Paper detail

PENELLOPE VII: Revisiting empirical relations to measure accretion luminosity

The accretion luminosity (Lacc) in young, low-mass stars is crucial for understanding stellar formation, but direct measurements are often hindered by limited spectral coverage and challenges in UV-excess modeling. Empirical relations linking Lacc to various accretion tracers are widely used to overcome these limitations. This work revisits these empirical relations using the PENELLOPE dataset, evaluating their applicability across different star-forming regions and to accreting young objects other than Classical T Tauri Stars (CTTSs). We analyzed the PENELLOPE VLT/X-Shooter dataset of 64 CTTSs, measuring fluxes of several accretion tracers and adopting the stellar and accretion parameters derived from PENELLOPE works. We supplemented our analysis with the ODYSSEUS HST data set, which covers a wider spectral range in NUV bands. We compared the Lacc values obtained in the PENELLOPE and ODYSSEUS surveys finding statistically consistent results. Our analysis confirms that existing empirical relations, previously derived for the Lupus sample, provide reliable Lacc estimates for CTTSs in several other star-forming regions. We revisit empirical relations for accretion tracers in our dataset, based on HST-fit, with coefficients which are consistent within 1sigma with XS-fit results for most lines. We also propose a method to estimate extinction using these relations and investigate the empirical relations for Brackett lines (Br8 to Br21). The Lacc vs Lline empirical relations can be successfully used for statistical studies of accretion on young forming objects in different star-forming regions. These relations also offer a promising approach to independently estimate extinction in CTTSs. We confirm that near-infrared lines (PaB and BrG) reliably trace Lacc in high accretors, making them valuable tools for probing accretion properties of high accreting young stars not accessible in the UVB.

preprint2025arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access13 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.