Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Discovery of Jet-Bubble-Disk Interaction: Jet Feedback on a Protoplanetary Disk via an Expanding Bubble in WSB 52

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first direct evidence that a star's jet can feed back onto its own planet-forming disk, through an expanding bubble that is currently colliding with the disk.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting ALMA shell around WSB 52, but the 'interaction' claim leans on an assumed 3D alignment that isn't tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10121 v2 pith:AY7QNGFN submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Masataka Aizawa , Ryuta Orihara , Munetake Momose This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksstellarjetsjetfeedbackexpandingbubbleWSB52ALMAobservationsdiskdeformationmassloss
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 argues that a young star's jet has reached back and struck its own planet-forming disk. Reanalyzing ALMA maps of the 12CO (J=2–1) emission from the T Tauri star WSB 52, the authors identify an expanding bubble of gas whose center lies on the disk axis, a concave shock boundary where the bubble meets the disk, and a gas disk that is visibly deformed and shows high-velocity gas exceeding the local escape speed. They name this chain the 'jet-bubble-disk interaction' and propose it as a new, direct form of jet feedback on protoplanetary disks. If the interpretation is right, jets do more than drain angular momentum from disks; they can also reshape, heat, and strip the disk material from which planets form.

What carries the argument

The central object is the expanding bubble model: a shell expanding radially from a center (xbubble, ybubble) at speed ububble = 12.5 km/s, with line-of-sight velocity vLOS = vsys,bubble + ububble (z/rbubble). This model fixes the bubble's three-dimensional location once one assumes its center lies on the disk axis, and it reproduces the observed shell-like channel maps as iso-velocity circles. The companion piece is the shock-boundary model, a power-law surface ζsurf(ρ) = hshock (ρ/1 arcsec)^a + ζ0 that joins the bubble sphere at an intersection angle and produces the concave contour seen on the star side. A Keplerian disk mask provides the baseline against which the disk's deformation and super-escape-velocity gas are judged. Together these models convert channel-by-channel CO images into a single geometrical story: jet, then expanding bubble, then shock, then a deformed and losing disk.

What would settle it

A decisive observation would be a multi-epoch ALMA map of WSB 52: if the bubble's rim is genuinely expanding at about 12.5 km/s around the claimed center and the disk deformation grows or shifts accordingly, the interaction scenario survives; if the apparent shell is static or merely traces unrelated cloud gas, the claim fails. Alternatively, a scattered-light image that places the bubble center off the disk axis would refute the geometric construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors report the first evidence that a stellar jet can directly feed back onto its own protoplanetary disk through an intervening expanding bubble. In WSB 52 they identify a nearly spherical, uniformly expanding bubble with radius about 5.5 arcsec (roughly 750 au), expansion velocity 12.5 km/s, and kinetic energy about (0.3–1.6)×$10^{41}$ erg, whose center is offset from the star by roughly 580 au under the assumed geometry. The disk axis points toward the bubble center, and the bubble's surface shows a concave indentation on the side facing the star, which the authors model as a shock boundary between the bubble and the stellar vicinity. The CO gas disk is deformed relative to a Keplerian model and contains velocity components up to about 18 km/s, above the estimated escape speed at 100 au, suggesting the bubble is stripping mass from the disk. The authors conclude that jets, aligned with the disk axis, inflated the bubble and that the bubble is now colliding with the outer disk—the 'jet-bubble-disk interaction.'

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the bubble center lies exactly on the disk axis in three dimensions; if it does not, the derived depth of the star, the 580-au separation, and the apparent alignment between the bubble and disk all collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scenario is correct, jets are not only accretion byproducts; they can directly deform and strip mass from the outer regions of the very disk that feeds them.
  • Disk deformation will be most visible in tenuous gas at large radii while the compact dusty disk remains undisturbed, so gas-dust comparisons become a diagnostic of such events.
  • The observed high-velocity CO gas implies ongoing mass loss, so jet-triggered bubbles can shorten the disk's lifetime and reduce its planet-building material budget.
  • The event's apparent rarity among the DSHARP targets motivates targeted searches for similar bubbles around young stars with high accretion rates, where jet outbursts are more powerful.
  • Follow-up CO isotope and molecular-line observations could reveal the temperature, density, and chemical changes expected at a shock front, providing independent evidence of the interaction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not pursue is to measure the bubble's three-dimensional motion directly with multi-epoch ALMA observations; a limb expanding at about 12.5 km/s toward the star would confirm the returning-flow geometry, while a lack of inward motion would undermine it.
  • If the bubble center turns out not to lie on the disk axis, the same channel maps might be explained by chance superposition of unrelated cloud gas; a scattered-light image of the bubble in the near-infrared could provide an independent, geometry-free check.
  • The ram-pressure framework used here could be inverted: with a well-measured vertical displacement profile, the deformation becomes a probe of the disk's surface-density gradient, something the paper only sketches.
  • Repeated jet outbursts on roughly 10-year timescales would imply that jet-bubble-disk interactions are episodic, potentially imprinting multiple nested bubbles or repeated stripping events in older disks; searching for such nested shells in other sources would test this.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits ALMA 12CO (J=2-1) observations of the young stellar object WSB 52 and identifies three structures: a shell-like pattern interpreted as a uniformly expanding bubble offset from the star, a concave morphology near the star interpreted as a shock boundary between the bubble and the stellar vicinity, and a deformed protoplanetary disk with high-velocity gas. The authors model the bubble with a linear expansion velocity field, the shock boundary with an axisymmetric power-law surface, and the disk with a Keplerian mask. They combine these to propose a new mechanism, the 'jet-bubble-disk interaction', in which past jet activity drives an expanding bubble that collides with and deforms the protoplanetary disk. The paper includes public data products, a reproducible Keplerian-mask code, and analytical expressions for the model contours.

Significance. If the central interpretation is correct, this would be the first reported case of direct jet feedback on a protoplanetary disk through an expanding bubble, with implications for disk evolution, vertical structure, and mass loss. The paper is clearly written and offers a coherent set of analytical models supported by the ALMA data release. The main strengths are the transparent presentation of the bubble expansion model, the analytical shock-boundary solution in Appendix B, the order-of-magnitude energy budget, and the availability of data and code. However, the central claim rests on a geometric assumption that is stated rather than tested: that the bubble center lies on the disk axis in three-dimensional space. This assumption is used to derive the star's depth, the separation of 580 au, and the axis alignment that constitute the evidence for interaction, so the significance of the paper hinges on whether this assumption can be independently justified or constrained.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1-3.2, Eq. (5)] The load-bearing geometric premise, that the bubble center lies on the disk axis in three-dimensional space, is asserted rather than derived: Sec. 3.1 states 'We thus assume that the bubble center to be on the line of the disk axis in determining (xbubble, ybubble)', and Eq. (5) then uses that same assumption to compute z_star, the 580 au separation, and the statement that the disk axis points toward the bubble center. Because the later shock-boundary model and the interaction geometry are constructed in the (xi, eta, zeta) frame whose zeta-axis is defined by this assumption, an off-axis bubble center would reduce the apparent symmetry and alignment to a projection effect, and the derived star-inside-bubble geometry would no longer be supported. The paper gives no uncertainty on (xbubble, ybubble) and no test of an alternative off-axis geometry; I would like to see a fit in which z_star is a free parameter, or some other independent constraint, so that the alignment claim is not circular.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Appendix B] The shock-boundary model is numerically optimized by minimizing the sum of distances to manually selected points along the very concave feature it is introduced to explain. No goodness-of-fit statistic, residual map, or comparison against a simpler model (for example, a pure spherical bubble or a different surface shape) is reported. The statement that the model 'reasonably replicates' the observed morphology is therefore not a quantitative test of the interaction hypothesis; the model's success is partly built into the fitting procedure.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (20)-(21)] The quantitative model for disk deformation is in tension with the observational claim. Eq. (20) with the current bubble parameters gives a vertical displacement of only about 0.01 au, which the authors themselves call negligible, while Eq. (21) reaches 0.8 au only by adopting ad hoc early-phase parameters (rbubble = 30 au, Delta t = 20 yr, vrel = 7.5 km/s) with no observational justification that such an early phase occurred. Without evidence that plausible parameters can produce the observed deformation, the qualitative statement in Sec. 3.3 that the disk is deformed by the bubble remains unsupported.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The Keplerian-disk comparison is purely visual: dashed iso-velocity contours are overlaid on the channel maps, but no residuals, chi-square values, or systematic variation over the stated uncertainty in vsys,star (0.5-1.0 km/s) are provided. A quantitative model comparison is needed to demonstrate that the deviation is intrinsic disk deformation rather than an artifact of the assumed systemic velocity, disk height profile, or outer radius. The discussion of high-velocity gas would also benefit from an explicit test of whether those components can be separated from unrelated outflow or cloud emission.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'While stellar jets and outflows are fueled by accretion from disks, their direct influence on disks remain unexplored' should use the singular verb 'remains'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence 'We thus assume that the bubble center to be on the line of the disk axis' is ungrammatical; it should be 'We thus assume the bubble center to be on the line of the disk axis'.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The text states 'if i = 58.4 degrees' for the 580 au separation, but Table 1 lists the disk inclination as i = 54.4 degrees; please clarify which value is used in Eq. (5), since this changes z_star and the separation.
  4. [Fig. 2] The figure caption contains a local file path ('file:///Users/ryuta/mylab/...'), which should be removed before publication.
  5. [Appendix B] The word 'analtyical' in the appendix title is a typo and should be 'analytical'.
  6. [Sec. 4.1] The phrase 'it is reasonably that jets were more powerful in the past' should read 'it is reasonable that jets were more powerful in the past'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Bubble-disk interaction geometry is partly forced: the 3D alignment of the bubble center with the disk axis is assumed before Eq. 5, then used to place the star inside the bubble; the shock-boundary model is fitted to the same feature it is said to confirm.

  1. self definitional [Sec 3.1 (bubble model) and Sec 3.2, Eq. (5)]
    "Both the bubble and the concave structure appear symmetric with respect to the disk axis... Consequently, the disk axis seems to point toward the bubble center, not only in the sky plane but also in three-dimensional space. We thus assume that the bubble center to be on the line of the disk axis in determining (xbubble, ybubble). ... Under the assumption (b), we estimate the star's line-of-sight depth relative to the bubble center by using the disk inclination and the projected distance on the sky. Specifically... z⋆ = sqrt((x⋆ − xbubble)^2 + (y⋆ − ybubble)^2) / tan i"

    The paper's conclusion that 'the disk axis points toward the bubble center' in 3D and that the star lies inside the bubble (separation 580 au) is not derived from the data; it is the same assumption used to determine (xbubble, ybubble) and then to compute z⋆ via Eq. (5). The observed sky-plane symmetry motivates but does not fix the line-of-sight depth: the bubble center is fixed at z = 0 and the 3D alignment is imposed, after which Eq. (5) converts that assumed alignment into z⋆, and the resulting 'stellar location is within the bubble' is quoted as evidence for interaction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec 3.2 shock boundary model, Eqs. (6)-(13) and Table 2]
    "We optimize the shell models by comparing the predicted contours (xcontour(vLOS, ρ), ycontour(vLOS, ρ)) with the observed shock boundaries... We minimize this aggregate distance by adjusting the parameters of the bubble model... Our model reasonably replicates the observed shock boundary morphology, supporting our estimation of the stellar position."

    The shock-boundary model is numerically fitted to the very concave morphology it is then said to confirm, and it takes the assumed stellar position (z⋆ from Eq. 5) as a fixed input: the ζ-axis is defined to pass through the star and the bubble center, and d is computed from z⋆. The optimized parameters (hshock, a, ζ0, rbubble) are free, so agreement is by construction and cannot independently 'support' the stellar position or the 3D alignment; it only shows that an axisymmetric power-law surface with an offset can reproduce the chosen concave feature. No uncertainty or goodness-of-fit is given, so the confirmation loop is unfalsifiable within the paper.

full rationale

The paper's genuinely independent content is real: the expanding shell is fitted to the channel maps with a uniform-expansion model, the Keplerian model fails to match the observed disk morphology, and high-velocity gas near the disk is identified. Those pieces do not reduce to the interaction claim by construction. However, the central interaction geometry is partly forced. The 3D statement that the disk axis points toward the bubble center is first introduced as an assumption used in determining (xbubble, ybubble), then Eq. (5) uses that same assumption to compute z⋆, the 580 au star-bubble separation, and the star's location inside the bubble, which is then cited as suggesting an interaction. The shock-boundary model compounds this: it is optimized against the concave feature it is later said to validate, and it incorporates the assumed z⋆ as a fixed input, so its agreement cannot serve as independent confirmation of the stellar position. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the only author self-citations (Orihara et al. 2023 for the LTE column-density formula, and the authors' Keplerian-mask code) are not central to the novel claim. Weighing all this, the empirical discovery content is substantial, but one key 'prediction' (star inside bubble / aligned disk axis) reduces to the paper's own geometric assumption, and the shock-boundary 'confirmation' reduces to a fit of the feature it explains. This is partial circularity, so the score is 6 rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on seven explicit assumptions, fourteen fitted or hand-chosen parameters, and no independent external benchmark. The most concerning are the assumed bubble-disk axis alignment and the arbitrary earlier-phase parameters that make the deformation model match the data.

free parameters (14)
  • xbubble = 2.50 arcsec
    Sky-plane center of the expanding bubble model, found by visual optimization of iso-velocity circles against the CO channel maps (Sec 3.1).
  • ybubble = 1.90 arcsec
    Sky-plane center of the expanding bubble model, found by visual optimization in Sec 3.1.
  • rbubble = 5.5 arcsec (bubble model); 6.5 arcsec (shock model)
    Radius of the expanding bubble. Two values are adopted to bracket the observed shell width (Table 2, Secs 3.1 and 3.2).
  • vsys,bubble = -0.25 km/s
    Systemic line-of-sight velocity of the bubble model, fitted to the channel maps in Sec 3.1.
  • ububble = 12.5 km/s
    Radial expansion velocity of the bubble, fitted to the observed shell kinematics in Sec 3.1.
  • hshock = 0.18 arcsec
    Vertical scale of the shock boundary power-law surface, fitted numerically to the concave feature in Sec 3.2.
  • a = 2.14
    Steepness index of the shock boundary power law, fitted numerically in Sec 3.2.
  • zeta0 = -0.28 arcsec
    Vertical offset of the shock boundary apex from the star, fitted numerically in Sec 3.2; corresponds to about 38 au.
  • vsys,star = 3.9 km/s (uncertain by 0.5-1.0 km/s)
    Assumed systemic velocity of the star, based on channel maps with cloud contamination (Sec 3.3).
  • Disk flare height h0 and exponent p = h0 = 5 au, p = 1
    Fiducial parameters of the reference Keplerian flared disk model; not fitted to the deformed disk, but the disk deformation claim depends on this reference (Sec 3.3).
  • Sigma_disk = 1 g/cm2
    Assumed disk surface density in the ram-pressure deformation estimate (Sec 4.2, Eq 20).
  • vrel = 7.5 km/s
    Assumed relative velocity between the bubble center and the disk, used in the earlier-phase deformation model (Sec 4.2, Eq 21).
  • rbubble_early = 30 au
    Assumed bubble radius at the time of interaction in the earlier-phase model; chosen to make the predicted displacement observable (Sec 4.2).
  • dt_early = 20 yr
    Assumed interaction duration in the earlier-phase model, roughly equal to 30 au divided by vrel (Sec 4.2).
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Uniformly expanding spherical bubble with velocity profile u(r) = ububble (r / rbubble).
    Adopted as a simple kinematic model without a physical justification from jet-driven bubble simulations; used to predict shell radii at each velocity (Sec 3.1, Eq 1).
  • ad hoc to paper Bubble center lies on the disk axis in three-dimensional space.
    Assumed in Sec 3.1 to set (xbubble, ybubble) and in Eq 5 of Sec 3.2 to compute the star's depth relative to the bubble. This is the main premise supporting the claimed alignment.
  • ad hoc to paper Shock boundary is axisymmetric with height given by a power-law surface plus an offset, and the velocity on it is radial with constant amplitude.
    The power-law form (Eq 7) and velocity prescription (Eq 13) are chosen to match the concave morphology; the model is fit to the feature it is used to explain.
  • domain assumption 12CO emission is not fully optically thick, LTE applies, and the CO abundance relative to H2 is X = 1e-4.
    Appendix A uses these assumptions to convert 12CO intensities into column density, mass, and kinetic energy. The derived mass range depends directly on these choices.
  • domain assumption The compact high-velocity emission near the star at line-of-sight velocities up to about 18 km/s originates from disk material, not from the bubble, an unrelated outflow, or cloud contamination.
    Sec 3.3 interprets the 13 km/s < vLOS component as evidence of mass loss from the disk without showing a spatial separation from bubble or outflow emission.
  • domain assumption The bubble was inflated by a past stellar jet.
    The paper acknowledges in Sec 4.1 that the bubble's origin is uncertain, yet the 'jet-bubble-disk interaction' label and the conclusion in Sec 5 rely on this premise.
  • domain assumption The disk surface density and geometry used in the ram-pressure deformation model are representative.
    The deformation model in Sec 4.2 depends on assumed Sigma_disk, vflow, rbubble, and dt. The current-phase values give negligible displacement, and the earlier-phase model uses parameters chosen to make the displacement visible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of Jet-Bubble-Disk Interaction: Jet Feedback on a Protoplanetary Disk via an Expanding Bubble in WSB 52." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AY7QNGFN

@misc{pith2026250110121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of Jet-Bubble-Disk Interaction: Jet Feedback on a Protoplanetary Disk via an Expanding Bubble in WSB 52},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AY7QNGFN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10121}
}
abstract

While stellar jets and outflows are fueled by accretion from disks, their direct influence on disks remain unexplored. Here we revisit ALMA observations of $^{12}\mathrm{CO}\,(J=2-1)$ line emission for the young stellar object WSB 52. We identify an expanding bubble that interacts with its protoplanetary disk. Given that the disk axis points toward the bubble center and the kinetic energy of the bubble is roughly $10^{41}$ erg, we postulate that stellar jets, aligned with the disk axis, have triggered the bubble. The bubble morphology is consistent with uniform expansion with partial concavity, implying the bubble-disk interaction. Correspondingly, the shape and the velocity field of protoplanetary disk appear to be deformed and exhibit high-velocity components, suggesting strong interactions and mass loss from the disk. The discovery of jet feedback onto the disk via the bubble -- which we term the jet-bubble-disk interaction -- sheds new light on the dynamical processes governing star and planet formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10121 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Channel maps for 12CO(2-1) emission of WSB 52. Selected 36 channel maps with velocity spacing of 1.05 km/s are shown. The line-of-sight velocities are shown in the upper left. The white line in each chan￾nel delineates the iso-velocity contour of the expanding bubble model with (xbubble, ybubble, rbubble, ububble, vsys,bubble) = (2.50 arcsec, 1.90 arcsec, 5.5 arcsec, 12.5 km/s, −0.25 km/s). In the first panel, a zoo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of proposed models explaining data. The upper left panel shows the illustration before the initiation of the explosion. The upper right panel illustrates the current state of the system, and the lower panel presents the observed view. The configuration of the bubble and the shock boundary in panel (2b) corresponds to that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Close-up view of the shock boundary between the bubble and the star. Zoomed-in views of three selected channel maps from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (left) Illustration of the (ξ, η, ζ) coordinate system used to define the shock boundary model. (right) Side view of the shock boundary model. The parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Close-up view of deformed protoplanetary disk around WSB 52. Zoomed-in views of selected channel maps are presented in the upper six panels. The range of the color bar is limited to 0-3 mJy/beam. White dotted line in the channel maps denotes the iso-velocity contours o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vertical displacement for disk caused by bubble pressure versus disk surface density. The solid line assumes (vflow, rbubble, ∆t) = (5 km/s, 30 au, 20 yrs), while the dotted line assumes (vflow, rbubble, ∆t) = (12.5 km/s, 700 au, 50 yr). tem. This interaction suggests …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 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 Collabora...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  2. [2]

    2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13314

    Bae, J., Isella, A., Zhu, Z., et al. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13314

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 491, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    Bally, J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 491, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341 2016

  4. [4]

    R., & McCaughrean, M

    Bally, J., O’Dell, C. R., & McCaughrean, M. J. 2000, AJ, 119, 2919, doi: 10.1086/301385

    doi:10.1086/301385 2000

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJL, 815, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L15

    Banzatti, A., Pinilla, P., Ricci, L., et al. 2015, ApJL, 815, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L15

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/l15 2015

  6. [6]

    2023, Faraday Discussions, 245, 164, doi: 10.1039/D3FD00018D

    Bianchi, E., L´ opez-Sepulcre, A., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2023, Faraday Discussions, 245, 164, doi: 10.1039/D3FD00018D

    doi:10.1039/d3fd00018d 2023

  7. [7]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  8. [8]

    2015, The Astrophysical journal letters, 808, L3

    Brogan, C., P´ erez, L., Hunter, T., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical journal letters, 808, L3

    work page 2015

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0f17

    Cacciapuoti, L., Testi, L., Podio, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0f17

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2000, ApJL, 538, L151, doi: 10.1086/312814

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Casassus, S., Tobin, J., et al

    Cieza, L. A., Casassus, S., Tobin, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 535, 258, doi: 10.1038/nature18612

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2021

  5. [13]

    A., Teague, R., et al

    Czekala, I., Loomis, R. A., Teague, R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1430

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Anglada, G., Bl´ azquez-Calero, G., et al

    Diaz-Rodriguez, A. K., Anglada, G., Bl´ azquez-Calero, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b50

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Podio, L., Kaper, L., et al

    Ellerbroek, L. E., Podio, L., Kaper, L., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220635

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/51

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Cabrit, S., et al

    Frank, A., Ray, T. P., Cabrit, S., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 451–474, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch020 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, do...

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Jones, J

    Gardner, C. L., Jones, J. R., & Hodapp, K. W. 2016, ApJ, 830, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/113 16

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Klein, R

    Hansen, C. E., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Fisher, R. T. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/22

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb930

    Harada, N., Tokuda, K., Yamasaki, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb930

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 736, doi: 10.1086/176344 Haugbølle, T., Weber, P., Wielandt, D

    Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., & Ghandour, L. 1995, ApJ, 452, 736, doi: 10.1086/176344 Haugbølle, T., Weber, P., Wielandt, D. P., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1591

    1995 doi

  14. [22]

    1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed

    Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y. 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews, 1100–1153

    1985

  15. [23]

    2012, A&A Rv, 20, 55, doi: 10.1007/s00159-012-0055-y

    Hennebelle, P., & Falgarone, E. 2012, A&A Rv, 20, 55, doi: 10.1007/s00159-012-0055-y

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    W., & Chini, R

    Hodapp, K. W., & Chini, R. 2014, ApJ, 794, 169, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/169

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Dullemond, C

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

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

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dc3

    Ichikawa, T., Kido, M., Takaishi, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dc3

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Rosotti, G. P. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3185

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2016, in IOS Press, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in IOS Press, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 980, doi: 10.1086/308594

    Koyama, H., & Inutsuka, S.-I. 2000, ApJ, 532, 980, doi: 10.1086/308594

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Stapelfeldt, K

    Krist, J. E., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Hester, J. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1980, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/1980

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Burrows, C

    Krist, J. E., Burrows, C. J., Stapelfeldt, K. R., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 447, doi: 10.1086/304056

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Stapelfeldt, K

    Krist, J. E., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Burrows, C. J., et al. 1999, ApJL, 515, L35, doi: 10.1086/311961

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A Rv, 28, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-0123-7

    Lee, C.-F. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-0123-7

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 314, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0680-0

    Lee, J.-E., Lee, S., Baek, G., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 314, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0680-0

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, ApJL, 640, L187, doi: 10.1086/503419

    Li, Z.-Y., & Nakamura, F. 2006, ApJL, 640, L187, doi: 10.1086/503419

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Machida, M. N. 2014, ApJL, 796, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/796/1/L17

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    G., & Shirley, Y

    Mangum, J. G., & Shirley, Y. L. 2015, PASP, 127, 266, doi: 10.1086/680323

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    S., & Federrath, C

    Mathew, S. S., & Federrath, C. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2338

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 2000, ApJ, 545, 364, doi: 10.1086/317785

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  34. [42]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  35. [43]

    2007, ApJ, 662, 395, doi: 10.1086/517515

    Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2007, ApJ, 662, 395, doi: 10.1086/517515

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    2006, A&A, 452, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054706

    Natta, A., Testi, L., & Randich, S. 2006, A&A, 452, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054706

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    1980, ApJ, 238, 158, doi: 10.1086/157969 ¨Oberg, K

    Norman, C., & Silk, J. 1980, ApJ, 238, 158, doi: 10.1086/157969 ¨Oberg, K. I., Guzm án, V. V., Walsh, C., et al. 2021, ApJS, in press. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.06268 O’Dell, C. R., Wen, Z., & Hu, X. 1993, ApJ, 410, 696, doi: 10.1086/172786

    1980 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Offner, S. S. R., & Chaban, J. 2017, ApJ, 847, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8996

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/131

    Ohashi, N., Saigo, K., Aso, Y., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/131

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Jørgensen, J

    Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd384

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 424, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad009

    Orihara, R., Momose, M., Muto, T., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 424, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad009

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    J., & Hester, J

    Ouellette, N., Desch, S. J., & Hester, J. J. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1268, doi: 10.1086/518102

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    Pyo, T.-S., Hayashi, M., Takami, M., & Beck, T. L. 2024, ApJ, 963, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1f59

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    2001, ARA&A, 39, 403, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.403

    Reipurth, B., & Bally, J. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 403, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.403

    2001 doi

  45. [53]

    2014, Nature, 507, 78, doi: 10.1038/nature13000

    Sakai, N., Sakai, T., Hirota, T., et al. 2014, Nature, 507, 78, doi: 10.1038/nature13000

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, 1029

    Lee, T. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, 1029

    2001

  47. [55]

    H., Shang, H., & Lee, T

    Shu, F. H., Shang, H., & Lee, T. 1996, Science, 271, 1545

    1996

  48. [56]

    N., Shang, H., et al

    Tafalla, M., Su, Y. N., Shang, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629493

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Schneider, P

    Takami, M., G¨ unther, H. M., Schneider, P. C., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9afc

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    2020, richteague/keplerian mask: Initial Release, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4321137

    Teague, R. 2020, richteague/keplerian mask: Initial Release, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4321137

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    N., & ichiro Inutsuka, S

    Tsukamoto, Y., Machida, M. N., & ichiro Inutsuka, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2b2f van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 17

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    P., & Cieza, L

    Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102548

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/1

    Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., Ohashi, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/1

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., et al

    Zapata, L. A., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., et al. 2015, ApJL, 811, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L4

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.