Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Chemical Links between a Young M-type T Tauri Star and its Substellar Companion: Spectral Analysis and C/O Measurement of DH Tau A

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A young M-type star and its 12-Jupiter-mass companion share the same carbon-to-oxygen ratio, evidence that the companion formed by fast gravitational collapse rather than slow core accretion.

desk verdict Useful first C/O measurement for DH Tau A and its companion comparison, but the solar-metallicity prior makes the 'confirms gravitational collapse' conclusion stronger than the data allow. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15591 v1 pith:SUMEK5BI submitted 2024-11-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Neda Hejazi , Jerry W. Xuan , David R. Coria , Erica Sawczynec , Ian J. M. Crossfield , Paul I. Cristofari , Zhoujian Zhang , Maleah Rhem This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords carbon-to-oxygenratioTTauristarM-typedwarfsubstellarcompaniongravitationalcollapsemolecularlineabundancesnear-infraredspectroscopyTaurusstar-formingregion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the young M-type star DH Tau A and its roughly 12-Jupiter-mass companion DH Tau b formed from chemically homogeneous material. By fitting molecular OH and CO lines in high-resolution near-infrared spectra, the authors measure a near-solar carbon-to-oxygen ratio of $C/O = 0.555 \pm 0.063$ for the star, matching the companion's previously measured $C/O = 0.54^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$. The agreement supports a formation route for the companion by direct, relatively fast gravitational collapse rather than slow core accretion, which would take longer than the system's $0.7^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ Myr age and require an implausibly massive disk. A sympathetic reader would care because host-star abundances are the yardstick against which planet and brown-dwarf formation scenarios are judged, and such measurements are rare for cool, young, actively accreting stars.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by an automatic line-by-line fitting routine, AutoSpecFit, which runs the Turbospectrum synthesis code with MARCS model atmospheres and iteratively minimizes $\chi^2$ over selected OH and CO lines to extract oxygen and carbon abundances simultaneously. Veiling, the extra continuum emission from accretion and chromospheric activity that dilutes absorption lines, is treated as a fitted parameter, and the star's physical parameters (effective temperature $3726 \pm 30$ K, $\log g = 4.00 \pm 0.05$, rotation $7.1 \pm 0.1$ km s$^{-1}$, magnetic field $2.8 \pm 0.1$ kG) come from the ZeeTurbo MCMC analysis. The key to the robust $C/O$ ratio is that the ratio is computed as $10^{A(C)-A(O)}$, so the systematic errors from each physical parameter shift carbon and oxygen in the same direction and largely cancel, leaving a total uncertainty of 0.063.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure an independent metallicity tracer for DH Tau A, such as Fe-peak atomic lines in high-resolution optical spectra or the 12CO/13CO isotopologue ratio in the near-infrared; if the star's true metallicity is substantially subsolar and the re-derived C/O moves away from 0.54, the chemical-homogeneity claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the carbon-to-oxygen ratio of DH Tau A is $C/O = 0.555 \pm 0.063$, statistically identical to the companion DH Tau b's $C/O = 0.54^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ measured by Xuan et al. 2024. The authors derive the stellar value from 24 OH lines in the H band and 8 CO lines in the K band, after determining the star's physical parameters with a spectral-fitting code that accounts for rotation, veiling, and magnetic fields. Because the two bodies share the same near-solar $C/O$ and the system is only about $0.7^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ Myr old, the paper concludes that the companion did not assemble through slow core accretion but instead formed by direct gravitational collapse, either in the disk or in the molecular cloud.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that DH Tau A has solar metallicity, based on the mean of seven Taurus-Auriga stars, even though published metallicity estimates for this star range from about 0 to -1 dex; if the true metallicity is well below solar, the derived carbon and oxygen abundances and the resulting C/O ratio could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the C/O match holds, DH Tau A and DH Tau b share the same volatile chemistry, meaning the companion's near-solar composition reflects the natal reservoir, not later accretion processing.
  • The companion's formation is assigned to rapid gravitational collapse rather than core accretion, an interpretation consistent with the system's <1 Myr age and the small 0.026 host-to-companion mass ratio.
  • Core accretion would require assembly timescales of several Myr and a very massive disk, so this pathway is disfavored for DH Tau b.
  • The successful molecular-line abundance measurement in an accreting, veiled, magnetically active M dwarf extends the same host-star diagnostics to other young systems with directly imaged companions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer that the quoted C/O uncertainty is conditional on the assumed solar metallicity; if an independent measurement placed DH Tau A near $[\mathrm{M/H}] = -1$, the carbon and oxygen abundances could shift enough to separate the stellar C/O from the companion's value.
  • We infer that the strongest next test is comparing $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO or other volatile ratios (C/N, N/O, S/H) between host and companion, since those ratios can distinguish formation pathways even when C/O alone looks consistent.
  • We infer that if the gravitational-collapse interpretation is right, other wide-orbit, young substellar companions should show the same host-companion C/O agreement, making this a population-level prediction that future surveys can check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a high-resolution near-infrared (IGRINS) spectroscopic analysis of the young M2.3 T Tauri star DH Tau A, deriving stellar parameters and carbon and oxygen abundances from molecular OH and CO lines. The authors report C/O = 0.555 ± 0.063 for the host star, compare it with the companion DH Tau b value C/O = 0.54^{+0.06}_{-0.05} from Xuan et al. (2024), and conclude that the system is chemically homogeneous and that DH Tau b likely formed by gravitational collapse rather than core accretion. The analysis accounts for veiling, rotation, and magnetic fields in the parameter determination and provides a line-by-line sensitivity table for systematic errors.

Significance. If the measured C/O ratio is robust, this is a valuable data point: a direct host-companion abundance comparison for a young, accreting M-dwarf system, with the companion measured independently by atmospheric retrieval. The analysis is careful in its treatment of veiling and in reporting parameter sensitivities, and the comparison to Xuan et al. (2024) is not circular, since the host measurement does not use the companion data. The conclusion that the companion formed by gravitational collapse is physically interesting and would be strengthened if the host C/O were shown to be robust against the full published metallicity range. The main weakness is the fixed solar-metallicity prior and the lack of a test of the veiling-metallicity degeneracy over the -1 dex range; this concern is supported by the paper's own Tables 3 and 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Table 2] The fixed [M/H] = 0 assumption is load-bearing for the central claim. The paper itself notes that published estimates for DH Tau A range from [M/H] ≈ 0 to ≈ -1 and that veiling and metallicity are degenerate; fixing [M/H] = 0 and fitting veiling therefore selects one side of a known degeneracy. Tables 3-4 show that a +0.10 dex [M/H] change moves O by +0.033 dex and C by +0.005 dex, so A(C)-A(O) changes by about -0.028 dex. A -1 dex offset, even if the response is not linear, could shift C/O by several times the quoted ±0.063, and the MCMC parameter uncertainties quoted in Section 3 were derived with [M/H] held fixed, so they do not include this joint uncertainty. The statement in Section 4.3 that a larger metallicity uncertainty would not change the C/O ratio 'noticeably' concerns the width of the error budget around the adopted model, not a systematic offset in the central value. I request a dedicated test at [M/H] = -1 (and ideally -0.5) in which veiling and the other physical parameters are re-derived, with the resulting C/O and its error budget reported; if this is not computationally feasible, the chemical-homogeneity conclusion should be explicitly conditioned on the solar-metallicity assumption.
  2. [Section 4.1 / Table 2] The carbon abundance depends on only eight CO lines, seven of which are flagged in Table 2 as blends with one or two additional CO lines in the fitting window. The text states that lines were selected by eye for 'reasonable consistency' and that discrepant lines were excluded. Because C/O is the central result, the paper should report the line-by-line C abundances, state how many candidate CO lines were examined and rejected, and justify that the seven blended lines do not introduce a common systematic offset, for example from line-list log(gf) values or from the same pseudocontinuum normalization. The random error σ_ran = 0.041 dex for C in Table 4 is small, but it is computed from a sample that is both small and non-independent.
  3. [Section 5 / Abstract] The conclusion that the system is 'chemically homogeneous' and that this 'confirms' gravitational collapse is stronger than the data support. The quantitative comparison is only the C/O ratio; the absolute carbon abundance of the companion from Xuan et al. (2024), [C/H] = -0.32^{+0.34}_{-0.30}, is consistent with the host [C/H] = +0.064 ± 0.079 within about 1.2σ, but this absolute comparison is not reported or discussed. C/O equality alone does not establish full chemical homogeneity. In addition, the age and mass-ratio arguments in Section 5 are qualitative: they make core accretion less likely but do not uniquely determine the formation pathway. I recommend softening 'confirms' and adding the absolute abundance comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6] In the summary, 'measure the elemental abundances of O and H, respectively' should read 'O and C, respectively.'
  2. [Section 5] There is a typo in 'DH TAu b' in the first sentence of the Discussion; it should be 'DH Tau b.'
  3. [Section 4.3] The statement that increasing parameter uncertainties 'even by 100%' would not significantly change the total C/O error is imprecise: doubling each parameter uncertainty would roughly double each (σ_sys)_C/O,S term and hence the quadrature sum, so the error would change by a factor of about two. Please rephrase to describe the actual effect.
  4. [Section 4.1] The text says OH lines are 'slightly affected by spectral noise' while CO lines are 'more influenced by noise,' but no quantitative SNR values are given for the selected lines. Consider stating per-line or per-band SNR and indicating which candidate lines were rejected for noise reasons.
  5. [Section 3] The choice to adopt a 'typical uncertainty' of 0.10 dex for [M/H] should be justified against the D'Orazi et al. (2011) mean and its scatter; the text gives only the mean and its error, but the prior used in the error budget should reflect the dispersion relevant to DH Tau A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the host-star C/O is measured from new IGRINS spectra and compared to an independently published companion value.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The host C/O value is obtained in Section 4 by fitting 24 OH and 8 CO lines with AutoSpecFit/Turbospectrum, yielding A(C) and A(O) that enter Eq. 5 to give C/O = 0.555 ± 0.063. This measurement is not defined in terms of the companion value, which instead comes from the separately published KPIC/petitRADTRANS retrieval of Xuan et al. (2024). The paper's self-citations, to Hejazi et al. (2024) for the AutoSpecFit technique and to Xuan et al. (2024) for DH Tau b, are references to independent published methods and data, not to results reproduced by this paper's equations. The adopted [M/H] = 0 assumption is an input from the literature (D'Orazi et al. 2011) used to break the veiling-metallicity degeneracy; whether that assumption is correct is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not circular reasoning, and the paper explicitly quantifies abundance sensitivities to parameter variations in Tables 3 and 4. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. The comparison between host and companion ratios is therefore a genuine external consistency test, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: the spectral synthesis codes, the reference solar abundances, the assumed solar metallicity for DH Tau A, and the validity of the companion retrieval from Xuan et al. (2024). The free parameters are the standard fitted stellar parameters plus the hand-set metallicity.

free parameters (6)
  • [M/H] (metallicity) = 0.0 dex
    Assumed solar metallicity for DH Tau A based on the mean of seven Taurus-Auriga members (D'Orazi et al. 2011), to break the veiling-metallicity degeneracy. Literature estimates range from ~0 to -1 dex, so this hand-set parameter affects the derived abundances.
  • Teff = 3726 ± 30 K
    Fitted to the observed spectrum via ZeeTurbo/MCMC; used as fixed input in the abundance analysis.
  • log(g) = 4.00 ± 0.05 dex
    Fitted in the same MCMC; input to abundance fits.
  • Vrot sin i = 7.1 ± 0.1 km/s
    Fitted in the same MCMC; affects line broadening in abundance fits.
  • Veiling R_H, R_K = 0.90 ± 0.03, 0.99 ± 0.03
    Fitted in the same MCMC; account for continuum excess, strongly degenerate with metallicity.
  • Magnetic field B = 2.8 ± 0.1 kG
    Fitted in the same MCMC; used for physical parameter determination but ignored in the abundance analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Synthetic spectra from Turbospectrum/MARCS with the chosen line lists accurately reproduce the observed OH and CO line profiles in a veiled, rotating young M dwarf.
    The entire abundance analysis relies on the fidelity of these models; incomplete H2O line lists are acknowledged to cause pseudocontinuum discrepancies (Section 4.1).
  • standard math Solar abundances from Grevesse et al. (2007) are the correct reference scale for [X/H] and C/O.
    Used throughout (Section 4.3); affects the numerical value of C/O relative to solar (0.540).
  • ad hoc to paper DH Tau A's metallicity is solar, as inferred from the mean of seven Taurus-Auriga members (D'Orazi et al. 2011).
    Assumed to break the veiling-metallicity degeneracy; literature values for DH Tau A span -1 to 0 dex, so this is a strong assumption for this specific star (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The companion's atmospheric C/O from Xuan et al. (2024), derived from petitRADTRANS retrieval of KPIC spectra, reflects the bulk C/O of DH Tau b.
    The central comparison and formation conclusion depend on this unverified assumption; the paper uses it as an external input (Sections 1 and 5).
  • domain assumption Core accretion takes several Myr to form a giant planet, while gravitational collapse is sub-Myr, so the 0.7 Myr age of DH Tau favors collapse.
    Used to exclude core accretion (Section 5); timescales from literature (Pollack et al. 1996, Offner et al. 2010).
  • domain assumption Gravitational collapse produces host and companion with matching C/O, while core accretion can produce different C/O.
    The interpretive premise that connects the measured C/O match to the formation mechanism (Sections 1 and 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemical Links between a Young M-type T Tauri Star and its Substellar Companion: Spectral Analysis and C/O Measurement of DH Tau A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUMEK5BI

@misc{pith2026241115591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemical Links between a Young M-type T Tauri Star and its Substellar Companion: Spectral Analysis and C/O Measurement of DH Tau A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUMEK5BI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15591}
}
abstract

The chemical abundance measurements of host stars and their substellar companions provide a powerful tool to trace the formation mechanism of the planetary systems. We present a detailed high-resolution spectroscopic analysis of a young M-type star, DH Tau A, which is located in the Taurus molecular cloud belonging to the Taurus-Auriga star-forming region. This star is host to a low-mass companion, DH Tau b, and both star and the companion are still in their accreting phase. We apply our technique (Hejazi et al. 2024) to measure the abundances of carbon and oxygen using carbon- and oxygen-bearing molecules, such as CO and OH, respectively. We determine a near-solar carbon-to-oxygen abundance ratio of C/O=0.555$\pm$0.063 for the host star DH Tau A. We compare this stellar abundance ratio with that of the companion from our previous study (C/O=0.54$^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$, Xuan et al. 2024), which also has a near-solar value. This confirms the chemical homogeneity in the DH Tau system, which suggests a formation scenario for the companion consistent with a direct and relatively fast gravitational collapse, rather than a slow core accretion process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15591 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between an initial-guess of best-fit model Modapp (blue line) and the observed spectrum of DH Tau A (red dots) normalized to this model over two adjacent OH lines using their common normalizing regions (green￾shaded areas) and normalizing wavelength data points (black dots) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between an initial-guess of best-fit model Modapp (blue line) and the observed spectrum of DH Tau A (red dots) normalized to this model over one single CO line using its respective normalizing regions (green-shaded areas) and normalizing wavelength data points (black dots). 4.2. Abundance errors To obtain the uncertainties of the inferred abun￾dances, we first determine the random (statistical) errors usi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the normalized, observed spectrum of DH Tau A (red dots) and the best-fit model (blue line) over the selected OH lines used to measure the oxygen abundance. The adjacent OH lines, which are normalized using common normalizing regions, are shown in the same panel. The location of the central wavelength of each OH line is shown by a green dashed line in the respective panel. Normalized Flux 23006.89… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the normalized, observed spectrum of DH Tau A (red dots) and the best-fit model (blue line) over the selected CO lines used to measure the carbon abundance. The location of the central wavelength of each CO line is shown by a green dashed line in the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, Katherineand Aerts, C., Silva Aguirre, V., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    2017, A&A, 606, A69, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630051

    Alibert, Y. 2017, A&A, 606, A69, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630051

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630051 2017

  3. [3]

    2013, A&A, 558, A109, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321690

    Alibert, Y., Carron, F., Fortier, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A109, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321690

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321690 2013

  4. [4]

    1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710157

    Alvarez, R., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710157

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9710157 1998

  5. [5]

    2023, Nature, 624, 263, doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06813-y

    Barrado, D., Mollière, P., Patapis, P., et al. 2023, Nature, 624, 263, doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06813-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06813-y 2023

  6. [6]

    1990, ApJ, 363, 654, doi:10.1086/169374

    Basri, G., & Batalha, C. 1990, ApJ, 363, 654, doi:10.1086/169374

    doi:10.1086/169374 1990

  7. [7]

    Bate, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3115, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    A., Booth, R

    Bergin, E. A., Booth, R. A., Colmenares, M. J., & Ilee, J. D. 2024, ApJL, 969, L21, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5839

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5839 2024

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Biazzo, K., Frasca, A., Alcalá, J. M., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730850

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2014, A&A, 562, A127, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118270

    Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A127, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118270

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Calvet, N., Basri, G., & Kuhi, L. V. 1984, ApJ, 277, 725, doi:10.1086/161744

    1984 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G

    Chachan, Y., Knutson, H. A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G. A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 112, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca614

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Hejazi, N., J.M., C

    Coria, D. R., Hejazi, N., J.M., C. I., & Rhem, M. 2024, arXiv, 952, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.02286

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    I., Donati, J

    Cristofari, P. I., Donati, J. F., Masseron, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1893, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3679

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    I., Donati, J

    Cristofari, P. I., Donati, J. F., Folsom, C. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1342, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad865

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Crossfield, I. J. M. 2023, ApJL, 952, L18, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace35f

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi:10.1086/382907 D’Orazi, V., Biazzo, K., & Randich, S. 2011, A&A, 526, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015616

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    M., et al

    Duque-Arribas, C., Montes, D., Tabernero, H. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 106, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acacf6

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 73, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/73

    Fischer, W., Edwards, S., Hillenbrand, L., & Kwan, J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 73, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/73

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    W., & Lang, Dustin a d Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., & Lang, Dustin a d Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 925, doi:10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Fortney, J. J. 2012, ApJL, 747, L27, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L27

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y Gaia Collaboration, G., Brown, A

    Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y Gaia Collaboration, G., Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, 20, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L36, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad07e2

    Gandhi, S., de Regt, S., Snellen, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L36, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad07e2

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2007, SSRv, 130, 105, doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9173-7

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Gully-Santiago, M., Wang, W., Deen, C., & Jaffe, D. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8450, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation II, ed. R. Navarro, C. R. Cunningham, & E. Prieto,...

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Han, J.-Y., Yuk, I.-S., Ko, K., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8550, Optical Systems Design 2012, ed. D. G. Smith, J.-L. M. Tissot, L. Mazuray, T. E

    2012

  20. [28]

    Wyrowski, J

    Kidger, F. Wyrowski, J. M. Raynor, R. Wartmann, S. David, A. Erdmann, A. P. Wood, P. Benítez, & M. C. de la Fuente, 85501B, doi:10.1117/12.981169

    doi

  21. [29]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 1164, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3132

    Hawkins, K., Lucey, M., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1164, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3132

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 122, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e16

    Hejazi, N., Lépine, S., & Nordlander, T. 2022, ApJ, 927, 122, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e16

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I. J. M., Nordlander, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 79, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb97

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I. J. M., Souto, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 31, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61dc

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Hoch, K. K. W., Konopacky, Q. M., Theissen, C. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 85, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace442

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Holstein, R. G. V., Stolker, T., Jensen-Clem, R., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 647, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039290 13

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Mukherjee, S., Fortney, J

    Hood, C. E., Mukherjee, S., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.05345, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.05345

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi:10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi:10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Xuan, J

    Hsu, C.-C., Wang, J. J., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 9, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad58d3

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Forgan, D

    Ilee, J. D., Forgan, D. H., Evans, M. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 189, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1966

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    2005, ApJ, 620, 984, doi:arXiv:astro-ph/0411177

    Itoh, Y., Hayashi, M., Tamura, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 620, 984, doi:arXiv:astro-ph/0411177

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S., et al

    Jeong, U., Chun, M.-Y., Oh, J. S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9154, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VI, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 91541X, doi:10.1117/12.2055589 Jönsson, H.,...

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Joy, A. H. 1949, ApJ, 110, 424, doi:10.1086/145217

    1949 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, igrins/plp, 3.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.11080095

    Kaplan, K., Lee, J.-J., Sawczynec, E., & Kim, H.-J. 2024, igrins/plp, 3.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.11080095

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    J., & Hartmann, L

    Kenyon, S. J., & Hartmann, L. 1987, ApJ, 323, 714, doi:10.1086/165866

    1987 doi

  36. [44]

    R., & Wang, J

    Kolecki, J. R., & Wang, J. 2022, AJ, 164, 87, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7de3

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 271, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    Kratter, K., & Lodato, G. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 271, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    L., & Hillenbrand, L

    Kraus, A. L., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1511, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1511

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1979, ApJS, 40, 1, doi:10.1086/190589

    1979 doi

  40. [48]

    Landman, R., Stolker, T., Snellen, I. A. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A48, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347846 López-Valdivia, R., Sokal, K. R., Mace, G. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 53, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1a7b

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    T., et al

    Mace, G., Kim, H., Jaffe, D. T., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99080C, doi:10.1117/12.2232780

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    A., & Kraus, A

    Martinez, R. A., & Kraus, A. L. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 36, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3745

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.00111

    Melo, E., Souto, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2024, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.00111

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    E., Biller, B

    Miles, B. E., Biller, B. A., Patapis, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L6, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb04a Mollière, P., Stolker, T., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 640, A131, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038325

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Moon, B., Wang, W., Park, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8450, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation II, ed. R. Navarro, C. R. Cunningham, & E. Prieto, 845048, doi:10...

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, A&A, 687, A298, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449328

    Nasedkin, E., Mollière, P., Lacour, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A298, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449328

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2001, A&A, 371, 186, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010334

    Natta, A., Prusti, T., Neri, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 371, 186, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010334

    2001 doi

  50. [58]

    Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., Krumholz, M. R., & Klein, R. I. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1485, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1485

    2010 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Park, C., Cha, S.-M., et al

    Oh, J. S., Park, C., Cha, S.-M., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 914739, doi:10.1117/12.2055651

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    Ohno, K., & Fortney, J. J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 18, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acafed

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 36, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b11

    Pacetti, E., Turrini, D., Schisano, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 36, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b11

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    T., Yuk, I.-S., et al

    Park, C., Jaffe, D. T., Yuk, I.-S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471D, doi:10.1117/12.2056431

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    R., De Rosa, R

    Patience, J., King, R. R., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A85, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118058

    2012 doi

  56. [64]

    2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    2012

  57. [65]

    2022, Research Notes of the AAS, 6, 155, doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac8676

    Isaacson, H., & Rice, M. 2022, Research Notes of the AAS, 6, 155, doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac8676

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  59. [67]

    D., Lee, E

    Powell, D., Feinstein, A. D., Lee, E. K. H., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 979, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07040-9

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Nugroho, S

    Rafi, S. A., Nugroho, S. K., Tamura, M., Nortmann, L., & Sánchez-López, A. 2024, AJ, 168, 106, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad5be9

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2007, ApJ, 656, 1121, doi:10.1086/510304

    Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2007, ApJ, 656, 1121, doi:10.1086/510304

    2007 doi

  62. [70]

    G., Randich, S., & Sicilia-Aguilar, A

    Roccatagliata, V., Franciosini, E., Sacco, G. G., Randich, S., & Sicilia-Aguilar, A. 2020, A&A, 638, A85, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936401 14

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    C., Melo, C., James, D

    Santos, N. C., Melo, C., James, D. J., et al. 2008, A&A, 480, 889, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079083

    2008 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    Sawczynec, E., Mace, G., Gully-Santiago, M., & Jaffe, D. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2023

  65. [73]

    2024, AJ, 168, 104, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad58e0

    Schlawin, E., Mukherjee, S., Ohno, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 104, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad58e0

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    A., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., García-Hernández, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 239, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/239

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    T., Smith, V

    Souto, D., Unterborn, C. T., Smith, V. V., et al. 2018, ApJL, 860, L15, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac896

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    V., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 123, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4891

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, AJ, 163, 152, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4de7

    Sprague, D., Culhane, C., Kounkel, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 152, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4de7

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    C., & Piskunov, N

    Stempels, H. C., & Piskunov, N. 2003, A&A, 408, 693, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030637

    2003 doi

  71. [79]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 40, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5 van Holstein, R

    Turrini, D., Schisano, E., Fonte, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 40, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5 van Holstein, R. G., Stolker, T., Jensen-Clem, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A21, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039290

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al

    Wang, J., Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al. 2023a, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 4, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9f19

    doi

  73. [81]

    L., Zhang, S., et al

    Wang, R., Luo, A. L., Zhang, S., et al. 2023b, ApJS, 266, 40, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acce36

    doi

  74. [82]

    Jaffe, D. T. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7739, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation, ed. E. Atad-Ettedgui & D. Lemke, 77394L, doi:10.1117/12.857164

    2010 doi

  75. [83]

    L., & Misra, P

    Wang, Y., Zhang, L., Su, T., Han, X. L., & Misra, P. 2024, A&A, 686, A164, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348342

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    W., Wang, J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Wang, J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 54, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8673

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    W., Hsu, C.-C., Finnerty, L., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Hsu, C.-C., Finnerty, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 71, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4796

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    W., Wang, J., Finnerty, L., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Wang, J., Finnerty, L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 10, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1243

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    Yang, J., Hammond, M., Piette, A. A. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 460, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1427

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 41, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acabc8

    Yu, J., Khanna, S., Themessl, N., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 41, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acabc8

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    T., Barnes, S., et al

    Yuk, I.-S., Jaffe, D. T., Barnes, S., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77351M, doi:10.1117/12.856864

    2010 doi

  82. [90]

    Zhang, Y., Snellen, I. A. G., & Mollière, P. 2021a, A&A, 656, A76, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141502

    doi

  83. [91]

    Zhang, Y., Snellen, I. A. G., Bohn, A. J., et al. 2021b, Nature, 595, 370, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03616-x

    doi

  84. [92]

    W., Mawet, D., et al

    Zhang, Y., Xuan, J. W., Mawet, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20952, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.20952

    2024 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2023, AJ, 166, 198, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf768

    Zhang, Z., Mollière, P., Hawkins, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 198, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf768

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    Cruz, K. L. 2014, ApJ, 783, L17, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L17 Öberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.