pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25277 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

Disc lifetime distribution as a function of the mass of host star

Susanne Pfalzner , Furkan Dincer , Nienke van der Marel , Frank W. Wagner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 14:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetary discsdisc lifetimesstellar mass dependenceplanet formationWeibull distributionstar clustersdisc fractions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Protoplanetary disc lifetimes depend on host star mass, peaking later around low-mass stars.

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

The paper derives the distribution of protoplanetary disc lifetimes as a function of stellar mass by grouping cluster observations of disc fractions according to star mass and fitting each group with a Weibull distribution. It reports that the distribution for low-mass stars (0.01 to 0.2 solar masses) reaches its maximum at 7.20 million years while the distribution for higher-mass stars (1 to 3 solar masses) peaks at 3.72 million years, assuming 80 percent of stars begin with discs. The spread in lifetimes is broad in both cases, and the initial disc fraction appears lower for the higher-mass group. This mass dependence supplies a more realistic input for models that track how long planets have to form around different types of stars.

Core claim

By binning disc-fraction data from star clusters according to host-star mass and fitting Weibull distributions, the analysis finds that disc-lifetime distributions peak at 3.72 Myr for stars between 1 and 3 solar masses and at 7.20 Myr for stars between 0.01 and 0.2 solar masses, with both distributions broad and the low-mass distribution somewhat wider; the initial disc fraction is lower for higher-mass stars.

What carries the argument

Mass-binned Weibull distribution fitted to observed disc fractions versus cluster age, with shape and scale parameters allowed to vary between low-mass and high-mass stellar bins.

Load-bearing premise

Observations of disc fractions in clusters give an unbiased record of how long discs survive around stars of different masses.

What would settle it

Mass-resolved disc-fraction measurements in a single young cluster that lie outside the predicted Weibull curves for either the low-mass or high-mass bin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25277 by Frank W. Wagner, Furkan Dincer, Nienke van der Marel, Susanne Pfalzner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Dependence of disc lifetime distribution on stellar mass. The best-fitting Weibull distribution is shown, assuming all stars start with a disc. We distinguish between low-, intermediate- , and high-mass stars as defined in the main text. Vertical lines indicate the median disc lifetime for each mass bin. (b) Corre￾sponding survival disc fraction function. Observed disc fractions for star clusters withi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Observed disc fractions for low-mass (blue) and high￾mass (red) stars used for deriving the disc lifetime distribution. (b) and (c): Same as view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative contributions to the total disc lifetime distri￾bution from the low-, intermediate-, and high-mass stars. Con￾tributions are calculated according to the relative fractions of the different mass bins assuming a Kroupa IMF and normalized over three mass bins. The results presented above prompt two immediate ques￾tions: • Why do discs tend to have shorter lifetimes around more massive stars? • Why ar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two types of discs with different disc lifetimes. Here, we assume a population of discs with a short (2.0 Myr; mode 1, blue line) and a long (8.0 Myr; mode 2, orange line) median disc lifetime. For simplicity, we assume that the distributions them￾selves are Gaussian (dashed black line). The top panel shows the distributions of these two populations and the resulting combined appearance of two such distrib… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The lifetime of protoplanetary discs is a critical factor for planet formation. Although the mean disc lifetime provides an estimate of the typical period available for planet formation, it does not capture the substantial variability in individual disc lifetimes or their dependence on host star mass. This study addresses these limitations by deriving the disc lifetime distribution as a function of stellar mass. Our results reveal a pronounced mass-dependence. Performing a phenomenological fit using a Weibull distribution, we find the maxima of the distributions at $t_{max}^H =$3.72 Myr for high-mass stars ($\approx$ 1.00--3.00 $M_{\odot}$) and $t_{max}^L =$ 7.20 Myr for low-mass stars ($\approx$ 0.01--0.20 $M_{\odot}$) assuming an initial disc fraction of $f_{init} = 0.8$. All distributions are broad (typically 3.2 Myr $< \sigma <$ 4.7 Myr), with the distribution for low-mass stars being somewhat broader. Our analysis indicates that not all stars are initially surrounded by a disc (60% $< f_{init} <$ 90% at cluster zero age), and that the initial disc fraction is even lower ($f_{init} \approx$ 40%) for higher-mass stars. The potential mechanisms responsible for the observed spread and mass-dependence of disc lifetime distributions and initial disc fractions are discussed. Our primary aim is to demonstrate the methodology; more robust constraints will require improved data on mass-dependent disc fractions. Nevertheless, the derived mass-dependent disc lifetime distributions can already serve as a valuable input or a benchmark for planet-formation synthesis models.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives mass-dependent distributions of protoplanetary disc lifetimes by performing phenomenological Weibull fits to observed disc fractions as a function of cluster age, separately for high-mass (≈1–3 M⊙) and low-mass (≈0.01–0.2 M⊙) stars. It reports distribution maxima of t_max^H = 3.72 Myr and t_max^L = 7.20 Myr (with f_init = 0.8), broad widths (3.2–4.7 Myr), lower initial disc fractions for higher-mass stars, and discusses possible mechanisms; the work is framed as a demonstrative methodology requiring better data.

Significance. If the reported mass dependence and broad distributions are robust, the results supply a useful, observationally motivated input for planet-formation synthesis models that currently rely on mean lifetimes. The explicit separation into mass bins and the allowance for f_init < 1 address a clear limitation of single-parameter lifetime estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results section (phenomenological fit description)] The numerical values t_max^H = 3.72 Myr, t_max^L = 7.20 Myr and the quoted σ range are direct outputs of the Weibull fits, yet the manuscript provides no description of the underlying disc-fraction data points, their binning in age or mass, the fitting procedure (likelihood, priors, treatment of non-detections), or error estimation. Without these details the claimed mass dependence cannot be independently verified.
  2. [Discussion (mechanisms and assumptions)] The central claim of pronounced mass dependence assumes that the binned disc-fraction-versus-age data accurately reflect intrinsic lifetime distributions. Potential systematics—luminosity-dependent IR-excess completeness for high-mass stars and possible differences in cluster age calibrations—are not quantified or corrected for, so any offset in the high-mass bin would be absorbed into the reported t_max difference.
  3. [Abstract and Results (Weibull fit)] Because the Weibull parameters (scale, shape, f_init) are fitted directly to the same disc-fraction data that define the lifetime distribution, the reported maxima and widths are largely a reparameterization of the input observations rather than an independent derivation; this circularity limits the strength of the mass-dependence conclusion.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states both f_init = 0.8 and the broader range 60 % < f_init < 90 %; the text should clarify which value applies to which mass bin and how the range was obtained.
  2. [Methods/Results] The symbol σ is used for the distribution width; its precise relation to the Weibull shape and scale parameters should be stated explicitly, preferably with the functional form of the distribution.
  3. [Throughout] A table or figure listing the input disc-fraction data points (age, fraction, mass bin, reference) would greatly improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We have revised the paper to address the lack of methodological details and to expand the discussion of observational systematics. We maintain that the phenomenological Weibull modeling provides a valid way to quantify mass-dependent lifetime distributions from the available data, while acknowledging the demonstrative nature of the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The numerical values t_max^H = 3.72 Myr, t_max^L = 7.20 Myr and the quoted σ range are direct outputs of the Weibull fits, yet the manuscript provides no description of the underlying disc-fraction data points, their binning in age or mass, the fitting procedure (likelihood, priors, treatment of non-detections), or error estimation. Without these details the claimed mass dependence cannot be independently verified.

    Authors: We agree that these details were insufficient. The revised manuscript includes a new subsection in Results that describes the compilation of disc-fraction data from the literature for the two mass bins, the adopted age binning, the maximum-likelihood fitting of the Weibull model (with the explicit likelihood function accounting for binomial errors and non-detections treated as censored data), and bootstrap resampling for parameter uncertainties. The analysis code has also been made available as supplementary material to enable independent verification. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The central claim of pronounced mass dependence assumes that the binned disc-fraction-versus-age data accurately reflect intrinsic lifetime distributions. Potential systematics—luminosity-dependent IR-excess completeness for high-mass stars and possible differences in cluster age calibrations—are not quantified or corrected for, so any offset in the high-mass bin would be absorbed into the reported t_max difference.

    Authors: This is a valid concern. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion that addresses these systematics, noting that luminosity-dependent completeness for high-mass stars could bias disc fractions low at older ages and that cluster age uncertainties could shift the data. We explicitly state that no quantitative corrections were applied due to the absence of detailed completeness functions in the source studies, and that these effects may contribute to the reported t_max difference. We retain the mass-dependence conclusion as qualitative and consistent with other evidence (e.g., photoevaporation), while highlighting it as a limitation requiring future work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Because the Weibull parameters (scale, shape, f_init) are fitted directly to the same disc-fraction data that define the lifetime distribution, the reported maxima and widths are largely a reparameterization of the input observations rather than an independent derivation; this circularity limits the strength of the mass-dependence conclusion.

    Authors: We respectfully disagree that this is problematic circularity. The binned disc fractions versus age constitute the empirical survival function; fitting a flexible Weibull form is a standard parametric approach in survival analysis to recover the underlying lifetime density, from which the mode t_max and width σ are obtained. The mass dependence arises from performing separate fits to the high-mass and low-mass subsets, yielding statistically different parameters. We have clarified this motivation in the revised Results and Discussion sections, emphasizing the phenomenological character of the model and its utility for comparison with theory. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation of mass-dependent disc lifetime distributions

full rationale

The paper collects observational disc-fraction data from clusters of different ages, bins the data by stellar mass, and fits a Weibull distribution (with free parameters including f_init) to model the observed decline. The reported t_max^H = 3.72 Myr, t_max^L = 7.20 Myr and sigma ranges are the directly optimized parameters of this fit under the explicit phenomenological assumption of a Weibull form. Because the input data are external observations and the functional form is stated as an ansatz rather than derived, the output is an inference from independent inputs rather than a re-expression by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or renamings of known results are invoked as load-bearing steps. The paper explicitly frames the work as a methodology demonstration requiring better data, confirming the chain remains non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on fitting Weibull shape and scale parameters plus an initial disc fraction to observational disc-fraction data; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • t_max^H = 3.72 Myr
    Peak location of the Weibull distribution for high-mass stars, obtained by fitting to observed disc fractions.
  • t_max^L = 7.20 Myr
    Peak location of the Weibull distribution for low-mass stars, obtained by fitting to observed disc fractions.
  • sigma = 3.2-4.7 Myr
    Width parameter of the lifetime distributions, fitted separately for each mass range.
  • f_init = 0.8 (range 0.6-0.9; ~0.4 for high-mass)
    Initial disc fraction at cluster zero age, allowed to vary with stellar mass and fitted to data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The fraction of stars retaining discs declines with cluster age according to a Weibull survival function whose parameters depend only on stellar mass.
    Invoked when performing the phenomenological fit described in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Observed disc fractions in young clusters directly trace the underlying lifetime distribution without major contamination from dynamical ejection or observational bias.
    Required to interpret the fitted parameters as physical lifetimes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5626 in / 1763 out tokens · 90652 ms · 2026-05-07T14:30:49.725708+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Jensen, E

    Akeson, R. L., Jensen, E. L. N., Carpenter, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 158

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Andrews, S. M. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 483

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    M., Kamp, I., Henning, T., et al

    Arabhavi, A. M., Kamp, I., Henning, T., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 1086

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    D., et al

    Ballabio, G., Nealon, R., Alexander, R. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 888

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F ., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    A., Carpenter, J

    Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Sargent, A. I., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 45

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    P ., & Brauer, F

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P ., & Brauer, F . 2010, A&A, 513, A79

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Blandford, R. D. & P ayne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883 Briceño, C., Calvet, N., Hernández, J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 85

    work page 1982

  9. [9]

    D., Kamp, I., Meeus, G., Oudmaijer, R

    Brittain, S. D., Kamp, I., Meeus, G., Oudmaijer, R. D., & Waters, L. B. F . M. 2023, SSRv, 219, 7

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Coleman, G. A. L. & Haworth, T. J. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2315–2332

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    J., Bergin, E

    Colmenares, M. J., Bergin, E. A., Salyk, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 173 Dickson-V andervelde, D. A., Wilson, E. C., & Kastner, J. H. 2021, AJ, 161, 87 Duchêne, G. & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    2023, A&A, 673, A78

    Emsenhuber, A., Burn, R., Weder, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A78

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    & P ascucci, I

    Ercolano, B. & P ascucci, I. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170114

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Espaillat, C., Muzerolle, J., Najita, J., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P . Dullemond, & T. Henning, 497–520

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    E., Henning, T., Jayawardhana, R., & Oliveira, J

    Fedele, D., van den Ancker, M. E., Henning, T., Jayawardhana, R., & Oliveira, J. M. 2010, A&A, 510, A72

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 81

    Emsenhuber, A. 2019, ApJ, 874, 81

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Galli, P . A. B., Bouy, H., Olivares, J., et al. 2021b, A&A, 646, A46 Gárate, M., Birnstiel, T., Pinilla, P ., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A15

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    L., Guilera, O

    Gomez, J. L., Guilera, O. M., Miller Bertolami, M. M., Castro-Martínez, E., & Ronco, M. P . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06978

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    A., & Lada, C

    Haisch, Karl E., J., Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJL, 553, L153

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    J., Andrews, S

    Harris, R. J., Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 115 12 Hernández, J., Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1195

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2056

    Kaeufer, T., Waters, R., Gasman, D., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2056

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    M., Matrà, L., F acchini, S., et al

    Kennedy, G. M., Matrà, L., F acchini, S., et al. 2019, Nat. Astron., 3, 230

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Kenyon, S. J. & Hartmann, L. 1995, ApJS, 101, 117

    work page 1995

  24. [24]

    K., & Y oshida, N

    Komaki, A., Fukuhara, S., Suzuki, T. K., & Y oshida, N. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.13316

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    M., Marino, S., & Wyatt, M

    Kral, Q., Matrà, L., Kennedy, G. M., Marino, S., & Wyatt, M. C. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2811

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    L., Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., & Martinache, F . 2012, ApJ, 745, 19

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    L., Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Huber, D., Mann, A. W., & Dupuy, T. J. 2016, AJ, 152, 8

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L72

    Krijt, S., Banzatti, A., Zhang, K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L72

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P . 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    work page 2001

  30. [30]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 109

    Kunitomo, M., Ida, S., T akeuchi, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 109

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Lada, C. J. & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57

    work page 2003

  32. [32]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 62

    Lee, J., Song, I., & Murphy, S. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 62

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Luhman, K. L. 2021, AJ, 163, 24

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Luhman, K. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 25

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Luhman, K. L. & Esplin, T. L. 2020, AJ, 160, 44

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    & Pringle, J

    Lynden-Bell, D. & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603

    work page 1974

  37. [37]

    F ., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F ., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P ., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the P acific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. T omida, & M. T amura, 539

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    F ., Prusti, T., Comeron, F ., et al

    Manara, C. F ., Prusti, T., Comeron, F ., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L1 Manzo-Martínez, E., Calvet, N., Hernández, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 56

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Michel, A., van der Marel, N., & Matthews, B. C. 2021, ApJ, 921, 72

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    & Kratter, K

    Moe, M. & Kratter, K. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3593

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    J., Mamajek, E

    Murphy, S. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Bell, C. P . M. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3290

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the P acific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. T omida, & M. T amura, 275 P ascucci, I., T esti, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125 P ecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 794

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    2009, A&A, 498, L37

    Pfalzner, S. 2009, A&A, 498, L37

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    2022, RNAAS, 6, 219

    Pfalzner, S. 2022, RNAAS, 6, 219

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L10

    Pfalzner, S., Dehghani, S., & Michel, A. 2022, ApJL, 939, L10

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    & Dincer, F

    Pfalzner, S. & Dincer, F . 2024, ApJ, 963, 122

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    2014, ApJL, 793, L34

    Pfalzner, S., Steinhausen, M., & Menten, K. 2014, ApJL, 793, L34

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1206

    Pinilla, P . 2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1206

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    2020, A&A, 635, A105

    Pinilla, P ., P ascucci, I., & Marino, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A105

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    T., et al

    Pinilla, P ., Sierra, A., Kurtovic, N. T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2723 P olnitzky, F . A., Ratzenböck, S., Großschedl, J., & Alves, J. 2026, A&A, 707, A216 Ribas, Á., Bouy, H., & Merín, B. 2015, A&A, 576, A52 Ribas, Á., Merín, B., Bouy, H., & Maud, L. T. 2014, A&A, 561, A54

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Richert, A. J. W., Getman, K. V ., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5191

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    P ., Guilera, O

    Ronco, M. P ., Guilera, O. M., Cuadra, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 113

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Bertolami, M. M. 2024, A&A, 682, A155

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    2014, ApJS, 215, 15

    Sana, H., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Lacour, S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 15

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    Guerra-Alvarado, O. M. 2024, A&A, 689, A236

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    & Bitsch, B

    Savvidou, S. & Bitsch, B. 2025, A&A, 693, A302

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Sellek, A. D. & van Dishoeck, E. F . 2025, A&A, 701, A239

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    M., Kuchner, M

    Silverberg, S. M., Kuchner, M. J., Wisniewski, J. P ., et al. 2016, ApJL, 830, L28 van der Marel, N. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 225 van der Marel, N. & Mulders, G. D. 2021, AJ, 162, 28 van T erwisga, S. E., Hacar, A., van Dishoeck, E. F ., Oonk, R., & P ortegies Zwart, S. 2022, A&A, 661, A53

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    & Pfalzner, S

    Vincke, K. & Pfalzner, S. 2016, ApJ, 828, 48

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    2015, A&A, 582, A88

    Walsh, C., Nomura, H., & van Dishoeck, E. 2015, A&A, 582, A88

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D

    Wang, J., Fischer, D. A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D. R. 2014, ApJ, 791, 111

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Wilhelm, M. J. C. & P ortegies Zwart, S. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 44

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    2023, ApJL, 959, L25 Stellar mass-dependent disc lifetime distributions13 APPENDIX T able A.1.Disc fractions of star clusters closer than 200 au

    Xie, C., P ascucci, I., Long, F ., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L25 Stellar mass-dependent disc lifetime distributions13 APPENDIX T able A.1.Disc fractions of star clusters closer than 200 au. IdentificationdAgeN ⋆ fd Limit Median mass logρ c Source pc Myr [M ⊙] [M ⊙/pc3] Alessi 13 108 30 162 0.049 a 0.04M ⊙ a) UCL/LCC 150 15–20 3665 0.09±0.01 0.15 -0.85–(-1.0...

    work page 2023