Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Star formation and accretion rates within 500 pc as traced by Gaia DR3 XP spectra

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Gaia DR3 XP spectra can yield reliable accretion rates for 145,975 young stellar objects within 500 pc, revealing a dispersed low-accreting population.

desk verdict A genuinely useful all-sky YSO accretion catalogue from Gaia XP spectra, with an abstract that oversells the low-accreting population by leaning on the unfiltered table. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04699 v2 pith:RZ6TZAB7 submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

L. Delfini , M. Vioque , Á. Ribas , S. Hodgkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords accretionratesyoungstellarobjectsGaiaDR3XPspectraH-alphaemissionprotoplanetarydisksSco-Cencomplextimescalelow-accretingYSOpopulation
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

This paper tries to establish that the low-resolution Gaia DR3 XP spectra can be used as a homogeneous, all-sky probe of accretion onto young stellar objects within 500 pc. Using the $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ pseudo-equivalent width and the line information extracted from the spectra, it derives accretion luminosities and mass accretion rates for 145,975 candidate $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ emitters, roughly an order of magnitude more sources than previous targeted surveys. A sympathetic reader would care because the catalogue turns a set of individually studied star-forming regions into a single statistically tractable sample, and it exposes a population of faint, dispersed accretors that earlier surveys missed. The paper also argues that this population's existence changes how accretion timescales, cluster environments, and the so-called 'Peter Pan' discs are understood.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ pseudo-equivalent width (pEW) from the Gaia DR3 ESP-ELS module, together with line measurements from the linefinder tool on the XP spectra. The pEW is calibrated against medium-resolution equivalent widths, converted to a line flux using a continuum flux derived from the Gaia $RP$ magnitude, corrected for extinction in three ways (none, GSP-Phot, and med-GSP-Phot), and finally turned into $L_\mathrm{acc}$ and $\dot{M}_\mathrm{acc}$ through the empirical relation $\log(L_\mathrm{acc}/L_\odot) = 1.13 + 1.74\,\log(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/L_\odot)$ and the standard magnetospheric-accretion formula $\dot{M}_\mathrm{acc} \approx 1.25\,L_\mathrm{acc} R_\star/(G M_\star)$. Linefinder line-width and line-depth cuts ($\mathrm{width} < 25$ nm, $\mathrm{depth} > 10^{-17}$ W/nm/m$^2$) remove M-dwarf TiO contamination, while three quality flags (IR excess, pEW strength, and their combination) define purified subsamples. This machinery is what lets a low-resolution, all-sky survey stand in for targeted high-resolution spectroscopy.

What would settle it

Take a random subset of the 145,975 candidates that fall below the chromospheric emission locus (55% of the table) and observe them with medium-resolution spectroscopy (resolving power ~10,000) measuring both UV excess and $\mathrm{H}\alpha$. If nearly all show chromospheric $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ with no UV continuum excess and no veiling, the claimed large dispersed low-accreting population is mostly a selection artifact; if a substantial fraction show genuine UV excess, the population is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ emission measured in Gaia XP spectra can be converted into reliable accretion luminosities and mass accretion rates for essentially all YSOs within 500 pc, not just those with infrared-bright discs. After calibrating the Gaia pseudo-equivalent width to literature equivalent widths, deriving $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ line fluxes from a continuum flux–$RP$ relation and three extinction treatments, and converting through the empirical $L_\mathrm{acc}$–$L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}$ relation, the authors produce a table of 145,975 objects with accretion properties and stellar parameters. From the cleanest subsample (1,945 objects passing both IR-excess and strong-$\mathrm{H}\alpha$ cuts) they obtain $L_\mathrm{acc} \propto L_\star^{1.41\pm0.02}$ and $\dot{M}_\mathrm{acc} \propto M_\star^{2.4\pm0.1}$, and from the Sco-Cen clusters an exponential accretion timescale of $2.7\pm0.4$ Myr with a power-law decay giving 70% accretors at 2 Myr and 2.8% at 10 Myr. They further claim that the newly found population of low-accreting candidates is mostly spatially dispersed, often unconnected to known star-forming regions, and may contain numerous 'Peter Pan' discs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ pseudo-equivalent width traces magnetospheric accretion through the literature $L_\mathrm{acc}$–$L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}$ relation for every source in the table, even though the paper finds 55% of sources fall below the chromospheric emission level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accretion rates can now be assigned to any $\mathrm{H}\alpha$-emitting source within 500 pc with public XP spectra, so future studies can build statistically complete YSO samples without new spectroscopic campaigns.
  • The $L_\mathrm{acc}$–$L_\star$ and $\dot{M}_\mathrm{acc}$–$M_\star$ relations are recovered on a homogeneous all-sky sample, with slopes consistent with most literature values, which supports using these relations to interpret larger and fainter samples.
  • The fraction of accretors in Sco-Cen declines on a timescale of $2.7\pm0.4$ Myr (exponential) or as a power law with 70% at 2 Myr and 2.8% at 10 Myr, giving a comparative benchmark for disc dispersal models.
  • A large population of low-accreting, spatially dispersed YSO candidates, many with no clear young association, is now available for follow-up, including candidate 'Peter Pan' discs.
  • Quality-flag subsamples (4,208 by IR excess, 6,170 by strong $\mathrm{H}\alpha$, 1,945 by both) let users balance completeness against contamination for different science cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 55% of sources below the chromospheric emission level are probably not all real accretors; medium-resolution spectroscopy of a random subset of those sources would likely shrink the dispersed low-accreting population, though the purified flag_combined sample suggests a real core remains.
  • If the 'Peter Pan' interpretation is right, the dispersed low accretors should show old ages, thin-disc signatures, and kinematics unconnected to any association; checking their lithium abundances or space motions would test this.
  • The same XP-based pipeline could be applied to the epoch-level spectra expected in future data releases, turning accretion variability and burst statistics into a general diagnostic rather than a single-epoch census.
  • The method's extinction limitations (med-GSP-Phot underestimates accretion luminosities) imply that individual-source accretion rates in the table should be treated as lower limits when only the filled-in extinction is available.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first all-sky, homogeneous derivation of H-alpha-based accretion properties for young stellar objects within 500 pc using Gaia DR3 XP spectra. The authors construct a catalogue of 145,975 H-alpha emitter candidates (Table 2), derive equivalent widths from ESP-ELS pseudo-equivalent widths, continuum fluxes from an RP-magnitude relation, extinction corrections via two methods (GSP-Phot and median GSP-Phot), and convert H-alpha luminosities to accretion luminosities and mass accretion rates using the Alcala et al. (2017) calibration. They define three purer sub-samples: flag_IR (4,208 sources), flag_pEW (6,170 sources), and flag_combined (1,945 sources), and use these to derive Lacc-Lstar and Macc-Mstar relations, a Sco-Cen accretion timescale of 2.7±0.4 Myr, and the claim of a large, spatially dispersed population of low-accreting YSO candidates. The catalogue and methodology are the main deliverables.

Significance. If the catalogue is accepted as reliable, it represents a substantial advance: a homogeneous all-sky local census of YSO accretion, with transparent, reproducible methodology and explicit quality flags. The comparison against 341 X-Shooter YSOs is a genuine strength, as are the machine-readable catalogue and the explicit documentation of selection thresholds. However, the central physical claim—the existence of a large, previously unseen low-accreting population—rests on the unfiltered catalogue, for which the paper itself shows that 55% of sources fall below the chromospheric emission locus. The purified samples are more credible but are not the basis for the headline discovery claim. The small formal errors on the derived power-law slopes also need to be reconciled with the known systematic scatter in the calibration chain.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 2.7 and Abstract] The abstract's claim of a 'large population of low-accreting YSO candidates untraced by previous surveys' is drawn from the full Table 2, yet Sect. 2.7 reports that 55% of sources in that table lie below the chromospheric emission locus of Manara et al. (2017a). For those sources, the derived Lacc and Macc values could be dominated by chromospheric emission, making the population claim unsubstantiated as presented. The authors should re-derive the low-accretor statistics after applying flag_above_chromospheric_level, or explicitly quantify how many low-accreting sources in Table 2 remain above the chromospheric locus and show that the spatial-dispersion result survives that cut.
  2. [Sect. 2.8, Fig. 9] The validation against 341 X-Shooter YSOs tests relatively strong, known accretors and shows agreement only to within an order of magnitude. The low-accretion regime (log Lacc below about -4) is not probed by this comparison, yet it is exactly the regime where the new dispersed population is claimed to reside. The paper should either validate the pipeline on known chromospherically active non-accreting stars (to demonstrate that the method does not overproduce low-Lacc sources) or state explicitly that the low-accretion rates in the catalogue are unvalidated and should be treated with caution until spectroscopic follow-up is available.
  3. [Sect. 3.2, Table 3] The quoted uncertainties on the power-law slopes (0.02 for the Lacc-Lstar slope and 0.1 for the Macc-Mstar slope) reflect only formal propagation of random errors. Table 3 shows that switching from GSP-Phot to med-GSP-Phot extinction changes the combined-sample slope from 1.41±0.02 to 1.50±0.02, and switching samples changes it further; the intrinsic scatter in Eq. (1) and Eq. (5) and the choice of extinction treatment are not included in the reported errors. The paper should report a systematic error budget or a combined uncertainty that accounts for these choices, since the claim '1.41±0.02' is likely an underestimate of the true uncertainty.
  4. [Sect. 2.1, Appendix E] The full Table 2 includes 20,274 sources without public XP spectra, which receive no linefinder-based M-dwarf filtering (width_lf cut) and are retained on the basis of pEW alone. The pEW<−0.5 nm threshold was chosen with an F_beta score (beta=2) that prioritizes completeness over purity. The paper should state explicitly how many sources in Table 2 lack XP spectra and quantify the impact of their inclusion on the low-accretor statistics, especially for the spatially dispersed population claimed in the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains several spacing errors ('di fferent', 'e ffects') and a grammatical error in Sect. 2.8 ('the lower limit to the mass accretion rate that we are sensitive too' should be 'sensitive to'). A careful proofread would improve readability.
  2. [Sect. 2.2] The fit of Eq. (1) discards 18 points with pEW > -0.1 nm or EWHalpha > -0.1 nm; the paper should justify more explicitly that these are non-emitting or peculiar sources and confirm that the retained 120 sources span the parameter space of the final catalogue, including the low-pEW regime.
  3. [Sect. 4.1, Table 4] Several Sco-Cen clusters have only upper limits or no median accretion values (e.g., clusters 11, 12, 24, 25, 27, 30), and the table is not self-explanatory about why. A short note in the caption clarifying that medians require at least four accretors would help.
  4. [Appendix B] The F_beta-score definition and the choice of beta=2 are described, but the paper does not state the numerical values of the accuracy, completeness, and F_beta for the chosen thresholds (pEW<−0.5 and <−1.0 nm). Reporting those numbers would allow readers to judge the purity/completeness tradeoff quantitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accretion-rate chain is anchored to external X-Shooter calibrations and validated against independent literature values; the low-accretor claim is explicitly caveated by the paper's own chromospheric flag.

full rationale

The paper derives EWHalpha from pEW via Eq. 1, fitted to 120 literature YSOs with X-Shooter spectra; derives Fcont from RP via Eq. 3, fitted to 114 known YSOs; and converts LHalpha to Lacc with Eq. 5 using Alcala et al. (2017), an externally calibrated relation. The final Lacc and Macc values are compared to 341 common objects from Manara et al. (2023), an independent benchmark, and agree to within an order of magnitude. The pEW selection thresholds are internal cross-calibrations between ESP-ELS pEW and linefinder on the same XP spectra; this is an instrument-calibration choice, not a prediction of the paper's physical results. The paper explicitly reports that 55% of the unfiltered Table 2 lies below the chromospheric locus (Sect. 2.7), whereas samples A, B, and C are 8.44%, 0.15%, and ~0% below it, so the headlined dispersed low-accretor population is not presented as validated for the unfiltered sample. The scaling relations and tau_acc are empirical fits, not derived from their own assumptions by construction. The only minor self-referential element is the use of Vioque et al. (2018, 2022) catalogues in calibrating linefinder thresholds, but this is not load-bearing because the same thresholds are corroborated by the Manara et al. (2023) sample and the external X-Shooter comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The catalogue and all derived claims depend on three fitted or imported conversions (pEW→EW, RP→Fcont, Hα→Lacc) plus an assumed inner-disk radius and disentangling real Hα emission from chromospheric emission and M-dwarf bands. The validation against 341 X-Shooter YSOs constrains the combined accuracy to roughly one order of magnitude, which is not propagated into the final quoted fit errors.

free parameters (7)
  • pEW-to-EW calibration coefficients (m, c, σ) = m=1.13±0.04, c=0.41±0.02, σ=0.18
    Fitted to 120 literature YSOs (Eq. 2); every EW_Hα and hence every Lacc in the catalogue passes through this calibration.
  • Fcont-RP relation coefficients (a, b, σ) = a=-0.48±0.01, b=-10.2±0.1, σ=0.05-0.06
    Fitted to 114 sources with linefinder Fcont (Eq. 3, Table 1); converts RP magnitude to continuum flux at Hα for the whole catalogue.
  • Lacc-LHα calibration (A, B) from Alcalá et al. 2017 = A=1.13±0.05, B=1.74±0.19
    External empirical calibration (Eq. 5); the central conversion from Hα luminosity to accretion luminosity. Imported, not refitted here.
  • Inner disk radius ratio Rin/R* = 5
    Assumed in Eq. (6) following Alcalá et al. 2017; directly scales all Macc values by 1.25.
  • facc exponential/power-law fit parameters (τ, C, k, α) = τ=2.7±0.4 Myr, C=79±28%; k=281±149, α=-2.0±0.3
    Fitted to the facc-age relation of 34 Sco-Cen clusters (Eqs. 7-8, Table 5); produces the headline accretion timescale and 70%/2.8% percentages.
  • Criterion B accretion floor for no-XP sources = log(Lacc/L⊙)>-3.5
    Hand-chosen in Appendix E so that YSO density in poor Gaia coverage regions matches neighboring regions; sets a selection floor for flag_pEW sources without XP spectra.
  • Minimum CMD error floor = 0.1 mag in color and absolute magnitude
    Set in Sect. 2.5 because Gaia uncertainties are sometimes underestimated; the floor inflates stellar parameter uncertainties and propagates to Lacc and Macc.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hα emission traces magnetospheric accretion for all sample members (Eq. 5, A=1.13, B=1.74 from Alcalá et al. 2017).
    Invoked in Sect. 2.6. The paper's own flag shows 55% of the unfiltered sample lies below the chromospheric emission locus, so this assumption is violated for a large fraction of the table.
  • domain assumption Baraffe et al. (2015) tracks describe the CMD positions of these YSOs.
    Sect. 2.5; derived M* and R* enter Eq. 6 and the Macc-M* fit.
  • domain assumption GSP-Phot and med-GSP-Phot extinctions bracket the true line-of-sight plus circumstellar extinction.
    Sect. 2.4; med-GSP-Phot is acknowledged to systematically underestimate, so all med-GSP-Phot accretion values are lower limits.
  • domain assumption The 34 Sco-Cen clusters are comparable snapshots of one star formation process.
    Stated in Sect. 4.2 as an implicit assumption of Sect. 4.1; environment-driven scatter is visible in Fig. 13.
  • ad hoc to paper pEW<−0.5 nm and widthlf<25 nm separate real Hα emission from M-dwarf TiO bands.
    Sect. 2.1 and Appendix B; thresholds calibrated with known YSOs and Fβ scores, and by construction exclude M dwarfs with true Hα at the TiO level.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Star formation and accretion rates within 500 pc as traced by Gaia DR3 XP spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZ6TZAB7

@misc{pith2026250504699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Star formation and accretion rates within 500 pc as traced by Gaia DR3 XP spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZ6TZAB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04699}
}
abstract

Accretion rates from protoplanetary disks onto forming stars are a key ingredient in star formation and protoplanetary disk evolution. Extensive efforts surveying individual star forming regions with spectroscopy and narrow-band photometry have been performed to derive accretion rates on large populations of young stellar objects (YSOs). We use Gaia DR3 XP spectra to perform the first all-sky homogeneous analysis of YSO accretion within 500 pc. We characterise the H$\alpha$ line emission of YSOs by using the H$\alpha$ pseudo-equivalent widths and XP spectra from Gaia DR3. We derive accretion luminosities, mass accretion rates and stellar parameters for 145 975 candidate YSO H$\alpha$ emitters all-sky. We describe filtering strategies to select specific sub-samples of YSOs from this catalogue. We identify a large population of low-accreting YSO candidates untraced by previous surveys. The population of low accreting YSOs is mostly spatially dispersed, away from star forming regions or more clustered environments of star formation. Many YSOs appear disconnected from young populations, reminiscent of 'Peter Pan' YSOs. We find $L_{acc}\propto L_\star^{1.41\pm0.02}$ and $\dot M_{acc}\propto M_\star^{2.4\pm0.1}$ for the purest all-sky sample of YSO candidates. By fitting an exponential to the fraction of accreting stars in clusters of different ages in the Sco-Cen complex, we obtain an accretion timescale of 2.7$\pm$0.4 Myr. The percentage of accretors found by fitting a power-law is 70% at 2 Myr and 2.8% at 10 Myr. With this new catalogue of H$\alpha$ emitters we significantly increase the number of YSO candidates with accretion rate estimations in the local neighbourhood. This allows us to study accretion timescales and the spatial and physical properties of YSO accretion from a large, all-sky, and homogeneous sample for the first time. [abridged]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation between Hα equivalent widths from medium￾resolution spectra and Gaia Hα pseudo-equivalent widths, for a sample of YSOs (T Tauri and Herbig stars). The black lines represent the best linear fit to the data and its uncertainties, log(−EWHα) = (1.13±0.04)· log(−pEW)+(0.41±0.02)±0.18. Hα emitters (see Appendix B). The resulting sample contains 114 sources. We then calculated Fcont = fluxl f − depthl f . We o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram illustrating the various selections applied to the original sample of all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) of all Hα emitter can￾didates within 500 pc ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Colour-colour plot using 2MASS and WISE magni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fig. (a): Sky plot in galactic co-ordinates of YSO H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histogram of distances of YSO Hα emitter candidates including the full table with ‘flag_CMD’ and samples A, B, and C (these being refined subsets of YSO candidates, Sect. 2.7). We use the geometric distances of Bailer-Jones et al. (2021). 2.8. Comparison with literatur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Detail of some star-forming regions from Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the accretion luminosities and mass accretion rates of this work with the values reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of accretion luminosities and mass accretion rates derived for YSO H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Accretion luminosity vs stellar luminosity for 1 871 YSOs all-sky within 500 pc (sample C, Sect. 2.7). The 655 sources of the sample that have GSP-Phot extinction are plotted according to their values of accretion luminosity and stellar luminosity derived using …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-dimensional spatial distribution of 1 954 members of the 34 Sco-Cen clusters identified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Stellar mass distribution of accretors in the Sco-Cen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of accretion in Sco-Cen clusters with age. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Slope of the correlations of accretion luminosity vs stel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Fraction of accretors against age for each region of Ta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.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. exoALMA. XVIII. Interpreting large scale kinematic structures as moderate warping

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Moderate disk warps of about 0.5 to 2 degrees can reproduce the single-armed velocity patterns seen in many exoALMA disks, and may also explain spiral structures in scattered light and CO temperature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 42 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 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.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Manara , C. F., Natta , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A20

    2017

  4. [4]

    M., Natta , A., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Natta , A., Manara , C. F., et al. 2014, , 561, A2

    2014

  5. [5]

    F., Testi , L., et al

    Almendros-Abad , V., Manara , C. F., Testi , L., et al. 2024, , 685, A118

    2024

  6. [6]

    P., G \'a rate , M., et al

    Anania , R., Rosotti , G. P., G \'a rate , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10743

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    2023, , 674, A27

    Andrae , R., Fouesneau , M., Sordo , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A27

    2023

  8. [8]

    P., Manara , C

    Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., Manara , C. F., et al. 2017, , 153, 240

    2017

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Avedisova , V. S. 2002, Astronomy Reports, 46, 193

    2002

  2. [10]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

    2021

  3. [11]

    2015, , 577, A42

    Baraffe , I., Homeier , D., Allard , F., & Chabrier , G. 2015, , 577, A42

    2015

  4. [12]

    2012, , 427, 127

    Bressan , A., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127

    2012

  5. [13]

    2023, , 669, A55

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., Fouesneau , M., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2023, , 669, A55

    2023

  6. [14]

    2021, in The 20.5th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun (CS20.5), Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 269

    Cao , L., Pinsonneault , M., Hillenbrand , L., & Kuhn , M. 2021, in The 20.5th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun (CS20.5), Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 269

    2021

  7. [15]

    M., Esplin , T

    Carpenter , J. M., Esplin , T. L., Luhman , K. L., Mamajek , E. E., & Andrews , S. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21598

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al

    Carrasco , J. M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al. 2021, , 652, A86

    2021

  9. [17]

    Castro-Ginard , A., Brown , A. G. A., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska , Z., et al. 2023, , 677, A37

    2023

  10. [18]

    Claes , R. A. B., Manara , C. F., Garcia-Lopez , R., et al. 2022, , 664, L7

    2022

  11. [19]

    Cody , A. M. & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2018, , 156, 71

    2018

  12. [20]

    Coleman , G. A. L. & Haworth , T. J. 2020, , 496, L111

    2020

  13. [21]

    P., & Wilhelm , M

    Cournoyer-Cloutier , C., Karam , J., Sills , A., Zwart , S. P., & Wilhelm , M. J. C. 2024, , 975, 207

    2024

  14. [22]

    L., Sordo , R., Pailler , F., et al

    Creevey , O. L., Sordo , R., Pailler , F., et al. 2023, , 674, A26

    2023

  15. [23]

    M., Wright , E

    Cutri , R. M., Wright , E. L., Conrow , T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    2023, , 674, A2

    De Angeli , F., Weiler , M., Montegriffo , P., et al. 2023, , 674, A2

    2023

  17. [25]

    2010, , 715, 1

    De Marchi , G., Panagia , N., & Romaniello , M. 2010, , 715, 1

    2010

  18. [26]

    R., Oudmaijer , R

    Fairlamb , J. R., Oudmaijer , R. D., Mendigut \' a , I., Ilee , J. D., & van den Ancker , M. E. 2015, , 453, 976

    2015

  19. [27]

    R., Oudmaijer , R

    Fairlamb , J. R., Oudmaijer , R. D., Mendigutia , I., Ilee , J. D., & van den Ancker , M. E. 2017, , 464, 4721

    2017

  20. [28]

    2023, , 945, 112

    Fang , M., Pascucci , I., Edwards , S., et al. 2023, , 945, 112

    2023

  21. [29]

    E., Henning , T., Jayawardhana , R., & Oliveira , J

    Fedele , D., van den Ancker , M. E., Henning , T., Jayawardhana , R., & Oliveira , J. M. 2010, , 510, A72

    2010

  22. [30]

    2023, , 944, 135

    Fiorellino , E., Tychoniec , ., Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera , F., et al. 2023, , 944, 135

    2023

  23. [31]

    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

    2023

  24. [32]

    S., Reipurth , B., Boogert , A., & Doppmann , G

    Flores , C., Connelley , M. S., Reipurth , B., Boogert , A., & Doppmann , G. 2024, , 972, 149

    2024

  25. [33]

    2023, , 674, A28

    Fouesneau , M., Fr \'e mat , Y., andrae , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A28

    2023

  26. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  27. [35]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  28. [36]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  29. [37]

    L., Stapper , L

    Grant , S. L., Stapper , L. M., Hogerheijde , M. R., et al. 2023, , 166, 147

    2023

  30. [38]

    P., et al

    Gupta , A., Miotello , A., Williams , J. P., et al. 2024, , 683, A133

    2024

  31. [39]

    2016, , 54, 135

    Hartmann , L., Herczeg , G., & Calvet , N. 2016, , 54, 135

    2016

  32. [40]

    J., Kuhn , M

    Herczeg , G. J., Kuhn , M. A., Zhou , X., et al. 2019, , 878, 111

    2019

  33. [41]

    Kelly , B. C. 2007, , 665, 1489

    2007

  34. [42]

    D., Henry , T

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Henry , T. J., & McCarthy , Donald W., J. 1991, , 77, 417

    1991

  35. [43]

    A., et al

    K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera , F., White , J. A., et al. 2021, , 256, 30

    2021

  36. [44]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 84

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Suárez, G., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 84

    2018

  37. [45]

    S., & Haugb lle , T

    Kuffmeier , M., Jensen , S. S., & Haugb lle , T. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 272

    2023

  38. [46]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528

    Lee, R., Gaidos, E., Saders, J., Feiden, G., & Gagné, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528

    2024

  39. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05535

    Long , F., Pascucci , I., Houge , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05535

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Luhman, K. L. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156

    2018

  41. [49]

    Luhman , K. L. 2022, , 164, 151

    2022

  42. [50]

    Luhman, K. L. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 269

    2023

  43. [51]

    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

    2023

  44. [52]

    F., Fedele , D., Herczeg , G

    Manara , C. F., Fedele , D., Herczeg , G. J., & Teixeira , P. S. 2016 a , , 585, A136

    2016

  45. [53]

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

    Manara , C. F., Frasca , A., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2017 a , , 605, A86

    2017

  46. [54]

    F., Natta , A., Rosotti , G

    Manara , C. F., Natta , A., Rosotti , G. P., et al. 2020, , 639, A58

    2020

  47. [55]

    F., Rosotti , G., Testi , L., et al

    Manara , C. F., Rosotti , G., Testi , L., et al. 2016 b , , 591, L3

    2016

  48. [56]

    F., Testi , L., Herczeg , G

    Manara , C. F., Testi , L., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2017 b , , 604, A127

    2017

  49. [57]

    2023, , 674, A21

    Marton , G., \'A brah \'a m , P., Rimoldini , L., et al. 2023, , 674, A21

    2023

  50. [58]

    2019, , 487, 2522

    Marton , G., \'A brah \'a m , P., Szegedi-Elek , E., et al. 2019, , 487, 2522

    2019

  51. [59]

    2022, , 660, A131

    Mej \' as , A., Minniti , D., Alonso-Garc \' a , J., et al. 2022, , 660, A131

    2022

  52. [60]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 39

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

    2020

  53. [61]

    D., Rigliaco , E., et al

    Mendigut \' a , I., Oudmaijer , R. D., Rigliaco , E., et al. 2015, , 452, 2837

    2015

  54. [62]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 216

    Miret-Roig , N., Alves , J., Barrado , D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 216

    2024

  55. [63]

    2023, , 674, A3

    Montegriffo , P., De Angeli , F., andrae , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A3

    2023

  56. [64]

    M., et al

    Nisini , B., Antoniucci , S., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2018, , 609, A87

    2018

  57. [65]

    2023, , 671, A1

    Olivares , J., Bouy , H., Miret-Roig , N., et al. 2023, , 671, A1

    2023

  58. [66]

    J., et al

    Pascucci , I., Testi , L., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2016, , 831, 125

    2016

  59. [67]

    2020, , 641, A3

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A3

    2020

  60. [68]

    A., Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Gro schedl , J

    Polnitzky , F. A., Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Gro schedl , J. E., & Alves , J. 2025, , submitted

    2025

  61. [69]

    E., Alves , J., et al

    Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Gro schedl , J. E., Alves , J., et al. 2023 a , , 678, A71

    2023

  62. [70]

    o ck , S., Gro schedl , J. E., M \

    Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Gro schedl , J. E., M \"o ller , T., et al. 2023 b , , 677, A59

    2023

  63. [71]

    2015, , 576, A52

    Ribas , \'A ., Bouy , H., & Mer \' n , B. 2015, , 576, A52

    2015

  64. [72]

    C., Roche , P

    Riddick , F. C., Roche , P. F., & Lucas , P. W. 2007, , 381, 1067

    2007

  65. [73]

    W., et al

    Riello , M., De Angeli , F., Evans , D. W., et al. 2021, , 649, A3

    2021

  66. [74]

    2024, , 684, L8

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

    2024

  67. [75]

    & Meingast , S

    Rottensteiner , A. & Meingast , S. 2024, , 690, A16

    2024

  68. [76]

    2023, GaiaXPy v2.1.0, doi=10.5281/zenodo.8239995, https://gaia-dpci.github.io/GaiaXPy-website/

    Ruz-Mieres, D. 2023, GaiaXPy v2.1.0, doi=10.5281/zenodo.8239995, https://gaia-dpci.github.io/GaiaXPy-website/

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Wisniewski , J

    Silverberg , S. M., Wisniewski , J. P., Kuchner , M. J., et al. 2020, , 890, 106

    2020

  70. [78]

    Soderblom , D. R. 2010, , 48, 581

    2010

  71. [79]

    2022, , 514, 5927

    Somigliana , A., Toci , C., Rosotti , G., et al. 2022, , 514, 5927

    2022

  72. [80]

    P., Lodato , G., et al

    Tabone , B., Rosotti , G. P., Lodato , G., et al. 2022, , 512, L74

    2022

  73. [81]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  74. [82]

    F., et al

    Testi , L., Natta , A., Manara , C. F., et al. 2022, , 663, A98

    2022

  75. [83]

    J., Pringle , J

    Tilling , I., Clarke , C. J., Pringle , J. E., & Tout , C. A. 2008, , 385, 1530

    2008

  76. [84]

    2023, , 166, 183

    Vioque , M., Cavieres , M., Pantaleoni Gonz \'a lez , M., et al. 2023, , 166, 183

    2023

  77. [85]

    T., Trapman , L., et al

    Vioque , M., Kurtovic , N. T., Trapman , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10746

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    D., Baines , D., Mendigut \' a , I., & P \'e rez-Mart \' nez , R

    Vioque , M., Oudmaijer , R. D., Baines , D., Mendigut \' a , I., & P \'e rez-Mart \' nez , R. 2018, , 620, A128

    2018

  79. [87]

    D., Schreiner , M., et al

    Vioque , M., Oudmaijer , R. D., Schreiner , M., et al. 2020, , 638, A21

    2020

  80. [88]

    D., Wichittanakom , C., et al

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

    2022

  81. [89]

    L., & P \'e rez-Garrido , A

    Z erjal , M., Mart \' n , E. L., & P \'e rez-Garrido , A. 2024, , 686, A161

    2024

  82. [90]

    M., Fabricius , C., & Jordi , C

    Weiler , M., Carrasco , J. M., Fabricius , C., & Jordi , C. 2023, , 671, A52

    2023

  83. [91]

    C., Lopez , S., et al

    Wendeborn , J., Espaillat , C. C., Lopez , S., et al. 2024, , 970, 118

    2024

  84. [92]

    D., Fairlamb , J

    Wichittanakom , C., Oudmaijer , R. D., Fairlamb , J. R., et al. 2020, , 493, 234

    2020

  85. [93]

    J., Benisty , M., Manara , C

    Winter , A. J., Benisty , M., Manara , C. F., & Gupta , A. 2024 a , , 691, A169

    2024

  86. [94]

    J., Benisty , M., Shuai , L., et al

    Winter , A. J., Benisty , M., Shuai , L., et al. 2024 b , , 691, A43

    2024

  87. [95]

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

    2022

  88. [96]

    J., Rosotti , G

    Zagaria , F., Clarke , C. J., Rosotti , G. P., & Manara , C. F. 2022, , 512, 3538

    2022

  89. [97]

    2024, , 692, A93

    Zallio , L., Rosotti , G., Tabone , B., et al. 2024, , 692, A93

    2024

  90. [98]

    J., Liu , Y., Fang , M., & Kuhn , M

    Zhou , X., Herczeg , G. J., Liu , Y., Fang , M., & Kuhn , M. 2022, , 933, 77

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.