Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

The origin of R CrA variability: A complex triple system hosting a disk

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read R CrA is a close binary of about 3.0 and 2.3 solar masses whose 65.767-day orbit grazes a circumbinary disk, and its century-long dimming is caused by disk precession driven by an M-dwarf companion, making the system a triple.

desk verdict A plausible and well-tested circumbinary-disk model for R CrA's 65.8-day variability, but the binary masses and the 61-yr triple period are anchored to a luminosity proxy that is not independently validated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07256 v1 pith:HKERP5OB submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.SR

E. Sissa , R. Gratton , J.M. Alcala , S. Desidera , S. Messina , D. Mesa , V. D'Orazi , E. Rigliaco This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords HerbigAeBestarscircumbinarydisksstellarmultiplicitydiskprecessionRCoronaeAustralisprotoplanetaryvariablepre-main-sequence
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

The paper argues that the 65.767-day periodic variability of the Herbig AeBe star R CrA, stable for more than a century, comes from a central binary whose orbit is seen almost edge-on, so that each of the two stars is periodically hidden behind the near rim of a circumbinary disk. It assigns masses of 3.02 and 2.32 solar masses to the two components and attributes the star's long-term fading over the last 120 years to a progressive increase of absorption by that disk. The proposed driver is precession of a slightly inclined disk, induced by an M-dwarf companion found in high-contrast imaging, which would make R CrA a triple system hosting a disk. The case matters because R CrA is one of the nearest Herbig AeBe stars and a bright, observable example of how disk-companion interactions shape what we see from young intermediate-mass stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a photometric model of a two-star system partially hidden by a circumbinary disk: two point sources in circular Keplerian orbit around a common center of mass, viewed at an assumed inclination of 80°, with extinction described by a Gaussian vertical profile $\exp(-(z/h_0)^2)$, where $h_0$ is the half-thickness of the absorbing slab at the binary's semimajor axis. The two unequal maxima map to the times when each component is farthest from the disk's near side, and the fitted value of $h_0$ controls the amplitude and shape of the curve; its secular increase is the specific evidence for precession. An independent scaling step sets the stellar masses: the absolute magnitude in the 4.6 µm band is taken as a proxy for total stellar luminosity through the calibrated relation $M_V = M_{W2} + 4.45$, equivalent to an inner disk that reprocesses 17% of the stellar light, and this converts photometry into luminosity, mass, and age before the binary split.

What would settle it

Measure the system's radial velocity every few days over one 65.767-day orbit. The model predicts periodic variations of order ±70 km/s, with both components contributing near quadrature; finding no such periodic signal, or a velocity curve whose phase does not match the photometric double maximum at the assumed systemic velocity of $-2$ km/s, would rule out the binary interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed optical light curve of R CrA, with two unequal maxima phased to 65.767±0.007 days, is produced by two stars in a circular Keplerian orbit seen just grazing a co-planar circumbinary disk: as each component moves behind the dusty near side of the disk, its light is attenuated. From the ratio of the two maxima the authors derive a luminosity ratio $L_B/L_A = 0.49\pm0.07$ and, via a pre-main-sequence mass-luminosity relation, a mass ratio of $0.77\pm0.05$. Splitting the single-star mass of $3.5\pm0.5\,M_\odot$ in that ratio gives $M_A = 3.02\pm0.43\,M_\odot$ and $M_B = 2.32\pm0.35\,M_\odot$, a total of $5.34\pm0.8\,M_\odot$, and a binary separation of $0.56$ au. Fitted to light-curve segments spanning 120 years, the same model shows the disk's effective vertical height $h_0$ increasing with time, which the paper reads as a slow increase of extinction caused by precession of the outer disk; from a companion mass of $0.25\,M_\odot$ at about 30 au, the analytic precession period is about 1500 yr and the implied orbital period of that companion is $61\pm4$ yr, consistent with the companion's measured radial velocity. R CrA would therefore be a triple system: a close intermediate-mass binary plus a distant low-mass companion, all surrounded by a circumbinary disk.

Load-bearing premise

The whole luminosity and mass scale - the single-star value near 3.5 solar masses, its split into 3.02 and 2.32 solar masses, the 0.56 au separation, and the 61-year companion period - rests on the assumption that the 4.6 µm brightness of any Herbig AeBe star is a universal proxy for that star's total brightness, with always the same 17% of stellar light reprocessed by the inner disk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The central object of R CrA should be listed as a binary with a 65.767-day period, 0.56 au separation, and total mass of 5.34 solar masses, rather than a single Herbig AeBe star, changing its inferred evolutionary state and disk geometry.
  • A radial-velocity campaign across one orbit should reveal variations of order ±70 km/s, with both stellar components contributing near quadrature; the absence of such a signal would falsify the binary interpretation.
  • The secular trend in $h_0$ predicts continued slow fading and a measurable change of the disk's effective inclination over the coming decades, consistent with a precession period of about 1500 yr.
  • Because the model requires grey extinction (the same $h_0$ in $g'r'i'z'$), the circumbinary dust grains must be larger than a few microns, tying the variability to the high $R_V = 4.7$ reddening toward R CrA.
  • The M-dwarf companion's orbit should have a period near 61 yr, so its position angle and radial velocity should continue to change in a way that can be tracked astrometrically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the 4.6 µm luminosity proxy holds for other embedded Herbig AeBe stars, the same two-step method (proxy luminosity, then binary light-curve modeling) could recover masses and multiplicities for objects whose optical photometry is heavily extincted, where single-star mass estimates are usually unreliable.
  • Inference: the binary hypothesis predicts a photocenter wobble of a few milliarcseconds on the 65.767-day orbit; precise epoch astrometry over one cycle could confirm the companion even when spectral lines are too blended to decompose.
  • Inference: if the precession interpretation is correct, the extinction toward R CrA should oscillate on the roughly 61-yr companion period rather than increase monotonically; the current trend could reverse within a few decades, which would distinguish precession from a true thickening of the disk.
  • Inference: systems like R CrA may be common - any Herbig AeBe star with a stable period of tens of days, an unequal double-maximum light curve, and near-constant near-infrared brightness is a candidate grazing circumbinary binary, and the model gives a direct way to search for such objects in long-baseline photometric surveys.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival and new photometric data of the Herbig AeBe star R CrA, spanning more than a century, together with a single-epoch SINFONI spectrum. It derives stellar parameters using a WISE W2-based luminosity proxy with a fixed 17% disk-reprocessed fraction, identifies a stable 65.767-day period in the optical light curve, and interprets the phased light curve as extinction of a close binary by a circumbinary disk viewed at grazing inclination. From this model the authors derive component masses of 3.02 and 2.32 Msun, a total mass of 5.34 Msun, and a 0.56-au separation, and they propose that the secular dimming is caused by precession of a slightly inclined disk driven by an M-dwarf companion, making R CrA a triple system. The single SINFONI radial velocity of the primary is consistent with the model prediction at the observed phase, but no full orbital RV solution is presented.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this would be a rare and valuable case of a young intermediate-mass binary embedded in a circumbinary disk, with a well-documented century-long photometric record linking binary/dust geometry to secular disk precession. The paper's strengths include the assembly of the long photometric baseline, the stability of the 65.767-day period across many datasets, the simple physical model that reproduces the phased curves, and the explicit prediction of ±70 km/s RV variations that can be tested with future spectroscopy. However, the quantitative masses and the triple-system scenario rest on a series of model assumptions (universal W2 reprocessing fraction, adopted inclination of 80 degrees, mass-luminosity scaling) and on one radial-velocity epoch, so the central claim is not yet dynamically secured.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 2, Eq. (1) and Fig. 2] The luminosity of R CrA, and hence every mass quoted in the paper, is derived from the assumption that the WISE W2 flux is a universal proxy for total stellar luminosity with a fixed 17% disk-reprocessed fraction. The agreement between MV(W2) and MV(abs) in Fig. 2 is not an independent validation of this fraction for R CrA, because the dJ disk-contamination correction in Eq. (1) is computed from the same assumed 17% reprocessing. R CrA is also included in the Table 1 sample used to set the MV = MW2 + 4.45 zero point, and the inner disk in a 0.56-au binary or a near-edge-on geometry need not have the same reprocessing fraction as the calibration sample. If the 17% assumption fails for R CrA, the single-star mass 3.5 ± 0.5 Msun, the binary masses 3.02/2.32 Msun, the total mass 5.34 Msun, and the 61-yr companion period all shift, weakening the quantitative anchor of the triple-system interpretation.
  2. [Sect. 5, Modelling the light curve] The model has an explicit degeneracy between the inclination of the system and the disk scale height h0, and the adopted inclination of 80 degrees is acknowledged in the text as arbitrary. The absence of eclipses only excludes inclinations larger than about 86 degrees, so the specific geometry claim that the orbit is seen at an angle grazing the circumbinary disk is not uniquely determined by the photometry. The paper should state what constraints, if any, actually set the inclination and should present h0 and the derived flaring angle as conditional on this assumption rather than as measured parameters.
  3. [Sect. 5, masses; Sect. 6, SINFONI radial velocity] The binary masses are not measured dynamically: they are scaled from the single-star mass using the photometric luminosity ratio LB/LA = 0.49 and a pre-main-sequence mass-luminosity relation, and the single SINFONI radial velocity at phase 0.459 is consistent with the model but provides only one point on the orbit. The quoted uncertainties (MA = 3.02 ± 0.43 Msun, MB = 2.32 ± 0.35 Msun) therefore reflect only the propagation of the luminosity error, not the model uncertainty in the mass-luminosity relation or the unresolved degeneracies in the light-curve model. The paper's own call for future RV monitoring underscores that the binary is not yet confirmed by an orbital solution.
  4. [Sect. 5, final paragraph; Sect. 7] The claimed period of the M-star companion, 61 ± 4 yr, is computed from Kepler's law using the assumed semimajor axis of 27-28 au and the model-dependent total mass of 5.34 Msun, and the statement that this agrees with the short-term oscillations in phase and h0 is circular because the same total mass entered the period calculation. The ~50-yr spacing of the oscillations in Fig. 8 is not established by a periodogram, so the precession/triple-system conclusion should be presented as a tentative scenario until an RV orbit or a measured astrometric period is available. The concluding sentence 'R CrA is then a triple star' overstates the current evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 5, figure cross-reference] The text at the end of Sect. 5 refers to 'the short-term oscillation in phase and h0 values shown in Fig. 7', but Fig. 7 is the schematic view of the extinction model; the secular changes are displayed in Fig. 8. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Sect. 2, Eq. (1)] The quantity dJ is not defined; please state whether it is a magnitude offset, a flux ratio, or a color excess, and give its units.
  3. [Sect. 4.3 / Sect. 5] The statement that the same h0 describes data in all REM bands and hence that the extinction is grey would be more convincing if the per-band fits or a plot of h0 versus wavelength were shown, since h0 is a geometric scale height and its wavelength independence is the key evidence for grey extinction.
  4. [Table 2] The entry 'Temperature log Teff = 3.98 K' has an inappropriate unit: log Teff is dimensionless when Teff is expressed in kelvin. Please remove the 'K' or clarify the notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The W2-based luminosity scale is partly self-validated: the extinction-corrected cross-check shares the same 0.17 reprocessing fraction, so the binary masses and the 61-yr companion period inherit a circular confidence anchor.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 2 (Eq. 1 and Fig. 2); binary masses in Sect. 5; 61-yr period in Sect. 5/7]
    "With this approach we find that MV = MW2 + 4.45 ... the warm disk re-converts in thermal emission a fraction equal to 0.17 of the total energy emitted by the star. ... [dJ] is derived by fitting data obtained by combining a hot black body (of variable temperature) describing the photospheric spectrum with a cooler one (with temperature of 1500 K) that re-process 17% of the radiation."

    The W2-based luminosity (MV W2 = -0.30) uses MV = MW2 + 4.45, which encodes the fitted 0.17 reprocessed fraction. The supposedly independent extinction-based MV abs is derived from V-J colours after correcting J with Eq. (1), computed from the same 0.17 model. The Fig. 2 agreement is thus partly tautological: a wrong 0.17 would move both quantities in a coupled way, so it cannot independently validate the fraction for R CrA. The single-star mass (3.5 Msun), the binary masses (3.02/2.32 Msun), and the 61-yr companion period all scale from this luminosity anchor. The light curve and radial-velocity checks are independent, so circularity is partial.

full rationale

The paper's central new observable is the stable 65.767-day photometric modulation and its century-scale secular evolution; the binary-plus-circumbinary-disk extinction model is a reasonable interpretation of that light curve, and the radial-velocity agreement with the model is an independent consistency check. However, the absolute mass scale of the derived binary is not an independent dynamical measurement: it is anchored to the WISE W2 proxy relation MV = MW2 + 4.45, which assumes a universal 0.17 reprocessed fraction. The extinction-based alternative used to validate the proxy is itself computed with Eq. (1) derived from that same 0.17 assumption, so Fig. 2's good agreement does not independently confirm the luminosity scale for R CrA. The 61-yr M-dwarf period is a Keplerian consequence of the model total mass (5.34 Msun) and the observed companion separation, so its agreement with the vague 50-100-yr oscillation of h0 is a model-consistency check rather than a first-principles prediction. These issues do not make the variability model circular; the light-curve morphology, the 65.767-day period, and the wavelength dependence observed by REM are independent inputs. The circularity is confined to how much independent support the luminosity/mass scale receives, hence a score of 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central model rests on a small number of calibrated parameters (W2 proxy offset, reprocessed fraction, R_V, inclination, h0 per epoch) and several stated geometric assumptions. No new physical entity is proposed beyond the inferred central binary, which has a falsifiable handle in predicted RV variations.

free parameters (7)
  • MV - MW2 zero-point offset = 4.45 mag
    Fitted to the lower envelope of unreddened HAeBe stars in Fig. 1; used to convert W2 absolute magnitude to V-band absolute magnitude.
  • Disk reprocessed fraction = 0.17
    Derived from the 4.45 mag offset; assumed universal across HAeBe stars, representing the fraction of stellar luminosity reprocessed by the inner disk.
  • R_V (total-to-selective extinction ratio) = 4.7
    Adopted after comparing template colors for R CrA; affects the conversion from E(V-J) to A_V and hence the derived luminosity.
  • Inclination of the system = 80 deg
    Arbitrary assumption to break the degeneracy between inclination and disk thickness scale h0; affects h0 and flaring angle but not the binary+disk model's existence.
  • Disk thickness scale h0 = 0.23 to 0.27 (per epoch)
    Fitted to each phased light curve; central parameter of the Gaussian extinction model.
  • Luminosity ratio LB/LA = 0.49 average
    Fitted from the heights of the two maxima in the phased light curves.
  • Phase delay = Small offsets per epoch
    Fitted to account for phase shifts between epochs; interpreted as disk asymmetries or warps.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption W2 luminosity is a universal proxy for total stellar luminosity in HAeBe stars with a fixed reprocessed fraction
    Assumed in Sect. 2 based on inner disk sublimation temperature and similar flaring; validated by comparison with extinction-based luminosities, but remains an assumption.
  • domain assumption Inner disk temperature is fixed at 1500 K and disk SED is similar across objects
    Adopted from Lazareff et al. (2017) and used to derive the dJ correction in Eq. (1).
  • ad hoc to paper The 65.767-day period is the orbital period of a circular binary; the binary and disk are coplanar
    Assumed in Sect. 5; motivated by the long period and RVb/KH 15D analogy, but not dynamically proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Disk extinction has a Gaussian vertical profile exp(-(z/h0)^2)
    Model assumption in Sect. 5; chosen for simplicity and not derived from physical disk models.
  • standard math PMS evolutionary tracks (Pisa group) and Pecaut & Mamajek relations are accurate
    Used in Sect. 2 to derive mass and age from luminosity and effective temperature.
  • domain assumption Systemic radial velocity is -2 km/s from interstellar K I lines
    Adopted in Sect. 6.2 to compare radial velocities; if wrong, the RV agreement would shift.
  • domain assumption Reddening law with R_V=4.7 applies to R CrA
    Used in Sect. 2 to convert E(V-J) to A_V; justified for highly extincted HAeBe stars.
invented entities (1)
  • Central close binary components A and B (M_A=3.02 M_sun, M_B=2.32 M_sun) independent evidence
    purpose: To produce the 65.767-day periodic light curve via partial attenuation by the circumbinary disk; the two maxima correspond to the two components emerging from behind the disk.
    The binary is postulated from the light curve shape and the single SINFONI RV measurement; the paper predicts RV variations of order 70 km/s and GAIA photocenter shifts, which are falsifiable handles not yet observed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The origin of R CrA variability: A complex triple system hosting a disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKERP5OB

@misc{pith2026190807256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The origin of R CrA variability: A complex triple system hosting a disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKERP5OB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07256}
}
abstract

R~CrA is the brightest member of the Coronet star forming region and it is the closest Herbig AeBe star with a spectrum dominated by emission lines. Its luminosity has been monitored since the end of the 19th century, but the origin of its variability, which shows a stable period of $65.767\pm 0.007$~days, is still unknown. We studied photometric and spectroscopic data for this star to investigate the nature of the variability of R~CrA. We exploited the fact that near infrared luminosity of the Herbig AeBe stars is roughly proportional to the total luminosity of the stars to derive the absorption, and then mass and age of R~CrA. In addition, we model the periodic modulation of the light curve as due to partial attenuation of a central binary by a circumbinary disk. This model reproduces very well the observations. We found that the central object in R~CrA is a very young ($1.5\pm 1.5$~Myr), highly absorbed ($A_V=5.47\pm 0.4$~mag) binary; we obtain masses of $M_A=3.02\pm 0.43$~M$_\odot$ and $M_B=2.32\pm 0.35$~M$_\odot$ for the two components. We propose that the secular decrease of the R~CrA apparent luminosity is due to a progressive increase of the disk absorption. This might be related to precession of a slightly inclined disk caused by the recently discovered M-dwarf companion. Thus, R~CrA may be a triple system hosting a disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07256 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between absolute magnitude MV obtained from W2 and from correction for absorption for a sample of Herbig Ae-Be stars. The solid line represents equality between the two determinations – possibly, some light reflected by the circumstellar matter; this is essentially a scaled photospheric spectrum. Above 2 µm, we expect that the emission from the warmest part of the disk is dominant. In the case of R CrA th… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between the absolute magnitude in the V band and in the W2 band for samples of Herbig Ae-Be stars from Hamann & Persson (1992) (filled circles) and Vioque et al. (2018) (open circles); neither of them are corrected for absorption. The solid line is the relation MV = MW2 + 4.45 that we assume to be representative of unreddened objects The SED of HAeBe stars, in particular that of R CrA, is very complex bec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the values derived in this paper and those from Vioque et al. (2018). Upper left panel: absorption in the V band AV ; upper right panel: mass; lower panel: age. The solid line represents identity. mass of these stars are not surprising: the strength of the emis￾sion lines is in fact likely related to accretion that is expected to decline with age and mass. Noteworthy, the higher extinction might b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Generalized Lomb Scargle periodogram for the whole series of AAVSO photometric data for R CrA, once the median for every year has been subtracted; Bottom panel: light curve phased at the peak of the periodogram (65.767 days). Points are the average for each …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Secular variation of AVVSO photometric measurements. Median values for each year are shown. The apparent magnitude of R CrA evolved significantly in the last century [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic view of the extinction model for R CrA. The white and green ellipses represent the apparent orbits of the two components in the plane of the sky. The reddish region represents the area covered by the near side of the disk. When one of the two components is in…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Secular changes of the light curve parameters. Top panel: phase; middle panel: disk extinction height scale h0; lower panel: luminosity ratio between the two components. tations, we assumed a period of P=65.767 d and T0 (phase of principal maximum) at JD=2413751.75. Wh…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: H-band spectra extracted from the SINFONI data for the the star (upper panel) and the M-dwarf companion (lower panel). The ticks mark the wavelength corresponding to the H-lines. et al. (1993) gave a systemic velocity of 5.2 km/s for the Coro￾net cloud with respect to …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phased curves from various data sets. From left to right and top to bottom: AAVSO data from 1896 to 1916; AAVSO data from 1906 to 1926; AAVSO data from 1916 to 1936; AAVSO data from 1926 to 1946; AAVSO data from 1936 to 1956; AAVSO data from 1946 to 1966; AAVSO data f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Phased curves from various data sets. From left to right and top to bottom: AAVSO data from 1976 to 1996; AAVSO data from 1986 to 2006; AAVSO data from 1996 to 2006; ASAS data; ASAS-SN data; SuperWasp data; Herbst data; REM data; Overimposed, the best model light curv…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    M., Manara , C

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

    2017

  4. [4]

    M., Spezzi , L., Chapman , N., et al

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Spezzi , L., Chapman , N., et al. 2008, , 676, 427

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    A., Herbst , W., Hughes , A

    Aronow , R. A., Herbst , W., Hughes , A. M., Wilner , D. J., & Winn , J. N. 2018, , 155, 47

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bellingham , J. G. & Rossano , G. S. 1980, , 85, 555

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    Bessell , M. S. & Brett , J. M. 1988, , 100, 1134

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1902.04080 ]

    Beuzit , J.-L., Vigan , A., Mouillet , D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1902.04080 ]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    A., The , P

    Bibo , E. A., The , P. S., & Dawanas , D. N. 1992, , 260, 293

    1992

  2. [10]

    Blondel , P. F. C. & Djie , H. R. E. T. A. 2006, , 456, 1045

    2006

  3. [11]

    2004, The Messenger, 117, 17

    Bonnet , H., Abuter , R., Baker , A., et al. 2004, The Messenger, 117, 17

    2004

  4. [12]

    W., West , R

    Butters , O. W., West , R. G., Anderson , D. R., et al. 2010, , 520, L10

    2010

  5. [13]

    A., Clayton , G

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

    1989

  6. [14]

    2017, in SF2A-2017: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Chauvin , G., Desidera , S., Lagrange , A.-M., et al. 2017, in SF2A-2017: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reyl \'e , P. Di Matteo , F. Herpin , E. Lagadec , A. Lan c on , Z. Meliani , & F. Royer , 331--335

    2017

  7. [15]

    H., Pecaut , M., Mamajek , E

    Chen , C. H., Pecaut , M., Mamajek , E. E., Su , K. Y. L., & Bitner , M. 2012, , 756, 133

    2012

  8. [16]

    G., Myers , P

    Chen , H., Grenfell , T. G., Myers , P. C. , & Hughes , J. D. 1997, , 478, 295

    1997

  9. [17]

    2003, The Messenger, 113, 40

    Chincarini , G., Zerbi , F., Antonelli , A., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 113, 40

    2003

  10. [18]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246

    2003

  11. [19]

    Cutri , R. M. e. 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2328

    2013

  12. [20]

    Ducati , J. R. 2002, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2237

    2002

  13. [21]

    D., Davies , J

    Eiroa , C., Oudmaijer , R. D., Davies , J. K., et al. 2002, , 384, 1038

    2002

  14. [22]

    2003, in , Vol

    Eisenhauer , F., Abuter , R., Bickert , K., et al. 2003, in , Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood , 1548--1561

    2003

  15. [23]

    R., Oudmaijer , R

    Fairlamb , J. R., Oudmaijer , R. D., Mendigut \' a , I., Ilee , J. D., & van den Ancker , M. E. 2015, , 453, 976

    2015

  16. [24]

    Forbrich , J., Preibisch , T., & Menten , K. M. 2006, , 446, 155

    2006

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  18. [26]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.06910

    Garufi , A., Podio , L., Bacciotti , F., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.06910

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gontcharov , G. A. 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 759

    2006

  20. [28]

    O., Corbally , C

    Gray , R. O., Corbally , C. J., Garrison , R. F., et al. 2006, , 132, 161

    2006

  21. [29]

    & Persson , S

    Hamann , F. & Persson , S. E. 1992, , 82, 285

    1992

  22. [30]

    K., Mattila , K., et al

    Harju , J., Haikala , L. K., Mattila , K., et al. 1993, , 278, 569

    1993

  23. [31]

    Herbig , G. H. 1960, , 4, 337

    1960

  24. [32]

    & Shevchenko , V

    Herbst , W. & Shevchenko , V. S. 1999, , 118, 1043

    1999

  25. [33]

    2004, , 127, 1682

    Hern \'a ndez , J., Calvet , N., Brice \ n o , C., Hartmann , L., & Berlind , P. 2004, , 127, 1682

    2004

  26. [34]

    A., Strom , S

    Hillenbrand , L. A., Strom , S. E., Vrba , F. J., & Keene , J. 1992, , 397, 613

    1992

  27. [35]

    A., Aller , K

    Johnson , J. A., Aller , K. M., Howard , A. W., & Crepp , J. R. 2010, , 122, 905

    2010

  28. [36]

    Kenyon , S. J. & Hartmann , L. 1987, , 323, 714

    1987

  29. [37]

    S., Shappee , B

    Kochanek , C. S., Shappee , B. J., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2017, , 129, 104502

    2017

  30. [38]

    2010, , 403, 1949

    Koen , C., Kilkenny , D., van Wyk , F., & Marang , F. 2010, , 403, 1949

    2010

  31. [39]

    2009, , 508, 787

    Kraus , S., Hofmann , K.-H., Malbet , F., et al. 2009, , 508, 787

    2009

  32. [40]

    2017, , 599, A85

    Lazareff , B., Berger , J.-P., Kluska , J., et al. 2017, , 599, A85

    2017

  33. [41]

    & Bhatt , H

    Manoj , P. & Bhatt , H. C. 2005, , 429, 525

    2005

  34. [42]

    P., Moro-Mart \' n , A., Eiroa , C., et al

    Marshall , J. P., Moro-Mart \' n , A., Eiroa , C., et al. 2014, , 565, A15

    2014

  35. [43]

    2008, , 492, 451

    Meijer , J., Dominik , C., de Koter , A., et al. 2008, , 492, 451

    2008

  36. [44]

    2008, , 177, 551

    Mer \' n , B., J rgensen , J., Spezzi , L., et al. 2008, , 177, 551

    2008

  37. [45]

    2004, , 419, 301

    Mer \' n , B., Montesinos , B., Eiroa , C., et al. 2004, , 419, 301

    2004

  38. [46]

    2019, , 624, A4

    Mesa , D., Bonnefoy , M., Gratton , R., et al. 2019, , 624, A4

    2019

  39. [47]

    2009, , 495, 901

    Montesinos , B., Eiroa , C., Mora , A., & Mer \' n , B. 2009, , 495, 901

    2009

  40. [48]

    & Forbrich , J

    Neuh \"a user , R. & Forbrich , J. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth , 735

    2008

  41. [49]

    L., De Rosa , R

    Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., Macintosh , B., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1904.05358 ]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D., Palacios , J., Eiroa , C., et al

    Oudmaijer , R. D., Palacios , J., Eiroa , C., et al. 2001, , 379, 564

    2001

  43. [51]

    Pecaut , M. J. & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9

    2013

  44. [52]

    R., Grynko , S., Seneviratne , R., & Herbst , W

    Percy , J. R., Grynko , S., Seneviratne , R., & Herbst , W. 2010, , 122, 753

    2010

  45. [53]

    Perez , M. R. & Grady , C. A. 1997, , 82, 407

    1997

  46. [54]

    1997, , 47, 467

    Pojmanski , G. 1997, , 47, 467

    1997

  47. [55]

    2012, , 548, A56

    Rigliaco , E., Natta , A., Testi , L., et al. 2012, , 548, A56

    2012

  48. [56]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, , 788, 48

    2014

  49. [57]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  50. [58]

    2003, , 397, 675

    Takami , M., Bailey , J., & Chrysostomou , A. 2003, , 397, 675

    2003

  51. [59]

    The , P. S. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 62, The Nature and Evolutionary Status of Herbig Ae/Be Stars, ed. P. S. The , M. R. Perez , & E. P. J. van den Heuvel , 23

    1994

  52. [60]

    G., & Degl'Innocenti , S

    Tognelli , E., Prada Moroni , P. G., & Degl'Innocenti , S. 2011, , 533, A109

    2011

  53. [61]

    E., Waters , L

    van der Plas , G., van den Ancker , M. E., Waters , L. B. F. M., & Dominik , C. 2015, , 574, A75

    2015

  54. [62]

    D., Baines , D., Mendigut \' a , I., & P \'e rez-Mart \' nez , R

    Vioque , M., Oudmaijer , R. D., Baines , D., Mendigut \' a , I., & P \'e rez-Mart \' nez , R. 2018, , 620, A128

    2018

  55. [63]

    Waelkens , C., Lamers , H. J. G. L. M., Waters , L. B. F. M., et al. 1991, , 242, 433

    1991

  56. [64]

    Waelkens , C., Van Winckel , H., Waters , L. B. F. M., & Bakker , E. J. 1996, , 314, L17

    1996

  57. [65]

    & K \"u rster , M

    Zechmeister , M. & K \"u rster , M. 2009, , 496, 577

    2009

  58. [66]

    2019, , 483, 4221

    Zhu , Z. 2019, , 483, 4221

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.