Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 149 references

The paper claims that most classical T Tauri stars are not in rotational equilibrium with their disks: the median fastness parameter is 0.34, squarely in the unstable ordered accretion regime, and the applied torque relation puts most syste

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

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

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid first systematic Ri-Rco comparison for ULLYSES; the central non-equilibrium result holds up, but the day-timescale variability claim overreaches. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.03767 v1 pith:IQJDXOHO submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

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

Caeley V. Pittman , C. C. Espaillat , Zhaohuan Zhu , Thanawuth Thanathibodee , Connor E. Robinson , Nuria Calvet , \'Agnes K\'osp\'al This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords T Tauri starsmagnetospheric accretionstellar rotationcorotation radiusfastness parameterprotoplanetary disksultra-short-period planetsangular momentum regulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tests a standard assumption of star-formation theory: that a classical T Tauri star — a young, low-mass star still feeding from its gas disk — settles into rotational equilibrium with that disk. For 47 such stars from the HST ULLYSES program, the authors combine two measured radii: the magnetospheric truncation radius Ri, where the star's magnetic field stops the inflowing disk, and the corotation radius Rco, where the disk orbits at the stellar spin rate. Their ratio gives the fastness parameter ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2), and the median value, 0.34 ± 0.19, places most systems in the 'unstable ordered' accretion regime rather than near the equilibrium point at ωs ≈ 0.75. Applying a 3D-MHD torque relation, the authors conclude that most of these stars are being spun up by their disks, not held in equilibrium — which means efficient angular-momentum loss must be at work, and they find signatures of magnetospheric outflows, episodic accretion, and accretion-powered winds. As a final connection, the measured truncation radii coincide with the observed orbits of ultra-short-period planets, suggesting a concrete formation pathway for those worlds.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the star-disk connection in classical T Tauri stars does not drive them to spin equilibrium. Combining corotation radii from TESS rotation periods with truncation radii from Hα accretion-flow modeling for 47 CTTS, it classifies each system by the fastness parameter ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2). The median, 0.34 ± 0.19, places 28 of 47 stars in the unstable ordered regime, with only 6 stable and 5 propeller. With Zhu (2025)'s torque relation — whose zero-torque point is ωs ≈ 0.75 — most systems are spinning up, not in equilibrium. Correlated signatures (blueshifted wind absorption at higher ωs, a magnetospheric expansion event in CS Cha, consistency with accretion-pow

What carries the argument

The fastness parameter ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2) — the ratio of the star's angular velocity to the Keplerian angular velocity at the inner disk edge — is the organizing quantity. It assigns each system to one of four accretion regimes (propeller, stable, unstable chaotic, unstable ordered) and, via the torque relation J̇⋆ = (0.83 − 2.68ωs⁴) × Ṁ√(GM⋆Ri), converts the two measured radii into a predicted spin-up or spin-down. The empirical inputs are Ri, from axisymmetric Hα profile modeling, and Rco, from TESS rotation periods; the torque formula is what turns their ratio into a statement about angular-momentum evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the TESS light-curve period is the star's true rotation period for all 47 systems, including the 28 in the unstable ordered regime where the inner disk's Keplerian period can be shorter than the stellar period; if disk-dominated periodicity were common there, the derived corotation radii, fastness parameters, and the spin-up conclusion would shift.

What would settle it

Compare TESS-derived rotation periods against an independent rotation measure for the low-ωs systems — longer-baseline K2 or multi-year ground-based spot-modulation periods, or ν sin i with known stellar radii. If a substantial fraction of unstable-ordered stars have true stellar periods longer than the TESS value, the derived ωs values and the spin-up conclusion would be systematically biased. For stars with existing Zeeman-Doppler maps, verifying that spot-modulation rotation matches the TESS period would settle the point directly.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Disk locking is effectively ruled out: if the disk locked the star's spin, systems would congregate near the equilibrium at ωs ≈ 0.75, but almost none do.
  • Efficient angular-momentum-loss processes must operate in most systems — magnetospheric outflows, episodic accretion, and accretion-powered stellar winds — and the paper finds observational signatures consistent with all three.
  • Accretion stability regimes are transient: Ri varies on day timescales (median 0.06 dex over roughly 2 days), so individual systems cross regime boundaries, as CS Cha does into the propeller regime.
  • Dipper light curves appear at every value of ωs, so occulting disk warps or dusty magnetospheres do not require proximity to the propeller regime.
  • Measured truncation radii (median 0.016 au) coincide with the semi-major axes of ultra-short-period planets, offering a formation channel that does not require billions of years of tidal decay — provided USPs are as tidally stable as some observations suggest.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the spin-up imbalance is generic, the slow observed rotation of T Tauri stars must be maintained dynamically by outflows whose strength tracks ωs; the paper's wind-absorption trend (median ωs 0.45 with wind vs 0.22 without) is a first sign of that coupling and could be confirmed with a larger sample.
  • The apparent floor at ωs ≈ 0.04, if real, suggests a self-regulating state: very slow rotators accrete so efficiently that spin-up accelerates, preventing arbitrarily low fastness values — a feedback worth testing in population models.
  • The Ri–USP alignment implies a testable demographic prediction: USPs formed by this channel should preferentially orbit stars whose disks dispersed with small truncation radii, and their orbital periods should cluster near the inner edge of the disk at dispersal.
  • Because the regime classification assumes the TESS period is the stellar period, independent rotation checks — long-baseline photometry or spot-modulation periods from magnetic-field maps — for a subset of low-ωs systems would settle whether any unstable-ordered classifications are artifacts of disk-dominated periodicity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines TESS light curves with previously measured magnetospheric truncation radii for 47 classical T Tauri stars in the ULLYSES sample. It derives stellar rotation periods, corotation radii, and fastness parameters ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2), then classifies the systems into the accretion stability regimes of Blinova et al. (2016). The central claim is that most CTTS are not in rotational equilibrium: the median ωs is 0.34 ± 0.19, in the unstable ordered regime, and application of the Zhu (2025) torque formula places most of the sample in the spin-up regime. The paper also reports day-timescale Ri variability, evidence for magnetospheric outflows and episodic accretion in CS Cha, consistency with accretion-powered stellar winds, light-curve morphology trends, and a correspondence between measured Ri values and the semimajor axes of ultra-short-period planets.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper challenges the common assumption of rotational equilibrium in CTTS angular momentum evolution and provides rare empirical constraints on fastness parameters and torque prescriptions. The period pipeline is a genuine strength: Lomb-Scargle with bootstrapping, PDM, window-function checks, structure-function validation, and cross-checks with ASAS-SN/WISE/Gaia are all used before a period is accepted. Uncertainties in Prot and M★ are propagated into Rco, and the authors explicitly discuss the limitations of the axisymmetric accretion-flow model. The CS Cha multi-epoch case is a compelling, well-documented example of a possible low-level episodic accretion/wind event. The main weaknesses are that the central spin-state distribution rests on the assumption that TESS periods are stellar rotation periods for all 47 systems, and that the day-timescale Ri variability claim is made at the edge of the measurement precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1.1, Table 1] The assumption that every measured TESS period is the stellar rotation period is the most load-bearing premise. For the 28/47 objects with ωs < 0.45 (the unstable ordered regime), the paper itself notes that the inner-disk Keplerian period can be shorter than P★ and can dominate light-curve periodicity at low magnetic obliquity. The cited Blinova et al. (2016) Fourier analysis is a simulation result for 10–20° obliquities, not a measurement of these stars' obliquities. The good news is that if P_disk < P★, the true ωs is even smaller than reported, so the headline 'most systems are not in equilibrium' is directionally robust; however, the quantitative median, regime counts, and individual Rco values are not protected. I recommend adding an independent v sin i check, or at least a literature-period comparison, and explicitly stating that the non-equilibrium conclusion is robust to this sy
  2. [§3.3] The claim that Ri varies on day timescales is not yet supported at the stated precision. The median pairwise ΔRi is 0.06 dex, which exactly equals the model grid spacing, and the typical single-measurement standard deviation is 0.04 dex. The total range (Ri,max − Ri,min) has a median of 0.13 dex, but no uncertainty is attached to that range. As written, the observed pairwise differences are indistinguishable from grid/measurement noise, so the sentence 'This likely comes from real temporal variability' is not quantitatively justified. Please propagate the measurement uncertainties into the pairwise differences and the min–max ranges, and report how many of the ΔRi values exceed the noise at, say, 2σ. Until then, the abstract's 'confirm predictions' should be softened to 'are consistent with'.
  3. [§2.3, Figure 4, Table 1] The regime counts (5 propeller, 6 stable, 8 unstable chaotic, 28 unstable ordered) are presented without formal classification uncertainties. Given the typical Ri measurement uncertainty of 0.04 dex and grid spacing of 0.06 dex, objects sitting near the ωs = 0.45, 0.6, or 1.0 boundaries can shift categories with a one-grid-step change in Ri. The vertical arrows in Figure 4 show the temporal range of Ri but do not distinguish temporal variability from measurement error. A Monte Carlo propagation of Ri and Rco uncertainties into ωs would establish whether the 28-object unstable-ordered pile-up is robust, and would make the distributional claims in §3.1 quantitatively reliable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence 'we choose the period that is present across multiple sectors' is not defined quantitatively. What counts as 'present' — a period within 1σ? 10%? Please specify the matching criterion.
  2. [§2.4] For the six CTTS without clear period detections, the Q metric is computed by assuming a period that yields a quasi-periodic classification in at least one sector. This procedure can bias the morphology classification, since Q depends on the assumed period. These objects are gray 'x' markers in Figure 5, but the text should state explicitly that their Q values are upper limits or provisional, not measured properties.
  3. [§2.2] The Q boundaries 0.11 and 0.85 are chosen by visual inspection, as in previous work. This is acceptable, but the sensitivity of the morphological fractions to these boundaries should be stated, especially because the reader is told that different surveys require different boundaries.
  4. [§3.1.1] The statement that 'imag and ωs show no correlation' appears without a correlation coefficient or figure. Given that the paper reports Pearson r values for several QM correlations, adding this value would make the claim checkable.
  5. [§3.1.3] The approximation 'Decreasing Mdot by 30% in Equation 1 can approximately incorporate the effect of an APSW' assumes the torque scales linearly with Mdot. Since Equation 1 is linear in Mdot, this is true, but the sentence could be clearer that this is an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a detailed wind model.
  6. [§3.5] The USP comparison is interesting but remains a correlation. The text carefully inserts the tidal-stability caveat, but the abstract's phrase 'provides a plausible USP formation channel' overstates what a median-overlap comparison can establish. A sentence in §3.5 noting that no migration/stalling model is tested would help calibrate the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ω_s is computed from independent TESS rotation periods and Hα-modeled truncation radii, then compared to external MHD regime and torque predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—median ω_s = 0.34, so most CTTS are in the spin-up regime—rests on two independent measurements: R_i from Hα profile modeling (Pittman et al. 2025) and P_rot from TESS light curves. R_co is obtained from Kepler's law using M_★ and P_rot, and ω_s = (R_i/R_co)^(3/2) is a standard definition, not a fit. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted. The torque formula (Eq. 1) and the regime boundaries come from external 3D MHD simulations (Zhu 2025; Blinova et al. 2016); the paper applies these predictions to the measured ω_s distribution rather than deriving them from the data. The dependence on prior work by the same authors (Pittman et al. 2025 for R_i) is a measurement dependency, not a circular justification; the R_i values are not defined in terms of the paper's conclusions. The only significant assumption—that the TESS period equals P_★, especially for ω_s < 0.45—is explicitly acknowledged in Section 2.1.1 and defended using independent simulation results (Blinova et al. 2016; Boyle et al. 2025). The paper even states that if P_disk contaminated the period, the classification into the unstable ordered regime would remain unchanged, making this a robustness caveat rather than a circular step. No self-definitional identity, fitted-input-as-prediction, or imported-uniqueness pattern is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard CTTS parameters and previously published regime boundaries and torque prescriptions. The main assumptions are that the measured period traces stellar rotation and that the accretion flow model returns accurate truncation radii.

free parameters (2)
  • Q metric periodicity boundaries = 0.11 (periodic/quasi-periodic), 0.85 (quasi-periodic/stochastic)
    Adopted from Cody & Hillenbrand (2018) and confirmed by visual inspection of TESS light curves (Section 2.4). Not fitted to the omega_s results, but affects morphology classifications.
  • Tentative periods for 6 CTTS without confident period detections = Listed in Table 1 (parentheses)
    Assumed periods used only for QM morphology classification, not for omega_s. If these periods are wrong, the QM comparisons involving these objects could be biased.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The TESS photometric period equals the stellar rotation period for all systems, except possibly low-obliquity low-omega_s systems.
    Section 2.1.1 discusses this and relies on Boyle et al. (2025) and Blinova et al. (2016) Fourier analyses; failure would bias Rco and omega_s.
  • domain assumption The Blinova et al. (2016) accretion stability regime boundaries (omega_s = 1, 0.6, 0.45) apply to T Tauri stars.
    Used throughout Section 2.3 and Table 1 to classify all systems into propeller, stable, unstable chaotic, and unstable ordered regimes without independent calibration.
  • domain assumption The Zhu (2025) torque formula (Eq. 1) accurately describes the net star-disk torque.
    Section 3.1 uses this formula to compute J_dot/J and conclude that most systems are in the spin-up regime. This is a numerical simulation result, not an observational law.
  • domain assumption The axisymmetric accretion flow model of Hartmann et al. (1994) and Muzerolle et al. (1998, 2001) yields unbiased Ri values.
    Section 2.1.1 defends this using Kurosawa & Romanova (2013) and Figure 2, but Ri is not directly validated against independent truncation radius measurements.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses from Manara et al. (2021) and radius of gyration k^2 = 0.2 are accurate.
    Section 3.1 Eq. 2 uses k^2=0.2 for J_star; stellar masses from Pittman et al. (2025) have 0.1 dex uncertainties and dominate Rco uncertainties.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ODYSSEUS Survey. Using accretion and stellar rotation to reveal the star-disk connection in T Tauri stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IQJDXOHO

@misc{pith2026250903767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ODYSSEUS Survey. Using accretion and stellar rotation to reveal the star-disk connection in T Tauri stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IQJDXOHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03767}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) exhibit strong variability over timescales of minutes to decades. However, much theoretical work assumes that CTTS are in stable spin states. Here, we test expectations for CTTS angular momentum regulation by comparing star and disk rotation. We measure stellar rotation periods and disk corotation radii ($R_{\rm co}$) for 47 CTTS from the HST ULLYSES sample. We compare $R_{\rm co}$ to the magnetospheric truncation radii ($R_{\rm i}$) and show that most CTTS are in the spin-up regime based on model predictions, which may indicate efficient angular momentum loss processes. We find evidence of magnetospheric outflows and episodic accretion, and our observations are consistent with the presence of accretion-powered stellar winds. We confirm predictions that $R_{\rm i}$ is variable over timescales of days, causing some CTTS to cross accretion stability regime boundaries. We characterize light curve morphologies and confirm that our inclined CTTS with $R_{\rm i}\sim R_{\rm co}$ show dipper light curves, consistent with expectations from disk warp models. However, dippers occur at all values of $R_{\rm i}/R_{\rm co}$, suggesting that they do not need to be near the propeller regime. Finally, we show that our measured $R_{\rm i}$ locations are consistent with observed ultra-short-period planet (USP) semi-major axes. If USPs are stable against tidal dissipation, as has been suggested in the literature, then our work provides a plausible USP formation channel. These results show that the star-disk connection produces a large variety of accretion and stellar spin configurations, most of which are likely not in equilibrium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03767 by \'Agnes K\'osp\'al, Caeley V. Pittman, C. C. Espaillat, Connor E. Robinson, Nuria Calvet, Thanawuth Thanathibodee, Zhaohuan Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example TESS light curves colored by predicted accretion stability regime. The associated QM metrics are in the upper right, and the TESS sector is in the upper left. A Gaussian process with a periodic kernel fixed to Prot from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hα profile dependence on Ri, spanning from 2 to 8 R⋆. This is taken from the model grid in Pittman et al. (2025) for VZ Cha. observed Hα profile, which lends credence to our Ri mea￾surements. We can also compare the Hα profiles from the sta￾ble and unstable configurations to examine the effects of the flow morphology. When viewed at a phase when the star is fully obscured, the unstable configuration ap￾pro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Histograms of stellar rotation results. Colors indicate the host region in order of approximate region age from youngest (yellow) to oldest (blue). White and gray in￾dicate stellar mass bins. The top panels show stellar rotation periods measured from TESS light curves, and the bottom show the associated corotation radii and rotation velocities with respect to the stellar breakup velocities. 2.3. Prot, Rco,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inner magnetospheric truncation radii Ri versus corotation radii Rco for the 47 CTTS with successful Prot mea￾surements. The scatter points give the Ri found from the weighted means of the individual epochs, the horizontal errorbars give the Rco uncertainty, and the vertical arrows span the space between the minimum and maximum Ri from the individual epochs. The colorbar shows the fractional spin evolution… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: QM variability results. Gray dashed lines indicate the divisions between categories as described in Section 2, with labels on the far right indicating the Q categories (S/Stochastic, QP/Quasi-Periodic, P/Periodic) and M categories (B/Burster, S/Symmetric, D/Dipper). Left: Violin plots showing the QM distributions grouped by accretion stability regime as determined by ωs. The horizontal lines indicate the m… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of the fastness parameter for targets that lack (left) or show (right) wind absorption. As expected from 3D MHD models, CTTS with higher ωs are more likely to show signatures of conical disk winds. tal inhibition of accretion onto the star by the centrifugal barrier in systems with Ri∼Rco (Spruit & Taam 1993; D’Angelo & Spruit 2010, 2012). This buildup of matter compresses the magnetosphere and e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: CS Cha Hα profiles (black) with the top 100 flow models (maroon) and associated wind absorption components (blue). The final weighted-mean model flux is in bright red. The observation date, rotational phase, and associated best-fit Ri and ωs values are indicated. Bottom: Visual representation of the best-fit accretion flow configurations for the same epochs as above. The appearance of strong blueshift… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Keplerian orbital periods at Ri for our sample of CTTS. Values for systems in the propeller regime (where Ri>Rco) are indicated. Middle: Stellar mass distributions of the CTTS (hatched) compared to the hosts of USPs with Porb ≤ 1 day (filled dark gray) and 1 < Porb ≤ 2 days (filled light gray). Bottom: Average observed USP semi-major axes (aUSP, filled) compared to the measured CTTS Ri values (hatched… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System configurations. See text for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System configurations continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System configurations continued. Rows DG Tau A and below have no Prot measurements (and therefore no Rco or ωs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example period measurement method for Sz 19 Sector 38. The first panel shows the TESS light curve (gray) and its best-fit Gaussian process with a periodic kernel (black). The second panel shows the Lomb-Scargle periodogram (blue), the window function periodogram (gray), and the skew-normal function fit to the peak to measure the period uncertainty. The third panel shows the phase-folded light curve. The f… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Additional QM variability results. Top: Results for all targets with good TESS data (whether or not a strong period was detected), grouped by host region in order of median region age (Michel et al. 2021). The minimum, median, and maximum of each distribution is indicated by the horizontal solid lines. Gray dashed lines indicate the divisions between categories as described in Section 2, with labels on th… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: TESS light curves of Sz 19, which switches from highly periodic in 2019/2021 (top) to quasi-periodic and stochastic in 2023 and 2025 (bottom). The associated QM metrics are in the upper right, and the TESS sector is in the upper left. A Gaussian process with a periodic kernel fixed to 2.43 days is shown in red, and its standard deviation is indicated by the shaded red region. 2475 2480 2485 2490 2495 BJD-… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    f`". F:'0D a: 1!W w !do a @X S ,a: N3 bѥ <f& \9۴v4ƨc&[ /OIgK쌋Hhu0 4dp/G. ? 3 G T 4]^mԡ/T7roJFU!.+ ]M.K!9t f VS TW atϫ

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

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Agapitou , V., & Papaloizou , J. C. B. 2000, , 317, 273, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03541.x

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Alencar , S. H. P., Teixeira , P. S., Guimar \ a es , M. M., et al. 2010, , 519, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014184

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014184 2010

  6. [6]

    2020, , 492, 572, 10.1093/mnras/stz3361

    Ansdell , M., Gaidos , E., Hedges , C., et al. 2020, , 492, 572, 10.1093/mnras/stz3361

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3361 2020

  7. [7]

    2015, , 574, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424520

    Anthonioz , F., M \'e nard , F., Pinte , C., et al. 2015, , 574, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424520

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424520 2015

  8. [8]

    2024, , 690, A225, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451065

    Armeni , A., Stelzer , B., Frasca , A., et al. 2024, , 690, A225, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451065

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451065 2024

  9. [9]

    J., & Clarke , C

    Armitage , P. J., & Clarke , C. J. 1996, , 280, 458, 10.1093/mnras/280.2.458

    doi:10.1093/mnras/280.2.458 1996

  10. [10]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  11. [11]

    M., Sip o cz , B

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  12. [12]

    M., Lim , P

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  13. [13]

    M., et al

    Audard , M., \'A brah \'a m , P., Dunham , M. M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 387--410, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch017

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch017 2014

  14. [14]

    Statistical applications of the multivariate skew-normal distribution

    Azzalini , A., & Capitanio , A. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0911.2093, 10.48550/arXiv.0911.2093

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0911.2093 2009

  15. [15]

    C., Quast , G

    Batalha , C. C., Quast , G. R., Torres , C. A. O., et al. 1998, , 128, 561, 10.1051/aas:1998163

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1998163 1998

  16. [16]

    C., & Becker , J

    Batygin , K., Adams , F. C., & Becker , J. 2023, , 951, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5d 2023

  17. [17]

    C., Batygin , K., & Adams , F

    Becker , J. C., Batygin , K., & Adams , F. C. 2021, , 919, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac111e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac111e 2021

  18. [18]

    2008, , 478, 155, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    Bessolaz , N., Zanni , C., Ferreira , J., Keppens , R., & Bouvier , J. 2008, , 478, 155, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078328 2008

  19. [19]

    A., Romanova , M

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw786 2016

  20. [20]

    Bodman , E. H. L., Quillen , A. C., Ansdell , M., et al. 2017, , 470, 202, 10.1093/mnras/stx1034

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1034 2017

  21. [21]

    2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bouvier , J. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 511, Non-Stable Universe: Energetic Resources, Activity Phenomena, and Evolutionary Processes, ed. A. M. Mickaelian , H. A. Harutyunian , & E. H. Nikoghosyan , 28

    2017

  22. [22]

    1986, , 165, 110

    Bouvier , J., Bertout , C., Benz , W., & Mayor , M. 1986, , 165, 110

    1986

  23. [23]

    L., & Matthews , J

    Bouvier , J., Cabrit , S., Fernandez , M., Martin , E. L., & Matthews , J. M. 1993, , 272, 176

    1993

  24. [24]

    E., Bouy , H., & Barrado , D

    Bouvier , J., Grankin , K., Ellerbroek , L. E., Bouy , H., & Barrado , D. 2013, , 557, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321389

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321389 2013

  25. [25]

    P., Mohanty , S., et al

    Bouvier , J., Matt , S. P., Mohanty , S., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 433--450, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch019

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch019 2014

  26. [26]

    1999, , 349, 619

    Bouvier , J., Chelli , A., Allain , S., et al. 1999, , 349, 619

    1999

  27. [27]

    Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H. P., Boutelier , T., et al. 2007, , 463, 1017, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066021

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066021 2007

  28. [28]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245342 2023

  29. [29]

    W., Mann , A

    Boyle , A. W., Mann , A. W., & Bush , J. 2025, , 985, 233, 10.3847/1538-4357/adcecc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcecc 2025

  30. [30]

    E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S

    Brasseur , C. E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S. W., Mullally , S. E., & White , R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.007

    2019

  31. [31]

    W., Shappee , B

    Bredall , J. W., Shappee , B. J., Gaidos , E., et al. 2020, , 496, 3257, 10.1093/mnras/staa1588

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1588 2020

  32. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03701, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03701

    Cevallos Soto , A., & Zhu , Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03701, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.03701 2025

  33. [33]

    M., & Hillenbrand , L

    Cody , A. M., & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2010, , 191, 389, 10.1088/0067-0049/191/2/389

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/191/2/389 2010

  34. [34]

    2018, , 156, 71, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacead

    ---. 2018, , 156, 71, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacead

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacead 2018

  35. [35]

    M., Hillenbrand , L

    Cody , A. M., Hillenbrand , L. A., & Rebull , L. M. 2022, , 163, 212, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5b73

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5b73 2022

  36. [36]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/82 2014

  37. [37]

    2023, , 678, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347063

    Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera , F., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., Abrah \'a m , P., et al. 2023, , 678, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347063

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347063 2023

  38. [40]

    D., Rees, D

    Donati, J.-F., Semel, M., Carter, B. D., Rees, D. E., & Cameron, A. C. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 291, 658, 10.1093/mnras/291.4.658

    doi:10.1093/mnras/291.4.658 1997

  39. [41]

    F., Skelly , M

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

    arXiv 2010

  40. [42]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2012, , 425, 2948, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21482.x

    arXiv 2012

  41. [43]

    2013, , 436, 881, 10.1093/mnras/stt1622

    ---. 2013, , 436, 881, 10.1093/mnras/stt1622

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1622 2013

  42. [44]

    F., Cristofari , P

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1227 2024

  43. [45]

    A., Hillenbrand , L

    Eisner , J. A., Hillenbrand , L. A., White , R. J., Akeson , R. L., & Sargent , A. I. 2005, , 623, 952, 10.1086/428828

    doi:10.1086/428828 2005

  44. [46]

    C., Herczeg, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [47]

    F., Cristofari , P

    Finociety , B., Donati , J. F., Cristofari , P. I., et al. 2023, , 526, 4627, 10.1093/mnras/stad3012

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3012 2023

  46. [48]

    J., Hillenbrand , L

    Fischer , W. J., Hillenbrand , L. A., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 355, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11257 2023

  47. [49]

    2024, , 966, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447

    Gaidos , E., Thanathibodee , T., Hoffman , A., et al. 2024, , 966, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447 2024

  48. [50]

    M., & Turner , N

    Gehrig , L., Gaidos , E., Venuti , L., Cody , A. M., & Turner , N. J. 2025, , 696, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202553730

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553730 2025

  49. [51]

    2007, Rotation and Accretion Powered Pulsars , Vol

    Ghosh , P. 2007, Rotation and Accretion Powered Pulsars , Vol. 10 (World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd.), 10.1142/4806

    work page doi:10.1142/4806 2007

  50. [52]

    Ghosh , P., & Lamb , F. K. 1979 a , , 232, 259, 10.1086/157285

    doi:10.1086/157285 1979

  51. [53]

    1979 b , , 234, 296, 10.1086/157498

    ---. 1979 b , , 234, 296, 10.1086/157498

    doi:10.1086/157498 1979

  52. [54]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244005 2024

  53. [55]

    V., & Wang , S

    Goyal , A. V., & Wang , S. 2025, , 169, 191, 10.3847/1538-3881/adb487

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb487 2025

  54. [56]

    2021, Acta Astrophysica Taurica, 2, 9, 10.31059/aat.vol2.iss1.pp9-20

    Grankin , K. 2021, Acta Astrophysica Taurica, 2, 9, 10.31059/aat.vol2.iss1.pp9-20

    work page doi:10.31059/aat.vol2.iss1.pp9-20 2021

  55. [57]

    N., Melnikov , S

    Grankin , K. N., Melnikov , S. Y., Bouvier , J., Herbst , W., & Shevchenko , V. S. 2007, , 461, 183, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065489

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065489 2007

  56. [58]

    W., Esposito , M., Mundt , R., et al

    Guenther , E. W., Esposito , M., Mundt , R., et al. 2007, , 467, 1147, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065686

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065686 2007

  57. [59]

    H., & Schlaufman , K

    Hamer , J. H., & Schlaufman , K. C. 2020, , 160, 138, 10.3847/1538-3881/aba74f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba74f 2020

  58. [60]

    2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 578, 10.1002/asna.202113868

    Harre , J.-V., & Heller , R. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 578, 10.1002/asna.202113868

    doi:10.1002/asna.202113868 2021

  59. [61]

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

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 2016

  60. [62]

    1994, , 426, 669, 10.1086/174104

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

    doi:10.1086/174104 1994

  61. [63]

    W., et al

    Hattori , S., Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., et al. 2022, , 163, 284, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac625a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac625a 2022

  62. [64]

    Herbst , W., Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., & Mundt , R. 2001, , 554, L197, 10.1086/321706

    work page doi:10.1086/321706 2001

  63. [65]

    2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed

    Herbst , W., Eisl \"o ffel , J., Mundt , R., & Scholz , A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 297, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603673

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0603673 2007

  64. [66]

    K., Grossman , E

    Herbst , W., Herbst , D. K., Grossman , E. J., & Weinstein , D. 1994, , 108, 1906, 10.1086/117204

    doi:10.1086/117204 1994

  65. [67]

    A., Kiker , T

    Hillenbrand , L. A., Kiker , T. J., Gee , M., et al. 2022, , 163, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac62d8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac62d8 2022

  66. [68]

    1965, Veroeffentlichungen der Sternwarte Sonneberg, 6, 97

    Hoffmeister , C. 1965, Veroeffentlichungen der Sternwarte Sonneberg, 6, 97

    1965

  67. [69]

    G., Matt , S

    Ireland , L. G., Matt , S. P., & Zanni , C. 2022, , 929, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac59b2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac59b2 2022

  68. [70]

    G., Zanni , C., Matt , S

    Ireland , L. G., Zanni , C., Matt , S. P., & Pantolmos , G. 2021, , 906, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc828

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc828 2021

  69. [71]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Irwin , J., & Bouvier , J. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 258, The Ages of Stars, ed. E. E. Mamajek , D. R. Soderblom , & R. F. G. Wyse , 363--374, 10.1017/S1743921309032025

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921309032025 2009

  70. [72]

    P., Jardine , M., Gregory , S

    Johnstone , C. P., Jardine , M., Gregory , S. G., Donati , J. F., & Hussain , G. 2014, , 437, 3202, 10.1093/mnras/stt2107

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2107 2014

  71. [73]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 434, L51, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt075 2013

  72. [74]

    K., & Romanova , M

    Kulkarni , A. K., & Romanova , M. M. 2013, , 433, 3048, 10.1093/mnras/stt945

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt945 2013

  73. [75]

    J., & Symington , N

    Kurosawa , R., Harries , T. J., & Symington , N. H. 2006, , 370, 580, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10527.x

    arXiv 2006

  74. [76]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt365 2013

  75. [77]

    M., & Harries , T

    Kurosawa , R., Romanova , M. M., & Harries , T. J. 2011, , 416, 2623, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19216.x

    arXiv 2011

  76. [78]

    J., & Chiang , E

    Lee , E. J., & Chiang , E. 2017, , 842, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fb3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fb3 2017

  77. [79]

    S., Romanova , M

    Lii , P. S., Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2014, , 441, 86, 10.1093/mnras/stu495

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu495 2014

  78. [80]

    2023, , 166, 82, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace322

    Lin , C.-L., Ip , W.-H., Hsiao , Y., et al. 2023, , 166, 82, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace322

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace322 2023

  79. [81]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  80. [82]

    F., Frasca, A

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140639 2021

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.