Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Kinematic evidence of magnetospheric accretion for Herbig Ae stars with JWST NIRSpec

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hydrogen emission lines from three Herbig Ae stars trace magnetospheric infall, not disc winds.

desk verdict A genuinely new kinematic dataset that makes a plausible case for magnetospheric accretion in three Herbig Ae stars, but the case rests on an under-tested Stark broadening assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05668 v3 pith:XFSH6ZRM submitted 2024-12-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Ciarán Rogers , Bernhard Brandl , Guido de Marchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords magnetosphericaccretionHerbigAe/BestarshydrogenrecombinationlineslinekinematicsNGC3603JWSTNIRSpecStarkbroadeningpre-main-sequence
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 tries to determine where the hydrogen emission lines of intermediate-mass pre-main-sequence stars form, a question that matters because these lines have been used for more than 25 years to estimate accretion rates. Using JWST NIRSpec spectra of five young stars in the massive star-forming region NGC 3603, it finds a systematic kinematic pattern across the Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund series: lines from higher upper energy levels are broader, and the fastest-moving line components are the most optically thick. The authors argue this pattern matches magnetospheric accretion (MA) and is incompatible with an accelerating magneto-centrifugal wind, which would produce narrow high-excitation lines and optically thick cores. Three sources, classified as Herbig Ae stars, have widths too large for any edge-on Keplerian disc, leaving MA as the only viable origin; two cooler sources remain consistent with either MA or Keplerian disc emission.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the FWHM-versus-$n_{\mathrm{up}}$ ladder read across three hydrogen series, combined with line-pair optical-depth ratios. For each source, at least fifteen Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund lines are measured after subtracting synthetic photospheric absorption; the ratio of two spectrally resolved lines ($\mathrm{Br}_{11}/\mathrm{Br}_{6}$ and $\mathrm{Pf}_{17}/\mathrm{Pf}_{11}$) is then compared with Case B recombination and optically thick limits to map optical depth against velocity. The paper also computes the free-fall velocity expected from magnetospheric accretion, using a truncation radius of $3\pm1\,R_*$, and the Keplerian velocity of disc gas, and uses these as yardsticks for the observed $\mathrm{Br}_{11}$ FWHM.

What would settle it

Re-observe the same sources at resolving power $\lambda/\Delta\lambda \gtrsim 10^4$ and fit the line wings for a Lorentzian (pressure-broadening) component; if a significant Stark component appears, or if a non-accreting comparison star with a hot inner disc shows the same FWHM-$n_{\mathrm{up}}$ and optically-thick-wing pattern, the magnetospheric accretion interpretation would lose its kinematic support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across all five sources, lines with high upper energy level $n_{\mathrm{up}}$ are systematically broader than lines with low $n_{\mathrm{up}}$, and line-ratio maps for $\mathrm{Br}_{11}/\mathrm{Br}_{6}$ and $\mathrm{Pf}_{17}/\mathrm{Pf}_{11}$ show that the high-velocity wings are the most optically thick while the low-velocity cores are optically thin. The paper interprets this pair of trends as the signature of a magnetospheric accretion flow, where gas nears free-fall speed and high density close to the stellar surface produces both the broadest and the most optically thick emission. It rules out magneto-centrifugal winds on the grounds that those predict the opposite ordering, and demonstrates that a Keplerian disc cannot supply the observed widths: comparing $\mathrm{Br}_{11}$ FWHMs with expected free-fall velocities (truncation radius $3\pm 1\,R_*$) and Keplerian velocities shows that sources 185, 238, and 823 are too broad even for an edge-on disc, while sources 251 and 469 remain ambiguous. The paper concludes that hydrogen line emission from the three Herbig Ae stars most plausibly originates in magnetospheric accretion, while cautioning that a five-source sample is too small to generalise.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes Stark broadening is negligible for the Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund lines, so the measured FWHMs trace bulk gas motion rather than pressure broadening; the paper itself notes in Section 7.4 that Stark broadening acts more strongly on high-$n_{\mathrm{up}}$ transitions and could mimic the observed trend.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hydrogen-line accretion-rate calibrations for Herbig Ae stars would rest on a more secure physical basis, because the lines are tracing actual infall rather than outflow in at least some systems.
  • The same kinematic test can be applied to existing archival spectra of other Herbig AeBe stars, so the sample can grow without new JWST observations.
  • For all five sources, magneto-centrifugal wind emission is excluded as the dominant hydrogen-line mechanism, so angular-momentum loss through such winds is not required to explain these lines.
  • For sources 251 and 469, only higher spatial or spectral resolution observations can distinguish magnetospheric accretion from a Keplerian disc.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the FWHM-vs-$n_{\mathrm{up}}$ ladder could be used to revisit T Tauri spectra, where Stark broadening is weaker, to see whether the same trend cleanly separates accretion from wind dominance in lower-mass stars.
  • A direct test of the environmental hypothesis would be to run the identical analysis on isolated Herbig Ae stars: if wind signatures appear preferentially among isolated sources, the extreme UV field of NGC 3603 is likely suppressing winds.
  • If the magnetospheric signature correlates with measured stellar magnetic field strengths across a larger sample, that would tie the kinematic diagnostic to the physical condition (a truncating magnetosphere) responsible for the accretion flow.
  • The optically thin cores and optically thick wings could be modeled with radiative transfer to estimate electron densities and infall velocities directly, giving a stronger quantitative test than the FWHM comparison alone.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents JWST NIRSpec 1.66–3.2 μm spectra of five pre-main-sequence sources in NGC 3603. The authors fit HST optical photometry with MCMC plus Phoenix model spectra to derive Teff, M*, R*, and A(V), classify three objects as Herbig Ae stars, and then measure Gaussian FWHMs and line-profile ratios for Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund transitions. They find that FWHM increases with upper principal quantum number nup and that the high-velocity wings are more optically thick than the line cores. Comparing the measured FWHMs with expected magnetospheric free-fall velocities (Eq. 2, Table 4) and Keplerian velocities (Eq. 3, Table 5), they conclude that the three Herbig Ae sources (185, 238, 823) are inconsistent with Keplerian disc emission and with magneto-centrifugal wind emission, and favour magnetospheric accretion; the remaining two sources are left ambiguous between accretion and disc emission.

Significance. If the central conclusion holds, this is one of the first kinematic, multi-series demonstrations that magnetospheric accretion can dominate hydrogen line emission in Herbig Ae stars, and it directly challenges the wind-dominated picture inferred from earlier spectro-interferometric and modelling work. The paper's strengths are its systematic use of a large number of hydrogen lines across three series, Monte Carlo error propagation on the measured FWHMs, explicit photospheric absorption subtraction, a control Class I source with the opposite kinematic trend, and a conservative 3-sigma treatment of stellar parameter uncertainties when computing expected velocities. The main weakness is that the kinematic interpretation assumes Doppler broadening throughout; the paper itself concedes in Sect. 7.4 that Stark broadening can induce qualitatively similar FWHM-versus-nup trends, and the quantitative case against Stark broadening is not made for the high-nup Pfund lines that drive the trend.

major comments (2)
  1. The treatment of Stark broadening is the load-bearing weakness of the kinematic argument. The authors acknowledge that Stark broadening 'can induce qualitatively similar FWHM trends as those that we have presented', but the dismissal is based on literature calculations for Hα and Brγ, a non-quantitative statement that the observed wings extend only to ~300 km/s, and the fact that photospheric subtraction did not change the trend. None of these directly constrains the electron density and temperature in the actual magnetospheric accretion flows of these five sources, where the high-nup Pfund lines are most vulnerable to Stark broadening. Since the Keplerian-disc exclusion in §7.3.4/Table 5 and the free-fall comparison in §7.2/Table 4 use the measured FWHMs as Doppler velocity indicators, an unmodelled pressure-broadening contribution would directly weaken the conclusion that sources 185, 238, and 823 require magnetospheric accretion. I request a quantitative estimate or model of Stark-broadened widths and profile wings for the observed Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund transitions over a plausible range of electron densities and temperatures in the accretion column, so that the measured FWHM trend and wing shapes can be used to place an explicit upper limit on the Stark contribution.
  2. The comparison of measured FWHMs to v_ff and v_kep implicitly equates a Gaussian FWHM with a maximum line-of-sight velocity. FWHM is not the terminal velocity of the flow: it depends on the optical depth, the line profile shape, the spatial distribution of the emitting gas, and the unresolved 70 km/s instrumental line spread function. For Keplerian rotation in particular, the toy model in §7.3.4 shows a double-peaked profile whose FWHM and peak-to-peak separation are different quantities; comparing FWHM directly with the single value v_kep sin(i) in Table 5 is therefore not a full forward-model test. The 3-sigma stellar parameter uncertainties and edge-on geometry make the exclusion numerically conservative for sources 238 and 823, and probably also for 185, but the authors should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, compute the FWHM predicted by the toy disc model at NIRSpec resolution for the relevant inclinations rather than comparing with a single kinematic velocity.
minor comments (5)
  1. The discussion of the point-source resolving power of ~4300 and the statement that the LSF is not Nyquist sampled should be clarified: the current text reads as if the 'side effect' is a cause rather than a consequence of the higher resolution for point sources.
  2. The figure captions describe the series colours but not the dashed-versus-solid line styles for pre- and post-photospheric-subtraction measurements; a legend or a more explicit caption entry would make the figures easier to interpret.
  3. The transition notation is inconsistent: the main text refers to Br11 and Pf17, while the appendix tables use labels such as Br11−4 and Pf17−5; please unify the notation and define it once in the text.
  4. There are typographical errors in §4.1 ('This is especially for true for Herbig stars') and a subject-verb agreement issue in 'The high luminosities and lack of absorption features ... is naturally explained'; these should be corrected during language editing.
  5. In the optical-depth diagrams, the boundary between 'optically thin', 'partially optically thick', and 'fully optically thick' regimes depends on Eq. (1) and on the adopted Storey & Hummer values, but the caption does not state the numerical limits used for each line pair; adding these values would make the diagrams reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: expected MA and Keplerian velocities are computed from SED-fitted stellar parameters and scanned inclinations, not fitted to the measured line widths; the wind-vs-MA discrimination rests on external models and an independent wind source (TMC1A), and the self-citations and H-alpha target selection do not force the kinematic conclusion.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, no step reduces to its own inputs by construction. The kinematic test is not a fit: v_ff (Eq. 2) and v_kep (Eq. 3) are computed from stellar parameters obtained by an MCMC SED fit to HST photometry (Section 4.2, benchmarked against MUSE spectroscopy in Section 4.3) and from scanned inclinations, then compared to independently measured FWHMs and line-profile ratios; the velocity scales are never adjusted to match the line widths. The MA-versus-wind discrimination is anchored externally: the accelerating-wind expectation (narrow high-excitation lines, optically thick cores, thin wings) comes from external models (Muzerolle et al. 1998a; Lima et al. 2010), and the wind case is demonstrated with archival TMC1A data (Section 7.1) whose opposite FWHM and optical-depth patterns were independently attributed to an outflow by Harsono et al. (2023). Self-citations (Rogers et al. 2024a,b,c) supply target selection, flux calibration, M_acc, and M*/R* inputs, but those inputs were not derived from the target conclusion, and the central comparison (FWHM > v_kep for sources 185, 238, 823) does not reduce to them. Two manuscript-flagged limitations are robustness concerns rather than circularity: (1) Section 7.4 concedes Stark broadening 'can induce qualitatively similar FWHM trends as those that we have presented' and dismisses it via external literature and a non-quantitative wing check - a physical degeneracy in the Doppler assumption, not a self-referential reduction; (2) the sample was pre-selected as accretion-active from photometric H-alpha (Section 2.1), biasing the sources toward accreting objects without determining the MA-versus-wind distinction actually tested. The Keplerian exclusion also compares FWHM directly to v_kep at the stellar surface rather than to a rotationally broadened profile; this is a modelling choice relevant to correctness, not circularity. Score 2: the derivation is essentially self-contained; the self-citations are present but not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central velocity comparison depends on SED-fitted stellar parameters (Teff, M*, R*, A(V), veiling), a chosen truncation radius, and literature model predictions for wind and accretion geometries. None of the parameters is fitted to the target conclusion: the FWHM and optical depth data are compared to independently computed velocity ranges. The main unrecognized cost is the assumption that Doppler, not Stark, broadening dominates the line widths.

free parameters (7)
  • Teff per source (MCMC SED fit) = 185: 7553 K; 238: 9893 K; 251: 6282 K; 469: 5276 K; 823: 8967 K
    Fitted to HST optical photometry with Phoenix models; drives spectral classification and the evolutionary-track masses and radii used in velocity comparisons.
  • M* per source (evolutionary tracks) = 185: 6.78; 238: 7.06; 251: 6.12; 469: 4.24; 823: 5.54 M_sun
    Used in v_ff and v_kep; fitted via HRD tracks from Teff and luminosity, not directly measured.
  • R* per source (evolutionary tracks) = 185: 15.35; 238: 12.27; 251: 17.18; 469: 9.96; 823: 9.46 R_sun
    Used in v_ff and v_kep; carries systematic uncertainty from the tracks and the Teff scale.
  • A(V) per source (MCMC SED fit) = 185: 5.82; 238: 6.88; 251: 5.67; 469: 4.83; 823: 8.09 mag
    Fitted extinction; affects SED shape and photospheric subtraction but is not directly part of the kinematic comparison.
  • r_lambda veiling per source = 185: 3.6; 238: 0.73; 251: 5.91; 469: 12.9; 823: 5.65
    Used to subtract photospheric absorption before measuring emission lines; its uncertainty propagates into FWHM through the Monte Carlo procedure.
  • Rtrunc (magnetospheric truncation radius) = 3 ± 1 R*
    Chosen by hand from CTTS and Herbig AeBe expectations; enters v_ff (Eq. 2) and is not independently constrained for these five sources.
  • Inclination i = not fitted; 0-90 deg scanned
    v_ff and v_kep are evaluated at discrete inclinations to bracket possible geometries; the conclusions for the three Herbig Ae sources hold even at the most favorable inclinations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The magnetospheric accretion flow can be approximated by free-fall from a truncation radius of 3 ± 1 R* (Eq. 2).
    Used in Section 7.2 to compute v_ff and compare with FWHM of Br11; Rtrunc is not measured for these sources and is taken from scaled CTTS expectations.
  • domain assumption In an accelerating magneto-centrifugal wind, high-excitation lines form near the launch point and are narrow, while low-excitation lines are broad; line cores are optically thick and wings thin (Section 7.1).
    This predicted trend is the basis for ruling out winds; if the wind excitation and optical-depth geometry differs, the exclusion weakens.
  • domain assumption Stark broadening does not contribute significantly to the widths of the Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund lines (Section 7.4).
    The authors rely on prior modeling and the absence of very broad wings; a significant Stark component would break the interpretation of FWHM as bulk gas velocity.
  • domain assumption Phoenix stellar models, fixed metallicity [Fe/H]=0, log g=4.0, and the Gordon et al. (2023) extinction curve with R(V)=4.8 adequately describe the photospheres (Section 4.2).
    SED fitting returns the stellar parameters used in velocity comparisons; deviations affect M* and R*.
  • standard math Case B recombination (Storey and Hummer 1995) gives the optically thin ratio for the Br11/Br6 and Pf17/Pf11 line pairs (Section 6.2).
    Used to set the optically thin boundary of the optical depth diagrams; ratios between thin and thick limits are interpreted as partially thick.
  • domain assumption The He I-scaled nebular subtraction removes all nebular and ionisation-front hydrogen emission without changing the stellar line profiles (Section 3.2).
    If residual nebular emission remains, low-velocity line cores could be contaminated, affecting the optical depth ratios and FWHM measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinematic evidence of magnetospheric accretion for Herbig Ae stars with JWST NIRSpec." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFSH6ZRM

@misc{pith2026241205668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinematic evidence of magnetospheric accretion for Herbig Ae stars with JWST NIRSpec},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFSH6ZRM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05668}
}
abstract

Hydrogen emission lines have been used to estimate the mass accretion rate of pre-main-sequence stars for over $25$ years, although the physical origin of these lines is still unclear. Magnetospheric accretion (MA) and magneto-centrifugal winds are the two most often invoked mechanisms. Using a combination of HST photometry and new JWST NIRSpec spectra in the range $1.66 - 3.2 \; \mu m$, we analysed the emission line spectra of five sources to attempt to reveal the physical origin of their hydrogen emission lines. These sources reside in NGC 3603, a Galactic massive star forming region. We performed fits of the SEDs of the five sources employing a Markov chain Monte Carlo exploration to estimate $T_{eff}$, $R_{*}$, $M_{*}$, and $A(V)$ for each source. We performed a kinematic analysis across three spectral series of hydrogen lines (Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund). We studied the full width at half maximum and optical depth of the lines in order to constrain the emission origin. We calculated the expected velocities from MA as well as gas in Keplerian orbit for our sources. All five sources have SEDs consistent with young intermediate-mass stars. We classified three of these sources as Herbig Ae type stars based on their $T_{eff}$. Hydrogen lines with high upper energy levels $n_{up}$ tend to be significantly broader than lines with a lower $n_{up}$. The optical depth of the emission lines is also highest for the high-velocity component of each line, and it becomes optically thin in the low-velocity component. Emission from magneto-centrifugal winds is not consistent with any of our observations. Two sources are consistent with emission from a Keplerian disc, or MA. The remaining three sources are only consistent with emission from MA. In the future, this approach can be applied to more statistically significant samples of Herbig AeBe spectra, including existing archival observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NIRSpec spectra of our five PMS sources. The spectra have been normalised at 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top-left panel - SED of source 238 from 0.4-3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Section of the normalised spectrum of source 238. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fitted hydrogen line profiles for source 238. The black solid line is the normalised line profile with the continuum set to zero. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full width at half maximum of each hydrogen emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optical depth diagrams for spectrally resolved emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Line profiles of Br11 and Br6, respectively shown as solid and dashed black lines. The green solid line shows the line pro￾file ratio Br10 Br6 . Line profile ratio uncertainties are shown as green error bars. in NGC 3603. In this scenario, the high excitation lines sho…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Full width at half maximum of each hydrogen emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Line profile of Br7 if it were to originate in a Keplerian rotating inner disc. Inclination angles are 10◦ , 30◦ , and 70◦ . who computed rotationally broadened emission line profiles for Br7 for different rates of rotation and inclinations. They showed that for rotati…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. XUE. JWST spectroscopy of externally irradiated disks around young intermediate-mass stars

    astro-ph.SR 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Externally irradiated intermediate-mass disks in NGC 6357 retain molecular richness comparable to isolated T Tauri disks, with hot water common and no clear irradiation chemistry.

  2. Externally irradiated young stars in NGC 3603. A JWST NIRSpec catalogue of pre-main-sequence stars in a massive star formation region

    astro-ph.SR 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A JWST NIRSpec catalog of 42 accreting pre-main-sequence stars in NGC 3603 shows accretion rates higher, and ages older, than typical low-mass star-forming regions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbott, D. C. 1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 259, Aug. 1, 1982, p. 282-301., 259, 282

    1982

  2. [2]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A72

    Alcal \'a , J., Gangi, M., Biazzo, K., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A72

    2021

  3. [3]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 600, A20

    Alcal \'a , J., Manara, C., Natta, A., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 600, A20

    2017

  4. [4]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 561, A2

    Alcal \'a , J., Natta, A., Manara, C., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 561, A2

    2014

  5. [5]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A48

    Antoniucci, S., Nisini, B., Biazzo, K., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A48

    2017

  6. [6]

    Baker, J. G. & Menzel, D. H. 1938, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 88, p. 52, 88, 52

    work page 1938

  7. [7]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 1108

    Beccari, G., Spezzi, L., De Marchi, G., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 1108

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    P., Naylor, T., Mayne, N., Jeffries, R., & Littlefair, S

    Bell, C. P., Naylor, T., Mayne, N., Jeffries, R., & Littlefair, S. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 806

    work page 2013

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Blandford, R. D. & Payne, D. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 199, 883

    1982

  2. [10]

    & Catala, C

    B \"o hm, T. & Catala, C. 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 301, p. 155, 301, 155

    1995

  3. [11]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 463, 1017

    Bouvier, J., Alencar, S., Boutelier, T., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 463, 1017

    2007

  4. [12]

    1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 272, 346

    Bunn, J., Hoare, M., & Drew, J. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 272, 346

    1995

  5. [13]

    Cauley, P. W. & Johns-Krull, C. M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 112

    2014

  6. [14]

    Cauley, P. W. & Johns-Krull, C. M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 5

    2015

  7. [15]

    A., Kessler-Silacci, J

    Cieza, L. A., Kessler-Silacci, J. E., Jaffe, D. T., Harvey, P. M., & Evans II, N. J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 422

    2005

  8. [16]

    M., Mandel, K

    Czekala, I., Andrews, S. M., Mandel, K. S., Hogg, D. W., & Green, G. M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 128

    2015

  9. [17]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A87

    de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A87

    2024

  10. [18]

    2007, in Solar and Stellar Physics Through Eclipses, Vol

    Dimitrijevic, M. 2007, in Solar and Stellar Physics Through Eclipses, Vol. 370, 270

    2007

  11. [19]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 592, A113

    Dorner, B., Giardino, G., Ferruit, P., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 592, A113

    2016

  12. [20]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 1034

    Drew, J., Mongui \'o , M., & Wright, N. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 1034

    2019

  13. [21]

    F., Walborn, N

    Drissen, L., Moffat, A. F., Walborn, N. R., & Shara, M. M. 1995, Astronomical Journal v. 110, p. 2235, 110, 2235

    1995

  14. [22]

    K., Brickhouse , N

    Dupree , A. K., Brickhouse , N. S., Smith , G. H., & Strader , J. 2005, , 625, L131

    2005

  15. [23]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 646, 319

    Edwards, S., Fischer, W., Hillenbrand, L., & Kwan, J. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 646, 319

    2006

  16. [24]

    & Owen, J

    Ercolano, B. & Owen, J. E. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 1553

    2010

  17. [25]

    R., Oudmaijer, R

    Fairlamb, J. R., Oudmaijer, R. D., Mendigutia, I., Ilee, J. D., & van den Ancker, M. E. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 976

    2015

  18. [26]

    & Doschek, G

    Feldman, U. & Doschek, G. 1977, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 212, pp. 913-922 (1977)., 212, 913

    1977

  19. [27]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A81

    Ferruit, P., Jakobsen, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A81

    2022

  20. [28]

    2014, Protostars and planets VI, 451

    Frank, A., Ray, T., Cabrit, S., et al. 2014, Protostars and planets VI, 451

    2014

  21. [29]

    D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G., et al

    Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 267

    2022

  22. [30]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 86

    2023

  23. [31]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 492, 323

    Gullbring, E., Hartmann, L., Briceno, C., & Calvet, N. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 492, 323

    1998

  24. [32]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 360

    Hamaguchi, K., Yamauchi, S., & Koyama, K. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 360

    2005

  25. [33]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  26. [34]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L32

    Harsono, D., Bjerkeli, P., Ramsey, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L32

    2023

  27. [35]

    2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 135

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 135

    2016

  28. [36]

    Herczeg, G. J. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 681, 594

    2008

  29. [37]

    & Dale, D

    Hunter, J. & Dale, D. 2007, Matplotlib 0.90. 0 user’s guide, 487

    2007

  30. [38]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553, A6

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553, A6

    2013

  31. [39]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 2960

    Ilee, J., Wheelwright, H., Oudmaijer, R., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 2960

    2013

  32. [40]

    Johns-Krull, C. M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, 975

    2007

  33. [41]

    & Sato, T

    Kageyama, A. & Sato, T. 1997, Physical review E, 55, 4617

    1997

  34. [42]

    1991, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Koenigl, A. 1991, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 370, March 20, 1991, p. L39-L43. Research supported by Rockwell International Corp. and Illinois Space Institute., 370, L39

    1991

  35. [43]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 489, 1157

    Kraus, S., Hofmann, K.-H., Benisty, M., et al. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 489, 1157

    2008

  36. [44]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 4520

    Kreplin, A., Tambovtseva, L., Grinin, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 4520

    2018

  37. [45]

    & Puls, J

    Kudritzki, R.-P. & Puls, J. 2000, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 38, 613

    2000

  38. [46]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 593, A78

    Kuncarayakti, H., Galbany, L., Anderson, J., Kr \"u hler, T., & Hamuy, M. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 593, A78

    2016

  39. [47]

    J., & Symington, N

    Kurosawa, R., Harries, T. J., & Symington, N. H. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 580

    2006

  40. [48]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 522, A104

    Lima, G., Alencar, S., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., & Muzerolle, J. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 522, A104

    2010

  41. [49]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 1088

    Lumsden, S., Wheelwright, H., Hoare, M., Oudmaijer, R., & Drew, J. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 1088

    2012

  42. [50]

    & Pringle, J

    Lynden-Bell, D. & Pringle, J. E. 1974, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 168, 603

    1974

  43. [51]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, 73

    McClure, M., Calvet, N., Espaillat, C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, 73

    2013

  44. [52]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 39

    Mendigut \' a, I. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 39

    2020

  45. [53]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 2126

    Mendigut \' a, I., de Wit, W., Oudmaijer, R., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 2126

    2015

  46. [54]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 1984

    Mendigut \' a, I., Oudmaijer, R., Mourard, D., & Muzerolle, J. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 1984

    2017

  47. [55]

    F., Drissen, L., & Shara, M

    Moffat, A. F., Drissen, L., & Shara, M. M. 1994, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-367X), vol. 436, no. 1, p. 183-193, 436, 183

    1994

  48. [56]

    1998 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 492, 743

    Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L. 1998 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 492, 743

    1998

  49. [57]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, L149

    Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., & D’Alessio, P. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, L149

    2003

  50. [58]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 617, 406

    Muzerolle, J., D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 617, 406

    2004

  51. [59]

    1998 b , The Astronomical Journal, 116, 2965

    Muzerolle, J., Hartmann, L., & Calvet, N. 1998 b , The Astronomical Journal, 116, 2965

    1998

  52. [60]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 421, 187

    Nisini, B., Antoniucci, S., & Giannini, T. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 421, 187

    2004

  53. [61]

    E., Clarke, C

    Owen, J. E., Clarke, C. J., & Ercolano, B. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 1880

    2012

  54. [62]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 135, 109

    Popovi \'c , L., Simi \'c , S., Milovanovi \'c , N., & Dimitrijevi \'c , M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 135, 109

    2001

  55. [63]

    & Bally, J

    Reipurth, B. & Bally, J. 2001, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39, 403

    2001

  56. [64]

    A., & Devine, D

    Reipurth, B., Bally, J., Fesen, R. A., & Devine, D. 1998, Nature, 396, 343

    1998

  57. [65]

    J., Manara, C

    Reiter, M., Haworth, T. J., Manara, C. F., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 3220

    2024

  58. [66]

    A., Smith, N., et al

    Reiter, M., Morse, J. A., Smith, N., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5382

    2022

  59. [67]

    & Smith, N

    Reiter, M. & Smith, N. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2226

    2013

  60. [68]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4344

    Reiter, M., Smith, N., & Bally, J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4344

    2016

  61. [69]

    Ricci, L., Robberto, M., & Soderblom, D. R. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 2136

    2008

  62. [70]

    2024 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 688, A111

    Rogers, C., Brandl, B., & De Marchi, G. 2024 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 688, A111

    2024

  63. [71]

    2024 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, L8

    Rogers, C., de Marchi, G., & Brandl, B. 2024 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, L8

    2024

  64. [72]

    2024 c , Externally irradiated young stars in NGC 3603

    Rogers, C., de Marchi, G., & Brandl, B. 2024 c , Externally irradiated young stars in NGC 3603. A JWST NIRSpec catalogue of pre-main-sequence stars in a massive star formation region

    2024

  65. [73]

    & Hummer, D

    Storey, P. & Hummer, D. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 272, 41

    1995

  66. [74]

    P., Lodato, G., et al

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Lodato, G., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 512, L74

    2022

  67. [75]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 562, A104

    Tambovtseva, L., Grinin, V., & Weigelt, G. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 562, A104

    2014

  68. [76]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 590, A97

    Tambovtseva, L., Grinin, V., & Weigelt, G. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 590, A97

    2016

  69. [77]

    D., Wichittanakom, C., et al

    Vioque, M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Wichittanakom, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 39

    2022

  70. [78]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261

    2020

  71. [79]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 234

    Wichittanakom, C., Oudmaijer, R., Fairlamb, J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 234

    2020

  72. [80]

    Williams, J. P. & Cieza, L. A. 2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 67

    2011

  73. [81]

    J., Matt, S., Harries, T., & Herczeg, G

    Wilson, T. J., Matt, S., Harries, T., & Herczeg, G. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 2162

    2022

  74. [82]

    Winter, A. J. & Haworth, T. J. 2022, The European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1132

    2022

  75. [83]

    & Preibisch, T

    Zinnecker, H. & Preibisch, T. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 292, no. 1, p. 152-164, 292, 152

    1994

  76. [84]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  77. [85]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.