Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Early star-forming cores keep their angular momentum as they collapse inward, and that alone can set disk size.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 19:11 UTC pith:YDEACFCJ

load-bearing objection Useful three-source synthesis showing the same j(r) power-law-to-flat morphology; quantitative ages/masses rest on the TSC half-radius mapping and are only order-of-magnitude. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28056 v1 pith:YDEACFCJ submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.GA

Angular Momentum Evolution from Core to Disk Scales in the Early Phase of Star Formation: Constraints from HH 212, HH 211, and B335

Chin-Fei Lee This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords star formationangular momentuminside-out collapseprotostellar disksHH 212HH 211B335magnetic fields
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether the classical inside-out collapse picture still describes how angular momentum moves from cloud-core scales down to newborn disks. Using three young protostars—HH 212, HH 211, and B335—it shows that specific angular momentum falls as a power law in the outer core, then flattens to a nearly constant value once material is freely falling. That pattern matches the Shu/Terebey–Shu–Cassen collapse solution with approximate conservation of angular momentum inside the expansion wave. Collapse ages and infall rates then yield central masses consistent with kinematics (after allowing for jets and winds), and midplane densities match observations once modest magnetic flattening is included. The three sources share the same radial pattern despite very different angular-momentum magnitudes; B335’s tiny disk follows naturally from its lower starting spin. The claim is that inside-out collapse with only mild magnetic reshaping is a workable first-order account of early angular-momentum evolution.

Core claim

The observed specific-angular-momentum profiles of HH 212, HH 211, and B335 are broadly consistent with inside-out collapse and approximate conservation of specific angular momentum in the collapsing region. Inferred collapse ages and mass-infall rates produce accreted masses that match kinematic central masses once jet/wind ejection is allowed, and predicted midplane densities (including magnetic flattening) agree with observations. The small disk in B335 is a natural consequence of its lower initial specific angular momentum.

What carries the argument

The Shu inside-out collapse solution and its rotating extension (the Terebey–Shu–Cassen model), augmented by a modest magnetic enhancement of midplane density from a flattened singular isothermal toroid. The working rule is that material inside the expansion wave carries roughly the specific angular momentum the pre-collapse core had at half the collapse radius, producing the observed flat inner j profile.

Load-bearing premise

That the constant angular momentum seen in the inner envelope equals the value the outer core had at half the collapse radius, so the collapse radius can be read off by intersecting that constant with an extrapolated power-law core profile.

What would settle it

A larger sample of Class 0 sources in which the inner specific-angular-momentum profile continues to decline (rather than flatten) inside a few thousand au, or in which the accreted mass implied by the half-radius mapping systematically exceeds the kinematic central mass by far more than jet/wind losses can explain.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Disk size diversity among the youngest protostars is set largely by the parent core’s initial specific angular momentum, not by strong early magnetic braking.
  • Magnetic fields mainly reshape the flow into pseudodisks and raise midplane density; they need not remove most of the angular momentum at this stage.
  • Collapse age and total accreted mass can be estimated from the j-profile break once an effective sound speed is fixed.
  • Sources with lower core j should systematically host smaller centrifugal barriers and smaller early disks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the half-radius mapping holds generally, surveys of outer-core j power laws become direct predictors of early disk radii once central mass is known.
  • The same framework predicts that later evolutionary stages (e.g., systems already showing inward-decreasing j) mark the onset of efficient magnetic braking rather than a different collapse mode.
  • Selection on sources with measurable rotation may under-represent strongly braked objects; an unbiased Class 0 j census is the natural next test.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles specific-angular-momentum profiles from core to inner-envelope scales for three Class 0 systems (HH 212, HH 211, B335) and interprets them with the Shu (1977) inside-out collapse solution and the rotating TSC extension, plus a modest midplane density boost from a magnetized singular isothermal toroid (Li & Shu 1996). In all three sources j(r) follows a power law at core scales and becomes roughly constant in the collapsing envelope. Collapse radii are inferred by matching the observed inner constant j to an extrapolated outer-core power law at r_c/2; ages, accreted masses, and midplane densities (with R_eq ~ 2–4) are then compared to kinematic central masses and observational density estimates. The author concludes that inside-out collapse with approximate j conservation and modest magnetic flattening is a plausible first-order description, and that B335’s small disk follows naturally from its lower initial j.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the work supplies a concrete, observationally anchored baseline for angular-momentum evolution from core to disk scales in the earliest protostellar phase, and a simple explanation for disk-size diversity without requiring strong early magnetic braking. The side-by-side comparison of three well-studied systems, the explicit correction of the HH 211 path-length/density estimate, and the falsifiable links among j profiles, collapse age, M_acc versus M_sd, and midplane density are genuine strengths. The result is incremental rather than paradigm-shifting, but it is useful for the community and suitable for a specialist journal once the load-bearing modeling assumptions are stated more carefully.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §4.2, §5.2] Sections 3.2, 4.2, and 5.2: the collapse radius is defined by equating the observed constant inner-envelope j to the outward-fitted core power law evaluated at r_c/2 (citing TSC). Age t_c = r_c/a and M_acc = Ṁ t_c then follow by construction. The subsequent claim that M_acc is “broadly consistent” with kinematic M_sd (allowing 10–40% ejection) is therefore only a partial independent test. The manuscript should state this mapping explicitly as an assumption, quantify how M_acc/M_sd changes if the origin radius is taken as a free factor f·r_c (e.g., f = 0.3–0.7) rather than exactly 1/2, and soften language that presents the mass comparison as an a-posteriori confirmation of the model.
  2. [§5.2; also §3.2, §6.3] The outer-core j∝r^1.55 law is fitted only where data exist and then extrapolated inward to radii that are unobserved in the pre-collapse core (explicitly noted for HH 212). For B335 the data points lie at ≳10^4 au while r_c/2 ~ 1400 au, so the lever arm is large; adopting index 1.8 already drives the ejected-mass fraction to ~60%, which the text itself flags as high. A short sensitivity table (index 1.5–1.8; alternate normalizations within the quoted errors) for all three sources, showing the resulting ranges in r_c, t_c, and M_acc/M_sd, is needed before the “natural explanation” of B335’s small disk by low initial j can be considered robust.
  3. [§5.1; Figure 2] Section 5.1: the B335 (M_sd, j) pair is obtained by simultaneous visual matching of three PV diagrams to the Sakai et al. (2014) ballistic curves, with uncertainties from the range that still “looks reasonable.” Because this j sets both the inner constant level in Fig. 1c and the centrifugal barrier used in the disk-size argument, a quantitative fit (χ² or similar) or at least overlaid model grids showing the accepted vs rejected parameter region should replace or supplement the visual procedure, and the adopted j should be compared more carefully to the discrepant literature values (~10 vs ~40 au km s^{-1}).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1: panel (d) omits error bars “for clarity,” but the dynamic range in j among the three sources is a central point; consider faint error bars or a supplementary panel so the reader can judge overlap.
  2. [§2] Eqs. (4)–(5): the TSC midplane approximations are written without stating the radial range of validity (r ≫ R_c for the underlying Shu flow; near R_c the ballistic divergence is noted only in prose). A one-sentence caveat next to the equations would help.
  3. [§3.1, §4.1, §5.1] The adopted distances (400, 321, 165 pc) enter j, r_c, and masses; a brief note on how ±10% distance errors propagate into M_acc/M_sd would be useful, especially for B335 where the Gaia association distance is adopted.
  4. [§6.3] Introduction and §6.2 cite magnetic-braking simulations and non-ideal MHD reviews appropriately; adding a short pointer to recent disk-size surveys (already partly cited) that report a similar spread in centrifugal radii would strengthen the link to the broader sample.
  5. [throughout] Typographical/consistency: “L´ opez-V´ azquez” and similar accent encoding appear broken in the text and references; “yrs” vs “yr” is mixed; ensure uniform use of M_sd vs “central mass.”

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

j-profile 'consistency' with TSC is largely by construction: r_c is defined so the outer power law at r_c/2 equals the measured inner j; M_acc and density checks remain partly independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§3.2 (HH 212); parallel in §4.2, §5.2]
    "Assuming that the angular momentum is carried inward with the collapsing material, the specific angular momentum in the collapsing envelope is approximately equal to that of the original core at one-half of the collapse radius (Terebey et al. 1984), according to the inside-out collapse solution of Shu (1977). Using the observed specific angular momentum in the collapsing envelope, the collapse radius is estimated to be ∼4100 au. ... The dotted line in the figure illustrates the collapse profile of the specific angular momentum, and the inferred collapse radius is given by its intersection with"

    r_c is not measured independently; it is defined by intersecting the fitted/extrapolated outer-core power law with the condition j_core(r_c/2)=j_inner. The model j profile (solid+dotted) is therefore forced to pass through the same inner-j and outer-j data used to set its only free scale. Claiming the observed profiles are 'broadly consistent' with TSC then partly restates that construction. Ages and M_acc inherit this r_c; only the later M_acc vs M_sd and density comparisons add non-tautological content.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; §6.1; §7 Conclusions]
    "I find that the observed angular momentum profiles in all three sources are broadly consistent with an inside-out collapse scenario with approximate conservation of specific angular momentum in the collapsing region. The inferred collapse ages and mass infall rates yield total masses accreted onto the center that are broadly consistent with the central masses derived from kinematics, allowing for a fraction of the material to be ejected by jets and winds."

    Collapse ages and accreted masses are computed from the r_c values fixed in the previous step (t_c=r_c/a, M_acc=Ṁ t_c with Ṁ from the adopted isothermal a). Presenting them as yielding consistency with kinematics bundles a quantity constructed from the j-profile fit together with a genuinely separate M_sd check. The profile-shape half of the claim remains by-construction; the M_sd comparison is not, but is not cleanly separated in the abstract/conclusion wording.

full rationale

The paper's central morphological claim—that the observed j(r) (power-law core → flat inner envelope) is 'broadly consistent' with Shu/TSC inside-out collapse—is not an independent prediction of the profile shape. For each source the outer core is fit (or assigned) a j∝r^1.55 law, the inner envelope supplies a constant j, and r_c is read off by the TSC half-radius rule j_inner = j_core(r_c/2); the dotted 'collapse profile' is then drawn through that point. Any dataset with an outer power law and an inner plateau can be made to match this broken TSC template by that construction. That is mild fitted-input-as-consistency, not a full logical circle. Collapse age t_c=r_c/a and M_acc=Ṁ t_c inherit that definition of r_c, so part of the quantitative narrative is downstream of the mapping. However, comparing M_acc to kinematic M_sd (from ballistic PV modeling) and comparing R_eq-boosted TSC midplane densities to separate column-density or RT estimates are not algebraically forced by the j fit: wrong a, wrong half-radius mapping, or wrong R_eq would misalign those checks. Prior Lee et al. papers supply much of the input photometry/kinematics, but as empirical measurements rather than load-bearing uniqueness theorems. No self-definitional identity equates M_acc to M_sd. Score 4 reflects partial circularity on the profile-shape claim only.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on classical collapse solutions plus several fitted or hand-chosen numbers that map observed j and morphology onto ages, masses, and densities. No new physical entities are introduced. Load-bearing domain assumptions are the Shu/TSC half-radius j mapping, isothermal effective sound speed, ballistic inner flow, and Li & Shu elongation→R_eq conversion. Free parameters control the quantitative ‘consistency’ more than the qualitative power-law-to-flat shape.

free parameters (6)
  • Core j power-law index = 1.55 (fiducial); 1.8 explored
    Fixed at 1.55 for all three sources (motivated by HH 211 and the 1.5–1.8 literature range); index 1.8 is only sensitivity-tested and worsens B335 mass budget.
  • j normalization of outer core power law = source-specific (46 / 72 / 15.4)
    Amplitude of j(r) fitted or adopted per source to the outer-core points (HH 212: ~46; HH 211: ~72; B335: ~15.4 in au km/s at 1000 au).
  • Effective isothermal temperature / sound speed = T≈20, 15, 13 K → a≈0.266, 0.233, 0.214 km/s
    Single T per source sets a and thus Ṁ=0.975 a³/G and t_c=r_c/a; chosen from literature mean temperatures (20 K, ~15 K, 13 K).
  • Collapse radius r_c = ~4100, 1700, 2800 au
    Inferred by intersecting constant inner j with outer power law at r_c/2; not measured independently.
  • B335 ballistic (M_sd, j) from visual PV match = M_sd~0.08±0.02 Msun, j~26±8 au km/s
    Central mass and specific angular momentum chosen by eye so one ballistic model matches C18O, COM PC1, and SO2 PV diagrams simultaneously.
  • Magnetic midplane enhancement R_eq = R_eq~2.3, 4.2, 2.3
    Taken from core elongation χ~2–3 via Li & Shu (1996) H0/λ tables and figure interpolation; multiplies TSC midplane density.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Shu (1977) inside-out collapse of a singular isothermal sphere with constant Ṁ=0.975 a³/G and expansion wave at r_c=a t_c
    Baseline density, velocity, and mass budget used throughout §§2–5.
  • domain assumption TSC: in the ballistic inner region, specific angular momentum is approximately conserved and equals the pre-collapse value at ~r_c/2
    Load-bearing mapping that converts observed inner j into r_c (explicitly invoked in §§3.2, 4.2, 5.2).
  • domain assumption Inner envelope flow may be approximated by Ulrich ballistic trajectories with centrifugal barrier R_b=j²/(2GM_sd)
    Used to extract M_sd and j from PV diagrams and to locate disks.
  • domain assumption Moderately magnetized cores are singular isothermal toroids (Li & Shu 1996); elongation χ~2–3 implies R_eq~2–4 and collapse remains TSC-like with similar Ṁ (Allen et al. 2003)
    Justifies multiplying midplane densities by R_eq without changing the j-evolution story (§2, density paragraphs).
  • domain assumption Outer-core specific angular momentum follows a power law j∝r^{1.5–1.8} that can be extrapolated inward to unobserved pre-collapse radii
    Required to define the solid-line core profiles and the r_c intersection; supported by Goodman/Chen/Pandhi-type surveys but not measured inside the collapse front.
  • domain assumption Jets/winds eject ~10–30% (paper allows up to ~40–60% in sensitivity tests) of accreted mass, reconciling M_acc with kinematic M_sd
    Used in every source’s mass-budget paragraph; cited to Shu/Pudritz/Lee reviews.
  • standard math Standard self-similar and ballistic ODE/algebraic relations of Shu/TSC/Ulrich
    Mathematical backbone of Eqs. (1)–(5) and the PV model.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 19890 in / 4610 out tokens · 95465 ms · 2026-07-31T19:11:50.009701+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

I investigate the angular momentum evolution from core to disk scales in the early phase of star formation using three protostellar systems: HH 212, HH 211, and B335. Observations show that the specific angular momentum follows a power-law dependence at core scales and transitions to an approximately constant value at smaller radii, indicating dynamical collapse in the inner envelope. I model this behavior using the inside-out collapse solution of Shu (1977) and its rotating extension, the Terebey-Shu-Cassen model, including modest magnetic effects through a flattened, magnetized core. I find that the observed angular momentum profiles in all three sources are broadly consistent with an inside-out collapse scenario with approximate conservation of specific angular momentum in the collapsing region. The inferred collapse ages and mass infall rates yield total masses accreted onto the center that are broadly consistent with the central masses derived from kinematics, allowing for a fraction of the material to be ejected by jets and winds. The predicted midplane densities at typical radii, including the effect of magnetic flattening, are also consistent with observational estimates. The three systems exhibit a similar pattern of angular momentum evolution despite large differences in the magnitude of their specific angular momentum. In particular, the small disk in B335 can be naturally explained by its lower initial specific angular momentum, although alternative explanations, such as magnetic braking or different initial conditions, cannot be excluded. These results suggest that inside-out collapse, with modest magnetic modification, provides a plausible first-order description of angular momentum evolution from core to disk scales in the early phase of star formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28056 by Chin-Fei Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distributions of specific angular momentum from core to infalling envelope in (a) HH 212, (b) HH 211, and (c) B335, compared with the inside-out collapse model (solid and dotted lines). Error bars in panels (a)-(c) represent the uncertainties in the measurements. Panel (d) shows a comparison among the three sources, with the error bars omitted for clarity. In all panels, dots represent the observed distrib… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Position-velocity (PV) diagrams of the infalling envelope in B335 at different spatial scales along the major axis in (a) C18O (Yen et al. 2015), (b) the first principal component (PC1) from complex organic molecules (Okoda et al. 2022), and (c) SO2 (Bjerkeli et al. 2019). The red curves are calculated using the simple ballistic model of Sakai et al. (2014), which assumes conservation of energy and specifi… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    H.\ 2003a, , 599, 363

    Allen, A., Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H.\ 2003a, , 599, 363. doi:10.1086/379243

    doi:10.1086/379243

  2. [2]

    H., & Li, Z.-Y.\ 2003b, , 599, 351

    Allen, A., Shu, F. H., & Li, Z.-Y.\ 2003b, , 599, 351. doi:10.1086/379242

    work page doi:10.1086/379242

  3. [3]

    P., Harsono, D., et al.\ 2019, , 631, A64

    Bjerkeli, P., Ramsey, J. P., Harsono, D., et al.\ 2019, , 631, A64. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935948

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935948 2019

  4. [4]

    & Bodenheimer, P.\ 2000, , 543, 2, 822

    Burkert, A. & Bodenheimer, P.\ 2000, , 543, 2, 822. doi:10.1086/317122

    doi:10.1086/317122 2000

  5. [5]

    M., et al.\ 2023, , 669, A90

    Cabedo, V., Maury, A., Girart, J. M., et al.\ 2023, , 669, A90. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243813

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243813 2023

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2633

    Chen, C.-Y., Storm, S., Li, Z.-Y., et al.\ 2019, , 490, 1, 527. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2633

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2633 2019

  7. [7]

    W., et al.\ 2025, , 993, 2, 200

    Choi, Y., Kwon, W., Looney, L. W., et al.\ 2025, , 993, 2, 200. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0710

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0710 2025

  8. [8]

    Modelling the Break in the Specific Angular Momentum within the Envelope-Disk Transition Zone

    Das, I., Basu, S., Ohashi, N., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2602.13683. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.13683

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13683 2026

  9. [9]

    J., Di Francesco, J., Lee, J.-E., et al.\ 2015, , 814, 1, 22

    Evans, N. J., Di Francesco, J., Lee, J.-E., et al.\ 2015, , 814, 1, 22. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/22

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/22 2015

  10. [10]

    & Shu, F

    Galli, D. & Shu, F. H.\ 1993, , 417, 220. doi:10.1086/173305

    doi:10.1086/173305 1993

  11. [11]

    J., Belloche, A., et al.\ 2020, , 637, A92

    Gaudel, M., Maury, A. J., Belloche, A., et al.\ 2020, , 637, A92. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936364

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936364 2020

  12. [12]

    M., Rao, R., & Marrone, D

    Girart, J. M., Rao, R., & Marrone, D. P.\ 2006, Science, 313, 5788, 812. doi:10.1126/science.1129093

    doi:10.1126/science.1129093 2006

  13. [13]

    A., Benson, P

    Goodman, A. A., Benson, P. J., Fuller, G. A., et al.\ 1993, , 406, 528. doi:10.1086/172465

    doi:10.1086/172465 1993

  14. [14]

    & Ciardi, A.\ 2009, , 506, 2, L29

    Hennebelle, P. & Ciardi, A.\ 2009, , 506, 2, L29. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913008

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913008 2009

  15. [15]

    & Fromang, S.\ 2008, , 477, 1, 9

    Hennebelle, P. & Fromang, S.\ 2008, , 477, 1, 9. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078309

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078309 2008

  16. [16]

    G., Maureira, M

    Hsieh, C.-H., Arce, H. G., Maureira, M. J., et al.\ 2024, , 973, 2, 138. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6152

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6152 2024

  17. [17]

    M., Stephens, I

    Huang, B., Girart, J. M., Stephens, I. W., et al.\ 2024, , 963, 1, L31. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad27d4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad27d4 2024

  18. [18]

    Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Kwon, W., et al.\ 2014, , 213, 1, 13. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/13

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/13 2014

  19. [19]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c20

    Imai, M., Oya, Y., Sakai, N., et al.\ 2019, , 873, 2, L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c20 2019

  20. [20]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/85

    Kurono, Y., Saito, M., Kamazaki, T., et al.\ 2013, , 765, 2, 85. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/85

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/85 2013

  21. [21]

    B.\ 1981, , 194, 809

    Larson, R. B.\ 1981, , 194, 809. doi:10.1093/mnras/194.4.809

    doi:10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 1981

  22. [22]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/114

    Lee, C.-F., Hirano, N., Zhang, Q., et al.\ 2014, , 786, 2, 114. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/114

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/114 2014

  23. [23]

    Lee, C.-F., Hwang, H.-C., & Li, Z.-Y.\ 2016, , 826, 213

    2016

  24. [24]

    Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y., Ho, P. T. P., et al.\ 2017a, , 843, 1, 27. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7757

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7757

  25. [25]

    Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y., Ho, P. T. P., et al.\ 2017b, Science Advances, 3, 4, e1602935. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602935

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602935

  26. [26]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6d

    Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y., Codella, C., et al.\ 2018, , 856, 1, 14. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6d 2018

  27. [27]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2458

    Lee, C.-F., Kwon, W., Jhan, K.-S., et al.\ 2019, , 879, 101. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2458

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2458 2019

  28. [28]

    doi:10.1007/s00159-020-0123-7

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

    doi:10.1007/s00159-020-0123-7 2020

  29. [29]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdbca

    Lee, C.-F., Jhan, K.-S., & Moraghan, A.\ 2023, , 951, 1, L2. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdbca

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdbca 2023

  30. [30]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/130

    Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., Shang, H., et al.\ 2014, , 793, 2, 130. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/130

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/130 2014

  31. [31]

    & Shu, F

    Li, Z.-Y. & Shu, F. H.\ 1996, , 472, 211. doi:10.1086/178056

    doi:10.1086/178056 1996

  32. [32]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2272

    Lin, J.-H., Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y., et al.\ 2025, , 995, 1, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2272

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2272 2025

  33. [33]

    A., Lee, C.-F., Tapia, C., et al.\ 2026, , Resubmitted

    L \'o pez-V \'a zquez, J. A., Lee, C.-F., Tapia, C., et al.\ 2026, , Resubmitted

    2026

  34. [34]

    N., Inutsuka, S.-

    Machida, M. N., Inutsuka, S.-. ichiro ., & Matsumoto, T.\ 2011, , 63, 3, 555. doi:10.1093/pasj/63.3.555

    doi:10.1093/pasj/63.3.555 2011

  35. [35]

    J., Girart, J

    Maury, A. J., Girart, J. M., Zhang, Q., et al.\ 2018, , 477, 2760. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty574

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty574 2018

  36. [36]

    J., Andr \'e , P., Testi, L., et al.\ 2019, , 621, A76

    Maury, A. J., Andr \'e , P., Testi, L., et al.\ 2019, , 621, A76. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833537

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833537 2019

  37. [37]

    Mellon, R. R. & Li, Z.-Y.\ 2008, , 681, 2, 1356. doi:10.1086/587542

    doi:10.1086/587542 2008

  38. [38]

    C., Stephens, I

    Myers, P. C., Stephens, I. W., Auddy, S., et al.\ 2020, , 896, 2, 163. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9110

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9110 2020

  39. [39]

    Ohashi, N., Hayashi, M., Ho, P. T. P., et al.\ 1997, , 488, 1, 317. doi:10.1086/304685

    doi:10.1086/304685 1997

  40. [40]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff4

    Okoda, Y., Oya, Y., Imai, M., et al.\ 2022, , 935, 2, 136. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff4 2022

  41. [41]

    K., Fissel, L., et al.\ 2023, , 525, 1, 364

    Pandhi, A., Friesen, R. K., Fissel, L., et al.\ 2023, , 525, 1, 364. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2283

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2283 2023

  42. [42]

    E., Zhao, B., Schmiedeke, A., et al.\ 2019, , 882, 2, 103

    Pineda, J. E., Zhao, B., Schmiedeke, A., et al.\ 2019, , 882, 2, 103. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd1 2019

  43. [43]

    E., Arzoumanian, D., Andre, P., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 233

    Pineda, J. E., Arzoumanian, D., Andre, P., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 233. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2205.03935

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.03935 2023

  44. [44]

    E., Sipil \"a , O., Segura-Cox, D

    Pineda, J. E., Sipil \"a , O., Segura-Cox, D. M., et al.\ 2024, , 686, A162. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347997

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347997 2024

  45. [45]

    E., Ouyed, R., Fendt, C., et al.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 277

    Pudritz, R. E., Ouyed, R., Fendt, C., et al.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 277

    2007

  46. [46]

    doi:10.1086/307244

    Saito, M., Sunada, K., Kawabe, R., et al.\ 1999, , 518, 1, 334. doi:10.1086/307244

    work page doi:10.1086/307244 1999

  47. [47]

    doi:10.1038/nature13000

    Sakai, N., Sakai, T., Hirota, T., et al.\ 2014, , 507, 7490, 78. doi:10.1038/nature13000

    doi:10.1038/nature13000 2014

  48. [48]

    M., Looney, L

    Segura-Cox, D. M., Looney, L. W., Tobin, J. J., et al.\ 2018, , 866, 2, 161. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaddf3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaddf3 2018

  49. [49]

    H.\ 1977, , 214, 488

    Shu, F. H.\ 1977, , 214, 488. doi:10.1086/155274

    doi:10.1086/155274 1977

  50. [50]

    H., Najita, J

    Shu, F. H., Najita, J. R., Shang, H., & Li, Z.-Y. X-Winds Theory and Observations. Protostars and Planets IV,789 (2000)

    2000

  51. [51]

    M., Rivolo, A

    Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., et al.\ 1987, , 319, 730. doi:10.1086/165493

    doi:10.1086/165493 1987

  52. [52]

    Tanner, J. D. & Arce, H. G.\ 2011, , 726, 1, 40. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/40

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/1/40 2011

  53. [53]

    H., & Cassen, P.\ 1984, , 286, 529

    Terebey, S., Shu, F. H., & Cassen, P.\ 1984, , 286, 529. doi:10.1086/162628

    doi:10.1086/162628 1984

  54. [54]

    J., Sheehan, P

    Tobin, J. J., Sheehan, P. D., Megeath, S. T., et al.\ 2020, , 890, 2, 130. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f64

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f64 2020

  55. [55]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

    Tsukamoto, Y., Maury, A., Commercon, B., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 317. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.13765 2023

  56. [56]

    K.\ 1976, , 210, 377

    Ulrich, R. K.\ 1976, , 210, 377. doi:10.1086/154840

    doi:10.1086/154840 1976

  57. [57]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbea4

    Ward-Thompson, D., Karoly, J., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 2, 62. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbea4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbea4 2023

  58. [58]

    M.\ 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 6, 88

    Watson, D. M.\ 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 6, 88. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab9df4

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab9df4 2020

  59. [59]

    doi:10.1086/319474

    Wiseman, J., Wootten, A., Zinnecker, H., et al.\ 2001, , 550, 1, L87. doi:10.1086/319474

    work page doi:10.1086/319474 2001

  60. [60]

    R., & Price, D

    Wurster, J., Bate, M. R., & Price, D. J.\ 2018, , 475, 2, 1859. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3339

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3339 2018

  61. [61]

    M., Hull, C

    Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Hull, C. L. H., et al.\ 2021, , 907, 1, 33. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abca99

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abca99 2021

  62. [62]

    M., Lee, C.-F., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 1, 32

    Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Lee, C.-F., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 1, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca47f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca47f 2023

  63. [63]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1786

    Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., & Ohashi, N.\ 2010, , 710, 2, 1786. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1786

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1786 2010

  64. [64]

    M., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 2, 129

    Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., Koch, P. M., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 2, 129. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/129

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/129 2015

  65. [65]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1124

    Zhao, B., Caselli, P., Li, Z.-Y., et al.\ 2016, , 460, 2, 2050. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1124

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1124 2016

  66. [66]

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00664-z

    Zhao, B., Tomida, K., Hennebelle, P., et al.\ 2020, , 216, 3, 43. doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00664-z

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00664-z 2020

  67. [67]

    J., Butner, H

    Zhou, S., Evans, N. J., Butner, H. M., et al.\ 1990, , 363, 168. doi:10.1086/169327

    work page doi:10.1086/169327 1990

  68. [68]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al.\ 2019, , 879, 2, 125. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2388

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2388 2019

  69. [69]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/57

    Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., & Ohashi, N.\ 2011, , 742, 1, 57. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/57 2011