pith. sign in

arxiv: 2203.10066 · v3 · submitted 2022-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA

The Origin and Evolution of Multiple Star Systems

Stella S. R. Offner , Maxwell Moe , Kaitlin M. Kratter , Sarah I. Sadavoy , Eric L. N. Jensen , John J. Tobin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 11:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords stellar multiplicitymultiple star systemsstar formationprotostellar evolutionbinary starsdisk evolutionplanet formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Most stars are born in multiple systems, most main sequence stars belong to multiples, but most star systems are single.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compiles results from interferometric observations, statistical surveys, and numerical simulations to trace stellar multiplicity from the protostellar phase through the main sequence. It establishes the population statistics showing that multiplicity is common at birth and persists, while single systems dominate the overall count. The review also covers how local environment shapes these fractions and how multiplicity alters disk properties and planet formation outcomes. A sympathetic reader would see this as a consolidated view of the dominant mode of star formation and its downstream effects.

Core claim

Observational advances have enabled high-resolution studies showing that most stars are born in multiple stellar systems, most main sequence stars are members of multiple systems, but most star systems are single. The paper reviews models for the origin of multiplicity, assesses numerical simulations against observations, examines disk evolution in multiples, and discusses impacts on planetary architectures.

What carries the argument

Compilation of multiplicity population statistics across protostellar to main-sequence phases, combined with comparison to models of multiple star formation.

If this is right

  • Multiplicity influences the evolution of circumstellar disks and the resulting planetary system architectures.
  • Local environment modulates the observed multiplicity fractions from birth onward.
  • Numerical simulations must reproduce the observed shift from high-multiplicity birth to single-dominated systems to be considered consistent.
  • Planet formation models need to account for the prevalence of multiple-star environments during the early phases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Binary disruption or dynamical processing in clusters could be a dominant route to producing the excess of single systems observed on the main sequence.
  • The statistics imply that isolated star formation is not the typical pathway, which may affect how initial mass functions are derived from observed populations.
  • Future high-resolution observations of very young embedded systems could directly test whether the birth multiplicity is even higher than current estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The compiled observational surveys and simulations are sufficiently complete and representative across different environments to support the stated population statistics.

What would settle it

A new, volume-complete survey of a star-forming region that measures a substantially lower fraction of stars born in multiples than the compiled statistics indicate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2203.10066 by Eric L. N. Jensen, John J. Tobin, Kaitlin M. Kratter, Maxwell Moe, Sarah I. Sadavoy, Stella S. R. Offner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: —: Bias-corrected multiplicity fraction (left; thick), triple/high-order fraction (left; thin), and companion frequency (right) of BDs and MS stars. All three quantities increase monotonically with primary mass. The indicated spectral types at the top roughly correspond to the mean primary masses of field dwarfs. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: —: Frequency flog a of companions per decade of orbital separation. Left: the separation distribution of MS binaries as a function of spectral type and metallicity. Late-M (red; Winters et al. 2019), early-M (magenta; Winters et al. 2019), and FGK (black; Raghavan et al. 2010) binaries follow lognormal distributions (dashed fits - see parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: —: Median separations of all companions (thick black) and of inner binaries only (thin green) as a function of pri￾mary mass. Metal-poor solar-type binaries are skewed toward smaller separations (blue) while metal-rich solar-type binaries fa￾vor longer periods (red). A significant fraction of massive stars are in triples, so their inner binary distributions are substantially skewed toward shorter separatio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: —: The close (top) and wide (bottom) binary fractions of MS stars (thick black) both increase with primary mass but with markedly different trends. Metal-poor (orange) solar-type stars have a larger CBF than their metal-rich (cyan) counterparts (Moe et al. 2019), while the CBF of OB stars is constant with metallicity (Moe and Di Stefano 2013). The WBF of solar-type stars is also metallicity invariant (Moe … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: —: Summary of mechanisms for multiple formation. Top: Model and approximate range of time and length scales for each process. Middle: Proposed observational examples. From left to right: B5 in Perseus (Pineda et al. 2015), SM1N in Ophiuchus (Kirk et al. 2017), L1448 IRS3B in Perseus (Reynolds et al. 2021) and RW Aur (Rodriguez et al. 2018). Bottom: Examples from numerical simulations. From left to right: G… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: —: Left: Separation distribution for observed protostars (crosses), fit to solar-type field stars (dashed line), and semi-major axis distributions for simulated protostars.The number in each bin is normalized by the total number of singles and separations in each dataset. The “Li ea 2018 2D sep” curve shows the projected 2D separations of systems identified using the method of Tobin et al. (2022, see [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: compares the non-thermal velocity dispersion, σNT, to the virial parameter (α=Mvir/M) of starless objects that have detected substructure (black triangles) with the larger starless core populations in Ophiuchus and Chameleon (grey symbols). To first order, a core has super￾sonic turbulence if σNT/cs >1 and subsonic turbulence if σNT/cs <1; it is bound if α=Mvir/M <2 and unbound if α=Mvir/M >2 (McKee 1999).… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: —: Comparison of circumstellar disk mass (left) and radius (right) for single and multiple Class 0 and I protostellar systems in Orion Tobin et al. (2020). Masses are calculated assuming optically thin dust emission at 870 µm and an assumed dust temperature of 20 K and disk radii are derived from the 2σ extent of Gaussian fits to dust continuum images. The division at 300 au contrasts the effect of interme… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: —: Disk mass (assuming optically thin emission) for Taurus Class II binaries and single stars normalized by stellar mass. Left: After normalizing by stellar mass, secondary and primary stars in binaries have similar disk mass distributions, but both are lower than the distribution of single star disk masses. Right: Smaller-separation binaries have lower-mass disks on average (relative to their stellar mass… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Published comparisons often benchmark numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observational advances over the last decade have enabled high-resolution, interferometric studies of forming multiple systems, statistical surveys of multiplicity in star-forming regions, and new insights into disk evolution and planetary architectures in these systems. In this review, we compile the results of observational and theoretical studies of stellar multiplicity. We summarize the population statistics spanning system evolution from the protostellar phase through the main-sequence phase and evaluate the influence of the local environment. In short, most stars are born in multiple stellar systems, most main sequence stars are members of multiple systems, but most star systems are single. We describe current models for the origin of stellar multiplicity and review the landscape of numerical simulations and assess their consistency with observations. We review the properties of disks and discuss the impact of multiplicity on planet formation and system architectures. Finally, we summarize open questions and discuss the technical requirements for future observational and theoretical progress.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. This review compiles observational and theoretical studies of stellar multiplicity from the protostellar through main-sequence phases. It reports that most stars form in multiple systems, most main-sequence stars belong to multiples, yet most systems are single; it evaluates environmental influences, origin models, numerical simulations, disk properties, and the impact of multiplicity on planet formation, while identifying open questions.

Significance. If the aggregated statistics hold after bias corrections, the review offers a useful synthesis of recent interferometric and survey results on multiplicity, which bears directly on star-formation theory and exoplanet demographics. The explicit listing of technical requirements for future progress is a constructive element.

major comments (1)
  1. [population statistics compilation] Population-statistics summary (abstract and corresponding compilation section): the headline claims rest on aggregated multiplicity fractions from disparate surveys without a quantitative meta-analysis that folds in completeness limits, detection biases against low-mass or wide companions, or differential coverage of dense versus sparse environments. This directly affects the reliability of the three-part population statement.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for multiplicity fractions and separation ranges should be standardized across tables and text to avoid reader confusion when comparing surveys.
  2. [numerical simulations section] The discussion of simulation consistency with observations would benefit from an explicit table contrasting key predicted versus observed multiplicity statistics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for greater caution in presenting aggregated population statistics. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Population-statistics summary (abstract and corresponding compilation section): the headline claims rest on aggregated multiplicity fractions from disparate surveys without a quantitative meta-analysis that folds in completeness limits, detection biases against low-mass or wide companions, or differential coverage of dense versus sparse environments. This directly affects the reliability of the three-part population statement.

    Authors: We agree that the three-part statement in the abstract is a qualitative synthesis rather than the output of a new quantitative meta-analysis. Individual surveys cited in the compilation section have performed their own bias corrections, but cross-survey aggregation does introduce additional uncertainties that are not folded into a single statistical framework. We will revise the abstract to present the statement as a broad consensus view rather than a definitive result, and we will add a new subsection (in the population-statistics compilation) that explicitly discusses the limitations of aggregating results across surveys with differing completeness limits, sensitivity to low-mass or wide companions, and environmental coverage. These changes will qualify the claims without altering the overall structure of the review. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; review compiles external results without internal derivations.

full rationale

This is a review paper that aggregates and summarizes population statistics, models, and simulations from external observational surveys and theoretical studies. No new equations, predictions, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that could reduce to self-defined quantities or self-citation chains. The central claims rest on cited literature rather than any internal reduction, making the derivation chain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced by the authors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5709 in / 881 out tokens · 13852 ms · 2026-05-24T11:39:59.123365+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 23 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Extragalactic microlensing through Ultra Diffuse Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Calculations indicate low microlensing rates through NGC1052-DF2 but O(1-10) events per year possible across the sky with LSST monitoring, potentially enabling independent IMF estimates in UDGs.

  2. An Aligned Very-Low-Mass Star Orbiting an M dwarf and Obliquity Patterns Across Giant Planets, Brown Dwarfs, and Binary Stars

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    First obliquity measurement in an M dwarf binary shows alignment, with tentative evidence that aligned orbits around cool stars and wide separations also hold for brown dwarfs and binaries.

  3. Neutron star-companion interaction in core collapse supernovae. Population synthesis based on detailed binary evolution models

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Population synthesis from binary evolution models predicts periodic neutron star-companion interactions in more than half of surviving hydrogen-poor core-collapse supernovae, with periods peaking at 20-50 days and las...

  4. The bound origin of low-mass stellar binaries

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Hydrodynamical simulations of Milky Way-like cluster formation find that most binaries are bound from formation, half are disrupted by the end of the star-formation epoch, and multiple formation accounts for at least ...

  5. Searching for the Third Wheel: High-Contrast Imaging Constraints on Tertiaries to Black Hole and Neutron Star Binaries

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    High-contrast imaging of 18 compact-object binaries yields no robust tertiary detections and rules out main-sequence tertiaries at projected separations greater than 500 au for Gaia systems and 2000 au for BH LMXBs.

  6. Global and Local Infall in the ASHES Sample (GLASHES). II. Asymmetric Line Profiles around Dense Cores in 70 $\mu$m Dark Massive Clumps

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Blue-asymmetric spectral lines appear in 50-60% of dense cores within massive dark clumps, showing that gravitational collapse operates at core scales from prestellar stages onward and supports hierarchical star formation.

  7. Supermassive stars with embedded stellar black hole cores: dense assembling star clusters as faint multiple Little Red Dot systems

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Dense assembling star clusters form supermassive stars with embedded stellar black hole cores whose properties match faint multiple Little Red Dots seen by JWST.

  8. A Quadruple Excess in Wide Binary Systems: Evidence for Correlated Binary Formation

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Gaia RVS data shows a 2.34-fold excess of quadruples in wide binaries over the independent-formation prediction, with the excess declining at large separations and high velocities.

  9. An analytical approach to binary populations in globular clusters

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Dynamical dissolution of soft primordial binaries fully explains observed main-sequence binary fractions in globular clusters under solar-neighborhood initial conditions.

  10. A Robust Launching Mechanism for Freely-Floating Planets from Host Stars with Close-in Planets

    astro-ph.EP 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Scattering between close-in super-Earths and secularly perturbed cold planets can launch some planets into free-floating orbits.

  11. Scattered light signatures of flyby-induced warps in protoplanetary discs

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Flyby-induced warps create broad, time-varying shadows in scattered light that persist for most of a low-viscosity disc lifetime and could be used to constrain disc viscosity.

  12. A Rare Population of Intermediate-mass Helium Stars Between Hot Subdwarfs and Wolf-Rayet Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Binary population synthesis predicts several thousand intermediate-mass helium stars in the Milky Way, mostly in binaries, with metallicity and common-envelope ejection efficiency as the dominant shaping factors.

  13. The Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Southern Treasury (PHAST). II. The Spatially Resolved Recent Star Formation History in M31

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

    PHAST data yield spatially resolved SFHs across M31's southern disk showing a global recent SFR decline driven by reduced ring activity, with mean rates of 0.445 and 0.285 solar masses per year over the last 100 and 20 Myr.

  14. Fragmentation in the Serpens/Aquila Star-forming Region

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ALMA Cycle 6 data on Aquila dense cores identifies two starless sources and scale-dependent increases in multiplicity, consistent with turbulent core collapse simulations predicting 1.19 starless detections.

  15. Speckle Interferometry at SOAR in 2024 and 2025

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New SOAR speckle data resolve 400+ previously unseen binary pairs and deliver orbital elements for 202 systems with quantified errors.

  16. Formation and disruption of wide binaries in star clusters revealed by N-body simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    N-body simulations show wide binaries disrupt rapidly in the first 10 Myr due to high-density encounters, with semi-analytical models matching the evolution and identifying young low-density clusters as optimal detect...

  17. The Impact of Radiation Environment on the Evolution and Fragmentation of Protostellar Discs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Stronger radiation environments produce more massive, hotter protostellar discs whose fragments are large and disruptive rather than planetary-mass.

  18. The diverse outcomes of binary white dwarf mergers and connections to Galactic LISA sources

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Mock catalogs of Milky Way white dwarf mergers are created with COSMIC and released publicly, summarizing outcomes by mass and composition while varying binary evolution uncertainties to connect with LISA sources.

  19. Contribution of interstellar objects to local dark matter density

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Interstellar objects may contribute enough baryonic mass to reduce the local dark matter halo density to 0.24 GeV/cm³.

  20. HD3191, the high-mass X-ray binary that wasn't there

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    HD3191 is a single rapidly rotating B1 IV:nn star showing multi-mode non-radial pulsations, not a high-mass X-ray binary.

  21. Star cluster formation from turbulent clumps. V. Stellar clustering around massive stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    N-body simulations show massive stars in TCCA clusters rapidly acquire triple or higher multiples and local density enhancements via dynamics, with multiplicity trends and shallower N_* profiles than competitive accre...

  22. The POKEMON Speckle Survey of Nearby M dwarfs. IV. Distance-Limited Catalog (POKEMON-DLC)

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The POKEMON-DLC supplements the prior catalog with 66 Gaia-identified M-dwarf primaries, detects four companions, and reports an updated projected separation peak at 7.91 au with M-dwarf multiplicity and companion rat...

  23. An ALMA search for substructure and fragmentation in starless cores in Orion B North

    astro-ph.GA 2024-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    ALMA survey finds 4 starless cores in Orion B North consistent with turbulent collapse simulations; virial analysis indicates Chamaeleon I cores are less bound with external pressure dominating unlike Orion B North an...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 300 canonical work pages · cited by 23 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    et al., 2002 Science, 295,

    Abel T. et al., 2002 Science, 295,

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    et al., 2014 AJ, 148, 6,

    Aberasturi M. et al., 2014 AJ, 148, 6,

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    A., 1965 ApJS, 11,

    Abt H. A., 1965 ApJS, 11,

    work page 1965

  4. [4]

    A., 1983 ARA&A, 21,

    Abt H. A., 1983 ARA&A, 21,

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    A., 2006 ApJ, 651, 2,

    Abt H. A., 2006 ApJ, 651, 2,

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Abt H. A. et al., 1990 ApJS, 74,

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Adams F. C. et al., 1987 ApJ, 312,

    work page 1987

  8. [8]

    Adams F. C. et al., 1989 ApJ, 347,

    work page 1989

  9. [9]

    Akeson R. L. et al., 2019 ApJ, 872, 2,

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Aldoretta E. J. et al., 2015 AJ, 149, 1,

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Allen P. R. et al., 2007 AJ, 133, 3,

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    Almeida L. A. et al., 2017 A&A, 598, A84. Alves F. O. et al., 2018 A&A, 616, A56. Alves F. O. et al., 2019 Science, 366, 6461,

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    et al., 2019 A&A, 629, L4

    Andr´e P. et al., 2019 A&A, 629, L4. Andrews S. M. et al., 2013 ApJ, 771, 2,

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    et al., 2007 ApJ, 655,

    Apai D. et al., 2007 ApJ, 655,

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    32 Offner, Moe, Kratter, Sadavoy, Jensen & Tobin The Origin and Evolution of Multiple Star Systems Armstrong D. J. et al., 2014 MNRAS, 444, 2,

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    et al., 2018 A&A, 614, A26

    Artur de la Villarmois E. et al., 2018 A&A, 614, A26. Artur de la Villarmois E. et al., 2019 A&A, 627, A37. Artymowicz P. and Lubow S. H., 1994ApJ, 421,

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    et al., 2014 ApJ, 781, 2,

    Avenhaus H. et al., 2014 ApJ, 781, 2,

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    et al., 2018 ApJ, 854, 2,

    Badenes C. et al., 2018 ApJ, 854, 2,

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    and Zhu Z., 2021 ApJ, 909, 2,

    Baehr H. and Zhu Z., 2021 ApJ, 909, 2,

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    et al., 2006 MNRAS, 367, 2,

    Baines D. et al., 2006 MNRAS, 367, 2,

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Bally J., 2016 ARA&A, 54,

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    et al., 2022 A&A, 658, A69

    Banyard G. et al., 2022 A&A, 658, A69. Bardalez Gagliuffi D. C. et al., 2014ApJ, 794, 2,

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Barenfeld S. A. et al., 2017 ApJ, 851, 2,

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Barenfeld S. A. et al., 2019 ApJ, 878, 1,

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    and Reiners A., 2006 AJ, 132, 2,

    Basri G. and Reiners A., 2006 AJ, 132, 2,

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    R., 2000 MNRAS, 314,

    Bate M. R., 2000 MNRAS, 314,

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    R., 2012 MNRAS, 419,

    Bate M. R., 2012 MNRAS, 419,

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    R., 2018 MNRAS, 475, 4,

    Bate M. R., 2018 MNRAS, 475, 4,

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    R., 2019 MNRAS, 484, 2,

    Bate M. R., 2019 MNRAS, 484, 2,

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Bate M. R. and Bonnell I. A., 1997 MNRAS, 285,

    work page 1997

  31. [31]

    Bate M. R. et al., 2000 MNRAS, 317,

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    and Adams F

    Batygin K. and Adams F. C., 2013 ApJ, 778, 2,

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Beck T. L. et al., 2020 ApJ, 902, 2,

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Begelman M. C. and Cioffi D. F., 1989ApJL, 345, L21. Behmard A. et al., 2022 AJ, 163, 4,

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    et al., 2011 A&A, 527, A145

    Belloche A. et al., 2011 A&A, 527, A145. Beltr´an M. T. et al., 2016 A&A, 593, A49. Benisty M. et al., 2018 A&A, 619, A171. Bergfors C. et al., 2010 A&A, 520, A54. Beuther H. et al., 2017a A&A, 603, A10. Beuther H. et al., 2017b A&A, 605, A61. Blake C. H. et al., 2010 ApJ, 723, 1,

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    et al., 2021 A&A, 652, A70

    Bodensteiner J. et al., 2021 A&A, 652, A70. Boley A. C. et al., 2010 Icarus, 207,

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    A., 1994 MNRAS, 269,

    Bonnell I. A., 1994 MNRAS, 269,

    work page 1994

  38. [38]

    et al., 2022 A&A, 663, A26

    Bordier E. et al., 2022 A&A, 663, A26. Borkovits T. et al., 2016 MNRAS, 455, 4,

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    et al., 2019 A&A, 629, A10

    Bosco F. et al., 2019 A&A, 629, A10. Bouvier J. et al., 1997 A&A, 323,

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    et al., 2003 AJ, 126, 3,

    Bouy H. et al., 2003 AJ, 126, 3,

    work page 2003

  41. [41]

    Branch D., 1976 ApJ, 210,

    work page 1976

  42. [42]

    et al., 1996 A&A, 307,

    Brandner W. et al., 1996 A&A, 307,

    work page 1996

  43. [43]

    et al., 2018 A&A, 615, A125

    Bresnahan D. et al., 2018 A&A, 615, A125. Brinch C. et al., 2016 ApJ, 830, 1, L16. Bromley B. C. and Kenyon S. J., 2015 ApJ, 806, 1,

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    J., 2007 ApJ, 659, 1,

    Burgasser A. J., 2007 ApJ, 659, 1,

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    Burgasser A. J. et al., 2003 ApJ, 586, 1,

    work page 2003

  46. [46]

    Caballero-Nieves S. M. et al., 2020 AJ, 160, 3,

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Carney B. W. et al., 2005 AJ, 129, 4,

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    et al., 2019 ApJ, 874, 1,

    Caselli P. et al., 2019 ApJ, 874, 1,

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Cesaroni R., 2005 Ap&SS, 295,

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

    et al., 2019 A&A, 623, A118

    Chac´on-Tanarro A. et al., 2019 A&A, 623, A118. Cheetham A. C. et al., 2015 ApJ, 813, 2,

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    and Arce H

    Chen X. and Arce H. G., 2010 ApJL, 720, 2, L169. Chen X. et al., 2010 ApJ, 715,

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    et al., 2013 ApJ, 768,

    Chen X. et al., 2013 ApJ, 768,

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Childs A. C. and Martin R. G., 2021 MNRAS. Chini R. et al., 2004 Nature, 429,

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    et al., 2012 MNRAS, 424, 3,

    Chini R. et al., 2012 MNRAS, 424, 3,

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    et al., 2022 AJ, 163, 5,

    Christian S. et al., 2022 AJ, 163, 5,

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Cieza L. A. et al., 2009 ApJL, 696, L84. Cieza L. A. et al., 2019 MNRAS, 482,

    work page 2009

  57. [57]

    J., 2009 MNRAS, 396,

    Clarke C. J., 2009 MNRAS, 396,

    work page 2009

  58. [58]

    Clarke C. J. and Pringle J. E., 1991 MNRAS, 249,

    work page 1991

  59. [59]

    et al., 2019 A&A, 622, A96

    Claudi R. et al., 2019 A&A, 622, A96. Close L. M. et al., 2002 ApJL, 567, 1, L53. Close L. M. et al., 2003 ApJ, 587, 1,

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Connelley M. S. et al., 2008 AJ, 135,

    work page 2008

  61. [61]

    and Lagrange A

    Corporon P. and Lagrange A. M., 1999 A&AS, 136,

    work page 1999

  62. [62]

    et al., 2021 MNRAS, 501, 3,

    Cournoyer-Cloutier C. et al., 2021 MNRAS, 501, 3,

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Cox E. G. et al., 2017 ApJ, 851, 2,

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Cox E. G. et al., 2018 ApJ, 855,

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    et al., 2019 ApJL, 882, 1, L4

    Cruz-S´aenz de Miera F. et al., 2019 ApJL, 882, 1, L4. Csizmadia S. et al., 2015 A&A, 584, A13. Cunningham A. J. et al., 2018 MNRAS, 476, 1,

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    et al., 2016 ApJ, 818, 2,

    Czekala I. et al., 2016 ApJ, 818, 2,

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    et al., 2017 ApJ, 851, 2,

    Czekala I. et al., 2017 ApJ, 851, 2,

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    et al., 2019 ApJ, 883, 1,

    Czekala I. et al., 2019 ApJ, 883, 1,

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    et al., 2021 ApJ, 912, 1,

    Czekala I. et al., 2021 ApJ, 912, 1,

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    et al., 2022 MNRAS, 510, 1,

    Dabringhausen J. et al., 2022 MNRAS, 510, 1,

    work page 2022

  71. [71]

    et al., 2007 ApJ, 654, 1,

    Daemgen S. et al., 2007 ApJ, 654, 1,

    work page 2007

  72. [72]

    et al., 2019 ApJ, 886, 2,

    De Furio M. et al., 2019 ApJ, 886, 2,

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    de Mink S. E. et al., 2013 ApJ, 764, 2,

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    De Rosa R. J. et al., 2014 MNRAS, 437, 2,

    work page 2014

  75. [75]

    Deacon N. R. and Kraus A. L., 2020 MNRAS, 496, 4,

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Dempsey A. M. et al., 2021 ApJL, 918, 2, L36. Diaz-Rodriguez A. K. et al., 2022 ApJ, 930, 1,

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    Dieterich S. B. et al., 2012 AJ, 144, 2,

    work page 2012

  78. [78]

    et al., 2017 MNRAS, 465, 2,

    Dorval J. et al., 2017 MNRAS, 465, 2,

    work page 2017

  79. [79]

    Doyle L. R. et al., 2011 Science, 333,

    work page 2011

  80. [80]

    and Kraus A., 2013 ARAA, 51, 1,

    Duchˆene G. and Kraus A., 2013 ARAA, 51, 1,

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.