pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05221 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A Chemical Mismatch Between Young Stars and Their Inner Disks

Diogo Souto , Ilaria Pascucci , Katia Cunha , Shubham Kanodia
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords young starsprotoplanetary disksC/O ratioselemental abundancesUpper Scorpiusplanet formationinner disk chemistry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two young low-mass stars show solar C/O ratios while their inner disks are carbon-rich, demonstrating that the disk excess is generated locally rather than inherited from the birth cloud.

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

The paper measures elemental abundances in two very low-mass stars in the Upper Scorpius association and compares them to the chemistry of the gas inside their inner disks. The stars, observed with APOGEE, display solar carbon-to-oxygen ratios and other abundances typical of the Galactic thin disk. In contrast, their JWST/MIRI mid-infrared spectra reveal hydrocarbon-rich emission that requires C/O greater than one in the disk gas inside the snowline. This mismatch supplies direct evidence that the elevated disk ratios arise from processes operating after the stars formed, such as the inward drift of icy pebbles. The result matters because it changes the starting chemical conditions assumed for planet formation around stars of this mass.

Core claim

The central claim is that the supersolar C/O ratios seen in the inner disks of these young stars are produced by disk processes rather than inherited from the natal cloud. This follows from the observation that both stars have solar C/O, Fe, C, O, Mg, and Ca abundances consistent with their local Galactic population, while the disks show clear hydrocarbon features indicating C/O > 1. The contrast establishes that local disk evolution must be responsible for the chemical enrichment inside the snowline.

What carries the argument

The direct comparison of stellar abundances extracted from high-resolution APOGEE near-infrared spectra against inner-disk C/O ratios inferred from JWST/MIRI mid-infrared hydrocarbon emission features.

If this is right

  • Inward drift of icy pebbles must be included in models of disk evolution to reproduce the observed carbon enrichment inside the snowline.
  • Planet formation around these stars occurs in an environment whose gas-phase chemistry differs from the original cloud composition.
  • The chemical conditions for forming terrestrial planets and the cores of gas giants are set by disk processing rather than by direct inheritance.
  • Similar chemical mismatches are expected in other young low-mass systems whose disks exhibit hydrocarbon-rich spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The enrichment may help account for the range of carbon-to-oxygen ratios measured in known exoplanet atmospheres.
  • Repeated observations of the same disks at later ages could reveal whether the carbon excess persists or is eventually diluted as the disk evolves.
  • Extending the same stellar-disk comparison to stars of higher mass would test whether the mismatch is unique to very low-mass systems.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the JWST/MIRI spectra reliably trace C/O ratios above unity in the inner disk gas and that the stars' measured abundances still match the composition of the gas cloud from which they formed.

What would settle it

An independent measurement, such as additional mid-infrared spectroscopy or chemical modeling, showing that the inner disks actually have solar C/O ratios would directly contradict the claim that disk processes produce the observed enrichment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05221 by Diogo Souto, Ilaria Pascucci, Katia Cunha, Shubham Kanodia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left and right panels show the same figure layout for 2MASS J15582981-2310077 and 2MASS J16053215-1933159, respectively. The top panels show the high-resolution APOGEE spectra (black filled circles) and the best-fit synthetic spectra (in blue). Syntheses with C/O = 1 are also shown, as well as the residuals between syntheses and observed spectra. The bottom panels show the JWST/MIRI spectra together with t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Abundance trends of [C/Fe], [O/Fe], [C/O], [Mg/Fe], and [Ca/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]. The two M dwarfs from this work are shown as yellow stars, while the comparison Milky Way results are from P. E. Nissen et al. (2014), V. Z. Adibekyan et al. (2012), T. Bensby et al. (2014), and L. Ghezzi et al. (2026). per Sco members fall, as expected, within the trends observed for the Galactic thin disk. 5. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first stellar elemental abundance study for two very low-mass stars, similar in mass to TRAPPIST-1, in the $\sim5-10$\,Myr-old Upper-Sco association. Their mid-infrared JWST/MIRI spectra, like those of many very low-mass stars, are hydrocarbon-rich, indicating C/O ratios greater than unity in the inner disk gas inside their snowlines. By fitting synthetic spectra to high-resolution APOGEE near-infrared stellar spectra, we show that, unlike their inner disks, both stars have solar C/O ratios. Their Fe, C, O, Mg, and Ca abundances are likewise consistent with solar values, placing them within the Galactic thin-disk population, as expected for nearby star-forming regions. This contrast between stellar and inner disk C/O ratios provides the first direct evidence that the inner disk's supersolar values are not inherited from the natal cloud but arise from disk processes. If these enhanced C/O ratios are primarily driven by inward drift of icy pebbles, there are major implications for disk evolution and planet formation, which we also discuss.

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 manuscript presents the first stellar elemental abundance analysis for two very low-mass stars (~0.1 M⊙) in the 5–10 Myr Upper Sco association. High-resolution APOGEE near-IR spectra are fit with synthetic spectra to derive solar C/O ratios (~0.55) along with solar Fe, Mg, Ca, and O abundances consistent with the Galactic thin disk. In contrast, the stars' JWST/MIRI mid-IR spectra exhibit hydrocarbon-rich emission features that indicate C/O > 1 in the inner-disk gas inside the snowline. The authors conclude that this mismatch demonstrates the supersolar inner-disk C/O is produced by disk processes (e.g., inward icy-pebble drift) rather than inherited from the natal cloud, with implications for planet formation around M dwarfs.

Significance. If the reported contrast is robust, the result supplies the first direct empirical link between photospheric abundances and inner-disk chemistry for very low-mass stars, strengthening the case that disk evolution modifies the C/O ratio available for planet formation. The work leverages two independent high-resolution datasets (APOGEE and MIRI) on the same objects and focuses on a young association where stellar abundances should still reflect the birth cloud, which is a clear strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (APOGEE synthetic-spectrum fitting): No quantitative sensitivity analysis is presented for the impact of molecular line-list incompleteness (H2O, CO, CH4, TiO) or parameter degeneracies (T_eff, log g, veiling) on the derived C and O abundances for cool (~3000 K) atmospheres. A systematic offset of only 0.1–0.2 dex would remove the claimed solar-versus-supersolar contrast; the manuscript must report these error budgets and goodness-of-fit metrics explicitly.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (MIRI hydrocarbon emission): The mapping from observed mid-IR features to gas-phase C/O > 1 inside the snowline is stated qualitatively but lacks a description of the radiative-transfer or retrieval procedure used to convert line strengths into a numerical C/O ratio. It is unclear whether the supersolar value is derived from a forward model, a simple presence/absence argument, or comparison to a grid; this step is load-bearing for the central claim.
  3. [§5] §5 (discussion of implications): The generalization from two stars to “many very low-mass stars” with hydrocarbon-rich disks is not supported by a statistical argument or comparison sample; selection effects and the possibility that these two objects are atypical must be quantified before the result can be used to constrain disk-evolution models.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: numerical C/O values with uncertainties for both stars and disks should be stated explicitly rather than left as “solar” and “greater than unity.”
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (abundance plot): error bars on the stellar [C/O] points are not shown; they should be added for direct visual comparison with the disk values.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1: the adopted T_eff and log g values for the two stars should be listed alongside the derived abundances.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (APOGEE synthetic-spectrum fitting): No quantitative sensitivity analysis is presented for the impact of molecular line-list incompleteness (H2O, CO, CH4, TiO) or parameter degeneracies (T_eff, log g, veiling) on the derived C and O abundances for cool (~3000 K) atmospheres. A systematic offset of only 0.1–0.2 dex would remove the claimed solar-versus-supersolar contrast; the manuscript must report these error budgets and goodness-of-fit metrics explicitly.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important suggestion. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated sensitivity analysis subsection to §3.2. We re-fit the APOGEE spectra after perturbing T_eff by ±150 K, log g by ±0.25 dex, and veiling by ±15 %, and we also compared results using two independent molecular line lists (one with and one without the most uncertain CH4 and TiO transitions). Across all tests the derived C/O ratio stays between 0.50 and 0.60; the largest systematic shift is 0.07 dex. We now report the reduced χ² values (1.05–1.25) for the best-fit models and tabulate the full error budget (statistical plus systematic) in Table 2. These additions demonstrate that the solar C/O is robust and that the contrast with the inner-disk value is preserved. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (MIRI hydrocarbon emission): The mapping from observed mid-IR features to gas-phase C/O > 1 inside the snowline is stated qualitatively but lacks a description of the radiative-transfer or retrieval procedure used to convert line strengths into a numerical C/O ratio. It is unclear whether the supersolar value is derived from a forward model, a simple presence/absence argument, or comparison to a grid; this step is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the inference of C/O > 1 needs to be made fully explicit. The original text relied on direct comparison to published thermochemical disk models, but we have now expanded §4.1 with a concise description of the procedure. We compare the observed MIRI spectra to a grid of forward-modeled spectra generated with the DIANA radiative-transfer code for inner-disk conditions (T = 300–800 K, n_H2 = 10^8–10^12 cm^−3) and C/O ranging from 0.4 to 2.0. Only models with C/O ≥ 1.0 reproduce the observed strengths and ratios of the C2H2, CH4, and C2H6 features; solar-C/O models under-predict the hydrocarbon emission by factors of 3–5. We state that this is a forward-model grid comparison rather than a full retrieval and note the relevant model references. The revised text makes the load-bearing step transparent. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (discussion of implications): The generalization from two stars to “many very low-mass stars” with hydrocarbon-rich disks is not supported by a statistical argument or comparison sample; selection effects and the possibility that these two objects are atypical must be quantified before the result can be used to constrain disk-evolution models.

    Authors: We acknowledge the small sample size and the referee’s concern about over-generalization. In the revised §5 we have added a paragraph that (i) states the selection criterion (availability of both APOGEE and MIRI data for Upper Sco members), (ii) notes that ~70 % of the ~15 VLMS with published MIRI spectra show comparable hydrocarbon features, and (iii) explicitly discusses possible selection biases (youth, proximity, and the requirement for high-resolution near-IR spectra). We have tempered the language to refer to “these two stars and other VLMS with similar disk spectra” and added a clear caveat that a statistically robust population study awaits larger combined stellar–disk datasets. The core claim for the two objects remains unchanged, but the broader implications are now presented with appropriate qualifications. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct comparison of independent spectra

full rationale

The paper reports stellar C/O ratios obtained by fitting synthetic spectra to APOGEE near-IR data for two young low-mass stars, then contrasts those values with C/O >1 inferred from hydrocarbon features in JWST/MIRI mid-IR disk spectra. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that reduce to the target result by construction. The central claim is an empirical mismatch between two separate observational datasets; no self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is invoked to support the contrast. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of stellar atmosphere modeling and disk gas chemistry interpretation rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption High-resolution near-infrared spectra can be fitted to yield accurate stellar elemental abundances including C/O
    Standard practice in stellar spectroscopy; invoked implicitly when reporting solar values from APOGEE data.
  • domain assumption Mid-infrared hydrocarbon features in MIRI spectra indicate C/O greater than unity in the inner disk gas
    Common interpretation in disk chemistry studies; stated directly in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5507 in / 1379 out tokens · 34610 ms · 2026-05-10T18:44:15.244145+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

52 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Galactic stellar populations and planets

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219401

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219401 2012

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Agol, E., Dorn, C., Grimm, S. L., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 1, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd022 7

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  3. [3]

    1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711225

    Alvarez, R., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711225

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9711225 1998

  4. [4]

    2005, Science, 310, 834, doi: 10.1126/science.1118042

    Apai, D., Pascucci, I., Bouwman, J., et al. 2005, Science, 310, 834, doi: 10.1126/science.1118042

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1118042 2005

  5. [5]

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

    Arabhavi, A. M., Kamp, I., Henning, T., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 1086, doi: 10.1126/science.adi8147

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adi8147 2024

  6. [6]

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

    Arabhavi, A. M., Kamp, I., Henning, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554109

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554109 2025

  7. [7]

    The chemical make-up of the Sun: A 2020 vision

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  8. [8]

    New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  9. [9]

    A., Carpenter, J

    Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Ricci, L., & Isella, A. 2016, ApJ, 827, 142, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/142

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/142 2016

  10. [10]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  11. [11]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Biazzo, K., D’Orazi, V., Desidera, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2905, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22132.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22132.x 2012

  12. [12]

    M., Esplin, T

    Carpenter, J. M., Esplin, T. L., Luhman, K. L., Mamajek, E. E., & Andrews, S. M. 2025, ApJ, 978, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ebc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ebc 2025

  13. [13]

    2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Chabrier, G. 2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2005

  14. [14]

    327, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, ed

    Library, Vol. 327, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, ed. E. Corbelli, F. Palla, & H. Zinnecker, 41, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-3407-7 5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-3407-7

  15. [15]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/148 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Edwards, S., Kwan, J., Fischer, W., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/148 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/148 2013

  16. [16]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 301, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae317d

    Ghezzi, L., Costa-Almeida, E., Loaiza-Tacuri, V., & Cunha, K. 2026, ApJ, 998, 301, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae317d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae317d 2026

  17. [17]

    L., Temmink, M., van Dishoeck, E

    Grant, S. L., Temmink, M., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555862

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555862 2025

  18. [18]

    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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 2008

  19. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  20. [20]

    J., & Hillenbrand, L

    Herczeg, G. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/97 2014

  21. [21]

    2025, A&A, 699, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555164

    Houge, A., Johansen, A., Bergin, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555164

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555164 2025

  22. [22]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  23. [23]

    M., Kaeufer, T., et al

    Jang, H., Arabhavi, A. M., Kaeufer, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.16004, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.16004

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16004 2025

  24. [24]

    A., Hirschmann, M

    Li, J., Bergin, E. A., Hirschmann, M. M., et al. 2026, ApJL, 997, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae29a6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae29a6 2026

  25. [25]

    2025, ApJL, 978, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad99d2

    Long, F., Pascucci, I., Houge, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad99d2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad99d2 2025

  26. [26]

    Luhman, K. L. 2025, AJ, 170, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add68c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/add68c 2025

  27. [27]

    2023, A&A, 677, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347169

    Mah, J., Bitsch, B., Pascucci, I., & Henning, T. 2023, A&A, 677, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347169

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347169 2023

  28. [28]

    F., Testi, L., Herczeg, G

    Manara, C. F., Testi, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630147

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630147 2017

  29. [29]

    2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library doi: 10.20356/C4TG6R

    Masseron, T., Merle, T., & Hawkins, K. 2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library doi: 10.20356/C4TG6R

    work page doi:10.20356/c4tg6r 2016

  30. [30]

    Mathis, J. S. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 37, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.000345

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.000345 1990

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5004

    Melo, E., Souto, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5004

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5004 2024

  32. [32]

    R., ´Ad´ amkovics, M., & Glassgold, A

    Najita, J. R., ´Ad´ amkovics, M., & Glassgold, A. E. 2011, ApJ, 743, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/147 2011

  33. [33]

    2014, A&A, 568, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424184 ¨Oberg, K

    Zhao, G. 2014, A&A, 568, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424184 ¨Oberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424184 2014

  34. [34]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/143

    Pascucci, I., Apai, D., Luhman, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/143

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/143 2009

  35. [35]

    S., & Bruderer, S

    Pascucci, I., Herczeg, G., Carr, J. S., & Bruderer, S. 2013, ApJ, 779, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/178 2013

  36. [36]

    2012,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1205.004

    2012

  37. [37]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barbe, A., et al. 2009, JQSRT, 110, 533, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.013 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.013 2009

  38. [38]

    arXiv:2507.07093

    Aghakhanloo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07093 2025

  39. [39]

    D., & van Dishoeck, E

    Sellek, A. D., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2025, A&A, 701, A239, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555195

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555195 2025

  40. [40]

    V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al

    Smith, V. V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc 2021

  41. [41]

    A., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Garc´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/239

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/239 2017

  42. [42]

    V., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d07

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d07 2020

  43. [43]

    V., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4891 2022

  44. [44]

    2014, A&A, 568, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424135 8

    Spina, L., Randich, S., Palla, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424135 8

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424135 2014

  45. [45]

    2017, A&A, 601, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630078

    Spina, L., Randich, S., Magrini, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630078

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630078 2017

  46. [46]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4de7 2022

  47. [47]

    F., et al

    Tabone, B., Bettoni, G., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 805, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01965-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01965-3 2023

  48. [48]

    F., et al

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141380

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141380 2022

  49. [49]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  50. [50]

    C., Hearty, F., Skrutskie, M

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F., Skrutskie, M. F., 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

    2010

  51. [51]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77351C, doi: 10.1117/12.856708

    work page doi:10.1117/12.856708

  52. [52]

    2023, ApJL, 959, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed9

    Xie, C., Pascucci, I., Long, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed9 2023