pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30134 · v1 · pith:NONZOM44new · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA

Far-ultraviolet flux distribution in Orion and its relation to stellar accretion

Rossella Anania , Andrew J. Winter , Miguel Vioque , Giovanni P. Rosotti , Giacomo Beccari , Giuseppe Lodato , Lorenzo A. Malanga , Lara Piscarreta
show 3 more authors
Alice Somigliana Leonardo Testi Claudia Toci
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 04:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords Orionfar-ultravioletexternal photoevaporationaccretion discsprotoplanetary discsHa emissionGaia XP spectrastellar accretion
0
0 comments X

The pith

External FUV radiation from massive stars in Orion causes faster depletion of accretion discs around young stars.

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

The authors map far-ultraviolet fluxes across a large sample of stars in the Orion star-forming region by using Gaia parallaxes and sub-cluster geometry to estimate distances from OBA stars. They find that the fraction of stars showing signs of accretion, traced by Ha emission, falls off more quickly with age in areas exposed to higher FUV fluxes. This pattern matches the predictions of disc evolution models that include external photoevaporation. The work supplies a catalog of FUV values for about 8600 stars to support further studies of how environment shapes disc lifetimes and planet formation.

Core claim

By computing FUV fluxes at stellar positions in Orion with statistical correction for parallax uncertainties and 2D sub-cluster geometry for 3D separations, the study shows that Gaia-inferred accretion luminosities decrease with age and that the Ha detection fraction declines more rapidly in strongly irradiated regions, broadly consistent with population synthesis models of viscous discs undergoing external photoevaporation.

What carries the argument

The 2D sub-cluster geometry combined with statistical parallax correction to compute reliable 3D separations from OBA stars and thus FUV fluxes at each star's position.

If this is right

  • Most stars in Orion experience weak FUV irradiation below 100 G0, with 35% intermediate and 5% above 10,000 G0.
  • Accretion luminosity inferred from Gaia XP spectra decreases with stellar age.
  • The decline in Ha-emitting accreting stars is steeper in high-FUV environments.
  • The observations align with models incorporating external photoevaporation.
  • A public table of FUV fluxes enables targeted observations across flux ranges from 1 to 10^5 G0.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed, external photoevaporation would play a significant role in setting disc lifetimes even in moderately dense regions like Orion.
  • Future 3D kinematic data could test whether the assumed geometry accurately places stars relative to the irradiating sources.
  • The catalog could be used to correlate FUV exposure with other disc properties like size or mass from ALMA surveys.

Load-bearing premise

That the estimated 3D distances from OBA stars accurately reflect the true FUV exposure at each star, allowing the observed difference in accretion decline rates to be attributed to photoevaporation.

What would settle it

High-precision 3D position measurements that show no difference in the rate of Ha detection decline between stars at different computed FUV levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30134 by Alice Somigliana, Andrew J. Winter, Claudia Toci, Giacomo Beccari, Giovanni P. Rosotti, Giuseppe Lodato, Lara Piscarreta, Leonardo Testi, Lorenzo A. Malanga, Miguel Vioque, Rossella Anania.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: The main 22 Orion sub-clusters obtained using the OPTICS clustering algorithm (Sec. 2.1). The sub-clusters are ordered in the colorbar from bottom to top by increasing average age, from < 1 Myr to > 6 Myr. Right panel: Median FUV flux at the position of the Orion members identified in this work. The full table of FUV flux values, including uncertainties on the FUV flux, is available at the CDS … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of the median FUV flux for the stellar sample iden￾tified in this work in the Orion sub-clusters. x-axis: Commonly known name of the sub-clusters identified in this work, ordered by age from left to right. Notes: We isolated here the ONC core (∼3 pc radius from θ 1C) and we included the FUV fluxes for the NGC1977 sources investigated in Anania et al. (2025b). Nevertheless, we emphasize that NG… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The markers indicate the median accretion luminosity Lacc in each bin of FUV flux as derived from the Orion objects in Delfini et al. (2025) (black dots) and predicted by the disc population synthesis model where external photoevaporation acts from the beginning (blue diamonds) and after 1 Myr to mimic the effect of extinction (orange squares). The vertical error bars extend from the 16th to the 84th perce… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection fraction of Lacc per bin FUV flux and increasing age from the left to the right panel. Black dots refer to the observations, while blue diamonds and orange squares are the results of the population synthesis model where external photoevaporation is included from the beginning of the evolution and after 1 Myr (to mimic the effect of extinction), respectively. The vertical error bars are the uncert… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Orion is the closest region hosting active star formation and young OBA stars. Computing far-ultraviolet (FUV) fluxes at its stars is essential to connect stellar and protoplanetary disc properties to the environment. We (1) accurately estimated the FUV flux at a large sample of stars in Orion by statistically accounting for the uncertainty in parallax measurements, and (2) investigated the relation between stellar accretion and external FUV flux by comparing observations and disc evolution models. We selected a large stellar population in Orion, assigned sub-cluster memberships and used 2D dimensional sub-cluster geometry to infer 3D separations from OBA stars and compute the FUV flux at stellar positions. We studied the accretion luminosities Lacc inferred from Ha emission in Gaia XP spectra of Orion sources and determined their detection fraction as a function of age and FUV flux. We compared the results with population synthesis models of viscous discs experiencing external photoevaporation. We provided a publicly available table of FUV fluxes at ~8600 stars in Orion. Most of the stellar population is weakly irradiated <10^{2} G0, ~35% is intermediately irradiated 10^{2}-10^{4} G0, and ~5% has FUV fluxes >10^{4} G0. Gaia-based Lacc decreases with age, and Ha detection fraction declines more rapidly in regions with strong FUV fluxes than in regions exposed to weaker FUV fluxes, broadly consistent with the model. This may suggest that external photoevaporation efficiently depletes strongly FUV-irradiated accretion discs, but it is not sufficient to reliably confirm this conclusion. The provided tools for computing FUV fluxes at Orion stars will be essential for future observations aimed at assessing the role of external photoevaporation on discs. We encourage measurements of stellar and disc properties in Orion, covering FUV fluxes 1-10^5 G0.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript estimates FUV fluxes at ~8600 Orion stars by assigning sub-cluster memberships and inferring 3D separations from OBA stars via 2D projected geometry plus statistical parallax corrections. It derives Lacc from Hα in Gaia XP spectra, reports that Lacc decreases with age, and finds that the Hα detection fraction declines more rapidly in high-FUV regions than in low-FUV regions. These trends are compared to population-synthesis models of viscous discs with external photoevaporation and described as broadly consistent, although the authors explicitly state that the data are insufficient to confirm the conclusion. A public table of FUV fluxes is released.

Significance. If the FUV assignments prove robust, the work supplies a valuable public resource for environmental studies of discs in Orion and supplies tentative observational support for external photoevaporation accelerating disc dispersal. The public flux table is a clear strength that will enable future tests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (sub-cluster geometry and 3D separation inference)] The central claim that Hα detection declines more rapidly at high FUV rests on the accuracy of the 1/r² FUV fluxes. The method uses 2D sub-cluster geometry plus statistical parallax to recover 3D separations; because flux scales as 1/r², even modest line-of-sight errors (especially for stars projected near OBA stars) can produce large flux misassignments. The manuscript should quantify this uncertainty (e.g., via Monte-Carlo realisations of parallax and depth distributions) and demonstrate that the differential decline rate survives the resulting flux errors.
  2. [Results (model comparison)] The comparison to disc-evolution models is described only as 'broadly consistent.' The paper should specify which quantitative model predictions (e.g., the expected difference in disc lifetime or Hα fraction between FUV bins) are being tested and report a statistical measure of agreement rather than a qualitative statement, given the authors' own caveat that the data are insufficient to confirm the conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results (Hα detection fraction)] Clarify the exact definition of 'detection fraction' (e.g., signal-to-noise threshold on Hα) and any age binning choices in the relevant results section.
  2. [Figures] Add error bars or shaded uncertainty regions to the FUV flux histograms and age trends to reflect the statistical parallax uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the analysis and presentation while preserving the manuscript's caveats.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (sub-cluster geometry and 3D separation inference)] The central claim that Hα detection declines more rapidly at high FUV rests on the accuracy of the 1/r² FUV fluxes. The method uses 2D sub-cluster geometry plus statistical parallax to recover 3D separations; because flux scales as 1/r², even modest line-of-sight errors (especially for stars projected near OBA stars) can produce large flux misassignments. The manuscript should quantify this uncertainty (e.g., via Monte-Carlo realisations of parallax and depth distributions) and demonstrate that the differential decline rate survives the resulting flux errors.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on rigorous uncertainty quantification for the FUV flux assignments. The manuscript already incorporates statistical parallax corrections to account for depth uncertainties in the 3D separation inference. To directly respond to this comment, we will add a dedicated Monte-Carlo analysis in the revised methods and results sections. This will consist of multiple realizations drawing from the parallax error distributions and assumed depth distributions within sub-clusters, propagating these to FUV flux uncertainties, and verifying that the observed faster decline in Hα detection fraction for high-FUV regions remains significant within the derived error envelopes. We expect this addition to confirm the robustness of the differential trend. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (model comparison)] The comparison to disc-evolution models is described only as 'broadly consistent.' The paper should specify which quantitative model predictions (e.g., the expected difference in disc lifetime or Hα fraction between FUV bins) are being tested and report a statistical measure of agreement rather than a qualitative statement, given the authors' own caveat that the data are insufficient to confirm the conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that greater specificity in the model comparison would enhance the manuscript. In the revision, we will explicitly identify the quantitative predictions from the viscous disc population-synthesis models (including expected differences in Hα detection fractions between low- and high-FUV bins at given ages) and add a statistical measure of agreement, such as a chi-squared goodness-of-fit or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between the binned observational fractions and the model outputs. These will be presented while retaining our original statement that the data remain insufficient for firm confirmation of external photoevaporation as the driver. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Gaia-derived FUV fluxes and Ha trends compared to external models without fitting or self-referential definitions

full rationale

The paper computes FUV fluxes from Gaia parallaxes, 2D sub-cluster geometry, and statistical corrections, then measures Lacc and Ha detection fractions directly from Gaia XP spectra as functions of age and computed FUV. These observed trends are compared to population synthesis models from prior independent work. No equation or step defines a quantity in terms of itself, renames a fit as a prediction, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose result is unverified outside this dataset. The central claim remains an empirical comparison whose outcome is not forced by construction from the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides insufficient detail to enumerate specific free parameters or invented entities; the work rests on standard astrometric and disk-evolution assumptions whose precise numerical values are not stated here.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Parallax measurements combined with 2D sub-cluster geometry can be statistically corrected to yield reliable 3D separations from OBA stars
    Invoked to compute FUV fluxes at stellar positions
  • domain assumption Ha emission in Gaia XP spectra traces stellar accretion luminosity
    Used to measure Lacc and detection fraction

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5933 in / 1493 out tokens · 56920 ms · 2026-06-30T04:08:38.733220+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander, R. D. & Armitage, P. J. 2006, ApJ, 639, L83

    2006

  2. [2]

    Ali, A. A. & Harries, T. J. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4890

    2019

  3. [3]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astro- physics, 8, 54

    Allen, M., Anania, R., Andersen, M., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astro- physics, 8, 54

    2025

  4. [4]

    J., Rosotti, G., et al

    Anania, R., Winter, A. J., Rosotti, G., et al. 2025b, A&A, 695, A74 André, P., Men’shchikov, A., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L102

    2010

  5. [5]

    M., Kriegel, H.-P., & Sander, J

    Ankerst, M., Breunig, M. M., Kriegel, H.-P., & Sander, J. 1999, in Interna- tional Conference on Management of Data and Symposium on Principles of Database Systems Philadelphia (SIGMOD/PODS 1999), PA, USA - May 31 - June 03, 1999, ed. A. Delis, C. Faloutsos, & S. Ghandeharizadeh (New York, NY , USA: ACM), 49–60

    1999

  6. [6]

    J., Williams, J

    Ansdell, M., Haworth, T. J., Williams, J. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 248

    2020

  7. [7]

    P., Manara, C

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Manara, C. F., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 240

    2017

  8. [8]

    L., Maucó, K., Manara, C

    Aru, M. L., Maucó, K., Manara, C. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A93

    2024

  9. [9]

    2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, V olume I, ed

    Bally, J. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, V olume I, ed. B. Reipurth, V ol. 4, 459

    2008

  10. [10]

    G., Boffin, H

    Beccari, G., Petr-Gotzens, M. G., Boffin, H. M. J., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A22 Berné, O., Habart, E., Peeters, E., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 988

    2017

  11. [11]

    D., Emig, K

    Boyden, R. D., Emig, K. L., Ballering, N. P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 81 Briceño, C., Calvet, N., Hernández, J., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 907

    2025

  12. [12]

    Caballero, J. A. & Solano, E. 2008, A&A, 485, 931

    2008

  13. [13]

    2005, AJ, 129, 935

    Calvet, N., Briceño, C., Hernández, J., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 935

    2005

  14. [14]

    & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, A&A, 419, 725

    2004

  15. [15]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    2016

  16. [16]

    Clarke, C. J. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1350

    2007

  17. [17]

    Coleman, G. A. L., Mroueh, J. K., & Haworth, T. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7588

    2024

  18. [18]

    L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al

    Creevey, O. L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A26

    2023

  19. [19]

    & Smith, V

    Cunha, K. & Smith, V . V . 1996, A&A, 309, 892 Da Rio, N., Robberto, M., Hillenbrand, L. A., Henning, T., & Stassun, K. G. 2012, ApJ, 748, 14 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A2 De Marchi, G., Panagia, N., & Romaniello, M. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1

    1996

  20. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04699

    Delfini, L., Vioque, M., Ribas, Á., & Hodgkin, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04699

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Dolan, C. J. & Mathieu, R. D. 2001, AJ, 121, 2124

    2001

  22. [22]

    A., Arce, H

    Eisner, J. A., Arce, H. G., Ballering, N. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 77

    2018

  23. [23]

    & Adams, F

    Fatuzzo, M. & Adams, F. C. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1361

    2008

  24. [24]

    2023, A&A, 674, A28

    Fouesneau, M., Frémat, Y ., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A28

    2023

  25. [25]

    2025, A&A, 695, A78

    Frediani, J., De Simone, M., Testi, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A78

    2025

  26. [26]

    Gray, R. O. & Corbally, Christopher, J. 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification Großschedl, J. E., Alves, J., Teixeira, P. S., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A149

    2009

  27. [27]

    Habing, H. J. 1968, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 19, 421

    1968

  28. [28]

    J., Coleman, G

    Haworth, T. J., Coleman, G. A. L., Qiao, L., Sellek, A. D., & Askari, K. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4315

    2023

  29. [29]

    Haworth, T. J. & Owen, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5030 Hernández, J., Calvet, N., Perez, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 36

    2020

  30. [30]

    J., Takahashi, T., & Tielens, A

    Hollenbach, D. J., Takahashi, T., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1991, ApJ, 377, 192

    1991

  31. [31]

    2019, PASJ, 71, S9

    Ishii, S., Nakamura, F., Shimajiri, Y ., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S9

    2019

  32. [32]

    D., Maxted, P

    Jeffries, R. D., Maxted, P. F. L., Oliveira, J. M., & Naylor, T. 2006, MNRAS, 371, L6

    2006

  33. [33]

    & Haworth, T

    Keyte, L. & Haworth, T. J. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 598

    2025

  34. [34]

    S., Clarke, C

    Kim, J. S., Clarke, C. J., Fang, M., & Facchini, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, L15 Könyves, V ., André, P., Arzoumanian, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A34

    2016

  35. [35]

    2018, AJ, 156, 84

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Suárez, G., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 84

    2018

  36. [36]

    2008, A&A, 477, 547

    Kramer, C., Cubick, M., Röllig, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 477, 547

    2008

  37. [37]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    2001

  38. [38]

    L., et al

    Lallement, R., Babusiaux, C., Vergely, J. L., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A135 Article number, page 12

    2019

  39. [39]

    & Pringle, J

    Lynden-Bell, D. & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603 Maíz Apellániz, J., Alonso Moragón, A., Ortiz de Zárate Alcarazo, L., & GOSSS Team. 2017, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics IX, ed. S. Arribas, A. Alonso-Herrero, F. Figueras, C. Hernández-Monteagudo, A. Sánchez- Lavega, & S. Pérez-Hoyos, 509–509

    1974

  40. [40]

    A., Rosotti, G

    Malanga, L. A., Rosotti, G. P., Lodato, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A292 Maucó, K., Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A82

    2025

  41. [41]

    T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al

    Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 192 O’Dell, C. R., Wen, Z., & Hu, X. 1993, ApJ, 410, 696

    2012

  42. [42]

    & Galli, D

    Padovani, M. & Galli, D. 2018, A&A, 620, L4

    2018

  43. [43]

    J., & Nelson, R

    Paine, S., Haworth, T. J., & Nelson, R. P. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 1414 Pantaleoni González, M., Maíz Apellániz, J., Barbá, R. H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 63

    2025

  44. [44]

    Perryman, M. A. C., Lindegren, L., Kovalevsky, J., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L49

    1997

  45. [45]

    2021, A&A, 645, A55

    Pezzuto, S., Benedettini, M., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A55

    2021

  46. [46]

    2026, A&A, 707, A74

    Pichierri, G., Rosotti, G., Anania, R., & Lodato, G. 2026, A&A, 707, A74

    2026

  47. [47]

    Piscarreta, L., Beccari, G., Claes, R. A. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08784

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    J., Sellek, A

    Qiao, L., Haworth, T. J., Sellek, A. D., & Ali, A. A. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3788

    2022

  49. [49]

    L., Wright, N

    Quintana, A. L., Wright, N. J., & Martínez García, J. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1367

    2025

  50. [50]

    T., Bally, J., & Walawender, J

    Reipurth, B., Megeath, S. T., Bally, J., & Walawender, J. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, V olume I, ed. B. Reipurth, V ol. 4, 782

    2008

  51. [51]

    Ricci, L., Robberto, M., & Soderblom, D. R. 2008, AJ, 136, 2136

    2008

  52. [52]

    2025, A&A, 702, A63

    Roquette, J., Audard, M., Hernandez, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A63

    2025

  53. [53]

    Rosotti, G. P. 2023, New A Rev., 96, 101674

    2023

  54. [54]

    D., Booth, R

    Sellek, A. D., Booth, R. A., & Clarke, C. J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1279

    2020

  55. [55]

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

    1973

  56. [56]

    2017, A&A, 604, A74

    Shimajiri, Y ., André, P., Braine, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A74

    2017

  57. [57]

    2024, A&A, 689, A285

    Somigliana, A., Testi, L., Rosotti, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A285

    2024

  58. [58]

    P., Trapman, L., et al

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Trapman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 7 van Terwisga, S. E. & Hacar, A. 2023, A&A, 673, L2 van Terwisga, S. E., Hacar, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., Oonk, R., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2022, A&A, 661, A53

    2025

  59. [59]

    2011, A&A, 536, A105

    Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105

    2011

  60. [60]

    2023, AJ, 166, 183

    Vioque, M., Cavieres, M., Pantaleoni González, M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 183

    2023

  61. [61]

    J., & Nomura, H

    Walsh, C., Millar, T. J., & Nomura, H. 2013, ApJ, 766, L23

    2013

  62. [62]

    Warren, Jr., W. H. & Hesser, J. E. 1978, ApJS, 36, 497

    1978

  63. [63]

    J., & Mordasini, C

    Weder, J., Winter, A. J., & Mordasini, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.01972

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    J., Ansdell, M., Haworth, T

    Winter, A. J., Ansdell, M., Haworth, T. J., & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2020, MNRAS, 497, L40

    2020

  65. [65]

    J., Benisty, M., Manara, C

    Winter, A. J., Benisty, M., Manara, C. F., & Gupta, A. 2024, A&A, 691, A169

    2024

  66. [66]

    Winter, A. J. & Haworth, T. J. 2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1132

    2022

  67. [67]

    Wright, N. J. 2020, New A Rev., 90, 101549

    2020

  68. [68]

    W., Frankel, N., et al

    Zari, E., Rix, H. W., Frankel, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A112 Article number, page 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main 10 4 10 2 100 102 dist [pc] 10 8 10 4 100 104 108 density function , 400 stars , 100 stars , 400 stars , 100 stars 101 102 103 104 FFUV (G0) - 400 stars 101 102 103 104 FFUV (G0) - 100 stars Fig. A.1.Left: Normalised surface (dashed lines)...

    2021

  69. [69]

    Anania, R. et al.: Far-ultraviolet flux distribution in Orion and its relation to stellar accretion Table B.1.Table of the FUV fluxes for the Orion members of the 22 sub-clusters Gaia DR3 cluster name RA Dec pmRA pmDec d d 16 d 84 FUV flux FUV flux 16 FUV flux 84 (deg) (deg) (mas yr−1) (mas yr−1) (pc) (pc) (pc) (G0) (G0) (G0) 3012327436772983936 eta_Ori 8...

    1983

  70. [70]

    D.1.Comparison between accretion luminosities measured from X-Shooter spectra and those measured fromH α emission from Gaia XP spectra (Delfini et al

    Lacc, Gaia (L ) = 0.26, [0.36 0.16] p = 0.03, [0.003 0.1] 1:1 Ori ON Fig. D.1.Comparison between accretion luminosities measured from X-Shooter spectra and those measured fromH α emission from Gaia XP spectra (Delfini et al. 2025) in theσOrionis (Maucó et al. 2023) and the Orion Nebula (ON, Piscarreta et al. 2025) regions. The dashed line marks the 1:1 re...

    2025