rates near $M_*/0.1$ Myr, making those objects the ones capable of adding most of the final stellar mass.
  • Since substantial accretion luminosity would push an object well above the photospheric locus, the tight clustering near the birthline sets an upper limit to accretion luminosity for most of the sample.
  • The mass-measured sample is not obviously biased toward older evolutionary stages, since its bolometric-temperature distribution resembles the broader protostar population, so the low-luminosity objects are not simply aged protostars that have finished accreting.
  • If the apparent bimodality between low- and high-luminosity protostars is real, it would favor episodic or burst-dominated mass accretion, although the authors caution that the current sample is too small and biased to decide.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantitative extension the paper leaves implicit is a duty-cycle estimate: if low-luminosity protostars represent a long quiescent phase and high-luminosity sources represent short bursts that build most of the mass, the observed fraction of bright objects constrains the burst duty cycle to a few percent.
  • Future unbiased samples with many more dynamical masses could test the bimodality directly by looking for a two-peaked luminosity distribution at fixed mass, a signature that should be visible once selection effects are controlled.
  • If most embedded protostars truly accrete at roughly $10^{-7}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, the total accretion luminosity in a forming cluster would be much smaller than commonly assumed, which would shift estimates of feedback and outflow energetics downward.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript assembles a sample of roughly thirty protostars with dynamical mass measurements and compares their bolometric luminosities with an empirical 'birthline' relation L*(M) and R*(M), constructed by placing a hand-drawn curve above the Orion Nebula Cluster stars in the HR diagram and calibrating it with Siess (2000) and SPOTS (Somers et al. 2020) evolutionary tracks. The authors find that most sources lie near this birthline and conclude that their accretion luminosities are at most comparable to photospheric luminosities, implying mass accretion rates far too low to build the final masses in typical protostellar lifetimes, with a minority of high-luminosity objects consistent with significant accretion. They interpret the luminosity distribution as a tentative hint of bimodality, while emphasizing the small sample and selection biases.

Significance. If the central inference is correct, it would challenge the view that typical protostars gain most of their mass through steady disk accretion over roughly 0.5 Myr, and it would add support to models in which episodic accretion dominates mass buildup. The paper's strengths are the compilation of a well-referenced observational sample in Table 1, the explicit comparison of Siess and SPOTS track calibrations, and an unusually candid acknowledgment of the method's limitations. The main weakness is that the zero-accretion comparison line is not derived quantitatively, so the conclusion is currently a suggestion rather than a robust measurement. The paper also offers a clear falsifiable prediction—luminosity distributions and accretion rates should cluster near the birthline for a well-defined sample—which future ALMA samples can test.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 1 and footnote 1] The empirical birthline is drawn by eye to lie above almost all ONC stars, making it an upper envelope of the HR diagram rather than a central estimate of the zero-accretion luminosity. Because L_acc in Eq. (2) is defined as L_bol - L*, this choice systematically minimizes the inferred accretion contribution. The manuscript explicitly notes in footnote 1 that no quantitative placement method was used, yet the central claim of the abstract depends on this placement. I request a quantitative sensitivity analysis: for example, recompute L_acc for a birthline shifted down by 0.2-0.3 dex (the difference between the Siess and SPOTS tracks in Fig. 2) and report the fraction of the sample for which L_acc exceeds L*.
  2. [Section 2, Figures 2-3] The alternative SPOTS calibration differs from the fiducial by up to roughly 0.2 dex in luminosity, and the adopted 0.3-0.4 Myr isochrone is at the young end of plausible protostellar ages; older ages give lower L*(M). A 0.2-0.3 dex downward shift is therefore not a small perturbation for this analysis: it moves a substantial number of Table 1 sources from below or on the birthline to clearly above it, converting 'at most comparable' into 'accretion-dominated'. The statement that these differences are 'not significant for our purposes' should be backed by an explicit count or residual statistic.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1 and Figure 4] The comparison is not falsifiable as presented. Table 1 lists only a single bolometric luminosity per source with no published uncertainty, and many entries have no mass error bars. Points lying below the birthline are attributed to anisotropic envelope radiation and outflow cavities, with vertical bars applied for only three systems, without a systematic model of the inclination distribution. I request that the authors report residuals in log L at fixed M for the sample with available uncertainties, and that they either apply inclination corrections consistently to all sources or show that the qualitative conclusion is unchanged when all below-line points are treated as upper limits on L_bol.
  4. [Section 4] The hedge 'even if our birthlines somewhat overestimate photospheric contributions, resulting in higher accretion luminosities' is internally inconsistent: an overestimated L* lowers the inferred L_acc = L_bol - L*, so it would actually suppress the inferred accretion rates, not raise them. The robustness argument should be made with the correct sign, since this is the only quantitative caveat offered against the birthline-placement concern.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5] Section 5 repeats verbatim the 'Other differences from Tobin and Sheehan' paragraph that already appears in the Table 1 footnote; this duplication should be removed or the section merged with Section 3.
  2. [Table 1] The reference list entry for Reynolds et al. (2021) is garbled as '1k' instead of '17', and the T_bol column header is inconsistently typeset in the preprint.
  3. [Section 2] The term 'empirical birthline' may overstate the empirical content, because the curve is calibrated in mass and radius using Siess (2000) theoretical tracks; I suggest 'empirically anchored birthline' or a similar clarifying phrase.
  4. [Data availability] Because the core result is a comparison against birthline curves, I recommend providing the birthline tabulations L*(M) and R*(M) as machine-readable supplementary material rather than 'upon reasonable request'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the empirical birthline is fixed by the ONC and Siess tracks, while the protostar comparison sample is independent; the only self-citation (Tobin & Sheehan 2024) supplies the sample but is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The zero-accretion photospheric L*(M) and R*(M) relations are constructed in Section 2 from the Orion Nebula Cluster HR diagram ("drawn by eye to lie above almost all of the stars"), mapped through Siess et al. (2000) tracks, with a SPOTS alternative. The protostar masses and bolometric luminosities in Table 1 are independent kinematic and photometric measurements compiled mostly from Tobin & Sheehan (2024); they are not the same data used to draw the birthline, so the finding that many objects "track the empirical mass-luminosity birthline" is not forced by construction. The one self-citation (Tobin & Sheehan 2024) is a catalog of externally measured dynamical masses and luminosities from many independent groups, not an unverified uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter, so it does not make the central claim circular. The by-eye placement and the unquantified "reasonably closely" are calibration and statistical weaknesses, not circularity: the hand-drawn line is an input chosen before the comparison, and a different placement would change the conclusion without any equation reducing to itself. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation, not load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison depends on the empirical birthline placement and the assumed zero-accretion interpretation; the number of free parameters is small but the placement is unquantified. All other inputs (accretion efficiency, evolutionary tracks, protostellar lifetime, dynamical masses) are taken from prior literature, not derived here.

free parameters (1)
  • Empirical birthline placement = Drawn by eye to lie above all ONC stars
    The solid green curve in Figure 1 is placed by hand to bound the ONC HR diagram; the main result (that protostars track this curve) depends directly on this choice, and no formal fit or uncertainty is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Protostellar luminosity is the sum of photospheric and accretion luminosity, L_bol = L* + eta G M* Mdot / R* with eta = 0.8.
    Equation (2) in Section 2; assumes accretion via disk/magnetosphere so a distinct photospheric contribution exists and that 80% of accretion energy is radiated.
  • domain assumption The youngest optically visible stars in ONC have contracted only modestly after envelope dispersal, so a curve drawn above them represents a zero-accretion birthline.
    Section 2, paragraph starting 'This assumes that the youngest directly detectable stars...'.
  • domain assumption The Siess et al. (2000) and SPOTS (Somers et al. 2020) evolutionary tracks provide reliable conversions of HR diagram position to mass, luminosity, and radius.
    Section 2; the birthline is calibrated in mass from these tracks, and differences between the two track sets are quoted as about 0.2 dex in luminosity.
  • domain assumption Typical protostellar lifetimes are about 0.5 Myr.
    Section 4, citing Evans et al. (2009); this is the benchmark against which the accretion rates are judged insufficient.
  • domain assumption Dynamical masses from Keplerian rotation of disks are accurate estimates of protostar masses.
    The entire sample relies on published dynamical mass estimates from ALMA and other interferometry; no verification is done in this paper.
  • domain assumption Observed bolometric luminosities, after corrections for non-isotropic envelope radiation, trace total protostellar luminosity.
    Section 3; vertical bars in Figure 4 show radiative-transfer model luminosities for edge-on systems such as IRAS 04302 and L1527, but most objects use observed Lbol without such correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the protostellar mass-luminosity relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNXO6OMG

@misc{pith2026250718728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the protostellar mass-luminosity relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNXO6OMG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18728}
}
read the original abstract

We present a preliminary view of the protostellar mass-luminosity relation using current samples of protostars with dynamical mass estimates. To provide a lower limit to the expected luminosities, we adopt an empirical estimate for the intrinsic (without accretion) protostellar luminosity and radius as a function of mass. We find that many of the protostars with current dynamical mass estimates track the empirical mass-luminosity "birthline" reasonably closely, suggesting that their accretion luminosities may be at most comparable to their photospheric radiation. In turn, this implies that mass accretion rates for many objects are well below that required to build up the final stellar mass in typical estimated protostellar lifetimes. A small subset of the protostars have luminosities well above the predicted photospheric values, consistent with evolutionarily-important mass addition. These results hint at a possible bimodal distribution of accretion, but a firm conclusion is not possible given the small size of and likely biases in the current sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18728 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Luminosity-mass relations for the birthlines shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radius -mass relations for the birthlines shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of birthline models to observed protostellar masses and bolometric luminosities. The green solid curve is for the birthline using Siess tracks, and the dashed cyan curve is for the SPOTS tracks and birthline. The red dot-dashed, the solid blue, and the dotted magenta curves add the accre￾tion luminosity to the photospheric values for 10−7𝑀⊙ yr−1 , 10−6𝑀⊙ yr−1 and 10−5𝑀⊙ yr−1 respectively, adopting the Sie… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andre P., Ward-Thompson D., Barsony M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...406..122A 406, 122

    doi:10.1086/172425 1993

  2. [2]

    Aso Y., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...27A 812, 27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/27 2015

  3. [3]

    Aso Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..101A 954, 101

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace624 2023

  4. [4]

    Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Gallardo J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/L27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702L..27B 702, L27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/l27 2009

  5. [5]

    Baraffe I., Vorobyov E., Chabrier G., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756..118B 756, 118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/118 2012

  6. [6]

    G., Vorobyov E

    Baraffe I., Elbakyan V. G., Vorobyov E. I., Chabrier G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A..19B 597, A19

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629303 2017

  7. [7]

    K., Hogerheijde M

    Brinch C., J rgensen J. K., Hogerheijde M. R., Nelson R. P., Gressel O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830L..16B 830, L16

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/l16 2016

  8. [8]

    H., Hillenbrand L

    Cao L., Pinsonneault M. H., Hillenbrand L. A., Kuhn M. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac307f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924...84C 924, 84

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac307f 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Cheng Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..178C 933, 178

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

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

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Guilloteau S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..151C 823, 151

    Chou H.-G., Yen H.-W., Koch P. M., Guilloteau S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..151C 823, 151

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Panagia N., Hillenbrand L

    Da Rio N., Robberto M., Soderblom D. R., Panagia N., Hillenbrand L. A., Palla F., Stassun K. G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722.1092D 722, 1092

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    I., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..181..321E 181, 321

    Evans Neal J. I., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..181..321E 181, 321

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    J., Hillenbrand L

    Fischer W. J., Hillenbrand L. A., Herczeg G. J., Johnstone D., Kospal A., Dunham M. M., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 355 ( @eprint arXiv 2203....

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Flores C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...98F 958, 98

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Furlan E., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..176..184F 176, 184

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Furlan E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..224....5F 224, 5

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Gullbring E., Hartmann L., Brice \ n o C., Calvet N., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...492..323G 492, 323

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    Han I., Kwon W., Aso Y., Ohashi N., Tobin J., J rgensen J., the eDisk Team 2023, in ALMA at 10 years: Past, Present, and Future. p. 1, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.10225733

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    K., van Dishoeck E

    Harsono D., J rgensen J. K., van Dishoeck E. F., Hogerheijde M. R., Bruderer S., Persson M. V., Mottram J. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..77H 562, A77

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475..770H 475, 770

    Hartmann L., Cassen P., Kenyon S. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475..770H 475, 770

    1997 doi

  15. [23]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

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

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Hartmann L

    Kenyon S. J., Hartmann L. W., Strom K. M., Strom S. E., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ.....99..869K 99, 869

    1990 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Gomez M., Marzke R

    Kenyon S. J., Gomez M., Marzke R. O., Hartmann L., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AJ....108..251K 108, 251

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    Kido M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953..190K 953, 190

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    B., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/145.3.271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.145..271L 145, 271

    Larson R. B., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/145.3.271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.145..271L 145, 271

    1969 doi

  20. [28]

    Lee C.-F., Ho P. T. P., Li Z.-Y., Hirano N., Zhang Q., Shang H., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.152L 1, 0152

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951....9L 951, 9

    Lin Z.-Y. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951....9L 951, 9

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    K., van Dishoeck E

    Lommen D., J rgensen J. K., van Dishoeck E. F., Crapsi A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...481..141L 481, 141

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Pineda J

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

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Lai S.-P., Bruderer S., Harsono D., van Dishoeck E

    Murillo N. M., Lai S.-P., Bruderer S., Harsono D., van Dishoeck E. F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A.103M 560, A103

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781...33M 781, 33

    Myers P. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781...33M 781, 33

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Ladd E

    Myers P. C., Ladd E. F., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L..47M 413, L47

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    Offner S. S. R., McKee C. F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...53O 736, 53

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Ohashi N., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796..131O 796, 131

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Ohashi N., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951....8O 951, 8

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    W., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...375..288P 375, 288

    Palla F., Stahler S. W., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...375..288P 375, 288

    1991 doi

  31. [39]

    W., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392..667P 392, 667

    Palla F., Stahler S. W., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392..667P 392, 667

    1992 doi

  32. [40]

    K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abcc02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..10R 907, L10

    Reynolds N. K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abcc02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..10R 907, L10

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Sai J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace52d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...67S 954, 67

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Santamar \' a-Miranda A., 2023, in ALMA at 10 years: Past, Present, and Future. p. 58, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.10252697

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Santamar \' a-Miranda A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A..46S 690, A46

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Sharma R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace35c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...69S 954, 69

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Tobin J

    Sheehan P. D., Tobin J. J., Looney L. W., Megeath S. T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac574d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929...76S 929, 76

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Siess L., Dufour E., Forestini M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...358..593S 358, 593

    2000 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab722e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891...29S 891, 29

    Somers G., Cao L., Pinsonneault M. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab722e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891...29S 891, 29

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    W., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..822S 274, 822

    Stahler S. W., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..822S 274, 822

    1983 doi

  41. [49]

    W., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...332..804S 332, 804

    Stahler S. W., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...332..804S 332, 804

    1988 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Patel N

    Takakuwa S., Saito M., Lim J., Saigo K., Sridharan T. K., Patel N. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...52T 754, 52

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    H., Cassen P., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...286..529T 286, 529

    Terebey S., Shu F. H., Cassen P., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...286..529T 286, 529

    1984 doi

  44. [52]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad003a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...60T 958, 60

    Thieme T. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad003a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...60T 958, 60

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Sheehan P

    Tobin J. J., Sheehan P. D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ARA&A..62..203T 62, 203

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Hartmann L., Calvet N., D'Alessio P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679.1364T 679, 1364

    Tobin J. J., Hartmann L., Calvet N., D'Alessio P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679.1364T 679, 1364

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    J., et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890..130T 890, 130

    Tobin J. J., et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890..130T 890, 130

    doi

  48. [56]

    J., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc5bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905..162T 905, 162

    Tobin J. J., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc5bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905..162T 905, 162

    doi

  49. [57]

    L., 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual

    Van Rossum G., Drake F. L., 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, CA

    2009

  50. [58]

    Villenave M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c4b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961...95V 961, 95

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    I., Basu S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..956V 650, 956

    Vorobyov E. I., Basu S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..956V 650, 956

    2006 doi

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    S., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240604405W p

    Wagg T., Broekgaarden F. S., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240604405W p. arXiv:2406.04405

    2024

  54. [62]

    Wagg T., Broekgaarden F., Gültekin K., 2024, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.2, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.13225824 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13225824

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Wood K., Bjorkman J

    Whitney B. A., Wood K., Bjorkman J. E., Wolff M. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591.1049W 591, 1049

    2003 doi

  56. [64]

    Yamato Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accd71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951...11Y 951, 11

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Takakuwa S., Ho P

    Yen H.-W., Koch P. M., Takakuwa S., Ho P. T. P., Ohashi N., Tang Y.-W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..193Y 799, 193

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Takakuwa S., Krasnopolsky R., Ohashi N., Aso Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..178Y 834, 178

    Yen H.-W., Koch P. M., Takakuwa S., Krasnopolsky R., Ohashi N., Aso Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..178Y 834, 178

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    van't Hoff M. L. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accf87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951...10V 951, 10

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.