Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 211 references

Nascent Embedded-protostar Survey in Taurus (NEST) I: Protostellar Multiplicity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Taurus protostars have a multiplicity fraction of about 0.5 over 18–10,000 au, higher than in the denser Orion and Perseus regions, and that the low-density environment preserves primordial multiples.

desk verdict A first and valuable Taurus protostellar multiplicity census, but the headline significance is overstated and Table 6 has internal count inconsistencies that need fixing before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12186 v1 pith:F363J36J submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Aislinn C. Plante , John J. Tobin , Patrick D. Sheehan , Noshin Yesmin , Nicholas P. Ballering , Tyler L. Bourke , Josh Eisner , Zhi-Yun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords protostellarmultiplicityTaurusMolecularCloudALMAobservationsVLAfractioncompanionbinarystarformationstar-formingenvironment
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

Using ALMA 0.9 mm and VLA 9 mm observations at about 0.3 arcsecond (roughly 20 au) resolution, this paper counts companions among 25 protostellar systems (40 protostars) in the Taurus Molecular Cloud and claims that the observed sample has a multiplicity fraction of $0.50 \pm 0.07$ within separations of $18$–$10{,}000$ au, rising to $0.53 \pm 0.06$ in an extended Taurus+ sample that includes archival companions. These values exceed the multiplicity fractions reported for the denser Orion and Perseus regions at levels the paper quotes as roughly $3$–$4\sigma$, with the strongest contrast for Taurus+ against Orion, and the paper interprets the excess as evidence that low-density Taurus preserves a larger fraction of primordial multiples because dynamical disruption is rare. The same data show a deficit of companions at $200$–$300$ au between a close peak near $75$ au and a wide population beyond $1000$ au, which the paper reads as the signature of two formation routes: disk fragmentation for tight binaries and core fragmentation for wide multiples. If the comparison with Orion and Perseus stands, the result supports the view that environment, not just core-scale initial conditions, shapes how many newborn stars keep companions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two closely defined statistics: the multiplicity fraction (the fraction of systems containing at least one companion) and the companion fraction (the average number of companions per system), measured in the same separation window of $18$–$10{,}000$ au across all regions. Systems are assembled with a modified nearest-neighbor algorithm that iteratively links the closest pair, replaces it by its geometric center, and repeats, avoiding the need to designate a primary component. Uncertainties are Wilson score intervals modified by a finite-population correction, a factor that narrows the quoted errors for Orion and Perseus relative to their original publications, and separation distributions are compared with Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Anderson–Darling tests on cumulative distributions. The physical interpretive machinery is the two-scale fragmentation picture, in which disk fragmentation produces companions at $\lesssim 300$ au and core fragmentation produces companions at roughly $10^3$–$10^4$ au.

What would settle it

Recompute the Taurus–Orion and Taurus–Perseus MF differences using the original published uncertainties without the finite-population correction; if the Taurus–Perseus difference falls below $2\sigma$, the paper's central environmental-preservation claim is not statistically established. Alternatively, image the five Taurus+ systems that still lack sub-arcsecond data: any newly resolved close companions would raise MF further, while confirmed single detections would leave the current values unchanged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that protostellar multiplicity in Taurus is genuinely high: the observed Taurus sample gives $\mathrm{MF} = 0.50 \pm 0.07$ and $\mathrm{CF} = 0.58 \pm 0.20$, while the more complete Taurus+ sample gives $\mathrm{MF} = 0.53 \pm 0.06$ and $\mathrm{CF} = 0.72 \pm 0.19$ over projected separations $18$–$10{,}000$ au. Compared with the contamination-corrected values of Orion ($\mathrm{MF} = 0.29 \pm 0.01$) and Perseus ($\mathrm{MF} = 0.36 \pm 0.04$), the Taurus fraction is higher at the levels the paper quotes as roughly $3$–$4\sigma$, with the strongest contrast for Taurus+ against Orion. The paper argues that this elevated multiplicity is at least partly a consequence of the region's low stellar density ($\sim 5$–$7$ stars pc$^{-2}$), which weakens the encounters that disrupt or eject wide companions, while acknowledging that density alone does not fully account for the difference; the persistence of high multiplicity into the older Class II/III Taurus population further suggests a genuinely multiplicity-rich environment rather than a transient protostellar phase. The separation distribution, peaking near $75$ au and again at thousands of au with a gap near $200$–$300$ au, is offered as evidence that close and wide multiples form by different mechanisms, disk fragmentation and core fragmentation respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the published Orion and Perseus multiplicity uncertainties can be narrowed by applying a finite-population correction with an assumed completeness of 75 percent; if that completeness assumption is wrong, the claimed excess over Perseus weakens to roughly $1.7$–$2.4\sigma$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the multiplicity excess is real, Taurus protostars are roughly 1.5–1.8 times more likely to have a companion within 10,000 au than protostars in Perseus and Orion, making low-density clouds the better place to find primordial multiple systems intact.
  • The match between the protostellar MF (0.50–0.53) and the separation-matched MF of the older Taurus Class II/III population (0.56) implies that multiplicity in Taurus changes little during the embedded-to-disk evolutionary stages.
  • The gap at 200–300 au, flanked by a close peak near 75 au and wide companions beyond 1000 au, would confirm that disk fragmentation and core fragmentation operate on distinct scales and that both contribute in the same cloud.
  • Because the roughly 18 au resolution limit is comparable in Taurus, Orion, and Perseus, the close-companion excess in Taurus cannot be dismissed as a resolution artefact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: apply the same ALMA/VLA census to another low-density, distributed cloud; the environmental-preservation hypothesis predicts a Taurus-like MF, whereas an initial-conditions explanation predicts scatter unrelated to density.
  • In this reader's reading, the headline '$3$–$4\sigma$' significance is less robust than it appears: the significance against Perseus drops to roughly $1.7$–$2.4\sigma$ if the finite-population correction is not applied to the published Orion and Perseus uncertainties, so the strongest support for the environmental claim comes from the Taurus+ versus Orion comparison.
  • The authors leave implicit that if wide multiples are preserved rather than formed in Taurus, the primordial multiplicity created by core fragmentation may be similar across all three regions, and the observed differences would then trace dynamical survival rather than formation efficiency.
  • The eight wide systems with mixed evolutionary classes could be litmus tests: measuring their relative proper motions would show whether they are bound, distinguishing non-coeval collapse within one core from chance superpositions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new ALMA 0.9 mm and VLA 9 mm observations of 25 Taurus protostellar systems (40 protostars) and constructs an extended Taurus+ sample of 64 protostars in 37 systems by adding archival sources. The authors measure a multiplicity fraction MF = 0.50 ± 0.07 and companion fraction CF = 0.58 ± 0.20 for the observed Taurus sample over 18–10,000 au, and MF = 0.53 ± 0.06, CF = 0.72 ± 0.19 for Taurus+. They compare these values with published VANDAM results for Orion and Perseus, report that Taurus has an elevated MF at the ~3–4σ level, and interpret the excess as evidence that the low-density Taurus environment preserves a larger fraction of primordial multiples. The paper also characterizes the companion separation distribution as peaked near 75 au with a deficit near 200–300 au, and discusses disk versus core fragmentation pathways.

Significance. If the measurement stands, this is a valuable addition to protostellar multiplicity studies: Taurus is the natural low-density counterpoint to Orion and Perseus, and the paper makes a concrete environmental comparison with a nearly complete census of known Taurus protostars. The authors are careful to use Wilson intervals for small samples, to merge ALMA and VLA detections, and to include archival sources in Taurus+. The environmental claim is falsifiable and would be of broad interest. However, the headline comparison rests on internal count consistency in Table 6 and on a finite-population correction applied to published Orion and Perseus uncertainties; both issues affect the central claim and need to be resolved before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Abstract, and Table 6] The full-range multiplicity counts in Table 6 do not sum to the sample sizes stated in the abstract and Section 2.1. For the Taurus sample, the row 12:10:2 sums to 24 systems and 38 protostars, whereas the stated sample is 25 systems and 40 protostars; adding the one missing binary changes MF from 12/24 = 0.50 to 13/25 = 0.52. For Taurus+, 17:15:2:1:1 sums to 36 systems and 62 protostars, versus the stated 37 systems and 64 protostars, again missing one binary. The Perseus row is more serious: 45:18:4:2:1 sums to 70 systems, while Section 2.6 states that the VANDAM Perseus survey observed 104 systems. The reported Perseus MF = 0.36 is 25/70; if the correct denominator is 104 and the multiplicity of the missing 34 systems is unknown, the Perseus MF could differ substantially. These inconsistencies directly affect the MF/CF values and the significance of the Taurus excess, so the counting must be reconciled and the statistics recomputed.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4), and Section 5.2] The finite-population correction with an assumed 75% completeness for Orion, Perseus, and Taurus+ narrows the published Orion and Perseus uncertainties, but the original VANDAM papers did not apply this correction. The paper itself states that without the FPC the Taurus excess over Perseus is only ~1.7σ (Taurus) and ~2.4σ (Taurus+), rather than the ~3–4σ quoted in the abstract. Because the headline environmental claim depends on this assumed completeness, the authors should present the comparison both with and without the FPC, and should show how the significance varies with the completeness assumption, e.g., for 60%, 75%, and 90%. This is a load-bearing methodological point, not a presentation issue.
  3. [Abstract, Section 5.2, and Section 7] The significance statements are internally inconsistent across the manuscript. The abstract says Taurus is 'notably higher' than Orion and Perseus 'at the ~3-4 sigma level'; Section 5.2 gives Taurus versus Orion ~3σ, Taurus versus Perseus ~1.7σ, Taurus+ versus Orion ~4σ, and Taurus+ versus Perseus ~2.4σ; Section 7 summarizes '~2-4σ'. Since the CF differences are even weaker (≲1.6σ), the abstract's single 3–4σ characterization overstates the Perseus comparison. These numbers should be harmonized and reported with the FPC assumption explicitly attached to each significance claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The text refers to 'IRAS 04295+2610'; the source catalog and Table 5 list IRAS 04295+2251, so this appears to be a typo that should be corrected.
  2. [Section 7, item 2] The conclusion states a deficit of companions 'around 2000 au', while the abstract and Section 5.3 describe a deficit at 200–300 au; these should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 1] The phrase 'younger than 0.2 Myr years' contains a redundant 'years' and should read '0.2 Myr' or '0.2 million years'.
  4. [Table 7] The sample sizes in the KS/AD comparisons (e.g., 14 and 26 for Taurus and Taurus+) should be defined explicitly; these appear to be numbers of companion separations rather than numbers of systems, and the distinction should be stated.
  5. [Section 6.4] The limitations paragraph states that the reported MFs and CFs 'should be considered lower limits', but Table 6 and the abstract present them as point estimates without this caveat; adding a sentence or footnote to the table would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multiplicity fractions are direct observational measurements, and the Orion/Perseus comparison uses external VANDAM data with a disclosed finite-population correction; the Table 6 count inconsistencies are arithmetic quality issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central quantities MF and CF are computed directly from the companion identifications via Equations (1) and (2); there is no parameter fitted to the headline result and then renamed as a prediction. The comparison to Orion and Perseus rests on independently published VANDAM measurements (Tobin et al. 2016, 2022), which are external observational data rather than a self-citation supplying the conclusion. The finite-population correction (Section 4.2, Equations 3-4) is a transparent, stated assumption about completeness (75%) that narrows uncertainties; although it increases the reported significance of the Taurus excess, it is a methodological adjustment applied to external values, not a fit to the Taurus MF, so it does not make the comparison circular. The paper itself reports the Perseus difference at 1.7-2.4 sigma, weaker than the abstract's '3-4 sigma' phrasing; that is an internal consistency/interpretation issue, not a circular derivation. The skeptic-flagged Table 6 inconsistencies (e.g., Taurus counts 12:10:2 sum to 24 systems and 38 protostars versus the stated 25 systems and 40 protostars; Taurus+ 36/62 versus 37/64; Perseus 70 versus 104 stated systems) are numerical/quality errors that affect the exact MF/CF values and significance, but they are not an instance of a conclusion being equivalent to its input by construction. Section 6.4 explicitly acknowledges incompleteness and resolution limits, which further reduces any concern of overclaiming rather than creating circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness import is present, so the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is a counting exercise over observed sources, so the main assumptions are about sample completeness, association, and the finite-population correction applied to comparison samples. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed completeness of Taurus+ sample = 75%
    Used to estimate total protostar population N for the finite-population correction, which narrows the error bars on MF and CF. The value is chosen, not measured.
  • Assumed completeness of Taurus sample = ~45% (inferred from Taurus+ N)
    Used to estimate the total population for the finite-population correction; the paper states this yields more realistic and likely still slightly conservative error bars.
  • Completeness of Orion and Perseus comparison samples = 75%
    Applied retroactively to the published Orion and Perseus samples to compute finite-population-corrected error bars, increasing the statistical significance of the Taurus excess. The original surveys did not apply the correction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 10,000 au upper separation limit corresponds to the typical radius of dense cores in which protostars form.
    Adopted from Benson and Myers (1989) and other core size studies; used as the association cutoff in Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption Sources within the adopted separation limit are physically associated rather than chance alignments in Taurus.
    Because Taurus has low YSO surface density (5 to 7 stars per square parsec), no chance-alignment correction was applied (Section 2.6).
  • domain assumption Dust continuum and free-free emission trace protostars; non-detections imply the absence of companions down to the resolution limit.
    The paper notes this selection bias and states the MF and CF should be considered lower limits (Section 6.4).
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-population correction with assumed completeness is appropriate for the Orion, Perseus, and Taurus+ samples.
    This assumption is load-bearing for the claimed significance; the original comparison surveys did not use it (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption Distances from Luhman (2023) group assignments are accurate to the level needed for projecting separations.
    Distances range from 128 to 176 pc and are used to convert arcseconds to au (Section 2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nascent Embedded-protostar Survey in Taurus (NEST) I: Protostellar Multiplicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F363J36J

@misc{pith2026260812186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nascent Embedded-protostar Survey in Taurus (NEST) I: Protostellar Multiplicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F363J36J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12186}
}
read the original abstract

We present new ALMA 0.9 mm and VLA 9 mm observations in the Taurus Molecular Cloud (TMC) of 25 protostellar systems, containing 40 protostars, observed at 0.3" (~20 au) resolution. Within separations of 18-10,000 au, the ALMA/VLA-observed Taurus sample has a multiplicity fraction (MF), defined as the fraction of systems with at least one companion, of 0.50 +/- 0.07, and a companion fraction (CF), defined as the average number of companions per system, of 0.58 +/- 0.20. To build a more complete census of protostellar multiplicity in this region, we supplement the observed sample with 24 protostars (12 protostellar systems and 5 additional companions associated with systems we observed) previously identified through archival infrared or ALMA observations. Together, these 64 individual protostars (37 systems) define our Taurus+ sample, for which we measure higher values of 0.53 +/- 0.06 and 0.72 +/- 0.19 for the MF and CF, respectively. These multiplicity statistics in the TMC are notably higher than those reported in the more clustered star-forming regions of Orion and Perseus at the ~3-4 sigma level, suggesting that Taurus may preserve a larger fraction of primordial multiples. The separation distributions in our samples show populations of both close and wide multiples, but a deficit at intermediate separations of 200-300 au. This pattern may suggest two distinct formation pathways: close binaries (<200 au) arising primarily from disk fragmentation, and wide multiples (>1000 au) from core fragmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Map of the Taurus Molecular Cloud showing the locations of the sources overlaid on a background extinction map from D. J. Schlegel et al. (1998). Sources from the Taurus sample are shown in red, and the additional sources included in the Taurus+ sample are shown in blue. 2.2. ALMA Observations We observed 27 pointings in the Taurus star-forming region with ALMA in Cycle 7 (project 2019.1.00847.S) using the 12 m arra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ALMA 0.9 mm continuum images of protostars in Taurus, displayed in order of single protostars, close binary systems, and zoomed-in views of wide multiples. Large scale views of these wide multiples can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VLA 9 mm continuum images of protostars in Taurus, displayed in order of single protostars, close binary systems, and zoomed-in views of wide multiples. Large scale views of these wide multiples can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Large-scale views of the wide multiples from the ALMA observations (top) and VLA observations (bottom) to show their full projected separations. Small scale views of the individual protostars can be found in Figures 2 and 3. Synthesized beams in the top-right of each p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ALMA 0.9 mm continuum image of the disk/circumbinary structure of IRAS 04295+2251 AB, shown with archival VLA 9 mm continuum contours overlaid to search for compact emission inside the central cavity. The ALMA emission shows a ring-like structure with a large central c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ALMA 1.3 mm continuum image of IRAM 04191 AB with a synthesized beam corresponding to a resolution of 0. ′′154. The source on the lower right is IRAM 04191 A which was detected in our original Band 7 observations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bolometric luminosity (Lbol) versus bolometric temperature (Tbol) for protostars in Taurus. The left panel shows the Taurus sample, and the right panel includes sources from the Taurus+ sample. In both plots, small gray points represent single protostar systems, while …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The panel on the left shows histograms of companion separation distributions for the observed Taurus sample (gray) and the Taurus+ sample (hatched). The Gaussian fits of the separation distribution of solar-type main sequence field stars from D. Raghavan et al. (2010) …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mirrored histograms (top panels) show the companion separation distributions for Orion (left, blue) and Perseus (right, green). The corresponding Taurus and Taurus+ distributions are mirrored below each. For Orion and Perseus, we adopt the contamination-corrected sampl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mirrored histograms comparing separation distributions for the Taurus and Taurus+ protostellar samples with the more evolved Taurus sample from A. L. Kraus et al. (2011). The A. L. Kraus et al. (2011) samples are shown above the horizontal axis, while the Taurus and T…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative distribution functions of companion separations in Taurus. The dark blue and orange curves show Class 0/I protostars from our Taurus and Taurus+ samples, respectively. The more evolved Class II/III systems from A. L. Kraus et al. (2011) are also shown: the …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectral energy distribution and best-fit model for IRAS 04287+1801 AB. The complete figure set (48 images) is available in the online journal. B. SOURCE INFORMATION B.1. Observed Sources IRAS 04016+2610 (L1489 IRS): We classify this source as a Class I protostar, con…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

211 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    V., Mickaelian, A

    Abrahamyan, H. V., Mickaelian, A. M., & Knyazyan, A. V. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 99, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.12.002

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2014.12.002 2015

  3. [3]

    L., Jensen, E

    Akeson, R. L., Jensen, E. L. N., Carpenter, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6a ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6a 2019

  4. [4]

    2017, A&A, 600, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730393 Andr´ e, P., Motte, F., & Bacmann, A

    Schilbach, E. 2017, A&A, 600, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730393 Andr´ e, P., Motte, F., & Bacmann, A. 1999, ApJL, 513, L57, doi: 10.1086/311908

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730393 2017

  5. [5]

    M., Rosenfeld, K

    Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/129

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/129 2013

  6. [6]

    M., & Williams, J

    Andrews, S. M., & Williams, J. P. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1134, doi: 10.1086/432712

    doi:10.1086/432712 2005

  7. [7]

    V., Henning, T., et al

    Apai, D., T´ oth, L. V., Henning, T., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, L33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500098 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500098 2005

  8. [8]

    Barsony, M., & Kenyon, S. J. 1992, ApJL, 384, L53, doi: 10.1086/186260

    work page doi:10.1086/186260 1992

Show all 211 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Myers, P

    Benson, P. J., & Myers, P. C. 1989, ApJS, 71, 89, doi: 10.1086/191365

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Tafalla, M

    Bergin, E. A., & Tafalla, M. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.071206.100404

    2007

  3. [11]

    2025, ARA&A, 63, 1, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023

    Beuther, H., Kuiper, R., & Tafalla, M. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 1, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    H., & Cohen, M

    Bieging, J. H., & Cohen, M. 1985, ApJL, 289, L5, doi: 10.1086/184423 38

    1985 doi

  5. [13]

    Bjerkeli, P., van der Wiel, M. H. D., Harsono, D., Ramsey, J. P., & Jørgensen, J. K. 2016, Nature, 540, 406, doi: 10.1038/nature20600 Bourg´ es, L., Lafrasse, S., Mella, G., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Anal...

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    1997,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/323/139

    Bouvier, J., Rigaut, F., & Nadeau, D. 1997,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/323/139. Originally published in: 1997A&A...323..139B doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.33230139

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

    2014, A&A, 570, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323088 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Bulger, J., Patience, J., Ward-Duong, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323088 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    1981, Icarus, 48, 353, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90051-8

    Cassen, P., & Moosman, A. 1981, Icarus, 48, 353, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90051-8

    1981 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Richer, J

    Chandler, C. J., & Richer, J. S. 2000, ApJ, 530, 851, doi: 10.1086/308401

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Ladd, E

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

    1995 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Dunham, M

    Chen, X., Arce, H. G., Dunham, M. M., & Zhang, Q. 2012, ApJL, 747, L43, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L43

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Padgett, D

    Cieza, L. A., Padgett, D. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2009, ApJL, 696, L84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L84

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Greene, T

    Connelley, M. S., & Greene, T. P. 2010, AJ, 140, 1214, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1214

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Reipurth, B., & Tokunaga, A

    Connelley, M. S., Reipurth, B., & Tokunaga, A. T. 2007, AJ, 133, 1528, doi: 10.1086/511745

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Reipurth, B., & Tokunaga, A

    Connelley, M. S., Reipurth, B., & Tokunaga, A. T. 2008, AJ, 135, 2496, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2496 Copenhagen University, O., Institute, O. A., Cambridge, Uk, & Real Instituto Y Observatorio de La Armada, E. S. F. 2006,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/304. Originally pub...

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Dullemond, C

    Pontoppidan, K. M., & Dullemond, C. P. 2008, A&A, 486, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078589 Cruzal` ebes, P., Petrov, R. G., Robbe-Dubois, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2803

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, (IPAC/California Institute of Technology) (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2012,, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products

    2012

  19. [27]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/155

    Daemgen, S., Bonavita, M., Jayawardhana, R., Lafreni` ere, D., & Janson, M. 2015, ApJ, 799, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/155

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Dalya, G., Frei, Z., Galgoczi, G., Raffai, P., & de Souza, R. S. 2016,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/275. Originally published in: 2016MNRAS.in.prep.. D´ alya, G., Galg´ oczi, G., Dobos, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1703

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    R., & Kraus, A

    Deacon, N. R., & Kraus, A. L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1877

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, A&A, 699, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453539 Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., MacKenzie, T., &

    Delfini, L., Vioque, M., Ribas, ´A., & Hodgkin, S. 2025, A&A, 699, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453539 Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., MacKenzie, T., &

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2008, ApJS, 175, 277, doi: 10.1086/523645

    Ledwosinska, E. 2008, ApJS, 175, 277, doi: 10.1086/523645

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Monteiro, H., Caetano, T

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Caetano, T. C., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323226

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Stefano, R., & Kashyap, V. L. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2808

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Vaillancourt, J

    Dotson, J. L., Vaillancourt, J. E., Kirby, L., et al. 2010, ApJS, 186, 406, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/2/406 Duchˆ ene, G. 2010, ApJL, 709, L114, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L114 Duchˆ ene, G., Bouvier, J., Bontemps, S., Andr´ e, P., &

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    2004, A&A, 427, 651, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041209 Duchˆ ene, G., Delgado-Donate, E., Haisch, Jr., K

    Motte, F. 2004, A&A, 427, 651, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041209 Duchˆ ene, G., Delgado-Donate, E., Haisch, Jr., K. E.,

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    Loinard, L., & Rodr´ ıguez, L. F. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 379, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603004 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    2007 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    P., et al

    Ducourant, C., Teixeira, R., P´ eri´ e, J. P., et al. 2005, A&A, 438, 769, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052788

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Rapaport, M., et al

    Ducourant, C., Le Campion, J. F., Rapaport, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 1235, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053220

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Arce, H

    Dunham, M. M., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/29

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Allen, L

    Dunham, M. M., Allen, L. E., Evans, II, N. J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/11

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/52

    Edelson, R., & Malkan, M. 2012, ApJ, 751, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/52

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Price, S

    Egan, M. P., Price, S. D., Kraemer, K. E., et al. 2003,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: V/114. Originally published in: Air Force Research Laboratory Technical Report AFRL-VS-TR-2003-1589 (2003) 39

    2003

  36. [44]

    Eisner, J. A. 2012, ApJ, 755, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/23

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Elliott, P., Bayo, A., Melo, C. H. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423856

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Looney, L

    Encalada, F. J., Looney, L. W., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4fd

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Evans, II, N

    Enoch, M. L., Evans, II, N. J., Sargent, A. I., & Glenn, J. 2009, ApJ, 692, 973, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/973

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    L., & Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., & Luhman, K. L. 2019, AJ, 158, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2594

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., Luhman, K. L., & Mamajek, E. E. 2014, ApJ, 784, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/126

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Allen, L

    Evans, II, N. J., Allen, L. E., Blake, G. A., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 965, doi: 10.1086/376697

    2003 doi

  43. [51]

    N., Akhmetov, V

    Fedorov, P. N., Akhmetov, V. S., & Bobylev, V. V. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 403, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19045.x

    2011

  44. [52]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca320

    Fiorellino, E., Tychoniec, L., Cruz-S´ aenz de Miera, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca320

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Megeath, S

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

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58b1

    Doppmann, G. 2024, ApJ, 972, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58b1

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Sana, H., Le Bouquin, J

    Frost, A. J., Sana, H., Le Bouquin, J. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554344

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2008, ApJS, 176, 184, doi: 10.1086/527301

    Furlan, E., McClure, M., Calvet, N., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 184, doi: 10.1086/527301

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Espaillat, C., et al

    Furlan, E., Luhman, K. L., Espaillat, C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/3

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Ali, B., et al

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

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Garcia-Lario, P., Manchado, A., Pych, W., & Pottasch, S. R. 1997, A&AS, 126, 479, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997277

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    Y., Schmitz, M., Pitts, P

    Gezari, D. Y., Schmitz, M., Pitts, P. S., & Mead, J. M. 1993,

    1993

  53. [61]

    L., Van Brunt, K

    Gibb, E. L., Van Brunt, K. A., Brittain, S. D., & Rettig, T. W. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1572, doi: 10.1086/513502

    2007 doi

  54. [62]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    Lada, C. J. 1994, ApJ, 434, 614, doi: 10.1086/174763

    1994 doi

  56. [64]

    N., Offner, S

    Guszejnov, D., Raju, A. N., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3268

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Megeath, S

    Gutermuth, R. A., Megeath, S. T., Myers, P. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/18

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    B., & Rutledge, R

    Haakonsen, C. B., & Rutledge, R. E. 2009, ApJS, 184, 138, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/138

    2009 doi

  59. [67]

    K., Zink, J

    Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Zink, J. K., Christiansen, J. L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7230

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Andrews, S

    Harris, R. J., Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/115

    2012 doi

  61. [69]

    Hartigan, P., & Kenyon, S. J. 2003, ApJ, 583, 334, doi: 10.1086/345293

    2003 doi

  62. [70]

    1999, AJ, 118, 1784, doi: 10.1086/301040

    Jayawardhana, R. 1999, AJ, 118, 1784, doi: 10.1086/301040

    1999 doi

  63. [71]

    Helou, G., & Walker, D. W. 1988, Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, 7, 0 Herschel Team, Schulz, B., Marton, G., et al. 2024,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VIII/112. Originally published in: Herschel catalogs (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    G., Maureira, M

    Hsieh, C.-H., Arce, H. G., Maureira, M. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A235, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555174 Hu´ elamo, N., de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I., Palau, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 709, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557932

    2025 doi

  66. [74]

    R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C

    Hunter, T. R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 074501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ace216

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    2010, A&A, 514, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913695

    Ita, Y., Matsuura, M., Ishihara, D., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913695

    2010 doi

  68. [76]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    2017, A&A, 599, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629398 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J

    Joncour, I., Duchˆ ene, G., & Moraux, E. 2017, A&A, 599, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629398 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    L., Evans, II, N

    Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., Evans, II, N. J., & Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809481

    2008 doi

  71. [79]

    J., & Hartmann, L

    Kenyon, S. J., & Hartmann, L. 1995, ApJS, 101, 117, doi: 10.1086/192235

    1995 doi

  72. [80]

    Kharchenko, N. V. 2001, Kinematika i Fizika Nebesnykh Tel, 17, 409

    2001

  73. [81]

    W., Maheswar, G., et al

    Kim, G., Lee, C. W., Maheswar, G., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf889

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    W., Dunham, M

    Kim, M.-R., Lee, C. W., Dunham, M. M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 26, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/26

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    K., Pineda, J

    Kirk, H., Friesen, R. K., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8631

    2017 doi

  76. [84]

    M., Ward-Thompson, D., Di Francesco, J., et al

    Kirk, J. M., Ward-Thompson, D., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1633

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    T., Poteet, C

    Kounkel, M., Megeath, S. T., Poteet, C. A., Fischer, W. J., & Hartmann, L. 2016, ApJ, 821, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/52

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Brown, A. G. A., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Kaper, L. 2007, A&A, 474, 77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077719 40

    2007 doi

  79. [87]

    M., Matzner, C

    Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., Krumholz, M. R., & Klein, R. I. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1585, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1585

    2010 doi

  80. [88]

    L., Herczeg, G

    Kraus, A. L., Herczeg, G. J., Rizzuto, A. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a0

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    L., & Hillenbrand, L

    Kraus, A. L., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJL, 686, L111, doi: 10.1086/593012

    2008 doi

  82. [90]

    L., & Hillenbrand, L

    Kraus, A. L., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2009, ApJ, 704, 531, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/531

    2009 doi

  83. [91]

    L., Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, ApJ, 731, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/8

    2011 doi

  84. [92]

    E., & Dunham, M

    Kristensen, L. E., & Dunham, M. M. 2018, A&A, 618, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731584

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    T., Gutermuth, R

    Kryukova, E., Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/31

    2012 doi

  86. [94]

    Kuiper, G. P. 1935, PASP, 47, 15, doi: 10.1086/124531

    1935 doi

  87. [95]

    L., & Haugbølle, T

    Kuruwita, R. L., & Haugbølle, T. 2023, A&A, 674, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244882

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    Kwok, S., Volk, K., & Bidelman, W. P. 1997, ApJS, 112, 557, doi: 10.1086/313038

    1997 doi

  89. [97]

    Lada, C. J. 2006, ApJL, 640, L63, doi: 10.1086/503158

    2006 doi

  90. [98]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  91. [99]

    F., Adams, F

    Ladd, E. F., Adams, F. C., Casey, S., et al. 1991, ApJ, 382, 555, doi: 10.1086/170742

    1991 doi

  92. [100]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/44

    Lane, J., Kirk, H., Johnstone, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/44

    2016 doi

  93. [101]

    M., Lattanzi, M

    Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 735, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735

    2008 doi

  94. [102]

    S., et al

    Lawrence, A., Rowan-Robinson, M., Ellis, R. S., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02593.x

    1999

  95. [103]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    2007

  96. [104]

    J., Goes, C., et al

    Lebouteiller, V., Barry, D. J., Goes, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/21

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    T., Offner, S

    Lee, A. T., Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., Smullen, R. A., & Li, P. S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab584b

    2019 doi

  98. [106]

    W., & Myers, P

    Lee, C. W., & Myers, P. C. 1999, ApJS, 123, 233, doi: 10.1086/313234

    1999 doi

  99. [107]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd5b

    Lee, J.-E., Matsumoto, T., Kim, H.-J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd5b

    2023 doi

  100. [108]

    1993, A&A, 278, 129

    Leinert, C., Zinnecker, H., Weitzel, N., et al. 1993, A&A, 278, 129

    1993

  101. [109]

    A., & Barret, D

    Lin, D., Webb, N. A., & Barret, D. 2012, ApJ, 756, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/27

    2012 doi

  102. [110]

    L., & Silvotti, R

    Lodieu, N., P´ erez-Garrido, A., Smart, R. L., & Silvotti, R. 2019, A&A, 628, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935533

    2019 doi

  103. [111]

    F., D’Alessio, P., Wilner, D

    Loinard, L., Rodr´ ıguez, L. F., D’Alessio, P., Wilner, D. J., & Ho, P. T. P. 2002, ApJL, 581, L109, doi: 10.1086/345940

    2002 doi

  104. [112]

    J., Harsono, D., et al

    Long, F., Herczeg, G. J., Harsono, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2d2d L´ opez-Valdivia, R., Sokal, K. R., Mace, G. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1a7b

    2019 doi

  105. [113]

    W., Hoare, M

    Lucas, P. W., Hoare, M. G., Longmore, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 136, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13924.x

    2008

  106. [114]

    Luhman, K. L. 2006, ApJ, 645, 676, doi: 10.1086/504073

    2006 doi

  107. [115]

    Luhman, K. L. 2023, AJ, 165, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9da3

    2023 doi

  108. [116]

    2010, ApJS, 186, 111, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/1/111

    Calvet, N. 2010, ApJS, 186, 111, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/1/111

    2010 doi

  109. [117]

    L., Whitney, B

    Luhman, K. L., Whitney, B. A., Meade, M. R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1180, doi: 10.1086/505572

    2006 doi

  110. [118]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66d9

    Luo, Q.-y., Liu, T., Tatematsu, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66d9

    2022 doi

  111. [119]

    T., Bell, G

    Mairs, S., Dempsey, J. T., Bell, G. S., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac18bf

    2021 doi

  112. [120]

    Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805

    2021 doi

  113. [121]

    A., Kirk, J

    Marsh, K. A., Kirk, J. M., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw301

    2016 doi

  114. [122]

    V., Paladini, R., et al

    Marton, G., T´ oth, L. V., Paladini, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw398

    2016 doi

  115. [123]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 2522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1301

    Marton, G., ´Abrah´ am, P., Szegedi-Elek, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1301

    2019 doi

  116. [124]

    2024, A&A, 688, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450032

    Marton, G., Gezer, I., Madar´ asz, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450032

    2024 doi

  117. [125]

    A., & Watson, R

    McDonald, I., Zijlstra, A. A., & Watson, R. A. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1433

    2017 doi

  118. [126]

    T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al

    Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/5

    2016 doi

  119. [127]

    1994, ApJ, 436, 800, doi: 10.1086/174956

    Tamura, M. 1994, ApJ, 436, 800, doi: 10.1086/174956

    1994 doi

  120. [128]

    1990, IRAS Faint Source Catalogue, 0

    Moshir, M., & et al. 1990, IRAS Faint Source Catalogue, 0

    1990

  121. [129]

    J., Genova, F., et al

    Motch, C., Carrera, F. J., Genova, F., et al. 2016,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: IX/48. Originally published in: Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems XXV, in press (2016)

    2016

  122. [130]

    2001, A&A, 365, 440, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000072

    Motte, F., & Andr´ e, P. 2001, A&A, 365, 440, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000072

    2001 doi

  123. [131]

    M., van Dishoeck, E

    Murillo, N. M., van Dishoeck, E. F., Tobin, J. J., & Fedele, D. 2016, A&A, 592, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628247

    2016 doi

  124. [132]

    B., Ohashi, S., et al

    Nakatani, R., Liu, H. B., Ohashi, S., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8eaa 41 Niels Bohr Institute, Institute of Astronomy, C., & Real Instituto y Observatorio de La Armada. 2014,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/327. Originally published in: Observations f...

    2020 doi

  125. [133]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169

    2000 doi

  126. [134]

    Ofek, E. O. 2008, PASP, 120, 1128, doi: 10.1086/592456

    2008 doi

  127. [135]

    Offner, S. S. R., & Arce, H. G. 2014, ApJ, 784, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/61

    2014 doi

  128. [136]

    Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., Krumholz, M. R., & Klein, R. I. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1485, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1485

    2010 doi

  129. [137]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  130. [138]

    1996, ApJ, 466, 317, doi: 10.1086/177512

    Ohashi, N., Hayashi, M., Kawabe, R., & Ishiguro, M. 1996, ApJ, 466, 317, doi: 10.1086/177512

    1996 doi

  131. [139]

    J., Jørgensen, J

    Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd384 O’Neill, B. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.12464, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.12464 ¨Opik, E. 1924, Publications of the Tartu Astrofizica Observatory, 25, 1 Ortiz-Le´ on, G. N., ...

    2023 doi arXiv

  132. [140]

    G., Collins, K

    Paegert, M., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.04778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.04778

    2021 doi arXiv

  133. [141]

    2018, ApJS, 236, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabe2d

    Paine, J., Darling, J., & Truebenbach, A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabe2d

    2018 doi

  134. [142]

    M., Reid, I

    Patience, J., Ghez, A. M., Reid, I. N., & Matthews, K. 2002, AJ, 123, 1570, doi: 10.1086/338431

    2002 doi

  135. [143]

    T., Lee, C

    Phuong, N. T., Lee, C. W., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.07212, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.07212 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116474 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N....

    2025 doi arXiv

  136. [144]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  137. [145]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2179

    Ragusa, E., Fasano, D., Toci, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2179

    2021 doi

  138. [146]

    M., Stauffer, J

    Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Cody, A. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 273, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab893c

    2020 doi

  139. [147]

    M., Padgett, D

    Rebull, L. M., Padgett, D. L., McCabe, C.-E., et al. 2010, ApJS, 186, 259, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/2/259

    2010 doi

  140. [148]

    M., Connelley, M

    Reipurth, B., Guimar˜ aes, M. M., Connelley, M. S., & Bally, J. 2007, AJ, 134, 2272, doi: 10.1086/523596

    2007 doi

  141. [149]

    2012, Nature, 492, 221, doi: 10.1038/nature11662

    Reipurth, B., & Mikkola, S. 2012, Nature, 492, 221, doi: 10.1038/nature11662

    2012 doi

  142. [150]

    C., Heathcote, S., Bally, J., & Rodr´ ıguez, L

    Reipurth, B., Yu, K. C., Heathcote, S., Bally, J., & Rodr´ ıguez, L. F. 2000, AJ, 120, 1449, doi: 10.1086/301510

    2000 doi

  143. [151]

    K., Tobin, J

    Reynolds, N. K., Tobin, J. J., Sheehan, P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcc02

    2021 doi

  144. [152]

    K., Tobin, J

    Reynolds, N. K., Tobin, J. J., Sheehan, P. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad151d Ribas, ´A., Espaillat, C. C., Mac´ ıas, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e99

    2024 doi

  145. [153]

    C., Dupuy, T

    Rizzuto, A. C., Dupuy, T. J., Ireland, M. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2020, ApJ, 889, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5aed

    2020 doi

  146. [154]

    E., Ansdell, M., Oelkers, R

    Rodriguez, J. E., Ansdell, M., Oelkers, R. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c78

    2017 doi

  147. [155]

    F., Anglada, G., & Raga, A

    Rodriguez, L. F., Anglada, G., & Raga, A. 1995, ApJL, 454, L149, doi: 10.1086/309797

    1995 doi

  148. [156]

    2010, AJ, 139, 2440, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2440

    Roeser, S., Demleitner, M., & Schilbach, E. 2010, AJ, 139, 2440, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2440

    2010 doi

  149. [157]

    1991, MNRAS, 253, 485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/253.3.485

    Leech, K. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/253.3.485

    1991 doi

  150. [158]

    L., Mizuno, D

    Ryan, E. L., Mizuno, D. R., Shenoy, S. S., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321375

    2015 doi

  151. [159]

    I., & Stahler, S

    Sadavoy, S. I., & Stahler, S. W. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1061

    2017 doi

  152. [160]

    I., Di Francesco, J., Bontemps, S., et al

    Sadavoy, S. I., Di Francesco, J., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1247, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1247

    2010 doi

  153. [161]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651

    Salvato, M., Buchner, J., Budav´ ari, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651

    2018 doi

  154. [162]

    J., Brown, J

    Salyk, C., Herczeg, G. J., Brown, J. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/21

    2013 doi

  155. [163]

    E., et al

    Sana, H., de Koter, A., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219621

    2013 doi

  156. [164]

    B., Lacour, S., et al

    Sana, H., Le Bouquin, J. B., Lacour, S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/15

    2014 doi

  157. [165]

    W., Wang, J

    Sanghi, A., Xuan, J. W., Wang, J. J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad769f

    2024 doi

  158. [166]

    J., Maddox, S

    Saunders, W., Sutherland, W. J., Maddox, S. J., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 55, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03528.x

    2000

  159. [167]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., & Green, G. M. 2019, ApJS, 240, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafbea

    2019 doi

  160. [168]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  161. [169]

    2010, MNRAS, 409, 1557, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17397.x 42 Schr¨ oder, A

    Scholz, A., Wood, K., Wilner, D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1557, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17397.x 42 Schr¨ oder, A. C., van Driel, W., & Kraan-Korteweg, R. C. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3022

    2010

  162. [170]

    J., Xue, R., & Fourkas, A

    Sheehan, P., Tobin, J. J., Xue, R., & Fourkas, A. 2025,, v1.3.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17603063

    2025 doi

  163. [171]

    D., & Eisner, J

    Sheehan, P. D., & Eisner, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9990

    2017 doi

  164. [172]

    D., Tobin, J

    Sheehan, P. D., Tobin, J. J., Federman, S., Megeath, S. T., & Looney, L. W. 2020, ApJ, 902, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad5

    2020 doi

  165. [173]

    D., Tobin, J

    Sheehan, P. D., Tobin, J. J., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a3b

    2022 doi

  166. [174]

    S., Whittet, D

    Shenoy, S. S., Whittet, D. C. B., Ives, J. A., & Watson, D. M. 2008, ApJS, 176, 457, doi: 10.1086/533532

    2008 doi

  167. [175]

    M., Leinert, C., et al

    Simon, M., Ghez, A. M., Leinert, C., et al. 1995, ApJ, 443, 625, doi: 10.1086/175554

    1995 doi

  168. [176]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708 Spitzer Science Center (SSC), & Infrared Science Archive (IRSA). 2021,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/368. Originally published in: Spitzer Science Center (SSC), IRSA (2021)

    2021 doi

  169. [177]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  170. [178]

    A., Davis, M., Yahil, A., & Huchra, J

    Strauss, M. A., Davis, M., Yahil, A., & Huchra, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 361, 49, doi: 10.1086/169166

    1990 doi

  171. [179]

    Sullivan, K., & Kraus, A. L. 2022, ApJ, 928, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5744

    2022 doi

  172. [180]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/1

    Takakuwa, S., Saito, M., Saigo, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/1

    2014 doi

  173. [181]

    2010, A&A, 519, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913475

    Takita, S., Kataza, H., Kitamura, Y., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913475

    2010 doi

  174. [182]

    1998, ApJL, 507, L71, doi: 10.1086/311671

    Brundage, M. 1998, ApJL, 507, L71, doi: 10.1086/311671

    1998 doi

  175. [183]

    F., et al

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141380

    2022 doi

  176. [184]

    J., & Sheehan, P

    Tobin, J. J., & Sheehan, P. D. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 203, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103752

    2024 doi

  177. [185]

    J., Looney, L

    Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/73

    2016 doi

  178. [186]

    J., Looney, L

    Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae1f7

    2018 doi

  179. [187]

    J., Offner, S

    Tobin, J. J., Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36d2

    2022 doi

  180. [188]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    Tokovinin, A., & Moe, M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    2020 doi

  181. [189]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e9e

    Tokuda, K., Onishi, T., Saigo, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e9e

    2017 doi

  182. [190]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9a

    Tokuda, K., Harada, N., Omura, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9a

    2024 doi

  183. [191]

    L., Denneau, L., Flewelling, H., et al

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Flewelling, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386

    2018 doi

  184. [192]

    W., & Quinn, S

    Torres, G., Latham, D. W., & Quinn, S. N. 2021, ApJ, 921, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1585 T´ oth, L. V., Marton, G., Zahorecz, S., et al. 2014, PASJ, 66, 17, doi: 10.1093/pasj/pst017

    2021 doi

  185. [193]

    A., et al

    Tranin, H., Blagorodnova, N., G´ omez-Mu˜ noz, M. A., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A284, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556896

    2026 doi

  186. [194]

    1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    1999 doi arXiv

  187. [195]

    L., Kammerer, J., Ireland, M

    Wallace, A. L., Kammerer, J., Ireland, M. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2434

    2020 doi

  188. [196]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  189. [197]

    J., & Hillenbrand, L

    White, R. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2004, ApJ, 616, 998, doi: 10.1086/425115

    2004 doi

  190. [198]

    A., Wood, K., Bjorkman, J

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

    2003 doi

  191. [199]

    Wilson, E. B. 1927, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22, 209, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953

    1927

  192. [200]

    G., Henry, T

    Winters, J. G., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc

    2019 doi

  193. [201]

    Stapelfeldt, K. R. 2008, ApJL, 674, L101, doi: 10.1086/529188

    2008 doi

  194. [202]

    Young, C. H. 2007, AJ, 133, 1560, doi: 10.1086/511959

    2007 doi

  195. [203]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 437, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae022

    Yamaguchi, M., Muto, T., Tsukagoshi, T., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 437, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae022

    2024 doi

  196. [204]

    2010,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/298

    Yamamura, I., Makiuti, S., Ikeda, N., et al. 2010,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/298. Originally published in: ISAS/JAXA (2010)

    2010

  197. [205]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac952b

    Yang, H., Hare, J., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac952b

    2022 doi

  198. [206]

    H., Shirley, Y

    Young, C. H., Shirley, Y. L., Evans, II, N. J., & Rawlings, J. M. C. 2003, ApJS, 145, 111, doi: 10.1086/345341

    2003 doi

  199. [207]

    2017, AJ, 153, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6196

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C., & Frouard, J. 2017, AJ, 153, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6196

    2017 doi

  200. [208]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/44

    2013 doi

  201. [209]

    G., Levine, S

    Zacharias, N., Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., et al. 2004, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 205, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 48.15

    2004

  202. [210]

    C., Best, W

    Zhang, Z., Liu, M. C., Best, W. M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab269 43

    2018 doi

  203. [211]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1154, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/005

    Zhong, J., L´ epine, S., Li, J., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1154, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/005

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.