Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The 2023 outburst of the Gaia alerted EXor Gaia23bab

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that during the 2023 outburst of the young star Gaia23bab, the mass accretion rate was roughly $2\times10^{-7}$ solar masses per year at two independent epochs, and that hydrogen line excitation conditions mark the system…

desk verdict Careful follow-up of a single EXor gives a solid ~2e-7 Msun/yr accretion rate, but the excitation temperatures and densities are shakier than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02227 v1 pith:EF4MMUEU submitted 2025-05-04 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Zsófia Nagy , Ágnes Kóspál , Péter Ábrahám , Teresa Giannini , Mária Kun , Manuele Gangi , Fernando Cruz-Sáenz de Miera , Michael Kuhn
show 28 more authors
Micha{l} Siwak Máté Szilágyi Eleonora Fiorellino Simone Antoniucci Katia Biazzo Attila Bódi Zsófia Bora Borbála Cseh Marek Dróżdż Ágoston Horti-Dávid András Péter Joó Csilla Kalup Krzysztof Kotysz Levente Kriskovics Gábor Marton Przemys{l}aw J. Miko{l}ajczyk Brunella Nisini András Pál Bálint Seli Ádám Sódor László Szabados Norton Olivér Szabó Zsófia Marianna Szabó Róbert Szakáts Vázsony Varga József Vinkó {L}ukasz Wyrzykowski Pawe{l} Zieliński
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords EXorsepisodicaccretionyoungstellarobjectseruptivevariablesratehydrogenrecombinationlinesGaiaphotometricalertspre-main-sequencestars
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 studies a young star that the Gaia satellite flagged as brightening by two magnitudes in March 2023, and asks what the outburst reveals about how such stars build their mass. By measuring the strengths of several hydrogen and metallic emission lines in spectra taken near maximum light and during the fade, it derives the rate at which disk material falls onto the star: about $2\times10^{-7}$ solar masses per year, a value that stays the same at two epochs and matches a third measurement from earlier work. The paper then compares the hydrogen line ratios to models of ionized gas and accretion flows, finding temperatures of roughly 5000--12500 K and densities of $10^8$--$10^{11}$ particles per cubic centimeter, values typical of EX Lupi-type eruptive stars. In short, the paper makes the case that Gaia23bab is a prototypical EXor and that its 2023 outburst is a well-characterized instance of episodic accretion.

What carries the argument

Multi-epoch near-infrared spectroscopy is the workhorse: Paschen and Brackett hydrogen lines, the Ca II triplet, He I, and O I are detected in spectra taken near maximum and during the fading phase, and the ratios of their fluxes are the observables that carry the argument. The accretion rate follows from converting extinction-corrected line luminosities ($L_{\rm line}=4\pi d^2 f_{\rm line}$) to accretion luminosities using the empirical relations of Alcalá et al. (2017) and then applying the magnetospheric accretion formula $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}=1.25\,L_{\rm acc}R_\star/(GM_\star)$ with an assumed inner-disk radius of $5R_\star$. The excitation analysis compares observed Brackett decrements to Case B recombination predictions (Hummer & Storey 1987), in which the plasma is opaque to Lyman-$\alpha$ and optically thin in higher lines so that line ratios depend mainly on temperature and density, and compares Balmer and Paschen decrements to the T Tauri wind and accretion models of Kwan & Fischer (2011) and Edwards et al. (2013), with $\chi^2$ minimization selecting best-fit temperature and density values.

What would settle it

A direct, method-independent measurement of the extinction toward Gaia23bab—for instance, fitting the quiescent optical and near-infrared spectrum with a stellar atmosphere plus a dust screen, or comparing an X-ray hydrogen column with the optical reddening—would settle whether $A_V = 3.6$ mag is right; a value outside $3.2 \pm 0.5$ mag would rescale all extinction-corrected line luminosities and could move the inferred accretion rate and excitation temperatures outside the EXor ranges claimed here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that during the 2023 outburst of Gaia23bab the mass accretion rate was $\sim 2.0\times10^{-7}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, measured at two independent epochs with several tracers, and consistent with a third epoch from earlier work; the accretion rate did not change significantly while the star faded. The hydrogen Brackett, Paschen, and Balmer line ratios, compared with Case B recombination and accretion-flow models, yield excitation temperatures of roughly 5000--12500 K and hydrogen densities of $10^8$--$10^{11}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, with the Ca II line ratios pointing to a denser, cooler component ($n_H\sim10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, $T\lesssim7500$ K) likely associated with the disk boundary layer. On this basis the authors conclude that Gaia23bab is a prototypical EXor, matching EXor behavior in both its accretion rate and its emitting-gas conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the star is reddened by an extinction of 3.6 magnitudes, a value chosen because it makes the accretion rates from different lines agree, and the same correction is then used to deredden the hydrogen line fluxes that set the temperatures and densities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The accretion rate was essentially unchanged across three epochs (near maximum, mid-fade, and later fade), so the 2023 outburst maintained a roughly constant mass-feeding rate rather than spiking and decaying.
  • Hydrogen line excitation conditions overlap those measured in other EXors, so Gaia23bab joins the class not only by accretion rate but by the physical state of its emitting gas.
  • The two documented outbursts (2017 and 2023) show similar amplitudes and color behavior, implying the underlying disk or accretion instability repeats on similar timescales.
  • The Ca II line ratios imply a higher-density, cooler component near the disk boundary layer, suggesting the accretion flow in Gaia23bab is structured rather than a single uniform medium.
  • The non-detection of the CO bandhead and the weakening of Na I at the later epoch show that the disk's near-infrared emission faded faster than the accretion tracers, revealing which spectral features track the declining phase of an EXor outburst.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension follows from the extinction assumption: if future independent measurements fix $A_V$, the same multi-line method can be turned into a calibration of EXor accretion rates that does not depend on a self-consistency choice.
  • The Paγ/He I ratio above 1, unusual for classical T Tauri stars, may serve as a quick spectroscopic tag for EXor-type eruptive stars; checking it on a larger sample would show whether it separates burst-phase accretors from quiescent ones.
  • Because the 2017 and 2023 bursts look similar in amplitude and color, Gaia23bab is a candidate for predicting recurrence from a single burst; monitoring through the next decline would test whether the color loop and the disappearance of CO emission repeat.
  • If the accretion rate stayed constant while the continuum faded, then the optical decline is driven more by changing extinction or disk emission than by a drop in accretion power; this can be checked by correlating the color evolution with the accretion-tracer fluxes.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a multi-wavelength photometric and spectroscopic study of the young eruptive star Gaia23bab during its 2023 outburst, triggered by a Gaia alert. The authors combine optical and near-infrared photometry, NIR spectra from NOT and IRTF, and archival data to characterize the outburst and previous activity. They derive revised stellar parameters (M1-type, Teff = 3630 K, L* = 0.72 L_sun, R* = 2.3 R_sun, M* = 0.40 M_sun), measure accretion rates at two epochs using several line tracers (Ca II, He I, Pa, and Br lines), and compare hydrogen line ratios to Case B theory and Kwan-Fischer models to infer excitation temperatures and densities. The main quantitative claim is that the accretion rate during the 2023 outburst was approximately 2 x 10^-7 M_sun/yr, consistent across epochs and with the independent LBT estimate of Giannini et al. (2024), and that the derived excitation conditions support the classification of Gaia23bab as a prototypical EXor.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a well-observed example of an EXor with a stable accretion rate across three epochs of an outburst and a detailed comparison of multiple hydrogen-series diagnostics. The analysis combines original data with previously published LBT observations, and the revised stellar parameters (from a quiescent LBT spectrum) improve on earlier estimates. The authors are transparent about their assumptions, including the fitted extinction and the acknowledged limitations of Case B theory in T Tauri environments. The paper also documents a previous 2017 outburst and compares the two events, contributing to the growing sample of Gaia-alerted eruptive stars. However, the quantitative accretion rate relies on a fitted A_V at the IRTF epoch, and the quoted uncertainty omits several systematic contributions, so the precision of the central value is likely overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.4] The IRTF-epoch extinction A_V = 3.6 mag is determined by requiring that accretion rates from different lines agree, and the same dereddened fluxes are then used in Sect. 3.5 for the hydrogen-line excitation analysis. This makes the excitation analysis and the 'multiple independent tracers' description partially circular. The quoted error of 0.5 x 10^-7 M_sun/yr is only the standard deviation among tracers at a fixed A_V; it does not include the systematic contribution from the assumed A_V uncertainty, the distance uncertainty (900 ± 45 pc), or the uncertainties in R* and M*. I recommend propagating these and reporting a total systematic uncertainty, or at least explicitly stating that the quoted error is statistical only.
  2. [Sect. 3.4] The statement in the abstract and Sect. 4 that the accretion rate was 'measured independently with several line tracers' is stronger than the data support. At the NOT epoch, only Paβ and Brγ are available, and they give accretion rates of 1.9 x 10^-7 and 3.2 x 10^-7 M_sun/yr, which differ by a factor of about 1.7. Even at the IRTF epoch, the inter-tracer agreement is imposed by the fitted A_V. I suggest reporting the NOT-epoch rates separately and rephrasing the claim to 'consistent with about 2 x 10^-7 M_sun/yr across epochs' rather than implying fully independent multi-tracer agreement at each epoch.
  3. [Sect. 3.5] The Balmer decrement is best fitted with n_H = 10^8 cm^-3, while the Paschen decrement at the same epochs requires n_H = 10^11 cm^-3, a discrepancy of three orders of magnitude. The paper presents this without discussing whether it indicates two physically distinct emitting regions, model limitations, or an error in the extinction correction. Since this discrepancy bears on the claim that the derived temperatures and densities confirm the EXor classification, the authors should discuss its origin and its implications for the robustness of the excitation conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 3.5.2] The sentence 'A temperature of 3750 K is unlikely since it is below the stellar temperature (see Sect. 3.3)' is incorrect: the stellar Teff quoted in Sect. 3.3 is 3630 K, so 3750 K is above it. The intended argument (that 3750 K is close to or below the photospheric temperature) still holds, but the wording should be corrected.
  2. [Sect. 3.4 and Table 2] The notation '1.9 ∼ 10−7 M⊙ yr−1 and 3.2 ∼ 10−7 M⊙ yr−1' should use multiplication signs (e.g., 1.9 × 10^-7) for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  3. [Fig. 3] The right-hand panel of Figure 3 uses 'JD−2450000' as the x-axis label, while the left-hand panel uses 'MJD−57000'; please use a consistent time axis for both panels.
  4. [Sect. 3.5.1] In the text, '109 cm−3' and '1010 cm−3' should be typeset as '10^9 cm^-3' and '10^10 cm^-3' to avoid confusion.
  5. [Sect. 2.1] The service BHTOM is first mentioned in the text as 'BHTOM service' and in the facilities line as 'BHTOM.space'; please unify the spelling.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild fitted-input circularity: the IRTF-epoch A_V is chosen to force agreement among accretion tracers, and the same dereddened fluxes are reused for the excitation analysis; the central accretion-rate estimate remains externally benchmarked.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4, 'Accretion parameters' (IRTF epoch)]
    "For the IRTF epoch, we considered different AV values, as the accretion rates derived from the different lines are supposed to be the same for the right AV. There are only two accretion tracers at the NOT epoch, therefore we assume an AV of 3.2 ± 0.5 mag for this epoch, as was derived in Sect. 3.3."

    The IRTF-epoch A_V=3.6 is not measured independently; it is the value that makes the Alcalá et al. (2017) accretion tracers agree, because the criterion for the 'right' A_V is stated to be equality of the tracer-derived accretion rates. The quoted 'average value based on all the accretion tracers observed in the IRTF spectrum' therefore reports an inter-tracer consistency that was imposed by the fit rather than independently observed. The absolute scale is still set by the line fluxes, distance, and stellar parameters, so this is a partial, not a total, circularity.

  2. other [Section 3.5, 'Hydrogen lines' (preamble)]
    "We use extinction-corrected fluxes, for which we assume an AV of 3.6±0.4 mag, which is based on the accretion rate estimate at the IRTF epoch and the assumption that the AV did not change significantly between the epochs, which is consistent with the result of the fitting by a stellar template in Sect. 3.3."

    The extinction applied to the hydrogen lines is the value fitted in Sect. 3.4 by requiring the accretion tracers to agree. The same corrected fluxes are then compared with Case B theory and the Kwan & Fischer (2011) grids to infer excitation temperatures and densities, so those excitation results inherit the fitted A_V and are not independent of the accretion-rate fit. This does not make the model-grid comparison itself circular, because the grids are external, but it makes the quoted temperature and density ranges conditional on an extinction value that was chosen to satisfy the accretion tracers.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is not equivalent to its inputs by definition. The accretion rate is derived from observed line fluxes via a measured distance (Kuhn et al. 2023, from Gaia DR3 cluster-member parallaxes) and standard empirical calibrations (Alcalá et al. 2017; Hartmann et al. 1998), none of which define the target result in terms of itself. At the NOT epoch, the two available tracers give separately quoted values of 1.9e-7 and 3.2e-7 M_sun/yr, so their disagreement is not hidden. The genuinely circular element is the IRTF-epoch A_V=3.6, which is fitted under the assumption that all tracers should yield the same accretion rate and then reused to deredden the same lines for the excitation analysis. The impact is limited: 3.6 is within 1 sigma of the independently fitted quiescent A_V=3.2±0.5 (Sect. 3.3), the near-IR extinction corrections are small, and the central value is independently reproduced by Giannini et al. (2024) at (2.5±0.6)e-7 M_sun/yr. Self-citations (Kuhn et al. 2023; Giannini et al. 2024) are used for distance and spectral classification, but both rest on external data (Gaia DR3 parallaxes, LBT spectroscopy) and are corroborated by this paper's own observations, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis depends on standard stellar and accretion assumptions: distance from prior cluster analysis, evolutionary-track stellar parameters, a fixed inner-disk radius, and recombination/excitation models for line emission. The most influential free parameter is the extinction A_V, which is fitted to force internal consistency among accretion tracers and then reused for the excitation analysis.

free parameters (2)
  • A_V (IRTF epoch) = 3.6 mag
    Chosen so that accretion rates from different lines agree (Section 3.4). Used to deredden all line fluxes for the excitation analysis.
  • A_V (NOT epoch) = 3.2 mag
    Assumed from the stellar template fit in Section 3.3 and used for the NOT epoch accretion rate and excitation analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Case B recombination theory (Hummer & Storey 1987) describes the Brackett line emission from the accretion flow.
    Used in Section 3.5.1 to convert observed Brackett decrements into temperature and electron density. The authors note the validity has been questioned for T Tauri environments (citing Edwards et al. 2013), so the derived values inherit this modeling uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Kwan & Fischer (2011) and Edwards et al. (2013) local excitation models describe the Balmer and Paschen line ratios.
    Used in Section 3.5.2 to infer n_H and T. The models assume specific wind and accretion-flow geometry; deviations produce the order-of-magnitude density differences between Balmer and Paschen fits.
  • domain assumption The accretion luminosity converts to accretion rate via Mdot = 1.25 L_acc R/(G M) with an inner-disk radius of 5 R_star.
    Equation (1), from Hartmann et al. (1998). The factor 1.25 and the 5 R_star truncation radius are assumptions; choosing a different radius changes the derived rate.
  • domain assumption The distance to Gaia23bab is 900 +/- 45 pc.
    Taken from Kuhn et al. (2023), based on six cluster members. All luminosities and accretion rates scale as the square of this distance.
  • domain assumption The extinction law of Cardelli et al. (1989) is used to deredden photometry and spectra.
    Used throughout for color and flux corrections. The fitted A_V is applied with this law; a different law would change the corrected fluxes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The 2023 outburst of the Gaia alerted EXor Gaia23bab." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EF4MMUEU

@misc{pith2026250502227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The 2023 outburst of the Gaia alerted EXor Gaia23bab},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EF4MMUEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02227}
}
abstract

Episodic accretion is a fundamental process in the build-up of the stellar mass. EX Lupi-type eruptive young stars (EXors) represent one of the main types of episodic accretion. We study the recently discovered EXor Gaia23bab during its 2023 outburst. We obtained optical and near-infrared photometry and spectroscopy to probe the variation of the physical properties of Gaia23bab during its recent outburst. We also collected archival photometry to study a previous outburst of the star. We used several accretion tracers, including the Ca II triplet, He I, and various hydrogen lines from the Paschen and Brackett series, to measure the accretion rate during the outburst. The accretion rate is consistent with $\sim 2.0 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ $\rm{yr}^{-1}$. Comparing the line fluxes of the hydrogen Brackett series to predictions of Case B theory suggests excitation temperatures of 5000 - 10000 K and electron densities of $10^9$-$10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$. Comparison to the predictions of a model for T Tauri stars revealed that the fluxes of the Balmer series are consistent with temperatures of 5000 - 12500 K and a hydrogen density of $10^8$ cm$^{-3}$, while the fluxes of the Paschen series are consistent with temperatures in the range between 10000 and 12500 K and a hydrogen density of $10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$. The derived temperatures and densities confirm that Gaia23bab is a prototypical EXor, not only due to its accretion rate, but also based on the best fit temperatures and densities revealed by the detected hydrogen lines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Gaia G, WISE, and ATLAS light curve of Gaia23bab. The red arrow shows the date of the Gaia alert. The lines show the epochs of the NOT, LBT, and IRTF spectra. Bottom panel: ZTF, Piszkéstető RC80, and Mt. Suhora light curve of Gaia23bab. Gaussians fitted to the outbursts are shown in both light curves. very high extinction. The [J − H] vs. [H − KS] colors of Gaia23bab at the different epochs are consistent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top left panel: Color-magnitude diagram based on ZTF g and r magnitudes mostly during the brightening phase of the 2023 outburst. Top right panel: Color-magnitude diagram during the fading phase of the outburst based on follow-up photometry using the Piszkéstető RC80 telescope. Bottom panels: V vs. [R − I] and V vs. [V − R] color-magnitude diagrams based on Mt. Suhora photometry covering mostly the fading phase [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Color-magnitude diagrams during the 2017 (left panel) and 2023 (right panel) outbursts based on o and c magnitudes from the ATLAS survey. The typical error of the data points is plotted in the lower right corner of the figures. 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 W1−W2 (mag) 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 W2 (mag) Av = 3 0 795 1590 2384 3179 MJD−57000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color-magnitude diagram based on WISE W1 and W2 data, covering both the 2017 and 2023 outbursts. The IRTF spectrum has the widest wavelength coverage as seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (J − H) versus (H − KS) color–color diagram. The solid curve shows the colors of the zero-age main-sequence, and the dotted line represents the giant branch (Bessell & Brett 1988). The long-dashed lines delimit the area occupied by the reddened normal stars (Cardelli e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the NOT, LBT, and IRTF spectra of Gaia23bab with that of EX Lupi from (Kóspál et al. 2011). 3.3. Revised stellar parameters In Giannini et al. (2024) an estimate of the stellar parameters was obtained based on the extinction and near￾infrared 2MASS photom…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Part of the Gaia23bab spectrum obtained with the LBT in quiescence and the best fitting photospheric template. of the optical continuum used to determine the spectral type of Gaia23bab ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The accretion rates derived based on the accretion tracers detected in the IRTF spectrum when assuming an AV of 3.6 mag and stellar parameters derived in Sect. 3.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Excitation diagrams for the hydrogen Brackett series for the NOT, LBT, and IRTF spectra. The fluxes have been normalized by the flux of the Brγ line. The red line shows the best fitting model at the NOT and LBT epochs, and the blue lines show the best fitting models at…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Excitation diagrams for the hydrogen Balmer series normalized to the flux of the Hβ line based on the LBT spectrum (top), and the Paschen series normalized to the flux of the Paβ line based on the LBT (middle) and IRTF during the outburst (bottom) spectra. The overplo…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the equivalent widths of the Brγ line and the CO 2-0 line for EXors and other eruptive YSOs with an emission line spectrum. References: EX Lupi (Kóspál et al. 2011), Gaia20eae (Cruz-Sáenz de Miera et al. 2022), V899 Mon (Park et al. 2021), XZ Tau, U…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the NOT and IRTF spectra to those of EX Lupi during its outburst (Kóspál et al. 2011) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the NOT and IRTF spectra to those of EX Lupi during its outburst (Kóspál et al. 2011) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The H i Paschen lines detected in the spectra of Gaia23bab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The H i Brackett lines detected in the spectra of Gaia23bab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Hot water emission during an outburst on a classical T Tauri star

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    V557 Mon, a classical T Tauri star, underwent a year-long EXor outburst during which transient hot water vapor emission traced an inner disk cooling from about 3000 K to 2000 K.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    42݃/^:#4 rYMM.*E.*dz0 = ҄Ѐ& ڳ; ge= lg= ȵm

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    M., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Manara , C. F., Natta , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629929

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629929 2017

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Audard , M., \'A brah \'a m , P., Dunham , M. M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 387, 10.2458/azu\_uapress\_9780816531240-ch017

    doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  6. [6]

    2006, , 456, 225, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054315

    Azevedo , R., Calvet , N., Hartmann , L., et al. 2006, , 456, 225, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054315

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054315 2006

  7. [7]

    S., Matt , S

    Bary , J. S., Matt , S. P., Skrutskie , M. F., et al. 2008, , 687, 376, 10.1086/591487

    work page doi:10.1086/591487 2008

  8. [8]

    S., & Brett , J

    Bessell , M. S., & Brett , J. M. 1988, , 100, 1134, 10.1086/132281

    doi:10.1086/132281 1988

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    S., & Greene , T

    Connelley , M. S., & Greene , T. P. 2010, , 140, 1214, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1214

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, , 927, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac477f

    Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera , F., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., \'A brah \'a m , P., et al. 2022, , 927, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac477f

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, , 678, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347063

    Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera , F., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., Abrah \'a m , P., et al. 2023, , 678, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347063

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Vacca , W

    Cushing , M. C., Vacca , W. D., & Rayner , J. T. 2004, , 116, 362, 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources. (NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive)

    2003

  7. [15]

    2013, , 778, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/148

    Edwards , S., Kwan , J., Fischer , W., et al. 2013, , 778, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/148

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, , 686, A160, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347777

    Fiorellino , E., \'A brah \'a m , P., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al. 2024, , 686, A160, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347777

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Hillenbrand , L

    Fischer , W. J., Hillenbrand , L. A., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 355, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    P., et al

    Ghosh , A., Sharma , S., Ninan , J. P., et al. 2022, , 926, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac41c2

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, , 637, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037695

    Giannini , T., Giunta , A., Lorenzetti , D., et al. 2020, , 637, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037695

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, , 929, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a49

    Giannini , T., Giunta , A., Gangi , M., et al. 2022, , 929, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a49

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, , 967, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39e2

    Giannini , T., Schisano , E., Nisini , B., et al. 2024, , 967, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39e2

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    P., & Lada , C

    Greene , T. P., & Lada , C. J. 1996, , 461, 345, 10.1086/177061

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

    1998, , 495, 385, 10.1086/305277

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

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    Hartmann , L., & Kenyon , S. J. 1996, , 34, 207, 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.207

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    N., Tonry , J

    Heinze , A. N., Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., et al. 2018, , 156, 241, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Levine , S., Terrell , D., & Welch , D

    Henden , A. A., Levine , S., Terrell , D., & Welch , D. L. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#225, 336.16

    2015

  20. [28]

    Herbig , G. H. 1977, , 217, 693, 10.1086/155615

    1977 doi

  21. [29]

    1990, , 360, 639, 10.1086/169151

    ---. 1990, , 360, 639, 10.1086/169151

    1990 doi

  22. [30]

    2008, , 135, 637, 10.1088/0004-6256/135/2/637

    ---. 2008, , 135, 637, 10.1088/0004-6256/135/2/637

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Reipurth , B., Connelley , M., Cutri , R

    Hillenbrand , L. A., Reipurth , B., Connelley , M., Cutri , R. M., & Isaacson , H. 2019, , 158, 240, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4e16

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Contreras Pe \ n a , C., Morrell , S., et al

    Hillenbrand , L. A., Contreras Pe \ n a , C., Morrell , S., et al. 2018, , 869, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf414

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Reipurth , B., Pettersson , B., et al

    Hodapp , K. W., Reipurth , B., Pettersson , B., et al. 2019, , 158, 241, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab471a

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Denneau , L., Tucker , M., et al

    Hodapp , K. W., Denneau , L., Tucker , M., et al. 2020, , 160, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/abad96

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    T., Harrison , D

    Hodgkin , S. T., Harrison , D. L., Breedt , E., et al. 2021, , 652, A76, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140735

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    G., & Storey , P

    Hummer , D. G., & Storey , P. J. 1987, , 224, 801, 10.1093/mnras/224.3.801

    1987 doi

  29. [37]

    Z., Kochanek , C

    Jayasinghe , T., Stanek , K. Z., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2019, , 485, 961, 10.1093/mnras/stz444

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2011, , 736, 72, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/72

    K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., \'A brah \'a m , P., Goto , M., et al. 2011, , 736, 72, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/72

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Che , X., et al

    Kraus , S., Monnier , J. D., Che , X., et al. 2012, , 744, 19, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/19

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Benjamin , R

    Kuhn , M. A., Benjamin , R. A., Ishida , E. E. O., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 57, 10.3847/2515-5172/acc4c9

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    A., de Souza , R

    Kuhn , M. A., de Souza , R. S., Krone-Martins , A., et al. 2021, , 254, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/abe465

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Hillenbrand , L

    Kuhn , M. A., Hillenbrand , L. A., Connelley , M. S., et al. 2024, , 529, 2630, 10.1093/mnras/stae205

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2011, , 411, 2383, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17863.x

    Kwan , J., & Fischer , W. 2011, , 411, 2383, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17863.x

    2011

  36. [44]

    M., Giannini , T., et al

    Lorenzetti , D., Larionov , V. M., Giannini , T., et al. 2009, , 693, 1056, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1056

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    2011, , 731, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    Mainzer , A., Bauer , J., Grav , T., et al. 2011, , 731, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Torres , G., Prsa , A., et al

    Mamajek , E. E., Torres , G., Prsa , A., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1510.06262. 1510.06262

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Martin , S. C. 1996, , 470, 537, 10.1086/177886

    1996 doi

  40. [48]

    V., Paladini , R., et al

    Marton , G., T \'o th , L. V., Paladini , R., et al. 2016, , 458, 3479, 10.1093/mnras/stw398

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Laher , R

    Masci , F. J., Laher , R. R., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

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

    Megeath , S. T., Gutermuth , R., Muzerolle , J., et al. 2012, , 144, 192, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/192

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Calvet , N., & Hillenbrand , L

    Meyer , M. R., Calvet , N., & Hillenbrand , L. A. 1997, , 114, 288, 10.1086/118474

    1997 doi

  44. [52]

    2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    Muzerolle , J., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    2001 doi

  45. [53]

    2022, , 515, 1774, 10.1093/mnras/stac1915

    Nagy , Z., \'A brah \'a m , P., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al. 2022, , 515, 1774, 10.1093/mnras/stac1915

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, , 524, 3344, 10.1093/mnras/stad2019

    Nagy , Z., Park , S., \'A brah \'a m , P., et al. 2023, , 524, 3344, 10.1093/mnras/stad2019

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2004, , 421, 187, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034386

    Nisini , B., Antoniucci , S., & Giannini , T. 2004, , 421, 187, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034386

    2004 doi

  48. [56]

    2021, , 923, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c4

    Park , S., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., Cruz-S \'a enz de Miera , F., et al. 2021, , 923, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c4

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, , 941, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca01e

    Park , S., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., \'A brah \'a m , P., et al. 2022, , 941, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca01e

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Pecaut , M. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    Podio , L., Garcia , P. J. V., Bacciotti , F., et al. 2008, , 480, 421, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078694

    2008 doi

  52. [60]

    T., Toomey , D

    Rayner , J. T., Toomey , D. W., Onaka , P. M., et al. 2003, , 115, 362, 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, , 788, 48, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    W., Young , D

    Shingles , L., Smith , K. W., Young , D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  55. [63]

    2000, , 358, 593

    Siess , L., Dufour , E., & Forestini , M. 2000, , 358, 593. astro-ph/0003477

    2000 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al

    Siwak , M., Hillenbrand , L. A., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al. 2023, , 524, 5548, 10.1093/mnras/stad2135

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    W., Smartt , S

    Smith , K. W., Smartt , S. J., Young , D. R., et al. 2020, , 132, 085002, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    2020, , 899, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba129

    Szegedi-Elek , E., \'A brah \'a m , P., Wyrzykowski , ., et al. 2020, , 899, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba129

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, , 505, 5164, 10.1093/mnras/stab1496

    Szil \'a gyi , M., Kun , M., & \'A brah \'a m , P. 2021, , 505, 5164, 10.1093/mnras/stab1496

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody , D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford , 733, 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A. N., et al. 2018, , 130, 064505, 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    D., Cushing , M

    Vacca , W. D., Cushing , M. C., & Rayner , J. T. 2003, , 115, 389, 10.1086/346193

    2003 doi

  63. [71]

    D., & Sandell , G

    Vacca , W. D., & Sandell , G. 2011, , 732, 8, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/8

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    T., Bonito , R., Antoniucci , S., et al

    Whelan , E. T., Bonito , R., Antoniucci , S., et al. 2014, , 565, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322037

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.