pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22222 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

The circumstellar environment of the young, low-mass dipper star JH 223. Accretion and large-scale magnetic field topology

T. P. Freitas , J. Bouvier , B. Zaire , S. H. P. Alencar , A. P. Sousa , L. Rebull , A. Bayo , A. Frasca
show 6 more authors
J. ALonso-Santiago K. Grankin C. Contreras Pe\~na A. M. Cody L. A. Hillenbrand A. Carmona
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 10:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords T Tauri starsmagnetospheric accretionZeeman-Doppler imagingdipper variabilitystellar magnetic fieldsaccretion columnsstar-disk interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations confirm that the magnetospheric accretion model applies to fully convective very-low-mass T Tauri stars like JH 223.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper studies the circumstellar environment of JH 223, a young fully convective star of 0.4 solar masses showing dipper variability. Multi-wavelength data reveal a predominantly poloidal magnetic field with a 250 G dipole. The field truncates the disk near the corotation radius, and inclined accretion columns warp the inner disk, leading to periodic obscuration every 3.31 days. This matches the rotation period seen in photometry, radial velocities, and magnetic field measurements. The accretion shows transitions between regimes, supporting the validity of the magnetospheric model for such stars.

Core claim

The large-scale surface magnetic field of JH 223 is predominantly poloidal with a 250 G dipolar component. The dipole strength and mass accretion rate place the disk truncation radius near corotation. The inclined dipole and star-disk interaction generate accretion columns that warp the inner disk, which periodically obscures the star every 3.31 days to produce the dipper light curves. Redshifted absorption features in H alpha and He I trace these columns at matching phases. The process transitions from unstable to stable accretion over weeks.

What carries the argument

The inclined dipolar component of the large-scale stellar magnetic field, which interacts with the disk to truncate it near corotation and form accretion columns that create a warp causing periodic dips.

If this is right

  • The 3.31-day rotational period is consistently detected across photometry, radial velocity, and longitudinal magnetic field data.
  • The accretion columns are linked to the inner disk warp at the same rotational phase.
  • The accretion regime changes from unstable to stable over a few weeks, aligning with MHD simulations.
  • The magnetospheric accretion framework explains the observations without invoking other variability sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If similar magnetic topologies are found in other dipper stars, it would suggest this mechanism is widespread among low-mass young stars.
  • Long-term monitoring could test whether the warp persists or evolves with changes in the magnetic field.
  • Extending Zeeman-Doppler imaging to more very-low-mass T Tauri stars would check if dipole dominance is typical in fully convective regimes.

Load-bearing premise

The measured dipole field strength and mass accretion rate directly determine that the truncation radius is near corotation, with the inclined columns causing the warp that dominates the observed dips.

What would settle it

Finding that the disk truncation radius is substantially different from the corotation radius through independent measurements, or observing no correlation between the accretion tracers and the 3.31-day period.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22222 by A. Bayo, A. Carmona, A. Frasca, A. M. Cody, A. P. Sousa, B. Zaire, C. Contreras Pe\~na, J. ALonso-Santiago, J. Bouvier, K. Grankin, L. A. Hillenbrand, L. Rebull, S. H. P. Alencar, T. P. Freitas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: JH 223 K2 light curve shown as a function of Julian date (top) and rotational phase (bottom). The rotational phase was computed using a period of 3.31 days, with the reference time JD0 = 2, 457, 817.63 chosen such that phase 0.5 corresponds to the photometric minimum. The color coding indicates to the Julian date of each observation. usually produces smooth, sinusoidal-like shallower light curves that are … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: CMDs of (V−R)c vs. V (green) and (V−I)c vs. V (red), with (V− R)c shifted by +1.6 mag for clarity. LCOGT (circles) and LT (squares) data are shown. Solid and dashed lines indicate least-squares fits and ISM-extinction slopes, respectively. curves returned period values consistent with the period from the K2 light curve: 3.3 ± 0.1 days for the 2021 observations and 3.4 ± 0.2 days for sector 71 of the 2023 o… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of a spectral window used for the stellar parameter fitting. The corresponding synthetic spectrum (red line) is overplotted on the observed GRACES spectrum (blue line). We also computed the luminosity from the relationship be￾tween bolometric magnitude and stellar luminosity. We used the maximum magnitude on the V band obtained from the LCOGT observations, mV = 15.49 (see Sect. 3.1), as the stellar… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hα (top), Hβ (middle), and He I 587.6 nm (bottom) emission lines used to derive mass accretion rates. Labels indicate the rotational phase. GRACES and Keck data are shown as solid and dashed lines. 3.2.4. Mass accretion rate We estimated the mass accretion rate (M˙ acc) from the flux of the Hα and Hβ lines, which are considered to be good accretion trac￾ers in optical spectra (Gullbring et al. 1998; Alcalá… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Residual line profiles of He I 1083 nm. The colors represent different rotational phases. our analysis. As a template, we used the SPIRou spectra of the weak-line T Tauri star TWA 7 view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: JH 223 radial velocities (top) and residuals (bottom). Radial ve￾locities were derived from the first-order moment of the Stokes I LSD profiles of the SPIRou observations (black dots) and from spectral fit￾ting of GRACES (red dot) and Keck spectra (green dots). The blue curve represents the sinusoidal fit with the rotational period fixed at 3.31 days. Residuals (squares), computed as the difference between… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Logarithmic brightness map of the surface of JH 223 in Novem￾ber, 2019. The star is shown in a flattened polar view down to a latitude of −30◦ , with the equator indicated by a solid line and latitudes of 60◦ and 30◦ by dashed lines. Outer radial ticks mark the phases of spec￾tropolarimetric observations. Cool spots are shown in brown shades, while bright plages are shown in blue shades. I profiles. To op… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ZDI maps of the radial (top), meridional (middle), and az￾imuthal (bottom) components of the large-scale magnetic field at the surface of JH 223. Similar to Fig.11, the star is represented in a flat￾tened polar projection. Magnetic fluxes, indicated by the color bar, are expressed in gauss. with 71% of the total magnetic energy, while the toroidal com￾ponent represents 29% of the total magnetic energy. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Asymmetry (M) and quasiperiodicity (Q) parameters derived from the K2 and TESS light curves of JH 223. The gray points corre￾spond to the Q and M parameters of others CTTSs analyzed by Cody et al. (2022) in the Taurus star-forming region. gitude of the magnetic pole (see their Fig.9). We might thus have witnessed the system transitioning from an ordered unsta￾ble regime during TESS Sector 70 (with two opp… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: HRDs showing the large-scale magnetic properties of JH 223 and other classical and weak-line T Tauri stars. CTTSs are labeled by name. Symbol size scales with the average magnetic field strength, color with the poloidal magnetic energy fraction, and shape with the fraction of poloidal energy in axisymmetric modes. Evolutionary tracks (black lines) and isochrones (green dotted lines) from Baraffe et al. (2… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Studies of magnetospheric accretion and magnetic field topology in T Tauri stars have advanced over the years, but their applications to fully convective, very-low-mass T Tauri stars remain relatively unexplored. We aim to analyze the circumstellar environment of the very-low-mass dipper-like star JH 223 by investigating the accretion process and characterizing its large-scale magnetic field topology. We analyzed the photometric variability of JH 223 using observations from multiple telescopes, including K2, TESS, and LCOGT. Additionally, we used Gemini/GRACES spectroscopic and CFHT/SPIRou spectropolarimetric data to investigate the star-disk interaction and characterize the large-scale stellar magnetic field using Zeeman-Doppler imaging. JH 223 is a fully convective classical T Tauri star with an age of about 3 Myr and a mass of 0.4 M$_{\odot}$. The large-scale surface magnetic field is predominantly poloidal, with a 250 G dipolar component. The dipole field strength and mass accretion rate indicate that the disk truncation radius is near the corotation radius. The star-disk interaction, combined with the inclined dipole, generates accretion columns that warp the inner disk. As the star rotates, this warp periodically obscures the stellar surface every 3.31 days, producing dipper light curves. The same period is also detected in radial velocity and longitudinal magnetic field variability. The accretion columns, traced by redshifted absorption in H$\alpha$ and He I 1083 nm, are associated with the inner disk warp at the same rotational phase. The accretion process in JH 223 is dynamic, transitioning from an unstable to a stable regime over a few weeks, consistent with magnetohydrodynamic simulations of star-disk interaction. Results from multi-technique observations suggest that the magnetospheric accretion model remains valid for fully convective very-low-mass young stars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-technique observational study of the young, fully convective, very-low-mass T Tauri star JH 223 (0.4 M⊙, ~3 Myr). Photometry from K2, TESS, and LCOGT reveals periodic 3.31-day dips; Gemini/GRACES spectroscopy and CFHT/SPIRou spectropolarimetry are used to map the large-scale magnetic field via Zeeman-Doppler imaging (predominantly poloidal with a 250 G dipole) and to trace accretion columns through redshifted absorption in Hα and He I 1083 nm. The authors conclude that the measured dipole strength and mass-accretion rate place the disk truncation radius near corotation, producing an inclined inner-disk warp that explains the photometric, radial-velocity, and longitudinal-field periodicities, with the accretion regime transitioning from unstable to stable over weeks.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides one of the first detailed observational tests of the magnetospheric accretion model in the fully convective, very-low-mass regime. The combination of time-series photometry, spectroscopy, and magnetic mapping demonstrates consistency between the observed 3.31-day signals and an inclined accretion-column warp, offering empirical support for extending the paradigm below 0.5 M⊙ and aligning with existing MHD simulations of star-disk interaction.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and the section presenting the dipole strength, accretion-rate derivation, and truncation-radius comparison] The central claim that the disk truncation radius lies near corotation (and thereby generates the observed warp) rests on the 250 G dipole and the adopted mass-accretion rate, yet the manuscript reports neither the explicit truncation-radius formula employed, nor propagated uncertainties, nor any Monte-Carlo or sensitivity analysis on B_dipole or Ṁ. Because r_trunc scales approximately as (B_dip^{2} R_*^{6} / (Ṁ √(GM_*)))^{1/7}, even factor-of-two variations in either input shift r_trunc/r_co by 30-50 %, directly affecting whether the warp interpretation is required or whether alternative variability mechanisms remain viable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the stellar age as 'about 3 Myr' and mass as 0.4 M⊙ without citing the evolutionary tracks, isochrones, or spectroscopic indicators used to obtain these values.
  2. [Discussion of accretion dynamics] The transition between unstable and stable accretion regimes is described qualitatively; a quantitative metric (e.g., the ratio of observed to expected accretion-column filling factor or a time-series measure of veiling variability) would strengthen the comparison to MHD simulations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of our study and for the constructive major comment. We address the concern regarding the truncation radius calculation below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the disk truncation radius lies near corotation (and thereby generates the observed warp) rests on the 250 G dipole and the adopted mass-accretion rate, yet the manuscript reports neither the explicit truncation-radius formula employed, nor propagated uncertainties, nor any Monte-Carlo or sensitivity analysis on B_dipole or Ṁ. Because r_trunc scales approximately as (B_dip^{2} R_*^{6} / (Ṁ √(GM_*)))^{1/7}, even factor-of-two variations in either input shift r_trunc/r_co by 30-50 %, directly affecting whether the warp interpretation is required or whether alternative variability mechanisms remain viable.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript did not explicitly present the truncation-radius formula, propagate uncertainties, or include a sensitivity analysis. In the revised version we will add the standard magnetospheric truncation radius expression (with reference), report the computed r_trunc/r_co value together with uncertainties derived from the ZDI dipole strength, the adopted Ṁ, and stellar parameters, and include a Monte-Carlo or sensitivity test showing the effect of factor-of-two variations in B_dipole and Ṁ. This will demonstrate that the ratio remains near unity within the explored range, thereby supporting the warp interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; observational measurements interpreted with standard formulas

full rationale

The paper reports independent datasets (K2/TESS/LCOGT photometry for the 3.31 d period, Gemini/GRACES spectroscopy for accretion tracers and Ṁ, CFHT/SPIRou spectropolarimetry for ZDI-derived 250 G dipole). The truncation-radius comparison uses the standard magnetospheric-accretion scaling r_trunc ∝ (B_dip² R_*⁶ / (Ṁ √(G M_*)))^{1/7} applied to these measured inputs; the result is then checked against the independently observed corotation radius. No step redefines a fitted quantity as a prediction, imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work, or renames an empirical pattern. The central claim is an interpretive consistency check between observed quantities and the magnetospheric model, not a closed loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger reflects standard domain assumptions implied by the described methods rather than explicit statements in the full text.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Zeeman-Doppler imaging can reliably reconstruct the large-scale magnetic field topology from spectropolarimetric data.
    Invoked to derive the 250 G dipolar component and poloidal dominance.
  • domain assumption The disk truncation radius can be estimated from the balance of magnetic and accretion ram pressure using the dipole strength and mass accretion rate.
    Used to conclude truncation is near corotation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5732 in / 1475 out tokens · 63014 ms · 2026-05-08T10:06:35.842924+00:00 · methodology

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

119 extracted references · 119 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    L., Jensen , E

    Akeson , R. L., Jensen , E. L. N., Carpenter , J., et al. 2019, , 872, 158

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    M., Manara , C

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

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Alencar , S. H. P., Bouvier , J., Donati , J. F., et al. 2018, , 620, A195

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Alencar , S. H. P., Teixeira , P. S., Guimar \ a es , M. M., et al. 2010, , 519, A88

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    2020, , 492, 572

    Ansdell , M., Gaidos , E., Hedges , C., et al. 2020, , 492, 572

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Artigau , \'E ., Cadieux , C., Cook , N. J., et al. 2022, , 164, 84

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    D., et al

    Bagnulo , S., Landolfi , M., Landstreet , J. D., et al. 2009, , 121, 993

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    2015, , 577, A42

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

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    V., et al

    Basseville, M., Nikiforov, I. V., et al. 1993, Detection of abrupt changes: theory and application, Vol. 104 (prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs)

    work page 1993

  12. [12]

    T., et al

    Bellotti , S., Morin , J., Lehmann , L. T., et al. 2023, , 676, A56

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    S., Castelli , F., & Plez , B

    Bessell , M. S., Castelli , F., & Plez , B. 1998, , 333, 231

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    2008, , 478, 155

    Bessolaz , N., Zanni , C., Ferreira , J., Keppens , R., & Bouvier , J. 2008, , 478, 155

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    K., Follette , K

    Betti , S. K., Follette , K. B., Ward-Duong , K., et al. 2023, , 166, 262

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    A., Romanova , M

    Blinova , A. A., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2016, , 459, 2354

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

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

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    2002, Bollinger on Bollinger bands (McGraw-Hill New York)

    Bollinger, J. 2002, Bollinger on Bollinger bands (McGraw-Hill New York)

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H. P., Boutelier , T., et al. 2007 a , , 463, 1017

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H. P., Harries , T. J., Johns-Krull , C. M., & Romanova , M. M. 2007 b , in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 479

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    1999, , 349, 619

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

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    N., Alencar , S

    Bouvier , J., Grankin , K. N., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2003, , 409, 169

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F

    Brown , T. M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F. B., et al. 2013, , 125, 1031

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Q., Petit , P., Donati , J

    Cang , T. Q., Petit , P., Donati , J. F., et al. 2020, , 643, A39

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    A., Clayton , G

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

    work page 1989

  26. [26]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Chene , A.-N., Padzer , J., Barrick , G., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9151, Advances in Optical and Mechanical Technologies for Telescopes and Instrumentation, ed. R. Navarro , C. R. Cunningham , & A. A. Barto , 915147

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Chiang , E. I. & Goldreich , P. 1997, , 490, 368

    work page 1997

  28. [28]

    & Bloemen , S

    Claret , A. & Bloemen , S. 2011, , 529, A75

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

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

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    M., Hillenbrand , L

    Cody , A. M., Hillenbrand , L. A., & Rebull , L. M. 2022, , 163, 212

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

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

    Cody , A. M., Stauffer , J., Baglin , A., et al. 2014, , 147, 82

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    J., Artigau , \'E ., Doyon , R., et al

    Cook , N. J., Artigau , \'E ., Doyon , R., et al. 2022, , 134, 114509

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Donati , J. F. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 307, Solar Polarization, ed. J. Trujillo-Bueno & J. Sanchez Almeida , 41

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    F., Bouvier , J., Alencar , S

    Donati , J. F., Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H., et al. 2019, , 483, L1

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    F., Bouvier , J., Alencar , S

    Donati , J. F., Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H., et al. 2020 a , , 491, 5660

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    I., Carmona , A., et al

    Donati , J.-F., Cristofari , P. I., Carmona , A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.24078

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2011 a , , 417, 472

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2012, , 425, 2948

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2013, , 436, 881

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Montmerle , T., et al. 2011 b , , 417, 1747

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    F., H \'e brard , E., Hussain , G., et al

    Donati , J. F., H \'e brard , E., Hussain , G., et al. 2014, , 444, 3220

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    F., H \'e brard , E., Hussain , G

    Donati , J. F., H \'e brard , E., Hussain , G. A. J., et al. 2015, , 453, 3706

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    F., Howarth , I

    Donati , J. F., Howarth , I. D., Jardine , M. M., et al. 2006, , 370, 629

    work page 2006

  44. [44]

    F., Jardine , M

    Donati , J. F., Jardine , M. M., Gregory , S. G., et al. 2007, , 380, 1297

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    F., Jardine , M

    Donati , J. F., Jardine , M. M., Gregory , S. G., et al. 2008, , 386, 1234

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    F., Kouach , D., Moutou , C., et al

    Donati , J. F., Kouach , D., Moutou , C., et al. 2020 b , , 498, 5684

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    F., Semel , M., Carter , B

    Donati , J. F., Semel , M., Carter , B. D., Rees , D. E., & Collier Cameron , A. 1997, , 291, 658

    work page 1997

  48. [48]

    F., Skelly , M

    Donati , J. F., Skelly , M. B., Bouvier , J., et al. 2010 a , , 409, 1347

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    F., Skelly , M

    Donati , J. F., Skelly , M. B., Bouvier , J., et al. 2010 b , , 402, 1426

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    F., Yu , L., Moutou , C., et al

    Donati , J. F., Yu , L., Moutou , C., et al. 2017, , 465, 3343

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    2006, , 646, 319

    Edwards , S., Fischer , W., Hillenbrand , L., & Kwan , J. 2006, , 646, 319

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    F., Schneider , P

    Erkal , J., Manara , C. F., Schneider , P. C., et al. 2022, , 666, A188

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    2008, , 687, 1117

    Fischer , W., Kwan , J., Edwards , S., & Hillenbrand , L. 2008, , 687, 1117

    work page 2008

  54. [54]

    J., & Benisty , M

    Flock , M., Fromang , S., Turner , N. J., & Benisty , M. 2017, , 835, 230

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    S., Reipurth , B., & Duch \^e ne , G

    Flores , C., Connelley , M. S., Reipurth , B., & Duch \^e ne , G. 2022, , 925, 21

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    P., Bouvier , J., Petit , P., et al

    Folsom , C. P., Bouvier , J., Petit , P., et al. 2018, , 474, 4956

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    P., Petit , P., Bouvier , J., et al

    Folsom , C. P., Petit , P., Bouvier , J., et al. 2016, , 457, 580

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    M., Klutsch , A., & Guillout , P

    Frasca , A., Montes , D., Alcal \`a , J. M., Klutsch , A., & Guillout , P. 2018, , 68, 403

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

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

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    2024, , 966, 167

    Gaidos , E., Thanathibodee , T., Hoffman , A., et al. 2024, , 966, 167

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    1998, , 492, 323

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

    work page 1998

  62. [62]

    2008, , 486, 951

    Gustafsson , B., Edvardsson , B., Eriksson , K., et al. 2008, , 486, 951

    work page 2008

  63. [63]

    2016, , 54, 135

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

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    F., Stauffer , J

    Hartmann , L., Jones , B. F., Stauffer , J. R., & Kenyon , S. J. 1991, , 101, 1050

    work page 1991

  65. [65]

    T., Allen , L., et al

    Hartmann , L., Megeath , S. T., Allen , L., et al. 2005, , 629, 881

    work page 2005

  66. [66]

    Herczeg , G. J. & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2014, , 786, 97

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    A., Carmona , A., Donati , J

    Hill , C. A., Carmona , A., Donati , J. F., et al. 2017, , 472, 1716

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    A., Folsom , C

    Hill , C. A., Folsom , C. P., Donati , J. F., et al. 2019, , 484, 5810

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    2003, , 592, 282

    Jayawardhana , R., Mohanty , S., & Basri , G. 2003, , 592, 282

    work page 2003

  70. [70]

    M., Twicken , J

    Jenkins , J. M., Twicken , J. D., McCauliff , S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman , 99133E

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    Johns-Krull , C. M. 2007, , 664, 975

    work page 2007

  72. [72]

    Jones , B. F. & Herbig , G. H. 1979, , 84, 1872

    work page 1979

  73. [73]

    A., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    J \"o nsson , H., Holtzman , J. A., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2020, , 160, 120

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Kenyon , S. J. & Hartmann , L. 1995, , 101, 117

    work page 1995

  75. [75]

    G., Blinov , D., Ramaprakash , A

    King , O. G., Blinov , D., Ramaprakash , A. N., et al. 2014, , 442, 1706

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    2021, , 29, 1

    Kochukhov , O. 2021, , 29, 1

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    2010, , 524, A5

    Kochukhov , O., Makaganiuk , V., & Piskunov , N. 2010, , 524, A5

    work page 2010

  78. [78]

    Kraus , A. L. & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2007, , 662, 413

    work page 2007

  79. [79]

    & Romanova , M

    Kurosawa , R. & Romanova , M. M. 2013, , 431, 2673

    work page 2013

  80. [80]

    Landolt , A. U. 1983, , 88, 439

    work page 1983

Showing first 80 references.