Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A New Spectral Class of Brown Dwarfs at the Bottom of the IMF in IC 348

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Brown dwarfs found down to about 2 Jupiter masses in IC 348

desk verdict Careful JWST survey of IC 348 that delivers nine new brown dwarfs and a plausible new 'H' spectral class; the ~2 MJup masses are provisional because the mass scale relies on models that don't include the 3.4 μm opacity. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08969 v1 pith:7ICEELP3 submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

K. L. Luhman , C. Alves de Oliveira This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords browndwarfsinitialmassfunctionIC348JWSTNIRSpecspectroscopyspectralclassificationaliphatichydrocarboncircumstellardisks
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

Using new JWST/NIRCam images of a 16′ × 20′ field in the young cluster IC 348, the authors identify 39 brown-dwarf candidates and confirm nine as substellar cluster members with NIRSpec spectroscopy. The faintest confirmed members have luminosities that correspond to about 2 Jupiter masses on 5-Myr evolutionary models, which would make them the least massive brown dwarfs with spectral classifications and would push the measured minimum of the stellar/substellar mass function to a new low. Eight of the nine new members, plus one previously known member, show absorption from an unidentified aliphatic hydrocarbon at 3.4 microns, and the feature is stronger in fainter objects, so the paper argues it is a natural constituent of the coolest newborn brown-dwarf atmospheres. On that basis the paper proposes a new spectral class, H, defined by the 3.4 micron band. Two of the new members also show disk excess emission, including a ~2 $M_{\rm Jup}$ object, the least massive known brown dwarf with evidence of a disk.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observations are NIRSpec PRISM spectra covering 0.6–5.3 microns: H2O bands, triangular H-band continua, and weak CO bands establish youth and late spectral type, while the 3.4 micron fundamental band of an aliphatic hydrocarbon marks the proposed H class. The mass scale is carried by a luminosity-to-mass conversion: bolometric luminosities are estimated by flux-calibrating the spectra with NIRCam photometry, extrapolating outside the covered wavelengths with model spectra, and then comparing with Chabrier et al. (2023) evolutionary tracks at an assumed cluster age of 5 Myr. The 3.4 micron band is the named spectral marker that defines the new class.

What would settle it

A dynamical mass measurement of either wide binary pair in IC 348 (LRL 11043/11044 or LRL 11056/1546), from continued astrometry or radial velocities and compared with the 5-Myr model luminosities, would directly test the mass scale, since the paper cautions that models below ~0.05 $M_\odot$ can carry roughly 50% errors. Spectroscopy of the two faintest unobserved candidates would also settle whether the IMF extends toward ~1 $M_{\rm Jup}$ or whether those candidates are background galaxies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the substellar population of IC 348 continues to at least ~2 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and that its coolest members do not look like the coolest field brown dwarfs. Nine candidates observed with NIRSpec are young late-type cluster members; after flux-calibrating the 0.6–5.3 micron spectra with NIRCam photometry and integrating with model-based extrapolations, the faintest have bolometric luminosities that the Chabrier et al. (2023) models at 5 Myr convert to masses of ~2 $M_{\rm Jup}$. Eleven cluster members now show the 3.4 micron fundamental band of an unidentified aliphatic hydrocarbon, and the band strength correlates with faintness, tracing a spectral sequence from normal young L dwarfs to objects with strong hydrocarbon absorption and re-emergent TiO/VO. The paper proposes that this absorption defines a new spectral class, H, and notes that the coolest newborn brown dwarfs show this hydrocarbon rather than the methane expected at similar temperatures. Two of the new members also show disk excess emission, making the fainter one the least massive known brown dwarf with evidence of a disk.

Load-bearing premise

The mass estimates assume that the Chabrier et al. (2023) 5-Myr evolutionary models correctly predict the luminosity of objects below about 0.05 solar masses, even though the paper notes those models lack observational tests from dynamical masses; if the models or the assumed cluster age are wrong, the headline masses shift, though the detections of the objects themselves stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The initial mass function of IC 348 is now traced down to ~2 $M_{\rm Jup}$, so the minimum mass of star formation is at least as low as a few Jupiter masses, and could reach ~1 $M_{\rm Jup}$ if the two faintest unobserved candidates are members.
  • The 3.4 micron hydrocarbon band becomes a classification tool: any young, very low-mass brown dwarf showing it would be assigned spectral class H, and atmospheric models must explain why methane is absent where it was expected.
  • A ~2 $M_{\rm Jup}$ brown dwarf with a circumstellar disk demonstrates that planet-forming raw materials can exist around objects near the bottom of the mass function.
  • Proper motions from two NIRCam epochs strengthen the membership of the previously discovered L24 brown dwarfs, tying the new mass estimates to the cluster's kinematics.
  • The bump in the luminosity histograms at the onset of the H sequence suggests that errors in atmospheric and evolutionary models, rather than real structure, may explain the apparent dip in the substellar mass function.
  • The new IMF sample extends from 5 $M_\odot$ down to ~2 $M_{\rm Jup}$ with spectral classifications for all members, making it one of the most complete young-cluster mass functions in this range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 3.4 micron feature strength is a monotonic temperature or gravity diagnostic, the same band could be used to identify planetary-mass members in other star-forming regions without full spectral typing, extending IMF censuses beyond IC 348.
  • The blueward slope reversal that accompanies the hydrocarbon onset resembles the L/T transition in field dwarfs, hinting that the hydrocarbon, like methane, marks a major opacity change; if so, the bolometric corrections for H-class objects may be the largest source of mass uncertainty, not the evolutionary tracks themselves.
  • Confirmation that the two ~1 $M_{\rm Jup}$ photometric candidates are members would suggest the IMF does not stop at 2 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and would strengthen the case for a continuum between brown dwarfs and giant planets.
  • The presence of the hydrocarbon in eleven objects but not in slightly warmer L dwarfs suggests a sharp atmospheric transition near ~900 K in newborn substellar objects, which could be tested by searching for the band in similar young clusters like NGC 1333.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents JWST/NIRCam imaging and NIRSpec spectroscopy of brown dwarf candidates in IC 348, extending the Cycle 1 survey of L24 to a larger field. The authors identify 39 NIRCam brown dwarf candidates, obtain spectra for 15 of them, and classify nine as new substellar members. They report that eight of the nine new members and one previously known member show the 3.4 micron aliphatic hydrocarbon feature, define a new spectral class 'H' based on that feature, and estimate masses for the faintest new members near 2 MJup using Chabrier et al. (2023) evolutionary models at 5 Myr. They use these estimates to claim the faintest members are the least massive spectroscopically classified brown dwarfs, providing a new constraint on the minimum mass of the IMF. The paper also reports disk excesses in two members, two wide brown dwarf binary candidates, and an independent reanalysis of NIRCam data in NGC 2024.

Significance. If the mass estimates and the proposed 'H' class hold, the results are significant: they push spectroscopically confirmed substellar masses in a star-forming region down to roughly 2 MJup, provide a rare constraint on the minimum mass of the IMF, and identify a new spectral regime in young brown dwarfs characterized by an unidentified aliphatic hydrocarbon. The paper is careful in its data reduction, provides machine-readable photometry and astrometry, reproduces the NGC 2024 candidates from public data (thereby addressing a reproducibility concern with De Furio et al. 2025), and explicitly acknowledges that evolutionary models below 0.05 Msun lack dynamical calibration. The spectral sequence from normal L dwarfs to strong hydrocarbon-bearing objects is clearly presented and is testable with future observations. However, the headline minimum-mass claim rests on an unquantified systematic: the bolometric luminosities of exactly the H-class objects are computed with atmospheric models that do not include the 3.4 micron hydrocarbon opacity, and the quoted luminosity errors do not include this model mismatch or the assumed extinction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1.3, Table 2] The luminosity estimates for the H-class members are obtained by flux-calibrating the NIRSpec data and extrapolating at the wavelength endpoints with Tremblin et al. (2015, 2017) and Petrus et al. (2023) model spectra, which do not include the 3.4 micron hydrocarbon opacity that defines these objects. The models are therefore known to be invalid for the SEDs being integrated, and the resulting error enters directly into L_bol and hence into the derived masses. Please quantify this systematic: for example, recompute L_bol using the observed spectrum alone over 0.6-5.3 microns, or with a simple opacity correction over 3.3-3.6 microns, and state how the inferred masses of the faintest H members (LRL 11037 and LRL 11040) change. The statement that 50% mass errors would not qualitatively matter does not address this source of error, because the error is correlated with the H feature rather than random; a 0.2-0.3 dex overestimate in L_bol would shift the faintest masses from ~2 to ~3-4 MJup, making the improvement over the L24 object marginal.
  2. [Section 5.1.3, Table 2] The text states that luminosities were computed for both no extinction and an extinction correction of AK = 0.4, but Table 2 lists a single luminosity per source with no indication of which extinction case is adopted. It is also unclear whether the AK = 0.2 +/- 0.2 assumed for hydrocarbon-bearing objects in Section 5.1.2 is consistent with the values used in the luminosity estimates. Please specify the adopted extinction for each quoted log L and propagate the extinction uncertainty, along with the distance uncertainty, into the final masses. As written, the quoted errors appear to reflect only random/photometric uncertainties, so the '~2 MJup' headline carries no quoted systematic error.
  3. [Section 4.3] The new 'H' spectral class is defined solely by the presence of the 3.4 micron feature, whose carrier is unidentified, and all current detections are in a single cluster (11 objects in IC 348). To make the 'new spectral class' claim robust, the paper should either provide a quantitative classification criterion (for example, an equivalent-width threshold relative to the young L-dwarf sequence) and test it against existing spectra of other young clusters (NGC 1333, Taurus, Upper Sco) or explicitly present 'H' as a provisional, cluster-specific nomenclature. Without such a test, the conclusion that the hydrocarbon is a 'natural constituent of the coolest newborn brown dwarfs' (Section 6, item 4) goes beyond the present data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Two entries are both labeled Luhman et al. 2005a (ApJ 631, L69 and ApJ 618, 810); the duplicate year labels should be corrected to 2005a and 2005b or given distinct letters.
  2. [Section 2.3] The text describes LRL 11043 as a 'possible secondary companion' of LRL 11044, but Table 2 lists both objects as spectroscopically confirmed new members; the wording should be updated to reflect the NIRSpec confirmation.
  3. [Figure 10] The correlation between the 3.4 micron feature strength and apparent magnitude is the main evidence that the hydrocarbon is physically tied to the coolest objects; it would be more direct to plot the feature strength against estimated bolometric luminosity or temperature, since apparent magnitude includes extinction and distance effects.
  4. [Section 5.3] The mass estimates for the LRL 11056/LRL 1546 pair are given as ~8/18 MJup even though LRL 11056 lacks spectroscopy and its membership is photometric; this should be stated more explicitly in the multiplicity discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new spectral class and the ~2 MJup mass claims rest on new NIRCam/NIRSpec observations and external evolutionary/atmospheric models, with self-citations providing context rather than forcing the results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational: photometric candidate selection, NIRSpec spectroscopy, membership classification via youth diagnostics, definition of the H class from the detected 3.4 micron band, bolometric luminosity estimates from flux-calibrated spectra, and mass estimates from Chabrier et al. (2023) evolutionary models. No step reduces, by construction, to its own input. The H class is explicitly definitional, not a derived prediction. The faintest-member mass claim (~2 MJup) is based on spectroscopically confirmed members, not on the internal m444-luminosity calibration used for unconfirmed photometric candidates; that calibration is a standard empirical estimate and is not presented as an independent prediction. Self-citations (L24, L16, Luhman 2025) supply the prior census, the initial hydrocarbon detection, and the adopted age/mass framework, but they are not load-bearing in the sense of a uniqueness theorem or an unverified ansatz that by itself forces the new detections or classifications. The paper explicitly acknowledges that evolutionary models below 0.05 Msun lack dynamical calibration and that atmospheric models do not predict the 3.4 micron hydrocarbon features; these are correctness and systematic-uncertainty risks, not circularity. The analysis is self-contained against new JWST data, so no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on several domain assumptions: the adopted distance and age of IC 348, the validity of evolutionary models for very low mass objects, the reliability of youth diagnostics, the completeness of the extinction-limited IMF sample, and the atmospheric origin of the 3.4 micron feature. The only explicit free parameter is the adopted extinction for hydrocarbon-bearing members. The new 'H' class is an invented taxonomic entity with a clear observable definition.

free parameters (1)
  • AK for hydrocarbon-bearing members = 0.2 +/- 0.2 mag
    Adopted in Section 5.1.2 because the intrinsic colors of objects with the 3.4 micron feature are unknown; this extinction value enters the absolute magnitudes, luminosities, and masses for 11 members.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption IC 348 is at a distance of 313 pc and an age of ~5 Myr.
    Adopted from L24 and prior studies; these values are used to convert fluxes to luminosities and masses (Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3).
  • domain assumption The Chabrier et al. (2023) and Baraffe et al. (2015) evolutionary models are valid for converting luminosities to masses at young ages down to ~1-2 MJup.
    Used in Section 5.1.3; the paper notes dynamical masses are unavailable below 0.05 Msun.
  • domain assumption The youth diagnostics (triangular H-band continuum, weak CO absorption) reliably distinguish young cluster members from field dwarfs.
    Used in Section 3.3.2 to classify the nine new members; based on prior work (Lucas et al. 2001; Luhman et al. 2023).
  • domain assumption The extinction-limited sample with AJ < 1.5 is complete and unbiased in mass within the NIRCam field.
    Assumed from L16 for the IMF analysis (Section 5.1.1).
  • domain assumption All new JWST members have extinctions within the AJ < 1.5 limit.
    Stated assumption in Section 5.1.1, with AK = 0.2 +/- 0.2 for H-bearing objects.
  • domain assumption The 3.4 micron absorption arises in the brown dwarf atmospheres rather than in foreground material.
    The paper argues for this in Section 4.1 based on extinctions, previous non-detections, and overtone bands, but it is not definitively proven.
invented entities (1)
  • H spectral class independent evidence
    purpose: A new spectral classification for young brown dwarfs whose spectra show the 3.4 micron aliphatic hydrocarbon band.
    Defined solely by the observable 3.4 micron feature, so future observations can test membership in the class; however, the carrier itself is unidentified and no subclass standards are defined (Section 4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Spectral Class of Brown Dwarfs at the Bottom of the IMF in IC 348." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ICEELP3

@misc{pith2026250608969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Spectral Class of Brown Dwarfs at the Bottom of the IMF in IC 348},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ICEELP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08969}
}
abstract

In a previous study, we used JWST to identify three new brown dwarfs in the center of a nearby star-forming cluster, IC 348. The faintest object had an estimated mass of 3-4 $M_{\rm Jup}$, making it a contender for the least massive brown dwarf confirmed with spectroscopy. Two of the new brown dwarfs also exhibited absorption features from an unidentified aliphatic hydrocarbon, which were not predicted by atmospheric models and were not previously detected in atmospheres outside of the solar system. We have used JWST to perform a deeper survey for brown dwarfs across a larger field in IC 348. We have identified 39 brown dwarf candidates in NIRCam images and have obtained spectra for 15 of them with NIRSpec, nine of which are classified as substellar members of the cluster. The faintest new members have mass estimates of $\sim2$ $M_{\rm Jup}$, providing a new constraint on the minimum mass of the IMF. Two new members ($\sim2$ and 10 $M_{\rm Jup}$) exhibit large excess emission from circumstellar disks, demonstrating that they harbor the raw materials for planet formation. Finally, eight of the nine new brown dwarfs and one known member that is newly observed with NIRSpec show the aforementioned hydrocarbon features. Among the total of 11 brown dwarfs in IC 348 that have hydrocarbon detections, the features are stronger at fainter magnitudes, indicating that the hydrocarbon is a natural constituent of the atmospheres of the coolest newborn brown dwarfs. We propose a new spectral class "H" that is defined by the presence of the 3.4 $\mu$m fundamental band of the hydrocarbon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Map of the known members of IC 348 prior to this work and the fields imaged by JWST/NIRCam in Cycles 1 and 3 (inner and outer rectangles) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. JWST/NIRCam images in three filters (F162M, F360M, F444W) from Cycle 3 for a 16′ × 20′ field in IC 348 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. m162 versus the median difference between 2 and 4 pixel aperture photometry among the available bands for sources in NIRCam images of IC 348 from Cycle 3. This metric is used to classify the sources as point-like (< 0.1) or extended (≥ 0.1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color-color and color-magnitude diagrams for point sources in NIRCam images of IC 348 from Cycle 3. We have marked the previously known members that are not saturated and the candidate members identified with these diagrams, some of which have been classified as new me…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: JWST/NIRCam images of two close pairs in IC 348. LRL 1546 is a previously known brown dwarf while LRL 11043 and LRL 11044 are classified as new brown dwarfs with NIRSpec ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proper motions measured for point sources in JWST/NIRCam images of IC 348 from Cycles 1 and 3. We have marked the six previously known members of the cluster that appear in both epochs and are not saturated, three of which were discovered with the Cycle 1 data. We also…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: JWST/NIRSpec spectra collected in this work and in L24 for brown dwarfs in IC 348. The first four objects are normal young L dwarfs. The remaining sources exhibit the 3.4 µm feature from an unidentified aliphatic hydrocarbon. The wavelength range of that feature is mar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: JWST/NIRSpec spectra for brown dwarf candidates in IC 348 that are background T dwarfs (left) and highly reddened background stars that were selected as filler targets (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: JWST/NIRSpec spectra for two brown dwarf candidates in IC 348 and a filler target that are active galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Photometry in F162M and F444W versus the equivalent width of the 3.4 µm feature for brown dwarfs in IC 348 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of extinction-corrected absolute magnitudes in H or F162M (left) and [4.5] or F444W (right) for known members of IC 348 in our IMF sample (solid line) and the remaining viable NIRCam candidates that lack spectroscopy (dotted line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: IMF for an extinction-limited sample of members of IC 348 within the NIRCam field (points) and the mass function after including the remaining viable candidates from NIRCam that lack spectroscopy (open circles). The latter points are shifted slightly in mass for clari…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Color-color and color-magnitude diagrams for sources in JWST/NIRCam images of NGC 2024 (black points and red circles), members of IC 348 with types of ≥L0 (red points), and TWA 27B (cross). The latter is shown in only the top diagram. The red line is a reddening vecto…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Spectroscopy of Free-Floating Planetary-Mass Objects and their disks with JWST

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Six of eight young free-floating planetary-mass objects observed with JWST show silicate emission from disks, one shows photospheric silicate absorption, and several show hydrocarbon emission lines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N., & Liu, M

    Allers, K. N., & Liu, M. C. 2020, , 132, 104401

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    M., B \"o ker, T., et al

    Alves de Oliveira, C., Birkmann, S. M., B \"o ker, T., et al. 2018, SPIE, 10704, 107040Q

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    2013, , 549, A123

    Alves de Oliveira, C., Moraux, E., Bouvier, J., et al. 2013, , 549, A123

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2015, , 577, 42

    Baraffe, I., Hormeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, , 577, 42

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    W., & Graham, J

    Basri, G., Marcy, G. W., & Graham, J. R. 1996, , 458, 600

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    2009, , 201, 198

    Bellucci, A., Sicardy, B., Drossart, P., et al. 2009, , 201, 198

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    J., Geballe, T

    Burgasser, A. J., Geballe, T. R., Leggett, S. K., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Golimowski, D. A. 2006, , 637, 1067

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    J., Kirkpatrick, J

    Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Brown, M. E., et al. 2002a, , 564, 421

    work page

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    J., Marley, M

    Burgasser, A. J., Marley, M. S., Ackerman, A. S., et al. 2002b, , 571, L151

  2. [10]

    J., Reid, I

    Burgasser, A. J., Reid, I. N., Siegler, N., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. V. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 427

    2007

  3. [11]

    2023, , 671, A119

    Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Phillips, M., & Debras, F. 2023, , 671, A119

    2023

  4. [12]

    2004, , 425, L29

    Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., et al. 2004, , 425, L29

    2004

  5. [13]

    L., Kirkpatrick, J

    Cruz, K. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Burgasser, A. J. 2009, , 137, 3345

    2009

  6. [14]

    C., Kirkpatrick, J

    Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, , 743, 50

    2011

  7. [15]

    C., Harris, H

    Dahn, C. C., Harris, H. C., Vrba, F. J., et al. 2002, , 124, 1170

    2002

  8. [16]

    R., Green, T., et al

    De Furio, M., Meyer, M. R., Green, T., et al. 2025, , 981, L34

    2025

  9. [17]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2012, , 201, 19

    2012

  10. [18]

    L., & Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., & Luhman, K. L. 2017, , 154, 134

    2017

  11. [19]

    2022, , 661, A81

    Ferruit, P., Jakobsen, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, , 661, A81

    2022

  12. [20]

    R., De Furio, M., et al

    Fontanive, C., Bedin, L. R., De Furio, M., et al. 2023, , 526, 1783

    2023

  13. [21]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  14. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  15. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  16. [24]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, , 135, 068001

    2023

  17. [25]

    R., Knapp, G

    Geballe, T. R., Knapp, G. R., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2002, , 564, 466

    2002

  18. [26]

    1986, , 303, 336

    Gehrels, N. 1986, , 303, 336

    1986

  19. [27]

    Herbig, G. H. 1998, , 497, 736

    1998

  20. [28]

    2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Vol

    Herbst, W. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Vol. 1, ed. B. Reipurth (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 372

    2008

  21. [29]

    Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, , 113, 1733

    1997

  22. [30]

    2022, , 661, A80

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, , 661, A80

    2022

  23. [31]

    Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2005, , 43, 195

    2005

  24. [32]

    D., Reid, I

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., et al. 1999, , 519, 802

    1999

  25. [33]

    A., & Lada, C

    Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 1995, , 109, 1682

    1995

  26. [34]

    J., Muench, A

    Lada, C. J., Muench, A. A., Luhman, K. L., et al. 2006, , 131, 1574

    2006

  27. [35]

    A., et al

    Lalchand, B., Chen, W.-P., Biller, B. A., et al. 2022, , 164, 125

    2022

  28. [36]

    B., Scholz, A., Mu z i \'c , K., et al

    Langeveld, A. B., Scholz, A., Mu z i \'c , K., et al. 2024, , 168, 179

    2024

  29. [37]

    W., Roche, P

    Lucas, P. W., Roche, P. F., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2001, , 326, 695

    2001

  30. [38]

    Luhman, K. L. 1999, , 525, 466

    1999

  31. [39]

    Luhman, K. L. 2024, , 168, 230

    2024

  32. [40]

    Luhman, K. L. 2025, , in press

    2025

  33. [41]

    L., Alves de Oliveira, C., Baraffe, I., et al

    Luhman, K. L., Alves de Oliveira, C., Baraffe, I., et al. 2024, , 167, 19

    2024

  34. [42]

    L., Esplin, T

    Luhman, K. L., Esplin, T. E., & Loutrel, N. P. 2016, , 827, 52

    2016

  35. [43]

    L., & Hapich, C

    Luhman, K. L., & Hapich, C. J. 2020, , 160, 57

    2020

  36. [44]

    L., Lada, E

    Luhman, K. L., Lada, E. A., Hartmann, L., et al. 2005a, , 631, L69

  37. [45]

    L., Lada, E

    Luhman, K. L., Lada, E. A., Muench, A. A., & Elston, R. J. 2005a, , 618, 810

  38. [46]

    L., Liebert, J., & Rieke, G

    Luhman, K. L., Liebert, J., & Rieke, G. H. 1997, , 489, L165

    1997

  39. [47]

    L., Mamajek, E

    Luhman, K. L., Mamajek, E. E., Shukla, S. J., & Loutrel, N. P. 2017, , 153, 46

    2017

  40. [48]

    L., McLeod, K

    Luhman, K. L., McLeod, K. K., & Goldenson, N. 2005c, , 623, 1141

  41. [49]

    L., Rieke, G

    Luhman, K. L., Rieke, G. H., Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 1998, , 508, 347

    1998

  42. [50]

    L., Stauffer, J

    Luhman, K. L., Stauffer, J. R., Muench, A. A., et al. 2003, , 593, 1093

    2003

  43. [51]

    L., Tremblin, P., Birkmann, S

    Luhman, K. L., Tremblin, P., Birkmann, S. M., et al. 2023, , 949, L36

    2023

  44. [52]

    L., Basri, G., Delfosse, X., & Forveille, T

    Mart \' n, E. L., Basri, G., Delfosse, X., & Forveille, T. 1997, , 327, L29

    1997

  45. [53]

    M., Dartois, E., et al

    Matrajt, G., Mu \ n oz Caro, G. M., Dartois, E., et al. 2005, , 433, 979

    2005

  46. [54]

    R., Flaherty, K., Levine, J

    Meyer, M. R., Flaherty, K., Levine, J. L., et al. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Vol. 1, ed. B. Reipurth (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 662

    2008

  47. [55]

    A., Lada, C

    Muench, A. A., Lada, C. J., Luhman, K. L., Muzerolle, J., & Young, E. 2007, , 134, 411

    2007

  48. [56]

    R., Kulkarni, S

    Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 1995, , 378, 463

    1995

  49. [57]

    G., Faherty, J., et al

    Opitz, D., Tinney, C. G., Faherty, J., et al. 2016, , 819, 17

    2016

  50. [58]

    R., Kulkarni, S

    Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakajima, T., & Matthews, K. 1995, Science, 270, 1478

    1995

  51. [59]

    J., & Allamandola, L

    Pendleton, Y. J., & Allamandola, L. J. 2002, , 138, 75

    2002

  52. [60]

    J., Sandford, S

    Pendleton, Y. J., Sandford, S. A., Allamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Sellgren, K. 1994, , 437, 683

    1994

  53. [61]

    2023, , 670, L9

    Petrus, S., Chauvin, G., Bonnefoy, M., et al. 2023, , 670, L9

    2023

  54. [62]

    L., Basri, G., et al

    Rebolo, R., Mart \' n, E. L., Basri, G., et al. 1996, , 469, L53

    1996

  55. [63]

    R., & Mart \' n, E

    Rebolo, R., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., & Mart \' n, E. L. 1995, , 377, 129

    1995

  56. [64]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., & Horner, S. 2005, SPIE, 5904, 590401

    2005

  57. [65]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, , 135, 028001

    2023

  58. [66]

    2024, , 960, 49

    Robberto, M., Gennaro, M., Da Rio, N., et al. 2024, , 960, 49

    2024

  59. [67]

    C., Reyl \'e , C

    Robin, A. C., Reyl \'e , C. Derri \`e re, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, , 409, 523

    2003

  60. [68]

    A., Allamandola, L

    Sandford, S. A., Allamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., et al. 1991, , 371, 607

    1991

  61. [69]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., Stutz, A. M., et al. 2016, , 821, 78

    2016

  62. [70]

    H., & Scholz, A

    Seo, H. H., & Scholz, A. 2025, , 537, 2579

    2025

  63. [71]

    T., Russell, R

    Soifer, B. T., Russell, R. W., & Merrill, K. M. 1976, , 207, L83

    1976

  64. [72]

    R., Hamilton, D., & Probst, R

    Stauffer, J. R., Hamilton, D., & Probst, R. G. 1994, , 108, 155

    1994

  65. [73]

    G., Burgasser, A

    Tinney, C. G., Burgasser, A. J., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2003, , 126, 975

    2003

  66. [74]

    L., & McLeod, K

    Todorov, K., Luhman, K. L., & McLeod, K. K. 2010, , 714, L84

    2010

  67. [75]

    L., Konopacky, Q

    Todorov, K., Luhman, K. L., Konopacky, Q. M., et al. 2014, , 788, 40

    2014

  68. [76]

    S., Mourier, P., et al

    Tremblin, P., Amundsen, D. S., Mourier, P., et al. 2015, , 804, L17

    2015

  69. [77]

    2017, , 850, 46

    Tremblin, P., Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., et al. 2017, , 850, 46

    2017

  70. [78]

    J., Henden, A

    Vrba, F. J., Henden, A. A., Luginbuhl, C. B., et al. 2004, , 127, 2948

    2004

  71. [79]

    J., Flickinger G

    Wdowiak, T. J., Flickinger G. C., & Cronin J. R. 1988, , 328, L75

    1988

  72. [80]

    Zhang, Z., Molli\' e re, P., Fortney, J., & Marley, M. S. 2025, , submitted

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.