Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 87 references

Spin-down of solar-mass protostars in magnetospheric accretion paradigm

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three-dimensional wind effects let solar-mass protostars spin down before one million years.

desk verdict A credible, well-hedged 3D-based mechanism for protostellar spin-down via conical disk winds, with quantitative timescales that lean on simulation-calibrated constants whose regime extrapolation is the one real soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14981 v1 pith:2KIEHHPJ submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Shinsuke Takasao , Masanobu Kunitomo , Takeru K. Suzuki , Kazunari Iwasaki , Kengo Tomida This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords protostarspre-main-sequencestarsstellarspin-downmagnetosphericaccretionconicaldiskwindfailedwindspropellerregime3DMHDsimulations
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

Solar-mass protostars acquire angular momentum as they accrete, yet young stars are observed to rotate far below breakup speed, and traditional models can only spin them down by invoking very massive stellar winds or violent episodic ejections that observations do not support. This paper argues that three-dimensional effects resolve the tension. In the authors' 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulation, non-axisymmetric 'failed magnetospheric winds' strip angular momentum from the accreting gas before it lands on the star, cutting the spin-up accretion torque to about a tenth of the classical estimate. In the propeller regime the rotating magnetosphere also drives a conical disk wind that carries stellar angular momentum outward. Combining these torques with a stellar evolution model, the authors find that the spin-down time is shorter than the stellar age before roughly one million years, meaning slow rotation can be achieved without massive stellar winds or strong accretion variations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conical disk wind torque formula $\dot{J}_{\rm CDW} = f_A^2 \dot{M}_{\rm CDW} r_{\rm mag}^2 \Omega_K(r_{\rm mag})$, where $r_{\rm mag}$ is the magnetospheric radius, $\Omega_K(r_{\rm mag})$ the Keplerian angular velocity there, $\dot{M}_{\rm CDW}$ the wind mass loss rate, and $f_A = r_A/r_{\rm mag} \approx 2$ the Alfvén lever-arm factor. The formula removes the explicit dependence on the stellar spin rate, so the spin-down torque can act even as the star decelerates. It is fed by two quantities measured in the 3D simulation: the reduced accretion torque factor $K_{\rm acc}\approx 0.1$ and the wind mass-loss efficiency $f_{\rm eff}\approx 0.2$. These numbers set the ratio of spin-down to spin-up torque and hence the spin-down timescale, while a stellar evolution calculation of $R_*$, $I_*$ and $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}$ converts that timescale to a stellar-age statement.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulation with a kilogauss stellar field and a magnetospheric radius near 20 stellar radii that yields an accretion-torque reduction factor $K_{\rm acc}$ larger than about 0.3, or a conical-wind mass-loss efficiency $f_{\rm eff}$ below a few percent, would falsify the quantitative spin-down claim. Observationaly, high-cadence photometry of Class 0 and Class I protostars showing order-of-magnitude accretion-rate fluctuations, as predicted by two-dimensional propeller models, would contradict the model's suppression of time variability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that three-dimensional structure, not massive winds or episodic ejections, is what allows a solar-mass protostar in the propeller regime to spin down. The authors' 3D MHD simulation shows that filamentary accretion streams penetrate the rotating magnetosphere and lose most of their angular momentum to twisted magnetic fields, so the accretion torque is only about 10% of the classical value $\dot{J}'_{\rm acc} = \dot{M}\sqrt{G M_* r_{\rm mag}}$. At the same time, the magnetosphere drives a conical disk wind with a mass loss rate of order 10–20% of the accretion rate and an Alfvén radius about twice the magnetospheric radius. The resulting spin-down torque, $\dot{J}_{\rm CDW} = f_A^2 \dot{M}_{\rm CDW} r_{\rm mag}^2 \Omega_K(r_{\rm mag})$, is comparable to the torque that earlier work attributed to a hypothetical massive stellar wind. The authors combine this torque with a stellar evolution calculation for a 1-solar-mass accreting star and find the spin-down time is shorter than the stellar age for $t_{\rm age} \lesssim 1$ Myr, scaling as $t_{\rm sd}\propto t_{\rm age}^{59/42}$. The discovery is that the conical disk wind, enabled by the 3D reduction of the accretion torque, can be the main angular-momentum carrier during the protostellar phase.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative result assumes that the ratios measured in one three-dimensional simulation with a relatively weak stellar field and a small magnetosphere — an Alfvén radius about twice the magnetospheric radius, a conical wind carrying about 20% of the accretion flow, and an accretion torque reduced to about 10% of the classical value — remain representative of real protostars, where the field is about a kilogauss and the magnetosphere is roughly ten times larger.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $t_{\rm age} \lesssim 1$ Myr, a solar-mass protostar starting near half of breakup speed spins down in less time than its age, so it can reach the slow rotation observed for T Tauri stars without a 10% stellar-wind mass-loss rate.
  • The accretion spin-up torque being only about 10% of the classical estimate loosens the disk-locking condition, allowing spin equilibrium when $r_{\rm cor} \approx r_{\rm mag}$ even with suppressed accretion torque.
  • The model predicts low-amplitude accretion variability in the propeller regime, in contrast to two-dimensional models, so steady accretion observed in young protostars would support the 3D picture.
  • The spin-down torque scales with the accretion rate and stellar radius, so the earliest protostellar phase is the most efficient epoch of angular momentum loss, tying the final stellar spin to the accretion history.
  • Because magnetospheric accretion also occurs around proto-giant planets, the same reduced-torque mechanism may affect the spin evolution of those objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 3D torque ratios persist at realistic field strengths, then protostars with higher accretion rates should spin down faster, predicting a correlation between current rotation period and recent accretion history that could be tested with period measurements of Class 0/I/II stars.
  • The same reduced-torque mechanism should operate in other magnetospheric accretors, such as proto-giant planets, so the spin of those objects may also be set by failed winds rather than by stellar-like winds.
  • The suppression of torus-like magnetospheric ejections in 3D implies that models explaining photometric variability by episodic 'traffic-jam' accretion may need revision for stellar-mass accretors, though the mechanism might still operate in other regimes.
  • Because the spin-down torque is independent of stellar spin rate in this formulation, the star does not need to hover near spin equilibrium to lose angular momentum, which could relax the fine-tuning problem in disk-locking models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new mechanism for the spin-down of solar-mass protostars in the propeller regime, grounded in the 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations of Takasao et al. (2022, ST22). The authors argue that 'failed magnetospheric winds', which they describe as unique to 3D models, reduce the spin-up accretion torque by a factor K_acc ≈ 0.1, while a conical disk wind driven by the rotating stellar magnetosphere extracts angular momentum with mass-loading efficiency f_eff ≈ 0.1–0.2 and Alfvén radius factor f_A ≈ 2. Combining these calibrations with a MESA stellar evolution model of an accreting Sun-like star, they compute the spin-down timescale tsd and show that for fiducial parameters (f_A = 2, f_eff = 0.2, K_acc = 0.1, B* = 1–2 kG), tsd is shorter than the stellar age for t_age ≲ 1 Myr. They also argue that 3D effects reduce the amplitude of accretion variability, alleviating a long-standing observational challenge to 2D models. The paper frames its central product as an 'upper limit' on the spin-down time and provides scaling relations for tsd.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a plausible resolution to the protostellar spin-down problem that avoids the need for massive stellar winds or strongly time-variable magnetospheric ejections, both of which have been problematic in earlier models. The strengths of the paper are its transparent scaling relations, the explicit use of 3D simulation results to motivate the torque model, the availability of public MESA stellar evolution data, and the falsifiable nature of the predictions (e.g., conical disk wind mass-loss rates of order 10% of the accretion rate, and spin-down timescales shorter than the stellar age before 1 Myr). The principal weakness is that the quantitative conclusion depends on calibrating three dimensionless parameters from a single 3D simulation with a relatively weak stellar field and a mild propeller, and extrapolating them to the strong-propeller regime relevant for kilo-Gauss protostars. This is a regime-extrapolation risk rather than an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing for the paper's headline result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 6; Appendices B and C] The quantity tsd = J*/J_CDW in Eq. (6) is labeled the 'upper limit of the spin-down time', but it neglects the spin-up accretion torque. Since the net spin-down rate is J_CDW - J_acc, where J_acc = K_acc J'_acc, the actual time to lose a given angular momentum J* is longer than J*/J_CDW for any K_acc > 0. The 'upper limit' terminology is therefore accurate only with respect to the choice J* = J*max and to the neglect of other spin-down torques, not with respect to the neglect of accretion. This is quantitatively minor for the fiducial K_acc = 0.1 but becomes important if K_acc is larger, as discussed in the previous comment. The paper should either include the accretion torque in the definition of tsd or explicitly state that the quoted tsd is a lower bound to the true spin-down time at fixed J*.
minor comments (6)
  1. [References] The reference to Takasao et al. (2022) is listed as an arXiv e-print; it should be updated to the published journal version if one exists.
  2. [Figure 9 caption] The caption says 'discussed in the text of Section B'; this should be 'Appendix B' for consistency with the appendix labeling.
  3. [Section 6] In the sentence 'the relation between rm and rA for more realistic situations is to be studied', the notation rm and rA should use consistent subscripts (r_m and r_A) as elsewhere in the paper.
  4. [Section 2.2] The statement 'The simulation suggests that Kacc = 0.1 is a reasonable choice' would benefit from a brief indication of the uncertainty or range obtained from ST22, rather than a single value.
  5. [Figure 6] The filled blue region is described as corresponding to models with the fiducial field strength (1 kG), but the figure also contains dashed lines for B* = 2 kG; adding a legend note to clarify which curves correspond to the filled region would improve readability.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract says 'Our simulation demonstrates that the star spins down by generating a conical disk wind'; since the simulation is from ST22 and not new in this paper, consider rephrasing to 'our recent simulation' or 'ST22' to avoid implying a new simulation is presented here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the spin-down estimate is calibrated to the ST22 simulation, but that simulation independently demonstrates the mechanism and the stellar-evolution application is a genuine extrapolation.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) ST22's 3D MHD simulation directly measures a net spin-down torque from conical disk winds and a strongly reduced accretion torque (K_acc ≈ 0.1); (ii) the present paper packages those measured quantities into Eq. (3) with f_A = 2 and feff ≈ 0.2; (iii) it then computes spin-down times for a 1 M_sun protostar using independent stellar-evolution inputs (MESA, accretion history, B* = 1–2 kG). The torque coefficients are calibrated to the same simulation that motivates the mechanism, so the analytic estimates are not an independent test of the simulation. That is a modeling-calibration limitation, not a circular definition: no equation is defined in terms of the target conclusion, and the predicted tsd < 1 Myr is a new quantity obtained by applying the calibrated torque to a different stellar regime. The paper explicitly flags the regime extrapolation in Section 6 ('The relation between rm and rA for more realistic situations is to be studied') and the convergence of feff as remaining work. The heavy self-citation to ST22 is load-bearing, but ST22 is a published, externally checkable simulation with stated assumptions that do not include the present paper's target timescale; under the review rules that counts as real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation: f_A's range is anchored to Ferreira et al. (2000), an external reference. The 2D-based comparisons (J_SW, J_ME) are clearly labeled as reference values with their own calibration caveats. Overall the derivation is self-contained modulo the usual simulation-calibration uncertainties, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The analytic estimate rests on torque constants measured from one 3D simulation, an assumed spin-equilibrium criterion, and standard stellar evolution inputs. No new physical entities are postulated; the uncertainties are concentrated in the transfer of simulation-derived parameters to real protostars.

free parameters (5)
  • f_A (Alfvén radius factor) = 2 (fiducial)
    Defined by r_A = f_A r_mag; adopted as constant from ST22's Alfvén surface geometry (Appendix B) and the Ferreira et al. (2000) lever-arm range (1≲f_A≲3). Directly multiplies the spin-down torque in Eq. (3).
  • f_eff (conical disk wind mass-loss efficiency) = 0.2 (fiducial; 0.1 used for sensitivity)
    Mdot_CDW = f_eff Mdot_acc. Taken from the ST22 simulation (f_eff≈0.1-0.2) and the order-of-magnitude estimate in Appendix C, Eq. (C7). Strongly controls tsd (compare dashed and solid lines in Fig. 6).
  • K_acc (accretion torque reduction factor) = 0.1
    Jdot_acc = K_acc Jdot'_acc. The simulation's angular momentum flux analysis (Appendix A, ST22) yields roughly 0.1; used to argue that the spin-up torque is small compared with the spin-down torque.
  • f_cor,eq (corotation-to-magnetospheric radius at spin equilibrium) = 1
    Assumed for simplicity in computing J*,eq and defining the propeller regime; 2D simulations suggest 1.3-1.5, and the paper notes the 3D value is unknown.
  • a (accretion rate power-law index) = 1.5
    Mdot_acc ∝ t^{-a} following Hartmann et al. (1998); the authors check a=1.07 variant and conclude the conclusion is unaffected, so it is not load-bearing.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The standard wind torque relation Jdot_wind ≈ Mdot_wind r_A^2 Ω(r_0) (Eq. 2) applies to conical disk winds.
    This is the classical magnetocentrifugal wind torque formula, used without independent derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption The magnetosphere rotates nearly at the Keplerian rate at r_mag because penetrating flows dominate, so Ω(r_0)=Ω_K(r_mag) in Eq. (3).
    Validated only in ST22's Model A; the paper explicitly says the rigid-rotation assumption may hold in other accretion regimes.
  • domain assumption The simulation results from ST22 (B*=160 G, r_mag≈2.5R*) extrapolate to solar-mass protostars with B*=1-2 kG and r_mag≈20R*, including f_A, f_eff, and K_acc.
    This is the weakest assumption: the quantitative spin-down timescales depend on this transfer, which the authors themselves flag as a caveat.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin equilibrium occurs at r_cor ≈ r_mag (f_cor,eq=1).
    Chosen for simplicity; 2D simulations suggest 1.3-1.5, and the paper states the detailed condition is beyond its scope.
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution can be approximated by non-rotating MESA models for computing R*(t) and I*(t).
    Rotation and rotational mixing are neglected in the stellar evolution calculation; the paper argues this is acceptable for an upper-limit estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-down of solar-mass protostars in magnetospheric accretion paradigm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KIEHHPJ

@misc{pith2026241214981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-down of solar-mass protostars in magnetospheric accretion paradigm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KIEHHPJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14981}
}
read the original abstract

Stellar spin is one of the fundamental quantities that characterize a star itself and its planetary system. Nevertheless, stellar spin-down mechanisms in protostellar and pre-main-sequence stellar phases have been a long-standing problem in the star formation theory. To realize the spin-down, previous axisymmetric models based on the conventional magnetospheric paradigm have to assume massive stellar winds or produce highly time-variable magnetospheric ejections. However, this picture has been challenged by both numerical simulations and observations. With a particular focus on the propeller regime for solar-mass stars, we propose a new picture of stellar spin-down based on our recent three-dimensional (3D) magnetohydrodynamic simulation and stellar evolution calculation. We show that failed magnetospheric winds, unique to 3D models, significantly reduce the spin-up accretion torque, which make it easier for the star to spin-down. Additionally, the amplitude of time variability associated with magnetospheric ejections is reduced by 3D effects. Our simulation demonstrates that the star spins down by generating a conical disk wind, driven by a rotating stellar magnetosphere. Our theoretical estimates, inspired by the numerical model, suggest that the conical disk wind is likely to play a crucial role in extracting stellar angular momentum during the protostellar phase. As magnetospheric accretion is expected to occur in other accreting objects such as proto-giant planets, this study will also contribute to the understanding of the angular momentum of such objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14981 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the accretion and ejection structures in 2D (left) and 3D (right) models. The illustration for the 3D model is based on the results of ST22. about the rigid rotation and the property of the turbu￾lent mixing using 3D MHD simulations. The accretion torque J˙ acc is commonly approximated as (e.g. Matt & Pudritz 2005) J˙ ′ acc = M˙ p GM∗rmag (1) where M˙ is the rate of mass accretion onto the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. presents the snapshot of our 3D simulation (Model A of ST22). The accretion disk is turbulent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of filamentary accretion flows penetrating into the magnetosphere (t = 151.1 day of Model A of ST22). The structure is viewed from two different points of view. The density isosurface is colored in blue. Four field lines threading the penetrating flow is denoted as yellow lines. in response to magneto-rotational instability (MRI Bal￾bus & Hawley 1991). Therefore, we can study the magnetosphere-disk interf… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents a schematic illustration of failed magnetospheric winds. The two types of winds are shown: the failed winds associated with a penetrating flow and the failed winds emanating from the turbulent magnetosphere-disk interface. Also see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of key quantities. Panel (a): the stellar accretion rate. Panel (b): the stellar radius (black solid line) and the magnetospheric radius (blue solid and dashed lines). Panel (c): the moment of inertia. The black and blue lines show I∗/I0 and k∗, respectively.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The spin-down time tsd for the star rotating at Ω∗ = 0.5Ωbr (therefore, tsd,up). The fiducial model is indicated by the solid blue line. The region where the spin￾down time for the models with the fiducial field strength (1 kG) is shorter than the stellar age is filled…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Different torques exerting on the star with rcor = 0.8rmag (a reference state of the propeller regime). The red line shows the torques by the conical disk wind. The blue dotted line indicates the accretion torque based on the simple estimation, J˙ ′ acc. The blue solid…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analysis of angular momentum transfer at r = 2.0R∗ (left) and 1.2R∗ (right) for Model A of ST22. From top to bottom, fang,h,r = Rρvrvφ, fang,m,r = −RBrBφ/4π, fang,h,r + fang,m,r, and Bφ. Note that accretion mainly occurs in the northern hemisphere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the structure of the Alfv´en sur￾face. The color denotes the poloidal Alfv´en speed VA,p, and the black lines with arrows indicate the averaged poloidal field structure. The magnetosphere expands in the southern hemisphere, and the conical disk wind is blowing al…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of the bifurcation of the mass flow. The black arrow indicates the accreting flow in the disk. A fraction of the accreting gas is loaded to the rotating stellar magnetic fields via turbulence (indicated as yellow arrows) and becomes the conical disk wind …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The velocity fluctuation measured around the equatorial plane. The time average is performed during the period of t = 190.1–199.4 days after the simulation starts. We measure the velocity fluctuation in the simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of mass loading between the stellar wind (top) and the conical disk wind (bottom). Note that in both cases, mass loading occurs inside the Alfv´en surfaces. nection is relevant. However, the 3D model suggests that the presence of a large-scale disk poloidal…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  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]

    6oWR5.?Kn] O? bן2o KĘRC cS w ?k · ,_ 1W'Qs_w_H :5Y& cmY#Yk 9qo <K˂ xB

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -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 on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.13314, 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    Bae , J., Isella , A., Zhu , Z., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.13314, 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13314 2022

  6. [6]

    Bai , X.-N., & Stone , J. M. 2013, , 767, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/30 2013

  7. [7]

    A., & Hawley , J

    Balbus , S. A., & Hawley , J. F. 1991, , 376, 214, 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  8. [8]

    A., Romanova , M

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw786 2016

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H. P., Harries , T. J., Johns-Krull , C. M., & Romanova , M. M. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 479, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603498

    2007 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    1997, , 326, 1023

    Bouvier , J., Forestini , M., & Allain , S. 1997, , 326, 1023

    1997

  3. [11]

    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, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch019

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Venuti , L., et al

    Bouvier , J., Lanzafame , A. C., Venuti , L., et al. 2016, , 590, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628336

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

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

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

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Benneke , B., Knutson , H

    Bryan , M. L., Benneke , B., Knutson , H. A., Batygin , K., & Bowler , B. P. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 138, 10.1038/s41550-017-0325-8

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    1990, Reviews in Modern Astronomy, 3, 234, 10.1007/978-3-642-76238-3_17

    Camenzind , M. 1990, Reviews in Modern Astronomy, 3, 234, 10.1007/978-3-642-76238-3_17

    1990 doi

  8. [16]

    2007, , 671, 605, 10.1086/522080

    Cieza , L., & Baliber , N. 2007, , 671, 605, 10.1086/522080

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    Collier Cameron , A., & Campbell , C. G. 1993, , 274, 309

    1993

  10. [18]

    Cranmer , S. R. 2008, , 689, 316, 10.1086/592566

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    R., & Spruit , H

    D'Angelo , C. R., & Spruit , H. C. 2010, , 406, 1208, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16749.x

    2010

  12. [20]

    E., Hartigan , P., et al

    Edwards , S., Strom , S. E., Hartigan , P., et al. 1993, , 106, 372, 10.1086/116646

    1993 doi

  13. [21]

    Eggenberger , P., Buldgen , G., Salmon , S. J. A. J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 788, 10.1038/s41550-022-01677-0

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2006, , 647, L155, 10.1086/507525

    Fallscheer , C., & Herbst , W. 2006, , 647, L155, 10.1086/507525

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, , 868, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae780

    Fang , M., Pascucci , I., Edwards , S., et al. 2018, , 868, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae780

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    1997, , 319, 340, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9607057

    Ferreira , J. 1997, , 319, 340, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9607057

    1997 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2013, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Ferreira , J. 2013, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 62, EAS Publications Series, ed. P. Hennebelle & C. Charbonnel , 169--225, 10.1051/eas/1362006

    2013

  18. [26]

    2000, , 312, 387, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03215.x

    Ferreira , J., Pelletier , G., & Appl , S. 2000, , 312, 387, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03215.x

    2000

  19. [27]

    F., Nisini , B., et al

    Fiorellino , E., Manara , C. F., Nisini , B., et al. 2021, , 650, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039264

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2013, , 556, A36, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302

    Gallet , F., & Bouvier , J. 2013, , 556, A36, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, , 632, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935432

    Gallet , F., Zanni , C., & Amard , L. 2019, , 632, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935432

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    I., & G \"u del , M

    Gehrig , L., Steiner , D., Vorobyov , E. I., & G \"u del , M. 2022, , 667, A46

    2022

  23. [31]

    Gehrig , L., & Vorobyov , E. I. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11672, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11672

    2023 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ghosh , P., & Lamb , F. K. 1979, , 234, 296, 10.1086/157498

    1979 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Donati , J

    Gregory , S. G., Donati , J. F., Morin , J., et al. 2012, , 755, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/97

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    1998, , 495, 385, 10.1086/305277

    Hartmann , L., Calvet , N., Gullbring , E., & D'Alessio , P. 1998, , 495, 385, 10.1086/305277

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Shibata , K., & Matsumoto , R

    Hayashi , M. R., Shibata , K., & Matsumoto , R. 1996, , 468, L37, 10.1086/310222

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    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. astro-ph/0603673

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2016, , 822, 87, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/87

    Hirabayashi , K., & Hoshino , M. 2016, , 822, 87, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/87

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    1997, , 49, 193, 10.1093/pasj/49.2.193

    Hirose , S., Uchida , Y., Shibata , K., & Matsumoto , R. 1997, , 49, 193, 10.1093/pasj/49.2.193

    1997 doi

  32. [40]

    F., & Sunyaev , R

    Illarionov , A. F., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1975, , 39, 185

    1975

  33. [41]

    G., Matt , S

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

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Zanni , C., Matt , S

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

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, , 647, A192, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322

    Jacquemin-Ide , J., Lesur , G., & Ferreira , J. 2021, , 647, A192, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Johns-Krull , C. M. 2007, , 664, 975, 10.1086/519017

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    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

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2007, , 671, 1990, 10.1086/522954

    Klu \'z niak , W., & Rappaport , S. 2007, , 671, 1990, 10.1086/522954

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    1991, , 370, L39, 10.1086/185972

    Koenigl , A. 1991, , 370, L39, 10.1086/185972

    1991 doi

  40. [48]

    K., & Romanova , M

    Kulkarni , A. K., & Romanova , M. M. 2008, , 386, 673, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13094.x

    2008

  41. [49]

    2021, , 655, A51

    Kunitomo , M., & Guillot , T. 2021, , 655, A51

    2021

  42. [50]

    2022, , 667, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244169

    Kunitomo , M., Guillot , T., & Buldgen , G. 2022, , 667, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244169

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    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

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    Livio , M., & Pringle , J. E. 1992, , 259, 23P, 10.1093/mnras/259.1.23P

    1992 doi

  45. [54]

    M., & Lovelace , R

    Long , M., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2005, , 634, 1214, 10.1086/497000

    2005 doi

  46. [55]

    Lovelace , R. V. E., Romanova , M. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S. 1999, , 514, 368, 10.1086/306945

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    1994, , 267, 146, 10.1093/mnras/267.1.146

    Lynden-Bell , D., & Boily , C. 1994, , 267, 146, 10.1093/mnras/267.1.146

    1994 doi

  48. [57]

    Matt , S., & Pudritz , R. E. 2004, , 607, L43, 10.1086/421351

    2004 doi

  49. [58]

    2005, , 632, L135, 10.1086/498066

    ---. 2005, , 632, L135, 10.1086/498066

    2005 doi

  50. [59]

    P., MacGregor , K

    Matt , S. P., MacGregor , K. B., Pinsonneault , M. H., & Greene , T. P. 2012, , 754, L26, 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L26

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    2020, , 497, 2142, 10.1093/mnras/staa2041

    McGinnis , P., Bouvier , J., & Gallet , F. 2020, , 497, 2142, 10.1093/mnras/staa2041

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    Mohanty , S., & Shu , F. H. 2008, , 687, 1323, 10.1086/591924

    2008 doi

  53. [62]

    C., & Shu , F

    Ostriker , E. C., & Shu , F. H. 1995, , 447, 813, 10.1086/175920

    1995 doi

  54. [63]

    2020, , 643, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038569

    Pantolmos , G., Zanni , C., & Bouvier , J. 2020, , 643, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038569

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    2017, , 851, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c85

    Parfrey , K., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2017, , 851, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c85

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pascucci , I., Cabrit , S., Edwards , S., 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 , 567, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10068

    2023 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    2011, , 192, 3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3

    2011

  58. [67]

    2021, , 648, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038429

    Podio , L., Tabone , B., Codella , C., et al. 2021, , 648, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038429

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed

    Ray , T., Dougados , C., Bacciotti , F., Eisl \"o ffel , J., & Chrysostomou , A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 231. astro-ph/0605597

    2007 arXiv

  60. [69]

    M., Blinova , A

    Romanova , M. M., Blinova , A. A., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2018, , 62, 94, 10.1016/j.newast.2018.01.011

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

    M., Ustyugova , G

    Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2004, , 616, L151, 10.1086/426586

    2004 doi

  62. [71]

    2005, , 635, L165, 10.1086/499560

    ---. 2005, , 635, L165, 10.1086/499560

    2005 doi

  63. [72]

    2009, , 399, 1802, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x

    ---. 2009, , 399, 1802, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x

    2009

  64. [73]

    2011, , 416, 416, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19050.x

    ---. 2011, , 416, 416, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19050.x

    2011

  65. [74]

    M., Ustyugova , G

    Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., Wick , J. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2003, , 595, 1009, 10.1086/377514

    2003 doi

  66. [75]

    Safier , P. N. 1999, , 510, L127, 10.1086/311807

    1999 doi

  67. [76]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

    Shakura , N. I., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 24, 337

    1973

  68. [77]

    1994, , 429, 781, 10.1086/174363

    Shu , F., Najita , J., Ostriker , E., et al. 1994, , 429, 781, 10.1086/174363

    1994 doi

  69. [78]

    K., & Inutsuka , S.-i

    Suzuki , T. K., & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2009, , 691, L49, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/L49

    2009 doi

  70. [79]

    Takasao , S., Tomida , K., Iwasaki , K., & Suzuki , T. K. 2018, , 857, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab5b3

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    2019, , 878, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab22bb

    ---. 2019, , 878, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab22bb

    2019 doi

  72. [81]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01072

    ---. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01072. 2211.01072

    2022 arXiv

  73. [82]

    V., Koldoba , A

    Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2006, , 646, 304, 10.1086/503379

    2006 doi

  74. [83]

    A., K \"o nigl , A., & Litwin , C

    Uzdensky , D. A., K \"o nigl , A., & Litwin , C. 2002, , 565, 1191, 10.1086/324720

    2002 doi

  75. [84]

    M., et al

    Venuti , L., Bouvier , J., Cody , A. M., et al. 2017, , 599, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629537

    2017 doi

  76. [85]

    2011, , 727, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L22

    Zanni , C., & Ferreira , J. 2011, , 727, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L22

    2011 doi

  77. [86]

    2013, , 550, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220168

    ---. 2013, , 550, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220168

    2013 doi

  78. [87]

    Zhu , Z., & Stone , J. M. 2018, , 857, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafc9

    2018 doi

  79. [88]

    M., & Calvet , N

    Zhu , Z., Stone , J. M., & Calvet , N. 2024, , 528, 2883, 10.1093/mnras/stad3712

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.