Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The ODYSSEUS Survey. Characterizing magnetospheric geometries and hotspot structures in T Tauri stars

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across 67 T Tauri stars, this paper finds magnetospheric truncation radii of about 3 stellar radii rather than the assumed 5, with long-lived, varied hotspots and UV-dominated accretion.

desk verdict Solid large-sample survey with a headline truncation-radius result that is plausible but carries model-dependence the authors should be pushed to address. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01162 v1 pith:HY2A57P5 submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Caeley V. Pittman , C. C. Espaillat , Connor E. Robinson , Thanawuth Thanathibodee , Sophia Lopez , Nuria Calvet , Zhaohuan Zhu , Frederick M. Walter
show 15 more authors
John Wendeborn Carlo Felice Manara Justyn Campbell-White Rik A. Claes Min Fang Antonio Frasca J. F. Gameiro Manuele Gangi Jesus Hernández Ágnes Kóspál Karina Maucó James Muzerolle Micha{l} Siwak {L}ukasz Tychoniec Laura Venuti
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords TTauristarsmagnetosphericaccretiontruncationradiusflowmodelshockhotspotstructureHαspectroscopyultraviolet
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

Across 67 accreting T Tauri stars with uniformly derived stellar parameters, this paper argues that the disk is typically truncated by the stellar magnetic field at about $2.8$–$3.0\,R_\star$ — nearly half the $5\,R_\star$ that most accretion models have assumed for decades. The claim comes from fitting an accretion flow model to velocity-resolved H$\alpha$ profiles and an accretion shock model to space-based ultraviolet and optical spectra, in the largest and most consistent study of its kind. If the smaller truncation radii hold, predictions of accretion stability shift, because the stability regimes of three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations depend sensitively on where the disk is cut off. The same analysis maps a wide variety of hotspot structures on the stellar surface, shows the two independent accretion-rate measurements agree to within about 0.16 dex, and finds that up to half of the accretion luminosity emerges at ultraviolet wavelengths that ground-based telescopes cannot observe.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two complementary models joined in an iterative loop. The accretion flow model — which assumes a dipolar magnetic field aligned with the stellar rotation axis and an axisymmetric accretion ring — is fit to velocity-resolved H$\alpha$ profiles and yields the truncation radius $R_i$, the radial width of the flow $W_r$, the accretion rate, the maximum flow temperature, and the magnetospheric inclination. The accretion shock model computes the emission of three accretion columns with different energy flux densities through the pre-shock, post-shock, and heated-photosphere regions, and is fit to HST/STIS continua by a Markov-Chain Monte Carlo procedure to yield hotspot filling factors, extinction, and shock temperature. A five-step procedure keeps the two models consistent: the shock model's accretion rate sets the flow grid; the flow model's $R_i$ and flux density feed back into the shock model; stellar radii are re-derived from the fitted extinction; and the flow model is re-run to confirm the results survive. The truncation-radius result rests specifically on the flow model fits to H$\alpha$.

What would settle it

Directly compare model-based truncation radii with spatially resolved measurements of the magnetospheric emission region for the same stars: if infrared interferometry of Br$\gamma$ placed the emitting region near $5\,R_\star$ for a substantial fraction of a sample, the $2.8\,R_\star$ median would be contradicted. Alternatively, Zeeman-Doppler imaging showing that most of these stars have fields dominated by tilted or octupolar components would undercut the dipole assumption on which the flow model rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the magnetospheric truncation radius — the distance at which the star's magnetic field stops the inner disk and channels gas onto the star — has a median of $2.8\,R_\star$ and a mean of $3.0\,R_\star$ across 67 classical T Tauri stars, rather than the canonical $5\,R_\star$ assumed in a long line of accretion models. The paper also finds diverse hotspot structures: single-column shock models explain 26% of the 74 observations, two-column models 59%, and three-column models 15%. Phase-folding multi-epoch shock models shows rotational modulation of the hotspot energy flux densities, indicating structures that persist for at least three stellar rotation periods, with some lasting ten or more. For the first time on a large scale, accretion rates measured independently from the flow model (H$\alpha$) and the shock model (UV–optical continuum) agree within about 0.16 dex for observations separated by a day or less, with no systematic offset between the methods. Finally, up to 48% of the total accretion luminosity emerges shortward of 0.31 µm, so the ultraviolet spectrum dominates the radiation field that irradiates the planet-forming disk.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each star's magnetic field is a dipole aligned with its rotation axis, so the accreting gas forms a symmetric ring; if real fields are strongly tilted or multipolar, the inferred truncation radii could be systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because $\dot{M} \propto (1 - R_\star/R_i)^{-1}$ for a fixed accretion luminosity, moving from $R_i = 5\,R_\star$ to $2.8\,R_\star$ raises inferred accretion rates by only about 0.1 dex — small next to the typical 0.35 dex uncertainty, so previously published rates need little revision.
  • Accretion stability regimes predicted by three-dimensional MHD simulations are strongly sensitive to $R_i$; the smaller radii change the fastness parameter $\omega_s = (R_i/R_{\rm co})^{3/2}$ and therefore which regime — propeller, stable, unstable ordered, or chaotic — a given star occupies.
  • The agreement of the two independent accretion-rate methods to within about 0.16 dex at short time separations means H$\alpha$-based flow modeling can serve as a reliable accretion-rate estimator when ultraviolet spectra are unavailable.
  • Because up to half of $L_{\rm acc}$ emerges shortward of 0.31 µm, ground-based spectra alone cannot fix the accretion spectral energy distribution, the high-energy hotspot components, or the extinction; population-level rates are safe, but individual-object studies need space-based ultraviolet data.
  • New empirical relations ($\log L_{\rm acc} = 1.78 + 1.07 \log L_{{\rm H}\alpha}$ and $\log L_{\rm acc} = 0.89 \log L_{U,\rm ex} + 0.68$) validate the ground-based H$\alpha$ and $U$-band proxies used to measure accretion luminosity in large surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\sim 3\,R_\star$ median holds for the wider T Tauri population, a larger share of systems than previously assumed sits near corotation, and their fastness parameters fall in the 'unstable ordered' regime; a testable signature would be enhanced burst-like accretion variability in long-baseline photometry of stars with measured rotation periods.
  • The flow model's ring geometry means the fitted $R_i$ may be an effective flux-weighted radius rather than the true inner disk edge for multipolar stars; comparing these values with infrared interferometric Br$\gamma$ sizes for the few systems with both measurements would show how much the geometry assumption shapes the distribution.
  • The lowest-energy shock columns often land within a few hundred kelvin of the photosphere, so the very large filling factors found for some high-mass stars could partly be starspot contamination; Doppler imaging of the same stars would test whether the low-flux hotspots coincide with spotted regions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies an accretion flow model to velocity-resolved Hα profiles and an accretion shock model to HST/STIS UV–NIR spectra for 67 T Tauri stars from the ULLYSES program. The authors report a median magnetospheric truncation radius of 2.8 R★ (mean 3.0 R★) against the commonly assumed 5 R★, a broad range of hotspot structures and filling factors, rotational modulation of multi-epoch hotspot emission, and a comparison of accretion rates from the two models that agrees to about 0.16 dex for contemporaneous observations. They also derive empirical Lacc–LHα, Lacc–LU, and FUV line luminosity relations and quantify the contribution of NUV-only emission to the total accretion luminosity.

Significance. If the truncation-radius result holds, it would revise a widely used assumption in T Tauri accretion studies and affect predictions of accretion stability and angular momentum transport. The paper's strengths are the uniformly reduced ULLYSES sample, consistently derived stellar parameters, iterative coupling of flow and shock models, multi-epoch Hα coverage, phase-folding of multi-epoch shock models, and public machine-readable tables of epoch-by-epoch results. The empirical luminosity relations, especially the Lacc–LHα and Lacc–LU relations and the LSiIV–LCIV comparison, are useful for ground-based accretion surveys. However, the two central quantitative claims — the Ri distribution and the 0.16 dex flow/shock agreement — rest on model assumptions and on a modeling procedure whose priors can imprint themselves on the result, so the paper needs additional transparency and targeted tests before the headline conclusions can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3 Step 2 and §4.3.1] The claim that accretion rates from the flow and shock models agree within about 0.16 dex for contemporaneous observations is not an independent cross-validation, because the flow model's ˙M grid is centered on ˙Mshock from Step 1 and spans only a factor of about 2. The agreement is therefore partly imposed by the grid construction rather than measured independently. Please report how many targets had best-fit ˙Mflow at or near the edge of the factor-of-2 range, document any expansion of the ˙M grid and the resulting ranges, and ideally rerun the comparison for a subset of targets with an uninformative ˙M grid to show that the 0.16 dex baseline is not dominated by the prior.
  2. [§3.1, §4.1, and §4.2.1] The headline result of a median truncation radius of 2.8 R★ (Figure 1d) is derived from an accretion flow model that assumes a dipolar field aligned with the rotation axis and an axisymmetric accretion ring. The authors note in §4.2.1 that observed magnetic field configurations vary significantly and that detailed field geometry is beyond the scope of this work, and in §4.1 they suggest that the axisymmetry assumption may cause small Wr values to act as a proxy for wedge-shaped flows. This leaves open a systematic degeneracy: a compact high-latitude column from an octupole-dominated field or an oblique dipole viewed at a particular phase can produce Hα wing shapes that an axisymmetric equatorial ring might reproduce only with a different Ri. The quoted statistical uncertainties (given in dex in §4.1) do not include this systematic effect. Please add a synthetic-profile test that fits non-axisymmetric or multipolar flow geometries with the axisymmetric model and quantifies the induced bias in Ri, or at minimum add an explicit caveat to the abstract and Section 4.1 that the Ri distribution is model-dependent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The standard deviations of the best-fit flow parameters are quoted 'in dex' for Ri and Wr, but Table 3 reports uncertainties in R★; please make the units explicit in the text and table captions so the 0.04 (Ri) value is not misread as 0.04 R★.
  2. [§4.3.1 and Figure 7] The sentence 'the flow model grids were expanded as needed to ensure that the best-fit accretion rate was not at the edge of its allowed range' is vague; please state whether the ˙M grid itself was expanded, how often, and what the resulting ˙M ranges were, since this directly affects the interpretation of the 0.16 dex comparison.
  3. [§5.2 and Figure 5] The AIC statement that the sine model is between 2.6 and 200 times more probable than the constant model would be more reproducible if the ΔAIC values and the number of free parameters in the sine model were reported directly.
  4. [§4.2] Table 4 reports 16th/84th percentile MCMC uncertainties that are much smaller than the 0.38 dex 'typical uncertainty' quoted in the text; please clarify that the MCMC errors are statistical only and provide total uncertainties that include the propagated R★, M★, Lacc, and Ri contributions in the comparison figures.
  5. [Tables and Appendix] There are repeated formatting artifacts in the table headers and captions (e.g., 'T able 1', 'T able 3'); these should be fixed in the final journal version.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline truncation-radius distribution is genuinely fit to H-alpha data, but the flow-vs-shock accretion-rate 'consistency' is partially enforced by the workflow: the flow grid is centered on the Step 1 shock rate, and the shock model is fed Ri and Fflow from the flow model.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Step 2 (grid definition); Section 4.3.1 and Figure 6 (agreement claim)]
    "Initial grids of ~150,000 flow models are calculated for each CTTS. ˙Mflow spans a factor of 2 of ˙Mshock from Step 1. The factor of 2 was chosen to sample the expected variability on timescales of a few days while limiting the computational cost."

    The flow-model accretion rate is fit on a grid whose center is the shock-model accretion rate from Step 1 and whose width is only a factor of 2 (±0.3 dex). Therefore the later statement that ˙Mflow and ˙Mshock agree within ~0.16 dex for contemporaneous observations is not an independent cross-validation: the prior already confines ˙Mflow to a narrow window around ˙Mshock unless grid expansion is invoked. The reported consistency is partly a consequence of the grid construction rather than an emergent test of two independent models.

  2. other [Section 3.3, Step 3; Section 4.2; Section 4.3.1]
    "Next, we recalculate the accretion shock models using Ri from the flow model and choosing Flow = 0.1Fflow, Fmed = Fflow, and Fhigh = 10Fflow. ... we tailored the Flow,med,high and Ri for all systems using the results of the accretion flow model."

    The energy-flux scale injected into the shock model, Fflow, is computed from the same flow-model mass flux via Fflow = ρ v_ff^3/2, and the same Ri is imported. The shock model's accretion rate is therefore normalized by the flow-model accretion rate through its input F values. The 'self-consistent' agreement reported in Section 4.3.1 is partially built into the modeling procedure; the paper itself concedes that 'the iterative nature of the modeling procedure may contribute to the agreement.'

full rationale

The central quantitative claim, median Ri = 2.8 R* (mean 3.0 R*), is derived by fitting an accretion flow model grid (Ri from 2-8 R*) to observed H-alpha profiles, so it does not reduce to a pre-fitted prior or to a self-citation; that part of the paper is self-contained and I do not flag it as circular. The circularity is confined to the flow-vs-shock accretion-rate comparison, which is presented as a 'self-consistent comparison' in the abstract and Section 4.3.1. Step 2 explicitly centers the flow-model ˙M grid on the Step 1 shock-model rate with a factor-of-2 range, and Step 3 imports Ri and Fflow from the flow model into the shock model. As a result, the 'agreement within ~0.16 dex' is partly enforced by construction and is not an independent cross-validation of the two methods. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, or ansatz smuggled via citation was found; the dipole/axisymmetric geometry assumption is a model caveat, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central results rest on established astrophysical models, with the main free parameters being the initial seeding choices for the shock model (F columns, Ri) and the priors on AV and ftot. The hotspot simulation parameters are explicitly ad hoc. No new physical entities are claimed; the accretion columns and the simulated hotspot are parameterizations used for interpretation.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial accretion column energy fluxes (Flow, Fmed, Fhigh) = 1e10, 1e11, 1e12 erg/s/cm2 (Step 1); 0.1Fflow, Fflow, 10Fflow thereafter
    Chosen by hand in Step 1 to seed the shock model; the final values depend on flow model outputs. For 11 low-Fflow targets, values increased by ~2 dex to make models run.
  • Initial truncation radius Ri = 3.5 R*
    Assumed in Step 1 from an exploratory analysis of literature magnetic field strengths and accretion rates (Section 3.3).
  • Extinction prior bound = 0-2 mag
    AV restricted to 0-2 mag based on Manara et al. (2021, 2025 in prep); could bias fits if true AV exceeds 2 mag.
  • Total filling factor bound = 0-40%
    ftot restricted to 0-40% based on prior modeling and observations (Venuti et al. 2015); 11 stars hit the 40% upper limit.
  • Extinction law choice = Whittet et al. (2004) for Taurus/Orion; Cardelli et al. (1989) otherwise
    Region-dependent choice affects AV and hence Lacc and hotspot filling factors.
  • Hotspot simulation parameters = colatitude 30 deg, coverage 10%, aspect ratio 5, flux ratios 100:10:1
    Ad hoc parameters used in the rotational modulation simulation (Section 4.2.1) to interpret the observed column multiplicity; not derived from data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Magnetospheric accretion paradigm: stellar dipole field truncates disk and funnels material onto the star
    Foundational assumption of both flow and shock models (Sections 1 and 3.1).
  • domain assumption Accretion flow model of Hartmann et al. (1994) and Muzerolle et al. (1998, 2001) accurately predicts Halpha profiles
    Used to fit all Halpha profiles; the model assumes an axisymmetric ring and dipolar field (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Accretion shock model of Calvet & Gullbring (1998) updated by Robinson & Espaillat (2019) accurately predicts UV-NIR continuum
    Used to fit STIS spectra; relies on Cloudy radiative transfer (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption SpT-Teff relation of Pecaut & Mamajek (2013) applies, with extrapolation for M5.5-M6
    Stellar effective temperatures and radii derive from this relation (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption PHOENIX synthetic spectra with solar metallicity can model photospheric absorption for subtraction
    Used for radial velocity and photospheric subtraction of Halpha profiles (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption WTTS template subtraction isolates the accretion excess
    Shock model fits use a scaled non-accreting TTS template as the photospheric baseline (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Rotation periods from literature or TESS are correct for phase folding
    Phase-folding in Section 4.2.2 uses periods from Wendeborn et al. (2024b,c) and an in-preparation TESS analysis.
invented entities (2)
  • Three discrete accretion columns (Flow, Fmed, Fhigh)
    purpose: Parameterize the density gradient in a hotspot as three discrete energy flux densities with associated filling factors
    Introduced to approximate observed density gradients; not independently detected, though the model is fit to the continuum excess. The columns are a modeling device, not a claimed physical structure.
  • Simulated elliptical hotspot with central 1% flux 100, next 10% flux 10, outer 89% flux 1
    purpose: Model rotational modulation and predict the fraction of observations in 0F, 1F, 2F, and 3F categories
    Ad hoc toy model in Section 4.2.1; used post hoc to interpret the observed one, two, and three-column frequencies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ODYSSEUS Survey. Characterizing magnetospheric geometries and hotspot structures in T Tauri stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HY2A57P5

@misc{pith2026250701162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ODYSSEUS Survey. Characterizing magnetospheric geometries and hotspot structures in T Tauri stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HY2A57P5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01162}
}
abstract

Magnetospheric accretion is a key process that shapes the inner disks of T Tauri stars, controlling mass and angular momentum evolution. It produces strong ultraviolet and optical emission that irradiates the planet-forming environment. In this work, we characterize the magnetospheric geometries, accretion rates, extinction properties, and hotspot structures of 67 T Tauri stars in the largest and most consistent study of ultraviolet and optical accretion signatures to date. To do so, we apply an accretion flow model to velocity-resolved H$\alpha$ profiles for T Tauri stars from the HST/ULLYSES program with consistently-derived stellar parameters. We find typical magnetospheric truncation radii to be almost half of the usually-assumed value of 5 stellar radii. We then model the same stars' HST/STIS spectra with an accretion shock model, finding a diverse range of hotspot structures. Phase-folding multi-epoch shock models reveals rotational modulation of observed hotspot energy flux densities, indicative of hotspots that persist for at least 3 stellar rotation periods. For the first time, we perform a large-scale, self-consistent comparison of accretion rates measured using accretion flow and shock models, finding them to be consistent within $\sim$0.16 dex for contemporaneous observations. Finally, we find that up to 50% of the total accretion luminosity is at short wavelengths accessible only from space, highlighting the crucial role of ultraviolet spectra in constraining accretion spectral energy distributions, hotspot structure, and extinction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms of accretion flow model and stellar rotation results colored by region in order of approximate region age from youngest (yellow) to oldest (blue). Panels show a) accretion rate, b) accretion rate normalized by stel￾lar mass according to M˙ ∝ M2 ⋆ , c) maximum flow tempera￾ture, d) inner magnetospheric truncation radius, e) width of truncation region, and f) magnetospheric inclination. Australis, ϵ Cha, an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example shock model fits to NUV-NIR continua in Sz 84, Sz 19, CVSO 58, and RECX 16. HST/STIS data are in black, and non-accreting TTS template spectra are in gray. Accretion shock model spectra are scaled by their associated surface coverages and shown as solid lines in the plasma colorscale, where more purple spectra are lower F and more yellow spectra are higher F. Energy flux densities F and filling factors f are… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram of the total hotspot surface coverage given by the accretion shock model. Bars are broken down into logarithmically-spaced stellar mass bins as indicated in the legend. Paolino et al. (2025) starspot models may be accounting for similar observational signatures. The multi-column accretion shock model gives infor￾mation on the non-uniform hotspot structure. Fig￾ure 4 shows the hotspot configuration for each… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accretion rate results for each CTTS, ordered from low to high M˙ (note that the y-axis limits change between the subfigures). Each bar shows the contribution of accretion columns with energy flux densities F given by the colorbar. These results indicate that we should…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-folded accretion rates (black circles with errorbars) divided into their constituent F components (colored bars) for multi-epoch accretion shock modeling presented by Robinson & Espaillat (2019, RE19) and Wendeborn et al. (2024b, W24a). These results are not incl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between accretion rates measured using the accretion shock and accretion flow models. Points are marked at the location of the weighted mean M˙ flow, and the arrows show the range between the minimum and maxi￾mum accretion rates found across all epochs of ob…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accretion variability over different timescales. Left: Gray points show pairwise variability of accretion rates from the flow model fits to multiple epochs of Hα observations. Black points show the median and 1σ standard deviation within the time bins indicated by the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Accretion rate M˙ from the shock model vs stellar mass M⋆, with points colored by the median age of the host region. The two likely non-detections (SSTc2dJ161243.8-381503 and Sz 130) are marked as trian￾gles. The Hartmann et al. (2016) M˙ -M⋆ relation found from U-band…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Lacc and LHα are strongly correlated, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.91. The colorbar indi￾cates log10L⋆ and shows that both Lacc and LHα are cor￾related with L⋆. The low-opacity solid gray lines show 200 bootstrapped linear fits, and the thick black line …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Empirical relationships between accretion, FUV line, and U-band continuum luminosities. In the orange and red subfigures, black circles indicate values taken from France et al. (2023), and black stars indicate fluxes measured in this work. In the purple subfigure (bot…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: plots the accretion rates from the full wave￾length range (M˙ NUV) against those obtained ignoring wavelengths below 0.31 µm (M˙ opt). The median differ￾ence M˙ NUV−M˙ opt is −0.04 dex, indicating no signifi￾cant bias toward one being larger than the other. The points…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The leftmost panel shows the spectral energy distributions of the excess accretion shock luminosity for the entire sample. We have highlighted four CTTS, ranging from SpT of G9 to M6, that demonstrate the range in both luminosity and shape of accretion excess spectra.…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Hα profiles for all epochs of observation used to derive the accretion flow properties (low-opacity gray lines). The dotted gray lines show the freefall velocity for that CTTS. The weighted-mean model described in Section 3 is overlaid in dashed red to demonstrate tha…

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. The ODYSSEUS Survey. Using accretion and stellar rotation to reveal the star-disk connection in T Tauri stars

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For most of 47 classical T Tauri stars, the fastness parameter is below equilibrium, implying active angular momentum loss and dynamic star-disk interaction.

  2. Unstable magnetospheric accretion on the T Tauri star TW Hya

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 4.5 of 10

    TW Hya’s large-scale field is a ~0.83 kG tilted dipole that varies yearly; accretion is unstable (rmag/rcor ≈ 0.33–0.40) and no close-in planet is detected above ~0.3–1 Mjup.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    4000 \@twopowertwo=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    2017

  4. [4]

    u 4 ÙݝYڥ! t幼C wׯ? ̿ԩ oC- >_) Oo'4 uh

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    2022

  5. [5]

    C., Lada , C

    Adams , F. C., Lada , C. J., & Shu , F. H. 1987, , 312, 788, 10.1086/164924

    doi:10.1086/164924 1987

  6. [6]

    M., Natta , A., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Natta , A., Manara , C. F., et al. 2014, , 561, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322254

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322254 2014

  7. [7]

    M., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Manara , C. F., Natta , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629929

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629929 2017

  8. [8]

    Alencar , S. H. P., & Batalha , C. 2002, , 571, 378, 10.1086/339878

    work page doi:10.1086/339878 2002

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    2011, , 534, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117454

    Antoniucci , S., Garc \' a L \'o pez , R., Nisini , B., et al. 2011, , 534, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117454

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Herczeg , G

    Ardila , D. R., Herczeg , G. J., Gregory , S. G., et al. 2013, , 207, 1, 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/1

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Bonito , R., et al

    Argiroffi , C., Drake , J. J., Bonito , R., et al. 2017, , 607, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731342

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Bai , X.-N., & Stone , J. M. 2013, , 769, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/76

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, , 836, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/46

    ---. 2017, , 836, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/46

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L. 2015, , 127, 994, 10.1086/683116

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Follette , K

    Betti , S. K., Follette , K. B., Ward-Duong , K., et al. 2023, , 166, 262, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b8

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Romanova , M

    Blinova , A. A., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2016, , 459, 2354, 10.1093/mnras/stw786

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    B., et al

    Bouvier , J., Perraut , K., Le Bouquin , J. B., et al. 2020, , 636, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037611

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, , 672, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245342

    Bouvier , J., Sousa , A., Pouilly , K., et al. 2023, , 672, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245342

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    1998, , 509, 802, 10.1086/306527

    Calvet , N., & Gullbring , E. 1998, , 509, 802, 10.1086/306527

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    2004, , 128, 1294, 10.1086/422733

    Calvet , N., Muzerolle , J., Brice \ n o , C., et al. 2004, , 128, 1294, 10.1086/422733

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    F., et al

    Campbell-White , J., Sicilia-Aguilar , A., Manara , C. F., et al. 2021, , 507, 3331, 10.1093/mnras/stab2300

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    Carvalho , A., & Johns-Krull , C. M. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 91, 10.3847/2515-5172/acd37e

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Stauffer , J., Baglin , A., et al

    Cody , A. M., Stauffer , J., Baglin , A., et al. 2014, , 147, 82, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/82

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Scholz , A., Ray , T., & Testi , L

    Costigan , G., Vink , J. S., Scholz , A., Ray , T., & Testi , L. 2014, , 440, 3444, 10.1093/mnras/stu529

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    J., & Turner , N

    Desch , S. J., & Turner , N. J. 2015, , 811, 156, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/156

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Jardine , M

    Donati , J. F., Jardine , M. M., Gregory , S. G., et al. 2007, , 380, 1297, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12194.x

    2007

  23. [31]

    2008, , 386, 1234, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13111.x

    ---. 2008, , 386, 1234, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13111.x

    2008

  24. [32]

    F., Skelly , M

    Donati , J. F., Skelly , M. B., Bouvier , J., et al. 2010, , 409, 1347, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17409.x

    2010

  25. [33]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2011, , 417, 472, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19288.x

    2011

  26. [34]

    F., Cristofari , P

    Donati , J. F., Cristofari , P. I., Lehmann , L. T., et al. 2024, , 531, 3256, 10.1093/mnras/stae1227

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2010, , 717, 441, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/441

    Espaillat , C., D'Alessio , P., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al. 2010, , 717, 441, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/441

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Robinson , C

    Espaillat , C. C., Robinson , C. E., Romanova , M. M., et al. 2021, , 597, 41, 10.1038/s41586-021-03751-5

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Herczeg, G

    Espaillat, C. C., Herczeg, G. J., Thanathibodee, T., et al. 2022, The ODYSSEUS Survey. Motivation and First Results: Accretion, Ejection, and Disk Irradiation of CVSO 109. 2201.06502

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C., Thanathibodee , T., Zhu , Z., et al

    Espaillat , C. C., Thanathibodee , T., Zhu , Z., et al. 2024, , 973, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad76a5

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Porter , R

    Ferland , G. J., Porter , R. L., van Hoof , P. A. M., et al. 2013, , 49, 137. 1302.4485

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J., Hillenbrand , L

    Fischer , W. J., Hillenbrand , L. A., Herczeg , G. J., 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 , 355, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, , 166, 67, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace34c

    France , K., Arulanantham , N., Maloney , E., et al. 2023, , 166, 67, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace34c

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Frasca , A., Boffin , H. M. J., Manara , C. F., et al. 2021, , 656, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141686

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2007, Rotation and Accretion Powered Pulsars , Vol

    Ghosh , P. 2007, Rotation and Accretion Powered Pulsars , Vol. 10, 10.1142/4806

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, , 685, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    Ginski , C., Garufi , A., Benisty , M., et al. 2024, , 685, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2020, , 584, 547, 10.1038/s41586-020-2613-1

    Gravity Collaboration , Garcia Lopez , R., Natta , A., et al. 2020, , 584, 547, 10.1038/s41586-020-2613-1

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2023 a , , 674, A203, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346446

    Gravity Collaboration , Soulain , A., Perraut , K., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A203, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346446

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Labadie , L., et al

    Gravity Collaboration , Wojtczak , J. A., Labadie , L., et al. 2023 b , , 669, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244675

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, , 690, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451254

    Gravity Collaboration , Nowacki , H., Perraut , K., et al. 2024, , 690, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451254

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Jardine , M., Gray , C

    Gregory , S. G., Jardine , M., Gray , C. G., & Donati , J. F. 2010, Reports on Progress in Physics, 73, 126901, 10.1088/0034-4885/73/12/126901

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    1998, , 492, 323, 10.1086/305032

    Gullbring , E., Hartmann , L., Brice \ n o , C., & Calvet , N. 1998, , 492, 323, 10.1086/305032

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

    Y., van Holstein , R

    Haffert , S. Y., van Holstein , R. G., Ginski , C., et al. 2020, , 640, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038706

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2016, , 54, 135, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    Hartmann , L., Herczeg , G., & Calvet , N. 2016, , 54, 135, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    1994, , 426, 669, 10.1086/174104

    Hartmann , L., Hewett , R., & Calvet , N. 1994, , 426, 669, 10.1086/174104

    1994 doi

  48. [56]

    J., & Hillenbrand , L

    Herczeg , G. J., & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2008, , 681, 594, 10.1086/586728

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    2014, , 786, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/97

    ---. 2014, , 786, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/97

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al

    Husser , T. O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2013, , 553, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, , 767, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    Ingleby , L., Calvet , N., Herczeg , G., et al. 2013, , 767, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    Johns-Krull , C. M. 2007, , 664, 975, 10.1086/519017

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

    2022, , 932, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dee

    Juh \'a sz , T., \'A brah \'a m , P., Mo \'o r , A., et al. 2022, , 932, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dee

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    1991, , 370, L39, 10.1086/185972

    Koenigl , A. 1991, , 370, L39, 10.1086/185972

    1991 doi

  55. [64]

    2013, , 433, 3048, 10.1093/mnras/stt945

    ---. 2013, , 433, 3048, 10.1093/mnras/stt945

    2013 doi

  56. [65]

    Kurosawa , R., & Romanova , M. M. 2013, , 431, 2673, 10.1093/mnras/stt365

    2013 doi

  57. [66]

    Lamzin , S. A. 1998, Astronomy Reports, 42, 322, 10.48550/arXiv.1303.4066

    1998 doi arXiv

  58. [67]

    Lovelace , R. V. E., Romanova , M. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S. 1995, , 275, 244, 10.1093/mnras/275.2.244

    1995 doi

  59. [68]

    F., Ansdell , M., Rosotti , G

    Manara , C. F., Ansdell , M., Rosotti , G. P., 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 , 539, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09930

    2023 doi arXiv

  60. [69]

    F., Beccari , G., Da Rio , N., et al

    Manara , C. F., Beccari , G., Da Rio , N., et al. 2013 a , , 558, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321866

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    F., Claes, R

    Manara, C. F., Claes, R. A. B., Fang, M., et al. 2023 a , PENELLOPE - X-Shooter spectra of targets in the Taurus and CrA regions (survey targets), Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.10024118

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    F., Fedele , D., Herczeg , G

    Manara , C. F., Fedele , D., Herczeg , G. J., & Teixeira , P. S. 2016, , 585, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527224

    2016 doi

  63. [72]

    F., Frasca, A., Venuti, L., et al

    Manara, C. F., Frasca, A., Venuti, L., et al. 2021 a , PENELLOPE - X-Shooter spectra of targets in the Orion OB1 and sigma-Orionis regions, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.4477091

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    2021 b , PENELLOPE - UVES spectra of targets in the Orion OB1 and sigma-Orionis regions, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.4478360

    ---. 2021 b , PENELLOPE - UVES spectra of targets in the Orion OB1 and sigma-Orionis regions, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.4478360

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    2021 c , PENELLOPE - ESPRESSO spectra of targets in the Orion OB1 and sigma-Orionis regions, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.4478376

    ---. 2021 c , PENELLOPE - ESPRESSO spectra of targets in the Orion OB1 and sigma-Orionis regions, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.4478376

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    F., McGinnis, P., Gangi, M., et al

    Manara, C. F., McGinnis, P., Gangi, M., et al. 2021 d , PENELLOPE - ESPRESSO spectra of targets in the Lupus and Chamaeleon I regions observed in 2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.5752016

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    F., Siwak, M., Mauco, K., Frasca, A., & Boffin, H

    Manara, C. F., Siwak, M., Mauco, K., Frasca, A., & Boffin, H. 2021 e , PENELLOPE - UVES spectra of targets in the Lupus and Chamaeleon regions observed in 2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.5749230

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    F., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al

    Manara , C. F., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al. 2014, , 568, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323318

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    F., Venuti, L., Fang, M., et al

    Manara, C. F., Venuti, L., Fang, M., et al. 2023 b , PENELLOPE - X-Shooter spectra of targets in the Chamaeleon I, eta Cha, and eps Cha regions, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.10024001

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    2021 f , PENELLOPE - X-Shooter spectra of targets in the Lupus and Chamaeleon regions observed in 2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.5749223

    ---. 2021 f , PENELLOPE - X-Shooter spectra of targets in the Lupus and Chamaeleon regions observed in 2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.5749223

    2021 doi

  71. [80]

    F., Testi , L., Rigliaco , E., et al

    Manara , C. F., Testi , L., Rigliaco , E., et al. 2013 b , , 551, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220921

    2013 doi

  72. [81]

    F., Testi , L., Herczeg , G

    Manara , C. F., Testi , L., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2017, , 604, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630147

    2017 doi

  73. [82]

    F., Frasca, A

    Manara , C. F., Frasca, A. , Venuti, L. , et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A196, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140639

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    F., Claes, R

    Manara, C. F., Claes, R. A. B., K\'osp\'al, A., et al. 2023 c , PENELLOPE - X-Shooter spectra of targets in Lupus (all survey targets), Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.10024073

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2142, 10.1093/mnras/staa2041

    McGinnis, P., Bouvier, J., & Gallet, F. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2142, 10.1093/mnras/staa2041

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    Michel , A., van der Marel , N., & Matthews , B. C. 2021, , 921, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bbb

    2021 doi

  77. [86]

    D., Pascucci , I., Apai , D., & Ciesla , F

    Mulders , G. D., Pascucci , I., Apai , D., & Ciesla , F. J. 2018, , 156, 24, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac5ea

    2018 doi

  78. [87]

    2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    Muzerolle , J., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    2001 doi

  79. [88]

    1998, , 116, 455, 10.1086/300428

    Muzerolle , J., Hartmann , L., & Calvet , N. 1998, , 116, 455, 10.1086/300428

    1998 doi

  80. [89]

    G., Argiroffi , C., et al

    Orlando , S., Sacco , G. G., Argiroffi , C., et al. 2010, , 510, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913565

    2010 doi

  81. [90]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Pecaut , M. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  82. [91]

    S., Hillenbrand , L

    P \'e rez Paolino , F., Bary , J. S., Hillenbrand , L. A., Markham , M., & Fischer , W. J. 2025, , 978, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93c6

    2025 doi

  83. [92]

    V., Espaillat , C

    Pittman , C. V., Espaillat , C. C., Robinson , C. E., et al. 2022, , 164, 201, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac898d

    2022 doi

  84. [93]

    R., Roman-Duval , J., Taylor , J

    Proffitt , C. R., Roman-Duval , J., Taylor , J. M., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 36, 10.3847/2515-5172/abe852

    2021 doi

  85. [94]

    2017, , 465, 3889, 10.1093/mnras/stw2977

    Rigon , L., Scholz , A., Anderson , D., & West , R. 2017, , 465, 3889, 10.1093/mnras/stw2977

    2017 doi

  86. [95]

    E., & Espaillat , C

    Robinson , C. E., & Espaillat , C. C. 2019, , 874, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d8d

    2019 doi

  87. [96]

    E., Espaillat , C

    Robinson , C. E., Espaillat , C. C., & Owen , J. E. 2021, , 908, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd410

    2021 doi

  88. [97]

    2020, Hubble UV Legacy Library of Young Stars as Essential Standards ("ULLYSES"), STScI/MAST, 10.17909/T9-JZEH-XY14

    Roman-Duval, J. 2020, Hubble UV Legacy Library of Young Stars as Essential Standards ("ULLYSES"), STScI/MAST, 10.17909/T9-JZEH-XY14

    2020 doi

  89. [98]

    R., Taylor, J

    Roman-Duval , J., Proffitt, C. R., Taylor, J. M., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the AAS , 4, 205, 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2f

    2020 doi

  90. [99]

    J., Fullerton , A

    Roman-Duval , J., Fischer , W. J., Fullerton , A. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05446, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05446

    2025 doi arXiv

  91. [100]

    M., Espaillat , C

    Romanova , M. M., Espaillat , C. C., Wendeborn , J., et al. 2025, , 538, 480, 10.1093/mnras/staf148

    2025 doi

  92. [101]

    M., Ustyugova , G

    Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2004, , 610, 920, 10.1086/421867

    2004 doi

  93. [102]

    2009, , 399, 1802, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x

    ---. 2009, , 399, 1802, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x

    2009

  94. [103]

    Schmidt , T. O. B., Vogt , N., Neuh \"a user , R., Bedalov , A., & Roell , T. 2013, , 557, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220660

    2013 doi

  95. [104]

    u nther , H. M., Robrade , J., Schmitt , J. H. M. M., & G \

    Schneider , P. C., G \"u nther , H. M., Robrade , J., Schmitt , J. H. M. M., & G \"u del , M. 2018, , 618, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731613

    2018 doi

  96. [105]

    1994, , 429, 781, 10.1086/174363

    Shu , F., Najita , J., Ostriker , E., et al. 1994, , 429, 781, 10.1086/174363

    1994 doi

  97. [106]

    Sicilia-Aguilar , A., Henning , T., & Hartmann , L. W. 2010, , 710, 597, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/597

    2010 doi

  98. [107]

    P., Romanova , M

    Singh , K., Ninan , J. P., Romanova , M. M., et al. 2024, , 968, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4099

    2024 doi

  99. [108]

    2023, , 944, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac84

    Thanathibodee , T., Molina , B., Serna , J., et al. 2023, , 944, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac84

    2023 doi

  100. [109]

    A., Bonati , M., et al

    Tokovinin , A., Fischer , D. A., Bonati , M., et al. 2013, , 125, 1336, 10.1086/674012

    2013 doi

  101. [110]

    2014, , 570, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423776

    Venuti , L., Bouvier , J., Flaccomio , E., et al. 2014, , 570, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423776

    2014 doi

  102. [111]

    2015, , 581, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526164

    Venuti , L., Bouvier , J., Irwin , J., et al. 2015, , 581, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526164

    2015 doi

  103. [112]

    M., et al

    Venuti , L., Bouvier , J., Cody , A. M., et al. 2017, , 599, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629537

    2017 doi

  104. [113]

    C., Thanathibodee , T., et al

    Wendeborn , J., Espaillat , C. C., Thanathibodee , T., et al. 2024 a , , 972, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ed

    2024 doi

  105. [114]

    C., Lopez , S., et al

    Wendeborn , J., Espaillat , C. C., Lopez , S., et al. 2024 b , , 970, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a62

    2024 doi

  106. [115]

    C., Thanathibodee , T., et al

    Wendeborn , J., Espaillat , C. C., Thanathibodee , T., et al. 2024 c , , 971, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad543d

    2024 doi

  107. [116]

    Whittet , D. C. B., Shenoy , S. S., Clayton , G. C., & Gordon , K. D. 2004, , 602, 291, 10.1086/380837

    2004 doi

  108. [117]

    2025, , 537, 3701, 10.1093/mnras/staf250

    Zhu , Z. 2025, , 537, 3701, 10.1093/mnras/staf250

    2025 doi

  109. [118]

    M., & Calvet , N

    Zhu , Z., Stone , J. M., & Calvet , N. 2024, , 528, 2883, 10.1093/mnras/stad3712

    2024 doi

  110. [119]

    F., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al

    Zsidi , G., Manara , C. F., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al. 2022, , 660, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142203

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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