Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 87 references

Only Class II disks with substructures in Ophiuchus exhibit a steeper millimeter size-luminosity relation than smooth disks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-26 19:41 UTC pith:2KMTIBLY

load-bearing objection The paper's main result is that the size-luminosity slope reaches 0.8 only for Class II disks with substructures while staying near 0.4-0.5 elsewhere, but this split rests on substructure detection whose robustness is not quantified in the abstract. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.18653 v1 pith:2KMTIBLY submitted 2026-06-17 astro-ph.EP

ALMA 2D super-resolution imaging survey of Ophiuchus Class I/flat spectrum/II disks. II. Statistical analysis of stellar and disk properties

Ayumu Shoshi , Masayuki Yamaguchi , Takayuki Muto , Naomi Hirano , Ryohei Kawabe , Takashi Tsukagoshi , Shu Ishibashi , Masahiro N. Machida This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetary disksALMA observationsOphiuchusdisk substructuressize-luminosity relationClass II disksdust evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper performs a statistical analysis of stellar and disk properties across 67 young stellar objects in the Ophiuchus region using two-dimensional super-resolution ALMA images. It quantifies correlations among parameters such as stellar mass, accretion rate, millimeter luminosity, and dust radius, then splits the sample by evolutionary class and the presence of substructures. The key result is that substructures appear preferentially in more massive and extended disks, and that the size-luminosity scaling differs markedly by subsample. Only Class II disks that show substructures follow the steeper relation R95% proportional to Lmm to the 0.8 power, while the remaining groups are consistent with the shallower exponent 0.4 to 0.5. This pattern is presented as qualitatively matching disk evolution models that incorporate planet-induced pressure bumps.

Core claim

The analysis of 67 systems with robust dust-radius measurements shows a tight size-luminosity relation between R95% and Lmm. Only the Class II disks that contain detectable substructures obey the steeper scaling R95% ∝ Lmm^0.8, whereas Class I/flat-spectrum disks and Class II disks without substructures remain consistent with R95% ∝ Lmm^0.4-0.5. This difference is described as qualitatively consistent with disk evolution models in which planet-induced pressure bumps produce a steeper size-luminosity relation than smooth disks.

What carries the argument

The size-luminosity relation R95%-Lmm differentiated by evolutionary stage (Class I/FS versus Class II) and by the presence or absence of substructures in the super-resolution images.

Load-bearing premise

The substructures identified in the super-resolution images are genuine physical features rather than reconstruction artifacts, and the sample of 67 systems is representative without strong selection bias in substructure detection or radius measurement.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same ALMA data using conventional imaging that fails to recover the substructures, yet still finds the steeper R95%-Lmm relation confined to the Class II group, would undermine the claimed link between substructures and the steeper scaling.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Substructures occur preferentially in relatively massive and extended disks.
  • Disk substructures play an important role in shaping the evolution of dust and global disk properties.
  • The results supply empirical constraints on accretion, dust trapping, and possible gravitational instability in young disks.
  • The observed scaling behavior supports models in which planet-induced pressure bumps produce steeper size-luminosity relations for structured disks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the steeper relation traces planet-induced bumps, planet formation must begin to alter global disk structure by the Class II stage.
  • Surveys of additional star-forming regions could test whether the same subsample-dependent scaling appears outside Ophiuchus.
  • Disks that already show substructures may be the ones most likely to retain dust long enough for further planet growth.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a statistical analysis of stellar and disk properties for 67 Ophiuchus YSOs (Class I/FS and Class II), using 2D super-resolution PRIISM imaging of ALMA Band 6 archival data. It reports pairwise correlations among T_bol, M_*, \dot{M}_acc, i_disk, L_mm, and R_95%, identifies substructure preferences in more massive and extended disks, and finds a size-luminosity relation R_95% ∝ L_mm^α that is steeper (α ≈ 0.8) only for Class II disks with substructures while other subsamples follow α ≈ 0.4-0.5, qualitatively matching models with planet-induced pressure bumps.

Significance. If the substructure classifications hold, the result supplies empirical evidence that substructures shape global disk evolution, dust trapping, and accretion, offering testable constraints on disk models. The expanded sample from super-resolved archival data and the evolutionary-stage partitioning are strengths for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and substructure classification section] Abstract and the section describing substructure identification: the headline distinction in size-luminosity slopes (0.8 vs 0.4-0.5) is load-bearing for the central claim yet rests on visual/algorithmic classification of features in the PRIISM images; the manuscript provides no quantitative false-positive rate or end-to-end simulations matched to the actual uv-coverage and noise of the archival observations, leaving open the possibility that reconstruction artifacts drive the reported difference.
  2. [Results on size-luminosity relation] The reporting of the power-law fits (abstract and results section): the scalings are stated without uncertainties on the exponents, p-values, covariance between variables, or assessment of how the post-hoc subsample definitions affect the fits, so it is not possible to evaluate whether the slope difference is statistically significant.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Throughout] Notation for R_95% and L_mm should be checked for consistency across text, tables, and figures.
  2. [Sample description] The sample selection criteria and any luminosity or inclination biases in substructure detection should be stated more explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and substructure classification section] Abstract and the section describing substructure identification: the headline distinction in size-luminosity slopes (0.8 vs 0.4-0.5) is load-bearing for the central claim yet rests on visual/algorithmic classification of features in the PRIISM images; the manuscript provides no quantitative false-positive rate or end-to-end simulations matched to the actual uv-coverage and noise of the archival observations, leaving open the possibility that reconstruction artifacts drive the reported difference.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript does not present a dedicated quantitative false-positive analysis or end-to-end simulations matched to the specific archival uv-coverage and noise properties. The substructure classification builds directly on the validation performed in the companion Paper I (Shoshi et al. 2025b), where PRIISM was tested on simulated data; however, those tests were not tailored to every archival dataset here. We will add a dedicated subsection in the revised manuscript discussing the robustness of the classification, including a qualitative assessment of possible artifacts and why a systematic bias confined to the Class II substructured subsample is unlikely given the uniform imaging pipeline. If feasible within the revision timeline, we will also include targeted injection-recovery tests on a subset of the data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on size-luminosity relation] The reporting of the power-law fits (abstract and results section): the scalings are stated without uncertainties on the exponents, p-values, covariance between variables, or assessment of how the post-hoc subsample definitions affect the fits, so it is not possible to evaluate whether the slope difference is statistically significant.

    Authors: We agree that the power-law fits require fuller statistical reporting to allow evaluation of significance. In the revised manuscript we will (i) report uncertainties on the fitted exponents, (ii) provide p-values and goodness-of-fit metrics, (iii) discuss covariance between R_95% and L_mm, and (iv) assess the effect of the post-hoc subsample definitions via bootstrap resampling or similar methods. These additions will be placed in the results section and referenced in the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Pure observational correlation study with no circular derivations

full rationale

This is an empirical statistical analysis of measured quantities (R_95%, L_mm, substructure presence) extracted from ALMA archival data via PRIISM imaging in the cited prior paper. The reported power-law indices (0.8 vs 0.4-0.5) are obtained by direct fitting to partitioned observational data; no equation, prediction, or central claim reduces by construction to a parameter fitted in the present work or to a self-citation that defines the target result. The self-citation supplies the input catalog but does not create a definitional loop or force the reported slopes. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the accuracy of the PRIISM imaging pipeline and the assumption that detected substructures and measured radii reflect intrinsic disk properties rather than observational selection or reconstruction effects.

free parameters (1)
  • size-luminosity scaling exponent
    The reported 0.8 and 0.4-0.5 values are obtained by fitting the observed R_95% and L_mm data within each subsample.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption PRIISM super-resolution imaging recovers true dust radii and correctly flags substructures in ALMA Band 6 data
    Invoked when deriving R_95% and classifying disks as substructured or not.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5930 in / 1251 out tokens · 25352 ms · 2026-06-26T19:41:32.646541+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a statistical study of stellar and dust disk properties for young stellar objects in the Ophiuchus star-forming region. Building on our previous paper (Shoshi et al. 2025b), which applied two-dimensional super-resolution imaging with PRIISM to ALMA archival Band 6 continuum data and spatially resolved 78 disks, we analyze a sample of 67 systems with robust dust-radius measurements. We combine stellar parameters from the literature, including bolometric temperature $T_{\rm bol}$, stellar mass $M_\ast$, and mass accretion rate $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}$, with disk parameters derived from the super-resolution images, including inclination $i_{\rm disk}$, millimeter luminosity $L_{\rm mm}$, and dust radius $R_{95\%}$. We quantify pairwise correlations and compare their behavior across evolutionary stages (Class I/FS and Class II) and between disks with and without detectable substructures. We identify substructure dependencies in $L_{\rm mm}$ and $R_{95\%}$, indicating that substructures tend to be found preferentially in relatively massive and extended disks. Moreover, we find a tight size-luminosity relation between $R_{95\%}$ and $L_{\rm mm}$. In particular, only Class II disks with substructures exhibit a steeper scaling, $R_{95\%}\propto L_{\rm mm}^{0.8}$, while the other subsamples are broadly consistent with $R_{95\%}\propto L_{\rm mm}^{0.4\text{-}0.5}$. This behavior is qualitatively consistent with disk evolution models in which disks with planet-induced pressure bumps follow a steeper size-luminosity relation than smooth disks. Overall, our results suggest that disk substructures play an important role in shaping the evolution of dust and global disk properties, while providing empirical constraints on accretion, dust trapping, and possible gravitational instability in young disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18653 by Ayumu Shoshi, Masahiro N. Machida, Masayuki Yamaguchi, Naomi Hirano, Ryohei Kawabe, Shu Ishibashi, Takashi Tsukagoshi, Takayuki Muto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Correlation matrix of six stellar and dust disk properties such as bolometric temperature Tbol , stellar mass M∗, mass accretion rate M˙ acc, inclination angle idisk, millimeter luminosity Lmm (flux density scaled at the distance 140 pc), and dust disk radius R95%. The top panels in each column show the histogram and the total number of samples for each parameter. The other panels show logarithmic scatter … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cumulative density functions of disks with substructures categorized as “Ring”, “Spiral”, and “Inflection” (red line) and smooth disks (gray line) based on (a) bolometric temperature Tbol , (b) stellar mass M∗, (c) mass accretion rate M˙ acc, (d) inclination angle idisk, (e) millimeter luminosity Lmm, and (f) dust disk radius R95%. The value at the lower right of each panel denotes the p-value derived by u… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relationship between bolometric temperature Tbol and dust disk inclination angle idisk for 66 disks. The colors of the symbols indicate the evolutionary stage classified by the spectral slope at 2-22 µm, where yel￾low, red, and violet correspond to Class I, FS, and Class II stages. The marker shapes denote the disk categorizations in Paper I; ⊙ as “Ring” or “Spiral”, ⊖ as “Inflection”, ⊘ as candidates for … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relationship of dust disk radius R95% with (a) the original millimeter luminosity Lmm and (b) the millimeter luminosity corrected by the inclination angle Lmm/cos idisk for 67 disks. The marker shapes denote the disk categorizations; ⊙ as “Ring” or “Spiral”, ⊖ as “Inflection”, ⊘ as candidates for nearly edge-on disks with “Ring” features or circumstellar disks in binary systems, and × as “Smooth” brightnes… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relationship between the millimeter luminosity corrected by the inclination angle Lmm/cos idisk and the dust radius R95% for each evolutionary stage and the presence of substructures. The top panels show Class I and FS disks, and the bottom panels show Class II disks. Left, middle, and right columns correspond to disks with smooth brightness distribution (“Smooth”), any substructure (“Ring”, “Spiral", and … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between mass accretion rate M˙ acc and millimeter luminosity Lmm for (a) 21 disks categorized as “Smooth”, (b) 21 disks with substructures (“Ring”, “Spiral”, and “Inflection”), and (c) all 44 the disks, including “Candidates”. The marker shapes denote the disk categorizations; ⊙ as “Ring” or “Spiral”, ⊖ as “Inflection”, ⊘ as candidates for nearly edge-on disks with “Ring” features or circumste… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as figure 3, but for the relationship between the ratio of dust mass Mdust to stellar mass M∗ and dust radius R95%. The gray regions show the Toomre Q parameter of 1.0 (left) and 10.0 (right) derived by equa￾tion 7, where we assume the fixed values of a gas-to-dust mass ratio ε=100 and use the disk aspect ratio h/r ranging from 0.05 to 0.10. Alt text: The scatter diagram between the ratio of dust mass… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relationships of bolometric temperature Tbol with other stellar and disk properties M∗ (upper left), M˙ acc (upper right), Lmm (lower left), and R95% (lower right). The colors of the symbols indicate the evolutionary stage classified by the spectral slope at 2-22 µm, where yellow, red, and violet correspond to Class I, FS, and Class II stages. The marker shapes denote the disk categorizations; ⊙ as “Ring” … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Figures 9 but for the relationships of stellar mass M∗ with other stellar and disk properties M˙ acc (upper left), idisk (upper right), Lmm (lower left), and R95% (lower right). Alt text: The scatter diagrams show the relations for stellar mass M∗ with other stellar and disk properties M˙ acc, idisk, Lmm, and R95%. Scientific Research grant (No. 2022-22B; MNM) and by JSPS KAKENHI JP25KJ1947 (AS), … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as Figures 9 but for the relationships of mass accretion rate M˙ acc with other disk properties idisk (left) and R95% (right). Alt text: The scatter diagrams shows the relations for mass accretion rate M˙ acc with other disk properties idisk and R95% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Figures 9 but for the relationships of inclination angle idisk with other disk properties Lmm (left) and R95% (right). Alt text: The scatter diagrams show the relations for inclination angle idisk with other disk properties Lmm and R95%. grammar-checking and editing tool to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. This paper made use of the following software: AnalysisUtilities ⟨http… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of dust disk radii enclosing 68% and 95% of the to￾tal flux density R68% and R95%. The colors of the symbols indicate the evolutionary stage classified by the spectral slope at 2-22 µm, where yel￾low, red, and violet correspond to Class I, FS, and Class II stages. The marker shapes denote the disk categorizations; ⊙ as “Ring” or “Spiral”, ⊖ as “Inflection”, ⊘ as candidates for nearly edge-on di… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    L., Pérez, L

    ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L3

    2015

  2. [2]

    P., van der Marel, N., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    2016

  3. [3]

    A., Carpenter, J

    Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Sargent, A. I., Isella, A., & Ricci, L. 2017, ApJ, 851, 85

    2017

  4. [4]

    Beckwith, S. V . W., Sargent, A. I., Chini, R. S., & Guesten, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 924

    1990

  5. [5]

    The Ophiuchus DIsc Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA). Substructures as a function of SED Class and disc mass in 100 systems

    Bhowmik, T., Cieza, L., Miley, J. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19246

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    M., van der Marel, N., & Mulders, G

    Bosschaart, Q., Guerra-Alvarado, O. M., van der Marel, N., & Mulders, G. D. 2026, A&A, 708, A143 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    2026

  7. [7]

    F., Liu, H

    Cazzoletti, P., Manara, C. F., Liu, H. B., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A11

    2019

  8. [8]

    C., Ladd, E

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

    1995

  9. [9]

    E., Hirano, N., & Yamaguchi, M

    Chou, H.-I. E., Hirano, N., & Yamaguchi, M. 2025, ApJ, 995, 225

    2025

  10. [10]

    A., Schreiber, M

    Cieza, L. A., Schreiber, M. R., Romero, G. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 925

    2010

  11. [11]

    A., Ruíz-Rodríguez, D., Hales, A., et al

    Cieza, L. A., Ruíz-Rodríguez, D., Hales, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 698

    2019

  12. [12]

    A., González-Ruilova, C., Hales, A

    Cieza, L. A., González-Ruilova, C., Hales, A. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2934

    2021

  13. [13]

    A., González-Ruilova, C., et al

    Dasgupta, A., Cieza, L. A., González-Ruilova, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L4

    2025

  14. [14]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 93

    Dong, R., Zhu, Z., & Whitney, B. 2015, ApJ, 809, 93

    2015

  15. [15]

    M., Allen, L

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

    2015

  16. [16]

    H., Boss, A

    Durisen, R. H., Boss, A. P., Mayer, L., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V , ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 607

    2007

  17. [17]

    L., & Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., & Luhman, K. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 282

    2020

  18. [18]

    J., Dunham, M

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

    2009

  19. [19]

    F., et al

    Fiorellino, E., Tychoniec, Ł., Manara, C. F., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L9

    2022

  20. [20]

    S., Reipurth, B., & Duchêne, G

    Flores, C., Connelley, M. S., Reipurth, B., & Duchêne, G. 2022, ApJ, 925, 21

    2022

  21. [21]

    J., et al

    Flores, C., Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 98

    2023

  22. [22]

    M., McClure, M

    Furlan, E., Watson, D. M., McClure, M. K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1964

    2009

  23. [23]

    J., Ali, B., et al

    Furlan, E., Fischer, W. J., Ali, B., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 5 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2016

  24. [24]

    P., Wilking, B

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

    1994

  25. [25]

    M., van der Marel, N., Williams, J

    Guerra-Alvarado, O. M., van der Marel, N., Williams, J. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A232

    2025

  26. [26]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  27. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 126

    Hendler, N., Pascucci, I., Pinilla, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 126

    2020

  28. [28]

    G., Maureira, M

    Hsieh, C.-H., Arce, H. G., Maureira, M. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A235

    2025

  29. [29]

    M., Dullemond, C

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L42

    2018

  30. [30]

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

    2007

  31. [31]

    D., Huang, J., Czekala, I., et al

    Jiang, S. D., Huang, J., Czekala, I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18884

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al

    Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2007, Nature, 448, 1022

    2007

  33. [33]

    2009, ApJ, 697, 1269

    Johansen, A., Youdin, A., & Klahr, H. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1269

    2009

  34. [34]

    D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al

    Kanagawa, K. D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 43 20Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(2026), Vol. 00, No. 0

    2016

  35. [35]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489

    2007

  36. [36]

    J., Hartmann, L

    Kenyon, S. J., Hartmann, L. W., Strom, K. M., & Strom, S. E. 1990, AJ, 99, 869

    1990

  37. [37]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 271

    Kratter, K., & Lodato, G. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 271

    2016

  38. [38]

    2022, A&A, 668, A175

    Liu, Y ., Linz, H., Fang, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A175

    2022

  39. [39]

    J., Harsono, D., et al

    Long, F., Herczeg, G. J., Harsono, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 49

    2019

  40. [40]

    F., Mordasini, C., Testi, L., et al

    Manara, C. F., Mordasini, C., Testi, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, L2

    2019

  41. [41]

    F., Testi, L., Natta, A., & Alcalá, J

    Manara, C. F., Testi, L., Natta, A., & Alcalá, J. M. 2015, A&A, 579, A66

    2015

  42. [42]

    F., Rosotti, G., Testi, L., et al

    Manara, C. F., Rosotti, G., Testi, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, L3

    2016

  43. [43]

    2000, ApJ, 531, 350

    Masunaga, H., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2000, ApJ, 531, 350

    2000

  44. [44]

    J., Pineda, J

    Maureira, M. J., Pineda, J. E., Liu, H. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, L5

    2024

  45. [45]

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

    McClure, M. K., Furlan, E., Manoj, P., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 75

    2010

  46. [46]

    Michel, A., van der Marel, N., & Matthews, B. C. 2021, ApJ, 921, 72

    2021

  47. [47]

    F., & Bruderer, S

    Miotello, A., Facchini, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Bruderer, S. 2018, A&A, 619, A113

    2018

  48. [48]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 46

    Nakamura, F., Kamada, Y ., Kamazaki, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 46

    2011

  49. [49]

    2020, PRIISM: Python module for Radio Interferometry Imaging with Sparse Modeling, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2006.002

    Nakazato, T., & Ikeda, S. 2020, PRIISM: Python module for Radio Interferometry Imaging with Sparse Modeling, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2006.002

    2020

  50. [50]

    2020, in Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed

    Nakazato, T., Ikeda, S., Kosugi, G., & Honma, M. 2020, in Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, V ol. 11453, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 114532V

    2020

  51. [51]

    2006, A&A, 452, 245

    Natta, A., Testi, L., & Randich, S. 2006, A&A, 452, 245

    2006

  52. [52]

    J., Jørgensen, J

    Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 8

    2023

  53. [53]

    A., Guilera, O., et al

    Orcajo, S., Cieza, L. A., Guilera, O., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L57 Ortiz-León, G. N., Loinard, L., Dzib, S. A., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L33

    2025

  54. [54]

    2020, A&A, 635, A105

    Pinilla, P., Pascucci, I., & Marino, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A105

    2020

  55. [55]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 32

    Pinilla, P., Tazzari, M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 32

    2018

  56. [56]

    P., Booth, R

    Rosotti, G. P., Booth, R. A., Tazzari, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, L63 Ruíz-Rodríguez, D., Ireland, M., Cieza, L., & Kraus, A. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3829

    2019

  57. [57]

    A., González-Ruilova, C., Cieza, L

    Ruiz-Rodriguez, D. A., González-Ruilova, C., Cieza, L. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 2

    2025

  58. [58]

    J., Fischer, W

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

    2015

  59. [59]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 51

    Sai, J., Ohashi, N., Saigo, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 51

    2020

  60. [60]

    D., & Eisner, J

    Sheehan, P. D., & Eisner, J. A. 2017, ApJL, 840, L12 —. 2018, ApJ, 857, 18

    2017

  61. [61]

    D., Tobin, J

    Sheehan, P. D., Tobin, J. J., Federman, S., Megeath, S. T., & Looney, L. W. 2020, ApJ, 902, 141

    2020

  62. [62]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 214

    Shoshi, A., Yamaguchi, M., Omura, M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 214

    2026

  63. [63]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 228

    Shoshi, A., Harada, N., Tokuda, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 228

    2024

  64. [64]

    Z., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Takahashi, S. Z., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2016, AJ, 152, 184

    2016

  65. [65]

    J., Testi, L., et al

    Tazzari, M., Clarke, C. J., Testi, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2804

    2021

  66. [66]

    2017, A&A, 606, A88

    Tazzari, M., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A88

    2017

  67. [67]

    F., et al

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A98

    2022

  68. [68]

    T., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Takahashi, S

    Tominaga, R. T., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Takahashi, S. Z. 2023, ApJ, 953, 60

    2023

  69. [69]

    T., Takahashi, S

    Tominaga, R. T., Takahashi, S. Z., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2020, ApJ, 900, 182

    2020

  70. [70]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

    1964

  71. [71]

    M., Birnstiel, T., & Wilner, D

    Tripathi, A., Andrews, S. M., Birnstiel, T., & Wilner, D. J. 2017, ApJ, 845, 44

    2017

  72. [72]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tsukamoto, Y ., Maury, A., Commercon, B., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 317 van der Marel, N., & Mulders, G. D. 2021, AJ, 162, 28 van der Marel, N., van Dishoeck, E. F., Bruderer, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A58

    2023

  73. [73]

    Villenave, M., Ménard, F., Dent, W. R. F., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A46

    2021

  74. [74]

    R., Duchêne, G., et al

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duchêne, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 11

    2022

  75. [75]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  76. [76]

    V ., & Jenkins, C

    Wall, J. V ., & Jenkins, C. R. 2012, Practical Statistics for Astronomers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2012

  77. [77]

    P., Cieza, L., Hales, A., et al

    Williams, J. P., Cieza, L., Hales, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L9

    2019

  78. [78]

    C., Rilinger, A

    Xin, Z., Espaillat, C. C., Rilinger, A. M., Ribas, Á., & Macías, E. 2023, ApJ, 942, 4

    2023

  79. [79]

    B., Takami, M., & Gu, P.-G

    Yamaguchi, M., Liu, H. B., Takami, M., & Gu, P.-G. 2025, ApJ, 993, 85

    2025

  80. [80]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 121

    Yamaguchi, M., Tsukagoshi, T., Muto, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 121

    2021

Showing first 80 references.