Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

A complete Herbig disk mass survey in Orion

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents the first complete census of Herbig disks in a single star-forming region, showing that their median dust mass is 11.7 Earth masses and that about half are more massive than 10 Earth masses—while T Tauri disk surveys…

desk verdict First complete Herbig disk mass census in one region, with a credible mass comparison to T Tauri disks; the UV-slope claim is softer than the abstract suggests and the 'complete' label rests on parent catalog completeness. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08959 v1 pith:IJI5KMLX submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

L. M. Stapper , M. R. Hogerheijde , E. F. van Dishoeck , A. S. Booth , S. L. Grant , S. E. van Terwisga This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords HerbigAe/BestarsprotoplanetarydisksdustmasssurveyOrionstar-formingregionNOEMAALMATTaurigiantplanetformation
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 sets out to answer whether Herbig disks—the planet-forming disks around intermediate-mass stars—are genuinely more massive than disks around lower-mass T Tauri stars, or whether earlier ALMA samples were biased toward the brightest objects. It does this by carrying out the first complete millimeter survey of every known Herbig disk in a single region, Orion, using new NOEMA observations of 25 disks combined with archival ALMA data for 10 more. The paper claims that the Herbig disks have a median dust mass of 11.7 Earth masses and that roughly half exceed 10 Earth masses, whereas four T Tauri disk surveys in the same complex have at most 25% of disks above that mass. Because the Herbig disks are on average older (median 5.1 Myr) than the comparison T Tauri regions, the paper concludes that the mass difference is not simply an age effect and is connected to giant planet formation around intermediate-mass stars.

What carries the argument

The dust mass is derived from observed millimeter fluxes via M_dust = F_nu $d^{2}$ / (kappa_nu B_nu(T_dust)), assuming optically thin emission, with a dust opacity of 10 $cm^{2}$ $g^{-1}$ at 1000 GHz and a power-law index $\beta$ = 1, and a dust temperature scaled from stellar luminosity as T_dust = 25 K (L_star/L_sun)^1/4. For the NOEMA targets, fluxes are obtained by fitting a Gaussian to the visibilities in the uv-plane; for the ALMA targets, published fluxes are used. This standard conversion allows the Orion Herbig disks to be compared on equal footing with the T Tauri disk surveys in the same region.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic survey of all pre-main-sequence intermediate-mass stars in Orion that is independent of the Vioque and Guzmán-Díaz catalogs, finding even a handful of additional Herbig stars with millimeter fluxes below the current detections, would lower the measured median of 11.7 M_earth and the fraction above 10 M_earth, directly challenging the claimed completeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a complete census of all 35 known Herbig disks in Orion yields a median dust mass of 11.7 M_earth, with about 50% of the disks more massive than 10 M_earth, while the T Tauri disk surveys in Orion (NGC 2024, L1641/L1647, sigma Ori, lambda Ori) have at most 25% of disks above that threshold. The paper further finds that the Orion Herbig dust-mass distribution is statistically indistinguishable from the previously studied all-sky ALMA Herbig sample, apart from the absence of the most extreme disks (beyond roughly 150 M_earth), and that the Herbig disks show a steeper decline of dust mass with external UV irradiation (slope -7.6) than T Tauri disks (slope -1.3). The authors interpret these results as demonstrating that Herbig disks are systematically more massive than T Tauri disks, and that this is not an artifact of target selection.

Load-bearing premise

The survey is 'complete' only if the Vioque et al. (2018) and Guzmán-Díaz et al. (2021) compilations contain every Herbig Ae/Be star in the Zari et al. (2017) Orion boundaries; if a Herbig star was missed or misclassified, the median mass and all comparisons with T Tauri disks would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the completeness holds, the higher median dust mass of Herbig disks is real, not a selection effect of earlier ALMA programs, because the complete Orion distribution matches the all-sky ALMA distribution.
  • Disk evolution models must explain why intermediate-mass stars retain more millimeter-detectable dust than lower-mass stars even when the Herbig disks are older than the T Tauri comparison regions.
  • The steeper dust-mass versus UV-irradiation slope for Herbig disks implies that external photoevaporation plays a stronger relative role in shaping Herbig disks, though the paper notes the slope agrees with the T Tauri value within 2 sigma.
  • The six new CO isotopologue detections, including one in C17O, provide gas tracers in Herbig disks that can be used to test photoevaporation and freeze-out chemistry under strong UV fields.
  • The most massive and largest Herbig disks in Orion are the ones resolved in scattered light with substructures, linking high disk mass to ongoing giant planet formation in these systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary of the completeness claim is that the stellar-mass-to-disk-mass relation continues smoothly into the intermediate-mass regime; a testable prediction is that a complete T Tauri survey analyzed with identical assumptions would still show a lower median than 11.7 M_earth.
  • The steeper Herbig UV slope may partly reflect that the same G0 produces a smaller relative temperature increase for luminous Herbig stars, so the mass-UV trend could be dominated by the lowest-mass disks in the sample rather than by a universal photoevaporation law.
  • Deeper ALMA observations of the six non-detected Herbig disks would reveal whether the upper limits hide a population of very low-mass disks that would flatten the cumulative distribution and reduce the 50% figure.
  • The absence of super-massive disks like HD 97048 and HD 142527 in Orion suggests such extreme disks are rare and may require specific environments; a complete all-sky Herbig survey would quantify their true frequency.
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. This paper presents the first claimed complete survey of Herbig disks in a single star-forming region, using new NOEMA observations of 25 disks and ALMA archival data for 10 disks to cover all 35 Herbig disks in Orion listed in the Vioque et al. (2018) and Guzmán-Díaz et al. (2021) catalogs within the Zari et al. (2017) Orion boundaries. Dust masses are derived from 1.3 mm continuum fluxes using standard assumptions (Eqs. 1 and 2), and the cumulative mass distribution is compared with previous T Tauri disk surveys in Orion (NGC 2024, L1641/L1647, σ Ori, λ Ori). The authors find a median dust mass of 11.7 M⊕ for the Herbig disks, report that ~50% of Herbig disks exceed 10 M⊕ versus at most 25% for the T Tauri samples, find no significant difference with the all-sky ALMA Herbig sample of Stapper et al. (2022), and fit a steep slope of -7.6 between dust mass and external UV irradiation, compared with -1.3 for T Tauri disks. They also present CO isotopologue spectra for six disks and compare with scattered-light imaging from SPHERE.

Significance. If the sample is indeed complete, this is the first complete census of Herbig disks in a single region and provides a benchmark for giant planet formation around intermediate-mass stars. The mass distribution comparison with T Tauri surveys is a valuable test of stellar-mass-dependent disk evolution, and the inclusion of new NOEMA data for previously unobserved disks is a clear observational advance. The analysis uses standard, well-established methods (uv-plane flux fitting, standard dust opacity and temperature assumptions, survival analysis for cumulative distributions), and the comparison with previous surveys is thorough. The main significance rests on the completeness claim; if the parent catalogs are incomplete or contaminated, the central conclusions would be weakened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1] The claim of a 'complete' Herbig disk sample in Orion rests entirely on the Vioque et al. (2018) and Guzmán-Díaz et al. (2021) parent catalogs selected within the Zari et al. (2017) boundaries. The paper performs no independent validation of the completeness or purity of this parent sample, such as a cross-match with Gaia-based YSO catalogs or a search for intermediate-mass pre-main-sequence stars with disks that might be missing from these catalogs. If a Herbig star is missed (e.g., low-luminosity or heavily embedded) or a contaminant is included, the median dust mass (11.7 M⊕) and the ~50% fraction above 10 M⊕ would be biased. Because the novelty and headline result are explicitly the complete census, this inherited completeness is a load-bearing assumption that needs to be quantified or at least discussed in detail.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Abstract] The abstract and Conclusion item 4 state that Herbig disks show a 'steeper' dust mass–UV irradiation relationship compared with T Tauri disks (slope -7.6 versus -1.3), but the paper itself reports that these slopes agree within 2σ (the Herbig slope is -7.6 ± 3.6). The claim as written is therefore not supported by the stated uncertainties. The text should be revised to describe the result as a tentative or marginally significant trend, or the uncertainties should be propagated more carefully before making the 'steeper' claim.
  3. [Section 3.1, Fig. 2] The median dust mass of 11.7 M⊕ is quoted 'excluding the upper limits', while the cumulative distribution is constructed with survival analysis (lifelines) that treats upper limits as censored data. Excluding the six upper limits (out of 35 disks) biases the median estimate high relative to a properly censored estimate, particularly if the upper limits are not all below the median. The authors should either report a median derived from the Kaplan-Meier estimator or otherwise quantify how the median and the fraction above 10 M⊕ change when upper limits are included.
  4. [Section 3.1, Fig. 2, Appendix A] The comparison of Herbig and T Tauri dust mass distributions uses literature masses for the T Tauri surveys that assume a fixed T_dust = 20 K, whereas the Herbig masses use luminosity-scaled temperatures (Eq. 2), which are typically higher (e.g., 59 K for HD 245185, as noted in footnote 3). This systematic difference in temperature assumptions could affect the comparison of the cumulative distributions and the >10 M⊕ fractions. The paper should explicitly discuss the direction and magnitude of this effect, even if the resulting bias is conservative for the main conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'all know Herbig disks' should be 'all known Herbig disks'.
  2. [Section 2] The sentence 'The weather during observing setup 2 on 2022 November 7 was particularly bad' appears to contain a date inconsistency, since setup 2 observations are described as taken on 2022 December 7 and 2023 October 7.
  3. [Section 2] In the data reduction description, the sentence 'To obtain the integrated fluxes in continuum, the LSB and USB were both combined to make a continuum measurement set' is followed by a fragment about the Gaussian fitting; consider clarifying that the uvmodelfit is performed on this continuum measurement set.
  4. [Section 4.2] The statement that 'none of our disks' are within 0.3 pc of an O-star is initially confusing because HD 245185 is described as being at a projected distance of <1 pc; the text should clarify that the 0.3 pc threshold is for UV-dominated dust temperature, so the statement is consistent but needs rewording.
  5. [References] Stapper et al. (2024b) is cited as 'A&A, submitted'; if this work is not yet accepted, the manuscript should note that the comparison is based on a submitted paper, or the relevant results should be summarized in the text.
  6. [Appendix A] The flux distributions in Fig. A.1 are described but not discussed in the main text; adding a sentence in Section 3.1 to interpret the flux comparison would help the reader understand the role of temperature in the mass conversion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: new NOEMA data support the central claims; only a minor overlap exists between the Orion sample and the self-cited Stapper et al. (2022) comparison sample.

  1. other [Section 4.1, 'Comparison to the ALMA Herbig disks' (Fig. 4), with the ALMA flux sourcing described in Section 2.]
    "Figure 4 compares the obtained cumulative distribution of the Herbig disks in Orion to the distribution of the with all-sky survey of Herbig disks with ALMA of Stapper et al. (2022) combined with the extra sources observed with NOEMA from Stapper et al. (2024a). ... For the remaining ten Herbig disks with existing ALMA data, we use the published fluxes as presented in Stapper et al. (2022) and van Terwisga et al. (2022)."

    The comparison distribution in Fig. 4 is built from Stapper et al. (2022), the same prior work from which this paper takes the published ALMA fluxes for ten Orion disks. Those ten objects therefore appear in both the 'Orion' distribution and the 'Stapper et al. 2022' distribution, so the two cumulative distributions share data points. The logrank and KS non-detections (p=0.26 and p=0.32) are partly a self-comparison of overlapping data rather than a fully independent benchmark. This is a minor self-citation/overlap issue, not a load-bearing circularity: the main Herbig-versus-T Tauri conclusion rests on new NOEMA observations and on external T Tauri surveys.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Dust masses are obtained from new NOEMA visibility fits plus published ALMA fluxes, converted through Eq. (1) with standard assumptions (kappa_nu = 10 cm^2/g at 1000 GHz, beta = 1, and Tdust = 25 K (L*/Lsun)^(1/4)); none of these inputs are fitted to the claimed results. The 'complete' sample is explicitly defined by the external Vioque et al. (2018) and Guzman-Diaz et al. (2021) catalogs within the Zari et al. (2017) Orion boundaries, so any incompleteness of those catalogs is an external assumption rather than a circular derivation. The T Tauri comparison distributions come from independent published surveys (Ansdell et al. 2017, 2020; van Terwisga et al. 2019, 2020, 2022). The only mild circularity is in Section 4.1, where the Stapper et al. (2022) comparison sample already contains ten Orion disks whose fluxes this paper adopts from that same prior work, making the null logrank/KS result partly a self-comparison. This overlap does not affect the paper's main conclusion that Herbig disks are more massive than T Tauri disks, which is supported by the new NOEMA observations and external comparison samples. A score of 2 reflects this one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation/overlap.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard dust mass conversion assumptions and on the completeness of the parent Herbig star catalogs. The UV slope is an empirical fit with large uncertainties, not a derivation.

free parameters (2)
  • UV slope (10 pc cutoff) = -7.6 ± 3.6
    Fitted with linmix to the Mdust vs log10(G0) relation for the 35 Orion disks; the paper's claim of a steeper UV dependence rests on this fit.
  • UV offset (10 pc cutoff) = 29.4 ± 6.7
    Same fit; included because the linear relation is quoted as a complete result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Continuum emission is optically thin at ~1.3 mm.
    Used to convert flux to dust mass via Eq. (1) (Hildebrand 1983). The authors note this is likely the largest source of uncertainty, and it probably fails for the most massive disks (e.g., HD 290764, HD 34282).
  • domain assumption Dust opacity follows kappa_nu = 10 cm2/g at 1000 GHz with beta = 1.
    Standard assumption from Beckwith et al. 1990; the mass scale depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption Dust temperature scales as Tdust = 25 K * (L*/Lsun)^1/4.
    From Andrews et al. 2013; gives higher temperatures for Herbig disks, which lowers inferred masses for given flux compared to a fixed 20-30 K.
  • domain assumption The Vioque et al. (2018) and Guzmán-Díaz et al. (2021) catalogs contain all Herbig Ae/Be stars in Orion, and the Zari et al. (2017) boundaries correctly define the Orion region.
    The completeness of the survey and therefore every population-level claim rests on this assumption (Section 2).
  • domain assumption External UV irradiance G0 is computed from stars earlier than A0 within 10 pc projected distance, using BHAC-15 isochrones and Castelli & Kurucz spectra, with no extinction correction.
    Described in Section 4.2; the resulting G0 values are uncertain, and the UV slope claim depends on them.
  • domain assumption Distances and stellar parameters (L*, M*) for the sample stars from Guzmán-Díaz et al. (2021) and Vioque et al. (2018) are accurate.
    Dust masses scale as d^2 and Tdust depends on L*; errors in these propagate into the distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A complete Herbig disk mass survey in Orion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJI5KMLX

@misc{pith2026241108959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A complete Herbig disk mass survey in Orion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJI5KMLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08959}
}
read the original abstract

Disks around intermediate mass stars called Herbig disks are the formation sites of giant exoplanets. Obtaining a complete inventory of these disks will therefore give insights into giant planet formation. However, until now no complete disk survey has been done on Herbig disks in a single star-forming region. Orion is the only nearby region with a significant number of Herbig disks (N=35) to carry out such a survey. Using new NOEMA observations of 25 Herbig disks, in combination with ALMA archival data of 10 Herbig disks, results in a complete sample of all know Herbig disks in Orion. Using uv-plane analysis for the NOEMA observed disks, and literature values of the ALMA observed disks, we obtain the dust masses of all Herbig disks and obtain a cumulative dust mass distribution. Additionally, six disks with new CO isotopologues detections are presented, one of which is detected in C17O. We calculate the external ultraviolet (UV) irradiance on each disk and compare the dust mass to it. We find a median disk dust mass of 11.7 M_\oplus for the Herbig disks. Comparing the Herbig disks in Orion to previous surveys for mainly T Tauri disks in Orion, we find that while ~50% of the Herbig disks have a mass higher than 10 M_\oplus, this is at most 25% for the T~Tauri disks. This difference is especially striking when considering that the Herbig disks are around a factor of two older than the T Tauri disks. Comparing to the Herbig disks observed with ALMA from a previous study, no significant difference is found between the distributions. We find a steeper (slope of -7.6) relationship between the dust mass and external UV irradation compared to that of the T~Tauri disks (slope of -1.3). This work shows the importance of complete samples, giving rise to the need of a complete survey of the Herbig disk population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Positions on the sky of the Herbig disk sample used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Orion Herbig disk dust mass distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra of the disks in which 13CO, C18O, or C17O are detected. The spectra are centered on the frequencies of the emission lines and are binned to 1 km s−1 . Herbig disks. All but one disk has a mass below 10 M⊕. This disk is HD 245185, which is in the 90th percentile of our dust masses3 . Regions impacted by external irradiation, such as the disks in σ Ori (Ansdell et al. 2017; Maucó et al. 2023), show lower disk … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the Herbig sam￾ple in Orion of this work with the Her￾big disks analyzed in Stapper et al. (2022) and Stapper et al. (2024a). The left panel present the cumulative distributions. The right panel shows the fitted log-normal dis￾tributions. 4.2. Impact of U…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The external UV irradiation plotted against the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Huang, J., Pérez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L41

    2018

  2. [2]

    M., Rosenfeld, K

    Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129

    2013

  3. [3]

    J., Williams, J

    Ansdell, M., Haworth, T. J., Williams, J. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 248

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    P., Manara, C

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Manara, C. F., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 240

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

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

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

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

    Bae, J., Isella, A., Zhu, Z., 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, 423

    2023

  7. [7]

    P., Cleeves, L

    Ballering, N. P., Cleeves, L. I., Haworth, T. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 127

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42

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

    2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

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

    1990

  2. [10]

    S., Leemker, M., van Dishoeck, E

    Booth, A. S., Leemker, M., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 164

    2024

  3. [11]

    Boyden, R. D. & Eisner, J. A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 74

    2020

  4. [12]

    D., Kamp, I., Meeus, G., Oudmaijer, R

    Brittain, S. D., Kamp, I., Meeus, G., Oudmaijer, R. D., & Waters, L. B. F. M. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 7 Castelli,F.&Kurucz,R.L.2003,inModellingofStellarAtmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F. Gray, Vol. 210, A20

    2023

  5. [13]

    F., Baobab Liu, H., et al

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

    2019

  6. [14]

    2021, Cam- DavidsonPilon/lifelines: 0.25.10 de Boer, J., Ginski, C., Chauvin, G., et al

    Davidson-Pilon, C., Kalderstam, J., Jacobson, N., et al. 2021, Cam- DavidsonPilon/lifelines: 0.25.10 de Boer, J., Ginski, C., Chauvin, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A25 Díaz-Berríos, J. K., Guzmán, V. V., Walsh, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 165

    2021

  7. [15]

    A., Arce, H

    Eisner, J. A., Arce, H. G., Ballering, N. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 77

    2018

  8. [16]

    G., et al

    Garufi, A., Ginski, C., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A53

    2024

  9. [17]

    2024, A&A, 685, A52

    Ginski, C., Garufi, A., Benisty, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A52

    2024

  10. [18]

    L., Espaillat, C

    Grant, S. L., Espaillat, C. C., Wendeborn, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 123 Großschedl, J. E., Alves, J., Meingast, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A106 Guzmán-Díaz, J., Mendigutía, I., Montesinos, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A182 Guzmán-Díaz, J., Montesinos, B., Mendigutía, I., et al...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Habing, H. J. 1968, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 19, 421

    1968

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  13. [21]

    Herbig, G. H. 1960, ApJS, 4, 337

    1960

  14. [22]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  15. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 9

    2007

  16. [24]

    A., Aller, K

    Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 905

    2010

  17. [25]

    A., Butler, R

    Johnson, J. A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 833

    2007

  18. [26]

    P., & Pinilla, P

    Kama, M., Folsom, C. P., & Pinilla, P. 2015, A&A, 582, L10

    2015

  19. [27]

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

    2007

  20. [28]

    M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57

    2010

  21. [29]

    M., Honda, M., Waters, L

    Maaskant, K. M., Honda, M., Waters, L. B. F. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A64

    2013

  22. [30]

    2008, Science, 322, 1348

    Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1348

    2008

  23. [31]

    M., Macintosh, B., & Bar- man, T

    Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B., & Bar- man, T. 2010, Nature, 468, 1080 Maucó, K., Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A82

    2010

  24. [32]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & 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

  25. [33]

    J., van Duinen, R., et al

    Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., van Duinen, R., et al. 1984, ApJ, 278, L1

    1984

  26. [34]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Macintosh, B., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 13 Öberg, K. I., Guzmán, V. V., Walsh, C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 1

    2019

  27. [35]

    L., et al

    Ohta, Y., Fukagawa, M., Sitko, M. L., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 53

    2016

  28. [36]

    J., Ménard, F., et al

    Pinte, C., Price, D. J., Ménard, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, L13 Pinte,C.,vanderPlas,G.,Ménard,F.,etal.2019,NatureAstronomy, 3, 1109 Ramírez-Tannus, M. C., Bik, A., Cuijpers, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, L30

    2018

  29. [37]

    M., Hogerheijde, M

    Stapper, L. M., Hogerheijde, M. R., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Mentel, R. 2022, A&A, 658, A112

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., Sheehan, P

    Tobin, J. J., Sheehan, P. D., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 130 Valegård, P. G., Ginski, C., Derkink, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A54 Valegård, P. G., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Dominik, C. 2021, A&A, 652, A133 van Terwisga, S. E. & Hacar, A. 2023, A&A, 673, L2 van Terwisg...

    2020

  31. [39]

    D., Baines, D., Mendigutía, I., & Pérez- Martínez, R

    Vioque, M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Baines, D., Mendigutía, I., & Pérez- Martínez, R. 2018, A&A, 620, A128

    2018

  32. [40]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Meth- ods, 17, 261

    2020

  33. [41]

    2020, AJ, 159, 252

    Wagner, K., Stone, J., Dong, R., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 252

    2020

  34. [42]

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

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

    2019

  35. [43]

    Zari, E., Brown, A. G. A., de Bruijne, J., Manara, C. F., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2017, A&A, 608, A148 Article number, page 8 of 9 L. M. Stapper et al.: A complete Herbig disk mass survey in Orion Appendix A: Flux distributions Figure A.1 presents cumulative distributions of the sam...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.