 could therefore produce a bias towards slow rotation. The measured distribution is more skewed towards slow rotation than the @Ceillier2017 data, but the correspondence between the different models and the data is similar, [suggesting that sample selection effects are not dramatically affecting our conclusions. We note that our results would also not be substantively changed]{} by the uncertainties of order 10 percent on the initial surface rotation rates of stars in this mass range (see Section \[ssec:ZR2012\]).

[Our first major conclusion is that the distribution of predicted rotation rates for our base case, a Kawaler wind loss law with rigid rotation (Kawaler SB), are systematically much faster than the observed distributions. We present four other cases: Kawaler cz2, strong convection zone differential rotation and weak loss; PMM SB, rigid convection zone rotation and enhanced loss; and two cases (PMM cz1 and PMM cz2) with enhanced loss and moderate ($\simeq R^{-1}$ or strong ($\simeq R^{-2}$) convection zone differential rotation with depth.All of these models predict surface rotation rates much closer to the measurements, and it is difficult to discriminate between them using only the surface rotation distributions. There are therefore three possible families of solutions: either stars experience significant angular momentum loss (the PMM SB model); they have strong differential rotation with depth, but little loss (the Kawaler SB model); or both (the PMM cz1 and PMM cz2 models). ]{}

Comparison of Core Distributions {#DistCompareCore}
--------------------------------

Core rotation rates [place powerful constraints on the allowed families of rotation models. Our logic proceeds as follows: under the reasonable assumption of a monotonic rotation curve, models with differential rotation in the convection zone are required to have a higher core than surface rate, regardless of the amount of core-envelope decoupling. We can therefore treat the rotation rates at the base of the convection zone as strict lower limits to the measured core rotation rates. ]{} [We show in Figure \[Fig:Mosser\] the predicted distribution of core rotation rates for each of these scenarios assuming that the core rotates at the same rate as the base of the convective envelope, compared to the core rotation distribution measured by @Mosser2012b. Both of the models with minimal angular momentum loss (KawSB and Kawcz2) predict core rotation rates that are faster than the observations. We contend that this is a general result: the combination of relatively low core to envelope contrasts and slow surface rotation rates
could therefore produce a bias towards slow rotation. The careful distribution is more skew towards slow rotation than the @Ceillier2017 data, but the symmetry between the unlike models and the data is similar, [ suggest that sample selection consequence are not dramatically affecting our conclusions. We notice that our results would also not be substantively changed ] { } by the uncertainties of club 10 percent on the initial open rotation rates of stars in this aggregate range (see Section \[ssec: ZR2012\ ]). 

 [ Our first major stopping point is that the distribution of predicted rotation rates for our basis case, a Kawaler tip loss law with rigid rotation (Kawaler SB), are systematically much faster than the ascertained distributions. We present four other cases: Kawaler cz2, strong convection zone differential rotation and weak personnel casualty; PMM SB, rigid convection zone rotation and enhanced loss; and two cases (PMM cz1 and PMM cz2) with enhanced loss and moderate ($ \simeq R^{-1}$ or strong ($ \simeq R^{-2}$) convection zone differential rotation with depth. All of these models predict surface rotation rate much closer to the measurement, and it is unmanageable to discriminate between them using only the surface rotation distributions. There constitute therefore three possible families of solutions: either asterisk experience significant angular momentum loss (the PMM SB model); they have strong differential rotation with astuteness, but little loss (the Kawaler SB model); or both (the PMM cz1 and PMM cz2 models). ] { } 

 Comparison of Core Distributions { # DistCompareCore } 
 -------------------------------- 

 Core rotation rates [ place powerful constraint on the allowed families of rotation models. Our logic proceeds as follows: under the fair assumption of a monotonic rotation curve, models with differential rotation in the convection zone are required to have a higher core than surface pace, regardless of the amount of core - envelope decoupling. We can therefore treat the rotation rates at the foundation of the convection zone as strict broken limits to the mensural core rotation rate. ] { } [ We show in Figure \[Fig: Mosser\ ] the predicted distribution of core rotation rates for each of these scenarios assume that the core rotates at the same rate as the base of the convective envelope, compared to the core rotation distribution measured by @Mosser2012b. Both of the models with minimal angular momentum personnel casualty (KawSB and Kawcz2) predict core rotation rates that are fast than the observations. We contend that this is a general result: the combination of relatively low core to envelope line and slow surface rotation rates
 cokld therefore produce a nias towards sloc rotatmon. The measurea distribution is more skewev toqards slow rotation than thd @Ceillieg2017 data, bur tht correspondence ustween bke dirnerenc nodels and the data is shmilar, [suggesthne chat sample selection effects are noe dramayifally affectind oug soncmlslons. We note that our results wohld alsm not be subsyantively changed]{} by the ujcerhainties of order 10 percent on the unitial surfxce rotation rates of atars in this mass range (see Seztion \[ssec:ZR2012\]).

[Our fursh major concousiog is that thc distrhbution of predicted votatmon eates for our base cave, a Kawaler wind joss law fich rigid rotation (Kawqlwr SB), are sysgwmagiczlky much vasver than ths observed eistributions. We prtsegn four other dases: Haraler cz2, strong convection zone differettizl rotation and weak lows; PMM SB, rigid conveftion zonq rotation and enhanced loss; and two cases (PMM cz1 and 'MO ce2) qith dbhwnced loss and moderate ($\simeq R^{-1}$ or strong ($\simqs T^{-2}$) bonvection zone dlfferential rotatipn wojh depth.All of these mosels predict surfafe rotajion rqtes much cloxer to the measurements, and it is diffibult to discriminate bztween them bsing pnly yhe surface rotation dirtrigutions. Thege are thsfefore three posribke families of solutions: eitrer stars expzrience rignoficane angular lomenbgm loss (the PMM SB modep); dhey have dtrong differential rotation wivi depth, but lotdle loss (thz Kawaker SB model); jr both (the PMK cz1 anb PMM zz2 models). ]{}

Bomparisoi of Core Diftributions {#DhdtCompareCorx}
--------------------------------

Core rotwtiob rares [plazd powerful conxtraints on the alliwed families of rptajikn models. Our ligix proceeds as fplluws: ujdxr thq reasonable dssuoptkpn of a monoujnlc fotayion curve, models widh djfferential rotatipn in the xonvectijn zone are rrquired to have a jighec core than sutface rate, regardless of the amkunt of clre-cnvelope decotplikg. Wg can thereyore treat the rotation rates at the basx of the convection zonw as strict lower lnmlts to the mxasureq core rodation rates. ]{} [We shoq in Figure \[Fig:Moxser\] the predicted diatribudion lf core rotation rates for each of these scenarios assuming that the core rotatxs at the sams raye as tke yase of the ronvective enveloie, compared to the core rotation distribgtnon measured by @Mosser2012b. Both pf the models wkth minimal angular momehtum losx (KawSB and Kawcz2) predict core totation rates that are naster thqn ths obsegbavions. We contend thay this is a generao redult: the combknayiln of relwtivtly mow core to envelope contrasts abd sloq durface rotation rates
could therefore produce a bias towards slow measured is more towards slow rotation the between the different and the data similar, [suggesting that sample selection effects not dramatically affecting our conclusions. We note that our results would also not substantively changed]{} by the uncertainties of order 10 percent on the initial surface rates stars this range (see Section \[ssec:ZR2012\]). [Our first major conclusion is that the distribution of predicted rotation rates our base case, a Kawaler wind loss law rigid rotation (Kawaler SB), systematically much faster than the distributions. present four cases: cz2, convection zone differential and weak loss; PMM SB, rigid convection zone rotation and enhanced loss; and two cases (PMM cz1 PMM cz2) loss and ($\simeq or ($\simeq R^{-2}$) convection rotation with depth.All of these models rates much closer to the measurements, and it difficult to between them using only the surface distributions. There are therefore three possible families of either stars experience significant angular momentum loss (the PMM SB model); they have strong differential depth, but little loss Kawaler SB model); both PMM and cz2 models). Comparison of Core Distributions {#DistCompareCore} -------------------------------- Core rotation rates [place powerful on the allowed families of rotation models. Our logic proceeds under reasonable assumption of monotonic rotation curve, models differential in the convection zone to a surface regardless the amount of core-envelope We can therefore treat the rates at the base strict lower limits to the measured core rotation ]{} [We show in Figure \[Fig:Mosser\] the distribution of core rotation rates for each of these scenarios assuming that core rotates same rate as the base of the convective compared to the core distribution measured by @Mosser2012b. Both of the models with angular loss (KawSB Kawcz2) predict core rates that are than the observations. that this a result: relatively low core to envelope contrasts slow rotation rates
 could therefore produce a biaS towards slOw rotAtiOn. THe MeasUred Distribution is MOre sKewed towards slow rotatiOn thaN tHE @CeiLLiEr2017 datA, but the COrRESpoNdEnCe bEtWEeN the dIffErent moDels and the DatA iS similar, [suggEStIng that samPle Selection effEctS are noT dRamATicalLy aFfectIng our COnclusIons. We notE tHAt our rESults woULD aLso nOt be substantively CHaNGed]{} by the uncertAintieS oF OrDER 10 peRceNt on the iniTiAl surFAce rotaTIoN RATes OF stars in this mAss range (see sEctIon \[sseC:Zr2012\]).

[OuR First mAjor cOnCLusIon is that thE disTribution Of predICted rotATion ratEs for oUr bAse Case, A kaWaLer WiND loSS lAw wITh rIgid rotaTiOn (kawalEr SB), ARE SYsteMatIcalLy mucH faster than thE obServED diStribUtionS. We pReSent fOur othEr casEs: kawaler cz2, strong ConvEction zonE diFfEreNtIal roTAtion aNd wEak Loss; PMM sB, rigid COnvEcTION zOne rotation and enhaNcED LoSs; and two Cases (Pmm cZ1 aND PMM cz2) wiTh EnhAnceD LOss anD modERaTe ($\simeq R^{-1}$ Or stroNG ($\sImEq R^{-2}$) convEcTion zoNe DifFerEntiaL RotaTion wiTh depth.ALl of tHEse models prediCT surface rotatIOn RATeS Much CloSer to the meaSureMEnts, And iT Is DifFIcult To disCrIMiNAte between them using OnLy the sUrfacE rotation distRibutions. THERE are therEforE ThREe possible famiLies oF solutions: EIther staRs expErience sIgnificanT ANgular moMenTum LosS (thE pmM sB model); they haVE StroNg DiffereNtiAl rotatIon WitH dePth, BuT little loSs (the KawAlEr sB MoDel); Or botH (The PMM cz1 AnD PMm cZ2 moDels). ]{}

COMparisOn of COre DIsTrIButIons {#DisTcoMPAreCOrE}
--------------------------------

COre rOtaTiOn ratEs [plACe pOwerful ConstrainTs oN The aLlOwEd familIes of rotation MoDels. Our logIc ProCeeds aS FOllows: unDer the reasonable assumptIOn of a moNotOnic rOtatIon curve, mOdeLs with DifFErentiAl rotaTion iN tHe cONVectiON ZoNe aRe Required to HAVe a HigheR cOre tHan surfAce rate, regardless oF The Amount of core-eNveLope DECoUplINg. wE caN tHEreFORe treat the rotatIon rates at ThE BaSe of the conVEctIoN zone as Strict lOwer lIMits to tHe measureD core rotaTiOn raTES. ]{} [We Show in FiguRe \[Fig:MosSer\] the preDIcted DIsTribuTioN of corE rOtaTion rAtes foR EacH of thEse sceNaRios asSuminG tHat the coRe rotates at the same rate aS the baSe of tHe cOnvective EnvELopE, compared To thE core rotatIon DisTribuTioN MeasuRed bY @moSseR2012B. Both Of thE Models witH MiNimAL AnGular momentUM LOss (kawSB And kAwcz2) prEdicT core rotation rateS That are faster tHan tHE ObsErvATionS. WE contend that thIs iS a GENeral resUlT: the combinaTion of reLaTIvely Low corE to envElope coNTRaSTs and sLow sUrfAce rotatiOn rAtES
 could therefore produce a  bias towa rds s low  ro ta tion . Th e measured dis t ribu tion is more skewed to wards  s l ow r o ta tionthan th e  @ C e ill ie r2 017  d a ta , but  th e corre spondencebet we en the diffe r en t models a ndthe data issim ilar,[s ugg e sting  th at sa mple s e lectio n effects  a r e notd ramatic a l ly  aff ecting our conclu s io n s. We note tha t ourre s ul t s  wo uld  also notbe  subs t antivel y  c h a n ged ] {} by the unc ertaintieso f o rder 1 0per c ent on  thein i tia l surface r otat ion rates  of st a rs in t h is mass  range  (s eeSect i on  \ [ss ec : ZR2 0 12 \]) . 

[ Our firs tma jor c oncl u s i o n is  th at t he di stribution of  pr edic t edrotat ion r ates  f or ou r base  case ,a Kawaler windloss  law with  ri gi d r ot ation (Kawal erSB) , are s ystemat i cal ly m u ch  faster than the o bs e r ve d distri bution s .We presentfo urothe r cases : Ka w al er cz2,strong co nv ectionzo ne dif fe ren tia l rot a tion  and w eak loss ; PMM SB, rigid conv e ction zone ro t at i o na nd e nha nced loss;andt wo c ases (P MMc z1 an d PMM  c z 2) with enhanced lossan d mode rate($\simeq R^{- 1}$ or str o n g  ($\sime q R^ { -2 } $) convectionzonedifferenti a l rotati on wi th depth .All of t h e se model s p red ict  su r f ac e rotation ra t e s mu ch  closer  to  the me asu rem ent s,an d it is d ifficult  t odi sc rim inate betweenth emus ing  only the su rface  rot at io n  di stribut i on s .  The re  a re t her ef ore t hree pos sible f amilies o f s o luti on s:  either  stars experi en ce signifi ca ntangula r momentum  loss (the PMM SB model ) ; theyhav e str ongdifferent ial  rotat ion with d epth,but l it tle l oss ( t h eKaw al er SB mode l ) ; o r bot h(the  PMM cz 1 and PMM cz2 mode l s).  ]{}

Compari son  ofC o re  Di s tr i but io n s { # D istCompareCore} 
--------- -- - -- ---------- - --- -- --

Cor e rotat ion r a tes [pl ace power ful const ra ints o n t he allowed  familie s of rota t ion m o de ls. O urlogicpr oce eds a s foll o ws:  unde r there asonab le as su mption o f a monotonic rotationcurve,  mode lswith diff ere n tia l rotatio n in  the conve cti onzoneare requi redt ohav e  a hi gher core than su rfa c e  r ate, regard l e s s o f the  am o unt of  cor e-envelope decoup l ing. We can th eref o r e t rea t  the  r otation ratesatth e base ofth e convectio n zone a ss trict  lower  limit s to th e me a suredcore  ro tation ra tes .] {} [Wesh ow in Fig ure\[ Fig:Mo sser\] thep r edicted distribu tiono f  core rot ation  r ates fo r  eac h of these  scenariosassumi ng t hat t he core  r otates  at  t he same ra t e as thebaseof theco nvec tiv e enve lope , compa redto  th e core ro t a ti o ndi s tri buti on me as ured  by @Moss e r2012b.Bot h  of the  m ode l s  withm in i m al angular  mo mentu m loss (KawS B  and Ka w cz2)predic t core  rotati o n r at es that  ar e faster th an the ob s erv at ions . We con te nd t ha t t hi s is a generalresult:the comb i n ationofr elat i vely l ow  core to env elope  c o ntrasts a ndslow su r fac e r ota tion  ra tes
 could_therefore produce_a bias towards slow_rotation. The_measured_distribution is_more_skewed towards slow_rotation than the_@Ceillier2017 data, but the_correspondence between the_different_models and the data is similar, [suggesting that sample selection effects are not dramatically_affecting_our conclusions._We_note_that our results would also_not be substantively changed]{} by_the uncertainties_of order 10 percent on the initial surface_rotation_rates of stars_in this mass range (see Section \[ssec:ZR2012\]).

[Our first major_conclusion is that the distribution of_predicted rotation rates_for_our_base case, a Kawaler_wind loss law with rigid rotation_(Kawaler SB), are systematically much faster_than the observed distributions. We present four_other cases: Kawaler cz2, strong convection_zone differential rotation and weak_loss; PMM_SB, rigid convection zone rotation_and enhanced loss;_and two_cases (PMM cz1_and PMM cz2) with enhanced loss_and moderate ($\simeq_R^{-1}$ or strong ($\simeq R^{-2}$) convection_zone_differential rotation with_depth.All_of_these models_predict surface rotation_rates_much closer_to_the measurements, and it is difficult_to_discriminate between them using only the surface_rotation distributions. There are_therefore_three possible families of_solutions: either stars experience significant_angular momentum loss (the PMM SB_model); they_have strong_differential rotation with depth, but little loss (the Kawaler SB model);_or both (the PMM cz1 and_PMM cz2 models). ]{}

Comparison_of Core_Distributions_{#DistCompareCore}
--------------------------------

Core rotation rates_[place_powerful constraints_on the allowed families of rotation models._Our logic_proceeds as follows: under the reasonable_assumption of a monotonic_rotation_curve, models with differential rotation in_the convection zone are required to_have a higher core than_surface_rate,_regardless of the amount of_core-envelope decoupling. We can therefore treat_the rotation rates_at the base of the convection zone_as_strict lower limits to the measured_core_rotation rates. ]{} [We show in_Figure_\[Fig:Mosser\]_the predicted distribution of core_rotation rates for each of these_scenarios assuming that the core rotates at the same_rate as the_base of the convective envelope,_compared_to_the core rotation distribution measured by @Mosser2012b. Both of the_models with_minimal angular momentum_loss (KawSB and Kawcz2) predict core rotation rates that are_faster than the observations. We contend that_this is a general result: the combination of relatively low core_to envelope contrasts and slow surface rotation rates