Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

ABYSS III: Observing accretion activity in young stars through empirical veiling measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Empirical veiling in Classical T Tauri stars is wavelength-dependent, with a UV rise, a mid-optical peak, and a red-end rise, and it correlates with H-alpha emission strength.

desk verdict First large-sample empirical veiling–wavelength profiles for CTTSs, worth reviewing, but the WTTS zero-point subtraction is load-bearing and needs stronger justification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09826 v1 pith:BY2VYWWQ submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.SR

Serat Saad , Marina Kounkel , Keivan G. Stassun , A. Roman-Lopes , Carlos G. Román-Zúñiga , Jinyoung Serena Kim , Jonathan C. Tan , R. Lopez-Valdivia This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellaraccretionveilingClassicalTTauristarswavelengthdependenceH-alphaemissionpre-main-sequencePHOENIXsyntheticspectraSDSS-VBOSS
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 tries to establish that veiling—the excess continuum emission that accretion adds to a young star's photospheric spectrum—is not a single constant but a structured function of wavelength. Analyzing roughly 1,800 Classical T Tauri stars observed by the BOSS spectrograph, the authors measure empirical veiling profiles and find three recurring features: a rise toward the ultraviolet from 3700 Å, a mid-optical peak near 6000–7000 Å, and a red-end rise beyond 8500 Å. They also claim that veiling tracks H-alpha equivalent width, with stronger H-alpha emission corresponding to higher veiling, while age and effective temperature do not strongly organize accretion activity. If the claim holds, veiling becomes a practical diagnostic of where and how accretion energy is released, and the common assumption of wavelength-independent veiling in accretion studies should be abandoned.

What carries the argument

Veiling is measured empirically by comparing each extinction-corrected BOSS spectrum with a PHOENIX synthetic template: the spectrum is divided into 1000 Å wavelength bins stepped by 100 Å, and a least-squares fit solves for the additive excess $r_{\lambda}$ that best reproduces the observed line depths under the definition $F_{\mathrm{source},\lambda} = F_{\mathrm{phot},\lambda} + r_{\lambda}/(1+r_{\lambda})$. Because weak-line T Tauri stars should have no accretion veiling, their measured veiling is treated as a systematic zero point, binned in effective temperature, and subtracted from the Classical T Tauri veiling. An injection-recovery test, in which continuum of known strength is added to WTTS spectra and recovered through the same pipeline, is used to validate that the measurement procedure returns the veiling that was put in.

What would settle it

Measure veiling for the same Classical T Tauri stars on the same nights with high-resolution optical spectra fitted by a full model that includes spots, and compare the inferred $r_{\lambda}$ profile with the BOSS-derived profile; if the ultraviolet rise, the 6000–7000 Å peak, or the red-end rise does not reproduce, the empirical profile is dominated by template or spot systematics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that empirical veiling in Classical T Tauri stars varies with wavelength in a reproducible three-feature pattern across 3600–10400 Å, visible in the sample-averaged profiles and stable across temperature bins. The ultraviolet rise is attributed to small, very hot spots where accretion columns shock onto the stellar surface; the stronger mid-optical peak near 6000–7000 Å is attributed to larger, cooler emitting regions; and the red-end rise from 8500 to 10000 Å is tentatively attributed to photospheric spots or noise rather than to accretion. The paper further claims that veiling increases monotonically with H-alpha emission strength, that this trend holds across effective temperature ranges, and that veiling shows no clear dependence on age because disk dissipation is stochastic.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that veiling measured in weak-line T Tauri stars is purely systematic and identical for Classical and weak-line T Tauri stars of the same effective temperature, so subtracting it removes bias rather than real accretion-related differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Veiling must be treated as wavelength dependent in Classical T Tauri star studies; a single scaling factor hides the three-feature structure and will bias any derived photospheric parameters.
  • H-alpha equivalent width is a working proxy for accretion strength: more negative equivalent widths correspond to higher veiling across the sampled effective temperature ranges.
  • The mid-optical veiling peak indicates emission from large, relatively cool regions on the stellar surface, while the ultraviolet rise indicates compact, hot accretion shock spots nested within them.
  • The red-end veiling rise is most likely not accretion related and should not be used as an accretion tracer in this wavelength range.
  • Age alone does not predict veiling; disk dissipation is probabilistic, so some older stars keep strong accretion while some young stars are already quiescent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the measured profile is real, fitting Classical T Tauri spectra with constant veiling will systematically bias effective temperature and surface gravity estimates; a two-component hot-plus-cool spot veiling law would likely improve parameter recovery.
  • Editorial inference: the red-end veiling rise implies that mass accretion rates derived from red or near-infrared veiling alone could be overestimated, a prediction that independent near-infrared veiling measurements could test.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test of the WTTS subtraction assumption would be to observe spotted weak-line T Tauri stars over a full rotation; if their systematic veiling changes with spot coverage, the subtraction can distort the accreting-star profiles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents empirical veiling measurements for ~1800 classical T Tauri stars (CTTSs) and ~35,000 weak-line T Tauri stars (WTTSs) using SDSS-V/BOSS spectra. The authors fit PHOENIX synthetic spectra to extinction-corrected spectra in 1000 Å-wide bins stepped by 100 Å to derive wavelength-dependent veiling, then subtract the average WTTS veiling per Teff bin as a systematic zero-point correction. They report three characteristic features in the corrected CTTS veiling (a blue rise from 3700 Å, a mid-optical peak near 6000–7000 Å, and a red rise from 8500 Å), a correlation between veiling and Hα equivalent width, no strong Teff dependence, and no clear age trend. The paper also compares two sources with previous studies (Ingleby et al. 2013; ULLYSES) and tests the pipeline by injecting artificial veiling into WTTS spectra.

Significance. If the measured profiles are accurate, this is a valuable large-sample empirical characterization of wavelength-dependent veiling in CTTSs, directly relevant to accretion shock models. The injection-recovery test (Figure 7) provides a useful sanity check on the pipeline, and the homogeneous treatment of a large sample is a strength. However, the central result depends on the assumption that WTTS veiling is purely systematic and transferable to CTTSs, which is not demonstrated; and the significance of the reported spectral features is not quantifiable from the presented figures because uncertainties are not propagated into the mean veiling profiles.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 7] The zero-point subtraction assumes that the WTTS veiling is entirely systematic (spots, template mismatch, continuum errors) and identical for CTTSs and WTTSs at the same Teff. The manuscript itself attributes WTTS veiling partly to spots, and later attributes the red-end rise in CTTSs to photospheric spots (Section 5.1). If spot properties or template mismatch differ between accreting and non-accreting stars, the subtraction will bias the corrected veiling and the inferred wavelength dependence. The injection-recovery test only shows that known continuum added to WTTS spectra is recovered; it does not test whether the WTTS zero-point applies to CTTSs. Please provide additional validation that the systematic component is the same for both populations, or propagate this uncertainty into the corrected veiling values and the final results.
  2. [Figures 9 and 10] The average veiling profiles are plotted without any propagated uncertainties or confidence bands, despite the text stating that weighted means were computed using the veiling uncertainties as weights. Moreover, the wavelength bins are 1000 Å wide with 100 Å steps, so adjacent measurements are strongly correlated. Without error bars and an account of bin-to-bin correlation, the significance of the 'three distinct peaks' (the blue rise, mid-optical peak, and red rise) cannot be assessed. Please include uncertainties on the mean profiles and quantify the correlation, or state the effective number of independent wavelength points.
  3. [Section 5.3 and Conclusions] The Results and Discussion (Section 5.3) state that veiling shows no clear dependence on Teff, yet the Conclusions say 'we found veiling to be related to both Hα eqw and Teff' and 'some of the features in veiling were found to be more prominent in some Teff ranges.' These statements are inconsistent. Please reconcile the summary with the analysis and clarify which Teff trends are actually supported by the data shown in Figures 9 and 10.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (1)] Equation (1) appears malformed: 'Fsource,λ = Fphot,λ + rλ (1 + rλ)' is missing a fraction or operator, making it impossible to read the intended veiling definition. Please check the typesetting.
  2. [Section 3.2] The description of the wavelength binning says '1000 Å wide with advancing in steps of 100 Å'; please state explicitly how many independent wavelength measurements result from this heavily overlapping binning and why this choice was made rather than non-overlapping bins.
  3. [Figure captions] Several figure captions contain garbled symbols (e.g., 'H® eqw', 'Te®', 'Wavelength(ºA)') and should be corrected in the final version.
  4. [Conclusions, Section 4.2] The statement that 'the peak of the veiling in mid-optical region shifts towards redder wavelengths for lower eqw values' appears only in the Conclusions; if this is a result, it should be shown in a figure or quantified in Section 4.2.
  5. [Section 4.1] The comparison with 'Pittman et al. 2025, in prep' is cited as a private communication; please update this to a public reference if available, or remove it if the comparison cannot be verified by readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; veiling is measured independently of Hα, and the WTTS subtraction is an empirical zero-point calibration rather than a definitional or self-citational reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Veiling is measured bin-by-bin by least-squares matching of extinction-corrected BOSS spectra to PHOENIX templates (Section 3.2), with no parameter fitted to the Hα equivalent width or to the headline wavelength features. The Hα-veiling correlation (Section 4.2, Figure 9) is therefore not a fit renamed as a prediction; Hα eqw comes from a separate line measurement, and the sample is not constructed so that veiling and Hα are algebraically linked. The WTTS subtraction (Section 3.3) is a zero-point calibration: the authors explicitly treat WTTS veiling as systematics from spots and template mismatch, and their injection-recovery test (Figure 7) checks the pipeline. Even if the assumption that WTTS systematics transfer to CTTSs is physically uncertain, that is a bias and validity concern, not circularity, because the corrected CTTS profile is not equal to the subtracted quantity by construction. Self-citations to Saad et al. (2024), Kounkel et al. (2023), Sizemore et al. (2024), and McBride et al. (2021) are tool citations for sample identification, stellar parameters, and ages; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as proof of the veiling result. The paper also flags its own limitations, including noisier spectra at long wavelengths (Section 5.1) and ambiguity in non-contemporaneous comparisons (Section 4.1); these are acknowledged caveats, not circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The veiling measurements rest on PHOENIX template fidelity, the G23 extinction law, and the assumption that WTTS veiling is purely systematic. The only per-source fitted parameter is extinction AV. The paper introduces no new physical entities; its physical interpretations use existing concepts of accretion hotspots and starspots.

free parameters (1)
  • Extinction AV per source = 0.5 to 3.0 mag depending on source
    AV is fitted for each spectrum by matching to PHOENIX templates under the G23 extinction model; the veiling profile is computed on dereddened spectra, so the central measurement depends on this per-source fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PHOENIX synthetic spectra at [Fe/H]=0 and [alpha/Fe]=0 accurately represent the photospheres of the young stars in the sample.
    Used as templates for veiling extraction; a mismatch would bias veiling estimates. Section 3.
  • domain assumption The G23 extinction model correctly describes the wavelength dependence of extinction toward each source.
    Used to deredden spectra before veiling fitting; an incorrect extinction law would produce false wavelength-dependent veiling. Section 3.1.
  • ad hoc to paper WTTS veiling is entirely systematic and can be subtracted from CTTS veiling at the same Teff.
    This correction is central to the reported 'corrected veiling' profiles; no test of whether WTTS and CTTS systematics are identical is provided. Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Halpha equivalent width is a reliable tracer of accretion activity and the CTTS/WTTS classification is accurate.
    The sample selection and the correlation analysis rely on Halpha eqw from LINEFOREST. Section 2.
  • domain assumption Sagitta-derived ages are accurate enough to detect a veiling-age trend if one exists.
    Ages from Sagitta are used to bin veiling by age; large age uncertainties could hide a real trend. Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ABYSS III: Observing accretion activity in young stars through empirical veiling measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BY2VYWWQ

@misc{pith2026250609826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ABYSS III: Observing accretion activity in young stars through empirical veiling measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BY2VYWWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09826}
}
abstract

Stellar accretion plays an important role in the early stages of stellar evolution, particularly in Classical T Tauri Stars (CTTSs). Accretion of a CTTS can be related to different physical parameters such as effective temperature (T$_{\text{eff}}$), age, abundance of hydrogen, etc. We can infer how accretion works by examining it across different wavelength regions. Accretion can be traced using veiling, a parameter that measures how excess emission from accretion affects the photospheric spectrum of CTTS. In this study, we selected a sample of CTTSs, Weak-line T Tauri Stars (WTTSs), and field stars, observed as a part of the SDSS-V Milky Way Mapper using the BOSS spectrograph. We measured veiling for CTTSs through comparing them to theoretical spectra. Next, we assessed the effect of veiling on different stellar properties, including wavelength, H$\alpha$ emission, effective temperature, and age. We investigated how veiling changes with these parameters and what the physical reasons behind the changes can be. Finally, we evaluated how our findings align with existing accretion shock models. This study highlights veiling as a critical diagnostic tool for understanding accretion in young stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plotted Hα eqw vs Teff of our sample color coded by mean veiling for each of the sources. To measure extinction and veiling in the spectra it is necessary to compare the spectrum of CTTS with another stellar spectrum that is not affected by either extinction or the accretion stream. There are two possible methods in extracting veil￾ing - either 1) comparing the continuum level of the model and the observations, or 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. On-sky distribution of identified YSO candidates with the calculated extinction parameter (AV ). ¡2000 ¡1000 0 1000 2000 Distance in x direction (pc) ¡2000 ¡1000 0 1000 2000 D i s t a n c e i n y d i r e c t i o n ( p c ) ¡0:5 0 0:5 1:0 1:5 2:0 2:5 3:0 A v [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the sources in space color coded by the extinction parameter (Av). log g, and then performs SED fitting. The SED fitting process identifies the longest wavelength that is not af￾fected by IR excess for each of the targeted sources by comparing the real data with a model. Thus, it is pos￾sible to determine the wavelength range from which the spectrum is affected by the IR excess. Veiling measure￾ments… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral correction of one of the sources. The observed spectra (in blue), extinction corrected spectra (in purple), and veiling + extinction corrected spectra (in green) has been plotted against the synthetic spectra model (in red). The veiling + extinction corrected …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corrected Veiling vs Wavelength plot for a total 45 CTTSs among 1800+ sample which are in a very narrow (3330 K to 3450 K) Teff range color coded by the Hα eqw be￾fore binning them. Each line here depicts one CTTS source. All these veiling values have been corrected by…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Veiling of CTTSs (in blue) and WTTSs (in red) and Non YSOs (in yellow) as a function of wavelength for different Teff ranges. Each of the lines represent a bin width of 100K Teff . We see WTTSs and Non YSOSs veiling due to spots and other factors of synthetic spectra. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of of veiling recovery of artificially veiled WTTS spectra for one of the sources. We added con￾stant excess continuum corresponding to veiling values of r = 1, 2, and 3 relative to the median flux to representative WTTS spectra and processed them through ou…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Matched sources from Ingleby et al. (2013). The scatter plot represents the veiling data from our study, the orange line represents the veiling data from ULLYSES spectra in Pittman et al. (2025, in prep), and the blue line represents the recreation of the best-fit line…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corrected Veiling of CTTSs color coded by the difference between their Hα equivalent width and the CTTSs cutoff for different Teff ranges. accretion shocks, leading to lower veiling values in older stars. Conversely, if the accretion rate remains high or increases with…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corrected Veiling of CTTSs color coded by age for different Teff ranges. bins. Each age bin covered a range of 0.1 dex, and we considered ages from 1 to 30 Myr. For each age bin, we calculated the average veiling by taking the weighted mean veiling value at each wavel…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Manara, C

    Alcal´ a, J. M., Manara, C. F., Natta, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629929 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629929 2017

  2. [2]

    1990, ApJ, 363, 654, doi: 10.1086/169374

    Basri, G., & Batalha, C. 1990, ApJ, 363, 654, doi: 10.1086/169374

    doi:10.1086/169374 1990

  3. [3]

    1989, ARA&A, 27, 351, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002031 12

    Bertout, C. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 351, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002031 12

    work page arXiv 1989

  4. [4]

    2008, A&A, 478, 155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    Bouvier, J. 2008, A&A, 478, 155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078328 2008

  5. [5]

    S., & Vaughan, A

    Bowen, I. S., & Vaughan, A. H., J. 1973, ApOpt, 12, 1430, doi: 10.1364/AO.12.001430 Brice˜ no, C., Calvet, N., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf79b

    doi:10.1364/ao.12.001430 1973

  6. [6]

    1998, ApJ, 509, 802, doi: 10.1086/306527

    Calvet, N., & Gullbring, E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 802, doi: 10.1086/306527

    doi:10.1086/306527 1998

  7. [7]

    C., Herczeg, G

    Espaillat, C. C., Herczeg, G. J., Thanathibodee, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac479d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac479d 2022

  8. [8]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    Fischer, W. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    F., Walter, F

    Gahm, G. F., Walter, F. M., Stempels, H. C., Petrov, P. P., & Herczeg, G. J. 2008, A&A, 482, L35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809488

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    Gordon, K. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    1998, ApJ, 492, 323, doi: 10.1086/305032

    Gullbring, E., Hartmann, L., Brice˜ no, C., & Calvet, N. 1998, ApJ, 492, 323, doi: 10.1086/305032

    1998 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    1994, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., & Ghandour, L. 1994, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 185, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 48.15

    1994

  7. [15]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

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

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Chen, Y., Donati, J.-F., et al

    Herczeg, G. J., Chen, Y., Donati, J.-F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf468

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, ApJ, 790, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/47

    Ingleby, L., Calvet, N., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/47

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    Ingleby, L., Calvet, N., Herczeg, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Jackson, R

    Jeffries, R. D., Jackson, R. J., Franciosini, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2458

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Joy, A. H. 1949, ApJ, 110, 424

    1949

  14. [22]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dae

    Kidder, B., Mace, G., L´ opez-Valdivia, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dae

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, mkounkel/SEDFit: 0.3, 0.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076501

    Kounkel, M. 2023, mkounkel/SEDFit: 0.3, 0.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076501

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, ApJS, 266, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc106

    Kounkel, M., Zari, E., Covey, K., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc106

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, LineForest, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10279307

    Kounkel, M., Saad, S., Lane, K., et al. 2023, LineForest, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10279307

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al

    Manara, C. F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323318

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, AJ, 162, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2432

    Hutchinson, B. 2021, AJ, 162, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2432

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Morbidelli, A., & Raymond, S. N. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 121, 1962, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005088

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    2003, ApJ, 592, 266, doi: 10.1086/375704

    Hartmann, L. 2003, ApJ, 592, 266, doi: 10.1086/375704

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    V., Espaillat, C

    Pittman, C. V., Espaillat, C. C., Robinson, C. E., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac898d

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    E., & Espaillat, C

    Robinson, C. E., & Espaillat, C. C. 2019, ApJ, 874, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d8d

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Lovelace, R. V. E. 2002, ApJ, 578, 420, doi: 10.1086/342464

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, AJ, 167, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2001

    Saad, S., Lane, K., Kounkel, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2001

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    1994, ApJ, 429, 781, doi: 10.1086/174363

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

    1994 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, hutchresearch/BOSSNet: BOSS Net v1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10453135

    Sizemore, L. 2024, hutchresearch/BOSSNet: BOSS Net v1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10453135

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv preprint, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.05184

    Sizemore, L., Llanes, D., Kounkel, M., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.05184

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Ray, T. P. 2022, A&A, 668, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244315

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Edwards, S., & Skrutskie, M

    Strom, S. E., Edwards, S., & Skrutskie, M. F. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E. H. Levy & J. I. Lunine, 837

    1993

  32. [40]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  33. [41]

    J., & Basri, G

    White, R. J., & Basri, G. 2003, ApJ, 582, 1109, doi: 10.1086/344673

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    Wilson, T. J. G., Matt, S., Harries, T. J., & Herczeg, G. J. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1397

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.