One-third of Sun-like stars are born with misaligned planet-forming disks

2); (2) University of California Santa Barbara; (3) Yale University; (4) Taiwan Normal University); Brendan P. Bowler (2); Lauren I. Biddle (1); Marvin Morgan (1; Quang H. Tran (3); Ya-Lin Wu (4) ((1) The University of Texas at Austin

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

One-third of Sun-like stars are born with misaligned planet-forming disks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read About one in three young, isolated Sun-like stars forms with a planet-forming disk tilted relative to its spin axis — evidence that spin-orbit misalignment, possibly including the Sun's 6° tilt, can be set at birth.

desk verdict A genuine population-level first for primordial star-disk obliquity, but the 33% headline needs a null-hypothesis test and a selection-bias correction before I'd trust the exact number. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06488 v2 pith:4ZPPZ5UL submitted 2025-08-08 astro-ph.EP

Lauren I. Biddle (1) , Brendan P. Bowler (2) , Marvin Morgan (1 , 2) , Quang H. Tran (3) , Ya-Lin Wu (4) ((1) The University of Texas at Austin , (2) University of California Santa Barbara , (3) Yale University

show 1 more author

(4) Taiwan Normal University)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords primordialstellarobliquitystar-diskmisalignmentprotoplanetarydisksTTauristarsrotationdiskinclinationplanetformationspin-orbitalignment

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

This paper asks whether the tilted orbits seen in many exoplanet systems are fixed at birth or imposed later by gravitational dynamics. It answers with a measurement: among 49 young, isolated, Sun-like stars whose planet-forming disks have been imaged out to tens or hundreds of au, 16 (about one in three) have a disk measurably tilted relative to the star's spin axis. Because the quantity measured — the absolute difference between the sky-projected stellar and disk inclinations — is only a lower limit on each system's true obliquity, the authors frame the 33% figure as a minimum occurrence rate of primordial misalignment. The finding matters because it would mean a large share of the spin-orbit misalignment seen in mature planetary systems, possibly including the Sun's own 6° tilt, is written in during star formation rather than carved out later.

What carries the argument

The central quantity is the minimum star–disk obliquity, Δi = |i* − idisk| — the absolute difference between the sky-projected stellar inclination and the outer-disk inclination traced by ALMA at tens to hundreds of au. The stellar inclination i* is recovered with a Bayesian posterior that combines the projected rotation velocity vsini*, a rotation period from TESS/K2 photometry, and the stellar radius, then propagates the full probability distributions into a per-star Δi distribution. A system counts as misaligned when the mode of its Δi distribution sits at least two lower-side uncertainties (95.4% confidence) above 0°. The population is further characterized by a kernel density estimate a

What would settle it

Re-measure the stellar inclinations of the same 49 disks with a technique that does not require a measured rotation period or vsini* — for example Zeeman-Doppler imaging of spot patterns or asteroseismology — and recount systems whose minimum obliquity is at least 2σ above zero. If the sample's excess of edge-on stars (14 of 49 versus ~8 expected) is a selection artifact, the fraction should drop below 33%; if the excess is real geometry, the fraction should stay at or above 33%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a 33% primordial misalignment rate: 16 of 49 isolated young Sun-like stars are misaligned at 95.4% confidence. The measured quantity, Δi, is the absolute difference between the sky-projected stellar and disk inclinations — a lower limit on the true obliquity. Most systems cluster near alignment (sample average about 17°; population peak 10°–25°), but the tail extends past 60°. Misalignment shows no significant correlation with stellar mass, temperature, radius, rotation period, or disk inclination. Because the stars are gravitationally isolated, the misalignment is argued to be primordial — plausibly turbulent cloud-core collapse or late infall — and the Sun's 6° obliqu

Load-bearing premise

The headline one-in-three rate assumes the 49-star sample is not biased toward edge-on stars in a way that inflates the misalignment count: the paper itself finds 14 of 49 stars nearly edge-on where random orientation predicts about 8 (p ≈ 0.05) and, in the Methods and Supplementary SD-4, discusses but does not correct this selection effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A formation-theory benchmark: the misalignment fraction stays substantial (roughly 29–71%) across the paper's 25 systematic tests that shift rotation periods and radii by ±30%, so the one-in-three rate is not an artifact of the adopted stellar parameters.
The Sun's 6° obliquity needs no exotic post-formation mechanism: the pre-main-sequence Sun (about K9 at 5 Myr) falls inside the aligned majority of the sample, making a slightly tilted birth disk a natural explanation.
The star–outer-disk Δi distribution resembles the measured obliquity distributions of hot and warm Jupiters, so a meaningful fraction of mature giant-planet misalignments could be primordial rather than dynamical in origin.
Because Δi is a lower limit on the true obliquity, the high-Δi tail implies some systems could harbor extreme misalignments capable of producing polar or retrograde hot Jupiters, though primordial retrograde disks should remain rare.
Misalignment shows no significant correlation with stellar mass, temperature, radius, rotation, or disk inclination, so it behaves like a random initial condition of the star-disk system rather than a tracer of stellar properties.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: two opposing biases bracket the true rate — the lower-limit nature of Δi pushes the intrinsic misalignment fraction above 33%, while the sample's apparent excess of edge-on stars (14 of 49 beyond 80° versus ~8 expected, p ≈ 0.05) could push it below; an inclination-unbiased sample is the cleanest way to decide.
Editorial inference: a discriminating test of the late-infall channel would be to split the sample by disk radius or mass — the paper tests only stellar properties — since streamer-fed misalignment predicts systematically larger Δi for more extended outer disks.
Editorial inference: the missing piece is the disk's position angle on the sky and the star's spin direction; resolved CO kinematics plus Zeeman-Doppler imaging of just a handful of the 16 misaligned systems would convert this lower-limit distribution into true obliquities.
Editorial inference: applying the same machinery to younger (Class I) and older (debris-disk) populations would turn this single snapshot into an evolutionary sequence, testing whether primordial misalignment persists or decays across the disk lifetime.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What's actually new: this is the first robust statistical measurement of star-disk misalignment for young Sun-like stars, with 49 systems compared to 7 in the previous best effort. The 43 new TESS/K2 rotation periods and the careful Bayesian treatment of i* from vsini, Prot, and R* are solid, reproducible work. The 25-cell robustness grid over ±30% in Prot and R* is a genuine strength: it shows the qualitative conclusion—misalignment is not rare—survives large systematic shifts. The compilation of disk inclinations and stellar properties is transparent and thorough. Credit where it's due: this is a useful dataset and the lower-limit Δi distribution is a real measurement.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. The 16/49 misalignment count uses MAP > 2× lower uncertainty, but there's no simulation of the all-aligned null hypothesis. Since Δi is nonnegative and both i* and idisk have noise, this flag can fire even when the true obliquity is zero. A 10% false-positive rate would drop the count to roughly 11/49, or 22%. That's a load-bearing gap, and it's fixable: draw aligned pairs from the same uncertainty distributions and count how many get flagged. Second, the sample is biased toward equator-on stars (14/49 with i*>80° vs ~8 expected, p=0.054). The authors acknowledge this in SD-4 but never apply a correction or reweighting. Since disk inclinations cluster around 30–75°, pushing i* toward 90° inflates Δi in the same direction as the headline. These two effects could move the true rate below one-third.

There's also the opposite caveat, which the paper handles honestly: Δi is a lower limit on the true obliquity, so the true misaligned fraction could be higher. That cuts both ways, but it means the abstract's "about one-third" overstates the precision of what is really a lower-limit measurement affected by selection effects.

On balance, the paper deserves a serious referee. The sample is valuable, the analysis is mostly careful, and the authors are transparent about their main systematic concern. A good referee should push for a null-hypothesis calibration, a selection-bias-corrected estimate, and a more careful framing of 33% as a lower limit rather than a point estimate. I'd cite this for the sample and the measured Δi distribution even while being cautious about the exact fraction. It's a good reading-group paper precisely because the biases are illustrative.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper measures minimum star–disk obliquities (Δi = |i* − idisk|) for 49 isolated, young, Sun-like (F6–M) stars with resolved ALMA protoplanetary disks, using stellar inclinations inferred from vsini*, Prot, and R* through the Bayesian expression in Eq. (2). The central result is that 16/49 systems are classified as misaligned at the MAP > 2σ_lower level, corresponding to a claimed primordial misalignment rate of 33%+7/−6; a 25-cell robustness grid over ±30% perturbations of Prot and R* yields Pmis values between roughly 29% and 71%, with the nominal value at 33%. The paper argues this primordial misalignment distribution is broadly consistent with the obliquity distributions of hot/warm Jupiters and that the Sun's ~6° obliquity could be primordial. The authors explicitly note that Δi is a lower limit on the true obliquity and that the sample contains an overabundance of equator-on stars (14/49 with i* > 80°), but they do not correct the headline rate for either effect.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides the first statistically meaningful direct measurement of primordial star–disk obliquity in isolated low-mass stars, with direct implications for the origin of exoplanet spin–orbit misalignments and for the Solar System's obliquity. The strengths of the manuscript are its transparent Bayesian formulation, the explicit propagation of uncertainties from vsini*, Prot, and R*, the 25-cell systematic robustness grid, the full posterior and light-curve galleries in the supplementary material, and the use of published/open-source tools. The measurement is not circular: Δi is computed from independent stellar and disk inclination measurements. However, the headline 'one-third' depends on a classification threshold whose false-positive rate is not calibrated, and on an acknowledged selection bias that is not corrected; both issues are load-bearing for the main claim.

major comments (3)

[Main text, first Results paragraph; Methods 'Star-Disk Minimum Obliquity, Δi'] The 16/49 count is the number of systems for which the MAP of the non-negative, folded Δi posterior exceeds twice the lower HDI width. This is stated as a 'departure from 0° at 95.4% confidence,' but it is not a calibrated false-positive rate. Under the null hypothesis of true alignment, independent measurement noise in i* and idisk (typical Δi uncertainty ~10°) will produce Δi posteriors whose modes are pulled away from zero for some fraction of the sample. No injection/recovery test or fully-aligned synthetic ensemble is reported, so the expected number of false 'misaligned' classifications is unknown. A modest false-positive rate, e.g. 10%, would change the headline from 16/49 to ~11/49 (22%). Please add a null-hypothesis calibration and report a decontaminated or corrected misalignment fraction.
[Methods 'Characterization of Systematics and Biases'; Supplementary SD-4] The paper finds 14/49 stars with i* > 80° versus about 8 expected for an isotropic distribution (p = 0.054) and identifies plausible observational selection toward equator-on stars from both Prot detection and vsini broadening. Because Δi is defined as |i* − idisk|, an excess of equator-on stars mechanically increases the mean and tail of the Δi distribution. This selection effect is acknowledged but not propagated into the 16/49 headline or into the Pmis values of Fig. 3. The manuscript should either reweight by the inclination selection function, report results for a random-inclination subsample, or provide an explicit upper bound on the bias. As written, the central '33%' claim is not robust to this acknowledged bias.
[Figs. 2–3 and Methods 'Characterization of Systematics and Biases'] The 25-cell robustness grid is a strength, but the handling of non-physical cells is unclear. The text states that points with veq < vsini by more than 2σ are excluded from further analysis, yet Fig. 3 prints Pmis for every cell, including cells with many faded/non-physical points (e.g., +30% Prot, −30% R* shows Pmis = 71±10%). If non-physical systems are excluded from the KDE, the displayed Pmis values should be recomputed on the reduced sample and reported as such; otherwise the high-Pmis cells cannot be used to support the statement that 'the misalignment fraction remains substantial.' At minimum, please mark cells for which the non-physical exclusion changes Pmis by more than the quoted uncertainty.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and main text] The abstract says 'about one third of isolated young systems exhibit primordial misalignment' without a confidence interval; the value is later quoted as 33+7/−6%. Please include the binomial/credible interval in the abstract and main-text statement, and phrase the claim as a lower limit given that Δi is a minimum obliquity.
[Main text, Results paragraph] The expression '33^!"#$%' appears garbled; the intended value is 33+7/−6%. Please correct the typesetting throughout.
[Title and sample description] The title and abstract use 'Sun-like stars' while the sample is dominated by K and M dwarfs, with a few G stars. Please either justify the phrase by the mass range (0.5–1.5 M☉) or soften it to 'low-mass stars' in the title or abstract.
[Fig. 3 caption] Please define Pmis explicitly. It is used interchangeably as a 'misalignment probability' but it is unclear whether it is the fraction of the KDE above 0°, the fraction of posterior draws satisfying the 2σ_lower criterion, or an integral over the modeled Δi distribution.
[Methods, Eq. (2)] The notation P)./ and σ2*+ is difficult to read; please ensure all symbols are defined in the main text and that the relation to veq = 2πR*/Prot is stated consistently.
[Supplementary SD-4] The equator-on bias discussion is candid and useful, but it should be referenced explicitly in the main-text paragraph that introduces the 16/49 fraction, since it directly qualifies that headline number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 16/49 misalignment count is an empirical classification from independent stellar and disk inclination measurements; HBM/KDE models are descriptive, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that 16/49 young isolated Sun-like stars have minimum star–disk obliquity Δi inconsistent with zero—is derived from independent measurements: disk inclinations from resolved ALMA observations and stellar inclinations from vsini*, Prot, and R* through the Bayesian posterior in Eq. (2). The Δi distribution is constructed as |i* − idisk| from sampled posteriors, so the count is an empirical classification, not the output of a fitted model. The KDE and hierarchical Bayesian models are descriptive population fits and are not used to infer the 16/49 count. Self-citations (Bowler et al. 2023 for the inclination posterior and shear term; Morgan et al. 2024 for the ePop! HBM application and hot/warm Jupiter comparison) supply published methodology and comparison distributions; they do not themselves impose the misalignment fraction, and they are external publications with stated assumptions. The acknowledged equator-on excess (14 vs ~8 expected, p=0.054, in Methods and SD-4) is a sample-selection/calibration concern about whether 33% overstates the true primordial rate, but it is not a circularity of the derivation. No step reduces by definition or by fitted-input to the headline number. Score reflects only the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The load-bearing assumptions are statistical and observational: the inclination prior, the rotation-period interpretation, the assumed absence of strong selection bias, and the outer-disk-to-planet-formation mapping. The free parameters listed are descriptive or procedural choices rather than fitted physical constants.

free parameters (3)

HBM hyperparameters (Rayleigh nu, Gaussian mu/sigma, truncated Gaussian mu/sigma) = Reported in Extended Data Table 3, not reproduced in text
Descriptive population fits to the Δi distribution; they characterize the broad shape but are not used to set the 16/49 headline fraction.
KDE kernel bandwidth = 5.3 degrees
Chosen as the average deviation of the 68% confidence interval limits of the individual Δi distributions; affects only the visualization, not the misalignment count.
Minimum uncertainty floor = 5% on vsini*, Prot, and R*
Imposed to keep any single precise measurement from dominating weighted means; this choice affects quoted uncertainties and therefore the 2-sigma misalignment classification.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Isotropic prior on stellar inclination i*
Used in the Bayesian posterior for i* (Eq. 2). The authors note it is reasonable for isolated stars but may not be valid for a sample selected via resolved disks.
domain assumption Light-curve period traces equatorial rotation, with a Sun-like differential rotation correction
In the rotation-period section they add a shear uncertainty assuming Delta Omega = 0.07 rad/day. If spots are at high latitudes and differential rotation is stronger than solar, Prot can be overestimated and i* biased high.
domain assumption Sample selection does not materially bias Δi
Requiring measured vsini*, Prot, and R* favors equator-on stars. The authors identify the over-abundance of i*>80 degrees (p approximately 0.054) and discuss possible causes in SD-4, but do not correct the misalignment fraction.
domain assumption Outer disk inclination from ALMA represents the planet-forming disk orientation
The paper uses outer disk orientations at tens to hundreds of au. Inner-outer disk misalignments are documented as common (ref 42), so the outer disk may not trace the inner region where close-in planets form.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-third of Sun-like stars are born with misaligned planet-forming disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZPPZ5UL

@misc{pith2026250806488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-third of Sun-like stars are born with misaligned planet-forming disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZPPZ5UL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06488}
}

read the original abstract

Exoplanets are organized in a broad array of orbital configurations that reflect their formation along with billions of years of dynamical processing through gravitational interactions. This history is encoded in the angular momentum architecture of planetary systems--the relation between the rotational properties of the central star and the orbital geometry of planets. A primary observable is the alignment (or misalignment) between the rotational axis of the star and the orbital plane of its planets, known as stellar obliquity. Hundreds of spin-orbit constraints have been measured for giant planets close to their host stars, many of which have revealed planets on misaligned orbits. A leading question that has emerged is whether stellar obliquity originates primarily from gravitational interactions with other planets or distant stars in the same system, or if it is primordial--imprinted during the star-formation process. Here we present a comprehensive assessment of primordial obliquities between the spin axes of young, isolated Sun-like stars and the orientation of the outer regions of their protoplanetary disks. Most systems are consistent with angular momentum alignment but about one-third of isolated young systems exhibit primordial misalignment. This suggests that some obliquities identified in planetary systems at older ages--including the Sun's modest misalignment with planets in the Solar System--could originate from initial conditions of their formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06488 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Angular Momentum of Planet-Forming Disks: Implications for Infall Driven Misalignments
astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Most planet-forming disks have less angular momentum than late-infalling cloud gas is predicted to carry, so infalling streamers are a plausible cause of the observed misalignments.
On the Eccentricity Distribution and Tidal Evolution of Transiting Brown Dwarfs
astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Short-period (P<16 d) transiting brown dwarfs are low-eccentricity while longer-period ones are more excited; assuming a shared primordial Beta distribution, tidal evolution constrains Q_BD ≈ 10^{7.1–8.1}.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[14]

Barnes, J. R. et al. The dependence of differential rotation on temperature and rotation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 357, L1–L5 (2005). 15. Reinhold, T., Reiners, A. & Basri, G. Rotation and differential rotation of active Kepler stars. Astronomy and Astrophysics 560, A4 (2013). 16. Reinhold, T. & Gizon, L. Rotation, differential ro...

work page 2005
[29]

Poteet, C. A. et al. Space-based Coronagraphic Imaging Polarimetry of the TW Hydrae Disk: Shedding New Light on Self-shadowing Effects. Astrophysical Journal 860, 115 (2018). 30. Debes, J. et al. The Surprising Evolution of the Shadow on the TW Hya Disk. Astrophysical Journal 948, 36 (2023). 31. Gravity Collaboration et al. The GRAVITY young stellar objec...

work page 2018
[45]

Cieza, L. A. et al. The Ophiuchus DIsc Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA) - III. The evolution of substructures in massive discs at 3-5 au resolution. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 501, 2934–2953 (2021). 46. Hales, A. S. et al. The Circumstellar Disk and Asymmetric Outflow of the EX Lup Outburst System. Astrophysical Journal 859, 111 (2018...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.04160 2021
[60]

Yu, J. et al. Revised Extinctions and Radii for 1.5 Million Stars Observed by APOGEE, GALAH, and RAVE. Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 264, 41 (2023). 61. Stassun, K. G. et al. The Revised TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List. Astronomical Journal 158, 138 (2019). 62. Abdurro’uf et al. The Seventeenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey...

work page 2023
[76]

Furlan, E. et al. The Spitzer Infrared Spectrograph Survey of T Tauri Stars in Taurus. Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 195, 3 (2011). 77. Csépány, G. et al. Multi-epoch observations with high spatial resolution of multiple T Tauri systems. Astronomy and Astrophysics 603, A74 (2017). 78. Nguyen, D. C., Brandeker, A., van Kerkwijk, M. H. & Jayawardhana, R...

work page 2011
[90]

Nofi, L. A. et al. Projected Rotational Velocities and Fundamental Properties of Low-mass Pre-main-sequence Stars in the Taurus-Auriga Star-forming Region. Astrophysical Journal 911, 138 (2021). 91. Torres, C. A. O. et al. Search for associations containing young stars (SACY). I. Sample and searching method. Astronomy and Astrophysics 460, 695–708 (2006)....

work page 2021
[105]

Vidotto, A. A. et al. Stellar magnetism: empirical trends with age and rotation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 441, 2361–2374 (2014). 106. Hartigan, P., Edwards, S. & Ghandour, L. Disk Accretion and Mass Loss from Young Stars. Astrophysical Journal 452, 736 (1995). 107. Dionatos, O. et al. Consistent dust and gas models for protoplanet...

work page 2014
[120]

Zhang, L. et al. Stellar Parameters and Spectroscopic Properties of TESS Objects Observed in the LAMOST Low- and Medium-resolution Spectral Survey. Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 264, 17 (2023). 121. Artemenko, S. A., Grankin, K. N. & Petrov, P. P. Rotation effects in classical T Tauri stars. Astronomy Letters 38, 783–792 (2012). 122. Kraus, A. L. & Hi...

work page 2023

Show all 17 references

[150]

& Gómez de Castro, A

López-Martı́nez, F. & Gómez de Castro, A. I. Constraints to the magnetospheric properties of T Tauri stars - II. The Mg II ultraviolet feature. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 448, 484–501 (2015). 151. Alcalá, J. M. et al. X-shooter spectroscopy of young stel...

2015
[165]

Galli, P. A. B. et al. Lupus DANCe. Census of stars and 6D structure with Gaia-DR2 data. Astronomy and Astrophysics 643, A148 (2020). 166. da Silva, L. et al. Search for associations containing young stars (SACY). III. Ages and Li abundances. Astronomy and Astrophysics 508, 83...

2020
[180]

D., Casanova, S., Montmerle, T

Feigelson, E. D., Casanova, S., Montmerle, T. & Guibert, J. ROSAT X-Ray Study of the Chamaeleon I Dark Cloud. I. The Stellar Population. Astrophysical Journal 416, 623 (1993). 181. Kirk, H. & Myers, P. C. Young Stellar Groups and Their Most Massive Stars. Astrophysical Journal...

1993
[196]

Pascucci, I. et al. Large Myr-old Disks Are Not Severely Depleted of Gas-phase CO or Carbon. Astrophysical Journal 953, 183 (2023). 197. Garufi, A. et al. Disks Around T Tauri Stars with SPHERE (DARTTS-S). II. Twenty-one new polarimetric images of young stellar disks. Astronom...

2023
[211]

& Gnacinski, P

Glebocki, R. & Gnacinski, P. VizieR Online Data Catalog: Catalog of Stellar Rotational Velocities (Glebocki+ 2005). VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/244. Originally published in: 2005csss...13..571G; 2005yCat.3244....0G (2005). 212. Hartmann, L., Hewett, R., Stahler, S. & Math...

2005
[226]

& Gallet, F

McGinnis, P., Bouvier, J. & Gallet, F. The magnetic obliquity of accreting T Tauri stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 497, 2142–2162 (2020). 227. Bouvier, J., Cabrit, S., Fernandez, M., Martin, E. L. & Matthews, J. M. COYOTES I. Multisite UBVRI photometry...

2020
[241]

Bouvier, J. et al. COYOTES II: SPOT properties and the origin of photometric period variations in T Tauri stars. Astronomy and Astrophysics 299, 89 (1995). 242. Sánchez-Sáez, P. et al. Persistent and occasional: Searching for the variable population of the ZTF/4MOST sky using ...

1995 doi arXiv
[257]

S., Scholz, A., Ray, T

Costigan, G., Vink, J. S., Scholz, A., Ray, T. & Testi, L. Temperaments of young stars: rapid mass accretion rate changes in T Tauri and Herbig Ae stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 440, 3444–3461 (2014). 258. Strassmeier, K. G. Starspots. Astronomy and A...

2014
[272]

P., Jardine, M., Gregory, S

Johnstone, C. P., Jardine, M., Gregory, S. G., Donati, J.-F. & Hussain, G. Classical T Tauri stars: magnetic fields, coronae and star-disc interactions. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 437, 3202–3220 (2014). 273. Huélamo, N. et al. TW Hydrae: evidence of stel...

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Barnes, J. R. et al. The dependence of differential rotation on temperature and rotation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 357, L1–L5 (2005). 15. Reinhold, T., Reiners, A. & Basri, G. Rotation and differential rotation of active Kepler stars. Astronomy and Astrophysics 560, A4 (2013). 16. Reinhold, T. & Gizon, L. Rotation, differential ro...

work page 2005

[2] [29]

Poteet, C. A. et al. Space-based Coronagraphic Imaging Polarimetry of the TW Hydrae Disk: Shedding New Light on Self-shadowing Effects. Astrophysical Journal 860, 115 (2018). 30. Debes, J. et al. The Surprising Evolution of the Shadow on the TW Hya Disk. Astrophysical Journal 948, 36 (2023). 31. Gravity Collaboration et al. The GRAVITY young stellar objec...

work page 2018

[3] [45]

Cieza, L. A. et al. The Ophiuchus DIsc Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA) - III. The evolution of substructures in massive discs at 3-5 au resolution. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 501, 2934–2953 (2021). 46. Hales, A. S. et al. The Circumstellar Disk and Asymmetric Outflow of the EX Lup Outburst System. Astrophysical Journal 859, 111 (2018...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.04160 2021

[4] [60]

Yu, J. et al. Revised Extinctions and Radii for 1.5 Million Stars Observed by APOGEE, GALAH, and RAVE. Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 264, 41 (2023). 61. Stassun, K. G. et al. The Revised TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List. Astronomical Journal 158, 138 (2019). 62. Abdurro’uf et al. The Seventeenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey...

work page 2023

[5] [76]

Furlan, E. et al. The Spitzer Infrared Spectrograph Survey of T Tauri Stars in Taurus. Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 195, 3 (2011). 77. Csépány, G. et al. Multi-epoch observations with high spatial resolution of multiple T Tauri systems. Astronomy and Astrophysics 603, A74 (2017). 78. Nguyen, D. C., Brandeker, A., van Kerkwijk, M. H. & Jayawardhana, R...

work page 2011

[6] [90]

Nofi, L. A. et al. Projected Rotational Velocities and Fundamental Properties of Low-mass Pre-main-sequence Stars in the Taurus-Auriga Star-forming Region. Astrophysical Journal 911, 138 (2021). 91. Torres, C. A. O. et al. Search for associations containing young stars (SACY). I. Sample and searching method. Astronomy and Astrophysics 460, 695–708 (2006)....

work page 2021

[7] [105]

Vidotto, A. A. et al. Stellar magnetism: empirical trends with age and rotation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 441, 2361–2374 (2014). 106. Hartigan, P., Edwards, S. & Ghandour, L. Disk Accretion and Mass Loss from Young Stars. Astrophysical Journal 452, 736 (1995). 107. Dionatos, O. et al. Consistent dust and gas models for protoplanet...

work page 2014

[8] [120]

Zhang, L. et al. Stellar Parameters and Spectroscopic Properties of TESS Objects Observed in the LAMOST Low- and Medium-resolution Spectral Survey. Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 264, 17 (2023). 121. Artemenko, S. A., Grankin, K. N. & Petrov, P. P. Rotation effects in classical T Tauri stars. Astronomy Letters 38, 783–792 (2012). 122. Kraus, A. L. & Hi...

work page 2023