Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Image Profile (IMPRO) Fitting of Massive Protostars. I. Method Development and Test Cases of Cepheus A and G35.20-0.74N

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A 1D mid-infrared strip along the outflow axis breaks the inclination degeneracy of a massive protostar, pinning Cepheus A at 34 degrees.

desk verdict A clearly described SED+image-profile fitting pipeline that tightens the inclination constraint for Cepheus A, but the quoted precision comes with a poor joint chi^2 and several user-chosen analysis settings that are not fully stress-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12625 v1 pith:LKENCFJC submitted 2025-08-18 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Yao-Lun Yang , Jonathan C. Tan , Rubén Fedriani , Yichen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords massiveprotostarsSEDfittingmid-infraredimageprofilesoutflowcavitiesviewingangleradiativetransfermodelsSOFIA/FORCASTCepheusA
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 IMPRO, a fitting method that adds one-dimensional mid-infrared brightness profiles along a protostar's outflow axis to standard spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting. The aim is to break a known degeneracy in which the SED of a dense envelope seen through its outflow cavities can mimic a less dense envelope viewed closer to the midplane. The paper argues that the brightness asymmetry between the near-facing and far-facing outflow lobes carries independent information about the viewing angle. Applied to Cepheus A with SOFIA/FORCAST images at 19.7, 31.5, and 37.0 µm, the combined fit narrows the viewing angle from a nearly unconstrained 29–90 degrees to $33.9^{+5.1}_{-4.9}$ degrees, consistent with independent disk-based estimates. For the more distant G35.20-0.74N, the same pipeline does not improve on SED fitting, which the paper attributes to the three-times coarser linear resolution of the observations.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the one-dimensional brightness profile $I_{\rm obs}$: the average intensity along a strip of width 20 arcseconds centered on the protostar and aligned with the outflow axis, rebinned to the observing beam. The same strip extraction is applied to synthetic images from the ZT18 grid, a grid of radiative transfer models of massive protostars built on the Turbulent Core Accretion scenario; the grid spans core mass, clump surface density, protostellar mass, and viewing angle sampled in $\cos\theta_{\rm view}$, giving 8640 models before foreground extinction. Each synthetic profile is extinguished by a foreground $A_V$ using the grid's adopted extinction law, added to a linearly interpolated background determined at the model core radius, and compared with the observed profile through a reduced chi-square; that profile chi-square is averaged with the SED chi-square to rank models. The diagnostic power comes from the brightness asymmetry between the outflow lobes, which is strongest at 19.7 µm because extinction separates the near and far cavities.

What would settle it

Re-run the Cepheus A fit with the background estimated from the median intensity just outside the model core radius instead of the linear interpolation; if the best-fitting $\theta_{\rm view}$ moves by more than the quoted $+5.1/-4.9$ degrees, the background assumption is the weak link. A complementary check is a resolved mid-infrared image showing outflow cavity edges that no ZT18 model with $\theta_{\rm view}\approx 34^\circ$ can reproduce, which would falsify the central claim directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the radial brightness profile along the outflow axis, extracted from a 20-arcsecond strip in multi-band mid-infrared images and compared with the ZT18 turbulent-core radiative transfer grid, constrains the viewing angle $\theta_{\rm view}$ to about five degrees once the SED has fixed the broad physical parameters. For Cepheus A, SED-only fitting leaves $\theta_{\rm view}$ ranging from 29 to 90 degrees, while the combined SED+IMPRO fit gives $33.9^{+5.1}_{-4.9}$ degrees, agreeing with the 26–28 degree values inferred from disk and maser kinematics. The paper also shows that IMPRO-only and SED-only fits prefer different envelope parameters, and that the joint minimum reduced chi-square of 6.58 is worse than either method alone, which it reads as evidence that the model grid does not fully capture the sources. For G35.20-0.74N the profile fits do not tighten the parameter distributions, and the paper identifies the physical resolution of roughly 7700 au, against model peak offsets mostly below 2000 au, as the limiting factor.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed brightness outside the model core radius is a smooth, linearly interpolated background and that a single protostar with a symmetric bipolar outflow dominates the strip; if the surrounding clump is clumpy, the strip contains a second source, or the outflow cavities are asymmetric, the fitted $A_V$ and $\theta_{\rm view}$ will be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For nearby massive protostars whose outflow cavities are resolved, the viewing angle becomes a measured quantity with few-degree uncertainty, removing the largest source of degeneracy in envelope-model fitting.
  • A model must now reproduce both the SED and the spatial brightness distribution; the two can disagree, as in Cepheus A where the SED-only best model peaks at the source position while the observed profile peaks at an offset, so the combined fit exposes models that accidentally match one but not the other.
  • The method's usefulness is distance-limited: model peak offsets mostly sit below 2000 au, so sources beyond roughly 2 kpc require sub-arcsecond resolution before the profile adds information.
  • If the Cepheus A result is correct, the preferred model is a more compact, denser core with a lower protostellar mass (about 8 $M_\odot$) than SED-only fitting suggested, but the elevated combined chi-square leaves room for missing physics such as cavity shape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension, the same strip statistic applied to JWST NIRCam and MIRI images, with sub-arcsecond beams, would resolve about 70 au at Cepheus A's distance and directly test whether the 20-arcsecond strip washes out cavity-opening-angle information that the current pipeline cannot use.
  • If few-degree inclinations become routine, a sample-level comparison of outflow $\theta_{\rm view}$ with disk-plane orientations from ALMA could test whether massive protostellar outflows are perpendicular to their disks, a prediction of monolithic turbulent-core collapse that competitive accretion does not require.
  • The single-source, symmetric-outflow assumption is the first thing to relax; repeating the strip-width tests on synthetic images with a second embedded source would predict a systematic drift in fitted $\theta_{\rm view}$ with strip width, which could be checked against the multiple cores in G35.20-0.74N.
  • A direct test of the background prescription would be to fit synthetic images with known clump gradients; if the linear-background model biases $\theta_{\rm view}$ by more than the reported five-degree uncertainty, the quoted Cepheus A uncertainty is optimistic.
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 develops Image Profile (IMPRO) fitting: a method that extracts 1D mid-infrared brightness profiles along the outflow axis of massive protostars and combines them with SED fitting against the Zhang & Tan (2018) radiative-transfer model grid. The pipeline is described in detail, including strip extraction, beam-convolved rebinning, foreground extinction, and a linear background prescription. The method is applied to two SOFIA/FORCAST SOMA sources: Cepheus A, where the authors claim the viewing angle becomes tightly constrained (theta_view = 33.9 +5.1/-4.9 deg) compared to the almost unconstrained SED-only range, and G35.20-0.74N, where limited spatial resolution prevents significant improvement. The central claim is that MIR brightness profiles can break SED degeneracies in source inclination for well-resolved massive protostars, with JWST expected to extend the method to more distant sources.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: it provides a transparent, quantitative way to incorporate spatial brightness information into ZT18-grid fitting and demonstrates on Cep A that the inclination degeneracy can be broken. The pipeline is described with enough detail to be reproduced, and the inclination result is cross-checked against independent disk/outflow inclination measurements. The honest treatment of the G35.2N resolution limit is a strength, as is the explicit acknowledgement that the ZT18 grid does not simultaneously reproduce the SED and profile data for Cep A. However, the quantitative reliability of the headline theta_view constraint is not yet demonstrated, because the fit quality is poor and several user-chosen analysis choices (strip position angle, background model, good-model threshold) are not varied or tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.4, Table 1] The quoted inclination constraint theta_view = 33.9 +5.1/-4.9 deg is the mean and full range of 'good' models selected by chi2_combined <= chi2_min,combined + 2. Since the minimum reduced combined chi-square is 6.58 (stated in §3.1.3 and Figure 8), the absolute fit is unacceptable, and the +2 threshold is not a statistically meaningful confidence interval. The authors should either base uncertainties on a proper Delta-chi2 criterion or add a model-discrepancy term; as written, the 'tight constraint' claim is only a spread over grid models that are all systematically inconsistent with the data.
  2. [§2, Eq. (2)] The background intensity I_bg is set to the observed profile value at the model core radius and linearly interpolated across the strip, with no uncertainty and no alternative background model. Because Eq. (2) couples I_bg and the foreground extinction A_V through f_AV, any error in the background changes the fitted A_V and the shape of the synthetic profile. For Cep A, the clump environment and the nearby HW3c source make the linear-background assumption particularly risky. A robustness test—for example, a polynomial background, a background measured from a parallel strip, or an additional background amplitude parameter—is needed to show that theta_view and A_V are stable.
  3. [§3.1.2, Fig. 1] The strip position angle is fixed at 50 deg based on the CO outflow orientation, and only the strip width and the band combination are tested. The MIR morphology traces the warm outflow cavity, which may not be exactly aligned with the CO axis given the precessing jet in Cep A (Cunningham et al. 2009), and the synthetic profiles assume the strip is aligned with the model's symmetry axis. The authors should test the sensitivity of the theta_view distribution to the strip PA (e.g., 40-60 deg) and report whether the 33.9 deg result persists; without such a test, the headline constraint may be an artifact of the assumed strip orientation.
  4. [§3.1.3-3.1.4, Fig. 9] The combined fit has minimum reduced chi-square 6.58 and explicitly does not reproduce the 19.7 um profile shape; the best SED model and best IMPRO model imply core radii that differ by a factor of six (R_c = 0.3 pc versus 0.05 pc). This indicates that the ZT18 grid cannot simultaneously describe the SED and the MIR morphology under the adopted assumptions. The abstract and conclusions should state this limitation prominently, and the narrower good-model range should not be presented as a measurement uncertainty without adding a model-discrepancy component.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Cunningham et al. (2009) appears twice in the reference list with identical entries; one duplicate should be removed.
  2. [§3.1.1] 'planer motion' should be 'planar motion'.
  3. [§2] The phrase 'stepsA_V' is missing a space; it should read 'steps A_V'.
  4. [§2] The parenthetical '20 ′′(see the discussion' is missing a space before the parenthesis.
  5. [Tables 1 and 2] The notes state that uncertainties are the full range of the good-model distributions; it would be helpful to add a sentence clarifying that these are not confidence intervals, since the underlying model grid is sparsely sampled.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity: the strip width that produces the headline inclination constraint is selected on the same source using the narrowness of the θ_view distribution; the result is nevertheless checked against independent maser/disk measurements.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1.2 (strip width selection), applied in Section 3.1.4 and Table 1]
    "The θ_view values span the entire possible range (0◦–90◦) in the fittings with 3.′′5 and 10′′ wide strips, whereas the fitting with a 20′′ wide strip results in a narrow distribution of θ_view. The best-fitting θ_view distributions of all three fittings peak at a similar value, suggesting that they produce consistent results; however, the fitting with a 20′′ wide strip provides more diagnostic constraints. Thus, we define the strip width as 20′′ for the results shown in the following sections."

    The strip width is a free analysis choice, not fixed by the physical model. The paper explicitly states that Cep A was used to optimize the strip width, and the criterion for 'more diagnostic constraints' is the narrowness of the θ_view distribution. The same 20'' strip, selected on Cep A's own FORCAST images, is then used to produce the headline θ_view = 33.9° constraint in Table 1. Thus the tight inclination range is partly selected by construction rather than independently predicted. This is only a minor circularity because the synthetic profiles are forward-modeled from the ZT18 grid, the observed 1D profiles are not fitted to the final θ_view value, and the resulting θ_view is compared with independent measurements (Patel et al. 2005; Sanna et al. 2017), which the fit did not use.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that combining 1D mid-infrared brightness profiles with SED fitting constrains the viewing angle of Cep A. The derivation itself is forward-model based: observed profiles are compared with the ZT18 radiative-transfer grid via a χ² statistic, with foreground extinction and background emission treated through Equation 2. This is a genuine model comparison, not a renaming of inputs or a fitted parameter recycled as a prediction. The model grid and SED fitter come from the same research group, but the grid is a published physical model and the SED fitter is a computational implementation, neither of which is equivalent to the inclination result. The external agreement with maser kinematics and disk inclination measurements (Sanna et al. 2017; Patel et al. 2005) provides independent support for the headline θ_view, and the paper honestly reports a poor combined fit (χ²=6.58) and profile mismatches at 19.7 μm, showing the result is not manufactured. The one notable self-referential element is the choice of the 20'' strip width, which was selected on Cep A itself because it produced a narrow θ_view distribution; this mild post-hoc tuning prevents a fully clean prediction but does not rise to structural circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked, so a low circularity score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the ZT18 model grid, the linear background interpolation, and the single-symmetric-source assumption. A_V and the strip width are effective free parameters, while no new physical entities are introduced. The fitted values of core mass, surface density, and stellar mass are grid parameters inherited from ZT18, not free parameters introduced here.

free parameters (2)
  • Foreground extinction A_V = 39.2 mag for Cep A combined fit (Table 1); 27.3 mag for G35.2N
    Sampled on a logarithmic grid from 1 to 1000 mag plus 0, then selected per model by chi-squared minimization. This is a fitted parameter, not derived from theory.
  • Strip width = 20 arcsec for Cep A, 10 arcsec for G35.2N
    Chosen by testing 3.5, 10, and 20 arcsec on Cep A and selecting the width that gave the narrowest theta_view distribution (Section 3.1.2). It is a hand-tuned analysis parameter that affects the results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ZT18 model grid, including its prescription for envelope, disk, outflow cavity, and viewing angle sampling, adequately represents massive protostellar cores.
    The entire fitting compares observed data to this grid (Section 2). If the grid is incomplete or incorrect, the derived constraints are biased. The poor combined chi^2 (6.58) hints at this limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper The background emission can be estimated from the observed 1D profile at the core radius and linearly interpolated across the strip.
    Equation 2 and surrounding text state that the model includes only the core, so observed emission outside R_c is treated as background and linearly interpolated. This is a simplifying assumption with no validation.
  • domain assumption A single dominant protostar with a symmetric bipolar outflow dominates the observed emission.
    Section 3.3 explicitly acknowledges this assumption and notes that G35.2N has multiple sources and known outflow asymmetries, which can bias the fit.
  • domain assumption A 10% flux uncertainty applies to both observed and synthetic intensities.
    Equation 3 sets sigma = sqrt((0.1 I_obs)^2 + (0.1 I_model)^2), consistent with prior SOMA papers. If the true uncertainties differ, the chi-squared values and 'good' model selection change.
  • domain assumption The extinction law of Kim et al. (1994) applies at all wavelengths used.
    The extinction prescription in Equation 2 follows ZT18 and is used to redden synthetic intensities. Uncertainties in the extinction law propagate into A_V and profile shape.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Image Profile (IMPRO) Fitting of Massive Protostars. I. Method Development and Test Cases of Cepheus A and G35.20-0.74N." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKENCFJC

@misc{pith2026250812625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Image Profile (IMPRO) Fitting of Massive Protostars. I. Method Development and Test Cases of Cepheus A and G35.20-0.74N},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKENCFJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12625}
}
read the original abstract

Massive stars play a critical role in the evolution of galaxies, but their formation remains poorly understood. One challenge is accurate measurement of the physical properties of massive protostars, such as current stellar mass, envelope mass, outflow cavity properties, and system orientation. Spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting is widely-used to test models against observations. The far-infrared SED traces cold dust in envelopes, while the near- and mid-infrared (MIR) probes emission from outflow cavities and/or the inner envelope. However, SED fitting has degeneracy limiting its ability to yield accurate measurements of protostellar properties. Here, we develop image profile (IMPRO) fitting as a method to improve the characterization of protostars. We utilize brightness distributions from multi-wavelength MIR images of massive protostars taken by SOFIA/FORCAST as part of the SOFIA Massive Star Formation (SOMA) survey to constrain protostellar properties via comparison to a grid of radiative transfer models. We develop a fitting pipeline to extract information along the outflow axis, which is then combined with the SED fitting to yield improved constraints on protostellar properties. We apply the IMPRO fitting method on the nearby massive protostar Cepheus A, finding that its properties become more tightly constrained compared to SED fitting, especially in the inclination of the source. However, for the more distant G35.20-0.74N, we find that the spatial resolution of SOFIA/FORCAST limits the utility of this combined fitting pipeline. However, higher resolution MIR observations, e.g., with JWST, are expected to greatly expand the applicability of this fitting technique to protostars across the Galaxy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T., Cesaroni, R., Moscadelli, L., et al

    Beltr´ an, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Moscadelli, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628588 Beltr´ an, M. T., & de Wit, W. J. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-015-0089-z

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628588 2016

  2. [2]

    B., McKee, C

    Beuther, H., Churchwell, E. B., McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602012

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0602012 2007

  3. [3]

    R., Fuller, G

    Birks, J. R., Fuller, G. A., & Gibb, A. G. 2006, A&A, 458, 181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053209

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053209 2006

  4. [4]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    L., Chandler, C

    Brogan, C. L., Chandler, C. J., Hunter, T. R., Shirley, Y. L., & Sarma, A. P. 2007, ApJL, 660, L133, doi: 10.1086/518390 Caratti o Garatti, A., Stecklum, B., Linz, H., Garcia Lopez, R., & Sanna, A. 2015, A&A, 573, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423992 Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., Sanna, A., Rodr´ ıguez-Kamenetzky, A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 914, L1, doi: 10.3847/...

    work page doi:10.1086/518390 2007

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    Crowe, S., Fedriani, R., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8889

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8889 2025

  7. [8]

    J., Moeckel, N., & Bally, J

    Cunningham, N. J., Moeckel, N., & Bally, J. 2009, ApJ, 692, 943, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/943

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/943 2009

  8. [9]

    Curiel, S., Ho, P. T. P., Patel, N. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 878, doi: 10.1086/498931 De Buizer, J. M. 2006, ApJL, 642, L57, doi: 10.1086/504291 De Buizer, J. M., Liu, M., Tan, J. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74c8

    doi:10.1086/498931 2006

Show all 51 references
  1. [10]

    2022, A&A, 663, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243552

    Durjasz, M., Szymczak, M., Olech, M., & Bartkiewicz, A. 2022, A&A, 663, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243552

    2022 doi

  2. [11]

    J., Becklin, E

    Evans, II, N. J., Becklin, E. E., Beichman, C., et al. 1981, ApJ, 244, 115, doi: 10.1086/158690

    1981 doi

  3. [12]

    Fedriani, R., Caratti o Garatti, A., Purser, S. J. D., et al. 2019, Nature Communications, 10, 3630, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11595-x

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    C., Telkamp, Z., et al

    Fedriani, R., Tan, J. C., Telkamp, Z., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 942, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca4cf

    doi

  5. [14]

    2023b, A&A, 676, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346736

    Fedriani, R., Caratti o Garatti, A., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2023b, A&A, 676, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346736

    doi

  6. [15]

    J., Oudmaijer, R

    Frost, A. J., Oudmaijer, R. D., de Wit, W. J., & Lumsden, S. L. 2019, A&A, 625, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834583 —. 2021a, A&A, 648, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039748

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    J., Oudmaijer, R

    Frost, A. J., Oudmaijer, R. D., Lumsden, S. L., & de Wit, W. J. 2021b, ApJ, 920, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1741

    doi

  8. [17]

    Torrelles, J. M. 1996, ApJ, 459, 193, doi: 10.1086/176882

    1996 doi

  9. [18]

    G., Hoare, M

    Gibb, A. G., Hoare, M. G., Little, L. T., & Wright, M. C. H. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1011, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06251.x G´ omez, J. F., Sargent, A. I., Torrelles, J. M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 514, 287, doi: 10.1086/306916

    2003

  10. [19]

    D., Watson, D

    Green, J. D., Watson, D. M., Bergin, E., et al. 2011, ApJL, 726, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/726/1/L1

    2011 doi

  11. [20]

    L., Glushkov, Y

    Gyulbudaghian, A. L., Glushkov, Y. I., & Denisyuk, E. K. 1978, ApJL, 224, L137, doi: 10.1086/182777

    1978 doi

  12. [21]

    M., Megeath, S

    Habel, N. M., Megeath, S. T., Booker, J. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abded8

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    J., Stocke, J., & Tapia, S

    Hartigan, P., Lada, C. J., Stocke, J., & Tapia, S. 1986, AJ, 92, 1155, doi: 10.1086/114247

    1986 doi

  14. [23]

    2000, AJ, 120, 1436, doi: 10.1086/301522

    Hartigan, P., Morse, J., & Bally, J. 2000, AJ, 120, 1436, doi: 10.1086/301522

    2000 doi

  15. [24]

    G., Li, Z.-Y., et al

    Hsieh, C.-H., Arce, H. G., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba13

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    A., & Wouterloot, J

    Hughes, V. A., & Wouterloot, J. G. A. 1984, ApJ, 276, 204, doi: 10.1086/161603

    1984 doi

  17. [26]

    G., & Hendry, P

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

    1994 doi

  18. [27]

    C., De Buizer, J

    Liu, M., Tan, J. C., De Buizer, J. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07b7 —. 2020, ApJ, 904, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbefb

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 585, 850, doi: 10.1086/346149

    2003 doi

  20. [29]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Kataoka, A. 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, 501, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09818

    2023 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    H., Snell, R

    Moriarty-Schieven, G. H., Snell, R. L., & Hughes, V. A. 1991, ApJ, 374, 169, doi: 10.1086/170106 18 Yang et al

    1991 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Menten, K

    Moscadelli, L., Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 406, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/406

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    A., Curiel, S., Sridharan, T

    Patel, N. A., Curiel, S., Sridharan, T. K., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 109, doi: 10.1038/nature04011

    2005 doi

  24. [33]

    Reipurth, B., & Raga, A. C. 1999, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 540, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, ed. C. J. Lada & N. D. Kylafis, 267

    1999

  25. [34]

    F., Ho, P

    Rodriguez, L. F., Ho, P. T. P., & Moran, J. M. 1980, ApJL, 240, L149, doi: 10.1086/183342

    1980 doi

  26. [35]

    Rosero, V., Tanaka, K. E. I., Tan, J. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0209 S´ anchez-Monge,´A., Cesaroni, R., Beltr´ an, M. T., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321134 S´ anchez-Monge,´A., Beltr´ an, M. T., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2014...

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    2017, A&A, 603, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730773

    Sanna, A., Moscadelli, L., Surcis, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730773

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15070, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15070

    Sanna, A., Oliva, A., Moscadelli, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15070, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15070

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 1001, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1001

    Sugiyama, K., Fujisawa, K., Doi, A., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1001, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1001

    2008 doi

  30. [39]

    C., Beltr´ an, M

    Tan, J. C., Beltr´ an, M. T., Caselli, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 149–172, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch007

    2014 doi

  31. [40]

    C., et al

    Telkamp, Z., Fedriani, R., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcd79

    2025 doi

  32. [41]

    M., Patel, N

    Torrelles, J. M., Patel, N. A., Curiel, S., et al. 2007, ApJL, 666, L37, doi: 10.1086/521675

    2007 doi

  33. [42]

    M., Rodriguez, L

    Torrelles, J. M., Rodriguez, L. F., Canto, J., & Ho, P. T. P. 1993, ApJL, 404, L75, doi: 10.1086/186747

    1993 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Patel, N

    Torrelles, J. M., Patel, N. A., Curiel, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 627, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17483.x

    2011

  35. [44]

    W., Sato, M., Reid, M

    Wu, Y. W., Sato, M., Reid, M. J., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322765

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    J., Green, J

    Yang, Y.-L., Evans, II, N. J., Green, J. D., Dunham, M. M., & Jørgensen, J. K. 2017, ApJ, 835, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/259

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    A., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Curiel, S., Patel, N., & Rodriguez, L

    Zapata, L. A., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Curiel, S., Patel, N., & Rodriguez, L. F. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.4084, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.4084

    2013 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    W., Reid, M

    Zhang, B., Zheng, X. W., Reid, M. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 419, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/419

    2009 doi

  39. [48]

    Zhang, Y., & Tan, J. C. 2011, ApJ, 733, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/55 —. 2018, ApJ, 853, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa24a

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    C., & Hosokawa, T

    Zhang, Y., Tan, J. C., & Hosokawa, T. 2014, ApJ, 788, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/166

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    C., & McKee, C

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

    doi

  42. [51]

    C., De Buizer, J

    Zhang, Y., Tan, J. C., De Buizer, J. M., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 767, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/58

    doi

  43. [52]

    Zhang, Y., Tanaka, K. E. I., Tan, J. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac847f

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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