Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

High resolution radio observations of the Chamaeleon star-forming region

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio observations reveal a likely 40-year binary star in the Chamaeleon star-forming region.

desk verdict Solid ATCA survey with a well-hedged but under-quantified binary suggestion; worth reviewing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15927 v1 pith:SO57GXJI submitted 2025-06-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Ernesto García Valencia , Laurent Loinard , Arnaud Belloche , Gisela N. Ortiz León , Sergio A. Dzib , Cherie K. Day , Roopesh Ojha This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords radioastronomyverylongbaselineinterferometryTTauristarsbinaryastrometryGaiaChamaeleonstar-formingregionnon-thermalemission
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 reports the first large-scale radio survey of young stars in the Chamaeleon clouds, detecting five certain and five tentative radio counterparts among 201 known members. Its main discovery concerns one star, 2MASS J11061540-7721567 (Ced 110 IRS2), which was detected with very long baseline interferometry at three epochs. Comparing those precise radio positions to the star's predicted position from Gaia DR3, the authors find a roughly 60 milliarcsecond offset at one epoch. They interpret this as evidence that the star is actually a binary system with an orbital period of about 40 years, where the radio emission switches between the two components. If correct, continued monitoring would allow the individual stellar masses to be measured directly.

What carries the argument

The central comparison is between phase-referenced LBA astrometry, corrected to the ICRF3 frame via the gain calibrator 1057–797, and the Gaia DR3 astrometric trace (position and proper motion) for the same source. At one of three epochs, the measured radio position falls about 60 mas from the predicted Gaia position, while the other two epochs coincide within errors. The authors combine this single large offset with the Gaia RUWE statistic and a Keplerian scaling (a $1\,M_\odot$ binary with a 12 AU semi-major axis gives a period near 40 years) to argue that the star has an unresolved companion.

What would settle it

A fourth LBA epoch that places the radio source back on the Gaia-predicted track, or a single very long baseline image resolving two stellar components separated by about 60 mas, would refute the binary hypothesis; conversely, continued positional changes along a roughly 40-year arc would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that 2MASS J11061540-7721567 (Ced 110 IRS2), a G5 T Tauri star in the Cha I south cloud, is very likely a binary system with an orbital period of order 40 years. The evidence is the large offset (about 60 mas, or roughly 12 AU at the ~190 pc distance of Chamaeleon) between the Gaia DR3 astrometric prediction and the LBA radio position measured at epoch G, while the two other LBA epochs (E and H) agree with the Gaia track. The star's Gaia renormalized unit weight error of 9.02, far above the threshold of 1.4 for a good single-star fit, independently suggests that the astrometric solution is not a single source. The LBA detections also prove the radio emission is non-thermal, because very long baseline arrays only detect brightness temperatures above about $10^6$ K.

Load-bearing premise

The binary interpretation depends on the premise that the 60 milliarcsecond offset at epoch G is a genuine astrophysical displacement of the radio source to a different stellar component, rather than an unrecognized astrometric error, source confusion, or a flare-induced photocentric shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the binary interpretation holds, systematic LBA monitoring over the next few decades will yield an astrometric orbit and direct measurements of the masses of both stellar components.
  • The result demonstrates that single-epoch offsets between VLBI positions and Gaia predictions can flag unresolved binaries in young star-forming regions, not just astrometric noise.
  • The detection of five definite and five tentative radio young stars, with the majority being evolved T Tauri stars, supports the expectation from the Güdel-Benz relation that X-ray active young stars should also be radio bright.
  • The tentative radio detection of the protostar Ced 110 IRS4, combined with its known jet, points to thermal free-free emission as the mechanism there, consistent with a broader pattern of jets in embedded protostars.
  • A repeat of the ATCA survey would likely uncover additional radio-loud young stars that were in a low state during the 2013 observations, since the detected sources show variability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The binary claim currently rests on a single epoch of offset; a fourth LBA epoch that returns the radio source to the Gaia track would strongly support the two-component model, while a continued monotonic drift would instead suggest an unmodeled single-source motion.
  • A high-resolution observation that actually resolves the two components (e.g., with a longer-baseline array) would confirm the binary directly and could be attempted before waiting a full orbital period.
  • The methodology used here—comparing multi-epoch VLBI positions with Gaia astrometry—could be applied to other young stars with elevated RUWE values in nearby star-forming regions to discover hidden binaries at separations of tens of AU.
  • Because the radio emission switches between components, the system illustrates a potential caveat for interpreting radio continuum variability in young stars as purely stellar activity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ATCA 5.5 and 8.0 GHz observations of 28 fields toward the Chamaeleon I and II star-forming regions, yielding five definite and five tentative radio detections of known young stars. The three brightest ATCA detections were followed up with the LBA at 8.4 GHz; only one, 2MASS J11061540−7721567 (Ced 110 IRS2), was detected at three epochs. Comparing the LBA positions with predictions from Gaia DR3, the authors find a ~60 mas offset at one epoch (G) and, combined with a high RUWE (9.02), interpret the source as a binary system with an orbital period of order 40 years.

Significance. If confirmed, the binary interpretation would establish Ced 110 IRS2 as a rare example where the radio-emitting component switches between members of a young binary, offering a path to dynamical mass measurement. The survey component is a useful addition to the radio census of southern star-forming regions, with careful false-positive control: a 5-sigma blind threshold with expected contamination below one source, a 3-sigma targeted search with expected 1–2 spurious candidates, and LBA astrometry tied to ICRF3 with explicit systematic error estimates. These strengths make the observational results reliable; the weak point is the quantification of the astrometric comparison that drives the headline claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Figure 3, Table 4] The binary interpretation rests on the single ~60 mas offset between the Gaia DR3 predicted position and the LBA position at epoch G, but the paper never computes the uncertainty on that Gaia predicted position. For a source with RUWE = 9.02, the single-star astrometric solution is formally poor and its formal uncertainties, especially when propagated to a different epoch, can be substantially underestimated; the statement in §4 that the offset 'cannot be attributed to astrometric errors' is therefore unsupported as written. Please report the Gaia DR3 astrometric parameters, their covariance and RUWE, the resulting 1-sigma uncertainty ellipse of the predicted position at each LBA epoch, and the residuals at epochs E and H. If, after this propagation, the G offset is only 2–3 sigma, the binary conclusion should be reworded as tentative or dropped.
  2. [§3.2, Table 2, Table 4] Epoch G differs from the other epochs in array composition and has two to four times higher rms noise, yet its quoted position errors are comparable to those at epochs E and H, and the binary claim depends entirely on this single epoch. The authors should provide additional evidence that epoch G is free of unmodeled phase-referencing or imaging systematics, for example by re-imaging with different weighting or robust settings, or by examining the astrometric stability of the phase calibrator on that date. Without such a check, the possibility of a systematic error at epoch G, although unlikely given the quoted phase-transfer error, is not strictly excluded.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] In the 5-sigma contamination estimate, the text reads '1.8×10^5/3.5×10^6' where it should read '1.8×10^6/3.5×10^6' to match the stated number of resolution elements.
  2. [§4] The phrase 'A 1 M_sun binary system' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the assumed total mass is 1 M_sun (e.g., two 0.5 M_sun stars) or whether each star is 1 M_sun, since the period estimate depends on the total mass.
  3. [Figure 3] The figure would benefit from showing the Gaia predicted position uncertainty ellipses, including systematic terms, at each epoch; this would allow the reader to visually assess the significance of the epoch-G offset.
  4. [§3.1] For the five 3-sigma candidate detections, the expected number of spurious coincidences is 1–2; the paper should explicitly note that some of the five candidates may be noise fluctuations, even though the overall set suggests a real excess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central binary inference uses independent LBA, ATCA, and Gaia DR3 astrometry measurements plus a Kepler-law order-of-magnitude estimate.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on independent observational datasets. The ATCA survey yields flux densities and positions of radio sources; the LBA provides high-resolution positions at three epochs (Table 4); Gaia DR3 supplies astrometric elements and the RUWE value (9.02). The binary interpretation is a residual comparison: the LBA position at epoch G is offset by ~60 mas from the position predicted by the Gaia DR3 single-star astrometric solution, while epochs E and H agree. No model parameter is fitted to the offset and then re-reported as a prediction; the offset is measured and interpreted. The orbital-period estimate (~40 yr) is a standard Kepler-law calculation from the projected separation (~12 AU at the adopted Chamaeleon distance) and an assumed 1 solar mass, explicitly labeled as an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a fit. The cited prior work by the authors and collaborators (e.g., Dzib et al. 2013; Ortiz-León et al. 2017; Ordóñez-Toro et al. 2024) is used for contextual comparisons of detection rates, spectral indices, the Güdel-Benz relation, and examples of radio switching in binaries; none of these citations supplies the load-bearing deduction of binarity. The frame alignment between ICRF3 and Gaia is checked externally via the calibrator 1057-797. The paper does contain a potential correctness risk: the significance of the 60 mas offset against the Gaia DR3 positional uncertainty for a RUWE=9 source is not quantified. That is an error-analysis concern, not a circularity concern, because the Gaia prediction and LBA measurement are produced by independent reductions. Overall, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central binary claim rests on three main assumptions: the 60 mas offset is a binary signature, the distance to Chamaeleon is ~190 pc, and the system mass is ~1 solar mass. The mass is a free parameter chosen by hand, while the distance is an input from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Assumed total mass of the binary system = 1 solar mass (assumed)
    Used in Kepler's third law to estimate the orbital period (~40 yr) from the 12 AU separation inferred from the 60 mas offset. This is a chosen value, not measured, and it directly affects the period estimate.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The 60 mas offset at epoch G reflects a different stellar component (binary companion) rather than astrometric error or confusion.
    This is the central inference of the paper, introduced in Section 4 when comparing Gaia DR3 and LBA positions. It is supported by only one epoch and by the large Gaia RUWE, but it is not independently verified.
  • domain assumption The distance to Chamaeleon is about 190 pc, from Gaia DR2 results (Dzib et al. 2018) and Galli et al. (2021).
    Used to convert the measured 60 mas offset into a physical separation of about 12 AU. The distance is taken from prior literature and is not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The Gaia DR3 astrometric elements can be propagated to the LBA epochs to predict the source position.
    Assumed in Figure 3 and Section 4. This is standard practice for comparing Gaia astrometry with epoch-specific radio positions.
  • domain assumption LBA detection at 8.4 GHz implies a brightness temperature above about 10^6 K, confirming non-thermal emission.
    Standard radio astronomy argument from Thompson et al. (2017), used in Section 4 to establish the non-thermal nature of the detected source.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High resolution radio observations of the Chamaeleon star-forming region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SO57GXJI

@misc{pith2026250615927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High resolution radio observations of the Chamaeleon star-forming region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SO57GXJI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15927}
}
read the original abstract

We report on large-scale radio observations of the Chamaeleon star-forming region obtained with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) that led to the definite detection of five young stars and the tentative detection of five more. As in other regions surveyed in the radio domain, the majority of detected sources are fairly evolved low-mass T Tauri stars, but we also detect one protostellar object (Ced 110 IRS4) and one Herbig Ae/Be star. With the exception of the protostellar source, the radio emission mechanism is likely of non-thermal origin. The three brightest radio stars identified with ATCA were subsequently observed with the Australian Long Baseline Array (LBA) and one, J11061540-7721567 (Ced 110 IRS2), was detected at three epochs. This confirms the non-thermal nature of the radio emission in that specific case, and enabled accurate radio position measurements. Comparison with predictions from Gaia DR3 strongly suggests that this star is a binary system with an orbital period of order 40 years; additional LBA observations in the next decades would enable accurate determinations of the individual stellar masses in that system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Herschel 250 𝜇m maps of the Cha II/III regions (left) and the Cha I sub-regions (right) with the observed ATCA fields overlaids as circles (with a diameter of 9 arcmin corresponding to the field of view of ATCA at 5.5 GHz). Squares indicate the positions of known young stars in each field (from Alcala´ et al. 2008 in Cha II and Esplin et al. 2017 in the case of Cha I). In comparison with other wavelength ranges, the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (top) Image of one of the ATCA field in Cha IS observed at 5.5 GHz. The small white squares indicate locations of known young stars (from Esplin et al. 2017). Three compact radio sources are clearly seen and are labeled 1, 2, and 3. Zooms on each of these sources (showing the areas marked by cyan squares in the top panel) are shown in the bottom row. The last figure in the bottom row to the right shows source 3 obse… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measured LBA positions for 2MASS J11061540−7721567 at the three detected epochs and predicted Gaia positions derived from DR3 astrometric elements for that source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio emission as a function of X-ray luminosity for a sample of stellar sources. The grey symbols correspond to the original data set used by G¨udel & Benz (1993). The YSO samples are from Dzib et al. (2013), Kounkel et al. (2014), Ortiz-Leon et al. ´ (2015), Dzib et …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    M., Krautter J., Schmitt J

    Alcala J. M., Krautter J., Schmitt J. H. M. M., Covino E., Wichmann R., Mundt R., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&AS..114..109A 114, 109

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    M., Covino E., Sterzik M

    Alcal \'a J. M., Covino E., Sterzik M. F., Schmitt J. H. M. M., Krautter J., Neuh \"a user R., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...355..629A 355, 629

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..427A 676, 427

    Alcal \'a J. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..427A 676, 427

    doi:10.1086/527315 2008

  5. [5]

    Andr \'e P., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518L.102A 518, L102

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 2010

  6. [6]

    F., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-018-0107-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&ARv..26....3A 26, 3

    Anglada G., Rodr \' guez L. F., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-018-0107-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&ARv..26....3A 26, 3

    doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0107-z 2018

  7. [7]

    J., Gordon D., Peck A

    Beasley A. J., Gordon D., Peck A. B., Petrov L., MacMillan D. S., Fomalont E. B., Ma C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJS..141...13B 141, 13

    doi:10.1086/339806 2002

  8. [8]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...535A...2B 535, A2

    Belloche A., Parise B., Schuller F., Andr \'e P., Bontemps S., Menten K. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...535A...2B 535, A2

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117276 2011

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Bertout C., Robichon N., Arenou F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...352..574B 352, 574

    1999 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    Briggs D. S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    1995

  3. [11]

    M., Ambruster C., Stewart R

    Brown A., Walter F. M., Ambruster C., Stewart R. T., Jeffries R., 1996, in Taylor A. R., Paredes J. M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 93, Radio Emission from the Stars and the Sun. p. 294

    1996

  4. [12]

    M., 2004, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#204

    Brown A., Day F., Walter F. M., 2004, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#204. p. 62.11

    2004

  5. [13]

    CASA Team et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134k4501C 134, 114501

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Charlot P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038368 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A.159C 644, A159

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    T., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1086/658907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASP..123..275D 123, 275

    Deller A. T., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1086/658907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASP..123..275D 123, 275

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Dobashi K., Uehara H., Kandori R., Sakurai T., Kaiden M., Umemoto T., Sato F., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/57.sp1.S1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASJ...57S...1D 57, S1

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Boden A

    Dzib S., Loinard L., Mioduszewski A. J., Boden A. F., Rodr \' guez L. F., Torres R. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718..610D 718, 610

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775...63D 775, 63

    Dzib S. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775...63D 775, 63

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801...91D 801, 91

    Dzib S. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801...91D 801, 91

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Loinard L., Ortiz-Le \'o n G

    Dzib S. A., Loinard L., Ortiz-Le \'o n G. N., Rodr \' guez L. F., Galli P. A. B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..151D 867, 151

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Luhman K

    Esplin T. L., Luhman K. L., Faherty J. K., Mamajek E. E., Bochanski J. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa74e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...46E 154, 46

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Lawson W

    Feigelson E. D., Lawson W. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..267F 614, 267

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Casanova S., Montmerle T., Guibert J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...416..623F 416, 623

    Feigelson E. D., Casanova S., Montmerle T., Guibert J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...416..623F 416, 623

    1993 doi

  16. [24]

    B., Windhorst R

    Fomalont E. B., Windhorst R. A., Kristian J. A., Kellerman K. I., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....102.1258F 102, 1258

    1991 doi

  17. [25]

    H., Brooks J

    Frater R. H., Brooks J. W., Whiteoak J. B., 1992, Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Australia, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JEEEA..12..103F 12, 103

    1992

  18. [26]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...2G 595, A2

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Galli P. A. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..46G 646, A46

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Hartigan P., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AJ.....95.1197G 95, 1197

    Graham J. A., Hartigan P., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AJ.....95.1197G 95, 1197

    1988 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Strom S

    Grasdalen G., Joyce R., Knacke R. F., Strom S. E., Strom K. M., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/111720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975AJ.....80..117G 80, 117

    1975 doi

  23. [31]

    W., 2003, in Heck A., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Greisen E. W., 2003, in Heck A., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas. p. 109, @doi 10.1007/0-306-48080-8_7

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    O., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405L..63G 405, L63

    G\"udel M., Benz A. O., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405L..63G 405, L63

    1993 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Jones T

    Hyland A. R., Jones T. J., Mitchell R. M., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/201.4.1095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982MNRAS.201.1095H 201, 1095

    1982 doi

  26. [34]

    Kounkel M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...49K 790, 49

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Forbrich J., Bower G

    Launhardt R., Loinard L., Dzib S. A., Forbrich J., Bower G. C., Henning T. K., Mioduszewski A. J., Reffert S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5b09 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931...43L 931, 43

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...401.1017L 401, 1017

    Lehtinen K., Harju J., Kontinen S., Higdon J. L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...401.1017L 401, 1017

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    L., 2008, in Reipurth B., ed., , Vol

    Luhman K. L., 2008, in Reipurth B., ed., , Vol. 5, Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II. p. 169, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.0808.3207

    2008 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mizuno A., Yamaguchi R., Tachihara K., Toyoda S., Aoyama H., Yamamoto H., Onishi T., Fukui Y., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/53.6.1071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASJ...53.1071M 53, 1071

    2001 doi

  31. [39]

    J., McClure M

    Narang M., Ohashi N., Tobin J. J., McClure M. K., J rgensen J. K., Sai (Insa Choi) J., eDisk + IceAge Team 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/adb1ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..192N 169, 192

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Ord \'o \ n ez-Toro J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1bd3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..108O 167, 108

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805....9O 805, 9

    Ortiz-Le \'o n G. N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805....9O 805, 9

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..141O 834, 141

    Ortiz-Le \'o n G. N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..141O 834, 141

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Pech G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..116P 818, 116

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...63R 154, 63

    Reid M. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...63R 154, 63

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Robrade J., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...461..669R 461, 669

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Franciosini E., Randich S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617L...4R 617, L4

    Roccatagliata V., Sacco G. G., Franciosini E., Randich S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617L...4R 617, L4

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Teuben P

    Sault R. J., Teuben P. J., Wright M. C. H., 1995, in Shaw R. A., Payne H. E., Hayes J. J. E., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV. p. 433 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0612759 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv....

    1995 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    D., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJS...35..161S 35, 161

    Schwartz R. D., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJS...35..161S 35, 161

    1977 doi

  41. [49]

    D., 1992, in Reipurth B., ed., , Low Mass Star Formation in Southern Molecular Clouds

    Schwartz R. D., 1992, in Reipurth B., ed., , Low Mass Star Formation in Southern Molecular Clouds. p. 93

    1992

  42. [50]

    Spezzi L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680.1295S 680, 1295

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    Stelzer B., Micela G., Neuh \"a user R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...423.1029S 423, 1029

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Moran J

    Thompson A. R., Moran J. M., Swenson Jr. G. W., 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd Edition , @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    F., Prusti T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...610A..64V 610, A64

    Voirin J., Manara C. F., Prusti T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...610A..64V 610, A64

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Whittet D. C. B., Prusti T., Franco G. A. P., Gerakines P. A., Kilkenny D., Larson K. A., Wesselius P. R., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...327.1194W 327, 1194

    1997

  47. [55]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19054.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416..832W 416, 832

    Wilson W. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19054.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416..832W 416, 832

    2011

  48. [56]

    Yiu T. W. H., Vedantham H. K., Callingham J. R., G \"u nther M. N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A...3Y 684, A3

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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