Hidden binaries in star-forming regions

Mary H. Rawcliffe; Nathan Griffiths-Janvier; Richard J. Parker (University of Sheffield; UK)

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Hidden binaries in star-forming regions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The field's log-normal binary separation curve can be reconstructed by summing five Maxwell-Boltzmann-like populations with very different peaks, so the ONC's 10–62 au excess need not contradict the field.

desk verdict The paper's core point survives, but the central demonstration is not reproducible as written because Table 2's parameters don't match Equation 3. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15924 v1 pith:JNK7JDPN submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Mary H. Rawcliffe , Nathan Griffiths-Janvier , Richard J. Parker (University of Sheffield , UK) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA

keywords binarystarsstar-formingregionsseparationdistributionlog-normalMaxwell-BoltzmannOrionNebulaClusterspectroscopicbinariesmultiplestarformation

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 argues that the log-normal distribution of binary-star separations in the Galactic field is a far weaker constraint on star formation than the literature assumes. It builds a toy field population by drawing $N=2000$ binaries from each of five Maxwell-Boltzmann-like separation distributions whose peaks sit at very different sizes (roughly 1 au up to 3700 au) and shows that the summed histogram resembles the observed field log-normal. From this it concludes that individual star-forming regions could harbour separation distributions that look nothing like the field, so the excess of binaries at 10–62 au in the Orion Nebula Cluster is not necessarily inconsistent with the field. The practical upshot is that current observations of star-forming regions, which mostly probe the 10–1000 au window, are too narrow to test theories of binary formation, and spectroscopic surveys of the sub-10 au population are urgently needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Maxwell-Boltzmann-like probability density in logarithmic separation, $$f(\log_{10}a)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\,\frac{(\log_{10}a-\log_{10}a_{\min})^2}{$b^{3}$}\,\exp\!\left(-\frac{(\log_{10}a-\log_{10}a_{\min})^2}{$2b^{2}$}\right),$$ where $a$ is the semi-major axis in au, $b$ sets the width, and $\log_{10}a_{\min}$ sets the peak. Each constituent population is defined by its peak and width; summing five such populations with peaks spanning roughly 1–3700 au and a common multiplicity fraction converts the mixture into a symmetric, log-normal-looking curve, which is the mechanism the entire argument leans on. The same density, with $b$ and $f_{\rm mult}$ allowed to vary, is then used to show that both the ONC's 10–62 au excess and the hydrodynamical simulation data can be fit by peaked-with-tail curves whose peaks lie below 10 au.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic survey of binary stars with separations below 10 au across many star-forming regions of different densities would settle the matter. If every region shows a similar, field-like close-binary fraction, then large compensating differences cannot exist and the ONC excess demands another explanation; if region-to-region close-binary fractions scatter widely around a field-like mean, the hidden-binaries construction is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the field's log-normal binary separation distribution can be reproduced as a sum of constituent populations whose individual separation distributions are not log-normal. The paper draws 2000 binaries from each of five Maxwell-Boltzmann-like distributions with the same width parameter $b=2$ and peaks at $\log_{10}a_{\min}=-3, -2.4, -1.8, -0.6, 0.6$ (peak separations from roughly 1 au to 3700 au), each scaled to a multiplicity fraction $f_{\rm mult}=0.55$, and the summed histogram tracks the Raghavan et al. (2010) field log-normal well enough to make the point. The authors attribute what they see to the central limit theorem: many peaked distributions with different locations can add up to a symmetric log-normal. The same functional form is then fit to the Orion Nebula Cluster data, and the fits peak below 10 au with multiplicity fractions of 0.75–0.9, far above the field; the paper argues this is compatible with the field because the field averages over many regions, and other regions could hold compensating deficits in the 10–62 au range. The authors are explicit that they use the Maxwell-Boltzmann form only for its peaked-with-a-tail shape, not as a physical law for orbital separations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction assumes that the hand-picked parameters of the five Maxwell-Boltzmann constituents stand in for real star-forming region populations, that a summed histogram merely resembling the field log-normal is sufficient evidence of consistency, and — for the Orion Nebula Cluster rescue — that other regions hold compensating deficits in the 10–62 au range, for which no observations are presented.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The field log-normal alone no longer favours a 'universal' initial binary distribution, because the field can be assembled from constituent populations with very different shapes and peaks, removing the need to assume most star-forming regions are dense.
An ONC-like excess of 10–62 au binaries can be absorbed into the field average if other regions have compensating deficits, so a single region's separation histogram cannot by itself decide whether that region contributes binaries to the field.
If the ONC excess continues below 10 au, the implied multiplicity fraction of 0.75–0.9 and sub-10 au peak would be hidden from the field census, making close-binary surveys the only way to recover the true formation outcome.
Hydrodynamic simulations' resolution limit around 0.5–1 au makes their close-binary counts lower limits, so their apparent small-separation excess is compatible with the field, with an ONC-like region, or with an intermediate mixture.

Reading between the lines

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

Going beyond the paper: if the field truly averages over regions with strongly varying close-binary fractions, region-to-region variance in the sub-10 au population is itself a prediction — one small survey finding 'field-like' binaries in a few regions is then weak evidence against variation, exactly as the paper warns.
The averaging logic cuts the other way for simulations: a simulated cluster whose summed separation distribution matches the field could still be hiding sub-populations with different formation physics, so matching one histogram is a weak validation of a star-formation model.
A natural quantitative extension would be to build an ensemble of star-formation calculations spanning a range of initial cloud densities and check whether the ensemble-averaged separation distribution is log-normal even when each individual run is not; the paper's arithmetic suggests it would be.
The paper's fits imply a specific, testable prediction for the ONC: if the 10–62 au excess is genuine and extends inward, targeted radial-velocity monitoring should find a correspondingly large spectroscopic-binary fraction with separations below 10 au.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this paper makes a modest, real point — the field log-normal separation distribution can be reproduced by summing a few non-log-normal constituent distributions, so the field alone does not tightly constrain binary formation in individual regions. The authors are honest that this is a sufficiency exercise and they are appropriately careful in their language. That said, there is a load-bearing problem in Section 3: Table 2's listed peaks do not match Equation 3 with b=2. For Constituent 1, amin=10^-3 au, Equation 3 gives a mode at log10 a ≈ -0.17, not 0.057 as tabulated; the mismatch runs up to ~0.5 dex for Constituent 3. Since no code or data are provided and there is no quantitative goodness-of-fit, a reader cannot verify that the white histogram in Figure 3 is actually the stated mixture. This is fixable — the statistical idea is sound, and a corrected table plus a KS or Anderson-Darling test would make the demonstration credible. The ONC argument is logically valid: an excess at 10-62 au does not by itself disqualify the ONC as a field contributor, but the paper offers no observational evidence for compensating deficits in other regions, so it remains a consistency argument rather than a detection. The literature coverage is fair and the call for more spectroscopic binary surveys in young regions is sensible. This is not a breakthrough, but it is a useful reminder that the field binary distribution is a poor diagnostic for individual region properties. It deserves serious refereeing, but the current version needs internal consistency fixes before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the log-normal orbital separation distribution of field binaries can be reproduced by summing a small number of constituent binary populations whose individual separation distributions are not log-normal but Maxwell-Boltzmann-like, with peaks at very different separations. On this basis the authors contend that the separation distributions observed in individual star-forming regions, including an apparent excess of 10-62 au binaries in the ONC, may be hidden within the field population once contributions from many regions are summed. The paper proposes that targeted observations of close (<10 au) spectroscopic binaries in star-forming regions are urgently needed, and it makes no claim to present new observational data.

Significance. If the demonstration were quantified and reproducible, the paper would be a useful cautionary note: it would show that the field log-normal does not uniquely constrain the separation distributions in individual star-forming regions, and it would weaken inferences that require the 'universal' initial binary distribution to be dynamically processed in dense regions. The authors are transparent that this is an illustrative sufficiency exercise rather than a falsifiable prediction, which is a strength, and the paper cites relevant recent work including El-Badry et al. (2021) and Makarov (2025). The proposed observational avenue, targeted spectroscopy of young close binaries, is reasonable and timely. However, the central demonstration currently rests on an internally inconsistent equation/table pair and on visual resemblance without any quantitative goodness-of-fit measure, so the significance of the result cannot be assessed as presented.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eq. (3), Table 2, Fig. 3] The plotted constituent distributions do not follow from Eq. (3) with the parameters in Table 2. With b = 2 and x = log10 a - log10 amin, Eq. (3) has its mode at x = sqrt(2) b = 2.83 and its mean at x = 2 b sqrt(2/pi) = 3.19. For the Table 2 amin values (-3, -2.4, -1.8, -0.6, 0.6), the modes are log10 a = -0.17, 0.43, 1.03, 2.23, 3.43, whereas Table 2 reports peaks at 0.057, 0.57, 1.57, 2.57, 3.57, with discrepancies up to about 0.5 dex (e.g. Constituent 3). The tabulated values are also not the means of Eq. (3), so this is not a mode-versus-mean labelling issue. Because no code, generated data, or histogram data are provided, the reader cannot verify that the white histogram in Fig. 3 is the stated mixture; this internal inconsistency must be corrected and the generation procedure made fully reproducible.
[Section 3, Fig. 3] The paper's sole quantitative evidence for the central claim is the visual resemblance between the summed histogram and the Raghavan et al. (2010) log-normal. No Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Anderson-Darling test, no residuals, no binning convention, and no y-axis normalization are reported, so 'clearly' in the sentence following Fig. 3 is not supported. In addition, the text's invocation of the central limit theorem is inaccurate: sums of independent variables converge to a normal, not a log-normal, distribution, and the mixture here does not follow from any general theorem but from the hand-picked parameters in Table 2. Please provide a quantitative comparison metric, specify how fmult = 0.55 and N = 2000 per constituent enter the plotted histogram, and state explicitly that this is a parameter-fitting exercise rather than a prediction.
[Section 4 and Section 5, conclusion (iii)] The argument that the ONC's 10-62 au excess can be reconciled with the field if other regions have compensating deficits is logically possible but unsupported: the manuscript presents no evidence for such deficits in any observed region and no quantitative mixture model that starts from ONC-like and deficit populations and produces the field log-normal. As written, this is an existence argument, and the phrasing in conclusion (iii) that the ONC 'would not contribute binaries to the field population' or that differences are 'statistically insignificant' overstates what has been shown. Please provide at least a toy model with explicit parameters and uncertainties, or clearly label the claim as an untested possibility.
[Section 3, Table 2 and Section 4] The constituent peak separations, widths, and multiplicity fractions in Table 2 are chosen specifically so that the sum resembles the field log-normal, and the text acknowledges that the constituent distributions include separations much larger than predicted by theory or observed in star-forming regions. This is honest, but it raises a circularity concern for the ONC discussion: no robustness test shows how sensitive the composite shape is to the assumed parameters, so the demonstration does not currently constrain whether real star-forming regions could plausibly hide the ONC-like excess. A small parameter study or bootstrap-style variation of the Table 2 values would materially strengthen the claim.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'targetted' (Section 1), 'constiuent' (Section 5), 'oberving' (Section 2), and 'decribe' (Section 4), which should be corrected.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the distributions with peaks at 1, 37, and 3715 au are shown, but the text also mentions peaks at 3.7 and 372 au; please clarify whether all five constituents are plotted or only three, and ensure the legend is consistent with Table 2.
[Data Availability statement] The statement 'No new data were generated in this work' is inconsistent with the pseudo-random draws from Eq. (3) described in Section 3; please clarify whether the figure is illustrative and, if so, provide the code or a reproducible seed so that the histogram can be regenerated.
[Equation (2)] Equation (2) is presented without a normalization constant; if it is intended as a probability density, the normalization should be stated or a reference to the original formulation given.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central construction is a transparent sufficiency/non-uniqueness argument, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's Section 3 demonstration is explicitly an existence argument: it draws five Maxwell-Boltzmann-like populations with hand-picked parameters (Table 2) and shows that their sum visually resembles the Raghavan et al. (2010) log-normal. This is reverse-engineered illustration, not a derivation of the field from first principles, and the paper never labels the chosen constituents as predictions or as the actual field populations. The text repeatedly frames the result as 'demonstrate' and 'could', and in Section 4 it states: 'We emphasise here that we are not proposing that a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution ... is a wholly appropriate distribution', confirming the illustrative status. The ONC discussion is a logical consistency argument about compensating deficits in other regions, not a fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations (Parker et al. 2011, Parker & Meyer 2014, Parker 2023) are contextual and non-load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to force a choice. The internal inconsistency noted by the skeptic between the mode of Eq. 3 and the peaks in Table 2 is a reproducibility/correctness problem (the plotted composite may not be the stated mixture), but it is not circularity, because no claim in the paper reduces by definition to its own inputs. On the circularity axis the paper is self-contained and scores 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on free parameters (the peak, width, and multiplicity fraction of the constituent Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions) that are chosen by hand to make the demonstration work. It also relies on standard statistics (CLT) and on the domain assumptions that the field log-normal is the correct benchmark and that the ONC is one of many contributing regions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Constituent peak separations (log10 amin) = -3, -2.4, -1.8, -0.6, 0.6
Chosen by hand in Table 2 to spread the five Maxwell-Boltzmann populations across the separation range so the sum resembles the field log-normal.
Constituent Maxwell-Boltzmann width b = 2 (constituents), 1.75/1.25/1.75 (ONC fits)
Fixed by hand; affects the shape of each constituent distribution and the ONC fit curves.
Multiplicity fraction fmult = 0.55 (constituents), 0.9/0.75/0.55 (ONC fits)
Scales each population; chosen to make the summed distribution and the ONC fits visually match the data.
Sample size per constituent population = 2000
Number of binaries drawn per population; a Monte Carlo choice that sets the histogram noise level.
ONC fit peaks = 3.2, 6.3, 10 au
Hand-picked peaks for the three Maxwell-Boltzmann fits to the ONC data and simulation data in Fig. 4.

assumptions (4)

standard math Central limit theorem: sums of independent distributions tend toward a normal/log-normal shape.
Invoked in Section 3 to justify that the mixture of constituent distributions can produce a log-normal. Cited to Hall & Heyde (1980).
domain assumption The Galactic field binary separation distribution is well described by a log-normal.
Taken from Raghavan et al. (2010) and Duquennoy & Mayor (1991); used as the benchmark in Figs. 3 and 4.
domain assumption Star-forming regions with different initial conditions can have very different binary separation distributions.
The premise of the paper's argument; supported qualitatively by simulations (Bate 2012, 2014) and observations, but not proven.
domain assumption The ONC is one of many star-forming regions that contribute to the field population.
Used in Section 4 to argue that an excess in the ONC can be balanced by deficits in other regions; no direct evidence for the compensating regions is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hidden binaries in star-forming regions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNK7JDPN

@misc{pith2026250715924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hidden binaries in star-forming regions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNK7JDPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15924}
}

abstract

A significant fraction of, and possibly all, stars form in binary or multiple systems. For Solar-mass stars in the Galactic field, the distribution of orbital separations is log-normal over seven orders of magnitude, from $10^{-2} - 10^5$ au. In contrast, the separation distributions of systems in nearby star-forming regions paints a much more confusing picture. There appears to be an excess of systems in the separation range 10 - 1000 au, and recent high-resolution spectroscopic observations of close (<10 au) systems suggest a field-like distribution in some star-forming regions, but a possible excess with respect to the field in other regions. Furthermore, the resolution limit of numerical simulations of binary star formation is $\sim$1\,au, and consequently comparisons with the binary distributions in star-forming regions and in the field are restricted. In this paper, we demonstrate that these observational uncertainties, and limitations in the simulations, are potentially a much bigger problem than previously realised. We show that the log-normal separation distribution in the field can be reproduced by combining constituent binary populations whose initial separation distributions have a very different form to a log-normal. We also argue that the observed excess of binaries in the range 10 - 62 au in the ONC compared to the Galactic field is not necessarily inconsistent with the field population, because the ONC is only one of many star-forming regions that populate the field. We propose that further observations of spectroscopic binaries in star-forming regions to probe and complete the <10 au parameter space are urgently needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15924 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Observations of binary separations in two star-forming regions. Data for visual binaries in the ONC are shown in panel (a); the leftmost bin is from Duchˆene et al. (2018) and the other bins are from Reipurth et al. (2007). Data for visual binaries in Taurus (K¨ohler & Leinert 1998) are shown in panel (b). In both panels we also show two different fits to the observed G-dwarf Galactic field population from Raghavan … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The distribution of binary separations from hydrodynamical simulations of star formation. The simulations shown are from Bate (2014, the solid histogram), but results from an earlier simulation presented in Bate (2012) are very similar. For comparison, we show the proposed initial ‘universal’ binary distribution from Kroupa (1995a) inferred from N-body simulations (the solid black line), as well as two different f… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The separation distribution as a result of summing together five separate binary populations drawn from Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions with the properties listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

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

work page 1937
[2]

A., Espaas , T., Norgrove , B

Ballantyne , H. A., Espaas , T., Norgrove , B. Z., et al. 2021, , 507, 4507, 10.1093/mnras/stab2324

doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2324 2021
[3]

Bate, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3115

work page 2012
[4]

Bate , M. R. 2014, , 442, 285, 10.1093/mnras/stu795

doi:10.1093/mnras/stu795 2014
[5]

2010, A&A, 520, A54

Bergfors , C., Brandner, W., Janson, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A54

work page 2010
[6]

G., Zhang , Q., et al

Chen , X., Arce , H. G., Zhang , Q., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/110

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/110 2013
[7]

A., Gonz \'a lez-Payo , J., et al

Cifuentes , C., Caballero , J. A., Gonz \'a lez-Payo , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12264, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12264

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.12264 2024
[8]

E., et al

Cournoyer-Cloutier , C., Sills , A., Harris , W. E., et al. 2024, , 977, 203, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3 2024

Show all 49 references

[9]

J., Patience, J., Vigan, A., et al

De Rosa , R. J., Patience, J., Vigan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1216

2014
[10]

2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

Duch \^e ne , G., & Kraus , A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

2013 doi
[11]

2018, , 478, 1825, 10.1093/mnras/sty1180

Duch \^e ne , G., Lacour , S., Moraux , E., Goodwin , S., & Bouvier , J. 2018, , 478, 1825, 10.1093/mnras/sty1180

2018 doi
[12]

1991, A&A, 248, 485

Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485

1991
[13]

El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., & Heintz , T. M. 2021, , 506, 2269, 10.1093/mnras/stab323

2021 doi
[14]

A., & Marcy, G

Fischer, D. A., & Marcy, G. W. 1992, ApJ, 396, 178

1992
[15]

1980, in Martingale Limit Theory and its Application, ed

Hall, P., & Heyde, C. 1980, in Martingale Limit Theory and its Application, ed. P. Hall & C. Heyde, Probability and Mathematical Statistics: A Series of Monographs and Textbooks (Academic Press), 51--96, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-319350-6.50009-8

1980 doi
[16]

Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729

1975
[17]

Hills, J. G. 1975 a , AJ, 80, 809

1975
[18]

1975 b , AJ, 80, 1075

---. 1975 b , AJ, 80, 1075

1975
[19]

2012, ApJ, 754, 44

Janson, M., Hormuth, F., Bergfors, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 44

2012
[20]

Jeans, J. H. 1919, MNRAS, 79, 408

1919
[21]

R., Goodwin, S

King, R. R., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., & Patience, J. 2012 a , MNRAS, 427, 2636

2012
[22]

R., Parker, R

King, R. R., Parker, R. J., Patience, J., & Goodwin, S. P. 2012 b , MNRAS, 421, 2025

2012
[23]

1998, A&A, 331, 977

K \"o hler, R., & Leinert, C. 1998, A&A, 331, 977

1998
[24]

o hler, R., Neuh \

K \"o hler, R., Neuh \"a user, R., Kr \"a mer, S., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 997

2008
[25]

2012, A&A, 543, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118019

Korntreff , C., Kaczmarek , T., & Pfalzner , S. 2012, A&A, 543, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118019

2012 doi
[26]

2019, , 157, 196, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1

Kounkel , M., Covey , K., Moe , M., et al. 2019, , 157, 196, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1

2019 doi
[27]

Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1835

2010
[28]

1995 a , MNRAS, 277, 1491

Kroupa, P. 1995 a , MNRAS, 277, 1491

1995
[29]

1995 b , MNRAS, 277, 1507

---. 1995 b , MNRAS, 277, 1507

1995
[30]

G., & McCaughrean, M

Kroupa, P., Petr, M. G., & McCaughrean, M. J. 1999, New Astronomy, 4, 495

1999
[31]

Kroupa, P., & Petr-Gotzens , M. G. 2011, A&A, 529, A92

2011
[32]

Makarov , V. V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02587, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02587

2025 doi arXiv
[33]

2012, A&A, 543, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118231

Marks , M., & Kroupa , P. 2012, A&A, 543, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118231

2012 doi
[34]

2011, MNRAS, 417, 1684

Marks, M., Kroupa, P., & Oh, S. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1684

2011
[35]

Moeckel, N., & Bate, M. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 721

2010
[36]

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

2023 doi arXiv
[37]

Parker , R. J. 2023, , 525, 2907, 10.1093/mnras/stad2444

2023 doi
[38]

J., Goodwin, S

Parker, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., & Allison, R. J. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2565

2011
[39]

J., & Meyer, M

Parker, R. J., & Meyer, M. R. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3722

2014
[40]

M., Reid, I

Patience, J., Ghez, A. M., Reid, I. N., & Matthews, K. 2002, AJ, 123, 1570

2002
[41]

A., Henry, T

Raghavan, D., McMaster, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJSS, 190, 1

2010
[42]

2005, , 437, 611, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042107

Ratzka , T., K \"o hler , R., & Leinert , C. 2005, , 437, 611, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042107

2005 doi
[43]

M., Connelley, M

Reipurth, B., Guimar \ a es, M. M., Connelley, M. S., & Bally, J. 2007, AJ, 134, 2272

2007
[44]

E., et al

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

2013 doi
[45]

Stahler , S. W. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1758, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15994.x

2010
[46]

2008, MNRAS, 389, 925, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13613.x

Tokovinin , A. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 925, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13613.x

2008
[47]

2014, AJ, 147, 87, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

---. 2014, AJ, 147, 87, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

2014 doi
[48]

J., et al

Ward-Duong , K., Patience , J., De Rosa , R. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2618. 1503.00724

2015 arXiv
[49]

2021, , 645, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037830

Z \'u \ n iga-Fern \'a ndez , S., Bayo , A., Elliott , P., et al. 2021, , 645, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037830

2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

work page 1937

[2] [2]

A., Espaas , T., Norgrove , B

Ballantyne , H. A., Espaas , T., Norgrove , B. Z., et al. 2021, , 507, 4507, 10.1093/mnras/stab2324

doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2324 2021

[3] [3]

Bate, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3115

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Bate , M. R. 2014, , 442, 285, 10.1093/mnras/stu795

doi:10.1093/mnras/stu795 2014

[5] [5]

2010, A&A, 520, A54

Bergfors , C., Brandner, W., Janson, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A54

work page 2010

[6] [6]

G., Zhang , Q., et al

Chen , X., Arce , H. G., Zhang , Q., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/110

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/110 2013

[7] [7]

A., Gonz \'a lez-Payo , J., et al

Cifuentes , C., Caballero , J. A., Gonz \'a lez-Payo , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12264, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12264

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.12264 2024

[8] [8]

E., et al

Cournoyer-Cloutier , C., Sills , A., Harris , W. E., et al. 2024, , 977, 203, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3 2024