Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 149 references

The ODYSSEUS Survey. Using accretion and stellar rotation to reveal the star-disk connection in T Tauri stars

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that most classical T Tauri stars are not in rotational equilibrium with their disks: the median fastness parameter is 0.34, squarely in the unstable ordered accretion regime, and the applied torque relation puts most syste

desk verdict Solid first systematic Ri-Rco comparison for ULLYSES; the central non-equilibrium result holds up, but the day-timescale variability claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03767 v1 pith:IQJDXOHO submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Caeley V. Pittman , C. C. Espaillat , Zhaohuan Zhu , Thanawuth Thanathibodee , Connor E. Robinson , Nuria Calvet , Ágnes Kóspál This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords TTauristarsmagnetosphericaccretionstellarrotationcorotationradiusfastnessparameterprotoplanetarydisksultra-short-periodplanetsangularmomentumregulation
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 tests a standard assumption of star-formation theory: that a classical T Tauri star — a young, low-mass star still feeding from its gas disk — settles into rotational equilibrium with that disk. For 47 such stars from the HST ULLYSES program, the authors combine two measured radii: the magnetospheric truncation radius Ri, where the star's magnetic field stops the inflowing disk, and the corotation radius Rco, where the disk orbits at the stellar spin rate. Their ratio gives the fastness parameter ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2), and the median value, 0.34 ± 0.19, places most systems in the 'unstable ordered' accretion regime rather than near the equilibrium point at ωs ≈ 0.75. Applying a 3D-MHD torque relation, the authors conclude that most of these stars are being spun up by their disks, not held in equilibrium — which means efficient angular-momentum loss must be at work, and they find signatures of magnetospheric outflows, episodic accretion, and accretion-powered winds. As a final connection, the measured truncation radii coincide with the observed orbits of ultra-short-period planets, suggesting a concrete formation pathway for those worlds.

What carries the argument

The fastness parameter ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2) — the ratio of the star's angular velocity to the Keplerian angular velocity at the inner disk edge — is the organizing quantity. It assigns each system to one of four accretion regimes (propeller, stable, unstable chaotic, unstable ordered) and, via the torque relation J̇⋆ = (0.83 − 2.68ωs⁴) × Ṁ√(GM⋆Ri), converts the two measured radii into a predicted spin-up or spin-down. The empirical inputs are Ri, from axisymmetric Hα profile modeling, and Rco, from TESS rotation periods; the torque formula is what turns their ratio into a statement about angular-momentum evolution.

What would settle it

Compare TESS-derived rotation periods against an independent rotation measure for the low-ωs systems — longer-baseline K2 or multi-year ground-based spot-modulation periods, or ν sin i with known stellar radii. If a substantial fraction of unstable-ordered stars have true stellar periods longer than the TESS value, the derived ωs values and the spin-up conclusion would be systematically biased. For stars with existing Zeeman-Doppler maps, verifying that spot-modulation rotation matches the TESS period would settle the point directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the star-disk connection in classical T Tauri stars does not drive them to spin equilibrium. Combining corotation radii from TESS rotation periods with truncation radii from Hα accretion-flow modeling for 47 CTTS, it classifies each system by the fastness parameter ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2). The median, 0.34 ± 0.19, places 28 of 47 stars in the unstable ordered regime, with only 6 stable and 5 propeller. With Zhu (2025)'s torque relation — whose zero-torque point is ωs ≈ 0.75 — most systems are spinning up, not in equilibrium. Correlated signatures (blueshifted wind absorption at higher ωs, a magnetospheric expansion event in CS Cha, consistency with accretion-pow

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the TESS light-curve period is the star's true rotation period for all 47 systems, including the 28 in the unstable ordered regime where the inner disk's Keplerian period can be shorter than the stellar period; if disk-dominated periodicity were common there, the derived corotation radii, fastness parameters, and the spin-up conclusion would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Disk locking is effectively ruled out: if the disk locked the star's spin, systems would congregate near the equilibrium at ωs ≈ 0.75, but almost none do.
  • Efficient angular-momentum-loss processes must operate in most systems — magnetospheric outflows, episodic accretion, and accretion-powered stellar winds — and the paper finds observational signatures consistent with all three.
  • Accretion stability regimes are transient: Ri varies on day timescales (median 0.06 dex over roughly 2 days), so individual systems cross regime boundaries, as CS Cha does into the propeller regime.
  • Dipper light curves appear at every value of ωs, so occulting disk warps or dusty magnetospheres do not require proximity to the propeller regime.
  • Measured truncation radii (median 0.016 au) coincide with the semi-major axes of ultra-short-period planets, offering a formation channel that does not require billions of years of tidal decay — provided USPs are as tidally stable as some observations suggest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the spin-up imbalance is generic, the slow observed rotation of T Tauri stars must be maintained dynamically by outflows whose strength tracks ωs; the paper's wind-absorption trend (median ωs 0.45 with wind vs 0.22 without) is a first sign of that coupling and could be confirmed with a larger sample.
  • The apparent floor at ωs ≈ 0.04, if real, suggests a self-regulating state: very slow rotators accrete so efficiently that spin-up accelerates, preventing arbitrarily low fastness values — a feedback worth testing in population models.
  • The Ri–USP alignment implies a testable demographic prediction: USPs formed by this channel should preferentially orbit stars whose disks dispersed with small truncation radii, and their orbital periods should cluster near the inner edge of the disk at dispersal.
  • Because the regime classification assumes the TESS period is the stellar period, independent rotation checks — long-baseline photometry or spot-modulation periods from magnetic-field maps — for a subset of low-ωs systems would settle whether any unstable-ordered classifications are artifacts of disk-dominated periodicity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines TESS light curves with previously measured magnetospheric truncation radii for 47 classical T Tauri stars in the ULLYSES sample. It derives stellar rotation periods, corotation radii, and fastness parameters ωs = (Ri/Rco)^(3/2), then classifies the systems into the accretion stability regimes of Blinova et al. (2016). The central claim is that most CTTS are not in rotational equilibrium: the median ωs is 0.34 ± 0.19, in the unstable ordered regime, and application of the Zhu (2025) torque formula places most of the sample in the spin-up regime. The paper also reports day-timescale Ri variability, evidence for magnetospheric outflows and episodic accretion in CS Cha, consistency with accretion-powered stellar winds, light-curve morphology trends, and a correspondence between measured Ri values and the semimajor axes of ultra-short-period planets.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper challenges the common assumption of rotational equilibrium in CTTS angular momentum evolution and provides rare empirical constraints on fastness parameters and torque prescriptions. The period pipeline is a genuine strength: Lomb-Scargle with bootstrapping, PDM, window-function checks, structure-function validation, and cross-checks with ASAS-SN/WISE/Gaia are all used before a period is accepted. Uncertainties in Prot and M★ are propagated into Rco, and the authors explicitly discuss the limitations of the axisymmetric accretion-flow model. The CS Cha multi-epoch case is a compelling, well-documented example of a possible low-level episodic accretion/wind event. The main weaknesses are that the central spin-state distribution rests on the assumption that TESS periods are stellar rotation periods for all 47 systems, and that the day-timescale Ri variability claim is made at the edge of the measurement precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1.1, Table 1] The assumption that every measured TESS period is the stellar rotation period is the most load-bearing premise. For the 28/47 objects with ωs < 0.45 (the unstable ordered regime), the paper itself notes that the inner-disk Keplerian period can be shorter than P★ and can dominate light-curve periodicity at low magnetic obliquity. The cited Blinova et al. (2016) Fourier analysis is a simulation result for 10–20° obliquities, not a measurement of these stars' obliquities. The good news is that if P_disk < P★, the true ωs is even smaller than reported, so the headline 'most systems are not in equilibrium' is directionally robust; however, the quantitative median, regime counts, and individual Rco values are not protected. I recommend adding an independent v sin i check, or at least a literature-period comparison, and explicitly stating that the non-equilibrium conclusion is robust to this sy
  2. [§3.3] The claim that Ri varies on day timescales is not yet supported at the stated precision. The median pairwise ΔRi is 0.06 dex, which exactly equals the model grid spacing, and the typical single-measurement standard deviation is 0.04 dex. The total range (Ri,max − Ri,min) has a median of 0.13 dex, but no uncertainty is attached to that range. As written, the observed pairwise differences are indistinguishable from grid/measurement noise, so the sentence 'This likely comes from real temporal variability' is not quantitatively justified. Please propagate the measurement uncertainties into the pairwise differences and the min–max ranges, and report how many of the ΔRi values exceed the noise at, say, 2σ. Until then, the abstract's 'confirm predictions' should be softened to 'are consistent with'.
  3. [§2.3, Figure 4, Table 1] The regime counts (5 propeller, 6 stable, 8 unstable chaotic, 28 unstable ordered) are presented without formal classification uncertainties. Given the typical Ri measurement uncertainty of 0.04 dex and grid spacing of 0.06 dex, objects sitting near the ωs = 0.45, 0.6, or 1.0 boundaries can shift categories with a one-grid-step change in Ri. The vertical arrows in Figure 4 show the temporal range of Ri but do not distinguish temporal variability from measurement error. A Monte Carlo propagation of Ri and Rco uncertainties into ωs would establish whether the 28-object unstable-ordered pile-up is robust, and would make the distributional claims in §3.1 quantitatively reliable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence 'we choose the period that is present across multiple sectors' is not defined quantitatively. What counts as 'present' — a period within 1σ? 10%? Please specify the matching criterion.
  2. [§2.4] For the six CTTS without clear period detections, the Q metric is computed by assuming a period that yields a quasi-periodic classification in at least one sector. This procedure can bias the morphology classification, since Q depends on the assumed period. These objects are gray 'x' markers in Figure 5, but the text should state explicitly that their Q values are upper limits or provisional, not measured properties.
  3. [§2.2] The Q boundaries 0.11 and 0.85 are chosen by visual inspection, as in previous work. This is acceptable, but the sensitivity of the morphological fractions to these boundaries should be stated, especially because the reader is told that different surveys require different boundaries.
  4. [§3.1.1] The statement that 'imag and ωs show no correlation' appears without a correlation coefficient or figure. Given that the paper reports Pearson r values for several QM correlations, adding this value would make the claim checkable.
  5. [§3.1.3] The approximation 'Decreasing Mdot by 30% in Equation 1 can approximately incorporate the effect of an APSW' assumes the torque scales linearly with Mdot. Since Equation 1 is linear in Mdot, this is true, but the sentence could be clearer that this is an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a detailed wind model.
  6. [§3.5] The USP comparison is interesting but remains a correlation. The text carefully inserts the tidal-stability caveat, but the abstract's phrase 'provides a plausible USP formation channel' overstates what a median-overlap comparison can establish. A sentence in §3.5 noting that no migration/stalling model is tested would help calibrate the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ω_s is computed from independent TESS rotation periods and Hα-modeled truncation radii, then compared to external MHD regime and torque predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—median ω_s = 0.34, so most CTTS are in the spin-up regime—rests on two independent measurements: R_i from Hα profile modeling (Pittman et al. 2025) and P_rot from TESS light curves. R_co is obtained from Kepler's law using M_★ and P_rot, and ω_s = (R_i/R_co)^(3/2) is a standard definition, not a fit. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted. The torque formula (Eq. 1) and the regime boundaries come from external 3D MHD simulations (Zhu 2025; Blinova et al. 2016); the paper applies these predictions to the measured ω_s distribution rather than deriving them from the data. The dependence on prior work by the same authors (Pittman et al. 2025 for R_i) is a measurement dependency, not a circular justification; the R_i values are not defined in terms of the paper's conclusions. The only significant assumption—that the TESS period equals P_★, especially for ω_s < 0.45—is explicitly acknowledged in Section 2.1.1 and defended using independent simulation results (Blinova et al. 2016; Boyle et al. 2025). The paper even states that if P_disk contaminated the period, the classification into the unstable ordered regime would remain unchanged, making this a robustness caveat rather than a circular step. No self-definitional identity, fitted-input-as-prediction, or imported-uniqueness pattern is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard CTTS parameters and previously published regime boundaries and torque prescriptions. The main assumptions are that the measured period traces stellar rotation and that the accretion flow model returns accurate truncation radii.

free parameters (2)
  • Q metric periodicity boundaries = 0.11 (periodic/quasi-periodic), 0.85 (quasi-periodic/stochastic)
    Adopted from Cody & Hillenbrand (2018) and confirmed by visual inspection of TESS light curves (Section 2.4). Not fitted to the omega_s results, but affects morphology classifications.
  • Tentative periods for 6 CTTS without confident period detections = Listed in Table 1 (parentheses)
    Assumed periods used only for QM morphology classification, not for omega_s. If these periods are wrong, the QM comparisons involving these objects could be biased.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The TESS photometric period equals the stellar rotation period for all systems, except possibly low-obliquity low-omega_s systems.
    Section 2.1.1 discusses this and relies on Boyle et al. (2025) and Blinova et al. (2016) Fourier analyses; failure would bias Rco and omega_s.
  • domain assumption The Blinova et al. (2016) accretion stability regime boundaries (omega_s = 1, 0.6, 0.45) apply to T Tauri stars.
    Used throughout Section 2.3 and Table 1 to classify all systems into propeller, stable, unstable chaotic, and unstable ordered regimes without independent calibration.
  • domain assumption The Zhu (2025) torque formula (Eq. 1) accurately describes the net star-disk torque.
    Section 3.1 uses this formula to compute J_dot/J and conclude that most systems are in the spin-up regime. This is a numerical simulation result, not an observational law.
  • domain assumption The axisymmetric accretion flow model of Hartmann et al. (1994) and Muzerolle et al. (1998, 2001) yields unbiased Ri values.
    Section 2.1.1 defends this using Kurosawa & Romanova (2013) and Figure 2, but Ri is not directly validated against independent truncation radius measurements.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses from Manara et al. (2021) and radius of gyration k^2 = 0.2 are accurate.
    Section 3.1 Eq. 2 uses k^2=0.2 for J_star; stellar masses from Pittman et al. (2025) have 0.1 dex uncertainties and dominate Rco uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ODYSSEUS Survey. Using accretion and stellar rotation to reveal the star-disk connection in T Tauri stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IQJDXOHO

@misc{pith2026250903767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ODYSSEUS Survey. Using accretion and stellar rotation to reveal the star-disk connection in T Tauri stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IQJDXOHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03767}
}
abstract

Classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) exhibit strong variability over timescales of minutes to decades. However, much theoretical work assumes that CTTS are in stable spin states. Here, we test expectations for CTTS angular momentum regulation by comparing star and disk rotation. We measure stellar rotation periods and disk corotation radii ($R_{\rm co}$) for 47 CTTS from the HST ULLYSES sample. We compare $R_{\rm co}$ to the magnetospheric truncation radii ($R_{\rm i}$) and show that most CTTS are in the spin-up regime based on model predictions, which may indicate efficient angular momentum loss processes. We find evidence of magnetospheric outflows and episodic accretion, and our observations are consistent with the presence of accretion-powered stellar winds. We confirm predictions that $R_{\rm i}$ is variable over timescales of days, causing some CTTS to cross accretion stability regime boundaries. We characterize light curve morphologies and confirm that our inclined CTTS with $R_{\rm i}\sim R_{\rm co}$ show dipper light curves, consistent with expectations from disk warp models. However, dippers occur at all values of $R_{\rm i}/R_{\rm co}$, suggesting that they do not need to be near the propeller regime. Finally, we show that our measured $R_{\rm i}$ locations are consistent with observed ultra-short-period planet (USP) semi-major axes. If USPs are stable against tidal dissipation, as has been suggested in the literature, then our work provides a plausible USP formation channel. These results show that the star-disk connection produces a large variety of accretion and stellar spin configurations, most of which are likely not in equilibrium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03767 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example TESS light curves colored by predicted accretion stability regime. The associated QM metrics are in the upper right, and the TESS sector is in the upper left. A Gaussian process with a periodic kernel fixed to Prot from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hα profile dependence on Ri, spanning from 2 to 8 R⋆. This is taken from the model grid in Pittman et al. (2025) for VZ Cha. observed Hα profile, which lends credence to our Ri mea￾surements. We can also compare the Hα profiles from the sta￾ble and unstable configurations to examine the effects of the flow morphology. When viewed at a phase when the star is fully obscured, the unstable configuration ap￾proximates th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histograms of stellar rotation results. Colors indicate the host region in order of approximate region age from youngest (yellow) to oldest (blue). White and gray in￾dicate stellar mass bins. The top panels show stellar rotation periods measured from TESS light curves, and the bottom show the associated corotation radii and rotation velocities with respect to the stellar breakup velocities. 2.3. Prot, Rco, and ωs re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inner magnetospheric truncation radii Ri versus corotation radii Rco for the 47 CTTS with successful Prot mea￾surements. The scatter points give the Ri found from the weighted means of the individual epochs, the horizontal errorbars give the Rco uncertainty, and the ve…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: QM variability results. Gray dashed lines indicate the divisions between categories as described in Section 2, with labels on the far right indicating the Q categories (S/Stochastic, QP/Quasi-Periodic, P/Periodic) and M categories (B/Burster, S/Symmetric, D/Dipper). Le…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of the fastness parameter for targets that lack (left) or show (right) wind absorption. As expected from 3D MHD models, CTTS with higher ωs are more likely to show signatures of conical disk winds. tal inhibition of accretion onto the star by the centrifugal …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: CS Cha Hα profiles (black) with the top 100 flow models (maroon) and associated wind absorption components (blue). The final weighted-mean model flux is in bright red. The observation date, rotational phase, and associated best-fit Ri and ωs values are indicated. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Keplerian orbital periods at Ri for our sample of CTTS. Values for systems in the propeller regime (where Ri>Rco) are indicated. Middle: Stellar mass distributions of the CTTS (hatched) compared to the hosts of USPs with Porb ≤ 1 day (filled dark gray) and 1 < Por…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System configurations. See text for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System configurations continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System configurations continued. Rows DG Tau A and below have no Prot measurements (and therefore no Rco or ωs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example period measurement method for Sz 19 Sector 38. The first panel shows the TESS light curve (gray) and its best-fit Gaussian process with a periodic kernel (black). The second panel shows the Lomb-Scargle periodogram (blue), the window function periodogram (gray…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Additional QM variability results. Top: Results for all targets with good TESS data (whether or not a strong period was detected), grouped by host region in order of median region age (Michel et al. 2021). The minimum, median, and maximum of each distribution is indic…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: TESS light curves of Sz 19, which switches from highly periodic in 2019/2021 (top) to quasi-periodic and stochastic in 2023 and 2025 (bottom). The associated QM metrics are in the upper right, and the TESS sector is in the upper left. A Gaussian process with a periodi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  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]

    f`". F:'0D a: 1!W w !do a @X S ,a: N3 bѥ <f& \9۴v4ƨc&[ /OIgK쌋Hhu0 4dp/G. ? 3 G T 4]^mԡ/T7roJFU!.+ ]M.K!9t f VS TW atϫ

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Agapitou , V., & Papaloizou , J. C. B. 2000, , 317, 273, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03541.x

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Alencar , S. H. P., Teixeira , P. S., Guimar \ a es , M. M., et al. 2010, , 519, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014184

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014184 2010

  6. [6]

    2020, , 492, 572, 10.1093/mnras/stz3361

    Ansdell , M., Gaidos , E., Hedges , C., et al. 2020, , 492, 572, 10.1093/mnras/stz3361

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3361 2020

  7. [7]

    2015, , 574, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424520

    Anthonioz , F., M \'e nard , F., Pinte , C., et al. 2015, , 574, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424520

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424520 2015

  8. [8]

    2024, , 690, A225, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451065

    Armeni , A., Stelzer , B., Frasca , A., et al. 2024, , 690, A225, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451065

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451065 2024

Show all 149 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Clarke , C

    Armitage , P. J., & Clarke , C. J. 1996, , 280, 458, 10.1093/mnras/280.2.458

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    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--410, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch017

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0911.2093, 10.48550/arXiv.0911.2093

    Azzalini , A., & Capitanio , A. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0911.2093, 10.48550/arXiv.0911.2093

    2009 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    C., Quast , G

    Batalha , C. C., Quast , G. R., Torres , C. A. O., et al. 1998, , 128, 561, 10.1051/aas:1998163

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    C., & Becker , J

    Batygin , K., Adams , F. C., & Becker , J. 2023, , 951, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5d

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Batygin , K., & Adams , F

    Becker , J. C., Batygin , K., & Adams , F. C. 2021, , 919, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac111e

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    2008, , 478, 155, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    Bessolaz , N., Zanni , C., Ferreira , J., Keppens , R., & Bouvier , J. 2008, , 478, 155, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078328

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Romanova , M

    Blinova , A. A., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2016, , 459, 2354, 10.1093/mnras/stw786

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Bodman , E. H. L., Quillen , A. C., Ansdell , M., et al. 2017, , 470, 202, 10.1093/mnras/stx1034

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bouvier , J. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 511, Non-Stable Universe: Energetic Resources, Activity Phenomena, and Evolutionary Processes, ed. A. M. Mickaelian , H. A. Harutyunian , & E. H. Nikoghosyan , 28

    2017

  14. [22]

    1986, , 165, 110

    Bouvier , J., Bertout , C., Benz , W., & Mayor , M. 1986, , 165, 110

    1986

  15. [23]

    L., & Matthews , J

    Bouvier , J., Cabrit , S., Fernandez , M., Martin , E. L., & Matthews , J. M. 1993, , 272, 176

    1993

  16. [24]

    E., Bouy , H., & Barrado , D

    Bouvier , J., Grankin , K., Ellerbroek , L. E., Bouy , H., & Barrado , D. 2013, , 557, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321389

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Mohanty , S., et al

    Bouvier , J., Matt , S. P., Mohanty , S., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 433--450, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch019

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    1999, , 349, 619

    Bouvier , J., Chelli , A., Allain , S., et al. 1999, , 349, 619

    1999

  19. [27]

    Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H. P., Boutelier , T., et al. 2007, , 463, 1017, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066021

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, , 672, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245342

    Bouvier , J., Sousa , A., Pouilly , K., et al. 2023, , 672, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245342

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Mann , A

    Boyle , A. W., Mann , A. W., & Bush , J. 2025, , 985, 233, 10.3847/1538-4357/adcecc

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S

    Brasseur , C. E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S. W., Mullally , S. E., & White , R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.007

    2019

  23. [31]

    W., Shappee , B

    Bredall , J. W., Shappee , B. J., Gaidos , E., et al. 2020, , 496, 3257, 10.1093/mnras/staa1588

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03701, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03701

    Cevallos Soto , A., & Zhu , Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03701, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03701

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    M., & Hillenbrand , L

    Cody , A. M., & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2010, , 191, 389, 10.1088/0067-0049/191/2/389

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, , 156, 71, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacead

    ---. 2018, , 156, 71, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacead

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Hillenbrand , L

    Cody , A. M., Hillenbrand , L. A., & Rebull , L. M. 2022, , 163, 212, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5b73

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Stauffer , J., Baglin , A., et al

    Cody , A. M., Stauffer , J., Baglin , A., et al. 2014, , 147, 82, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/82

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [40]

    D., Rees, D

    Donati, J.-F., Semel, M., Carter, B. D., Rees, D. E., & Cameron, A. C. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 291, 658, 10.1093/mnras/291.4.658

    1997 doi

  31. [41]

    F., Skelly , M

    Donati , J. F., Skelly , M. B., Bouvier , J., et al. 2010, , 409, 1347, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17409.x

    2010

  32. [42]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2012, , 425, 2948, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21482.x

    2012

  33. [43]

    2013, , 436, 881, 10.1093/mnras/stt1622

    ---. 2013, , 436, 881, 10.1093/mnras/stt1622

    2013 doi

  34. [44]

    F., Cristofari , P

    Donati , J. F., Cristofari , P. I., Lehmann , L. T., et al. 2024, , 531, 3256, 10.1093/mnras/stae1227

    2024 doi

  35. [45]

    A., Hillenbrand , L

    Eisner , J. A., Hillenbrand , L. A., White , R. J., Akeson , R. L., & Sargent , A. I. 2005, , 623, 952, 10.1086/428828

    2005 doi

  36. [46]

    C., Herczeg, G

    Espaillat, C. C., Herczeg, G. J., Thanathibodee, T., et al. 2022, The ODYSSEUS Survey. Motivation and First Results: Accretion, Ejection, and Disk Irradiation of CVSO 109. 2201.06502

    2022 arXiv

  37. [47]

    F., Cristofari , P

    Finociety , B., Donati , J. F., Cristofari , P. I., et al. 2023, , 526, 4627, 10.1093/mnras/stad3012

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    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

  39. [49]

    2024, , 966, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447

    Gaidos , E., Thanathibodee , T., Hoffman , A., et al. 2024, , 966, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3447

    2024 doi

  40. [50]

    M., & Turner , N

    Gehrig , L., Gaidos , E., Venuti , L., Cody , A. M., & Turner , N. J. 2025, , 696, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202553730

    2025 doi

  41. [51]

    2007, Rotation and Accretion Powered Pulsars , Vol

    Ghosh , P. 2007, Rotation and Accretion Powered Pulsars , Vol. 10 (World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd.), 10.1142/4806

    2007 doi

  42. [52]

    Ghosh , P., & Lamb , F. K. 1979 a , , 232, 259, 10.1086/157285

    1979 doi

  43. [53]

    1979 b , , 234, 296, 10.1086/157498

    ---. 1979 b , , 234, 296, 10.1086/157498

    1979 doi

  44. [54]

    2024, , 685, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    Ginski , C., Garufi , A., Benisty , M., et al. 2024, , 685, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    V., & Wang , S

    Goyal , A. V., & Wang , S. 2025, , 169, 191, 10.3847/1538-3881/adb487

    2025 doi

  46. [56]

    2021, Acta Astrophysica Taurica, 2, 9, 10.31059/aat.vol2.iss1.pp9-20

    Grankin , K. 2021, Acta Astrophysica Taurica, 2, 9, 10.31059/aat.vol2.iss1.pp9-20

    2021 doi

  47. [57]

    N., Melnikov , S

    Grankin , K. N., Melnikov , S. Y., Bouvier , J., Herbst , W., & Shevchenko , V. S. 2007, , 461, 183, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065489

    2007 doi

  48. [58]

    W., Esposito , M., Mundt , R., et al

    Guenther , E. W., Esposito , M., Mundt , R., et al. 2007, , 467, 1147, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065686

    2007 doi

  49. [59]

    H., & Schlaufman , K

    Hamer , J. H., & Schlaufman , K. C. 2020, , 160, 138, 10.3847/1538-3881/aba74f

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 578, 10.1002/asna.202113868

    Harre , J.-V., & Heller , R. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 578, 10.1002/asna.202113868

    2021 doi

  51. [61]

    2016, , 54, 135, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

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

    2016 doi

  52. [62]

    1994, , 426, 669, 10.1086/174104

    Hartmann , L., Hewett , R., & Calvet , N. 1994, , 426, 669, 10.1086/174104

    1994 doi

  53. [63]

    W., et al

    Hattori , S., Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., et al. 2022, , 163, 284, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac625a

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    Herbst , W., Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., & Mundt , R. 2001, , 554, L197, 10.1086/321706

    2001 doi

  55. [65]

    2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed

    Herbst , W., Eisl \"o ffel , J., Mundt , R., & Scholz , A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 297, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603673

    2007 doi arXiv

  56. [66]

    K., Grossman , E

    Herbst , W., Herbst , D. K., Grossman , E. J., & Weinstein , D. 1994, , 108, 1906, 10.1086/117204

    1994 doi

  57. [67]

    A., Kiker , T

    Hillenbrand , L. A., Kiker , T. J., Gee , M., et al. 2022, , 163, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac62d8

    2022 doi

  58. [68]

    1965, Veroeffentlichungen der Sternwarte Sonneberg, 6, 97

    Hoffmeister , C. 1965, Veroeffentlichungen der Sternwarte Sonneberg, 6, 97

    1965

  59. [69]

    G., Matt , S

    Ireland , L. G., Matt , S. P., & Zanni , C. 2022, , 929, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac59b2

    2022 doi

  60. [70]

    G., Zanni , C., Matt , S

    Ireland , L. G., Zanni , C., Matt , S. P., & Pantolmos , G. 2021, , 906, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc828

    2021 doi

  61. [71]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Irwin , J., & Bouvier , J. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 258, The Ages of Stars, ed. E. E. Mamajek , D. R. Soderblom , & R. F. G. Wyse , 363--374, 10.1017/S1743921309032025

    2009 doi

  62. [72]

    P., Jardine , M., Gregory , S

    Johnstone , C. P., Jardine , M., Gregory , S. G., Donati , J. F., & Hussain , G. 2014, , 437, 3202, 10.1093/mnras/stt2107

    2014 doi

  63. [73]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 434, L51, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075

    2013 doi

  64. [74]

    K., & Romanova , M

    Kulkarni , A. K., & Romanova , M. M. 2013, , 433, 3048, 10.1093/mnras/stt945

    2013 doi

  65. [75]

    J., & Symington , N

    Kurosawa , R., Harries , T. J., & Symington , N. H. 2006, , 370, 580, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10527.x

    2006

  66. [76]

    Kurosawa , R., & Romanova , M. M. 2013, , 431, 2673, 10.1093/mnras/stt365

    2013 doi

  67. [77]

    M., & Harries , T

    Kurosawa , R., Romanova , M. M., & Harries , T. J. 2011, , 416, 2623, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19216.x

    2011

  68. [78]

    J., & Chiang , E

    Lee , E. J., & Chiang , E. 2017, , 842, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fb3

    2017 doi

  69. [79]

    S., Romanova , M

    Lii , P. S., Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2014, , 441, 86, 10.1093/mnras/stu495

    2014 doi

  70. [80]

    2023, , 166, 82, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace322

    Lin , C.-L., Ip , W.-H., Hsiao , Y., et al. 2023, , 166, 82, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace322

    2023 doi

  71. [81]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  72. [82]

    F., Frasca, A

    Manara , C. F., Frasca, A. , Venuti, L. , et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A196, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140639

    2021 doi

  73. [83]

    S., Morbidelli , A., Crida , A., & Ferreira , J

    Masset , F. S., Morbidelli , A., Crida , A., & Ferreira , J. 2006, , 642, 478, 10.1086/500967

    2006 doi

  74. [84]

    Matt , S., & Pudritz , R. E. 2005, , 632, L135, 10.1086/498066

    2005 doi

  75. [85]

    2008 a , , 678, 1109, 10.1086/533428

    ---. 2008 a , , 678, 1109, 10.1086/533428

    2008 doi

  76. [86]

    2008 b , , 681, 391, 10.1086/587453

    ---. 2008 b , , 681, 391, 10.1086/587453

    2008 doi

  77. [87]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2142, 10.1093/mnras/staa2041

    McGinnis, P., Bouvier, J., & Gallet, F. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2142, 10.1093/mnras/staa2041

    2020 doi

  78. [88]

    T., Alencar , S

    McGinnis , P. T., Alencar , S. H. P., Guimar \ a es , M. M., et al. 2015, , 577, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425475

    2015 doi

  79. [89]

    N., Mamajek , E

    Mellon , S. N., Mamajek , E. E., Oberst , T. E., & Pecaut , M. J. 2017, , 844, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77fb

    2017 doi

  80. [90]

    2024, , 686, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449368

    Mendigut \' a , I., Lillo-Box , J., Vioque , M., et al. 2024, , 686, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449368

    2024 doi

  81. [91]

    Michel , A., van der Marel , N., & Matthews , B. C. 2021, , 921, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bbb

    2021 doi

  82. [92]

    D., Pascucci , I., & Apai , D

    Mulders , G. D., Pascucci , I., & Apai , D. 2015, , 798, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/112

    2015 doi

  83. [93]

    D., Pascucci , I., Apai , D., & Ciesla , F

    Mulders , G. D., Pascucci , I., Apai , D., & Ciesla , F. J. 2018, , 156, 24, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac5ea

    2018 doi

  84. [94]

    1998, , 492, 743, 10.1086/305069

    Muzerolle , J., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 1998, , 492, 743, 10.1086/305069

    1998 doi

  85. [95]

    2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    ---. 2001, , 550, 944, 10.1086/319779

    2001 doi

  86. [96]

    2003, , 597, L149, 10.1086/379921

    Muzerolle , J., Calvet , N., Hartmann , L., & D'Alessio , P. 2003, , 597, L149, 10.1086/379921

    2003 doi

  87. [97]

    2019, , 625, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833979

    Nagel , E., & Bouvier , J. 2019, , 625, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833979

    2019 doi

  88. [98]

    2020, , 643, A157, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038594

    ---. 2020, , 643, A157, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038594

    2020 doi

  89. [99]

    2025, , 696, A46, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453365

    ---. 2025, , 696, A46, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453365

    2025 doi

  90. [100]

    Nagel , E., Bouvier , J., & Duarte , A. E. 2024, , 688, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450085

    2024 doi

  91. [101]

    2023 a , , 677, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347231

    Nelissen , M., Natta , A., McGinnis , P., et al. 2023 a , , 677, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347231

    2023 doi

  92. [102]

    P., et al

    Nelissen , M., McGinnis , P., Folsom , C. P., et al. 2023 b , , 670, A165, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245194

    2023 doi

  93. [103]

    Ogilvie , G. I. 2014, , 52, 171, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035941

    2014 doi

  94. [104]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  95. [105]

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

    Percy , J. R., Grynko , S., Seneviratne , R., & Herbst , W. 2010, , 122, 753, 10.1086/654826

    2010 doi

  96. [106]

    V., Espaillat , C

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

    2022 doi

  97. [107]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.01162

    ---. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.01162. 2507.01162

    2025 arXiv

  98. [108]

    2024, , 691, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451527

    Pouilly , K., Audard , M., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., & Lavail , A. 2024, , 691, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451527

    2024 doi

  99. [109]

    M., Stauffer , J

    Rebull , L. M., Stauffer , J. R., Cody , A. M., et al. 2018, , 155, 196, 10.3847/1538-3881/aab605

    2018 doi

  100. [110]

    Reipurth , B., Pedrosa , A., & Lago , M. T. V. T. 1996, , 120, 229

    1996

  101. [111]

    E., & Espaillat , C

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

    2019 doi

  102. [112]

    E., Espaillat , C

    Robinson , C. E., Espaillat , C. C., & Owen , J. E. 2021, , 908, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd410

    2021 doi

  103. [113]

    M., Blinova , A

    Romanova , M. M., Blinova , A. A., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2018, , 62, 94, 10.1016/j.newast.2018.01.011

    2018 doi

  104. [114]

    M., Ustyugova , G

    Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2004, , 616, L151, 10.1086/426586

    2004 doi

  105. [115]

    2009, , 399, 1802, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x

    ---. 2009, , 399, 1802, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15413.x

    2009

  106. [116]

    2013, , 430, 699, 10.1093/mnras/sts670

    ---. 2013, , 430, 699, 10.1093/mnras/sts670

    2013 doi

  107. [117]

    C., Casertano , S., Bond , H

    Sahu , K. C., Casertano , S., Bond , H. E., et al. 2006, , 443, 534, 10.1038/nature05158

    2006 doi

  108. [118]

    N., et al

    Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Rappaport , S., Winn , J. N., et al. 2014, , 787, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/47

    2014 doi

  109. [119]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835, 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  110. [120]

    P., Schlaufman , K

    Schmidt , S. P., Schlaufman , K. C., & Hamer , J. H. 2024, , 168, 109, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5d76

    2024 doi

  111. [121]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac300a

    Serna, J., Hernandez, J., Kounkel, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac300a

    2021 doi

  112. [122]

    2024, , 968, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a6b

    Serna , J., Pinz \'o n , G., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al. 2024, , 968, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a6b

    2024 doi

  113. [123]

    H., Najita , J

    Shu , F. H., Najita , J. R., Shang , H., & Li , Z. Y. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings , A. P. Boss , & S. S. Russell , 789--814

    2000

  114. [124]

    H., Cordes , J

    Simonetti , J. H., Cordes , J. M., & Heeschen , D. S. 1985, , 296, 46, 10.1086/163418

    1985 doi

  115. [125]

    Siwak , M., Ogloza , W., Moffat , A. F. J., et al. 2018, , 478, 758, 10.1093/mnras/sty1220

    2018 doi

  116. [126]

    D., Gillen , E., Hodgkin , S

    Smith , G. D., Gillen , E., Hodgkin , S. T., et al. 2023, , 523, 169, 10.1093/mnras/stad1435

    2023 doi

  117. [127]

    P., Alencar , S

    Sousa , A. P., Alencar , S. H. P., Bouvier , J., et al. 2016, , 586, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526599

    2016 doi

  118. [128]

    P., Bouvier , J., Alencar , S

    Sousa , A. P., Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H. P., et al. 2021, , 649, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140346

    2021 doi

  119. [129]

    F., et al

    Sperling , T., Eisl \"o ffel , J., Manara , C. F., et al. 2024, , 687, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450031

    2024 doi

  120. [130]

    C., & Taam , R

    Spruit , H. C., & Taam , R. E. 1993, , 402, 593, 10.1086/172162

    1993 doi

  121. [131]

    M., Baglin , A., et al

    Stauffer , J., Cody , A. M., Baglin , A., et al. 2014, , 147, 83, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/83

    2014 doi

  122. [132]

    2025, , 699, A333, 10.1051/0004-6361/202553671

    Sun , M.-F., Xie , J.-W., Zhou , J.-L., et al. 2025, , 699, A333, 10.1051/0004-6361/202553671

    2025 doi

  123. [133]

    K., Iwasaki , K., & Tomida , K

    Takasao , S., Kunitomo , M., Suzuki , T. K., Iwasaki , K., & Tomida , K. 2025, , 980, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada364

    2025 doi

  124. [134]

    Takasao , S., Tomida , K., Iwasaki , K., & Suzuki , T. K. 2022, , 941, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb1

    2022 doi

  125. [135]

    2023, , 944, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac84

    Thanathibodee , T., Molina , B., Serna , J., et al. 2023, , 944, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac84

    2023 doi

  126. [136]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02539-1

    Tu , P.-W., Xie , J.-W., Chen , D.-C., & Zhou , J.-L. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02539-1

    2025 doi

  127. [137]

    V., Koldoba , A

    Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2006, , 646, 304, 10.1086/503379

    2006 doi

  128. [138]

    A., K \"o nigl , A., & Litwin , C

    Uzdensky , D. A., K \"o nigl , A., & Litwin , C. 2002, , 565, 1191, 10.1086/324720

    2002 doi

  129. [139]

    M., et al

    Venuti , L., Bouvier , J., Cody , A. M., et al. 2017, , 599, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629537

    2017 doi

  130. [140]

    J., Liu , H.-G., et al

    Wang , M.-T., Herczeg , G. J., Liu , H.-G., et al. 2023, , 957, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf2f4

    2023 doi

  131. [141]

    Ward , W. R. 1997, , 126, 261, 10.1006/icar.1996.5647

    1997

  132. [142]

    C., Thanathibodee , T., et al

    Wendeborn , J., Espaillat , C. C., Thanathibodee , T., et al. 2024 a , , 972, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ed

    2024 doi

  133. [143]

    2024 b , , 971, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad543d

    ---. 2024 b , , 971, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad543d

    2024 doi

  134. [144]

    N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., & Rappaport , S

    Winn , J. N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., & Rappaport , S. 2018, , 83, 37, 10.1016/j.newar.2019.03.006

    2018 doi

  135. [145]

    N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Rogers , L., et al

    Winn , J. N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Rogers , L., et al. 2017, , 154, 60, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7b7c

    2017 doi

  136. [146]

    Youdin , A. N. 2011, , 742, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/38

    2011 doi

  137. [147]

    2009, , 508, 1117, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912879

    Zanni , C., & Ferreira , J. 2009, , 508, 1117, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912879

    2009 doi

  138. [148]

    2011, , 727, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L22

    ---. 2011, , 727, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L22

    2011 doi

  139. [149]

    2013, , 550, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220168

    ---. 2013, , 550, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220168

    2013 doi

  140. [150]

    2025, , 537, 3701, 10.1093/mnras/staf250

    Zhu , Z. 2025, , 537, 3701, 10.1093/mnras/staf250

    2025 doi

  141. [151]

    M., & Calvet , N

    Zhu , Z., Stone , J. M., & Calvet , N. 2024, , 528, 2883, 10.1093/mnras/stad3712

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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