Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Corona-Australis star-forming region: New insights on its formation history from detailed stellar and disk analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single supernova may explain Corona Australis's twin clusters.

desk verdict Useful data paper with a clearly labeled speculative formation scenario; the load-bearing assumption is an unobserved 15 Msun progenitor. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19757 v1 pith:D5KKEGFI submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Elisabetta Rigliaco , Raffaele Gratton , Valerio Nascimbeni This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords starformationhistoryCoronaAustralissupernova-triggeredyoungstellarobjectscircumstellardisksGaiaastrometrymultiplicityRXJ1856.5-3754
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

The paper uses Gaia astrometry, infrared photometry, and disk classifications to reconstruct how the Corona Australis star-forming complex formed. It argues that the complex is not a single burst of star formation but a sequence: an older, unbound group (CrA-North, about 6.7 Myr) formed first, and about 3.72 Myr ago a supernova exploded just south of it, pushing the remaining gas cloud away at about 2.8 km/s and triggering the younger, still gas-bound group (CrA-Main, about 3 Myr). The same explosion may have produced the nearby pulsar RX J1856.5-3754. If correct, this would be one of the closest and cleanest examples of supernova-triggered star formation, tying the ages, kinematics, and disk fractions of the two clusters to a single event.

What carries the argument

Two geometric constraints carry the argument. First, expansion traceback: Gaia DR3 proper motions are used to rewind CrA-North stars to their most compact configuration (3.72 Myr ago) and to estimate when CrA-Main and CrA-North were closest (2.64 pc). Second, the momentum-transfer argument: the typical supernova momentum of about 25,000 solar-mass km/s can explain the CrA-Main cloud's observed 2.8 km/s motion only if the explosion occurred within about 2 pc of the cloud, since the intercepted fraction scales with the square of the distance. Together these place the explosion site south of CrA-North and identify the pulsar as a candidate remnant. Supporting tools include isochrone ages from c

What would settle it

Measure the three-dimensional velocity of the CrA-Main cloud and the full space motion of RX J1856.5-3754. If the pulsar's trajectory does not pass within a few parsecs of the predicted explosion point 3.72 Myr ago, or if the cloud is not receding from that point at about 2.8 km/s, the supernova-trigger scenario is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using Gaia DR3 proper motions, the authors rewind the CrA-North members and find that they were most compact 3.72 ± 0.01 Myr ago, the same epoch at which the centers of CrA-North and CrA-Main were at their minimum separation of 2.64 pc (estimated as 3.86 ± 0.23 Myr ago). They argue that a roughly 15-solar-mass star, formed in the same early episode as CrA-North but at the upper end of the expected 8–15 solar-mass range for a cluster of CrA-North's stellar mass, exploded as a supernova about 2 pc south of CrA-North's center at that time. Because the momentum a supernova can deliver to a cloud scales with the inverse square of distance, the explosion must have been this close to explain the ob

Load-bearing premise

The scenario requires that CrA-North once contained a star near the top of the expected mass range (about 15 solar masses) that exploded as a supernova about 3.72 Myr ago; this star is not directly observed, and its existence is inferred from the cluster's total stellar mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scenario is correct, the age difference between CrA-Main and CrA-North and their current separation are not coincidental: both follow from the same supernova event 3.72 Myr ago.
  • The low disk fraction in CrA-North (about 11%, versus 39% in CrA-Main, and about a third of other associations of similar age) is explained as environmental destruction by the massive star and its supernova, predicting a spatial gradient in disk survival.
  • The complex becomes a concrete example of sequential, supernova-triggered star formation in a small, isolated cloud, bridging the gap between massive OB associations and low-mass star-forming regions.
  • The pulsar RX J1856.5-3754, if it is the remnant, links a nearby neutron star to a specific parent cluster and supernova event, fixing its birth site and age.
  • CrA-Main should lose its gas within a few Myr and become unbound, providing an observable instance of infant mortality among clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test: measure the three-dimensional space motion of the CrA-Main cloud and of RX J1856.5-3754. If the pulsar's trajectory does not pass near the predicted explosion point 3.72 Myr ago, or the cloud is not receding from that point at about 2.8 km/s, the scenario fails.
  • If the interpretation generalizes, the 8–15 solar-mass stars that are common in small clusters may frequently dominate the dynamical evolution of their natal clouds, implying that supernova feedback operates at lower stellar masses than usually considered.
  • The predicted disk-survival gradient (fewer disks close to the explosion site) can be compared with photoevaporation and shock-destruction models, providing a quantitative calibration of disk lifetimes in hostile environments.
  • The same traceback approach applied to other clusters in the Sco-Cen chain could reveal whether similar supernova-triggered kicks explain the observed age gradients in those chains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a detailed census of the Corona Australis star-forming complex using Gaia DR3, 2MASS, WISE, and ALMA data, dividing it into CrA-Main and CrA-North. It derives interstellar absorption, stellar multiplicity, ages from CMD isochrone fitting, and disk fractions from SED slopes. It finds CrA-Main younger (~3 Myr) and bound, CrA-North older (~6.7 Myr), unbound, and expanding, with a traceback epoch of 3.72 Myr. The paper then proposes a formation scenario: an 18 Myr old 15 Msun star formed near UCL, a 7 Myr old episode created CrA-North, and a 3.72 Myr old supernova south of CrA-North kicked the cloud and triggered CrA-Main star formation, possibly producing the pulsar RX J1856.5-3754.

Significance. If correct, this would be a rare local example of sequential supernova-triggered star formation in an isolated cloud, with a possible neutron-star association. The paper's strengths are the careful multiwavelength stellar census, the explicit treatment of multiplicity completeness (Monte Carlo sensitivity maps), the SED-based disk classification with cross-checks against ALMA dust masses, and the transparent presentation of the traceback analysis. The disk-fraction results and the bound/unbound dichotomy are solid observational contributions independent of the speculative SN scenario. The proposed scenario is honestly labeled as an assumption, but it is used to build the main conclusion, so its evidentiary base needs strengthening.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3] The central claim depends on an unobserved 15 Msun progenitor in CrA-North. The paper states 'we might assume that a 15 Msun star exploded as a SN' and justifies it with the Weidner et al. (2010) expectation of 8-15 Msun for a 130 Msun association. This is a statistical upper-end assumption, not a detection. If the most massive star was below the core-collapse limit, there is no SN, no kick, and no trigger for CrA-Main. The 18 Myr formation epoch is derived by adding the 14.2 Myr PARSEC lifetime to the 3.72 Myr expansion age, so it is not independent evidence. Please replace this with a quantitative assessment: e.g., the probability that a 130 Msun association produced a star >8 Msun given the IMF, plus a search for observable relics (SNR, neutron star, runaway companion, chemical anomalies). As written, the Sec. 5 conclusion stating the 15 Msun star exploded overstates the support.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, momentum/geometry] The SN location 'about 2 pc south of CrA-North' is chosen to reproduce the observed relative motion of Main and North. The argument scales the intercepted momentum with the square of the SN-cloud distance and assumes a progenitor cloud radius of 1.5 pc. Both quantities are unconstrained: the current CrA-Main core radius is not necessarily the radius of the cloud 3.72 Myr ago, and the momentum fraction of 15% depends on the cloud structure and SN blast-wave geometry. The paper should show how the inferred SN position and the required kick vary over a plausible range of cloud radii (e.g., 0.5-3 pc) and SN momenta. Without this, the scenario is a fit, not a prediction.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4.2] The traceback epoch for CrA-North is quoted as 3.72 +/- 0.01 Myr from the minimum of the median distance. This formal uncertainty is unrealistically small because the method assumes free expansion, neglects the galactic potential and internal dynamics, and ignores systematic errors in proper motions and membership. The paper acknowledges these caveats, but then uses 3.72 Myr as an exact input to set the SN epoch and to match the pulsar age to 0.01 Myr. Please provide a more realistic systematic uncertainty and propagate it to the SN epoch and to the pulsar coincidence probability.
  4. [Sec. 5, pulsar RX J1856.5-3754] The claimed probability of chance coincidence (<1e-5) for the pulsar association is a posteriori and does not account for the fact that RX J1856.5-3754 is a well-known nearby neutron star already in the field. The paper's own argument that its high proper motion (332 mas/yr) places its birthplace far away if the spin-down age is correct is a serious tension. The proposed solution—recent disruption of a multiple system—is another unobserved element. The pulsar identification should be presented as a speculative aside with a corrected trials factor (e.g., the number of known neutron stars within ~10 pc), not as a supporting pillar of the formation scenario.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2] The rejection of 16 stars as 'clearly much older' non-members is described qualitatively; a quantitative criterion (e.g., distance above the 10 Myr isochrone in both CMDs) would aid reproducibility.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The adopted CrA-Main age of 3 +/- 1 Myr is strongly influenced by assigning 1 Myr to nine deeply embedded stars. This assumption should be explicitly flagged in Table 5 and in the abstract, where the age is quoted without this caveat.
  3. [Fig. 12] The dashed line (closest-neighbor distance) is multiplied by 15 to match the vertical scale; this is not indicated in the caption and makes the line visually misleading.
  4. [Appendix B] Table B.4 lists 'Ampl.' without units or a definition in the caption; some columns (e.g., S/N(PMa)) lack units. Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SN-trigger scenario is explicitly hypothetical, and its kinematic inputs (Gaia traceback age, relative motion, external pulsar data) are independent; no prediction reduces to a fit by construction.

full rationale

The central formation-history scenario rests on assumptions, but not on circular reductions. The 3.72 Myr epoch is measured from the Gaia proper-motion traceback of CrA-North (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 12), independently of the pulsar age; the paper even notes that RX J1856.5-3754's large proper motion initially argues against its membership. The SN position ~2 pc south of CrA-North is derived from the observed direction of CrA-Main's relative motion (Sec. 4.3, Fig. 13), not used as an input to generate that motion. The 15 Msun progenitor is explicitly an assumption ("we might assume that a 15 Msun star exploded as a SN", Sec. 4.3), and the 14.2 Myr + 3.72 Myr = ~18 Myr lifetime calculation is a consistency check with the external UCL encounter epoch, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The pulsar match is an external, falsifiable coincidence (position within ~8 pc and age within 0.01 Myr) that was not used to set the traceback epoch. Self-citations (e.g., Gratton et al. 2023b, 2024, 2025) are methodological, concerning binary-search techniques, and do not carry the formation-history claim. The paper repeatedly frames the scenario as provisional ("we propose", "If this interpretation is correct", "possible"), so the weakest link — existence of the 15 Msun star — is a limitation in evidentiary support, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central scenario rests on several unobserved or weakly constrained elements: a 15 M☉ SN progenitor (upper end of an expected range), a 1.5 pc cloud radius used to make a single SN within 1.9 pc sufficient to deliver the kick, a 1 Myr age assignment for nine embedded stars to fix the CrA-Main age, and an assumed original cloud mass of about 4000 M☉. The pulsar provides one independent external handle (spin-down age), but its high proper motion forces an additional invented disruption event.

free parameters (5)
  • Assigned age of 9 embedded CrA-Main stars = 1 Myr
    Stars without Gaia photometry are assigned age 1 Myr to correct for incompleteness; the adopted CrA-Main age of 3±1 Myr depends on this choice (Sec 3.3).
  • CrA-cloud core radius for SN momentum interception = 1.5 pc
    Adopted to compute the distance (1.9 pc) at which a SN must explode to supply 15% of its momentum; if the radius were larger the single-SN kick fails (Sec 4.3).
  • CrA-North progenitor mass (most massive star) = 15 M☉
    Assumed upper end of the Weidner et al. (2010) expectation (8-15 M☉); its 14.2 Myr lifetime plus 3.72 Myr gives the 18 Myr formation epoch (Sec 4.3).
  • Original CrA-complex cloud mass = ~4000 M☉ (factor 2)
    Assumed from CrA-Main star formation efficiency scaling; used in the kick and timing narrative (Appendix A).
  • Reddening law parameter RV = 4
    Cardelli et al. (1989) law with RV=4, checked marginal over 3-5; used for absorption and disk classification (Sec 3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry are accurate at the level assumed for membership, ages, and proper-motion traceback.
    Used throughout; RUWE >1.4 interpretation from Belokurov et al. (2020) (Sec 3.2.4).
  • domain assumption Baraffe et al. (2015) isochrones correctly reproduce colors and magnitudes of young low-mass stars in CrA.
    Age dating in Sec 3.3; authors note models may fail below 0.3 M☉.
  • domain assumption CrA-North expands freely, unaffected by self-gravity or the galactic potential, so the traceback minimum dates its dispersal.
    Acknowledged in Sec 4.2; if self-gravity slowed expansion, the 3.72 Myr epoch is not the true age.
  • domain assumption The momentum received by the cloud from a SN scales as the square of the ratio of cloud radius to SN distance, with all momentum within the cloud radius intercepted.
    Used to require the SN within about 1.9 pc (Sec 4.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The most massive star in a 130 M☉ association follows the Weidner et al. (2010) mass expectation.
    Used to assume a 15 M☉ progenitor that explodes as SN; central to the kick scenario (Sec 4.3).
  • domain assumption Pulsar spin-down age (3.72±0.06 Myr) equals the true age of RX J1856.5-3754.
    Spin-down ages can be biased; the coincidence with the expansion age is a key support for the SN scenario (Sec 5).
invented entities (2)
  • Progenitor SN star in CrA-North (roughly 15 M☉, exploded about 3.72 Myr ago about 2 pc south of CrA-North center) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the kick that separates CrA-Main from CrA-North and triggers star formation in CrA-Main; also candidate origin of RX J1856.5-3754.
    No direct remnant observed; the pulsar RX J1856.5-3754 is a candidate but has high proper motion inconsistent with a 3.72 Myr-old birthplace at CrA (about 1 kpc displacement); absence of extended SN remnant only bounds the explosion to more than 30 kyr ago (Sec 5).
  • Recent disruption of a multiple system involving RX J1856.5-3754
    purpose: Explains the pulsar's high proper motion while keeping it associated with the 3.72 Myr-old CrA SN.
    Invoked ad hoc to reconcile the pulsar association; no evidence of a companion or past multiplicity (Sec 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Corona-Australis star-forming region: New insights on its formation history from detailed stellar and disk analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5KKEGFI

@misc{pith2026250819757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Corona-Australis star-forming region: New insights on its formation history from detailed stellar and disk analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5KKEGFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19757}
}
read the original abstract

The star-forming complex of Corona Australis (CrA) is one of the closest and most isolated molecular clouds. It belongs to a chain of clusters that show age gradients with distance from the galactic plane. We aim to provide suggestions regarding its formation history by examining the stellar and disk populations, stellar multiplicity, and interstellar absorption. We made a census of stars and disks using Gaia DR3 and infrared data. Interstellar absorption in the direction of each star was derived by comparing SpTy from the literature and Gaia colors. Stellar multiplicity analysis accounts for both direct observation of visual companions (Gaia data and high-contrast imaging) and indirect detection of the presence of companions (eclipsing and spectroscopic binaries, and astrometry). The properties of the disks were obtained from the slopes of the spectral energy distributions. As found in previous studies, the CrA complex can be divided into two regions: a younger region (CrA-Main: 3+/-1Myr) and an older one (CrA-North: 6.7+/-0.3Myr), slightly younger than previously thought. While CrA-Main still appears bound to the gas, CrA-North is unbound and expanding. The stars that belong to CrA-North were in the most compact configuration 3.72Myr ago. At that time, CrA-Main and CrA-North were much closer to each other than they appear now. The fraction of disk-bearing stars is higher in Main than in North, as also expected due to the younger age of CrA-Main. We propose a formation history scenario for the CrA-complex. It started between 15 and 18 Myr ago with SNe explosions in the Upper Centaurus-Lupus complex, followed by a quiescent phase with little star formation. A star formation episode about 7Myr ago formed CrA-North stars. About 3.7Myr ago, a second SN explosion south of CrA-North triggered star formation in CrA-Main. This last SN might have been the origin of the pulsar RX J1856.5-3754.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surface density of stars in the CrA-complex as a function of distance from the center for CrA-Main (filled blue circles) and CrA￾North (open red squares). sensitive to stellar companions at a separation shorter than about a hundred au. 3.2.1. Visual binaries Wide visual companions (separation ą 0.7 arcsec) may be de￾tected either as separate entries in Gaia DR3 (but for stars with very high absorption), or by high-c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between masses for stars in the CrA complex and spectral types (from Esplin & Luhman 2022). Filled blue symbols are for stars in CrA-Main; open red symbols for those in CrA-North. The black line is the relation for old stars by Pecaut & Mamajek (2013); blue and red lines are the relations appropriate to Baraffe et al. (2015) isochrones of 3 and 8 Myr, respectively. The upper panel is for all stars; the lo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between masses for stars in the CrA complex de￾rived from the G - and H-band absolute magnitudes. The left panel is for CrA-Main and the right panel is for CrA-North. Solid lines mark identity. For many objects, the indication of the presence of compan￾ions comes from RUWE (49 objects with RUWEą1.4), or large RV variations (5 objects), or PMa (2 objects), or a combination of these techniques, for a total … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass function for primaries. CrA-Main primaries are shown with filled blue circles and CrA-North primaries are shown with open red squares. The solid line is the best log-normal fit curve; the dashed line is the canonical initial mass function discussed by Kroupa et al…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Detection efficiency of stellar and massive brown dwarf companions (log q ą ´1.5) for primaries more massive than 0.8 Md as a function of semimajor axis, a. Right panel: Detection efficiency for all companions of primaries more massive than 0.8 Md as a func…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of companions to the star from our sample in the semimajor axis (a) versus mass ratio (q) plane. Green diamonds are companions detected in imaging, magenta asterisks are astrometric bi￾naries, and purple open triangles are spectroscopic and eclipsing bina￾…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Observed frequency of companions in different bins of semi￾major axis a for stars in CrA-Main (filled blue circles) and CrA-North (open red squares). The different bins correspond to different discovery methods: ă 0.3 au: radial velocities (RV), eclipsing binaries (EB)…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Color magnitude diagrams for stars in the CrA-complex. The top panels show the (G, BP ´ RP) magnitudes and colors for Main and North, respectively. The bottom panels show the (H, G ´ H) magnitudes and colors. Filled symbols are for stars used for the age-dating of the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation between the α 1 value and the dust mass in the disks observed with ALMA by Cazzoletti et al. (2019). Blues circles are ac￾tual measures with ALMA, triangles are upper limits. The dashed lines separate the different categories of disks as labeled in [PITH_…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Proper motion along RA as a function of RA for members of CrA-North. The dashed line is the best fit line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Run of the median apparent separation on sky of members of CrA-North as a function of time (in the past). The solid line takes into consideration the distance to all other stars in CrA-North; the dashed line only takes into consideration the distance to the closest ne…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: we show in the top panel the position of the stars in CrA-North and CrA-Main as they appear now, and in the bot￾tom panel the position of CrA-North and CrA-Main as they ap￾peared 3.72 Myr ago. For CrA-Main we only plot the stars with ages older than 3.72 Myr, and the …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Age from isochrone fitting as a function of the α 1 value (defined as the slope of the SED between W1 and W3 bands, see Sect. 3.4) for stars with mass ą 0.075 Md belonging to CrA-Main (blue circles) and CrA-North (red open squares). The dashed lines separate the diffe…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Interstellar absorption (AG) as a function of the α 1 value (de￾fined as the slope of the SED between W1 and W3 bands, see Sect. 3.4) for stars with mass ą 0.075 Md belonging to CrA-Main (blue circles) and CrA-North (red open squares). The dashed lines separate the di…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Frequency of disks in nearby star-forming regions and young associations (as labeled) as a function of age. Gray symbols are from Pfalzner & Dincer (2024); the blue and red symbols are those we found for CrA-Main and CrA-North. The diameter of the symbols is propor￾ti…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Position on sky of stars in the CrA-complex 3.72 Myr ago rel￾ative to the center of CrA-North. Red open squares are the members of CrA-North. Cyan crosses are CrA-North stars that host long-living disks. Blue filled circles are members of CrA-Main older than 3.72 Myr.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Analysis of the young disk around WRAY 15-1880: does it contain a primitive planetary system?

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A candidate 0.3-7.6 MJup companion is reported in the gap of the ~2.8 Myr pre-transitional disk around WRAY 15-1880, with an ALMA blob interpreted as a vortex at the m=1 Lindblad resonance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2012, ApJ, 755, 22

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 22

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    2014, in Pro- tostars and Planets VI, ed

    Alexander, R., Pascucci, I., Andrews, S., Armitage, P., & Cieza, L. 2014, in Pro- tostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475–496

    2014

  3. [3]

    Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2014, A&A, 565, A18

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Ambartsumian, V . A. 1937, AZh, 14, 207

    work page 1937

  5. [5]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

    2015

  6. [6]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    Belokurov, V ., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    2020

  7. [7]

    D., et al

    Beuther, H., Gieser, C., Soler, J. D., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A81

    2024

  8. [8]

    Bogdanov, S. & Ho, W. C. G. 2024, ApJ, 969, 53

    work page 2024

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    G., Hartman, J

    Bouma, L. G., Hartman, J. D., Bhatti, W., Winn, J. N., & Bakos, G. Á. 2019, ApJS, 245, 13

    2019

  2. [10]

    2006, ApJ, 652, 1572

    Brandeker, A., Jayawardhana, R., Khavari, P., Haisch, Karl E., J., & Mardones, D. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1572

    2006

  3. [11]

    M., et al

    Bresnahan, D., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A125

    2018

  4. [12]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201 Cambrésy, L. 1999, A&A, 345, 965

    2020

  5. [13]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  6. [14]

    F., Liu, H

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

    2019

  7. [15]

    G., Bressan, A., et al

    Costa, G., Shepherd, K. G., Bressan, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A193 De Grandis, D., Rigoselli, M., Mereghetti, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4932

    2025

  8. [16]

    2005, PASJ, 57, S1

    Dobashi, K., Uehara, H., Kandori, R., et al. 2005, PASJ, 57, S1

    2005

  9. [17]

    Esplin, T. L. & Luhman, K. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 64

    2022

  10. [18]

    Feiden, G. A. 2016, A&A, 593, A99 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A34 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A1

    2016

  11. [19]

    Galli, P. A. B., Bouy, H., Olivares, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A98

    2020

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 685, A119

    Gratton, R., Bonavita, M., Mesa, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A119

    2024

  13. [21]

    2025, A&A, 694, A175

    Gratton, R., Bonavita, M., Mesa, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A175

    2025

  14. [22]

    Green, D. A. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 14

    2025

  15. [23]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 736 Haugbølle, T., Padoan, P., & Nordlund, Å

    Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., & Ghandour, L. 1995, ApJ, 452, 736 Haugbølle, T., Padoan, P., & Nordlund, Å. 2018, ApJ, 854, 35

    1995

  16. [24]

    2023, A&A, 674, A10

    Holl, B., Sozzetti, A., Sahlmann, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A10

    2023

  17. [25]

    X., Vanderburg, A., Pál, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., Pál, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the Amer- ican Astronomical Society, 4, 204

    2020

  18. [26]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y .-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3383

    2022

  19. [27]

    2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 407

    Janka, H.-T. 2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 407

    2012

  20. [28]

    Kaplan, D. L. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V . M. Kaspi (AIP), 331–339

    2008

  21. [29]

    L., van Kerkwijk, M

    Kaplan, D. L., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Anderson, J. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1428

    2007

  22. [30]

    2022, A&A, 657, A7 Köhler, R., Neuhäuser, R., Krämer, S., et al

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thévenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7 Köhler, R., Neuhäuser, R., Krämer, S., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 997

    2022

  23. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07311

    Kroupa, P., Gjergo, E., Jerabkova, T., & Yan, Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07311

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Krumholz, M. R. & Tan, J. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304

    2007

  25. [33]

    Lada, C. J. 1987, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 115, Star Forming Regions, ed. M. Pe- imbert & J. Jugaku, 1

    1987

  26. [34]

    Lada, C. J. & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57

    2003

  27. [35]

    J., Muench, A

    Lada, C. J., Muench, A. A., Luhman, K. L., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1574

    2006

  28. [36]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2

    Lindegren, L., Hernández, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2

    2018

  29. [37]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3806 Neuhäuser, R

    Nardiello, D., Borsato, L., Piotto, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3806 Neuhäuser, R. & Forbrich, J. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, V ol- ume II, ed. B. Reipurth, V ol. 5 (ASP Monograph Series), 735

    2019

  30. [38]

    Oudmaijer, R. D. & Parr, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2439

    2010

  31. [39]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9

    2013

  32. [40]

    J., Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Bubar, E. J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 154

    2012

  33. [41]

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2437

    2022

  34. [42]

    E., Caratti o Garatti, A., Bourke, T

    Peterson, D. E., Caratti o Garatti, A., Bourke, T. L., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 43

    2011

  35. [43]

    & Dincer, F

    Pfalzner, S. & Dincer, F. 2024, ApJ, 963, 122

    2024

  36. [44]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Pokhrel, R., Gutermuth, R. A., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, L19

    2021

  37. [45]

    2025, A&A, 693, A175

    Posch, L., Alves, J., Miret-Roig, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A175

    2025

  38. [46]

    2023, A&A, 679, L10

    Posch, L., Miret-Roig, N., Alves, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, L10

    2023

  39. [47]

    2009, A&A, 496, 533

    Posselt, B., Neuhäuser, R., & Haberl, F. 2009, A&A, 496, 533

    2009

  40. [48]

    A., Batten, A

    Pourbaix, D., Tokovinin, A. A., Batten, A. H., et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 727 Ratzenböck, S., Großschedl, J. E., Alves, J., et al. 2023a, A&A, 678, A71 Ratzenböck, S., Großschedl, J. E., Möller, T., et al. 2023b, A&A, 677, A59

    2004

  41. [49]

    Reynolds, J. H. 1916, MNRAS, 76, 645

    1916

  42. [50]

    Reynolds, S. P. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 89

    2008

  43. [51]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  44. [52]

    2023, A&A, 671, A82

    Rigliaco, E., Gratton, R., Ceppi, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A82

    2023

  45. [53]

    S., & Richards, J

    Shivvers, I., Bloom, J. S., & Richards, J. W. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 343

    2014

  46. [54]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 137

    Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Henning, T., Kainulainen, J., & Roccatagliata, V . 2011, ApJ, 736, 137

    2011

  47. [55]

    2013, A&A, 551, A34

    Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Henning, T., Linz, H., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A34

    2013

  48. [56]

    2012, in From Atoms to Pebbles: Herschel’s view of Star and Planet Formation, 29

    Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Henning, T., Linz, H., Krause, O., & André, P. 2012, in From Atoms to Pebbles: Herschel’s view of Star and Planet Formation, 29

    2012

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Sissa, E., Gratton, R., Alcalà, J. M., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A132

    2019

  50. [58]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  51. [59]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1381

    Squicciarini, V ., Gratton, R., Bonavita, M., & Mesa, D. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1381

    2021

  52. [60]

    L., & Pauldrach, A

    Sternberg, A., Hoffmann, T. L., & Pauldrach, A. W. A. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1333

    2003

  53. [61]

    2024, Nature, 631, 49

    Swiggum, C., Alves, J., Benjamin, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 631, 49

    2024

  54. [62]

    Taylor, K. N. R. & Storey, J. W. V . 1984, MNRAS, 209, 5P

    1984

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 6 van Kerkwijk, M

    Tokovinin, A. 2018, ApJS, 235, 6 van Kerkwijk, M. H. & Kulkarni, S. R. 2001, A&A, 380, 221 Vaˇnko, M., Ammler-von Eiff, M., Pribulla, T., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2230

    2018

  56. [64]

    & Naab, T

    Walch, S. & Naab, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757

    2015

  57. [65]

    Walter, F. M. & Lattimer, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 576, L145

    2002

  58. [66]

    Weidner, C., Kroupa, P., & Bonnell, I. A. D. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 275

    2010

  59. [67]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  60. [68]

    T., Wang, J

    Xie, J. T., Wang, J. B., Wang, N., Manchester, R., & Hobbs, G. 2024, ApJ, 963, L39

    2024

  61. [69]

    Technique

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A51 Article number, page 15 of 19 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa55158-25 Appendix A: Mass budget of the CrA-complex The CrA-complex is made of two components: CrA-Main and CrA-North. CrA-Main is made of stars a...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.