1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{/Users/rosten/papers/lkha101_rx/aastex}

3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

4: %\documentclass[12pt,eqsecnum,preprint]{aastex}

5: 

6:  

7: %\slugcomment{}

8: 

9: \shorttitle{Radio, X-ray Observations of the Lk Ha101 Cluster}

10: \shortauthors{Osten \& Wolk}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\e}{et al.\ }

13: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.\ }

14: \newcommand{\chandra}{\mbox{\it Chandra}}

15: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

16: \newcommand{\myemail}{swolk@cfa.harvard.edu}

17: \newcommand{\eg}{\mbox{e.g.}}

18: \newcommand{\ie}{\mbox{i.e.}}

19: \newcommand{\<}{$<$}

20: \newcommand{\minusone}{$^{-1}$} 

21: \newcommand{\LOH}{$L_{OH}$}

22: \newcommand{\LFIR}{$L_{FIR}$}

23: \newcommand{\I}{\protect\small I \normalsize $\!\!$}

24: \newcommand{\II}{\protect\small II \normalsize $\!\!$}

25: \newcommand{\HI}{\mbox{\rm H\I}\ }

26: \newcommand{\NH}{\mbox{$N_{\rm H}$}}

27: \newcommand{\nh}{\mbox{$N_{\rm H}$}}

28: \newcommand{\SII}{\ion{S}{2}}

29: \newcommand{\HII}{\ion{H}{2}}

30: \newcommand{\skipthis}[1]{}

31: \newcommand{\jj}[2]{\mbox{$J = #1 \rightarrow #2$}}

32: \newcommand{\uco}[1]{\mbox{$^{#1}$CO}} % ie \uco{13}\ -> 13co

33: \newcommand{\cuo}[1]{\mbox{C$^{#1}$O}} % ie \cuo{18}\ -> c18o 

34: \newcommand{\asec}{$^{\prime\prime}$}

35: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}

36: \newcommand{\pcc}{{\rm cm}^{-3}}

37: \newcommand{\percc}{\rm \,cm^{-3}}

38: \newcommand{\psqcm}{{\rm cm}^{-2}}

39: \newcommand{\persqcm}{\rm \,cm^{-2}}

40: \newcommand{\gpersqcm}{\rm \,g\,cm^{-2}}

41: \newcommand{\gpercc}{\rm \,g\,cm^{-3}}

42: \newcommand{\ps}{{\rm s}^{-1}}

43: \newcommand{\ccps}{{\rm cm}^{3} {\rm s}^{-1}}

44: \newcommand{\kmps}{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}

45: \newcommand{\erg}{{\rm ergs}}

46: \newcommand{\kb}{k_{\rm B}}

47: \def\micron{\hbox{$\mu$m}}

48: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

49: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

50: \def\cf{{c.f.\ }}

51: \def\etc{{etc.\ }}

52: %\def\etal{\mbox{\it et al.\,}}

53: \def\ie{{i.e.\ }}

54: \def\noi{{\noindent}}

55: \def\ra{{\rightarrow}}

56: \newcommand{\amin}{$^{\prime}$}

57: \newcommand{\ks}{~km s$^{-1}$}

58: 

59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

60: \begin{document}

61: 

62: 

63:  

64: \title{Multiwavelength Signatures of Magnetic Activity from Young Stellar Objects in the LkH$\alpha$101 Cluster}

65: \author{Rachel A. Osten\altaffilmark{1}\altaffilmark{2}}

66: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20720 U.S.A.}

67: \email{osten@stsci.edu}

68: \author{Scott J. Wolk}

69: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 U.S.A.}

70: \email{swolk@cfa.harvard.edu}

71: 

72: 

73: \altaffiltext{1}{Hubble Fellow}

74: \altaffiltext{2}{Currently at Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218}

75: 

76: \begin{abstract}

77: We describe the results of our multi-wavelength observing campaign

78: on the young stellar objects in the LkH$\alpha$101 cluster.

79: Our simultaneous X-ray and multi-frequency radio observations are unique in providing 

80: simultaneous constraints on short-timescale variability at both wavelengths

81: as well as constraints on the thermal or nonthermal

82: nature of radio emission from young stars.  Focussing in on radio-emitting objects

83: and the multi-wavelength data obtained for them, we find that

84: multi-frequency radio data indicate nonthermal emission even in objects with

85: infrared evidence for disks.

86: We find radio variability on timescales of decades, days and hours. 

87: %the fraction of objects considered radio-variable increases as the timescale

88: %decreases.  

89: About half of the objects with X-ray and radio detections were variable

90: at X-ray wavelengths, despite lacking large-scale flares or large variations.

91: Variability appears to be a bigger factor affecting radio emission than X-ray emission. 

92: A star with infrared evidence for a disk, [BW88]~3, was observed in the decay phase of radio flare.

93: In this object and another ([BW88]~1),

94: we find an inverse correlation between radio flux and spectral index which

95: contrasts with behavior seen in the Sun and active stars.

96: We interpret this behavior as the repopulation of the hardest energy electrons

97: due to particle acceleration.

98: A radio and X-ray source lacking an infrared counterpart, [BW88]~1,

99: may be near the substellar limit; its radio properties are similar to

100: other cluster members, but its much higher radio to X-ray luminosity ratio is reminiscent of

101: behavior in nearby very low mass stars/brown dwarfs.

102: We find no correspondence between signatures

103: of particle acceleration and those of plasma heating, both time-averaged and time-variable.

104: %The multi-wavelength behavior suggests that the structures giving rise

105: %to the radio and X-ray emission on young stars are physically and/or energetically distinct.

106: The lack of correlated temporal variability in multi-wavelength behavior, the 

107: breakdown of multi-wavelength correlations of time-averaged luminosities, and

108: the optical thickness of X-ray-emitting material at radio wavelengths support the

109: idea that radio and X-ray emission on young stars are physically and/or energetically 

110: distinct.

111: \end{abstract}

112: 

113: \keywords{stars: activity --- stars: coronae --- stars:pre--main sequence ---

114: radio continuum: stars --- X-rays:stars

115: }

116: 

117: \section{Introduction}

118: Magnetic fields play an important, but poorly understood, role in the formation and further

119: evolution of late-type stars.

120: The influence of magnetic fields in stellar environments can be seen, for example, in X-ray emission

121: from gas which has been magnetically heated to coronal temperatures,

122: and radio emission arising from the action of nonthermal

123: particles in the presence of magnetic fields.

124: In the last 20 years, remarkable advances in the detection and

125: study of stellar sources at X-ray and radio wavelengths have revealed 

126: an intimate connection between radio and X-ray luminosities of 

127: late-type stars.  

128: This relationship extends from time-averaged

129: estimates of the presumably steady emission, to spectacular 

130: examples of flare enhancements when studied simultaneously with

131: multiple wavelengths.

132: Yet the underlying connection is still

133: not well constrained. 

134: Most of the observational multi-wavelength studies

135: of magnetically-induced flare activity on late-type stars have 

136: concentrated on targeted studies of nearby, extremely active stars.

137: %To date, most coordinated radio and X-ray studies have concentrated on

138: %nearby active binaries and dMe stars, the most hyperactive of late-type

139: %stars.

140: The goal of the current project is to investigate

141: a region of active star formation, using simultaneous X-ray and radio  

142: observations, to constrain the relationship of these emissions in both 

143: steady and varying emission. This will allow us to  

144: determine the extent to which the solar paradigm can be

145: carried in these very active young

146: stars.

147: %A key

148: %question is the extent to which magnetic dynamos in the stellar

149: %interior, or some

150: %mechanism associated with the presence of a disk, controls the

151: %magnetic field topology and regulates magnetic activity.  

152: 

153: \subsection{The Stellar X-ray--Radio Connection}

154: At first glance, there is an obvious disconnect between X-ray and radio emission

155: from active stars:  X-ray observations are well described by optically thin,

156: thermal, high temperature plasma generally seen in a distribution between

157: a few MK and tens of MK (few keV), while radio observations generally probe nonthermal

158: populations of

159: accelerated electrons with energies of a few MeV.  

160: Yet among

161: several classes of active stars and solar flares, a tight relation 

162: between X-ray and radio luminosities is

163: found, L$_{X}/$L$_{R}$ $\sim 10^{15.5 \pm 0.5}$ Hz \citep{gb1993,bg1994}. 

164: This relation extends from solar microflares up to the most energetic

165: coronal sources (in radio and X-rays): the weak T Tauri stars (wTTs; Class III objects).  The observational

166: relationship invites an interpretation based on a common origin -- particle acceleration

167: and thermal coronal heating, separate but related

168: steps in the flow of energy after a magnetic reconnection event,

169: as inferred from solar and stellar flare studies.

170: %Connecting the behavior seen in individual solar flares with the characteristic 

171: %emission levels of active stars requires that the flare frequency increase with decreasing

172: %flare energies.

173: %One physical

174: %model \citep{drake1989,drake1992}, assumes that hot plasma emits both 

175: %thermal X-rays and thermal gyrosynchrotron radiation, 

176: %but this model predicts steep optically thin spectra that are not observed.

177: %If the quiescent emission is made up of numerous solar-like coronal

178: %flares, then the high-energy particles carry their energy downward 

179: %to heat chromospheric plasma. For a steady-state situation in which 

180: %the electron injection rate is balanced by an unspecified electron 

181: %loss mechanism, one derives a relation between the synchrotron losses, 

182: %the particle lifetime, and the energy losses in X-rays. 

183: 

184: %{\it \citet{cdf}

185: %argued that the build-up of 

186: %magnetic energy in magnetic loops is proportional to B$^2$. 

187: %Because most of the energy in the magnetic fields is eventually

188: %radiated away in X-rays, $L_X \propto  B^2$. 

189: %The power-law electron population in the same loop emits optically 

190: %thin radio radiation, $\sim L_R \propto B^{\sim 3}$ (assuming a

191: %power law index in the radio of 3). This would

192: %also explain the observed $L_{X}\propto L_{R}$. }

193: %Hence $L_X \sim\propto  L_R$. 

194: 

195: On the Sun, the observed relationship between nonthermal processes and thermal coronal

196: emission during individual transient impulsive flare events is well known \citep{neupert1968}

197: and has given rise to a standard flare scenario.

198: %accelerated coronal electrons precipitate into the

199: %chromosphere where they lose their kinetic energy by collisions,

200: %thereby heating the cool plasma to coronal flare temperatures.

201: Particles are

202: accelerated high in the corona in connection with a reconnection event,

203: and downwardly-directed electron beams ``inject'' these energetic particles

204: into coronal loops, which act as a magnetic trap.  Radio gyrosynchrotron

205: emission occurs from trapped particles; those which precipitate 

206: due to pitch-angle scattering encounter the dense chromosphere

207: where they are collisionally stopped, depositing their energy in the 

208: ambient plasma.

209: The temperate chromospheric

210: material becomes heated to coronal temperatures 

211: on timescales short compared with the

212: hydrodynamic expansion timescale, and undergoes a radiative instability,

213: expanding up into the corona, where the high temperature gas radiates at X-ray

214: wavelengths. 

215: The X-ray radiation increases gradually during the impulsive

216: particle acceleration episode, reaching a peak after the acceleration has

217: ended and subsequently declining to previous values \citep{fisher1985}.

218: Radio gyrosynchrotron emission

219: from the accelerated electrons is roughly proportional to the

220: injection rate of electrons, whereas the X-ray luminosity is roughly

221: proportional to the accumulated energy in the hot plasma.  This simple

222: scenario gives

223: rise to the 

224: observed L$_R \propto dL_X/dt$ seen in the Sun; as the amount of

225: nonthermal energy input (diagnosed by the radio emission) increases,

226: the thermal radiative output (X-ray emission) also increases, until the acceleration and

227: subsequent heating ceases and

228: the system settles back into quiescence.

229: Observations of some stellar flares at

230: multiple wavelengths confirm this scenario for a variety of active stars

231: \citep{gudel1996,hawley2003,gudel2002,osten2004,smith2005},

232: yet there is also ample evidence that the situation on stars is more complex.

233: %radio flare radiation \citep{osten2000},

234: %radio (and optical) flares occur without any obvious signature of

235: %X-ray emission (Osten et al. 2004b), 

236: %and soft X-ray flares without radio signatures have also been seen (Osten et al. 2004a).

237: 

238: %While most active, X-ray and radio-emitting stars appear to follow the

239: %observed $L_X \propto  L_R$ relation, there are some discrepant cases.

240: %{\bf following paragraph not really refered to in rest of paper; either build a connection or

241: %restructure}

242: %{\it Some particular

243: %examples of nearby field X-ray emitting stars whose radio emission does not 

244: %follow the expected relation include the evolved binary system Capella (G1III+G8III), 

245: %which has a radio spectrum consistent with

246: %thermal bremsstrahlung emission from its coronal material \citep{dl1986}, and

247: %Procyon \citep[F5 IV-V;][]{dsb1993} whose radio spectrum is consistent 

248: %with a combination of stellar disk emission, and optically thin thermal coronal emission.

249: %Apart from these apparently singular cases, another class of objects in which

250: %the $L_X \propto L_R$ relation appears to break down is ultracool 

251: %dwarfs, where radio emission can be enhanced by several orders of magnitude

252: %over that expected from the  $L_X \propto L_R$ relation.

253: %Recently, \citep{hallinan2006} has suggested that the properties of radio

254: %emission from two very low mass stars/brown dwarfs are more consistent with a coherent

255: %emission mechanism rather than incoherent gyrosynchrotron; a different

256: %radio emission mechanism would naturally explain the observed departure

257: %for these objects if they all behave this way.  

258: %Coherent emission has also been seen in transient outbursts from nearby

259: %active stars \citep{wf1995,bastian1990}, complicating

260: %the radio interpretation.}

261: 

262: 

263: \subsection{Radio Emission from Young Stars}

264: %Because we have simultaneous dual frequency observations, we can address the nature of the radio emission

265: %in sources detected at radio wavelengths.

266: Either thermal or nonthermal radio emission from young stellar objects can be

267: expected to be present.  

268: Thermal sources are more likely to be identified with disks, or with

269: higher mass objects with winds \citep{skinner1993}; nonthermal

270: emission is associated with particle acceleration and magnetic reconnection.  

271: Based on the classification sequence of young stellar objects from infalling

272: protostar to wTTs and the decreasing relative importance of accretion and

273: disk material versus magnetic activity \citep[see review by][]{fm1999}, we expect that Class 0, I and II 

274: (a.k.a classical T Tauri stars; cTTs) sources 

275: will be more dominantly thermal radio sources, while Class III sources

276: are potential nonthermal radio sources.  

277: There are observations which suggest

278: that nonthermal radio emission has been detected in a few Class I

279: objects \citep{feigelson1998},

280: raising the possibility that nonthermal diagnostics of magnetic activity can be

281: produced in Class I and II objects, but obscured by free-free absorption in the 

282: accretion disk or wind.

283: These two cases can be discerned with

284: multi-frequency radio observations, as the spectral shape of the continuum emission will be different.

285: Nonthermal emission can additionally be discerned due to short time-scale variability 

286: from magnetic reconnection processes; circular polarization from

287: structures containing large-scale magnetic fields provides an additional observational

288: constraint.

289: In addition to gyrosynchrotron emission in

290: T Tauri stars,

291: evidence exists also for coherent emission 

292: \citep[highly

293: circularly polarized emission;][]{smith2003}. 

294: %For a homogeneous and steady source, the expected run of

295: %S$_{\nu} (\nu)$ for different emission mechanisms is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:radiospec}.

296: %Such abstractions are difficult to reconcile with observations, as a distribution of

297: %the important parameters is usually expected in real radio-emitting sources; nevertheless,

298: %rising spectra ($\alpha \ge 1$) can generally be regarded as optically thick thermal sources,

299: %and steeply falling spectra  can generally be regarded as optically thick thermal sources,

300: %and steeply falling spectra. 

301: %The presence of short time-scale variability is also a potential discriminant, as magnetic reconnection processes

302: %are able to generate large intensity variations on short timescales. 

303: %Finally, the presence of circular polarization is also a potential tool to diagnose gyrosynchrotron

304: %emission from structures containing large-scale magnetic fields.

305: 

306: The X-ray and radio emission from wTTs are

307: enhanced orders of magnitude above the Sun and most 

308: active stars' variability extremes,

309: signaling a possible extension of the trends from the lower 

310: activity stars, or a transition

311: to a new kind of phenomenon. 

312: T Tauri stars show similar behaviors to the well-studied 

313: active stars (and the Sun itself) ---

314: starspots, luminous X-ray and radio emission, 

315: enhanced chromospheric emission

316: \citep{fm1999}, signalling the importance of magnetic fields

317: in producing these signatures in young stars as well. 

318: Magnetic fields have been measured on the surfaces of

319: young stars \citep{cmj2007}; while their generation in

320: wTTs is probably not due to an interface dynamo as in the Sun

321: due to the fully or nearly fully convective nature of

322: wTTs, alternative explanations such as convective or turbulent dynamos (described 

323: in \citet{ck2006} and \citet{dobler2006})

324: may be responsible for magnetic field production in wTTs. 

325: It is not known to what extent magnetic

326: activity phenomena are affected by circumstellar

327: material and/or jets and ionized winds, as can be

328: found around young low-mass stars.

329: While some wTTs do show correlations between non-simultaneously obtained time-averaged X-ray and radio

330: luminosities \citep{gb1993,bg1994}, other studies have

331: found little or no correlation between these luminosities or their

332: variability \citep{gagne2004}.  

333: Confirmation of the complex nature of

334: magnetic activity signatures also arises 

335: from the lack of multi-wavelength correlations between X-ray and radio emission

336: in Class~I sources 

337: \citep{forbrich2006,forbrich2007}.

338: %In terms of their radio emission, the characteristics of

339: %T Tauri stars show many similarities with

340: %very active field stars.  

341: %Radio emission detected from M$>$3 M$_{\odot}$ objects

342: %tends to be thermal emission from winds \citep{skinner1993}.

343: %There are more possibilities

344: %for radio emission mechanisms due to the possible presence of 

345: %a disk around the star, which could produce free-free emission from

346: %ionized winds or jets. 

347: 

348: Radio observations are an inefficient method of finding cluster objects, due

349: to the low radio detection rates: 

350: radio surveys find radio emission rates of $<$10\% for CTTs \citep[generally objects associated with optical jets and

351: Herbig Haro objects,][]{bieging1984}, 

352: $\sim$20\% for Herbig Ae/Be stars \citep[due to thermal emission from a wind;][]{skinner1993}, and 

353: 10--50\% for WTTs \citep[emission due to magnetic activity;][]{white1992}.

354: %Such conclusions are, of course, distance and flux limited.

355: %There is a known asymmetry between radio emission and X-ray emission in young stellar objects.

356: %\citet{herbig2004} noted the low correspondence between optically identified cluster members

357: %and radio sources specific to this cluster, while 

358: The asymmetry in multi-wavelength associations for young stars was 

359: pointed out by 

360: \citet{andre1987}, who noted from their study of the $\rho$ Oph

361: core that a majority of stellar radio sources are

362: detected at X-ray and IR wavelengths, but the converse is not true.

363: %\citet{andre1987} pointed out 

364: %such behavior in the $\rho$ Ophiuchi dark cloud, where less than 10\%

365: %of the X-ray sources had detectable radio emission, but more than 60\% of the stellar

366: %radio sources displayed soft X-ray emission.

367: \citet{gagne2004} found similar results 

368: in the $\rho$ Ophiuchi cloud; in their study, 10 sources were detected at both

369: radio and X-ray wavelengths, compared with 31 radio sources and

370: 87 X-ray sources. 

371: %This is borne out by our observations and the radio detection rates for

372: %Class~II and III objects stars (see discussion in Section~\ref{sec:rxrir}).

373: Biases from distance, sensivity, and variability play a role in these trends.

374: Despite the low radio detection rate, radio observations 

375: are important in the context of magnetic activity signatures in that

376: they providue unique diagnostics of accelerated electrons unavailable at other wavelengths,

377: and deep observations can reveal new sources heretofore undetected in 

378: shallow radio surveys.

379: 

380: The purview of radio variability studies on T Tauri stars have usually been

381: long timescales of months to years,

382: due to the survey nature of most of the radio observations.  

383: There is some evidence

384: that similar features are seen in radio flares from wTTs as on hyperactive

385: stars:  short timescale (hrs) flux enhancements \citep{feigelson1994}, spectral index increases

386: during flux enhancements signalling switch from optically thin to

387: optically thick emission \citep{felli1993}, and detection of circular polarization \citep{white1992}.

388: 

389: %Similarly the optical counterparts showed

390: %variability, but this was not correlated with the X-ray

391: %vaiability. Taken as a whole, this indicates that there may be no

392: %direct link between X-ray and optical variability, implying that

393: %accretion is not an important source of X-ray emission. However the

394: %lack of strong flares and small sample size temper that conclusion. 

395: %Lack of radio varibility data allows no inference on the relationship

396: %between X-ray and radio generation mechanisms (?)

397: 

398: %{\it there is also a paper by Stassun about the X-ray/optical variabiltiy

399: %in some of the COUP stars, where they did a correlation analysis and showed there

400: %was no correlation}

401: 

402: %  {\it rotation-activity disconnect?}

403: 

404: \subsection{The Target --- The LkH$\alpha$101 Cluster}

405: LkH$\alpha$ 101 is a luminous ($\sim 5\times10^3L_\odot$) 

406: Herbig Be star with a strong wind \citep{barsony1990},

407: an associated H\II~ 

408: region (Sharpless-222) and a reflection nebula (NGC 1579). 

409: The visual extinction in 

410: the extended area is about 1 magnitude.  IRAS data show 

411: 100$\mu$m emission extending 30$^\prime$ around the star.

412: Recent observations by \citet{tuthill2001,tuthill2002}

413: have discovered that this star possesses a disk

414: which is nearly face on, and shows evidence of a

415: secondary star.  

416: This cluster was originally identified by the ``necklace of radio sources'' 

417: around the central star LkH$\alpha$101 \citep[][hereafter, BW88]{bw},

418: as they

419: detected 9 point sources at 6 cm using the VLA.  

420: Subsequent observations by \citet{so} (hereafter, SO98)

421: revealed an additional 16 radio sources. 

422: \citet{ab1994}

423: found 51 sources (K$<$16.8) within 40$^{\prime\prime}$ of LkH$\alpha$101.

424: Extinction of these sources is moderate (3-20 A$_V$) and  

425: one-third of the stars show

426: infrared excesses consistent with disks.  The 2MASS data 

427: clearly show a small cluster of stars, centered on LkH$\alpha$101,

428: about 3$^\prime$ in radius (the extent of the optical nebula). 

429:  Comparison of this field with nearby

430: 2MASS pencil beams indicates about 65 more sources in this direction

431: within the 6$^\prime$ diameter.  This is not the whole

432: cluster as  \citet{ab1994} found sources 2 magnitudes fainter than

433: the 2MASS limit. 

434: %At 340 pc, the limiting K magnitude of 2MASS corresponds to

435: %about 0.3 M$_\odot$.

436: We take the distance to the cluster to be 700 pc \citep{herbig2004};

437: a detailed discussion of distance estimates occurs in

438: a more comprehensive paper on the wealth of X-ray, infrared, and 

439: optical data on the cluster (Wolk et al., in prep.).

440: 

441: 

442: In this paper, we discuss simultaneous {\it Chandra} ACIS-I and VLA observations of

443: a young PMS cluster to bridge the gap between the well-studied

444: X-ray--radio connection of the nearby active stars and 

445: that of the more distant and more common (and potentially more

446: magnetically active) pre-main sequence stars.  

447: Such studies of high energy processes in star forming regions have the

448: advantage of numerous stars in the field of view to increase the ``stellar monitoring time''

449: and thereby increase the likelihood of observing transient emissions.

450: %A companion paper to the present one

451: %(Wolk et al., in prep)

452: %discusses in detail the wealth of X-ray, infrared and optical data on

453: %the cluster.  

454: The focus on this paper is the radio observations and 

455: the insights into magnetic activity in young stars which the simultaneous 

456: radio and X-ray observations provide.

457: Section 2 describes the data reduction, \S 3 describes the analysis,

458: \S 4 presents and discusses the results in terms of the magnetic structures 

459: giving rise to radio and X-ray emissions, \S 5 discusses the implications of

460: the results, and \S 6 concludes. 

461: 

462: \section{Data Reduction}

463: The primary goal of this program was the simultaneous $Chandra$ and

464: VLA observations to investigate variability in active young stars.  

465: To achieve the desired sensitivity

466: in the X-ray bands we required 80ks (22hr) total observation time.  In order

467: to enable nearly completely simultaneous coverage of the $Chandra$

468: observations with the VLA, we divided the 80 ks into two 40~ks (11 hr)

469: observations separated by 2 days, occurring on 6 and 8 March, 2005.

470: We also drew on available

471: non-contemporaneous 2MASS and $Spitzer$ data to help elucidate the

472: nature of the sources in the field.  A companion paper (Wolk et al.,

473: in prep., hereafter Paper~II) presents a detailed analysis of the Chandra and {\it Spitzer}

474: data and accompanying optical data including 2MASS, Spitzer IRAC

475: as well as MIPS 24 $\mu$m data.  For the present purposes we use

476: the derived X-ray and IR source positions, IR photometry, and X-ray variability

477: and spectral shape to construct a better picture of the radio sources.

478: In this section, we outline the

479: observations and basic reduction of the radio and X-ray data.

480: 

481: \subsection{Radio Data Reduction}

482: The LkH$\alpha$101 cluster was observed by the VLA\footnote{The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.}

483: in March 2005 in project S60872.  The observing setup consisted of splitting the array into two sub-arrays, and

484: observing simultaneously at 3.6 and 6 cm.  Observations were obtained in this fashion on 6 and 8

485: March, for observing sessions spanning 10.5 and 11 hours,

486: respectively.

487: The approximate full width at half maximum of the primary beam at 3.6 and 6 cm is

488: 5.3 and 9.4 arcminutes, respectively, meaning that the longer wavelength has sensitivity

489: extending over larger distances from the cluster center.  

490: Thus, while there was only one pointing direction, limiting the field of view to a fraction of

491: the Chandra field, the deep exposure combined with simultaneous multi-frequency

492: recording ensures an ability to constrain the nature of short time-scale variability

493: for radio-emitting sources within $\sim$5\amin\ of LkH$\alpha$101.

494: The phase center of the observations, or ``aimpoint'', was 2\asec\ south of LkH$\alpha$101.

495: The array was in B configuration, affording a reasonable compromise

496: between spatial resolution and wide-field coverage; as the bright central Be star is the source

497: of a radio-bright H~II region there is a fair amount of extended emission.

498: Radio data was reduced and calibrated in AIPS; the primary flux calibrator was 3C48

499: and the phase calibrator was 0414+343.  After the initial calibration, phase self-calibration

500: of the cluster was done using the bright central source.  

501: Because of the large amount of

502: extended emission from the nebula, visible at small $uv$ distances, 

503: images were made with restricted baseline lengths; after examining the behavior of the correlated 

504: flux versus baseline, X-band (3.6 cm) maps were made with $uv$ distances restricted

505: to 30--300 k$\lambda$, C-band (6 cm) maps were made with $uv$ distances restricted to 10--200 k$\lambda$.

506: Even with these $uv$-range restrictions, there appear to be radio-emitting structures

507: larger than the fringe spacing of the shortest baselines; dark bowls around the central object

508: and large-scale stripes in the image (particularly at 6 cm) indicate this.

509: Images at each frequency were made

510: using visibilities for each day as well as combined for both days; thus 6 maps of the region around

511: LkH$\alpha$101 were generated and searched for radio sources.

512: The maps were corrected for the primary beam by dividing by the primary beam gain factor.

513: C-band maps were made using pixel sizes of 0.3\asec$/$pixel, X-band maps made with 0.15\asec$/$pixel,

514: with image sizes 2048 pixels, corresponding to 5.1\amin\  and 10.2\amin\  for X and C-bands, respectively, thus

515: covering the FWHM of the primary beam.

516: However, the non-monochromatic nature of the radio

517: emission results in the intensity of a point source being reduced at larger distances

518: from the pointing center; the total (integrated) 

519: flux is preserved but the peak flux decreases in proportion to

520: the bandwidth relative to central frequency, and the source offset in units of the synthesized

521: beam.  Because source detection is based on peak flux density exceeding 

522: a threshhold, the effect of bandwidth smearing will degrade our attempts to find weak point sources

523: far from the center of the cluster. 

524: 

525: In addition to creating images of total intensity at each wavelength, we also imaged the same

526: regions in Stokes V to search for any significant amount of circularly polarized flux, as

527: has been noted from previous observations of young stellar objects \citep{white1992}.

528: We did not detect any statistically significant levels of circularly polarized flux.

529: The Stokes V image rms at 3.6 cm was 10 $\mu$Jy, and the Stokes V image rms at 6 cm was 13$\mu$Jy.

530: 

531: We generated a catalog of previously detected radio sources in this cluster, using the

532: source lists of \citet{bw} and \cite{so}, precessed to J2000 coordinates.

533: We follow the SIMBAD naming convention for these sources based on their designators in these

534: two papers.

535: In addition we searched for new sources in the combined maps at each frequency.  

536: All radio sources were given names in accordance with IAU convention,

537: and have the acronym ``LkHa101VLA'' accompanied by a sequence giving the J2000

538: coordinates, although we retain the use of the earlier names in previously

539: identified objects.

540: Based on our initial visual inspection of the combined images,

541: six new sources were identified using a minimum signal to noise (peak/rms) of 5.

542: We added these positions to the catalog of previously identified sources, and performed

543: a systematic determination of fluxes at each frequency and observing day: fits were done to

544: an 11 $\times$ 11 pixel square around the source coordinates when converted from RA, Dec to image pixel location.

545: For previously identified sources, we recorded a detection if the signal to noise ratio exceeded 3.

546: Fluxes were determined by two-dimensional Gaussian fits to the primary beam-corrected images.  Correction

547: for bandwidth smearing was done.  For previously detected sources, we determined the flux or upper limit

548: at the position of the source as noted in other papers.  

549: Some previously identified sources were not within the field of view 

550: of our observations.  Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl1} lists the 3.6 and 6 cm fluxes obtained from 

551: co-adding all the data from this epoch,

552: as well as previously reported flux densities, taken from the literature \citep{bw,so}.

553: %The observations of \citet{bw} were comprised of four separate pointings in 1985/1986, while

554: %those of \citet{so} were obtained in one

555: %pointing.  

556: 

557: \subsection{X-ray Data Reduction}

558: 

559: The field was observed by $Chandra$ on 6 March 2005 starting at 17:16

560: UT  for 40.2 ks of total time and 39.6 ks of so-called ``good-time'' 

561: (ObsId 5429). It was observed again on 8 March 2005 starting at 17:43 UT

562: for essentially the same duration (ObsId 5428). The ACIS was

563: used in the nominal imaging array (chips I0-I3) which provides  

564: a field of view of approximately 17\arcmin $\times$ 17\arcmin.

565: The aimpoint was at 04:30:14.4, +35:16:22.2  (J2000.0) with a roll of 281 degrees.

566: %In addition, the S2 and S3 chips were however the analysis of these

567: %data are not presented here. 

568: %The Combined X-ray image is shown in Figure~\ref{Ximage}.

569: %Background was nominal and non-variable.  We bin the whole level~2 data into

570: %80, 1~ks units. One bin was 4 $\sigma$ (Gaussian) above the median.

571: %The median count rate for ObsId 5429 was 5.567 $\pm 0.73$ counts ks $^{-1}$ and 

572: %was 5.61 $\pm 0.76$ for ObsId 5428, with a maximum count rate of 6.01

573: %counts ks $^{-1}$. This is consistent with a constant background,

574: %perhaps with a flaring source. 

575: 

576: The data %used in these analysis were reprocessed the ``repro 3''. 

577: %As such, they were 

578: were processed through the standard CIAO pipeline at the

579: Chandra X-ray Center, using their software version DS7.6.  

580: %This version of the

581: %pipeline automatically incorporated a noise correction for low energy

582: %events. It has been noted that this filter can remove good events 

583: %from the cores of bright point sources, resulting in an

584: %underestimation of the X-ray flux (L. Townsley private communication).

585: %This proved not to be an issue in the case since the count rate did

586: %not exceed 0.04 counts per second for any source.  

587: For the purposes of point source detection, the data from the two

588: observations were merged into a single event list following

589: established CIAO procedures to create a merged event list. 

590: To identify point sources, photons

591: with energies below 300 eV and above 8.0 keV were filtered out from

592: this merged event list.  

593: %The excluded energies generally lack any stellar contribution.  By filtering the data as

594: %described, contributions from hard, non-stellar sources are

595: %attenuated, as is noise.  A

596: A monochromatic exposure map was generated in the standard way using an

597: energy of 1.49 keV which is a reasonable match to the expected 

598: peak energy of the sources and the $Chandra$ mirror transmission.  

599: WavDetect was then run on a series of flux

600: corrected images binned by 1, 2 and 4 pixels. The resulting

601: source lists were combined and this resulted in the detection of

602: about 210 sources.

603: % {\bf about 210 (currently 213 - 2 Oct 07)} sources. 

604: Detailed description of X-ray data reduction, and analysis,

605: including point source extraction and flux estimation, is given in Paper~II. 

606: 

607: %\footnote{The

608: %  src\_significance given by the CIAO tool WavDetect is not in

609: %  units of $\sigma$ so no false alarm probability is associated. While the

610: %  relative value of src\_significance is meaningful, 

611: %  it is not clearly defined in a

612: %  statistical sense (V.~Kashyap Private communication).}.

613:  

614: %These are tabulated in Table~\ref{XSources}.  

615: %In each of these tables, The first column contains a running src

616: %number, the second an official IAU style designation.  Columns 3 and 4

617: %are the R.A. and Declination of the centroid of the X-ray source

618: %followed by the off axis angle in column 5.

619: %At each source position an extraction ellipse was calculated following

620: %Wolk \e (2006) updated for the appropriate roll.  This provides an

621: %extraction ellipse containing 95\% of the source flux. The number of

622: %counts in this region are listed in column 6.  

623: %For each of the sources, a background ellipse is identified. 

624: %The background is an annular ellipse with the same center, eccentricity, and 

625: %rotation as the source.  The outer radius is 6 times the radius of the source 

626: %and the inner radius is 3 times larger than the source.  From this region any 

627: %nearby sources are subtracted with ellipses 3 times the size of the source 

628: %ellipse.  The net counts are calculated by subtracting the background

629: %counts  (corrected for area) and multiplying the result by 1.053 to

630: %correct for the use of a 95\% encircled energy radius. This is the

631: %value given in column 7.

632: %

633: %

634: %\subsection{Spitzer Data Reduction}

635: %{\bf OK, Scott, can you add maybe a paragraph here?}

636: 

637: %\subsection{Hectospec Reduction}

638: 

639: \section{Analysis}

640: 

641: \subsection{Multi-Wavelength Source Identification \label{sec:rxrir}}

642: The VLA source positions were searched against the IRAC point source catalog (from Paper~II)

643: for matches.

644: An offset of 1\asec\ produced a total of 7 matches; relaxing the required

645: positional coincidence to as much as 4 \asec\ did not produce any additional matches.

646: Of these, 4 are Class~III objects, 2 are Class~II objects, and

647: one (the central star LkH$\alpha$ 101) is classed as unknown.

648: The VLA source positions were also cross-correlated against the Chandra

649: source positions, with a positional coincidence of 1\asec\ allowed for

650: X-ray sources within 200\asec\ of the pointing center, and 2.5\asec\ allowed for

651: X-ray sources greater than 200\asec\ from the pointing center. 

652: %For each source in the $Chandra$ source list, the nearest IR

653: %counterpart from the IRAC catalog (Wolk et al., in prep.)

654: %was identified. For X-ray sources within 200\asec\ of

655: %onaxis, an offset between the X-ray and IR sources of 1\asec\ was

656: %allowed. For X-ray sources between 200\asec\ and 600\asec\ of onaxis

657: %an offset of 2.5\asec\ was allowed.  

658: Within 5\amin\ of LkH$\alpha$101, there are 132 X-ray sources, with 

659: 100 having counterparts in the IR catalog, 2 being

660: Class~I, 35 being Class~II, 40 being Class~III, and

661: 23 being of unknown type.  

662: %Seven radio sources have 

663: %Spitzer counterparts: two are Class~II, four are associated with stars of normal

664: %photospheres, and one is of unknown type. 

665: Figure~\ref{fig:XrayVLAfield} shows the portion of the Chandra image

666: covered by the VLA field, with positions of radio sources indicated.

667: %Overall 156 X-ray sources were matched to

668: %the IR catalog. Of these, 69 of these are associated with stars with

669: %normal photospheres.  There are 41 Class~II objects and two Class~I

670: %objects.  Forty--one sources are of unknown type due to incomplete data in

671: %the 8 IR channels, many of these sources only have detections in 1 or

672: %2 bands. Finally one X-ray source appears to be a galaxy.  

673: %As the fields of view of the X-ray and infrared images are much larger

674: %than the field of view of the radio observations, we also compute

675: %the number of X-ray and IR matches within 5' of LkH$\alpha$101.

676: %Using the same positional coincidences as described above,

677: %there are 96 matches of X-ray sources to the IR catalog, 2 being

678: %Class~I, 34 being Class~II, 43 having normal photospheres, and

679: %17 being of unknown type. Of the radio sources, 2 are Class~II,

680: %4 are associated with stars of normal photospheres, and 1 is unknown. 

681: Using the analytic expressions in \citet{gehrels1986} for the

682: 1 $\sigma$ confidence limits for small numbers of events in

683: Poisson statistics, the rate of radio emission for X-ray-emitting Class~II

684: objects is 2/35 or 6$^{+7}_{-4}$\%, and for

685: Class~III objects  it is 4/40 or 10$^{+8}_{-5}$\%.

686: We also searched the tables of \citet{herbig2004} for correspondences with

687: radio sources.

688: The identification of the radio sources at other wavelengths is given in

689: Table~\ref{tbl:idtbl}.

690: 

691: The radio observations reported on the sources around LkH$\alpha$101

692: span $\sim$20 years

693: with the VLA, taken at different frequencies and configurations.  

694: Because several sources have reported flux densities at only one epoch, and because we

695: expect variability to be a key characteristic of some of these sources, we extracted the

696: previous epochs from the VLA archive, reduced, calibrated and imaged the data, 

697: and fitted Gaussians at the reported positions of

698: all sources.  We reproduced three out of the four epochs reported in BW88, as the fourth

699: epoch (reported to have occurred on 1986 May 12) was not in NRAO's on-line archive.  We found different

700: flux densities for [BW88] 7 and 8 on 1986 April 25: our fitted flux density for source 7 was

701: consistent with that reported in BW88 for source 8, and vice versa.  This may be the result of typographical

702: error. 

703: We could not recover the new sources which were described in SO98 with our evaluation of the archival data.

704: Although fluxes at $>$3$\sigma$ uncertainty were determined at these positions in other epochs,

705: the unrecoverability of the sources along with absence of supporting data at other wavelengths

706: led us to exclude the SO98 sources from consideration in subsequent analyses.

707: Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl1} lists the flux densities for sources as reported in BW88, SO98, and

708: by combining the data from our two days of observations.

709: 

710: The estimated number of foreground X-ray sources is small, and should not contaminate

711: the sample of X-ray and radio coincidences.

712: Our limiting X-ray sensitivity is about 10$^{-15}~\erg~\psqcm~\ps$ in the 0.5-2.0 keV band (\S 3.5). 

713: %In a various papers (Georgakais et al. MNRAS 388, 1205, 2008, Mushotzky et al. 2000, Giaconni et al 2001, Brandt et al. 2001)  find about 700 background sources per square degree at this sensitivity. This scales to $\sim$ 49+- 7  "background" sources in this field.

714: %Since the observations are on the near the galactic plane, the numbers may be higher.

715: The results from the Champlane \citep{hong2005} survey for $Chandra$

716: fields in the plane of the Galaxy {\it but} away from the galactic core

717: indicate that we can expect to find about 70 background AGN, cataclysmic

718: variables, neutron stars, black holes, and other non--PMS star

719: point sources in a sample of 15 ACIS observations in the galactic

720: plane, but not pointed at the

721: galactic center, $(90^{\rm o} < l < 270^{\rm o})$, sensitive to similar flux levels as we have.

722: The number is most likely lower than this due

723: to the nearly opaque nature of the dust clouds in the central $\sim$40\% of the field, perhaps

724: 45 total, or only $\sim$4 X-ray non-PMS point sources

725: scaled to the 5 \amin overlap between the $Chandra$ field and the VLA 3.6 cm field, or

726: a contamination of only 3\% of the X-ray sources.

727: Many of these are among the faint X-ray sources,

728: X-ray sources with no optical/IR counterparts or the sources with offset between the

729: X-ray position and optical/IR position exceeding 4\asec. 

730: 

731: It is unlikely that the radio sources lacking

732: X-ray and IR/optical counterparts are foreground sources.

733: As discussed in \S 3.2, most of these objects have negative radio spectral indices,

734: indicating nonthermal emission.  

735: Galactic sources of nonthermal radio emission 

736: should also produce nonthermal X-ray emission at a level above our detection limit (see \S 3.5);

737: the lack of X-ray detection implies a ratio of X-ray to radio flux less than $\approx$6$\times$10$^{11}$ Hz.

738: The lack of infrared or optical counterparts also constrains the presence of possible thermal

739: radio sources; as discussed in the following paragraph, the Spitzer maps are sensitive to

740: cluster members near the substellar mass limit, and foreground stellar objects will be brighter.

741: %There is one object with positive $\alpha$, which could indicate a thermal radio source,

742: In order to produce thermal emission at radio wavelengths but faint optical light

743: a distance modulus that would place the objects beyond the cluster (and therefore not a

744: foreground object) would be needed.

745: Additionally, the space density of galactic foreground objects capable of being radio-bright but

746: optical or X-ray faint is small enough that within the 5\amin\ radius of LkH$\alpha$101

747: we do not expect to see any of these sources.

748: 

749: %The infrared

750: %characteristics of the X-ray sources are listed in Table~\ref{XIR}.

751: %The median A$_K$ of these sources is about 0.58, with a wide range

752: %between 0 and 2.52

753: %Various infrared color-color diagrams are shown in Figure~\ref{IRCCD}.

754: %The one of the Class~I sources is clear as an outlier in its

755: %3.6-4.5\micron\ colors. There are also six

756: %transition disk candidates based on the 8\micron - 24\micron\ colors.

757: 

758: %Our IR sample is biased in the sense that we are more sensitive to

759: %sources with disks than sources without disks, since the disk adds to

760: %the IR flux. If we combate this bias by limiting our Class~III objects

761: %to those with IRAC channel 1 magnitudes $<$ 14 and our Class~II objects

762: %to those with IRAC channel 1 magnitudes $<$ 13 we find the ratio of

763: %Class~II to Class~III sources essentially unchanged, 37\% of the X-ray

764: %selected sample are Class~II or Class~I. Transistion disks account

765: %for 5\% of the sample and while 58\% are pure Class~III.  

766: %This result is much

767: %more biased toward ``later'' classes than Serpens.

768: %Winston \e 2007 performed a simialar study of an X-ray selected sample

769: %of  60 sources in Serpens.  There,

770: %the objects are divded nearly evenly among Class 0/I, Class~II and

771: %Class~III with essention one-third of the X-ray sources in each

772: %catagory and only two transistion disks.

773: 

774: %In addition to the 43 Class~I and Class~II sources in the X-ray

775: %sample, there are 67 Class~0 -- Class~II sources identified in the

776: %IRAC data, but not detected in X-rays.  

777: %%These are listed in Table~\ref{noXIR}.

778: %The nature of the X-ray sources can be

779: %infrerred to some extent by the lack of an IRAC counterpart.  The

780: %IRAC Channel~1 data are complete to at least 16.5 which, for a typical

781: %3000K photosphere is about K=16.2 Assuming a distance modulus of 9.22

782: %\S next this is about abs(K)=7.  This is still about the absolute K

783: %magnitude of a 0.08~M${\_odot}$ star (Baraffe, Chabrier, Allard,

784: %Hauschildt, AA 2001).  Six X-ray sources fall outside the IRAC field

785: %of view, another eight are in the field of view of IRAC channels 2 and

786: %4, but not channels 1 and 3. But, it appears unlikely that any of the

787: %remaining 61 X-ray sources without IRAC or 2MASS counterparts is a member star.

788: 

789: We estimate the upper limit on IR magnitude 

790: for an object not to be detected in the IRAC bands, using the

791: background levels due to nebulosity at the positions of the

792: radio sources.  We searched for the faintest star within 36\asec\

793: of the position of each radio source not having an IR detection, and

794: grouped sources with similar amounts of background.

795: We find typical limits in JHK of 17, 15.5, and 15.3, respectively.

796: At a  distance modulus of 9.225,  %(DM (--what is this? Delta magnitude? Dispersion measure?)=9.225)}

797: a $K_{mag}$ of 15.3 corresponds roughly to an absolute K magnitude of $\sim$6.  

798: According to \citet{siess2000} a 1MY star with 0.1 M$_{\odot}$

799: would have a K$_{\rm abs}$=4.39.  DUSTY models 

800: \citep{chabrier2000,baraffe2002}

801: predict K$_{\rm abs}$=6 for a 0.06 M$_{\odot}$

802: star, near the stellar-substellar boundary.

803: Thus, the lack of an IR counterpart to apparent cluster members which are

804: detected at other wavelengths

805: may indicate that the object is a very low mass star or brown dwarf.

806: 

807: Eight of the radio sources considered here remain without a counterpart at X-ray or IR wavelengths.

808: %If we exclude the three probable extragalactic sources (see discussion in \S~\ref{rxrir}),

809: %this leaves five radio sources which have no counterpart at X-ray or

810: %IR wavelengths.  

811: The reliability of these sources can be examined by the number of

812: epochs or frequences at which each source has been detected. 

813: These eight sources have each been detected at more than one frequency or epoch;

814: one source (LkHa101 J043004.0+351817)

815: was identified in our observations at a single frequency on both days, as well

816: as being marginally detected in the archival data from 1985 April (see Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl1}).

817: All of these sources are detected at $>$5 $\sigma$.

818: Several of these are possible extragalactic sources.

819: \citet{bw} identified their source [BW88]~5 as an extragalactic double.

820: A check of the NRAO VLA Sky Survey \citep{nvss}\footnote{Catalog available at 

821: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/} reveals three sources near LkH$\alpha$ 101 which are coincident

822: (to less than 10'') with sources [BW88]~7, [BW88]~5, and [BW88]~2.  As the integrated flux densities of these NVSS

823: sources at 20 cm are 5.5, 4.1, and 3 mJy, respectively, which are all higher than the 

824: range of flux densities reported at the higher frequencies considered here, 

825: it is likely that these are extragalactic

826: sources with steep radio spectral indices. 

827: The lack of coincidence with X-ray or IR sources

828: supports this conjecture.

829: Using a model for the 1.4 GHz extragalactic source counts, and converting from

830: 1.4 GHz to 8.4 GHz using a spectral index of $\alpha$=-0.7, 5$_{-2}^{+3}$ sources are

831: expected in a circle of diameter 5.3' with flux density greater than the 3 $\sigma$ rms at 8.4 GHz of 

832: 36 $\mu$Jy (J. Condon, private communication).  This is consistent with all 8 radio sources 

833: lacking a counterpart at other wavelengths being extragalactic in nature.

834: 

835: 

836: \subsection{Radio Spectral Index Measurements \label{alpha}}

837: The parameter which describes the shape of continuum radio emission is the spectral index $\alpha$,

838: defined as $S_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha}$; generally, for $\alpha \ge$ 0.5 the spectrum

839: is rising, for $\alpha \le -0.5$ the spectrum is falling, and in between ($-0.5 \le \alpha \le 0.5$)

840: the spectrum is considered flat.  

841: Rising spectra can generally be associated with optically thick thermal emission, falling spectra with

842: optically thin nonthermal emission. Flat spectra could, in principle, be associated with either, but 

843: usually indicate nonthermal emission from an inhomogeneous source.

844: Most of the sources for which spectral index constraints are available indicate negative

845: spectral indices and consequently a nonthermal interpretation.

846: Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl1} lists the spectral index derived from maps made by combining

847: the two days of radio observations

848: reported here; 13 objects have constraints on spectral index from detection at one or more frequencies.

849: Eight of the 13 have spectral indices which are flat and slightly 

850: negative ($-0.8\le \alpha \le -0.1$); 

851: two are steeply negative ($\alpha \le -1$);

852: another two have large positive spectral indexes, one of which is

853: the central star to the cluster, LkH$\alpha$101, and the other is a newly discovered source.

854: %Thus it appears that most of the radio-detected objects are consistent with being 

855: %nonthermal radio emitters.

856: Based on the multi-wavelength source identifications discussed in \S~\ref{sec:rxrir},

857: four objects with IR or X-ray detections have spectral index constraints, and 3/4 of these

858: have negative spectral indices.  Out of three objects with IR detections and

859: spectral index constraints, two have negative spectral indices, one being a Class~II object

860: and the other a Class~III object.

861: Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl2} lists the spectral index measurements on each day.  These are

862: generally consistent with the values determined from the combined maps.

863: The discrepant sources appear to have varied more at one wavelength than at the other.

864: This behavior is discussed more in section~\ref{sec:avar}. 

865: 

866: \subsection{Radio Variability}

867: 

868: \subsubsection{Long Timescale Radio Variability \label{longt}}

869: %There is little evidence for long-term radio variability among the six sources

870: %which have been detected on 4 or more occasions.

871: %One needs to be careful in comparing observations taken in different arrays, as the differing

872: %beam size will pick up different flux levels.  This should not affect point sources,

873: %as the integrated flux and peak flux density will be the same, but extragalactic background

874: %sources may be resolved.

875: %The change in synthesized beam width for different arrays will also

876: %affect bandwidth smearing differently.

877: %{\it The observations have been done using different frequencies, but

878: %, which factor further into 

879: %difficulties in disentangling flux variations.  

880: %We examine the long term radio flux variability of sources identified in 4 or more

881: %epochs spanning 20 years. 

882: %we have spectral index measurements from simultaneous X \& C band data 

883: %for 4 of these six sources.  

884: %If we assume that the spectral index does not change with time, we can

885: %apply this to the data to estimate the characteristic flux levels of the radio emission 

886: %on a timescale spanning 20 years.  For the other two sources, we assume the spectral index is flat

887: %($\alpha=$0) to extrapolate the measured X-band flux to C band.

888: %Figure~\ref{fig:longt} displays the results.

889: %Using this technique, 

890: %we assesssed the evidence for variability by computing

891: %the K-S statistic and probability that the flux densities at six epochs were consistent with

892: %a uniform distribution.

893: %We also computed the modulation index $m$, defined here as the ratio of the standard deviation

894: %to average flux value, to quantify the amount of variability.

895: %Only one source, BW~1, had $>$ 90\% probability of being variable, at 90.2\%.

896: %Another source, BW~3, had a 85\% probability of being variable.

897: %There was a range in the modulation index, from 0.16 to 1.05, with BW~1 being about in the middle.

898: %}

899: 

900: %Six sources have been detected on four or more occasions. 

901: In order to

902: assess long-term radio variability, we considered the five epochs of 6 cm observations.

903: We determined an object's variability over the timescale of $\sim$ 20 years by examining the range of

904: recorded flux values (including epochs where only upper limits were obtained) and

905: determining how many $\sigma$ this range represents, using the largest measurement error.  Flux 

906: determination can be affected by the beam size (if the object is slightly resolved), distance from

907: the phase center, and contribution of background nebulosity.  Since the observations were made in

908: different array configurations, we place a conservative limit of 10$\sigma$ on the range of

909: maximum to minimum flux values to assess variability.  

910: Using this criterion, 4 out of 9 sources can be considered variable;

911: for objects detected on 4 or more occasions, only two can be considered variable.

912: Table~\ref{tbl:varstat} lists the range of maximum to minimum variations in units of $\sigma$

913: for the 9 objects detected on one or more occasions at 6 cm.

914: %ariability was a larger factor in sources detected on fewer than 4 out of 6 occasions.  

915: %BW~4 had

916: %factor of 7 variations in its two detection epochs (1985 April and 2005 March), while BW~6 had

917: %varied by a factor of $\sim$10 between the same epochs.  

918: %By contrast, the flux density of BW~9

919: %appears to be relatively constant when it is detected.

920: 

921: \subsubsection{Two-Day Radio Variability \label{mediumt}}

922: We examined variations of the radio sources 

923: for changes between the two days of our recent observations.

924: Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl2} lists the fluxes and spectral indices determined for each day and frequency.

925: For all objects with at least one detection in our four intra-epoch maps (2 frequencies x 2 days), we

926: examined the flux densities and error bars of each day to determination if there was

927: statistical evidence for variability between the two days; we considered a source variable

928: at one frequency if the two flux density measurements differed by more than 3$\sigma$, where

929: the $\sigma$ of both flux density measurements was used.  If an object was undetected on one day

930: but detected on the other, it was considered variable if the detected flux was more than 3$\sigma$

931: above the upper limit.  These results are recorded in Table~\ref{tbl:varstat}.

932: Using these criteria, 4 objects are considered variable at X-band, and 6 objects are considered

933: variable at C-band.

934: 

935: \subsubsection{Short Timescale Radio Variability \label{shortt}}

936: For radio sources with strong detections ($>10\sigma$) in the combined maps, 

937: we explored variability on time scales shorter

938: than the 11 hour integrations each day.

939: In order to do this, we subtracted the visibilities of all other sources from the

940: calibrated visibility dataset, producing a dataset containing visibilities from only the target of interest.

941: We imaged the result to ensure that no additional flux contribution from the other

942: sources was present.  

943: We then searched for time variations in the visibility data using the AIPS task

944: $DFTPL$, with offset fixed to the position of the source, and $uv$ distances 

945: restricted to the values used in imaging.

946: We do not include in this analysis the radio-bright central object LkH$\alpha$ 101,

947: due to its immersion in the extended H~II emission region as well as 

948: the central ionized wind \citep[imaged at higher frequencies

949: in ][]{gibbhoare2007}, which makes it difficult to remove

950: the visibilities of the extended emission.  Also, based on its large positive spectral index,

951: indicative of a thermal wind source, we do not expect to see variations in the flux density

952: on such timescales.

953: The daily averaged flux densities listed in Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl2} were measured 

954: from an image which had been corrected for the effects of the primary beam, while the

955: visibility datasets used to measure short-timescale flux density variations do not include the

956: effect of the primary beam.  In order to compare the daily-averaged flux densities with the

957: variations on shorter time-scales, we scaled the light curve flux densities 

958: by the primary-beam-corrected

959: flux densities so that the average flux density from the light curve on each day matched

960: the value in Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl2}.

961: Four sources were strong enough at both 3.6 and 6 cm to enable this; additionally, there were two

962: sources which

963: were only

964: detected at 6 cm due to the larger field size, and one source 

965: with a stronger detection at 3.6 cm than at 6 cm.

966: A final source was only detected on one day at one frequency.

967: This selection resulted in 12 light curves, which are displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:radiolc}.

968: We made trial light curves using a number of different sized time bins, to explore evidence for variability

969: given signal-to-noise constraints.  

970: 

971: In order to asses evidence for variability from these light curves, we computed the average

972: and standard deviation of the light curve flux values, determining the $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ statistic

973: and associated probability

974: for variations about the average value.  We also computed the distribution of fluxes and compared

975: that with a Gaussian distribution with the same mean and standard deviation as the data.

976: We computed the $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ value between these two distributions

977: as another measure of how the data depart from an expected constant value with scatter.

978: Table~\ref{tbl:varstat} lists the probability that the observed $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ statistic

979: could be exceeded by a random variable for each of these two methods of assessing variability.  We

980: considered there to be evidence for short-term variability if both of these methods had

981: probabilities of 5\% or less.  This resulted in two out of five objects showing evidence 

982: for variability at 3.6 cm, and four out of seven objects at 6 cm.

983: 

984: %{\bf We computed the K-S statistic and associated probability to determine statistical evidence for

985: %variability by comparing the distribution of events with that for a uniform distribution of events.  }

986: %\marginpar{explain how K-S was calculated.}  

987: %{\bf Short-term KS values do not appear in Tables 1 or 2}

988: %All seven of the sources which were detected at high enough significance at 6 cm to examine short

989: %timescale variability had probabilities from the K-S statistic of $\ge$95\% of being variable,

990: %while four (out of five) of the sources detected at $>$10 $\sigma$ at 3.6 cm  had probabilities

991: %of $\ge$ 90\% of being variable.

992: %%There is no apparent correlation between the statistical evidence for variability (as deduced

993: %by the KS test) and the quantification of that variability via the modulation index (Figure~\ref{fig:shortvar}).

994: 

995: In addition,we also searched for statistically significant amounts of circularly polarized flux which

996: might appear transiently during any flare activity, but not be statistically significant

997: in the combined image.  Our examination of the variation of Stokes V flux at the position of

998: each of the target sources did not reveal any evidence for transient amounts of Stokes V flux. 

999: 

1000: \subsection{Radio Variability and Spectral Index Changes\label{sec:avar}}

1001: The panels in Figure~\ref{fig:radiolc} show the temporal variation of spectral index for three

1002: objects with large enough flux density at both frequencies to permit determination

1003: of changes in the spectral index.

1004: %Spectral index changes can also be associated with short timescale flaring, as in BW 3, where

1005: %the light curves at 3.6 and 6 cm appear to indicate a large radio flare, lasting for $>$11 hours

1006: %of the first day's observation, spanning about a factor of 15 in flux density.

1007: [BW88]~3 is the only source where a large variation in flux density appears to be occurring during our

1008: observation.  

1009: The light curve of [BW88]~1 also shows some short time-scale variability predominantly

1010: at 6 cm which also reveals itself as large negative values of $\alpha$.  

1011: The behavior of radio luminosity versus spectral index is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_flux}

1012: for the three objects in which spectral index changes can be discerned.

1013: The anti-correlation between luminosity and spectral index is statistically significant

1014: for sources [BW88]~3 and [BW88]~1 at the $>$99.9\% level.

1015: In addition, we investigated the behavior between luminosity and spectral index for

1016: each day separately, as the light curves indicate differing amounts of

1017: variability on each day.  For [BW88]~3, the anti-correlation is significant only

1018: at the 87\% level on the first day (March 6), despite the obvious large-scale flux variations, and

1019: is not statistically significant on the second day (March 8).

1020: For [BW88]~1, the anti-correlation was significant at $>$99.7\% and 90\%, respectively,

1021: for the two days.  For [BW88]~2, there was no correlation between radio luminosity and spectral index.

1022: 

1023: \subsection{X-ray Fluxes}

1024: Our X-ray spectral fitting procedure is discussed in detail in 

1025: Paper~II and follows closely our

1026: previous work \citep{wolk2006,wolk2008}. Spectra were fitted to 

1027: about 100 sources with over 30 counts using several

1028: models for emission spectra from thermal, diffuse gas including that

1029: of \citet{rs1977}, \citet{apec} and mekal \citep{mewe1985}.

1030: In summary, in Paper~II we

1031: find in the LkH$\alpha$~101 cluster that the

1032: mean temperature of the coronae is about 2.5 keV, with the  typical

1033: range between 800 eV and 5 keV.   There were however 25 sources with

1034: temperatures $>$ 10 keV which were excluded from this analysis due to

1035: the low collecting area of the $Chandra$ HRMA.  Typical \nh\ values

1036: ranged from 0-4 $\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ with an outlier rejected

1037: mean of about 7.8  $\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.

1038: 

1039: The spectroscopically measured absorbed

1040: fluxes range from 4.73$\times10^{-13}$ to $4.89\times10^{-15}$ erg

1041: cm$^{-2}$ sec\minusone.  Assuming a distance of 700~pc and correcting 

1042: the measured X-ray absorption this becomes a luminosity range of about 

1043: $log~L_X= 29.75-31.64$ erg sec\minusone.  

1044: We compute the on-axis X-ray detection limits for a 3$\times 10^{7}$K plasma (kT$\sim$

1045: 2.5 keV)

1046: with absorbing column density $\log N_{H}=$21.9 near the center of the field,

1047: and require 5 photons for a detection.  The minimum absorbed flux

1048: is 6.2$\times$10$^{-16}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, or $log~L_X \sim 28.5$ erg sec\minusone  

1049: for $d=700$ pc.  This value is intended to give a rough

1050: sense of the sensitivity of the observation; variable absorption has a

1051: strong influence on the luminosity limit, as does off-axis distance. 

1052: About twice the noted flux is required 4\amin\ off-axis. 

1053: 

1054: \subsection {X-ray Variability \label{xrvary}}

1055: X-ray variability of the sources in this field is discussed more

1056: thoroughly in the companion paper. 

1057: %In summary, the lightcurves for all sources were combined to remove

1058: %the $\sim$ one and a half day gap between the observations.  Then two

1059: Two independent analysis methods were used. First was a Bayesian block

1060: analysis which is common in the X-ray literature 

1061: \citep[BBs;][]{scargle1998,getman2005,wolk2006}.

1062: For the Bayesian analysis we used two different priors,

1063: one prior was set to find variability at about 95\%  confidence and the

1064: second was set to 99.9\% confidence.  We also analyized the lightcurves

1065: following the method of \citet[][GL-vary]{gl1992}. 

1066: This method also uses Bayesian statistics and evaluates a

1067: large number of possible break points from the prediction of

1068: constancy. The advantage of the GL-vary method is that it handles

1069: data gaps and changes to the effective area well.

1070: It also calculates the odds that a source was constant.

1071: Thus, the analysis returns the probability that the source

1072: was variable and an estimate of the constant intervals within the

1073: observing window.  All analyses were repeated on the data from the

1074: individual observations. 

1075: We compare the results of Bayesian analysis with those of the more standard

1076: KS test by 

1077: %The Bayesian Block analysis uses a different statistic than the GL-vary, and requires a prior,  

1078: %so they are not statistically equivalent, but they do give similar results.  

1079: using the {\it Chandra} Orion Ultradeep Project (COUP) dataset \citep{getman2005} as an example:  the BB algorithm found  973 variables,  

1080: 95\% of these were considered variable by the KS test at more than 99.9 \% probability. 

1081: %Only 1.4\% had less than 99\% confidence that the source was variable in the KS test.  

1082: %Conversely, of the

1083: %643 cases in which only one BB was used,   69\% were not considered to be 

1084: %varying by the KS test at the 99\% level and only 8\% were found to vary at $<$99.9\% 

1085: %confidence by the KS test. 

1086: 

1087: For the purposes of this paper we consider only the eight X-ray sources with

1088: radio counterparts.  The lightcurves for these sources are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:xraylc}.

1089: Half of the sources show variability at $>95\%$ confidence based on

1090: the GL-vary method (sources LkHa101CXO J043019.2+351745, LkHa101CXO J043010.9+351922,

1091: LkHa101CXO J043002.6+351514 and LkHa101CXO J042954.0+351848).  However no

1092: flaring or variations greather than a factor of

1093: two were seen.   In fact, all of the sources seemed very stable between the two

1094: observations.   The fact that no flares were seen is not particularly

1095: remarkable.  The product of the observing time and the number of

1096: sources is about 640 ksec.  This is about the mean time between

1097: macroscopic flares seen in young clusters 

1098: \citep[c.f.][]{wolk2005,wolk2006,caramazza2007}.

1099: 

1100: 

1101: %\subsubsection{X-ray Flaring}

1102: %Amongst the brightest 30  sources (those with over 200 total counts),

1103: %20 (66\%) were variable at $>$ 95\% confidence.

1104: %The variability rate drops among the 56 sources with between 100 and 200  net counts, of which

1105: %12 (21\%) were variable at $>$ 95\% confidence.

1106: %Overall,  41\% of the bright sources are detected as variable in 88.8 ks.

1107: %The BB method converts the lightcurve to temporal periods of constant

1108: %flux, thus, one can measure the amount of rise between the blocks and

1109: %estimate the rate of change between blocks.  In their study of the

1110: %extremely deep COUP data set, Wolk \e (2005) found that most stellar

1111: %sources have a characteristic rate, R$_{char}$ and found sources were

1112: %at their characteristic levels for about  75\% of the time.  They

1113: %further found that a normalized rate of rise

1114: %\begin{equation}

1115: %\Delta \equiv 1/R_{char}\times dR/dt > 10^{-4} \rm{s}^{-1}

1116: %\end{equation}

1117: %was indicative of a flare.

1118: %Following Wolk \e (2005) we define dR as the difference between the rates of

1119: %adjacent blocks and dt as the shorter of the two blocks. We choose the

1120: %value of the minimum block as the characteristic rate since we do not

1121: %have the long observation time to define a true characteristic level.

1122: %We also require the latter period to have a higher count rate --

1123: %although the opposite may be indicative of a post flare decline.

1124: %%Twenty-eight sources have this form of impulsive variability (see

1125: %Figure~\ref{flares}).  

1126: %No star was seen to flare twice. Thirty--four

1127: %other stars were detected as variables (with 95\% confidence) but were

1128: %not seen to flare.

1129: 

1130: %\subsubsection{Flare Rates}

1131: %These data can be used to assess flare rates.  We

1132: %constrain the following analysis to sources with over 100 counts

1133: %to prevent biases.

1134: %Thirteen of 72 (18\%) probable cluster members with over 100

1135: %counts flared in $\approx$ 90~ks. This represents exactly half of

1136: %the bright cluster members that are detected as variables.

1137: %Assuming that all stars are the same and that there are no

1138: %stars more prone to flare than others then we conclude there are about

1139: %510~ks between flares.  This is similar the values obtained for

1140: %Solar mass stars in the ONC (one flare per 640 ks; Wolk \e 2005)

1141: %and the very young and embedded cluster RCW 38 (one flare per 775 ks;

1142: %Wolk \e 2006).

1143: 

1144: %A 100 Myr cluster, NGC~2516, was studied using a similar method and a

1145: %somewhat lower flare rate, About 1 per megasecond (Wolk \e 2004), was found.

1146: %The flare rate might also be lower due to a sampling bias present in

1147: %the NGC~2516 study -- the lack of a low count limit.   Indeed when we

1148: %calculate the flare rate base on 28 flares observed on 337 stars, the

1149: %composite flare rate seen is about 1 per 1.11 megasecond.  A similar

1150: %pattern was recently found by Caramazza \e (in prep.) when examining

1151: %low mass (K \& M)  stars

1152: %in the COUP field -- flare frequencies are lower in low count rate

1153: %samples. This occurs because the sensitivity to flares depends on

1154: %source statistics.  When examining low mass stars with between 100 and 200

1155: %counts, Caramazza \e find a flare frequency of about 1/680 ks -- very

1156: %close to the rate we find at similar count rates in the full RCW~108

1157: %field.  The COUP rate is about 1/800 ks below 100 counts.

1158: %This is somewhat higher than the 1 per 1100 ks reported here.

1159: %But the RCW~108 data have not been filtered to exclude

1160: %high mass stars and background objects.

1161: 

1162: 

1163: \section{Results}

1164: These deep X-ray and radio observations probe multi-wavelength

1165: signatures of magnetic activity 

1166: from the stars in the LkH$\alpha$ 101 star forming region.

1167: This paper focuses on

1168: the radio sources and associated multi-wavelength data and what we can learn 

1169: about magnetic activity in these young stellar objects.

1170: There are three facets to the study described in

1171: this paper: the nature of the radio emitting sources, the variability of magnetic activity,

1172: and correlations between radio and X-rays, which we describe in the next sections. 

1173: 

1174: \subsection{On the Nature of the Radio-Emitting Cluster Members}

1175: %\subsubsection{Confirmed Cluster Members}

1176: Out of the 16 radio sources considered here, 8 are X-ray sources and 7 have Spitzer counterparts.

1177: There is a large overlap between radio-detected X-ray sources and radio-detected

1178: Spitzer sources: all of the IRAC sources are X-ray sources.

1179: %Only two of the sources with multi-epoch ($\ge$ 4 epoch) radio detections were detected at X-ray wavelengths.

1180: %They also had the highest probability of being variable based on the long-term variability.

1181: The combination of X-ray and infrared detections bolsters support for

1182: these radio-emitting objects to be cluster members.

1183: Their close distance to the cluster center, and X-ray and infrared properties also make

1184: these objects consistent with being cluster members.

1185: %The low number of radio detected objects around LkH$\alpha$101 supports the 

1186: %greater distance discussed above, as the radio luminosities must be at the high end of

1187: %typical stellar radio luminosities from young stars in nearby star-forming regions. 

1188: In the following subsections, we provide a brief summary of the characteristics determined for each radio-emitting

1189: cluster member.

1190: The multi-wavelength identifications are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl:idtbl}.

1191: 

1192: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J043017.90+351510.0 = [BW88]~1}

1193: [BW88]~1 was detected in the radio and X-ray maps, but does not have a detection in

1194: the Spitzer maps.  There are no 2MASS point sources within 17" of the position of [BW88]~1 \citep{2mass}.

1195: It is located in a region of high nebulosity, hence the infrared detection threshold requires 

1196: about an additional magnitude compared to clear regions.  Nonetheless, based on the upper limits in the Spitzer bands,

1197: if this object is a bona-fide member of the cluster, then it may be close to the substellar limit.

1198: 

1199: This is a bright and persistent radio source, detected on 5 out of 5 occasions (Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl1}).  Our simultaneous

1200: observations at 3.6 and 6 cm reveal a negative spectral index, suggesting nonthermal emission.  This source 

1201: shows no variability at

1202: radio wavelengths over the $\sim$20 years spanning the archival data and our data, 

1203: but does appear to be variable at $>$ 3 $\sigma$ during the two days of our observations at C band (but not X band), and 

1204: on shorter timescales at both wavelengths.  The X-ray observations reveal no evidence of variability.

1205: The multi-frequency radio observations show an anti-correlation between radio flux density and spectral index.

1206: This object also displays a value of radio to X-ray luminosity more than 10 times that of other

1207: cluster members (\S 4.3).

1208: If this is a substellar object, the 

1209: anomalously high ratio of its radio to X-ray luminosity when compared to the values

1210: found for the other stellar objects would fit with the few nearby field very low mass stars which

1211: display large radio luminosities relative to their X-ray luminosities \citep{berger2006}.

1212: %Note that \citet{oj2006} failed to detect radio emission from several brown dwarfs in the TW~Hya

1213: %association, at 10 MY, and commented that the radio and X-ray behavior of the one brown dwarf detected

1214: %at X-ray wavelengths appeared more like those of T Tauri stars than Gyr-age very low mass dwarfs.

1215: 

1216: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J043019.14+351745.6 = [BW88]~3}

1217: [BW88]~3 has been detected in the radio, X-ray, and Spitzer maps, and is a Class~II object

1218: based on its IR colors.  

1219: \citet{herbig2004} identified this source as a K0V star.

1220: 

1221: At radio wavelengths it is a persistent source, having been detected

1222: on 6/6 occasions, with a negative radio spectral index.  

1223: The source shows large flux variations 

1224: over the longest timescales probed here, and is variable over the two days in the most recent epoch

1225: at both X \& C bands; it also displays variability on the shortest timescales, with a factor of 6 contrast between

1226: the highest/lowest flux densities. 

1227: The large-scale short-term radio variability observed at 3.6 and 6 cm could be radio flares or

1228: rotational modulation.

1229: If rotational modulation, this would imply a likely period of $\approx$ 1--2 days and could arise from

1230: either geometrical effects or, alternatively, some form of directivity of the emission, similar to

1231: what has been seen in radio observations of the pre-main sequence star AB~Doradus \citep{lim1994}.  

1232: Such an interpretation might imply that the emitting particles are much

1233: higher in energy than usually assumed for gyrosynchrotron emission.

1234: %The pre-main sequence star AB~Doradus displays radio emission modulated at the stellar rotation period

1235: %with no circular polarization \citep{lim1994}; these authors discussed in detail several possible models

1236: %for producing such emission, concluding that for this star it was likely that the emission was

1237: %synchrotron radiation from ultrarelativistic particles.  We do not have any constraints on

1238: %periodicity or binarity from supporting optical observations, and the spacing of the radio

1239: %observations prevents this idea from being explored further. 

1240: The radio observations on short timescales show an anti-correlation between radio flux

1241: density and spectral index, similar to that seen in [BW88]~1.  There is statistical evidence

1242: for X-ray variability but no obvious X-ray flaring.  

1243: 

1244: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J043010.87+351922.4 = [BW88]~4}

1245: [BW88]~4 was detected at radio, X-ray, and IR wavelengths, and is a Class~III object 

1246: based on its IR colors. 

1247: \citet{bw} argue that this is an obscured B dwarf, noting a small H II region around it.

1248: 

1249: At radio wavelengths [BW88]~4 has only been detected on 2 occasions out of 5, and only at C band, with a

1250: factor of $\approx$ 7 difference between the recorded flux densities.  While this demonstrates

1251: large long-term radio variability, there are no significant variations over the shorter timescales

1252: probed by the two days of our observations.

1253: We have no constraints on

1254: radio spectral index.  

1255: Multiple Bayesian blocks indicate X-ray variability on the first day.

1256: 

1257: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J043001.15+351724.6 = [BW88]~6}

1258: [BW88]~6 has been detected at radio, X-ray, and IR wavelengths, and is a Class~III object

1259: based on its IR colors.

1260: It has been identified by \citet{herbig2004} as a K7 dwarf with Lithium.

1261: At radio wavelengths, it has been detected on 3 out of 6 occasions, with factor of $>$10

1262: variability in two C-band detections.  In our radio observations the object was detected

1263: only by summing all data from our two days' integration at C band, so we have no constraints

1264: on shorter timescale variability, nor any constraint on spectral index.  There is also no

1265: evidence for X-ray variability.

1266: 

1267: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J043002.64+351514.9 = [BW88]~9}

1268: [BW88]~9 was detected in previous radio observations, and is detected in X-ray and Spitzer maps,

1269: with a Class~II designation based on its IR colors.  There is no spectral type for this object.

1270: It is only an intermittent radio source,

1271: having been detected on 2 out of 6 occasions at radio wavelengths.  There is statistical evidence

1272: for X-ray variability but no large-scale flares.  

1273: 

1274: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J043014.43+351624.1 = LkH$\alpha$101}

1275: LkH$\alpha$101 is the source of the reflection nebula and H~II region seen in optical/IR and radio images, and is also 

1276: the source of a strong stellar wind.  It has been detected at radio, X-ray, and IR wavelengths.

1277: The IR class is unknown due to the large amount of nebulosity,  but observations at other wavelengths

1278: show the presence of a secondary as well as a face-on disk \citep{tuthill2001,tuthill2002}.

1279: The radio spectral index is large and positive, consistent with being a wind source.

1280: There is apparent variability between the X and C band flux densities measured on the two days, but this is

1281: likely not intrinsic to the source.  There is no evidence for X-ray variability.

1282: 

1283: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J042953.98+351848.2}

1284: This is a newly detected radio source, which has X-ray and IR counterparts, and based on

1285: its IR colors it is a class~III object.  No spectral type is known.  

1286: This object was only detected at C band due to the wider full-width half power beam size,

1287: and was only detected on the second day of radio observations.

1288: It thus indicates radio variability between the two days as well as short-term

1289: radio variability.  There is statistical evidence for X-ray variability 

1290: and multiple Bayesian blocks on the first day of X-ray observations, but no

1291: variability on the second day when it is detected at radio wavelengths.

1292: 

1293: \subsubsection{LkHa101VLA J043016.04+351726.9}

1294: This is another newly detected radio source, which has X-ray and IR counterparts,

1295: and is a class~III object based on its IR colors.  It has a spectral type

1296: of dM2 according to \citet{herbig2004} and a flat or slightly negative radio spectral index.

1297: There is radio variability at C band over the two days with factor of two variations, but none at X band.

1298: There is no evidence for X-ray variability. 

1299: 

1300: \subsection{Variability and Magnetic Activity}

1301: \subsubsection{Timescales of Magnetic Activity at Radio Wavelengths}

1302: There are three different timescales which we have explored

1303: for evidence of radio variability, and we find that roughly half the

1304: objects examined on each timescale are variable.

1305: Extragalactic objects could be radio variable

1306: due to AGN activity or interstellar scintillation, while cluster members could have

1307: variable radio emission due to magnetic activity.

1308: On the longest timescales of 20+ years, 4/9 sources with detections at 6 cm had more than

1309: 10$\sigma$ variations between the maximum recorded flux and the minimum or upper

1310: limit of recorded flux.  Two of these sources appear to be cluster members.

1311: %, and we find that variability is more

1312: %common as the timescale decreases.  

1313: %On the longest timescales of 20+ years, 1/6 sources with persistent

1314: %emission showed $>$90\%

1315: %probability of being variable and 2/3 sources detected on fewer than 4 occasions

1316: %had factors of several variations, leading to 3/9 sources being variable on decade

1317: %timescales.  

1318: On the scale of days, 5/9 sources at 3.6 cm

1319: and 6/14 sources at 6 cm varied by more than 3$\sigma$, 

1320: with two of the 5 variable sources at 3.6 cm being cluster members and

1321: 5 of the 6 variable sources at 6 cm being cluster members based on multi-wavelength

1322: identifications.

1323: On the smallest

1324: timescales of 1200--2400 s, 2/5 sources at 3.6 cm and 4/7 sources at 6 cm

1325: had a $>$ 95\% probability of being variable; two of the variable sources at 3.6 cm

1326: and 6 cm

1327: are cluster members.

1328: 

1329: If we restrict ourselves to objects with counterparts at X-ray or IR wavelengths

1330: and thus probable cluster members,

1331: then 2/5 cluster members show evidence of variability on the longest timescales,

1332: 1/3 and 4/5 show day-to-day variations of more than 3 $\sigma$ at 3.6 and 6 cm,

1333: respectively, and 2/2 and 2/3 cluster members had a $>$95\% probability of being variable

1334: on the shortest timescales at 3.6 and 6 cm, respectively.

1335: %We performed contingency table analyses to determine if there was any association

1336: %between radio variability on the three timescales and two wavelengths, and cluster membership.  

1337: The small number of objects prevents

1338: a conclusive statistical analysis of whether cluster members are

1339: %fluctuations).  Therefore we can make no statement about whether cluster members are

1340: more likely to be radio variable than the background extragalactic objects.

1341: %

1342: Four of the 8 sources detected at both radio and X-ray wavelengths showed

1343: evidence of being X-ray variable, despite lacking large-scale flares or 

1344: factors of 2 or more variability.

1345: On the shortest timescales, radio variability appears to be a more common feature

1346: of cluster members than is X-ray variability.

1347: 

1348: \subsubsection{Rapid Radio Variability} 

1349: The radio observations on the shortest timescales reveal evidence of statistically

1350: significant flux changes 

1351: in the majority of cluster members for which

1352: such measurements are possible.

1353: While the radio variability between the two days could be due to the contribution of different

1354: magnetic structures, the rapid radio variability is likely due to magnetic reconnection.

1355: %Major energy losses for the emitting particles are from collisions and radiation.

1356: %The lifetime of the suprathermal particles against collisional losses is a function of particle energy

1357: %and the density of the ambient environment, $n_{e}$, while radiative losses are a function of particle energy

1358: %and magnetic field strength in the source. 

1359: %Collisional and radiative losses will be at their maxima close to the stellar

1360: %surface due to $n_{e}$ and $B$ having their largest values there, arguing for

1361: %the source of the long lived-events to be physically removed from the stellar surface.

1362: The timescales for the rapid radio variability span from $>$ t$_{\rm bin}$ of 1200--2400 seconds

1363: to $\sim$ 11 hours, the duration of the large flux density enhancement seen in [BW88]~3.

1364: If we interpret these rapid variations as magnetic reconnection flaring, 

1365: the timescale of the rapid radio variability

1366: argues for a low density environment.  

1367: The Coulomb deflection times for particles of energy $E_{\rm kev}$ in a magnetic trap with ambient density

1368: $n_{e}$ cm$^{-3}$,\\

1369: \begin{equation}

1370: t_{\rm d} = 0.8 \frac{E_{\rm kev}^{3/2}}{(n_{e}/10^{8})} \frac{20}{\log \Lambda} \;\;\; s

1371: \end{equation}

1372: where $\Lambda$ is the Coulomb logarithm (evaluated at the mean cluster temperature of 2.5 keV),

1373: constrains $t_{\rm d}$ to be $\gtrsim$1200--2400 seconds (time binning of the

1374: shortest variations) and $\lesssim$ 11 hours (the timescale for large flux density variations).

1375: For a 20 keV electron, this will occur for a range roughly $10^{5} \lesssim n_{e} (cm^{-3}) \lesssim 5\times10^{6}$,

1376: and for a 200 keV electron $5\times 10^{6} \lesssim n_{e} (cm^{-3}) \lesssim 2\times10^{8}$.

1377: %a 20 keV electron will be able to survive for $>$11 hr against

1378: %collisional losses in $n_{e}\lesssim 10^{5}$ cm$^{-3}$, while a 200 keV electron

1379: %can withstand collisions for that length of time in a higher density environment,

1380: %$n_{e} \lesssim 10^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{benz2002}.

1381: %The identification of this variability as decays of flares on both days implies a high

1382: %flaring rate for this star.

1383: %The exact location of the radio emission requires detailed modelling of

1384: %spatial and temporal variations of magnetic field and accelerated particles and possible

1385: %interaction with disk material, and

1386: %is beyond the scope of the current paper.

1387: We note that quantitative analyses of the

1388: time-dependent radio flux spectrum have been done for RS CVn binaries

1389: \citep{rscvns} but not, to our knowledge, for the more complicated

1390: magnetic field geometries around young stars \citep{donati2007}.

1391: Such low densities are to be contrasted with the ambient electron density in

1392: X-ray-emitting coronal material, which is generally much higher \citep[$n_{e} \ge$10$^{9}$ cm$^{-3}$;][]{jardine2006}.

1393: 

1394: 

1395: \subsubsection{Rapid Radio Variability and Lack of Circular Polarization}

1396: The constraints on circular polarization from the maps made of all the data, described in

1397: \S 2.1, can be applied to the measured flux densities at 3.6 and 6 cm to constrain the

1398: amount of circular polarization.  At 3.6 cm, the minimum and maximum values of flux density 

1399: imply 3 $\sigma$ limits on the percent of circularly polarized flux  $V/I$ of

1400: $<$2\% and $<$ 29\%, respectively, while at 6 cm the corresponding limits

1401: are $<$ 2\% and $<$ 31\%, respectively.  

1402: 

1403: %The measured values of circular polarization 

1404: %in \citet{white1992} for nearby T Tauri stars was only 2--4\%, so our upper limits

1405: %are only weakly constraining.  

1406: 

1407: The high level of radio variability implies a rapid re-arrangement of magnetic fields, but the

1408: lack of circular polarization potentially places a constraint on the spatial distribution of magnetic fields.  

1409: Orientation can affect the

1410: observed amount of circular polarization for large-scale magnetic structures (edge-on configurations

1411: reveal contributions from both hemispheres, leading to a net cancellation).  Alternatively, 

1412: a magnetic configuration with many small-scale structures would also lead to a small net 

1413: value of circular polarization.

1414: Even when 

1415: circular polarization is detected in young stellar objects, it is usually at a low level

1416: \citep[2--4\% in quiescence, up to $\sim$16\% during flares;][]{white1992}. 

1417: Our upper limits on circular polarization are thus only weakly constraining.

1418: 

1419: \subsubsection{Anti-correlation Between Flux Density and Spectral Index}

1420: There are two cluster members showing rapid radio variability which have strong enough

1421: detections to allow investigation of temporal changes in spectral index ([BW88]~1 and [BW88]~3).

1422: %There are two 

1423: %objects 

1424: %detected at both 3.6 and 6 cm showing short time-scale radio variability 

1425: %which have X-ray and/or infrared counterparts and are therefore

1426: %likely to be cluster members (BW~1 and BW~3).

1427: %As discussed in Section~3.4, these two objects display an anti-correlation between

1428: %6 cm radio luminosity and spectral index.

1429: The spectral indices are generally flat or negative, $\alpha \lesssim$0.5, indicating 

1430: nonthermal emission from an inhomogeneous source.

1431: The anti-correlation between 6 cm radio luminosity and spectral index

1432: (\S3.4)

1433: is opposite to that seen from solar flares and

1434: active stars \citep{benz1977,mutel1987}.

1435: This anti-correlation has

1436: also been observed previously in young stellar radio sources:

1437: \citet{felli1993} noted that some of the radio sources in Orion 

1438: had spectral index changes associated with flux density changes on timescales of weeks,

1439: with $\alpha$ becoming more negative when the flux density

1440: increases. 

1441: During the

1442: decays of radio flares from nearby active stars 

1443: the spectral index and flux are positively correlated.

1444: The right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_flux} displays the 6 cm radio luminosity versus 6--3.6 cm spectral index

1445: for 4 well-observed radio flares from the active binary HR~1099 and the dMe flare star EV~Lac

1446: \citep{osten2004,osten2005}.  The positive correlations between radio luminosity and spectral index for these

1447: flares are significant at $>$99.5\% confidence.  Thus the observed trends in the 

1448: two young stellar objects discussed here reveal a divergent behavior from that exhibited 

1449: in active stars.

1450: 

1451: A detailed modelling of the flux density and spectral index and their temporal variations

1452: is beyond the scope of this paper.  Nevertheless, we can examine the observed trends to

1453: infer constraints on the evolution of the population of accelerated particles.

1454: For radio flares from active stars the positive correlation 

1455: between flux density and spectral index

1456: is considered to be a consequence of spectral evolution

1457: of optically thick emission during the rise and peak phases of the flare, returning to optically thin

1458: values during the flare decay.

1459: Under optically thin conditions, the spectral index is a function of only the

1460: power-law index of the accelerated electrons.  

1461: Specifically, 

1462: $\alpha \sim 1.2-0.9 \delta$ for $2\leq \delta \le 7$ \citep{dulk1985}. 

1463: Thus, for active stars, the positive

1464: correlation between flux density and spectral index means that at the peak of the flare

1465: when the flux density is maximum, $\alpha$ is large, corresponding to small values of $\delta$

1466: which implies a hard distribution.

1467: At further points in the flare decay, the flux density has declined, with consequent smaller

1468: values of $\alpha$ and larger values of $\delta$.  This temporal evolution is towards

1469: a softer accelerated electron distribution, such as can happen when the most energetic electrons

1470: are depopulated from e.g. radiative losses in a high B field region (left panel, Figure~\ref{fig:schm}).

1471: 

1472: The anti-correlation between the flux density and spectral index seen in two cluster

1473: members suggests a different scenario than what is observed for active stars.  For [BW88]~3

1474: the temporal evolution of the flux density on both days looks like the decay phase of two

1475: flares, yet when the flux density is maximum, the spectral index is at its smallest.

1476: The temporal variations of [BW88]~1 are not ordered in the same way, yet produce the same anti-correlation.

1477: A small spectral index, under the same optically thin conditions as assumed above, implies a large

1478: value of $\delta$, while the large $\alpha$ corresponding to smaller values of flux density

1479: implies a {\it smaller} value of $\delta$ (right panel, Figure~\ref{fig:schm}).  This evolution of the accelerated particle spectrum

1480: is from soft to hard, and is difficult to envision under standard conditions of energy losses. 

1481: This implies that the hardest energy electrons are being repopulated.  For [BW88]~3 this

1482: timescale is several hours, whereas for [BW88]~1 it is on the order of the time binning, $\sim$1200 seconds.

1483: The conditions present in [BW88]~1 thus argue for a rapid but sporadic particle acceleration, while those

1484: in [BW88]~3 argue for nearly continuous particle acceleration during the transient events seen.

1485: 

1486: %While we cannot constrain the specific

1487: %spatial and temporal configurations giving rise to the observed trend, the

1488: %The observed behavior for the two cluster members as well as that of active stars

1489: %constrains how fundamental quantities like 

1490: %magnetic field strength, total number density of accelerated particles, and distribution

1491: %of accelerated particles change during a flare decay in young stellar objects compared to

1492: %active stars.

1493: %We assume in both cases that the radio flare emission arises from

1494: %homogeneous optically thin gyrosynchrotron radiation with an isotropic distribution of

1495: %pitch angles.  Then the flux density $S_{\nu}$

1496: %and radio spectral index $\alpha$ are functions of several fundamental quantities:

1497: %$S_{\nu}$ = $S_{\nu}(B, N_{\rm tot}, \delta, \theta, \Omega)$ and $\alpha=\alpha(\delta)$,

1498: %where $B$ is the magnetic field strength in the radio-emitting source,

1499: %$N_{\rm tot}$ is the total number density of accelerated particles, $\theta$ is

1500: %the angle between the magnetic field and the line of sight, 

1501: %$\delta$ is the power-law index of the accelerated particle distribution,

1502: %and $\Omega$ is the source size.

1503: %The analytic expressions of \citet{dulk1985} show how

1504: %the flux density depends on these quantities.

1505: %%By interpreting the origin of the variable radio emission as gyrosynchrotron

1506: %%emission, we explore physical relationships between the two correlated variables which could give

1507: %%rise to both types of correlation.  

1508: %%Under the simplifying assumptions of a homogeneous optically thin gyrosynchrotron-emitting source, 

1509: %%the change in spectral index can be related

1510: %%to the changing distribution of nonthermal electrons during a transient

1511: %%magnetic reconnection/particle acceleration event, while flux changes

1512: %can be due additionally to a combination of a changing number density of accelerated electrons, changing

1513: %magnetic field strength in the radio-emitting source, and also 

1514: %the changing size of the radio-emitting source.

1515: %For optically thin gyrosynchrotron emission from a homogeneous source 

1516: %$\alpha$ varies 

1517: %as $\alpha \sim 1.2-0.9 \delta, 2\leq \delta \le 7$ \citep{dulk1985}. 

1518: %%The analytic expressions of \citet{dulk1985} 

1519: %%can be used to evaluate trends in flux density versus spectral index in the optically 

1520: %%thin limit for a homogeneous source with an isotropic pitch-angle distribution.  

1521: %%We examined the influence of the physical parameters magnetic field strength $B$,

1522: %total number density of accelerated electrons $N$, and $\delta$ on the 

1523: %emergent flux density. 

1524: 

1525: %We considered not the absolute value of these quantities, since that requires detailed

1526: %modelling which is out of the scope of this paper, but rather how the quantities vary 

1527: %during a flare decay.  We considered specifically the magnetic field strength

1528: %in the radio-emitting source, the total number density of accelerated particles, and

1529: %the distribution of those particles, and allowed these quantites to either stay the same,

1530: %increase, or decrease, from an assumed maximum at the flare peak.

1531: %The simplest case is for the spectral index variations:

1532: %an increase in spectral index corresponds to a decrease in $\delta$. 

1533: %An inverse relationship between

1534: %spectral index and flux density can be reproduced if all of $\delta$, the magnetic field $B$

1535: %in the radio-emitting source, and the total number density $N$ of accelerated electrons are

1536: %at their peak values at flare maximum with decreases during the flare decay, while

1537: %a positive correlation can be obtained if only two or fewer parameters decrease during the 

1538: %flare decay. 

1539: %We do not explore the effect of source expansion, although

1540: %noting that it may be considerable: a core-halo morphology

1541: %between flare peak and quiescent times is seen in nearby active binary systems at VLBI

1542: %resolution \citep{ransom2003}.

1543: %%and there is recent evidence for extended radio emission from T Tau S \citep{vlbi_ttau}. 

1544: %%Since the flux density is linearly proportional to the source size, significant source expansion

1545: %%could tend to counteract the trend seen here.

1546: %These parameterizations are done in the simplifying limit of a homogeneous source;

1547: %besides the additional complications from an inhomogeneous source,

1548: %detailed observations of solar flares have revealed the influence of 

1549: %anisotropic pitch-angle distributions, which can significantly affect both the spectral index and

1550: %emergent intensity \citep{fleishman2003}.

1551: %{\it No obvious conclusion, result not emphasized in conclusion section}

1552: 

1553: \subsection{Radio/X-ray Correlations \label{rx}}

1554: We investigated radio and X-ray luminosity correlations for objects

1555: detected at both radio and X-ray wavelengths, utilizing the simultaneously

1556: obtained measurements from our project.  Figure~\ref{lxlr} displays the results

1557: graphically, with X-ray and radio luminosity measurements taken from each of the two

1558: days of observations.  We used a distance of 700 pc \citep{herbig2004},

1559: and the flux density measurements at 6 cm.

1560: The dotted lines connecting the pairs of points indicate the

1561: classification of the source using IRAC colors:  there were 4 objects whose

1562: colors indicate photospheric levels, two whose colors were consistent with Class II

1563: sources, and one object not detected in the IRAC bandpass.  

1564: We exclude the central object LkH$\alpha$101 from consideration, due to

1565: its early spectral type and the likelihood that the radio emission arises

1566: from an ionized wind.

1567: Two sources have only

1568: radio upper limits due to their nondetection at the current epoch, compared with

1569: detections at earlier epochs at levels up to five times the current upper limits.

1570: Also plotted is the expected range of

1571: X-ray and radio luminosities based on the observational relationship 

1572: found by \citet[][hereafter, GB]{gb1993}.

1573: One might only expect the GB relationship to hold in wTTs but

1574: since we see that 1 cTTs displays nonthermal radio emission (see discusion in \S

1575: 3.2) we include the Class~II

1576: objects as well.

1577: 

1578: Figure~\ref{lxlr} indicates that the radio and X-ray luminosities displayed by

1579: these objects is not consistent with that implied by the GB relationship.

1580: For the Class II and III objects, there is considerable scatter in the measured values,

1581: with none of the radio and X-ray detections being consistent with the GB

1582: relationship (which would result in a ratio L$_{R}$/L$_{X}$ of 5.9--59$\times$10$^{-16}$ Hz$^{-1}$

1583: for wTTs).  

1584: The prevalence of these objects above the % to the upper left of the

1585: GB relationship in the $L_{R}$-L$_{X}$ plot indicates that they are more radio-luminous

1586: at a given X-ray luminosity than the GB relationship would imply.

1587: The sensitivity of our radio observations leads to a 5$\sigma$ constraint on 

1588: radio luminosity of $\sim$6$\times$10$^{16}$ erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$ for a source close to

1589: the phase center; based on arguments in \S 3.5 we estimated an X-ray sensitivity of $\sim$3$\times$10$^{28}$

1590: erg s$^{-1}$ for an on-axis source at 700 pc distance.  The X-ray sensitivity is capable of

1591: exploring a larger region of $L_{X}$-$L_{R}$ parameter space than is the current radio sensitivity.

1592: Note that two of our upper limits to radio luminosity could be consistent with the GB L$_{X}$-L$_{R}$

1593: relationship with radio observations $\approx$ 2--3 times more sensitive.

1594: 

1595: Magnetic fields are complicit in plasma heating which produces X-ray

1596: emission; magnetic fields also accelerate electrons and give rise to radio emission.

1597: It is natural, then, to assume that a relationship might hold between two observable

1598: sources of radiation whose formations require the presence of magnetic fields.

1599: \citet{gb1993} argued that the two quantities can be roughly linearly related through conversion of 

1600: coronal energy into plasma heating and X-ray radiation on the one hand, and particle acceleration

1601: and radio emission on the other hand.  Another way the two quantities may be linearly related is if 

1602: the radio- and X-ray-emitting volumes are co-spatial.  But this places a stringent

1603: constraint on the X-ray-emitting plasma, because the radio radiation must be able to escape

1604: and be detected.  Using parameters from the X-ray spectral fits to the integrated data

1605: for radio- and X-ray detected sources, and assuming a spherically symmetric corona with

1606: stellar radii of $\approx$ 2R$_{\odot}$, roughly appropriate for stars

1607: of about 1 Myr,

1608: we estimate the free-free optical depth of the X-ray emitting material at radio wavelengths

1609: \citep[equation 11.2.2 in ][]{benz2002}

1610: %using volume emission measures and temperatures derived from X-ray spectral fits, 

1611: %and assuming 

1612: and find that the X-ray emitting material would be optically thick at radio wavelengths.

1613: This rules out co-spatial formation of X-ray and radio emission.

1614: To produce detectable quantities of radio and X-ray emission requires the presence of large scale

1615: magnetic fields and/or large amounts of magnetic flux.  It is entirely possible that

1616: with a complex field geometry, X-ray and radio-emitting regions are physically distinct

1617: from each other, with separate energy reservoirs.  If this is the case, no relationship between

1618: the two emergent intensities is to be expected.  

1619:  

1620: Figure~\ref{lxlr} displays the ratio of the luminosities against X-ray luminosity.

1621: There is a statistically significant anti-correlation between this

1622: luminosity ratio and the X-ray luminosity;

1623: the discrepancy between the observed luminosity ratio and 

1624: that expected from the GB relationship grows as the X-ray luminosity decreases.

1625: %If we examine the X-ray and radio luminosities as a ratio instead of 

1626: %comparing the luminosities directly (panel b of Figure~\ref{lxlr})

1627: %we find a scatter of more than an order of magnitude in the objects with

1628: %infrared classes indicating Class~II or III objects.  This range

1629: %is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the L$_{R}$/L$_{X}$ value indicated by BW~1, which has

1630: %no infrared classification because it was not detected in the Spitzer images.  

1631: %Based on the arguments in \S 3.1 for an object to not be

1632: %detected at infrared wavelengths, 

1633: It is likely that [BW88]~1, the most extreme

1634: object exhibiting this relationship, is a very low mass star or brown dwarf (see discussion in \S 3.1).

1635: %The anomalously high ratio of its radio to X-ray luminosity when compared to the values

1636: %found for the other stellar objects also fits with the few nearby field low mass stars which

1637: %display large radio luminosities relative to their X-ray luminosities \citep{berger2006}.

1638: %Note that \citet{oj2006} failed to detect radio emission from several brown dwarfs in the TW~Hya

1639: %association, at 10 MY, and commented that the radio and X-ray behavior of the one brown dwarf detected

1640: %at X-ray wavelengths appeared more like those of T Tauri stars than Gyr-age very low mass dwarfs.

1641: %Its radio spectral index is anti-correlated with flux density, showing similar behavior to the Class II source

1642: %BW~3.

1643: %The radio behavior of young substellar objects is poorly constrained,

1644: %and there are still too few nearby field very low mass dwarfs whose radio and X-ray emission has been studied

1645: %thoroughly to invite further comparisons, although the correspondence between mass constraints and

1646: %multi-wavelength correlations for this object compared with older objects of similar mass

1647: %range is interesting. 

1648: The luminosity ratio relates the efficiency of particle acceleration (through the production of

1649: nonthermal radio emission) to that of plasma heating (through the production of X-ray emission).

1650: Although the GB relationship implies a nearly constant amount of particle acceleration relative to plasma

1651: heating, the results for the young stellar objects around LkH$\alpha$101 

1652: indicate that this parameter depends on the amount of plasma heating, and

1653: thus implies a decoupling of particle acceleration from plasma heating.

1654: 

1655: The lack of correlation between radio and X-ray measurements can also be seen

1656: in the comparison of short time-scale variability:  

1657: %there was no statistical

1658: %evidence for short-term X-ray variability in the objects which appeared to be

1659: %undergoing radio flares (BW 3, BW 1).  

1660: The amount of radio variability between

1661: the two days of observations is larger than the corresponding range in 

1662: X-ray flux in the sample of objects detected at both wavelengths.  

1663: Out of 8 sources detected at both X-ray and radio wavelengths, variability at both

1664: wavelengths 

1665: is seen in only two cases ([BW88]~3, LkHa101VLA J0429540.+351848).

1666: Yet, two objects appeared to be undergoing short time-scale variability ([BW88]~3, [BW88]~1), while no X-ray

1667: flares were seen.

1668: The comparison of X-ray and radio variability is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:xrr} for 

1669: the three objects having significant radio detections, to probe variability in both.

1670: Variability appears to be a greater factor in the production of radio emission

1671: than it is in X-ray emission.

1672: 

1673: \section{Discussion}

1674: There has been a paucity of simultaneous radio and X-ray observations

1675: of young stars, despite the large potential for learning about 

1676: magnetic fields and interrelation of plasma heating and particle acceleration.

1677: The small number of cases in hand suggest a different scenario from that

1678: gleaned from studies of the Sun and nearby active stars.

1679: Simultaneous multi-wavelength observations of HD~283447 by

1680: \citet{feigelson1994}

1681: revealed a radio flare but no X-ray or

1682: chromospheric variability.  They concluded that the regions of gyrosynchrotron

1683: emission were largely decoupled from the regions where plasma heating was occurring.

1684: \citet{bower2003} serendipitously observed a giant outburst

1685: at mm- wavelengths during the COUP observation;

1686: an intense X-ray flare on the same star began 3 days prior to

1687: the observed radio flare and lasted through the duration of the radio

1688: flare.

1689: \citet{gagne2004} found a star, DoAr 21, in the $\rho$ Opch cloud core to be in the

1690: the decay phase of an X-ray flare with

1691: stable emission at 6 cm.

1692: These examples are opposite to the classic ``Neupert effect'' and suggestive

1693: of a different flare scenario.  

1694: Time-averaged correlations also show a different

1695: behavior in young stellar objects.

1696: \citet{gagne2004} found no evidence that X-ray and radio

1697: luminosities are correlated as expected in the GB relationship for a small sample of TTs 

1698: in the $\rho$ Ophiucus cloud. 

1699: Observations of Class~I sources in the Coronet cluster \citep{forbrich2006,forbrich2007}

1700: similarly show no clear

1701: %more X-ray variability than radio variability, with no clear

1702: correlations between radio and X-ray emission as should appear in the GB relationship

1703: if particle acceleration and plasma heating arise from a common energy reservoir. 

1704: Our finding of a decoupling between radio and

1705: X-ray emission in both a time-averaged and 

1706: time variable sense supports the idea that the structures giving rise to

1707: the two emissions in young stellar objects are physically or energetically distinct.

1708: 

1709: We find as a common theme that there is a different scenario for magnetic activity in the young

1710: stellar objects around LkH$\alpha$101 than is usually seen in the Sun and active stars.

1711: This is revealed by a comparison between radio flux versus spectral index behavior, which suggests for 

1712: the young stellar objects studied here rapid particle acceleration and injection.  The 

1713: interpretation of the dependence of radio to X-ray luminosity ratio on X-ray luminosity 

1714: is that the efficiency of particle acceleration relative to plasma heating depends on the amount

1715: of plasma heating, rather than being relatively independent as for active stars and the Sun.

1716: We investigated the coronal structures which could be giving rise to the radio and X-ray emission,

1717: and find several lines of evidence that such a decoupling is occurring.  The X-ray emitting loops are optically

1718: thick to radio emission at the wavelengths observed, so the detected amounts of radio and X-ray emission

1719: can not be coming from co-spatial loops. 

1720: The isolation of radio- and X-ray emitting material is also consistent with one interpretation of the lack of

1721: expected roughly linear correlation between X-ray and radio luminosities.

1722: The observed rapid radio variability implies a low density environment, another disconnect between the

1723: spatial location 

1724: of radio emitting structures and X-ray emitting structures, as 

1725:  inferred X-ray densities are much higher.

1726: 

1727: We can also constrain the size scales of X-ray and radio emission.  Since the observed X-ray luminosity is

1728: proportional to the volume emission measure (VEM), a function of the coronal electron density and size scale, for a spherically symmetric corona we have \\

1729: \begin{equation}

1730: VEM \propto \int n_{e}^{2} dV \sim 4\pi R_{\star}^{2} \int n_{e}^{2} ds

1731: \end{equation}

1732: where R$_{\star}$ is the stellar radius, which we take for YSOs to be roughly 2 (see discussion in \S 4.3).

1733: Using the observed X-ray luminosities and derived column emission measures in \S 4.3, combined with coronal

1734: density estimates of n$_{e}$ between 0.6--2.5 $\times$10$^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{jardine2006}, implies size scales

1735: for the X-ray emission of $l_{X}/R_{\star}$ between 0.002 and 2, and thus relatively compact.  

1736: For gyrosynchrotron emission appearing at the observed radio frequencies, valid for harmonics of the gyrofrequency 

1737: $\nu=s\nu_{B}$ for $s$ between 10 and 100 with $\nu_{B}$=2.8$\times$10$^{6}$B Hz, the inferred magnetic field strengths

1738: in the region of radio emission are between 17 and 300 G.  If we assume that this emission originates from a dipole field geometry,

1739: and the surface magnetic fields are in the range 1--3 kG \citep{cmj2007}, then the scale size of the radio emission

1740: $l_{R}$ is between 1.6 and 6 R$_{\star}$.  This shows that the radio emission appears to be physically distinct

1741: from the X-ray emission.  This conclusion has also been reached by \citet{feigelson1994} and

1742: \citet{massi2006} for the case of HD~283447.

1743: 

1744: If there is a large-scale distribution of magnetic fields giving rise to the radio

1745: emission, the lack of circular polarization constrains the orientation of the emission to be

1746: largely edge-on, while a magnetic configuration composed of small-scale fields would also explain

1747: a null detection of circular polarization in radio emission.

1748: Recent magnetic field measurements in TTs show that strong and complex magnetic field geometries

1749: are present, which can potentially interfere with X-ray generation \citep{cmj2007}

1750: and probably radio generation as well.

1751: \citet{jardine2006} noted from modelling the X-ray emission of T Tauri stars that more complex

1752: field geometries were associated with more compact, denser coronae.

1753: Perhaps the complex field

1754: configuration and possible coupling of disk to star changes the emergent radiations

1755: associated with the magnetic fields in such a way as to break the $L_{x}-L_{r}$ relation

1756: and any variability correlations.

1757: 

1758: %The interpretation of the radio emission has been under the rubric of gyrosynchrotron emission,

1759: %that commonly assumed to be at work in solar magnetic activity at cm wavlengths, and active stars as well.

1760: %Different arrangements of particle acceleration and magnetic field configurations can be used

1761: %under a gyrosynchrotron interpretation to explain both the behavior observed in young stellar objects

1762: %as well as active stars.  

1763: %However, there is some evidence that for at least one or two cases,

1764: %young stellar objects displaying nonthermal radio emission have their origin in much more energetic

1765: %electrons.  

1766: %On the basis of substantial amounts

1767: %of both linear and circular polarization as well as the characteristics

1768: %of a rapid flare observed at mm wavelengths, \citet{massi2006}  

1769: %concluded that the radio emission from HD~283447 likely originates from {\it synchrotron

1770: %emission} rather than the usually assumed gyrosynchrotron emission

1771: %in wTTs.  The radio flare on a young Orion star discussed by \citet{bower2003}

1772: %also showed variable nonthermal mm emission.  These two cases also have displayed

1773: %a decoupling between radio and X-ray emission.

1774: %The interpretation of the radio emission as synchrotron emission 

1775: %(variable nonthermal mm-wavelength emission) would have what kind of effect on the

1776: %results here?

1777: %Decoupling by itself is not a strong argument for or against synchrotron

1778: %emission: lifetime of mm wavelength emission,

1779: %and linear polarization are clues.  

1780: %Directional radio variability in the case of AB Dor was used to argue

1781: %for synchrotron emission, along with lack of circular polarization.  It would be good to put in an argument

1782: %here about energetics of gyrosynchrotron vs. synchrotron.  Need sensitive mm telescopes like ALMA to make any headway

1783: %in this.}

1784: 

1785: 

1786: \section{Conclusions}

1787: We find that nonthermal radio emission

1788: (based on flat/negative spectral indices) can be produced even in stars with infrared evidence for disks.

1789: In fact, we see large-scale radio emission variability from one Class~II object ([BW88]~3),

1790: as well as a possibly substellar object ([BW88]~1).

1791: Thus radio emission can be used as a diagnostic of magnetic activity in young stellar objects both with 

1792: and without disks.  

1793: Using this observational tool, we find a variety of behaviors indicating a different kind of magnetic activity 

1794: from that seen on active stars and the Sun:

1795: anti-correlation between radio luminosity and radio spectral index, 

1796: lack of expected correlation between radio and X-ray luminosities, lack of correlated 

1797: variability between radio and X-ray emission, and anti-correlation between the ratio of radio

1798: to X-ray luminosity and X-ray luminosity.

1799: %We find a lack of correspondence between signatures of particle acceleration and those of

1800: %plasma heating, both time-averaged and variable.

1801: %A radio flare observed on a star with a disk has flare properties which are consistent with

1802: %nonthermal emission.  

1803: The anti-correlation between radio flux and spectral 

1804: index points to a gyrosynchrotron emission mechanism which requires a different

1805: evolution of field strength, number density of accelerated electrons, and distribution

1806: compared to what is seen on nearby active stars and the Sun.

1807: The multi-wavelength behaviors suggest a decoupling between particle acceleration and plasma heating, 

1808: in both time-averaged and time-variable trends.

1809: The lack of expected correlation between radio and X-ray luminosities can be

1810: interpreted as due to their production in different magnetic regions, or out of different

1811: energy reservoirs.  There are a few calculations which support the former:

1812: the different inferred electron densities for X-ray emitting material versus that required

1813: to explain the rapid variability of radio emission (X-ray emission arising from denser regions);

1814: the calculated optical depth to radio emission of the X-ray-emitting plasma (showing that

1815: the X-ray emitting plasma would be optically thick and therefore not likely to escape

1816: and be detected at radio wavelengths); and the lack of

1817: correspondence between estimated X-ray size scales and radio size scales, which suggest for

1818: simple configurations that the X-ray emission is more compact than the radio emission.

1819: %Taken as a whole, these results imply that the magnetic activity observed on the young stellar

1820: %objects in LkH$\alpha$101 is not

1821: %solar-like.  

1822: 

1823: The primary finding of our investigation is that the magnetic activity signatures (radio, X-ray) and their

1824: correlations from young stellar objects in the LkH$\alpha$101 cluster show different trends

1825: from those established for nearby active stars.  

1826: Our results are new in that we probe a region of variability space occupied by few other

1827: multi-wavelength observations of young stellar objects: long-duration, multi-frequency radio coverage,

1828: with simultaneous multi-wavelength observations.

1829: We conclude that we are likely seeing evidence of a new phenomenon in these highly active

1830: young stars.

1831: Our conclusions are tempered by the small number of objects in our analysis, which is a result of

1832: the asymmetry between percentages of radio and X-ray emission in cluster members.

1833: %Recent results have pointed out the utility of combining X-ray and optical observations

1834: %of TTs to better understand the complex nature of the magnetic fields in young stars

1835: %\citep{donati2007}.  Multiplexing radio and X-ray observations provides an additional

1836: %discovery path by combining the simultaneous

1837: %diagnostic constraints of plasma heating and particle acceleration.

1838: %Studies which explore the short-timescale variability of radio-bright young stellar objects

1839: %can provide much needed information on how radio variations compare with those of active 

1840: %stars and the Sun.

1841: We are expanding our multi-wavelength investigation in magnetic activity from young stars

1842: with current and future observations of clusters spanning a range in ages.

1843: The simultaneous multi-wavelength coverage in this campaign was vital to establishing the

1844: disconnect between these magnetic activity signatures, and points out the 

1845: parameter space available for future such studies. 

1846: Future observations with the Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA), with roughly a factor of

1847: ten increase in sensitivity to radio emission, will be able to expand upon the findings presented here.

1848: 

1849: \acknowledgements

1850: We especially thank Tyler Bourke,  Rob Gutermuth and Brad Spitzbart --- co-authors

1851: on Paper~II upon whose results we are building.

1852: Thanks to Jan Forbrich for an advance copy of Forbrich \e 2007.

1853: Thanks also to the referee, Marc Gagn\'{e}, for constructive comments

1854: on improving this paper.

1855: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey,

1856: which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared

1857: Processing and Analysis Center, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space

1858: Administration and the National Science Foundation.

1859: Support for this work was provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant \# HF-01189.01 awarded

1860: by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for

1861: Research in Astronomy, Inc. for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555.  

1862: The CXC guest investigator program supported this work through grant GO5-6018X.

1863: SJW was supported by NASA contract NAS8-03060.

1864: This represents the results of VLA program S60872.

1865: 

1866: %\bibliographystyle{natbib}

1867: %\bibliography{/hubble/rosten/papers/lkha101_rx/lkha101}

1868: %\bibliography{/Volumes/Apps_and_Docs/rosten/papers/lkha101_rx/lkha101}

1869: 

1870: \begin{thebibliography}{61}

1871: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1872: 

1873: \bibitem[{{Andr\'{e}} {et~al.}(1987){Andr\'{e}}, {Montmerle}, \&

1874:   {Feigelson}}]{andre1987}

1875: {Andr\'{e}}, P., {Montmerle}, T., \& {Feigelson}, E.~D. 1987, \aj, 93, 1182

1876: 

1877: \bibitem[{{Aspin} \& {Barsony}(1994)}]{ab1994}

1878: {Aspin}, C. \& {Barsony}, M. 1994, \aap, 288, 849

1879: 

1880: \bibitem[{{Baraffe} {et~al.}(2002){Baraffe}, {Chabrier}, {Allard}, \&

1881:   {Hauschildt}}]{baraffe2002}

1882: {Baraffe}, I., {Chabrier}, G., {Allard}, F., \& {Hauschildt}, P.~H. 2002, \aap,

1883:   382, 563

1884: 

1885: \bibitem[{{Barsony} {et~al.}(1990){Barsony}, {Scoville}, {Schombert}, \&

1886:   {Claussen}}]{barsony1990}

1887: {Barsony}, M., {Scoville}, N.~Z., {Schombert}, J.~M., \& {Claussen}, M.~J.

1888:   1990, \apj, 362, 674

1889: 

1890: \bibitem[{{Becker} \& {White}(1988)}]{bw}

1891: {Becker}, R.~H. \& {White}, R.~L. 1988, \apj, 324, 893

1892: 

1893: \bibitem[{{Benz}(2002)}]{benz2002}

1894: {Benz}, A., ed. 2002, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 279, {Plasma

1895:   Astrophysics, second edition}

1896: 

1897: \bibitem[{{Benz}(1977)}]{benz1977}

1898: {Benz}, A.~O. 1977, \apj, 211, 270

1899: 

1900: \bibitem[{{Benz} \& {G\"{u}del}(1994)}]{bg1994}

1901: {Benz}, A.~O. \& {G\"{u}del}, M. 1994, \aap, 285, 621

1902: 

1903: \bibitem[{{Berger}(2006)}]{berger2006}

1904: {Berger}, E. 2006, \apj, 648, 629

1905: 

1906: \bibitem[{{Bieging} {et~al.}(1984){Bieging}, {Cohen}, \&

1907:   {Schwartz}}]{bieging1984}

1908: {Bieging}, J.~H., {Cohen}, M., \& {Schwartz}, P.~R. 1984, \apj, 282, 699

1909: 

1910: \bibitem[{{Bower} {et~al.}(2003){Bower}, {Plambeck}, {Bolatto}, {McCrady},

1911:   {Graham}, {de Pater}, {Liu}, \& {Baganoff}}]{bower2003}

1912: {Bower}, G.~C., {Plambeck}, R.~L., {Bolatto}, A., {McCrady}, N., {Graham},

1913:   J.~R., {de Pater}, I., {Liu}, M.~C., \& {Baganoff}, F.~K. 2003, \apj, 598,

1914:   1140

1915: 

1916: \bibitem[{{Caramazza} {et~al.}(2007){Caramazza}, {Flaccomio}, {Micela},

1917:   {Reale}, {Wolk}, \& {Feigelson}}]{caramazza2007}

1918: {Caramazza}, M., {Flaccomio}, E., {Micela}, G., {Reale}, F., {Wolk}, S.~J., \&

1919:   {Feigelson}, E.~D. 2007, \aap, 471, 645

1920: 

1921: \bibitem[{{Chabrier} {et~al.}(2000){Chabrier}, {Baraffe}, {Allard}, \&

1922:   {Hauschildt}}]{chabrier2000}

1923: {Chabrier}, G., {Baraffe}, I., {Allard}, F., \& {Hauschildt}, P. 2000, \apj,

1924:   542, 464

1925: 

1926: \bibitem[{{Chabrier} \& {K{\"u}ker}(2006)}]{ck2006}

1927: {Chabrier}, G. \& {K{\"u}ker}, M. 2006, \aap, 446, 1027

1928: 

1929: \bibitem[{{Chiuderi Drago} \& {Franciosini}(1993)}]{rscvns}

1930: {Chiuderi Drago}, F. \& {Franciosini}, E. 1993, \apj, 410, 301

1931: 

1932: \bibitem[{{Condon} {et~al.}(1998){Condon}, {Cotton}, {Greisen}, {Yin},

1933:   {Perley}, {Taylor}, \& {Broderick}}]{nvss}

1934: {Condon}, J.~J., {Cotton}, W.~D., {Greisen}, E.~W., {Yin}, Q.~F., {Perley},

1935:   R.~A., {Taylor}, G.~B., \& {Broderick}, J.~J. 1998, \aj, 115, 1693

1936: 

1937: \bibitem[{{Dobler} {et~al.}(2006){Dobler}, {Stix}, \&

1938:   {Brandenburg}}]{dobler2006}

1939: {Dobler}, W., {Stix}, M., \& {Brandenburg}, A. 2006, \apj, 638, 336

1940: 

1941: \bibitem[{{Donati} {et~al.}(2007){Donati}, {Jardine}, {Gregory}, {Petit},

1942:   {Bouvier}, {Dougados}, {M{\'e}nard}, {Cameron}, {Harries}, {Jeffers}, \&

1943:   {Paletou}}]{donati2007}

1944: {Donati}, J.-F., {Jardine}, M.~M., {Gregory}, S.~G., {Petit}, P., {Bouvier},

1945:   J., {Dougados}, C., {M{\'e}nard}, F., {Cameron}, A.~C., {Harries}, T.~J.,

1946:   {Jeffers}, S.~V., \& {Paletou}, F. 2007, \mnras, 760

1947: 

1948: \bibitem[{{Dulk}(1985)}]{dulk1985}

1949: {Dulk}, G.~A. 1985, \araa, 23, 169

1950: 

1951: \bibitem[{{Feigelson} {et~al.}(1998){Feigelson}, {Carkner}, \&

1952:   {Wilking}}]{feigelson1998}

1953: {Feigelson}, E.~D., {Carkner}, L., \& {Wilking}, B.~A. 1998, \apjl, 494, L215+

1954: 

1955: \bibitem[{{Feigelson} \& {Montmerle}(1999)}]{fm1999}

1956: {Feigelson}, E.~D. \& {Montmerle}, T. 1999, \araa, 37, 363

1957: 

1958: \bibitem[{{Feigelson} {et~al.}(1994){Feigelson}, {Welty}, {Imhoff}, {Hall},

1959:   {Etzel}, {Phillips}, \& {Lonsdale}}]{feigelson1994}

1960: {Feigelson}, E.~D., {Welty}, A.~D., {Imhoff}, C., {Hall}, J.~C., {Etzel},

1961:   P.~B., {Phillips}, R.~B., \& {Lonsdale}, C.~J. 1994, \apj, 432, 373

1962: 

1963: \bibitem[{{Felli} {et~al.}(1993){Felli}, {Taylor}, {Catarzi}, {Churchwell}, \&

1964:   {Kurtz}}]{felli1993}

1965: {Felli}, M., {Taylor}, G.~B., {Catarzi}, M., {Churchwell}, E., \& {Kurtz}, S.

1966:   1993, \aaps, 101, 127

1967: 

1968: \bibitem[{{Fisher} {et~al.}(1985){Fisher}, {Canfield}, \&

1969:   {McClymont}}]{fisher1985}

1970: {Fisher}, G.~H., {Canfield}, R.~C., \& {McClymont}, A.~N. 1985, \apj, 289, 425

1971: 

1972: \bibitem[{{Forbrich} {et~al.}(2006){Forbrich}, {Preibisch}, \&

1973:   {Menten}}]{forbrich2006}

1974: {Forbrich}, J., {Preibisch}, T., \& {Menten}, K.~M. 2006, \aap, 446, 155

1975: 

1976: \bibitem[{{Forbrich} {et~al.}(2007){Forbrich}, {Preibisch}, {Menten},

1977:   {Neuh{\"a}user}, {Walter}, {Tamura}, {Matsunaga}, {Kusakabe}, {Nakajima},

1978:   {Brandeker}, {Fornasier}, {Posselt}, {Tachihara}, \& {Broeg}}]{forbrich2007}

1979: {Forbrich}, J., {Preibisch}, T., {Menten}, K.~M., {Neuh{\"a}user}, R.,

1980:   {Walter}, F.~M., {Tamura}, M., {Matsunaga}, N., {Kusakabe}, N., {Nakajima},

1981:   Y., {Brandeker}, A., {Fornasier}, S., {Posselt}, B., {Tachihara}, K., \&

1982:   {Broeg}, C. 2007, \aap, 464, 1003

1983: 

1984: \bibitem[{{Gagn{\'e}} {et~al.}(2004){Gagn{\'e}}, {Skinner}, \&

1985:   {Daniel}}]{gagne2004}

1986: {Gagn{\'e}}, M., {Skinner}, S.~L., \& {Daniel}, K.~J. 2004, \apj, 613, 393

1987: 

1988: \bibitem[{{Gehrels}(1986)}]{gehrels1986}

1989: {Gehrels}, N. 1986, \apj, 303, 336

1990: 

1991: \bibitem[{{Getman} {et~al.}(2005){Getman}, {Flaccomio}, {Broos}, {Grosso},

1992:   {Tsujimoto}, {Townsley}, {Garmire}, {Kastner}, {Li}, {Harnden}, {Wolk},

1993:   {Murray}, {Lada}, {Muench}, {McCaughrean}, {Meeus}, {Damiani}, {Micela},

1994:   {Sciortino}, {Bally}, {Hillenbrand}, {Herbst}, {Preibisch}, \&

1995:   {Feigelson}}]{getman2005}

1996: {Getman}, K.~V., {Flaccomio}, E., {Broos}, P.~S., {Grosso}, N., {Tsujimoto},

1997:   M., {Townsley}, L., {Garmire}, G.~P., {Kastner}, J., {Li}, J., {Harnden},

1998:   Jr., F.~R., {Wolk}, S., {Murray}, S.~S., {Lada}, C.~J., {Muench}, A.~A.,

1999:   {McCaughrean}, M.~J., {Meeus}, G., {Damiani}, F., {Micela}, G., {Sciortino},

2000:   S., {Bally}, J., {Hillenbrand}, L.~A., {Herbst}, W., {Preibisch}, T., \&

2001:   {Feigelson}, E.~D. 2005, \apjs, 160, 319

2002: 

2003: \bibitem[{{Gibb} \& {Hoare}(2007)}]{gibbhoare2007}

2004: {Gibb}, A.~G. \& {Hoare}, M.~G. 2007, \mnras, 380, 246

2005: 

2006: \bibitem[{{Gregory} \& {Loredo}(1992)}]{gl1992}

2007: {Gregory}, P.~C. \& {Loredo}, T.~J. 1992, \apj, 398, 146

2008: 

2009: \bibitem[{{G{\"u}del} {et~al.}(2002){G{\"u}del}, {Audard}, {Smith}, {Behar},

2010:   {Beasley}, \& {Mewe}}]{gudel2002}

2011: {G{\"u}del}, M., {Audard}, M., {Smith}, K.~W., {Behar}, E., {Beasley}, A.~J.,

2012:   \& {Mewe}, R. 2002, \apj, 577, 371

2013: 

2014: \bibitem[{{G\"{u}del} \& {Benz}(1993)}]{gb1993}

2015: {G\"{u}del}, M. \& {Benz}, A.~O. 1993, \apjl, 405, L63

2016: 

2017: \bibitem[{{G\"{u}del} {et~al.}(1996){G\"{u}del}, {Benz}, {Schmitt}, \&

2018:   {Skinner}}]{gudel1996}

2019: {G\"{u}del}, M., {Benz}, A.~O., {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., \& {Skinner}, S.~L.

2020:   1996, \apj, 471, 1002

2021: 

2022: \bibitem[{{Hawley} {et~al.}(2003){Hawley}, {Allred}, {Johns-Krull}, {Fisher},

2023:   {Abbett}, {Alekseev}, {Avgoloupis}, {Deustua}, {Gunn}, {Seiradakis}, {Sirk},

2024:   \& {Valenti}}]{hawley2003}

2025: {Hawley}, S.~L., {Allred}, J.~C., {Johns-Krull}, C.~M., {Fisher}, G.~H.,

2026:   {Abbett}, W.~P., {Alekseev}, I., {Avgoloupis}, S.~I., {Deustua}, S.~E.,

2027:   {Gunn}, A., {Seiradakis}, J.~H., {Sirk}, M.~M., \& {Valenti}, J.~A. 2003,

2028:   \apj, 597, 535

2029: 

2030: \bibitem[{{Herbig} {et~al.}(2004){Herbig}, {Andrews}, \& {Dahm}}]{herbig2004}

2031: {Herbig}, G.~H., {Andrews}, S.~M., \& {Dahm}, S.~E. 2004, \aj, 128, 1233

2032: 

2033: \bibitem[{{Hong} {et~al.}(2005){Hong}, {van den Berg}, {Schlegel}, {Grindlay},

2034:   {Koenig}, {Laycock}, \& {Zhao}}]{hong2005}

2035: {Hong}, J., {van den Berg}, M., {Schlegel}, E.~M., {Grindlay}, J.~E., {Koenig},

2036:   X., {Laycock}, S., \& {Zhao}, P. 2005, \apj, 635, 907

2037: 

2038: \bibitem[{{Jardine} {et~al.}(2006){Jardine}, {Cameron}, {Donati}, {Gregory}, \&

2039:   {Wood}}]{jardine2006}

2040: {Jardine}, M., {Cameron}, A.~C., {Donati}, J.-F., {Gregory}, S.~G., \& {Wood},

2041:   K. 2006, \mnras, 367, 917

2042: 

2043: \bibitem[{{Johns-Krull}(2007)}]{cmj2007}

2044: {Johns-Krull}, C.~M. 2007, \apj, 664, 975

2045: 

2046: \bibitem[{{Lim} {et~al.}(1994){Lim}, {White}, {Nelson}, \& {Benz}}]{lim1994}

2047: {Lim}, J., {White}, S.~M., {Nelson}, G.~J., \& {Benz}, A.~O. 1994, \apj, 430,

2048:   332

2049: 

2050: \bibitem[{{Massi} {et~al.}(2006){Massi}, {Forbrich}, {Menten},

2051:   {Torricelli-Ciamponi}, {Neidh{\"o}fer}, {Leurini}, \& {Bertoldi}}]{massi2006}

2052: {Massi}, M., {Forbrich}, J., {Menten}, K.~M., {Torricelli-Ciamponi}, G.,

2053:   {Neidh{\"o}fer}, J., {Leurini}, S., \& {Bertoldi}, F. 2006, \aap, 453, 959

2054: 

2055: \bibitem[{{Mewe} {et~al.}(1985){Mewe}, {Gronenschild}, \& {van den

2056:   Oord}}]{mewe1985}

2057: {Mewe}, R., {Gronenschild}, E.~H.~B.~M., \& {van den Oord}, G.~H.~J. 1985,

2058:   \aaps, 62, 197

2059: 

2060: \bibitem[{{Mutel} {et~al.}(1987){Mutel}, {Morris}, {Doiron}, \&

2061:   {Lestrade}}]{mutel1987}

2062: {Mutel}, R.~L., {Morris}, D.~H., {Doiron}, D.~J., \& {Lestrade}, J.~F. 1987,

2063:   \aj, 93, 1220

2064: 

2065: \bibitem[{{Neupert}(1968)}]{neupert1968}

2066: {Neupert}, W.~M. 1968, \apjl, 153, L59+

2067: 

2068: \bibitem[{{Osten} {et~al.}(2004){Osten}, {Brown}, {Ayres}, {Drake},

2069:   {Franciosini}, {Pallavicini}, {Tagliaferri}, {Stewart}, {Skinner}, \&

2070:   {Linsky}}]{osten2004}

2071: {Osten}, R.~A., {Brown}, A., {Ayres}, T.~R., {Drake}, S.~A., {Franciosini}, E.,

2072:   {Pallavicini}, R., {Tagliaferri}, G., {Stewart}, R.~T., {Skinner}, S.~L., \&

2073:   {Linsky}, J.~L. 2004, \apjs, 153, 317

2074: 

2075: \bibitem[{{Osten} {et~al.}(2005){Osten}, {Hawley}, {Allred}, {Johns-Krull}, \&

2076:   {Roark}}]{osten2005}

2077: {Osten}, R.~A., {Hawley}, S.~L., {Allred}, J.~C., {Johns-Krull}, C.~M., \&

2078:   {Roark}, C. 2005, \apj, 621, 398

2079: 

2080: \bibitem[{{Raymond} \& {Smith}(1977)}]{rs1977}

2081: {Raymond}, J.~C. \& {Smith}, B.~W. 1977, \apjs, 35, 419

2082: 

2083: \bibitem[{{Scargle}(1998)}]{scargle1998}

2084: {Scargle}, J.~D. 1998, \apj, 504, 405

2085: 

2086: \bibitem[{{Siess} {et~al.}(2000){Siess}, {Dufour}, \& {Forestini}}]{siess2000}

2087: {Siess}, L., {Dufour}, E., \& {Forestini}, M. 2000, \aap, 358, 593

2088: 

2089: \bibitem[{{Skinner} {et~al.}(1993){Skinner}, {Brown}, \&

2090:   {Stewart}}]{skinner1993}

2091: {Skinner}, S.~L., {Brown}, A., \& {Stewart}, R.~T. 1993, \apjs, 87, 217

2092: 

2093: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(2006){Skrutskie}, {Cutri}, {Stiening},

2094:   {Weinberg}, {Schneider}, {Carpenter}, {Beichman}, {Capps}, {Chester},

2095:   {Elias}, {Huchra}, {Liebert}, {Lonsdale}, {Monet}, {Price}, {Seitzer},

2096:   {Jarrett}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Gizis}, {Howard}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, {Fullmer},

2097:   {Hurt}, {Light}, {Kopan}, {Marsh}, {McCallon}, {Tam}, {Van Dyk}, \&

2098:   {Wheelock}}]{2mass}

2099: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {Cutri}, R.~M., {Stiening}, R., {Weinberg}, M.~D.,

2100:   {Schneider}, S., {Carpenter}, J.~M., {Beichman}, C., {Capps}, R., {Chester},

2101:   T., {Elias}, J., {Huchra}, J., {Liebert}, J., {Lonsdale}, C., {Monet}, D.~G.,

2102:   {Price}, S., {Seitzer}, P., {Jarrett}, T., {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., {Gizis},

2103:   J.~E., {Howard}, E., {Evans}, T., {Fowler}, J., {Fullmer}, L., {Hurt}, R.,

2104:   {Light}, R., {Kopan}, E.~L., {Marsh}, K.~A., {McCallon}, H.~L., {Tam}, R.,

2105:   {Van Dyk}, S., \& {Wheelock}, S. 2006, \aj, 131, 1163

2106: 

2107: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2005){Smith}, {G{\"u}del}, \& {Audard}}]{smith2005}

2108: {Smith}, K., {G{\"u}del}, M., \& {Audard}, M. 2005, \aap, 436, 241

2109: 

2110: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2003){Smith}, {Pestalozzi}, {G{\"u}del}, {Conway},

2111:   \& {Benz}}]{smith2003}

2112: {Smith}, K., {Pestalozzi}, M., {G{\"u}del}, M., {Conway}, J., \& {Benz}, A.~O.

2113:   2003, \aap, 406, 957

2114: 

2115: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2001){Smith}, {Brickhouse}, {Liedahl}, \&

2116:   {Raymond}}]{apec}

2117: {Smith}, R.~K., {Brickhouse}, N.~S., {Liedahl}, D.~A., \& {Raymond}, J.~C.

2118:   2001, \apjl, 556, L91

2119: 

2120: \bibitem[{{Stine} \& {O'Neal}(1998)}]{so}

2121: {Stine}, P.~C. \& {O'Neal}, D. 1998, \aj, 116, 890

2122: 

2123: \bibitem[{{Tuthill} {et~al.}(2001){Tuthill}, {Monnier}, \&

2124:   {Danchi}}]{tuthill2001}

2125: {Tuthill}, P.~G., {Monnier}, J.~D., \& {Danchi}, W.~C. 2001, \nat, 409, 1012

2126: 

2127: \bibitem[{{Tuthill} {et~al.}(2002){Tuthill}, {Monnier}, {Danchi}, {Hale}, \&

2128:   {Townes}}]{tuthill2002}

2129: {Tuthill}, P.~G., {Monnier}, J.~D., {Danchi}, W.~C., {Hale}, D.~D.~S., \&

2130:   {Townes}, C.~H. 2002, \apj, 577, 826

2131: 

2132: \bibitem[{{White} {et~al.}(1992){White}, {Pallavicini}, \& {Kundu}}]{white1992}

2133: {White}, S.~M., {Pallavicini}, R., \& {Kundu}, M.~R. 1992, \aap, 259, 149

2134: 

2135: \bibitem[{{Wolk} {et~al.}(2005){Wolk}, {Harnden}, {Flaccomio}, {Micela},

2136:   {Favata}, {Shang}, \& {Feigelson}}]{wolk2005}

2137: {Wolk}, S.~J., {Harnden}, Jr., F.~R., {Flaccomio}, E., {Micela}, G., {Favata},

2138:   F., {Shang}, H., \& {Feigelson}, E.~D. 2005, \apjs, 160, 423

2139: 

2140: \bibitem[{{Wolk} {et~al.}(2006){Wolk}, {Spitzbart}, {Bourke}, \&

2141:   {Alves}}]{wolk2006}

2142: {Wolk}, S.~J., {Spitzbart}, B.~D., {Bourke}, T.~L., \& {Alves}, J. 2006, \aj,

2143:   132, 1100

2144: 

2145: \bibitem[{{Wolk} {et~al.}(2008){Wolk}, {Spitzbart}, {Bourke}, {Gutermuth},

2146:   {Vigil}, \& {Comer{\'o}n}}]{wolk2008}

2147: {Wolk}, S.~J., {Spitzbart}, B.~D., {Bourke}, T.~L., {Gutermuth}, R.~A.,

2148:   {Vigil}, M., \& {Comer{\'o}n}, F. 2008, \aj, 135, 693

2149: 

2150: \end{thebibliography}

2151: 

2152: \clearpage

2153: 

2154: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}

2155: \tablewidth{0pt}

2156: \tablenum{1}

2157: \rotate

2158: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}

2159: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2160: \tablecolumns{9}

2161: \tablecaption{Long-term Behavior of Radio Sources in the Field around

2162:   LkH $\alpha$101 \label{tbl:radiotbl1}\tablenotemark{1}}

2163: \tablehead{\colhead{ID} & 

2164: \colhead{April 1985} & \colhead{January 1986} & \colhead{April 1986} & \colhead{May 1986} & \colhead{October 1991}

2165:  & \colhead{March 2005} & \colhead{March 2005 }  & \colhead{$\alpha$\tablenotemark{a}} \\

2166:  \colhead{} &  \colhead{6 cm} & \colhead{6 cm} & \colhead{6 cm} & \colhead{6 cm} & \colhead{3.6 cm} & \colhead{3.6 cm} & \colhead{6 cm} & \colhead{}  }

2167: \startdata

2168: LkHa101VLA J043017.90+351510.0    &       {\it 0.7$\pm$0.1} &     {\it 1.1$\pm$0.1}  &   {\it  1.0$\pm$0.2} &      NI         &    {\it  0.63$\pm$0.07 }  &0.629$\pm$0.013 &  0.794$\pm$0.016&   -0.43$\pm$0.05 \\

2169: LkHa101VLA J043026.04+351538.2    &    {\it    2.0$\pm$0.1} &  {\it    2.2$\pm$0.1}  & {\it  2.1$\pm$0.2} &     {\it  1.4$\pm$0.1 } &   {\it   1.65$\pm$0.12}   &1.428$\pm$0.016 &  1.694$\pm$0.019&   -0.32$\pm$0.03 \\

2170: LkHa101VLA J043019.14+351745.6   &     {\it  2.9$\pm$0.1} &  {\it     1.2$\pm$0.1}  &  {\it   2.2$\pm$0.1} &     {\it  4.2$\pm$0.2}  &   {\it   1.12$\pm$0.11 }  &         1.276$\pm$0.014 &  1.347$\pm$0.018 &  -0.10$\pm$0.03 \\

2171: LkHa101VLA J043010.87+351922.4   &   {\it    1.3$\pm$0.1} &  {\it    $<$0.1 }      & {\it     $<$0.4}      &  {\it    $<$0.2 }      &     OOF          & OOF  &      0.222$\pm$0.023   &-- \\

2172: LkHa101VLA J043003.74+351827.6   &  {\it    0.9$\pm$0.1} &   {\it   2.0$\pm$0.1 } &     OOF        &      NI         &   {\it   0.46$\pm$0.07 }       & 0.616$\pm$0.018 &  0.832$\pm$0.021 &  -0.55$\pm$0.07 \\

2173: LkHa101VLA J043001.15+351724.6   &   {\it    0.5$\pm$0.1} &    {\it   $<$0.1  }     &  {\it    $<$0.4}  &       {\it    $<$0.2   }    &    {\it  0.33$\pm$0.08}  & OOF            &  0.056$\pm$0.016        &  -- \\

2174: LkHa101VLA J042956.40+351553.4   &   {\it    1.2$\pm$0.1} &   {\it    1.8$\pm$0.1 } &  {\it   $<$0.4\tablenotemark{b}} &      {\it 0.7$\pm$0.1}  &     {\it 0.22$\pm$0.06 } & OOF            &  0.578$\pm$0.022 &  -- \\

2175: LkHa101VLA J042956.78+351527.1   &   {\it    0.5$\pm$0.1} &    {\it   0.8$\pm$0.1}  &  {\it    1.1$\pm$0.2\tablenotemark{b}}  &     {\it      0.6$\pm$0.1}  &   {\it   0.50$\pm$0.06}  & OOF            &  1.249$\pm$0.025 &  -- \\

2176: LkHa101VLA J043002.64+351514.9   &  {\it     $<$0.2}&       {\it     0.8$\pm$0.1}  &  {\it    $<$0.4}  &        {\it   $<$0.2 }      &  {\it    0.81$\pm$0.10}  & $<$0.072        &  $<$0.059        &  -- \\

2177: LkHa101VLA J042958.00+351602.9  &      $<$0.3 &            $<$0.2         &     $<$0.3    &          NI         &     {\it 0.82$\pm$0.17}        & OOF            &  0.117$\pm$0.022 &  -- \\

2178: LkHa101VLA J043008.77+351625.8   &      $<$0.3 &            0.22$\pm$0.06         &     OOF    &          NI         &     {\it 1.05$\pm$0.14 }       & $<$0.036        &  $<$0.036       &   -- \\

2179: LkHa101VLA J043010.98+351437.6   &      $<$0.3 &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     {\it 0.29$\pm$0.05 }       &   0.058$\pm$0.014&   $<$0.054    &      $>$0.2 \\

2180: LkHa101VLA J043014.43+351624.1    &NI &NI    & NI                  &  NI         &  NI                   &    38.134$\pm$0.011         & 24.643$\pm$0.014 & 0.805$\pm$0.001 \\

2181: LkHa101VLA J043014.46+351527.5    &      $<$0.3 &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     {\it 0.38$\pm$0.06  } &$<$0.036    &      0.067$\pm$0.015 & $<$-1 \\

2182: LkHa101VLA J043016.53+351710.8   &     $<$0.3  &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     {\it 0.55$\pm$0.10 }        &$<$0.036    &      $<$0.045 &         -- \\

2183: LkHa101VLA J043016.98+351642.4    &      $<$0.3  &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     {\it 0.65$\pm$0.14 }   &        0.043$\pm$0.011   &       0.066$\pm$0.015     &   -0.8$\pm$0.6 \\

2184: LkHa101VLA J043017.34+351647.6     &      $<$0.3  &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     {\it 0.54$\pm$0.08 }        &         0.103$\pm$0.012   &       0.063$\pm$0.015     &     0.9$\pm$0.4 \\

2185: LkHa101VLA J043009.74+351502.5     &      $<$0.3  &            $<$0.2        &     OOF    &          NI         &     $<$0.18           & 0.138$\pm$0.013 &   0.149$\pm$0.018  & -0.1$\pm$0.3 \\

2186: LkHa101VLA J043002.85+351709.8     &      $<$0.3  &            $<$0.2         &     $<$0.3    &          NI         &     $<$0.3           & 0.129$\pm$0.016 &   0.171$\pm$0.018  & -0.5$\pm$0.3 \\

2187: LkHa101VLA J043004.01+351817.0     &      0.36$\pm$0.12 &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     $<$0.3           & $<$0.054        &   0.227$\pm$0.020  & $<$-3 \\

2188: LkHa101VLA J042953.98+351848.2     &      $<$0.3  &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     OOF           & OOF            &   0.353$\pm$0.027  & -- \\

2189: LkHa101VLA J043016.04+351726.9     &      $<$0.3  &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     $<$0.2           & 0.103$\pm$0.012 &   0.124$\pm$0.016  & -0.4$\pm$0.3 \\

2190: LkHa101VLA J043024.78+351757.7      &      $<$0.4  &            $<$0.2         &     OOF    &          NI         &     OOF           & 0.323$\pm$0.016 &   0.223$\pm$0.021  & 0.6$\pm$0.2 \\

2191: \enddata

2192: \tablenotetext{1}{Primary beam-corrected peak intensities and 1$\sigma$ rms values are listed for

2193: detections; 3 $\sigma$ upper limits are given otherwise.  Numbers from the four epochs described in BW or that of SO

2194: for sources listed in 

2195: either BW or SO are taken from those papers and are delineated in italics.  

2196: Measurements of other

2197: sources from these datasets are the purview

2198: of this paper.  ``OOF" means the position of the source was out of the nominal image field; ``NI" 

2199: means no information on this source at this epoch is available.

2200: A ``--" in the column for spectral index means that flux information at one or both

2201: frequencies was not available, usually because the object was outside the field of view at one frequency 

2202: or undetected at both frequencies.}

2203: %\tablenotetext{c}{Current epoch.  Fluxes were determined from maps made from combining two

2204: %separate days' observations (6 and 8 March).}

2205: \tablenotetext{a}{$\alpha$ is the slope from 6--3.6 cm, defined as S$_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha}$.}

2206: %\tablenotetext{e}{Frequency of observation. C=6 cm, X=3.6 cm.}

2207: \tablenotetext{b}{These two numbers are switched from what is reported in Becker \& White, based on our examination

2208: of the archival data.}

2209: \end{deluxetable}

2210: 

2211: \begin{deluxetable}{clcccl}

2212: \tablewidth{0pt}

2213: \tablenum{2}

2214: \rotate

2215: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}

2216: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2217: \tablecolumns{6}

2218: \tablecaption{Multi-wavelength cross-identification of sources \label{tbl:idtbl}}

2219: \tablehead{\colhead{Radio ID} & \colhead{other Radio ID \tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{X-ray ID}  & \colhead{IRAC counterpart} & \colhead{IR Class\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{spectral type}

2220: }

2221: \startdata

2222: LkHa101VLA J043017.90+351510.0 &[BW88]~1, [SO98]~12 &  LkHa101CXO J043017.9+351510  & & & \\

2223: LkHa101VLA J043026.04+351538.2 &      			 [BW88]~2, [SO98]~14 &  & & &probable AGN(see \S4.1.2)\\

2224: LkHa101VLA J043019.14+351745.6 &[BW88]~3,[SO98]~13 & LkHa101CXO J043019.2+351745 &LkHa101SST J043019.16+351745.5&  2 & K0: \citep{herbig2004}\\

2225: LkHa101VLA J043010.87+351922.4 & [BW88]~4 & LkHa101CXO J043010.9+351922 &LkHa101SST J043010.89+351922.6& 3 &BV (BW88)\\

2226: LkHa101VLA J043003.74+351827.6 & 			 [BW88]~5,[SO98]~4&  && &probable AGN (see \S4.1.2)\\

2227: LkHa101VLA J043001.15+351724.6 & [BW88]~6, [SO98]~16 & LkHa101CXO J043001.1+351724 &LkHa101SST J043001.13+351724.8 & 3 & K7 \citep{herbig2004}\\

2228: LkHa101VLA J042956.40+351553.4 & 			 [BW88]~7, [SO98]~15 & && & probable AGN (see \S4.1.2)\\

2229: LkHa101VLA J042956.78+351527.1 & 			[BW88]~8, [SO98]~1 & & &&\\

2230: LkHa101VLA J043002.64+351514.9 & [BW88]~9, [SO98]~3 &LkHa101CXO J043002.6+351514 &LkHa101SST J043002.62+351514.4&  2  &\\

2231: LkHa101VLA J042958.00+351602.9 &				 SO~2&&	&  &\\

2232: LkHa101VLA J043008.77+351625.8 & 			 SO~5& & &&\\

2233: LkHa101VLA J043010.98+351437.6 & 			 SO~6 && &&\\

2234: LkHa101VLA J043014.43+351624.1 & LkH$\alpha$101, SO~7 & LkHa101CXO J043014.4+351624 &LkHa101SST J043014.44+351624.0  & 100 &early B; see discussion in \citet{herbig2004}\\

2235: LkHa101VLA J043014.46+351527.5 & 			SO~8& & &&\\

2236: LkHa101VLA J043016.53+351710.8 & 			SO~9 &&&&\\

2237: LkHa101VLA J043016.98+351642.4 & 			SO~10 &&& &\\

2238: LkHa101VLA J043017.34+351647.6 &				SO~11&& & &\\

2239: LkHa101VLA J043009.74+351502.5 &				&    & & &\\

2240: LkHa101VLA J043002.85+351709.8 &				&    & & &\\

2241: LkHa101VLA J043004.01+351817.0 & 			&     & &&\\

2242: LkHa101VLA J042953.98+351848.2 & & LkHa101CXO J042954.0+351848       &LkHa101SST J042953.97+351848.6& 3& \\

2243: LkHa101VLA J043016.04+351726.9 & &LkHa101CXO J043016.0+351727       &LkHa101SST J043016.04+351727.2& 3 & M2 \citep{herbig2004}\\

2244: LkHa101VLA J043024.78+351757.7 &			       &     & &\\

2245: \enddata

2246: \tablenotetext{a}{Key to IDs: BW=\citet{bw},SO=\citet{so}}

2247: \tablenotetext{b}{Spitzer classification code: 2=Class II, 3=Class III, 100=unknown}

2248: \end{deluxetable}

2249: 

2250: 

2251: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}

2252: \tablewidth{0pt}

2253: \tablenum{3}

2254: \rotate

2255: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}

2256: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2257: \tablecolumns{8}

2258: \tablecaption{Two-Day Behavior of Radio Sources in the Field around LkH$\alpha$101\label{tbl:radiotbl2}\tablenotemark{1}}

2259: \tablehead{\colhead{ID} & \colhead{$\theta$ } & 

2260: \colhead{03/06} & \colhead{03/06} & \colhead{03/08} & \colhead{03/08} & \colhead{$\alpha_{1}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\alpha_{2}$\tablenotemark{a}}  \\

2261: \colhead{} & \colhead{('')} & \colhead{3.6 cm} & \colhead{6 cm} & \colhead{3.6 cm} & \colhead{6 cm} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}

2262: }

2263: %&\colhead{X$_{\rm var}$?\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{C$_{\rm var}$?\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{P$_{GLV,XR}$\tablenotemark{e}} & \colhead{P$_{\rm KS,3.6}$\tablenotemark{f}} &\colhead{P$_{\rm KS,6}$\tablenotemark{g}}  }

2264: \startdata

2265: LkHa101VLA J043017.90+351510.0 &  84 &   0.614$\pm$0.018 & 0.760$\pm$0.021  &  0.639$\pm$0.018  & 0.831$\pm$0.021 &  -0.39$\pm$0.07  &  -0.48$\pm$0.07 \\

2266: LkHa101VLA J043026.04+351538.2 &  149 &   1.343$\pm$0.022 & 1.678$\pm$0.025  &  1.518$\pm$0.022  & 1.708$\pm$0.024 &  -0.41$\pm$0.04  &  -0.22$\pm$0.04 \\

2267: LkHa101VLA J043019.14+351745.6 &  102 &   0.9894$\pm$0.019 & 0.992$\pm$0.035  &  1.580$\pm$0.019  & 1.672$\pm$0.023 &  0$\pm$0.6   &  -0.10$\pm$0.03 \\

2268: LkHa101VLA J043010.87+351922.4 &  185 &   OOF            & 0.214$\pm$0.030  &  OOF             & 0.218$\pm$0.031        &  --            &  -- \\

2269: LkHa101VLA J043003.74+351827.6 &  181&   0.636$\pm$0.025 & 0.850$\pm$0.028  &  0.590$\pm$0.026  & 0.813$\pm$0.028 &  -0.53$\pm$0.09  &  -0.6$\pm$0.1 \\

2270: LkHa101VLA J043001.15+351724.6 &  174 &   OOF            & $<$0.072         &  OOF             & $<$0.072        &  --            \\

2271: LkHa101VLA J042956.40+351553.4 &  222 &   OOF            & 0.625$\pm$0.030  &  OOF             & 0.562$\pm$0.029 &  --            &  -- \\

2272: LkHa101VLA J042956.78+351527.1 &  222 &   OOF            & 1.178$\pm$0.033  &  OOF             & 1.310$\pm$0.032 &  --            &  -- \\

2273: LkHa101VLA J043002.64+351514.9 &  159 &   $<$0.081        & $<$0.081         &  $<$0.069         & $<$0.081        &  --            &  -- \\

2274: LkHa101VLA J043014.43+351624 &  2 &  36.168$\pm$0.015 & 23.099$\pm$0.019 &  37.788$\pm$0.015 & 23.196$\pm$0.018&  0.827$\pm$0.002 &  0.900$\pm$0.002 \\

2275: LkHa101VLA J043009.74+351502.5 & 98 &   0.084$\pm$0.017 & 0.113$\pm$0.022  &  0.183$\pm$0.019  & 0.148$\pm$0.022 &  -0.5$\pm$0.5    &  0.4$\pm$0.3 \\

2276: LkHa101VLA J043002.85+351709.8 &  149 &   0.139$\pm$0.021 & 0.167$\pm$0.044  &  0.124$\pm$0.022  & 0.149$\pm$0.024 &  -0.3$\pm$0.3    &  -0.4$\pm$0.4 \\

2277: LkHa101VLA J043004.01+351817.0 &  171&    $<$0.072        & 0.171$\pm$0.024  &  $<$0.072         & 0.129$\pm$0.025 &  $<$-1.6         &  $<$-1 \\

2278: LkHa101VLA J042953.98+351848.2 &  289&    OOF            & $<$0.150         &  OOF             & 0.724$\pm$0.036 &  --            &  -- \\

2279: LkHa101VLA J043016.04+351726.9  &  68 &   0.135$\pm$0.017 & 0.188$\pm$0.021  &  0.125$\pm$0.017  & 0.093$\pm$0.020        &  -0.6$\pm$0.3    &  0.5$\pm$0.4 \\

2280: LkHa101VLA J043024.78+351757.7  &  159   &   0.405$\pm$0.023 & 0.232$\pm$0.029  &  0.282$\pm$0.022  & 0.201$\pm$0.026 &  1.2$\pm$0.2     &  0.6$\pm$0.3 \\

2281: \enddata

2282: \tablenotetext{1}{Primary beam-corrected peak intensities and 1$\sigma$ rms values are listed for detections; 3$\sigma$ upper limits given

2283: for nondetections.  ``OOF'' means that the position of the source was out of the nomial image field.

2284: A ``--" means that flux information at one (or both) frequencies was not available, usually because

2285: the object was outside the field of view at one frequency or undetected at both frequencies.}

2286: \tablenotetext{a}{$\alpha_{1}$ is the slope from 6--3.6 cm on 6 March, $\alpha_{2}$ the slope from 6--3.6 cm on 8 March.}

2287: \end{deluxetable}

2288: 

2289: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}

2290: \tablewidth{0pt}

2291: \tablenum{4}

2292: \rotate

2293: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}

2294: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2295: \tablecolumns{7}

2296: \tablecaption{Variability Statistics \label{tbl:varstat}}

2297: \tablehead{ \colhead{ID} & \colhead{Long Term Var.\tablenotemark{a} } & \colhead{2-day Var.\tablenotemark{b} } 

2298: & \colhead{2-day Var.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Short Term Var.\tablenotemark{c} }

2299: & \colhead{Short Term Var.\tablenotemark{c} }

2300: & \colhead{P$_{\rm XR}$\tablenotemark{d}} \\

2301: \colhead{} & {6 cm} & \colhead{3.6 cm} & \colhead{6 cm}  & \colhead{3.6 cm } & \colhead{6 cm }  & \colhead{(\%)}

2302: }

2303: \startdata

2304: LkHa101VLA J043017.90+351510.0 & N & N & Y & Y &  Y  & 60 \\

2305: LkHa101VLA J043026.04+351538.2 & N & Y &N & N & N  & - \\

2306: LkHa101VLA J043019.14+351745.6 & Y & Y&Y & Y & Y &  97 \\

2307: LkHa101VLA J043010.87+351922.4 & Y & - & N & - & - & 95 \\

2308: LkHa101VLA J043003.74+351827.6 & Y & N & N & N & Y  & - \\

2309: LkHa101VLA J043001.15+351724.6 & N & - & - & - & - & 17 \\

2310: LkHa101VLA J042956.40+351553.4 & Y & - & N &   - & N & - \\

2311: LkHa101VLA J042956.78+351527.1 & N & - & Y &  -& Y & -  \\

2312: LkHa101VLA J043002.64+351514.9 & N & - & - & - & - & 99 \\

2313: LkHa101VLA J043014.43+351624.1 & - & Y & Y & -\tablenotemark{e} & -\tablenotemark{e} & 72 \\

2314: %above is LkHa101

2315: LkHa101VLA J043009.74+351502.5 &- & Y & N & - & - & - \\

2316: LkHa101VLA J043002.85+351709.8 & - & N &N & - & - & - \\

2317: LkHa101VLA J043004.01+351817.0 & - & - & N & - & - & - \\

2318: LkHa101VLA J042953.98+351848.2 & - & - & Y & - & N  & $>$99.9 \\

2319: LkHa101VLA J043016.04+351726.9 & - & N &Y &-  & - & 82 \\

2320: LkHa101VLA J043024.78+351757.7 & - & Y &N & N  & - & - \\

2321: \enddata

2322: \tablenotetext{a}{

2323: %Long term variability has been assessed as the difference between minimum and maximum fluxes recorded in 

2324: %Table~\ref{tbl:radiotbl1} at 6 cm divided by uncertainty.  We

2325: %take a value of 10$\sigma$ or greater to indicate long-term variability. 

2326: See \S~\ref{longt} for explanation of how long-term radio variability was assessed.}

2327: \tablenotetext{b}{Variability between two days of radio observations based on $>$3$\sigma$ difference in flux density;

2328: see \S~\ref{mediumt} for explanation.}

2329: \tablenotetext{c}{

2330: %$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ statistic between fluxes and average flux (probability this could

2331: %be attributed to random fluctuations), $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ statistic between distribution of fluxes and Gaussian with

2332: %same average and standard deviation, (probability this could arise from random fluctuations);

2333: Short timescale radio variability; see \S~\ref{shortt} for details.}

2334: \tablenotetext{d}{Probability that the source is X-ray variable; see \S~\ref{xrvary}.}

2335: \tablenotetext{e}{Embedded in bright nebulosity; see text for details.}

2336: \end{deluxetable}

2337: 

2338: \clearpage

2339: 

2340: \begin{figure}

2341: %\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Ximage_zoom_log.ps}

2342: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f1.eps}

2343: \caption{ Close-up of the portion of the X-ray image also covered by

2344:   the VLA field of view.  The locations of the 16 radio sources considered in this paper 

2345: are indicated with red circles. 

2346: Radio sources have the prefix LkHa101VLA J prepended to the positions.

2347: \label{fig:XrayVLAfield}}

2348: \end{figure}

2349: 

2350: \begin{figure}

2351: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f2.eps}

2352: \caption{Short-term variability amongst the strongest radio sources.  For objects where multi-frequency

2353: information is available and the individual flux measurements are strong enough, the time variation

2354: of the spectral index is plotted. 

2355: \label{fig:radiolc}}

2356: \end{figure}

2357: 

2358: \begin{figure}

2359: \begin{center}

2360: \hspace*{-1cm}

2361: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f3a.eps}

2362: \includegraphics[scale=0.35,width=3in]{f3b.eps}

2363: \caption{{\bf (left)} Plot of 6 cm radio luminosity against 6--3.6 cm spectral index, for

2364: three objects for which changes in spectral index could be measured. 

2365: Open squares indicate data points from the first day of observations, while the

2366: filled circles denote data from the second observation.  

2367: The two apparent cluster members, [BW88]~1 and [BW88]~3, display a

2368: statistically significant anti-correlation between luminosity and spectral index, while the probable

2369: AGN ([BW88]~2) shows no correlation.

2370: {\bf (right)} Plot displaying 6 cm radio luminosity against 6--3.6 cm spectral index

2371: for the decays of several radio flares from nearby active stars. 

2372: Data for decays of radio flares

2373: from HR~1099 are taken from \citet{osten2004}; data for decay of radio flare from EV~Lac is taken

2374: from \citet{osten2005}.  The radio luminosities are positively correlated with spectral index

2375: over a wide range of luminosity.

2376: \label{fig:alpha_flux}}

2377: \end{center}

2378: \end{figure}

2379: 

2380: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2381: %\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{submit/f3.eps}

2382: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f4.eps}

2383: \caption{

2384: $Chandra$ light curves of radio-detected sources.  The

2385:   vertical line represents the break between the first observations, 

2386: (ObsID 5429; 6~Mar 2005) and the second (ObsID 5428; 8~Mar 2005).  

2387: The time histogram is binned so that the average bin

2388: contains 5 counts. Hence they range from about 100 seconds to about

2389: 9~ks in length.  The red lines indicate intervals of constant flux as

2390: determined by Bayesian analysis set to detect variability at $>$ 95\%

2391: confidence. IAU designators for source names are used. 

2392: Count rate is counts per kilosecond.

2393: \label{fig:xraylc}}

2394: \end{figure}

2395: 

2396: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2397: \includegraphics[scale=0.3,angle=90]{f5a.eps}

2398: \includegraphics[scale=0.3,angle=90]{f5b.eps}

2399: \caption{ {\bf (left)} Schematic relationship between flux density and spectral index

2400: observed in the decay phase of flares on active stars. 

2401: Solid vertical line in S$_{\nu}$ vs. $\alpha$ plot indicates $S_{\nu}$, $\alpha$ measurements at a time early in the flare

2402: decay, while dashed vertial line indicates $S_{\nu}$, $\alpha$ measurements at a later

2403: time in the flare decay. 

2404: Solid slanted line in $N(E)$ vs. $E$ figure indicates relative

2405: distribution of accelerated particles at the time early in the flare decay, while

2406: slanted dashed line indicates that for later in the flare decay, based on the change of $\alpha$

2407: under optically thin conditions.

2408: The interpretation of the decrease

2409: in $\alpha$ is a a softening of the accelerated electron population during the flare decay.

2410: {\bf (right)} Schematic relationship between flux density and spectral index for two

2411: young stellar objects seen here and in \citet{felli1993}.  Solid and dashed lines are the same as

2412: for the left panels.

2413: The hardening of the accelerated

2414: electron spectrum from early in the flare decay to later times

2415: implies sporadic or near-continuous acceleration of electrons to

2416: repopulate the distribution.  

2417: \label{fig:schm}

2418: }

2419: \end{figure}

2420: 

2421: 

2422: \begin{figure}

2423: \begin{center}

2424: %\hspace*{-1cm}

2425: %\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{submit/f5a.eps}

2426: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f6.eps}

2427: \caption{ 

2428: Ratio of radio to X-ray luminosities for radio sources considered in the

2429: present study.

2430: Black points indicate measurements on the first day (03/06), red points 

2431: measurements obtained from the second day (03/08), and a line connects measurements

2432: of the same object. Class~II objects are denoted by filled squares, while Class~III objects

2433: have a filled circle for their data points.  

2434: Data for the one object not

2435: detected with Spitzer are delineated by plus symbols. 

2436: Down arrows indicate upper limits.

2437: The shaded curve

2438: indicates the region of $L_{X}-L_{R}$ space occupied by the GB

2439: relationship, with the order of magnitude uncertainty in the relationship, and

2440: constant appropriate to cTTs.  

2441: %A distance of 700 pc was assumed.

2442: It appears likely that these objects lie outside this relationship.

2443: %{\bf (right)} Ratio of radio to X-ray luminosities for objects shown in left panel.  Symbols are as in 

2444: %figure at left.  

2445: %The discrepant behavior of BW~1, which 

2446: %is probably a very low mass star or brown dwarf (see discussion in \S \ref{sec:rxrir}),

2447: %compared to the L$_{R}$/L$_{X}$ values of other radio detected cluster members is more obvious.

2448: \label{lxlr}}

2449: \end{center}

2450: \end{figure}

2451: 

2452: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2453: \includegraphics[scale=0.7,angle=90]{f7.eps}

2454: \caption{

2455: X-ray and radio light curves for three objects with radio fluxes

2456: high enough to examine short time-scale radio variability.  

2457: Top panels: Chandra light curves as in Figure~\ref{fig:xraylc},

2458: bottom panels: radio light curves as in Figure~\ref{fig:radiolc}.

2459: There is no apparent correlation between radio and X-ray variability 

2460: in these objects.

2461: \label{fig:xrr}}

2462: \end{figure}

2463: 

2464: 

2465: 

2466: \end{document}

2467: