Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

New Insights into the T Tauri Binary Separation Distribution

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the apparent excess of T Tauri binaries at separations of 10–100 au is an observational selection effect, not a real feature of young star populations.

desk verdict The spectral-type-limited evidence that the T Tauri binary excess is a selection effect looks solid; the disk-clearing brightness offset that motivates it is less cleanly established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07938 v2 pith:QQB3DRSF submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Caleb Eastlund , Maxwell Moe , Kaitlin M. Kratter , Marina Kounkel This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords TTauristarsbinaryseparationdistributionselectionbiascircumstellardisksstar-formingregionsfractionTaurusUpperScorpius
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 re-examines three decades of adaptive-optics and speckle surveys that reported a factor-of-two excess of T Tauri binaries at separations $a = 10\text{--}100\,\mathrm{au}$ compared with main-sequence field stars. It argues that the excess is a selection artifact: close binaries truncate and clear their dusty circumstellar disks faster than single stars or wide binaries, so magnitude-limited surveys preferentially catch the bright, disk-free close binaries. Restricting the samples to primary spectral type or mass, where the surveys are complete and unbiased, makes the apparent excess disappear in Taurus, Upper Scorpius, and the Orion Nebula Cluster. What remains is an environment-dependent wide-binary population: Taurus has an excess of wide companions (mostly outer tertiaries), the ONC shows a deficit, and Upper Scorpius matches the field. If correct, this removes the need to invoke extremely dense birth clusters for half of solar-type field stars and lowers Taurus's total binary fraction to $52\%\pm7\%$, close to the field value of $45\%$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dust-extinction selection bias. Close binaries within $a<100\,\mathrm{au}$ truncate and clear their circumstellar disks faster than single stars or wide binaries, so at a fixed spectral type they are systematically brighter and preferentially enter magnitude-limited AO and speckle samples. The paper documents this with G-magnitude cumulative distributions for narrow spectral-type bins (e.g., M2.5--M4.3 in Taurus and M3--M3.9 in Upper Sco), where close binaries form a bright, narrow distribution while single, wide, and unobserved members trail to fainter magnitudes by up to roughly 7 mag of extinction. It then corrects the bias by restricting to primary spectral-type or mass ranges where the surveys are complete: G0--M1.9 in Taurus, A6--M2.9 in Upper Sco, and $M_1 = 0.7\text{--}1.6\,M_\odot$ in the ONC.

What would settle it

A complete, volume-limited AO survey of a young region selected by Gaia membership and spectral type, with no magnitude cutoff, should yield a 10–100 au binary fraction equal to the field; if the excess persists in such a sample, the selection-bias explanation would be ruled out. A direct companion test is to measure disk fractions by spectral type: close binaries should show a markedly lower disk incidence than their single-star siblings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the three-decade-old T Tauri binary excess across $a = 10\text{--}100\,\mathrm{au}$ is an artifact of magnitude-limited selection. Limiting the Taurus sample to G0--M1.9 primaries drops its 3--100 au binary fraction from $32\%\pm4\%$ to $27\%\pm5\%$, consistent with the field value of $22\%$. Limiting Upper Sco to A6--M2.9 primaries drops the completeness-corrected 10--100 au fraction from $19\%\pm2\%$ to $15\%\pm2\%$, matching the field value of $13\%$. Narrowing the ONC sample to primaries with $M_1 = 0.7\text{--}1.6\,M_\odot$ brings its 10--60 au fraction to $19^{+12}_{-7}\%$, no longer discrepant with the field value of $13\%$. At wider separations the three regions differ: Taurus shows a factor-of-2.1 excess beyond 100 au (mostly tertiaries), the ONC shows a deficit, and Upper Sco matches the field, which the paper takes as evidence that Upper Sco is the average birth environment of solar-type stars.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the physical premise that close binaries within 100 au clear their dusty disks faster and are therefore systematically brighter than single stars and wide binaries of the same spectral type; if that brightness offset is not caused by disk clearing, the bias correction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The T Tauri binary separation distribution becomes continuous across the $a = 10\,\mathrm{au}$ boundary between spectroscopic and imaging surveys.
  • Upper Scorpius, not the ONC, can represent the average birth environment of solar-type stars, because its wide-binary fraction matches the field population.
  • N-body processing in average-density birth clusters needs to disrupt mostly outer tertiaries beyond roughly 1000 au, with negligible dynamical effect on inner binaries below 100 au.
  • The primordial binary fraction in low-density regions need not be 100%; Taurus's total binary fraction of $52\%\pm7\%$ is only slightly above the field value of $45\%$.
  • The apparent close-binary excess seen in earlier AO surveys of other nearby star-forming regions may vanish under the same spectral-type-limited reanalysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this bias is universal, reanalyzing other young associations such as Ophiuchus and Chamaeleon by spectral type should erase their apparent close-binary excesses; that is a direct, observationally cheap test.
  • The mechanism predicts a photometric signature: among coeval stars of identical spectral type, close binaries should show lower infrared excess and lower extinction than their single and wide-binary siblings, measurable with existing disk surveys.
  • Because Taurus's wide excess consists mostly of tertiaries, the paper shifts the emphasis from binary disruption to triple disruption in cluster dynamics, which may change how simulations of young clusters are compared with observations.
  • The brightness offset could be used to statistically correct past magnitude-limited surveys without re-observation, using Gaia photometry and membership lists to weight each primary by the probability that it is disk-free.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper re-examines the historical factor-of-two excess of T Tauri binaries at a = 10-100 au in Taurus, Upper Scorpius, and the Orion Nebula Cluster. The authors argue that this excess is a selection artifact: close binaries clear their circumstellar disks faster than single stars or wide binaries, making them systematically brighter at a given spectral type, so magnitude-limited AO/speckle surveys preferentially detect them. They demonstrate magnitude differences among close binaries, wide/single systems, and untargeted members, then restrict the samples to spectral-type or mass windows where survey completeness is high. In these restricted samples, the 10-100 au binary fractions become consistent with field main-sequence values in all three regions. They further report that Taurus retains a wide-separation excess dominated by outer tertiaries, while the ONC shows a wide-separation deficit, and Upper Sco matches the field. From a piecewise model of inner-binary probability, they derive a Taurus binary fraction of 52% +/- 7% within 10,000 au, only slightly above the field value.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper resolves a long-standing contradiction in star-formation studies: the supposed excess of intermediate-separation T Tauri binaries that motivated dense-cluster dynamical-processing scenarios would instead be a selection effect, with important consequences for the initial binary population and for interpretations of field-star birth environments. The paper is valuable for its systematic re-analysis of published AO surveys, its explicit use of spectral-type/mass cuts rather than magnitude cuts, its quantitative comparison with the Moe & Di Stefano (2017) and Moe & Kratter (2021) field models, and its KS-test comparisons of magnitude distributions. The main empirical result for Taurus and Upper Sco is plausible and the data presentation is generally transparent. However, the physical mechanism that motivates the correction is not cleanly demonstrated, and the ONC result rests on very small numbers. These issues are fixable but currently leave the broadest claims stronger than the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figs. 4-5] The claim that close binaries are intrinsically brighter because they clear their disks is not cleanly separated from the expected brightness boost of unresolved companion light. For a resolved binary with magnitude contrast Delta G, the total system is 2.5 log10(1 + 10^{-0.4 Delta G}) mag brighter than the primary alone, which is ~0.3-0.7 mag for mass ratios q = 0.3-0.8. The text states that after removing q > 0.8 twins, close binaries remain brighter than the unobserved systems, but it does not show the comparison against single/wide primaries after this removal. The unobserved systems are a poor control precisely because they were not targeted on account of being faint. Please repeat the analysis using primary-only magnitudes (or subtract the measured companion flux from the total G magnitude) and show the offset for close binaries versus single/wide primaries with q > 0.8 removed. Without this control, the magnitude offset cannot be attributed to disk clearing rather than to companion light.
  2. [Section 5, Table 3] The ONC result is much weaker than the abstract suggests. Restricting to M1 = 0.7-1.6 Msun leaves only about 20 primaries and yields a binary fraction of 19^{+12}_{-7} percent across a = 10-60 au. This is formally consistent with the field value of 13 percent, but the upper uncertainty extends to 31 percent, so the data cannot distinguish between a genuine disappearance of the excess and a simple loss of statistical power. Please soften the 'disappears in all three environments' wording for the ONC, or combine the ONC sample with other young dense regions if available. The sample accounting is also unclear: from 42 primaries and 12 resolved companions, removing 16 low-mass and 6 high-mass systems (including five tight binaries) does not obviously produce the stated 19 percent; please tabulate the number of remaining primaries and companions in each row of Table 3.
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 6] The spectral-type cuts (G0-M1.9 in Taurus, A6-M2.9 in Upper Sco) are justified by the fraction of members targeted, but that completeness fraction is not the same as a demonstration that the untargeted members have the same binary fraction. In Taurus the survey is roughly 70 percent complete even in the selected bin, so 30 percent of members are missing; if the missing members are preferentially single or wide disk-bearing stars, the true close-binary fraction could be lower than the reported 27 +/- 5 percent, and if they contain binaries, it could be higher. Please provide a bracketing correction for the missing members, or otherwise show that the residual magnitude selection within the restricted bins cannot change the conclusion that the 10-100 au excess disappears.
  4. [Section 7, Eq. (1)] The headline Taurus result BF = 52 +/- 7 percent depends on the piecewise inner-binary probability function pin(a), which is anchored to only 13 outer tertiaries among 22 wide companions and otherwise uses the assumed values pin(1000 au) = 30 +/- 10 percent and pin(10000 au) = 10 +/- 10 percent. The uncertainty quoted for BF is stated to propagate errors in both the fit and the pin model, but the propagation is not shown, and the pin anchors are not derived from an independent model or data set. Please present a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the pin anchors over their full ranges and using alternative interpolation prescriptions) so the reader can see how robust the BF = 52 percent conclusion is.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Section 1] The title contains 'T T auri' with an extra space; it should read 'T Tauri'. The same spelling appears in the section heading of Section 1.
  2. [Section 4, Figs. 4-5] For the KS tests in the Taurus panel, please state the sample sizes of the close-binary, single/wide, and unobserved subsets, and clarify that the single/wide subset is defined as resolved systems with a > 100 au (not including the unobserved members). The pKS = 0.05 (2.0 sigma) value for close versus single/wide is marginal and should be discussed as such.
  3. [Table 3] Please add columns for the number of primaries and the number of companions in each sample row; the current table reports only the binary fraction and mean mass, which makes the ONC sample-size issue hard to assess.
  4. [Section 6] The conversion from floga;q>0.3 to floga uses completeness ratios 0.81 (10-100 au) and 0.64 (1000 au) from Moe & Di Stefano (2017). Please give the specific table or equation in that paper from which these ratios are taken, and state whether any systematic uncertainty in those ratios is propagated into the final Upper Sco points in Fig. 8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is data-driven against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the apparent T Tauri binary excess at a = 10-100 au is a dust-extinction selection bias—is not circular. The brightness offset motivating the correction (Section 4, Figs. 4-5) is an empirical comparison of G-magnitude distributions within the survey samples, not a quantity assumed by the analysis; the disk-clearing interpretation is anchored to independent measurements of disk fractions versus binary separation. The spectral-type/mass cuts (Section 5) are justified by the fraction of members actually targeted, and the corrected fractions are compared to field main-sequence distributions from Raghavan et al. (2010) and Moe & Di Stefano (2017), the latter a separate large empirical survey rather than a theorem imported to force the result. The Taurus total binary fraction (Section 7) is a fit: pin(a) is explicitly adopted to match resolved tertiary observations, and Eq. (1) is a definition, so BF = 52% is a summary of the adopted model, not a prediction assumed as input. The self-citations (Kounkel et al. 2019; Moe & Kratter 2021; Offner et al. 2023) are used as external data and reviews, not as unverified uniqueness claims, and the central derivation does not reduce to them. Possible confounds such as unresolved companion light and incomplete spectral-type bins are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. It depends on a set of sample-selection choices (spectral-type and mass windows), an assumed disk-clearing timescale difference, and a fitted model for the inner binary probability. The field comparison models are external benchmarks.

free parameters (5)
  • Taurus sample spectral-type limit (G0-M1.9) = G0 to M1.9 (M1 = 0.51-2.5 Msun)
    Chosen as the range where the Kraus et al. (2011) survey is ~70% complete and unbiased; this is a post-hoc selection that defines the bias-corrected sample.
  • Upper Sco sample spectral-type limit (A6-M2.9) = A6 to M2.9
    Chosen as the range where Tokovinin & Briceno (2020) is ~90% complete; the bias-corrected sample excludes later M types where completeness drops.
  • ONC primary mass window (0.7-1.6 Msun) = 0.7 to 1.6 Msun
    Systems outside this mass range are removed to isolate FGK progenitors; this is a hand-chosen window that affects the measured binary fraction.
  • Inner binary probability pin(a) model nodes = 100% at a<10 au; 30±10% at 1000 au; 10±10% at 10000 au
    Piecewise linear interpolation in log a, chosen to match the observed tertiary fractions in Taurus (59% at 300-3000 au, 91% at >1000 au). Used to convert companion frequency to binary fraction.
  • Normalization of Taurus companion separation distribution = CF = 0.84 ± 0.07
    The Kroupa (1995) model is scaled to the bias-corrected Taurus measurements; integrating this fitted curve yields the total companion frequency.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Close binaries within a < 100 au clear their circumstellar disks faster than single stars or wide binaries, making them systematically brighter at a given spectral type.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 and demonstrated in Fig. 5; supported by prior studies (Kraus et al. 2012; Kounkel et al. 2019) but is the physical basis for the selection bias.
  • domain assumption The spectral-type-limited subsamples (G0-M1.9 in Taurus, A6-M2.9 in Upper Sco, M1=0.7-1.6 Msun in ONC) are free of the dust-extinction selection bias.
    Assumed in Section 5; if residual bias remains in these ranges, the corrected binary fractions would still be biased.
  • standard math The field MS binary separation distributions from Raghavan et al. (2010) and Offner et al. (2023) are the correct reference for comparing pre-MS binaries.
    Used throughout to define the expected field fractions; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The mass-ratio distribution completeness corrections for Upper Sco are taken from Moe & Di Stefano (2017) and apply to T Tauri binaries.
    Used in Section 6 to convert q>0.3 to all mass ratios; an external empirical model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Insights into the T Tauri Binary Separation Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQB3DRSF

@misc{pith2026250607938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Insights into the T Tauri Binary Separation Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQB3DRSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07938}
}
read the original abstract

For three decades, adaptive optic surveys have revealed an excess of T Tauri binaries across a = 10-100 au in nearby star-forming regions compared to the field population of main-sequence (MS) stars. Such an excess requires that most stars are born in dense clusters and subjected to significant dynamical processing that disrupts such binaries across intermediate separations. However, we demonstrate that the apparent excess is due to an observational selection bias. Close binaries within a < 100 au clear out their dusty circumstellar disks on faster timescales compared to wide binaries and single stars. A magnitude-limited sample is therefore biased toward close binaries that have preferentially cleared out their obscuring disks. We re-examine the separation distribution of pre-MS binaries in low-density Taurus, moderately dense Upper Scorpius, and the extremely dense Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC). By limiting the samples to primary spectral type / mass instead of magnitude, the artificial excess across a = 10-100 au disappears in all three environments. Across wider separations a = 100-4,000 au, Taurus exhibits an excess of companions (mostly tertiaries), the ONC displays a deficit, and Upper Scorpius matches the field MS population. The field derives from an amalgam of all three environments, where Upper Scorpius corresponds to the average birth environment of solar-type stars. The total binary fraction within a < 10,000 au in Taurus is only 52% +/- 7%, substantially lower than the 100% inferred from the biased observations and only slightly higher than the field MS value of 45%. N-body interactions preferentially disrupt outer tertiaries with only marginal dynamical processing of the inner binaries, especially those within a < 100 au.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07938 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The spectroscopic T Tauri binary fraction within a < 10 au (green; M. Kounkel et al. 2019) matches the field population of FGK MS binaries (black; D. Raghavan et al. 2010). However, sparse Taurus (orange; A. L. Kraus et al. 2011), moderately dense Upper Sco (red; A. Tokovinin & C. Brice˜no 2020), and even the extremely dense ONC (blue; G. Duchˆene et al. 2018) all exhibit an apparent excess of companions across a = … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative distribution functions of G magnitudes for M3-M3.9 members in Taurus (blue) and Upper Sco (red). Stars fainter than ∆G > 1.83 mag of the brightest members (right of dashed lines) are embedded in circumstellar disks and suffer from non-negligible dust extinction. Magnitude-limited samples are biased against stars that have retained their dusty disks. 2.2. Selection Bias from Dusty Circumstellar Disks The g… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The apparent binary separation distribution of confirmed Taurus members from A. L. Kraus et al. (2011, left panel) and confirmed Upper Sco members from A. Tokovinin & C. Brice˜no (2020, right panel). We display the corresponding FGK (green) and early-M (red) MS field distributions. Before accounting for the dust-extinction selection bias, both Taurus and Upper Sco exhibit an apparent excess of close binaries within … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average G magnitudes of Taurus members (left panel) and Upper Sco members (right panel) as a function of spectral type for three populations: close binaries with a ≤ 100 au (green), single stars and wide binaries with a > 100 au (blue), and members that were not target…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distribution functions of G magnitudes for the 88 M2.5 - M4.3 Taurus members (left panel) and 173 M3 - 3.9 Upper Sco members (right panel) separated into the same three populations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The apparent close binary fraction (blue) and apparent wide binary fraction (red) as a function of spectral type for Taurus (left panel) and Upper Sco (right panel). We also display the completeness (black), i.e., the fraction of Taurus and Upper Sco members targeted b…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allen, C., Costero, R., Ruelas-Mayorga, A., & S´ anchez, L. J. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx076

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx076 2017

  2. [2]

    Bate, M. R. 1998, ApJL, 508, L95, doi: 10.1086/311719

    doi:10.1086/311719 1998

  3. [3]

    Bate, M. R. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 590, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14106.x

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    R., & Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., & Bonnell, I. A. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 33, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.1.33

    doi:10.1093/mnras/285.1.33 1997

  5. [5]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Bromm, V. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 705, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05775.x

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Bromm, V. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 577, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06210.x

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362

    doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  8. [8]

    Boss, A. P. 1986, ApJS, 62, 519, doi: 10.1086/191150

    doi:10.1086/191150 1986

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    1976, ApJ, 210, 392, doi: 10.1086/154841

    Branch, D. 1976, ApJ, 210, 392, doi: 10.1086/154841

    1976 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Kraus, A

    Cheetham, A. C., Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/83

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07433, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07433 Da Rio, N., Robberto, M., Soderblom, D. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1092 De Furio, M., Reiter, M., Meyer, M. R., et...

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1180

    Bouvier, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1180

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Loinard, L., Rodr ´ ıguez, L

    Dzib, S. A., Loinard, L., Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/91

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., Luhman, K. L., Miller, E. B., & Mamajek, E. E. 2018, AJ, 156, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacce0

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Rasio, F. A. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07914.x

    2004

  8. [16]

    S., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Fujii, M. S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2016, ApJ, 817, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/4 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Galli, P. A. B., Loinard, L., Ortiz-L´ eon, G. N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf91

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    M., McCarthy, D

    Ghez, A. M., McCarthy, D. W., Patience, J. L., & Beck, T. L. 1997, ApJ, 481, 378, doi: 10.1086/304031

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Neugebauer, G., & Matthews, K

    Ghez, A. M., Neugebauer, G., & Matthews, K. 1993, AJ, 106, 2005, doi: 10.1086/116782

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Bastian, N., & Stein, I

    Gieles, M., Larsen, S. S., Bastian, N., & Stein, I. T. 2006, A&A, 450, 129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053589

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Andrews, S

    Harris, R. J., Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/115

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  15. [23]

    Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, AJ, 113, 1733, doi: 10.1086/118389

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    Jensen, E. L. N., Mathieu, R. D., & Fuller, G. A. 1994, ApJL, 429, L29, doi: 10.1086/187405 13

    1994 doi

  17. [25]

    Jensen, E. L. N., Mathieu, R. D., & Fuller, G. A. 1996, ApJ, 458, 312, doi: 10.1086/176814

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    J., G´ omez, M., & Whitney, B

    Kenyon, S. J., G´ omez, M., & Whitney, B. A. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume I, ed. B. Reipurth, Vol. 4, 405, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0810.1298

    2008 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2018, AJ, 156, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Su´ arez, G., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, AJ, 157, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Moe, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/19

    Martinache, F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/19

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, ApJ, 731, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/8

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    Kroupa, P. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    1995 doi

  24. [32]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Offner, S

    Lee, A. T., Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., Smullen, R. A., & Li, P. S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab584b

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    1993, A&A, 278, 129

    Leinert, C., Zinnecker, H., Weitzel, N., et al. 1993, A&A, 278, 129

    1993

  27. [35]

    Luhman, K. L. 2023, AJ, 165, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9da3

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Herrmann, K

    Luhman, K. L., Herrmann, K. A., Mamajek, E. E., Esplin, T. L., & Pecaut, M. J. 2018, AJ, 156, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacc6d

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Mathieu, R. D. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 465, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.002341

    1994

  30. [38]

    Melo, C. H. F. 2003, A&A, 410, 269, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031242

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6d2

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2328

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., 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, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    J., & Mamajek, E

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

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Kharchenko, N

    Piskunov, A. E., Kharchenko, N. V., Schilbach, E., et al. 2008, A&A, 487, 557, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809505

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    2007, ApJ, 657, 338, doi: 10.1086/510882

    Prato, L. 2007, ApJ, 657, 338, doi: 10.1086/510882

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Connelley, M

    Reipurth, B., Guimar˜ aes, M. M., Connelley, M. S., & Bally, J. 2007, AJ, 134, 2272, doi: 10.1086/523596

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    Scally, A., Clarke, C., & McCaughrean, M. J. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 253, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02513.x

    1999

  41. [49]

    2014, AJ, 147, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

    Tokovinin, A. 2014, AJ, 147, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    2020, AJ, 159, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5525

    Tokovinin, A., & Brice˜ no, C. 2020, AJ, 159, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5525

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    Tokovinin, A., & Moe, M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Loinard, L., Mioduszewski, A

    Torres, R. M., Loinard, L., Mioduszewski, A. J., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F. 2009, ApJ, 698, 242, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/242

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.