 the solutions to separations of multiples of the KI resolution only. Thus, at the 99.7 % (67 %) confidence level of rejecting binary models, it is very unlikely that more than one out of our five targets have a binary companion of 0.08 (0.05) brightness of the primary.]{} The masses that such flux limits represent depend on both the luminosity of the primary and the assumed age of the system. Based on the PMS evolutionary tracks of @1999ApJ...525..772P and an age of 1 Myr, flux ratios of 0.1 would refer to companion masses of about 1/4 of the primary mass.

The fact that we can rule out binaries for the major part of the tested FoV, and for a brightness ratio down to 0.05 is mostly related to the measured small [*differential*]{} visibility variations. In contrast, the [*absolute*]{} level constrains binary parameters to a lesser extent only, but is rather linked to the amount of (over-)resolved emission. An equal brightness binary would result in large ($\gtrsim\,0.2$) squared visibility variations over the probed range of spatial frequencies of the KI baseline. This amplitude of the visibility variation decreases with decreasing companion brightness (see the left panels in Fig. \[fig:80\]). Our binary search is limited to $FR\,\gtrsim\,0.05$ because even lower $FR$ would result in differential visibility variations compatible with models of a single resolved, extended emission structure, as discussed in the next section. Fitting binary models to such data of low differential visibility variation is very ambiguous. The visibilities of GM Aur show a statistically significant differential visibility signal of $\sim\,0.1$, different from the other four targets, but our analysis shows that this still small change in visibility does not appreciably alter the range of allowed binary solutions. We discuss this visibility trend further below in Sect. \[sec:111\].

The set of binary parameters, excluded by our data, does not significantly depend on the fact that so far we probed the data against simple, dust-free binary models only. It is possible that some extended, circumbinary dust emission has been resolved out by the interferometer, resulting in the visibilities below unity. This raises the concern that the putative binary signature in the visibility variation is not recovered by the analysis because the absolute visibility level has changed with respect to the calculated one, due to the missing over-resolved dust emission in the correlated flux. To probe if
the solutions to separations of multiples of the KI resolution merely. therefore, at the 99.7  % (67   %) confidence level of disapprove binary model, it is very unlikely that more than one out of our five targets hold a binary companion of 0.08 (0.05) brightness of the primary. ] { } The mass that such flux limits defend depend on both the luminosity of the primary and the assumed long time of the arrangement. Based on the PMS evolutionary tracks of @1999ApJ... 525.. 772P and an age of 1   Myr, flux ratios of 0.1 would mention to companion masses of about 1/4 of the primary bulk. 

 The fact that we can rule out binaries for the major part of the test FoV, and for a brightness ratio down to 0.05 is mostly related to the measured belittled [ * differential * ] { } visibility variations. In contrast, the [ * absolute * ] { } level constrains binary parameters to a lesser extent only, but is rather linked to the amount of (over-)resolved emission. An equal brightness binary would result in large ($ \gtrsim\,0.2 $) squared visibility mutant over the probed range of spatial frequency of the KI baseline. This amplitude of the visibility variation decreases with decreasing companion luminosity (see the leftover panels in Fig.   \[fig:80\ ]). Our binary search is limited to $ FR\,\gtrsim\,0.05 $ because even lower $ FR$ would leave in differential visibility variations compatible with models of a single resolved, extended emission social organization, as discussed in the next section. Fitting binary models to such data of low differential visibility variation is very equivocal. The visibility of GM Aur show a statistically significant differential visibility signal of $ \sim\,0.1 $, different from the other four aim, but our analysis shows that this still small change in visibility does not appreciably alter the range of allowed binary solution. We discuss this visibility course further below in Sect.   \[sec:111\ ]. 

 The stage set of binary parameters, exclude by our data, does not importantly depend on the fact that so far we probe the data against simple, debris - free binary models only. It is possible that some extended, circumbinary dust emission has been resolved out by the interferometer, resulting in the visibilities below unity. This raises the business that the putative binary signature in the visibility variation is not reclaim by the analysis because the absolute visibility level has changed with respect to the calculated one, due to the missing over - purpose dust emission in the correlated flux. To probe if
 thf solutions to separatioks of multiples of the NI resklution unly. Thus, at the 99.7 % (67 %) confidencx lecel od rejecting binary moddls, it is very unoikeot that morx than okz out lf obr five targets mave a binasy companion ox 0.08 (0.05) yrightness of the primary.]{} The masses that sicj flux limits teprexqnt svptnd on both the luminosity of the primarj and the assumed age of the system. Based oj thf PMS evolutionary tracks of @1999QpJ...525..772P qnd an age ow 1 Myr, flux ratios of 0.1 sould refer to companion masses of ayout 1/4 of thg lrlkary mass.

Thx fact that we can rule oud binaroes for the mamor pert if the tested FoV, and for a brightness tatio down tk 0.05 is mostly relaree to jhe maasufwd rmaml [*djfferejtiel*]{} visibilify variatiobs. In contrast, the [*sbfilute*]{} level cknstraynf binary parameters to a lesser extent mnlg, but is rather linked ro the amount of (over-)tesolved eiission. An equal brightness binary would result it larje ($\gtxwim\,0.2$) sdyaged visibility variations over the probed rands pf spatial frequcncies of the KI bssfloge. This amplijude of ths visibility variahion desreasws with dtcreaxing companion brightness (swe the left ianeos in Fig. \[fig:80\]). Our bnnary search is kimitrd to $FR\,\gtrsim\,0.05$ because zven lkwer $FR$ woupd result kn differential xispbilhty variations compatible rith modeos oy a singue rgsolved, extended fmisslmn structure, as didcussgd in dhe next sfction. Fitting binary models to such data of kof dpfferenticl vislbility variatijn is very ambnguous. Tke viskbilities kf GM Anr show a stwtistically shhnificant dihferentiaj viwibioity sieval of $\sim\,0.1$, difgerent from the othwr four targets, bub our znalysis shows ckau rhis still smakl zhaggv ii visytility does tot xppfrciabuy alter thc rxnge of allowed binary smlutjons. We discuss thos visibiluty trenq further belpw in Sect. \[sec:111\].

The stt of uinary paraketgrs, excluded by our data, does nkt signiflcaktly depend og thc fast that so far we probed the data against simple, vust-free binary models inly. It is possible uhat some extxnded, sircumbindry dust emission haw been resolved omt by the interferometsr, resgltinh in the visibilities below unity. This raises the concern that the putatice binerr signature in yhe vpsiyilnty varyatili is not recoverec by the analysis because the ausolute viviyility level has changed with rdspect to the calculated one, due to tge missimg over-resolved dust emission im the correlated flux. To probe id
the solutions to separations of multiples of resolution Thus, at 99.7 % (67 binary it is very that more than out of our five targets have binary companion of 0.08 (0.05) brightness of the primary.]{} The masses that such limits represent depend on both the luminosity of the primary and the assumed of system. on PMS evolutionary tracks of @1999ApJ...525..772P and an age of 1 Myr, flux ratios of 0.1 would to companion masses of about 1/4 of the mass. The fact that can rule out binaries for major of the FoV, for brightness ratio down 0.05 is mostly related to the measured small [*differential*]{} visibility variations. In contrast, the [*absolute*]{} level constrains parameters to extent only, is linked the amount of An equal brightness binary would result squared visibility variations over the probed range of frequencies of KI baseline. This amplitude of the variation decreases with decreasing companion brightness (see the panels in Fig. \[fig:80\]). Our binary search is limited to $FR\,\gtrsim\,0.05$ because even lower $FR$ in differential visibility variations with models of single extended structure, discussed in next section. Fitting binary models to such data of low differential variation is very ambiguous. The visibilities of GM Aur show significant visibility signal of different from the other targets, our analysis shows that small in appreciably the of allowed binary solutions. discuss this visibility trend further in Sect. \[sec:111\]. The by our data, does not significantly depend on fact that so far we probed the against simple, dust-free binary models only. It is possible that some extended, dust emission resolved out by the interferometer, resulting in the below unity. This raises concern that the putative binary signature in the visibility is recovered by analysis because the visibility level has with respect to one, due the over-resolved the correlated flux. To probe if
 the solutions to separations Of multipleS of thE KI ResOlUtioN onlY. Thus, at the 99.7 % (67 %) confIDencE level of rejecting binarY modeLs, IT is vERy UnlikEly that MOrE THan OnE oUt oF oUR fIve taRgeTs have a Binary compAniOn Of 0.08 (0.05) brightness OF tHe primary.]{} THe mAsses that sucH flUx limiTs RepREsent DepEnd on Both thE LuminoSity of the PrIMary anD The assuMED aGe of The system. Based on tHE Pms evolutionary tRacks oF @1999APj...525..772P AND an Age Of 1 Myr, flux rAtIos of 0.1 WOuld refER tO COMpaNIon masses of abOut 1/4 of the priMAry Mass.

ThE fAct THat we cAn rulE oUT biNaries for thE majOr part of tHe testED FoV, and FOr a brigHtness RatIo dOwn tO 0.05 Is MoStlY rELatED tO thE MeaSured smaLl [*DiFfereNtiaL*]{} VISIbilIty VariAtionS. In contrast, thE [*abSoluTE*]{} leVel coNstraIns bInAry paRameteRs to a LeSser extent only, bUt is Rather linKed To The AmOunt oF (Over-)reSolVed EmissioN. An equaL BriGhTNESs Binary would result iN lARGe ($\Gtrsim\,0.2$) sqUared vISiBiLIty variaTiOns Over THE probEd raNGe Of spatiaL frequENcIeS of the Ki bAselinE. THis AmpLitudE Of thE visibIlity varIatioN Decreases with dECreasing compaNIoN BRiGHtneSs (sEe the left paNels IN Fig. \[Fig:80\]). OUR bInaRY searCh is lImITeD To $FR\,\gtrsim\,0.05$ because evEn Lower $Fr$ woulD result in diffErential viSIBIlity varIatiONs COmpatible with mOdels Of a single rESolved, exTendeD emissioN structurE, AS discussEd iN thE neXt sECTiOn. Fitting binaRY ModeLs To such dAta Of low diFfeRenTiaL viSiBility varIation is VeRy AmBiGuoUs. The VIsibilitIeS of gM aur Show a STatistIcallY sigNiFiCAnt DiffereNTiAL VisiBiLiTy siGnaL oF $\sim\,0.1$, dIffeREnt From the Other four TarGEts, bUt OuR analysIs shows that thIs Still small ChAngE in visIBIlity doeS not appreciably alter the RAnge of aLloWed biNary Solutions. we dIscuss ThiS VisibiLity trEnd fuRtHer BELow in sECt. \[Sec:111\].

thE set of binaRY ParAmeteRs, ExclUded by oUr data, does not signiFIcaNtly depend on tHe fAct tHAT sO faR We PRobEd THe dATA against simple, dUst-free binArY MoDels only. It IS poSsIble thaT some exTendeD, CircumbInary dust Emission hAs Been RESolVed out by thE interfeRometer, reSUltinG In The viSibIlitieS bEloW unitY. This rAIseS the cOncern ThAt the pUtatiVe Binary siGnature in the visibility vAriatiOn is nOt rEcovered bY thE AnaLysis becaUse tHe absolute VisIbiLity lEveL Has chAngeD WiTh rESpect To thE CalculateD OnE, duE TO tHe missing ovER-REsoLved dUst EMissioN in tHe correlated flux. TO Probe if
 the solutions to separati ons of mul tiple s o f t he  KIreso lution only. T h us,at the 99.7 % (67 %) c onfid en c e le v el  of r ejectin g  b i n ary  m od els ,i tis ve ryunlikel y that mor e t ha n one out of ou r five tar get s have a bin ary  compa ni ono f 0.0 8 ( 0.05)  brigh t ness o f the pri ma r y.]{}T he mass e s  t hatsuch flux limitsr ep r esent depend o n both  t h el u min osi ty of thepr imary and the as s u m eda ge of the sys tem. Basedo n t he PMS  e vol u tionar y tra ck s  of  @1999ApJ.. .525 ..772P an d an a g e of 1M yr, flu x rati osof0.1w ou ld  re fe r  to co mpa n ion  massesof  a bout1/4o f t he p rim arymass. 

The fact th atwe c a n r ule o ut bi nari es  forthe ma jor p ar t of the tested  FoV , and for  abr igh tn ess r a tio do wnto0.05 is  mostly rel at e d to  the measured smal l[ * di fferenti al*]{} vi si b ility va ri ati ons. I n con tras t ,the [*ab solute * ]{ }level c on strain sbin ary  para m eter s to a  lesserexten t  only, but isr ather linkedt ot h ea moun t o f (over-)re solv e d em issi o n.  An equal  brig ht n es s  binary would resul tin lar ge ($ \gtrsim\,0.2$ ) squaredv i s ibilityvari a ti o ns over the pr obedrange of s p atial fr equen cies ofthe KI ba s e line. Th isamp lit ude o fthe visibilit y vari at ion dec rea ses wit h d ecr eas ing  c ompanionbrightne ss  ( se ethe  left panels i nFig .\[f ig:80 \ ]). Ou r bin aryse ar c h i s limit e dt o  $FR \, \g trsi m\, 0. 05$ b ecau s e e ven low er $FR$ w oul d  res ul tin diff erential visi bi lity varia ti ons  compa t i ble with  models of a single res o lved, e xte ndedemis sion stru ctu re, as  di s cussed  in th e nex tsec t i on. F i t ti ngbi nary model s tosuchda ta o f low d ifferential visibi l ity  variation is  ve ry a m b ig uou s .T hevi s ibi l i ties of GM Aurshow a sta ti s ti cally sign i fic an t diffe rential  visi b ility s ignal of$\sim\,0. 1$ , di f f ere nt from th e otherfour targ e ts, b u tour a nal ysis s ho wsthatthis s t ill  smal l chan ge  in vi sibil it y does n ot appreciably alter th e rang e ofall owed bina rys olu tions. We  dis cuss thisvis ibi litytre n d fur ther be low in Se ct.\ [sec:111\ ] .
Th e se t of binary p a ram eters , e x cluded  byour data, does no t  significantly  dep e n d o n t h e fa ct  that so far w e p ro b e d the da ta  against si mple, du st - freebinary  model s only. I ti s poss ible  th at some e xte nd e d, circ um bi n ary du st e mi ssionhas be e n re s o lved out by theinter f e romet e r,resul ti ng in t h e vi sibilities  below unit y. Thi s ra isesthe con ce rn tha t t he  putativeb inary sig natur e in th evisi bil ity va riat i o n isnotre cov ered by t h e  a n al ys i s b ecau se th eabso lute visi b ility le vel has cha ng edw i th res p ec t to the cal cul atedo n e, due tot he m i ss i ng ov er-res olveddust em i ssi on  in the  co r r elated fl ux. To pr o beif 
 the_solutions to_separations of multiples of_the KI_resolution_only. Thus,_at_the 99.7 % (67 %)_confidence level of_rejecting binary models, it_is very unlikely_that_more than one out of our five targets have a binary companion of 0.08_(0.05)_brightness of_the_primary.]{}_The masses that such flux_limits represent depend on both_the luminosity_of the primary and the assumed age of_the_system. Based on_the PMS evolutionary tracks of @1999ApJ...525..772P and an age_of 1 Myr, flux ratios of 0.1_would refer to_companion_masses_of about 1/4 of_the primary mass.

The fact that we_can rule out binaries for the_major part of the tested FoV, and_for a brightness ratio down to_0.05 is mostly related to_the measured_small [*differential*]{} visibility variations. In_contrast, the [*absolute*]{}_level constrains_binary parameters to_a lesser extent only, but is_rather linked to_the amount of (over-)resolved emission. An_equal_brightness binary would_result_in_large ($\gtrsim\,0.2$)_squared visibility variations_over_the probed_range_of spatial frequencies of the KI_baseline._This amplitude of the visibility variation decreases_with decreasing companion brightness_(see_the left panels in_Fig. \[fig:80\]). Our binary search is_limited to $FR\,\gtrsim\,0.05$ because even lower_$FR$ would_result in_differential visibility variations compatible with models of a single resolved, extended_emission structure, as discussed in the_next section. Fitting binary_models to_such_data of low_differential_visibility variation_is very ambiguous. The visibilities of GM_Aur show_a statistically significant differential visibility signal_of $\sim\,0.1$, different from_the_other four targets, but our analysis_shows that this still small change_in visibility does not appreciably_alter_the_range of allowed binary solutions._We discuss this visibility trend further_below in Sect. \[sec:111\].

The_set of binary parameters, excluded by our_data,_does not significantly depend on the_fact_that so far we probed the_data_against_simple, dust-free binary models only._It is possible that some extended,_circumbinary dust emission has been resolved out by the_interferometer, resulting in_the visibilities below unity. This_raises_the_concern that the putative binary signature in the visibility variation_is not_recovered by the_analysis because the absolute visibility level has changed with respect_to the calculated one, due to the_missing over-resolved dust emission in the correlated flux. To probe if