Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Analyses of Multiple Balmer Emission Lines from Accreting Brown Dwarfs and Very Low Mass Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For 89 archival data points on accreting brown dwarfs and very low-mass stars, Balmer line ratios identify 15 as shock-dominated and 55 as flow-dominated emission.

desk verdict A useful first census of Balmer-line emission mechanisms in brown dwarfs, but the headline 15/55 split rests on an unvalidated 10% error floor. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12133 v1 pith:W5SVJ4KH submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Jun Hashimoto , Yuhiko Aoyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords AccretionBrowndwarfsExoplanetformationFreefloatingplanetsHIlineemissionLMstarsPre-mainsequence
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 asks a practical question: when the hydrogen emission lines of a brown dwarf or very low-mass star are used to measure how fast it is swallowing gas from its disk, which emission model should be trusted? The authors apply the two competing models—emission from an accretion shock and emission from the accretion flow—to archival simultaneous Balmer line ratios (Hβ/Hγ versus Hβ/H8) for 96 data points from 76 objects with masses of roughly 0.02 to 0.1 solar masses. They find 15 points that fall only on the shock locus, 55 on the flow locus, and the remaining points are ambiguous or chromospheric. For the shock-dominated points, the shock model gives mass accretion rates up to several times higher than the usual stellar scaling, and the gap widens at lower accretion rates, where planetary-mass objects live. If the paper is right, the choice of emission model is not a detail: it changes the inferred growth rate and the physical picture of how substellar objects assemble.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}\gamma$ versus $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}8$ line-ratio diagram. $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}\gamma$ mainly tracks the temperature of the emitting gas, while the inclusion of H8, the $n=8$ Balmer line at 388.9 nm, separates the two models: in the accretion flow model the higher levels are populated partly by recombination, so $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}8$ is lower than in the shock model. The shock locus comes from the post-shock cooling gas modeled with one-dimensional thermo-hydrodynamics, chemistry, and radiative transfer, and the flow locus comes from a constant-temperature slab with Sobolev escape probabilities. The diagram is what lets the authors turn archival multi-line spectra into a per-object mechanism assignment; without the H8 ratio the two loci overlap too much in the lower-left corner.

What would settle it

Compute a radiative-transfer model that includes both the infalling accretion flow and the shock at its base as a single structure; if that hybrid model fills the empty region between the two loci in the $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}\gamma$ versus $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}8$ diagram, then the binary 15-of-89 versus 55-of-89 classification loses its foundation. Alternatively, observe the five objects that switched categories with simultaneous Hβ and Paschen lines to see whether the flip is reproduced in an independent hydrogen series.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that archival Balmer line ratios can classify the dominant accretion-emission mechanism of individual brown dwarfs and very low-mass stars: 15 of 89 usable data points are best described by the accretion shock model, while 55 are best described by the accretion flow model. The diagnostic is the ratio pair $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}\gamma$ versus $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}8$, which separates the two model loci because the higher hydrogen level H8 is populated by recombination as well as by collisional excitation, lowering $\mathrm{H}\beta/\mathrm{H}8$ in the flow model. For the 15 shock-classified points, converting the Hβ luminosity through the shock model yields mass accretion rates up to several times those obtained by extrapolating stellar scaling relations, and the discrepancy grows as the accretion rate falls; if the empirical $\dot{M}\propto M^2$ trend holds into the planetary regime, the difference can reach one to two orders of magnitude. The paper also reports that the ratio classification flips between shock and flow at different epochs for five objects, and that high-resolution line profiles show central absorption in a flow-dominated object and a single peak in a shock-dominated object.

Load-bearing premise

The whole classification rests on the assumption that shock and flow emission are the only two ways the gas can make the observed Balmer lines, so any point that fits neither locus is written off as chromospheric activity or noise, and that the shock model's coarser grid does not hide additional valid configurations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single multi-line spectrum covering Hβ, Hγ, and H8 can place a brown dwarf or very low-mass star on the shock or flow locus, giving a per-object mechanism assignment rather than a one-size-fits-all model.
  • For shock-dominated objects, accretion rates estimated from stellar scaling relations should be revised upward; in this sample the correction is up to several times, and the paper's extrapolation to planetary masses widens it to one to two orders of magnitude.
  • The flow model still describes the majority of the sample, so stellar-origin accretion flow treatment remains relevant for most substellar objects.
  • Five objects switch between the shock and flow categories at different epochs, so a single-epoch classification is not a permanent label for the object.
  • Line profiles are a secondary diagnostic: central absorption points to flow emission, while a single central peak can be either shock or high-temperature flow, making ratios the more reliable discriminator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: applying the same two-locus test to directly imaged planets using Paschen or Brackett line ratios could test whether the shock fraction grows at planetary masses; the paper only extrapolates the mass-accretion-rate trend and does not claim the fraction itself would grow.
  • Extension: the five objects that flip categories between epochs hint that the accretion geometry or inflow temperature changes on observable timescales, so a dedicated high-cadence monitoring campaign of Balmer ratios could reveal what drives the switch.
  • Extension: a radiative-transfer model that includes both the infalling flow and the shock at its base, treated as one structure rather than two alternatives, would show whether intermediate configurations fill the gap between the loci; if they do, the 15/55 split would need reinterpretation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies two published emission-line models (the accretion shock model of Aoyama et al. 2018 and the accretion flow model of Kwan & Fischer 2011) to archival Balmer line ratios (Hβ/Hγ versus Hβ/H8) for 89 data points from 76 accreting brown dwarfs and very low-mass stars. It classifies 15 points as shock-dominated, 55 as flow-dominated, 13 as consistent with both, and 6 as consistent with neither, based on 1σ error-ellipse overlap with the model loci. For the 15 shock-dominated points, the shock model yields mass accretion rates up to an order of magnitude higher than the extrapolated stellar scaling at the low-mass end. The paper also reports new Subaru/HDS spectroscopy of three targets, examines the absence of a clear boundary in physical parameters between the two categories, and documents epoch-to-epoch variability of the line-ratio classification for five objects.

Significance. The central claim, if robust, would provide a practical line-ratio diagnostic for identifying the dominant accretion-emission mechanism in substellar objects, which is directly relevant to interpreting accretion-rate estimates for brown dwarfs and giant planets. The use of a relatively large archival sample and the explicit comparison of two physical models is valuable, and the inclusion of new high-resolution spectroscopy adds useful data. The paper is transparent about the ad hoc 10% error floor and the extrapolation of the chromospheric-activity relation, but the lack of sensitivity analysis makes the headline classification counts and the subsequent accretion-rate comparison insufficiently robust. The strength of the paper is its clear formulation of the diagnostic; the main weakness is the unvalidated choices in the classification procedure, which are load-bearing for the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The 10% error floor assigned to data points without reported errors or with errors below 10% is an arbitrary intervention that directly inflates the error ellipses used for classification. For example, the 2021-04-27 epoch of J08440915−7833457 in Table 2 has reported errors of 0.00 and 0.01 in Hβ/Hγ and Hβ/H8, respectively, which become ±0.13 and ±0.25 under the floor. Because the overlap classification depends on the ellipse size, the floor systematically reduces the 'neither' category and can shift points between shock, flow, and both categories. The paper provides no sensitivity test (e.g., 5% floor, no floor, or a floor based on independently estimated flux-calibration uncertainties). Since the central census (15 shock vs 55 flow) and the accretion-rate comparison for the 15 shock points are built on this classification, the headline quantitative result is not robust to this choice. A sensitivity analysis should be provided, and the floor should be justified with actual measurement-uncertainty information.
  2. [§3, Figure 1 caption] The caption admits that the shock-model grid is coarser than the flow-model grid and asserts without demonstration that 'this does not impact our overall results.' If the shock locus is missing regions of physically allowed parameter space because of the coarse grid, data points in those regions could be misclassified as flow, both, or neither. The classification counts and the subsequent accretion-rate comparison for shock-dominated points are therefore potentially sensitive to the grid resolution. The authors should either run a finer shock grid or demonstrate quantitatively that the existing grid covers the relevant parameter space at sufficient resolution, e.g., by showing that no gap in the shock locus is large enough to affect the classification of any of the 89 data points.
  3. [§5.1, Appendix B] The chromospheric-activity exclusion of 7 data points relies on the Manara et al. (2013, 2017) relation, which is validated only for 3.35 ≲ log(Teff/K) ≲ 3.65. The coolest object, 2M1115 (J11151597+1937266, log Teff ≈ 3.23), is classified as shock-dominated in Table 2, and this classification depends on an extrapolation of the chromospheric-activity locus down to log(Teff/K) = 3.2. If the extrapolation is incorrect, 2M1115 could be chromospherically dominated and should be excluded, reducing the shock sample from 15 to 14 points and changing the accretion-rate comparison in §5.2. The paper should test the sensitivity of the classification to this extrapolation, for example by excluding 2M1115 from the shock sample and re-evaluating the main results, or by using an alternative chromospheric-activity criterion that does not require extrapolation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5.2] The abstract states that the shock model gives accretion rates 'up to several times higher' than the stellar scaling, but Figure 5 shows ratios reaching approximately 10 (one order of magnitude) for the lowest accretion rates; consider rephrasing to 'up to an order of magnitude higher' to match the figure.
  2. [§4.1] The classification uses 1σ error ellipses, but the choice of 1σ is not discussed; a brief justification or a check of how the counts change with, e.g., 2σ ellipses would strengthen the interpretation.
  3. [Table 2] In the table caption, the column labeled 'Em?' is not defined; it would be clearer to spell out 'Emission mechanism' in the caption.
  4. [Figure 1] The axis labels in panel (b) appear garbled (the text '8 654321 654321' near the axes); please check the figure and ensure the tick labels are rendered correctly.
  5. [§5.1] The sentence 'Strictly speaking, the chromospheric activity relation in Manara et al. (2013, 2017) cannot be applied to objects with shock-dominated emission' is followed by an argument that the identification remains the same; this argument is not fully convincing and should be supported by a more explicit derivation or a test using both conversions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 15/55 classification is an empirical comparison to external model loci, not a quantity derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are a classification of archival Balmer line ratios against pre-existing model loci and a subsequent application of published Lacc-Lline conversions. The shock model loci come from Aoyama et al. (2018, 2021) and the flow model from Kwan & Fischer (2011) as implemented in Aoyama et al. (2024); these are external model predictions with stated physical parameters, not quantities fitted to the 96 data points analyzed here. The classification in Section 4.1 is a direct comparison of observed ratios to these published loci, so the counts of 15 shock, 55 flow, 13 both, and 6 neither are not forced by construction from the paper's own equations. The accretion-rate comparison in Section 5.2 applies two independent Lacc-Lline relations to the same H-beta luminosity; the resulting ratio is a property of the two calibrations, but the paper does not present this as a derivation of those calibrations from the data. The 10% error floor in Section 4.1 is a methodological choice that can affect the classification counts, and the assertion that the coarse shock grid does not impact the results is not demonstrated, but these are robustness concerns rather than circularity. Self-citations to Aoyama et al. are load-bearing in the sense that the models are taken from those papers, but the cited results are parameterized physical models with assumptions that do not include the present target classification, so they constitute independent support rather than circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new free parameters are fitted in this paper; the listed items are choices or extrapolations made during analysis. The central classification rests on the two published model grids and on the chromospheric-activity cut, rather than on any newly introduced physical entity.

free parameters (3)
  • 10% error floor = 0.10 in line ratios
    Assigned to data points without reported errors or with errors below 10% to avoid classifying near-locus points as 'neither'; changes classification counts (Section 4.1).
  • 1-sigma chromospheric threshold = 1 sigma about the Manara et al. relation
    Data points within 1 sigma of the chromospheric-activity locus are excluded as non-accreting; the threshold choice affects the 7 excluded points and the remaining 89 (Section 5.1, Figure 4).
  • log Teff extrapolation limit = log Teff = 3.2 dex
    The chromospheric-activity relation is validated only down to log Teff = 3.35 but is extrapolated to 3.2 for the coolest object, 2M1115 (Section 5.1, Appendix B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Emission is dominated by one of three mechanisms: accretion flow, accretion shock, or chromosphere, with negligible contributions from winds and outflows in H-beta, H-gamma, and H8.
    H-alpha is excluded precisely because it is contaminated by these processes (Section 2.1), but the three remaining Balmer lines are assumed clean.
  • domain assumption The slab model of Kwan & Fischer (2011) with constant T and nH adequately represents accretion-flow line emission.
    Used in Section 3 to generate the flow model loci; an approximation that may miss radial temperature and density structure.
  • domain assumption The 1D shock model grid (Aoyama et al. 2018) spans the plausible range of pre-shock velocity and density.
    The authors note the grid is coarser than the flow model and assert this does not affect results (Section 3, Figure 1 caption), but do not demonstrate it.
  • domain assumption The Lacc-Lline conversions of Alcala et al. (2017) and Aoyama et al. (2021) can be applied to all sample objects.
    Used in Section 5.2 to derive Lacc,A17 and Lacc,A21; these relations are empirical or model-based and carry their own scatter.
  • domain assumption The chromospheric-activity relation of Manara et al. (2013, 2017) remains valid when extrapolated below log Teff = 3.35.
    Applied to the coolest object, 2M1115 (Teff about 1700 K, log Teff about 3.23), beyond the validated range (Section 5.1, Appendix B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyses of Multiple Balmer Emission Lines from Accreting Brown Dwarfs and Very Low Mass Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W5SVJ4KH

@misc{pith2026241112133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyses of Multiple Balmer Emission Lines from Accreting Brown Dwarfs and Very Low Mass Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W5SVJ4KH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12133}
}
abstract

A planetary growth rate, a.k.a., the mass accretion rate, is a fundamental parameter in planet formation, as it determines a planet's final mass. Planetary mass accretion rates have been estimated using hydrogen lines, based on the models originally developed for accreting stars, known as the accretion flow model. Recently, Aoyama et al. (2018) introduced the accretion shock model as an alternative mechanism for hydrogen line emission. However, it remains unclear which model is more appropriate for accreting planets and substellar objects. To address this, we applied both models to archival data consisting of 96 data points from 76 accreting brown dwarfs and very low-mass stars, with masses ranging from approximately 0.02 to 0.1 $M_\sun$, to test which model best explains their accreting properties. The results showed that the emission mechanisms of 15 data points are best explained by the shock model, while 55 data points are best explained by the flow model. For the 15 data points explained by the planetary shock model, the shock model estimates up to several times higher mass accretion rates than the flow model. As this trend is more pronounced for planetary mass objects, it is crucial to determine which emission mechanism is dominant in individual planets. We also discuss the physical parameters that determine the emission mechanisms and the variability of line ratios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The line ratio diagrams for (a) Hβ/Hγ versus Hβ/H6 and (b) Hβ/Hγ versus Hβ/H8. The loci of line ratios in the shock and flow models are deviated in the left bottom corner as highlighted with dashed lines, by including the H8 hydrogen line at higher upper level in panel (b). The loci of the shock model appear more discrete than those of the flow model because the parameter grid used in the shock model is coarser. How… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Out of the 96 data points, 89 were analyzed for line ratios in the Hβ/Hγ versus Hβ/H8 diagram, with 7 points excluded due to dominant contributions from stellar chromospheric activity. These 89 data points are plotted against the loci of the shock and flow models (§ 3). The data are categorized as follows: 15 points are identified as shock￾dominated emission (circles), 55 points as flow-dominated emission (squares),… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Hβ spectra are shown for: (a) 2MASS J15580252−3736026 with flow-dominated emission, (b) 2MASS J16053215−1933159 with shock-dominated emission, and (c) 2MASS J16083455−2211559 with stellar chromospheric activity dominating. The black dotted lines represent Gaussian profiles with full widths at half maximum (FWHM) of 200.2 km/s for (a), 70.7 km/s for (b), and 30.6 km/s for (c), respectively. a single peak near the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 96 data points for log(Lacc/L∗) are de￾rived from the relationship between accretion luminosity and Hβ line luminosity (Alcal´a et al. 2017), plotted against log(Teff /K). The empirical relationship for chromospheric activity in non-accreting stars is represented b…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fraction of Hβ line luminosity to accretion luminosity is shown as a function of mass for 70 data points, categorized as either flow-dominated (blue, 55 points) or shock-dominated (yellow in panel a and red in panel b, 15 points) emissions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 70 data points, categorized as either flow-dominated (blue, 55 points) or shock-dominated (red, 15 points) emissions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of Hγ line profiles for objects observed at multiple epochs, where the emission categories switched between shock and flow models. The spectra were obtained using VLT/Xshooter with a resolution of R ≈ 5, 400 (55.6 km/s). are similar for both models. Therefor…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the accretion luminosity derived using the shock model (Lacc,A21) with that obtained from the extrapolation of stellar scalings (Lacc,A17) for the 15 data points located on the shock model loci in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Line ratios of objects with chromospheric dom￾inated emission selected in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same figures with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Detection of Hydrocarbons in the Disk around an Actively-Accreting Planetary-Mass Object

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

    The planetary-mass free-floating object Cha 1107-7626 shows mid-infrared emission lines from methane and ethylene in its disk, the first such hydrocarbon detection in a disk around a free-floating planetary-mass object.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    " id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -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 on reference command E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    F., Testi , L., et al

    Almendros-Abad , V., Manara , C. F., Testi , L., et al. 2024, , 685, A118, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348649

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348649 2024

  7. [7]

    2018, , 866, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11

    Aoyama , Y., Ikoma , M., & Tanigawa , T. 2018, , 866, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11 2018

  8. [8]

    2024, , 168, 155, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad67df

    Aoyama , Y., Marleau , G.-D., & Hashimoto , J. 2024, , 168, 155, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad67df

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad67df 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    2021, , 917, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd

    Aoyama , Y., Marleau , G.-D., Ikoma , M., & Mordasini , C. 2021, , 917, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    M., Lim , P

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

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P

    Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Barman , T. S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2003, , 402, 701, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, , 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe , I., Homeier , D., Allard , F., & Chabrier , G. 2015, , 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Barrado y Navascu \'e s , D., & Mart \' n , E. L. 2003, , 126, 2997, 10.1086/379673

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    1982, , 47, 419

    Bertout , C., Wolf , B., Carrasco , L., & Mundt , R. 1982, , 47, 419

    1982

  9. [17]

    K., Follette , K

    Betti , S. K., Follette , K. B., Ward-Duong , K., et al. 2022, , 935, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ef

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, , 166, 262, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b8

    ---. 2023, , 166, 262, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b8

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 509, 802, 10.1086/306527

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

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    1992, , 386, 239, 10.1086/171010

    Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 1992, , 386, 239, 10.1086/171010

    1992 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Clayton , G

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

    1989 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, , 671, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243832

    Chabrier , G., Baraffe , I., Phillips , M., & Debras , F. 2023, , 671, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243832

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Dumas , C., et al

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., Dumas , C., et al. 2004, , 425, L29, 10.1051/0004-6361:200400056

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    H., et al

    Delorme , P., Gagn \'e , J., Girard , J. H., et al. 2013, , 553, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321169

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, , 676, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346221

    Demars , D., Bonnefoy , M., Dougados , C., et al. 2023, , 676, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346221

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    1994, , 108, 1056, 10.1086/117134

    Edwards , S., Hartigan , P., Ghandour , L., & Andrulis , C. 1994, , 108, 1056, 10.1086/117134

    1994 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, , 945, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c9

    Fang , M., Pascucci , I., Edwards , S., et al. 2023, , 945, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c9

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

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

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    1998, , 492, 323, 10.1086/305032

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

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    1994, , 426, 669, 10.1086/174104

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

    1994 doi

  26. [34]

    J., & Hillenbrand , L

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

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    Joy , A. H. 1945, , 102, 168, 10.1086/144749

    1945 doi

  29. [37]

    2011, , 411, 2383, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17863.x

    Kwan , J., & Fischer , W. 2011, , 411, 2383, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17863.x

    2011

  30. [38]

    L., Tremblin , P., Birkmann , S

    Luhman , K. L., Tremblin , P., Birkmann , S. M., et al. 2023, , 949, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd635

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Frasca , A., Alcal \'a , J

    Manara , C. F., Frasca , A., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2017, , 605, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730807

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

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

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

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, , 964, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee9

    Marleau , G.-D., Aoyama , Y., Hashimoto , J., & Zhou , Y. 2024, , 964, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee9

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    1998 a , , 492, 743, 10.1086/305069

    Muzerolle , J., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 1998 a , , 492, 743, 10.1086/305069

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    ---. 2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    1998 b , , 116, 455, 10.1086/300428

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

    1998 doi

  37. [45]

    2004, , 424, 603, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040356

    Natta , A., Testi , L., Muzerolle , J., et al. 2004, , 424, 603, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040356

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Cohen , J

    Oke , J. B., Cohen , J. G., Carr , M., et al. 1995, , 107, 375, 10.1086/133562

    1995 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Viswanath , G., Aoyama , Y., et al

    Ringqvist , S. C., Viswanath , G., Aoyama , Y., et al. 2023, , 669, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245424

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    R., et al

    Santamar \' a-Miranda , A., C \'a ceres , C., Schreiber , M. R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2994, 10.1093/mnras/stx3325

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Stamatellos , D., & Herczeg , G. J. 2015, , 449, 3432, 10.1093/mnras/stv526

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2002, , 580, 506, 10.1086/343069

    Tanigawa , T., & Watanabe , S.-i. 2002, , 580, 506, 10.1086/343069

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    Thanathibodee , T., Calvet , N., Bae , J., Muzerolle , J., & Hern \'a ndez , R. F. 2019, , 885, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c1

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, , 163, 74, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3ee6

    Thanathibodee , T., Calvet , N., Hern \'a ndez , J., Mauc \'o , K., & Brice \ n o , C. 2022, , 163, 74, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3ee6

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Burgasser , A

    Theissen , C. A., Burgasser , A. J., Bardalez Gagliuffi , D. C., et al. 2018, , 853, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0cf

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    A., West , A

    Theissen , C. A., West , A. A., Shippee , G., Burgasser , A. J., & Schmidt , S. J. 2017, , 153, 92, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/92

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody , D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford , 733, 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  48. [56]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Venuti , L., Stelzer , B., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2019, , 632, A46, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935745

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2011, , 536, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    Vernet , J., Dekker , H., D'Odorico , S., et al. 2011, , 536, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    J., & Basri , G

    White , R. J., & Basri , G. 2003, , 582, 1109, 10.1086/344673

    2003 doi

  52. [60]

    Wilson , T. J. G., Matt , S., Harries , T. J., & Herczeg , G. J. 2022, , 514, 2162, 10.1093/mnras/stac1397

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579, 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Kraus , A

    Zhou , Y., Herczeg , G. J., Kraus , A. L., Metchev , S., & Cruz , K. L. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L17

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    P., Wagner , K

    Zhou , Y., Bowler , B. P., Wagner , K. R., et al. 2021, , 161, 244, 10.3847/1538-3881/abeb7a

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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