Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Ultra-deep JWST photometry of the Large Magellanic Cloud's outskirts yields a low-mass stellar mass function with slope alpha = -1.49 (shallower than Salpeter) and a total binary fraction of 0.34.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 12:56 UTC pith:74IR3PJV

load-bearing objection A solid, standard-method JWST measurement of the LMC-field binary fraction and MF, with a small internal inconsistency in the binary conversion and an overclaim of depth. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19260 v1 pith:74IR3PJV submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.GA

The Large Magellanic Cloud through the lens of the James Webb Space Telescope: Binaries and the mass function in the galaxy's outskirts

M.V. Legnardi , F. Muratore , A.P. Milone , G. Cordoni , E. Dondoglio , L.N. Gorza , A. Bellini , F. Calura
show 11 more authors
S. Jang H. Jerjen A. Karakas E.P. Lagioia C. Li A. Mastrobuono-Battisti M. Tailo E. Vesperini E. Bortolan A.F. Marino S. Di Stefano
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords initial mass functionbinary fractionLarge Magellanic CloudJWST NIRCammass function slopeunresolved binarieslow-mass starscolor-magnitude diagram
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper uses ultra-deep JWST/NIRCam images of a field in the outskirts of the Large Magellanic Cloud, near the cluster NGC 1846, to count low-mass stars that previous extragalactic studies could not reach. It reports a stellar mass function over 0.17-0.82 solar masses with power-law slope alpha = -1.49 ± 0.16, shallower than the classic Salpeter value of -2.35 and consistent with a Kroupa-like initial mass function. It also measures the fraction of unresolved binary systems with mass ratio q>0.6 as 0.15 ± 0.01 and, assuming a flat distribution of mass ratios, infers a total binary fraction of 0.34 ± 0.02, matching values in the Small Magellanic Cloud and the Milky Way field. If correct, the results imply that neither binary formation efficiency nor the low-mass end of the IMF varies much with galaxy environment in low-density regions.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the present-day mass function of LMC field stars, measured for the first time down to 0.17 solar masses, is not Salpeter-like: a single power-law fit to the range 0.17-0.82 solar masses gives alpha = -1.49 ± 0.16, statistically shallower than -2.35. When forced to have a break at 0.5 solar masses, the low-mass side has slope -1.15 ± 0.11 (matching the Kroupa value of -1.3) while the high-mass side is steeper at -2.76 ± 0.15. The paper also finds that unresolved binaries with mass ratios above 0.6 make up 15% of upper-main-sequence sources, which translates to a total binary fraction of 34% under a flat mass-ratio distribution; a separat

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a color-magnitude-diagram census of unresolved binaries. The paper defines a region of the m_F322W2 versus m_F115W-m_F322W2 diagram containing upper-main-sequence stars and counts sources redward of the q=0.6 binary fiducial; after subtracting foreground contamination and completeness losses, that count gives f(q>0.6). A flat mass-ratio distribution converts this to the total binary fraction, which is then used to correct the luminosity function for the light of unresolved companions before converting to masses with a 2-Gyr isochrone. Artificial-star tests supply the completeness and bin-contamination corrections that propagate into the final MF slope.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that unresolved binaries have a flat distribution of mass ratios from 0 to 1 that does not depend on primary mass; if the true distribution is not flat, the reported total binary fraction (0.34) and the binary correction applied before measuring the mass-function slope would both change.

What would settle it

Measure the binary mass-ratio distribution directly in the same LMC field — for example, with multi-epoch radial velocities of upper-main-sequence stars or with higher-resolution imaging that resolves pairs down to smaller separations. If the observed q-distribution deviates from flat (for instance, a deficit or surplus of q<0.6 systems), recomputing f_TOT and the binary-corrected luminosity function with that empirical distribution would either confirm or overturn alpha = -1.49.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the measured slope stands, the low-mass IMF in the LMC field is not universal in the Salpeter sense; over 0.17-0.82 solar masses it is consistent with a Kroupa-like form.
  • A total binary fraction of 0.34 in the LMC outskirts, matching the SMC and Milky Way field, indicates that binary formation efficiency is similar across low-density environments.
  • The resolved wide-binary fraction of 1% or less (q>0.6, separations up to roughly 7,700 AU) shows that very wide binaries are rare in this field, as in other low-density systems.
  • Because the MF probes to 0.17 solar masses, JWST observations provide a way to test IMF universality below the 0.4-solar-mass limit of earlier HST-era extragalactic studies.
  • A broken power law with the Kroupa break at 0.5 solar masses gives a low-mass slope consistent with -1.3 but a high-mass slope steeper than the canonical -2.3; if this persists, it points to a subtle mass-dependent environmental effect.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An internal consistency check the paper does not discuss: 0.15/(1-0.6) = 0.375, slightly higher than the quoted 0.34 total binary fraction; tracking down whether this reflects q_min>0, residual field contamination, or the exact treatment of the q=0.6 boundary would tighten the binary measurement.
  • The flat-mass-ratio assumption is the main lever: if future data show the true q-distribution favors low-q companions, both the total binary fraction and the binary correction to the luminosity function change, which would shift alpha in the direction of steeper (more Salpeter-like) or shallower values.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same analysis to multiple LMC/SMC fields with different star-formation histories; comparing alpha across those fields would directly test whether the weak environmental dependence claimed here is universal or field-specific.
  • For population-synthesis models of dwarf galaxies, the result implies that assuming a Salpeter IMF below 0.5 solar masses overpredicts the number of faint low-mass stars; switching to a Kroupa-like form would lower the predicted stellar mass-to-light ratios by a modest factor.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/NIRCam F115W+F322W2 photometry of an LMC field near NGC 1846. It separates the cluster and field populations via an EFF radial-density profile, measures the fraction of unresolved binaries with mass ratio q>0.6 from CMD region counts (f_q>0.6 = 0.15±0.01), converts this to a total binary fraction f_TOT = 0.34±0.02 assuming a flat mass-ratio distribution, measures a negligible wide-binary fraction (0.01±0.01), and derives the field mass function over 0.17–0.82 M_sun, obtaining a single power-law slope α = -1.49±0.16. This slope is compared with determinations in the SMC, Milky Way, and star clusters, leading to the conclusion that binary formation and the low-mass MF depend only weakly on environment. The analysis uses standard tools: KS2 photometry, artificial-star completeness, TRILEGAL foreground subtraction, BaSTI isochrones, and the Milone et al. CMD binary-fraction method.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable first JWST-based low-mass MF measurement in the LMC field, reaching 0.17 M_sun and providing a direct comparison with the SMC field from the same group. The binary-fraction measurement, including the first direct constraint on wide binaries in the LMC, is also of interest. The paper is generally well-structured and uses a standard, well-referenced reduction and analysis pipeline. The main scientific weight, however, rests on two assumptions: the flat mass-ratio distribution and the internal consistency of the binary fraction. The reported slope uncertainty does not yet include systematic variations from the binary correction or the adopted isochrone, so the quoted error budget needs strengthening before the environmental-dependence claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (3), Table 1] The conversion f_q>0.6 = 0.15±0.01 to f_TOT = 0.34±0.02 is not the arithmetic consequence of the stated flat mass-ratio distribution over 0<q<1. For a flat distribution, P(q>0.6)=0.4, so the implied total fraction is 0.15/0.4 = 0.375±0.025, not 0.34±0.02. No q_min or normalization that would produce 0.34 is stated. Since f_TOT is subsequently used in the §5.1 luminosity-function binary correction, this discrepancy is not merely typographical. Please recompute f_TOT consistently, propagate its uncertainty, and re-derive the MF slope with the corrected value.
  2. [Sections 5.1–5.2, Table 1] The LF correction in §5.1 adopts f_TOT and a flat mass-ratio distribution, but the quoted slope uncertainty (±0.16) contains only the random fit uncertainty. The directly measured f_q>0.6 constrains only the integral of p(q) over q>0.6 for primaries with 22.5<m_F322W2<23.2 (≈0.55–0.76 M_sun); it does not constrain the shape of p(q) below 0.6, which is exactly what is used to correct the LF over 0.17–0.82 M_sun. Please propagate the uncertainty in f_TOT and test alternative p(q) shapes (e.g., p(q)∝q^{-1}, p(q)∝q) in the LF correction, reporting the resulting shifts in α. Without this, the 'weak environmental dependence' conclusion is conditional on an unverified assumption.
  3. [Sections 3 and 5.2, Fig. 4] The mass–luminosity relation used to convert the LF into a MF is a single 2 Gyr, Z=0.006, [α/Fe]=+0.2 isochrone, while the field population is described as composite with ages from 1 to 11 Gyr. Although the lower MS is nearly age-independent below m_F322W2≈22.5, metallicity and [α/Fe] can still shift the mass scale and hence the fitted slope. A sensitivity test varying these parameters, or at least the adopted age, should be reported. Otherwise the ±0.16 uncertainty excludes a potentially important systematic, particularly because the main conclusion is a cross-environment comparison of α.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1] If f_TOT is computed as f_q>0.6/0.4, the propagated uncertainty is 0.025, not 0.02. Please align the quoted uncertainty with the stated propagation formula.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (5)] The description of the binary correction is brief. Please specify whether the correction is applied by subtracting a synthetic binary population from the observed LF or by reassigning observed binary systems to primary-mass bins, and how this interacts with the contamination-matrix inversion of Eq. (5).
  3. [Section 3] The statement that differential reddening is 'negligible' is not quantified. A limit or a reference for the adopted value E(B-V)=0.01 would make this more reproducible.
  4. [Section 3] The robustness test with separation radii 90–125 arcsec is mentioned but the resulting binary fractions and MF slopes are not reported. Including these values in a table or appendix would strengthen the claim that the results are insensitive to the adopted radial cut.
  5. [Section 5.2] For the broken power-law fit, the break at 0.5 M_sun is fixed a priori; please state this explicitly and describe how the uncertainties on the two slopes were computed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

f_TOT and the MF correction rest on a self-cited flat-q ansatz, but the MF slope itself is not definitionally tied to the binary fraction.

specific steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sect. 4.1 (after Eq. 3) → Sect. 5.1 (binary correction to LF)]
    "Assuming a flat mass-ratio distribution, i.e., a constant probability distribution for all mass ratios 0<q<1, we inferred a total binary fraction of f_TOT_bin=0.34±0.02. This assumption is supported by several studies of binary populations in stellar systems (Milone et al. 2012a, 2016; Cordoni et al. 2023). ... Following Legnardi et al. (2025), we adopted the total binary fraction inferred in Sect. 4, f_TOT_bin=0.34±0.02, and assumed a flat mass-ratio distribution."

    The directly measured quantity is only f_q>0.6=0.15±0.01; f_TOT=0.34 is obtained by assuming a flat q distribution, which is then reused in Sect. 5.1 to correct the luminosity function before fitting the MF slope. The cited support for flat q (Milone et al. 2012a, 2016; Cordoni et al. 2023; Legnardi et al. 2025) comes from the same research group and adopts the same flat-q ansatz to convert f_q>0.6 into f_TOT, so no independent constraint on p(q) over 0<q<1 is provided. The binary-fraction result and the binary correction therefore inherit a self-cited assumption. The MF slope is not definitionally equal to f_TOT, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The derivation of the MF slope is not circular in the strict sense: α=-1.49±0.16 is fitted from a completeness- and binary-corrected luminosity function, and α is not equal to f_TOT or f_q>0.6 by construction. The binary fraction is measured from a CMD region and then used as an input to correct the LF; this is an internal calibration rather than an independent external benchmark, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main circularity-adjacent issue is that f_TOT=0.34 is not directly constrained by the data; it follows from f_q>0.6=0.15 only under a flat-q distribution whose cited support is from the same group's prior work using the same flat-q ansatz. That assumption is then propagated into the MF correction, making the binary-related parts of the analysis partially dependent on a self-cited ansatz. I also flag a correctness/robustness issue, not a circularity: under the stated flat q over 0<q<1, P(q>0.6)=0.4, so f_q>0.6/0.4=0.375, not 0.34; no conversion equation is given. This internal inconsistency could shift the binary correction and hence α, but it does not make α equal to an input by definition. Because the central MF slope retains independent content from star counts, completeness, and the adopted mass-luminosity relation, the circularity score is moderate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adopted isochrone model parameters and on assumptions about binary mass-ratio distribution, dynamical evolution, and contamination modeling. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Isochrone age = 2 Gyr
    Adopted BaSTI isochrone for the mass-luminosity relation; the field has an extended star-formation history (1-11 Gyr), but isochrones converge at faint magnitudes. The choice affects the mass scale and hence the derived MF slope.
  • Metallicity Z = 0.006
    Set by isochrone fitting; enters the mass-luminosity relation used to convert the luminosity function into masses.
  • [α/Fe] = +0.2
    Adopted in the BaSTI models; affects the color-mass and luminosity-mass relations.
  • Distance modulus (m-M)_0 = 18.50
    Assumed distance modulus (50.1 kpc); directly scales masses from magnitudes.
  • Foreground reddening E(B-V) = 0.01
    Adopted reddening; affects the conversion of observed to intrinsic magnitudes and hence masses.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The mass-ratio distribution of unresolved binaries is flat over 0<q<1 (or over q_min<q<1) and independent of primary mass.
    Used to convert f_q>0.6 to f_TOT in Sect. 4.1 and to correct the luminosity function for binaries in Sect. 5.1. Cited as supported by prior studies, but not verified in this field; the paper's own conversion is numerically inconsistent (0.15/0.4≠0.34).
  • domain assumption The present-day field MF traces the IMF over 0.17-0.82 M_sun; dynamical evolution has not significantly altered the mass function in the LMC field.
    Assumed in Sect. 5 to justify equating the observed MF with the IMF; cited to Geha et al. 2013.
  • domain assumption The BaSTI 2 Gyr, Z=0.006 isochrone provides a valid mass-luminosity relation for all field stars with 22.5<m_F322W2<26.6.
    Adopted in Sect. 5.2; the paper argues isochrones of different ages converge at these magnitudes, making the ML relation age-independent.
  • domain assumption TRILEGAL simulations accurately predict foreground/background contamination in the observed field.
    Used in Sect. 4.1 to subtract field contaminants from regions A and B.
  • domain assumption Artificial-star tests accurately reproduce the completeness and photometric-error properties of the data.
    Used throughout Sects. 4-5 for completeness correction and contamination matrices; standard practice but assumed valid.
  • domain assumption The EFF profile and the r=100'' cut cleanly separate NGC 1846 from the LMC field, with residual cluster contamination of ~2%.
    Adopted in Sect. 3; robustness checks against 90-125'' cuts are reported.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15779 in / 20036 out tokens · 170454 ms · 2026-08-01T12:56:04.854928+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nearby galaxies such as the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) offer an ideal laboratory to test the initial mass function under different physical conditions, but previous works have been limited by photometric depth and have therefore poorly constrained the low-mass regime. Here, we analyze ultra-deep James Webb Space Telescope observations of a field in the LMC outskirts, near the intermediate-age and massive star cluster NGC 1846. Using the $m_{\rm F322W2}$ versus $m_{\rm F115W}-m_{\rm F322W2}$ color-magnitude diagram, we derive the mass function (MF) down to unprecedentedly low masses ($M=0.17 M_{\odot}$), explicitly accounting for the contribution of unresolved binaries, whose fraction is constrained directly from the data. For systems with mass ratios $q>0.6$, we measure a binary fraction of $f_{\rm bin}^{q>0.6}=0.15\pm0.01$, implying a total binary fraction of $f_{\rm bin}^{\rm TOT}=0.34\pm0.02$ for a flat mass-ratio distribution. This is consistent with values in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) and in the Milky Way field, suggesting similar binary formation efficiency across low-density environments. We also derive the MF over the mass interval 0.17-0.82 $M_{\odot}$ and fit it with a power law, obtaining a slope of $\alpha = -1.49 \pm 0.16$. This slope is shallower than the canonical Salpeter value ($\alpha=-2.35$) and slightly shallower than that measured in the SMC field, while remaining consistent with determinations for Galactic open clusters and for several clusters in the Magellanic Clouds and the Milky Way. Together, these results support a scenario in which both binary formation efficiency and the shape of the low-mass MF depend only weakly on the environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19260 by A. Bellini, A.F. Marino, A. Karakas, A. Mastrobuono-Battisti, A.P. Milone, C. Li, E. Bortolan, E. Dondoglio, E.P. Lagioia, E. Vesperini, F. Calura, F. Muratore, G. Cordoni, H. Jerjen, L.N. Gorza, M. Tailo, M.V. Legnardi, S. Di Stefano, S. Jang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Image of the LMC obtained from the Digitized Sky Survey 2. The inset shows a zoomed-in view of the region surrounding the intermediate￾age cluster NGC 1846, where the observations analyzed in this study were performed. The NIRCam field of view is outlined in green. North is up and east is to the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the observational dataset used in this work. Left panel. Stacked NIRCam/F322W2 image of the star cluster NGC 1846 and the surrounding LMC field. Right panel. Three-color composite zoom-in of a representative central region, with the blue, green, and red channels corresponding to the stacked F555W (HST), F115W, and F322W2 images, respectively. Article number, page 3 of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: mF322W2 vs. mF115W − mF322W2 CMDs for the regions at r ≤ 100 ′′(bottom-left panel) and r > 100′′(bottom-right panel), dominated by NGC 1846 members and LMC field stars, respectively. The average color and magnitude uncertainties, calculated for stars in different magnitude bins, as a function of magnitude are indicated by the red error bars plotted on the left side of each diagram. The separation is based … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the data used to investigate the LMC field. Panel a. mF322W2 vs. mF115W − mF322W2 CMD of the LMC field. Four BaSTI isochrones with ages between 1 and 11 Gyr are overplotted, while photometric uncertainties are indicated in the left corner. The horizontal dotted lines at mF322W2 = 22.5 and mF322W2 = 26.6 mark, respectively, the magnitude above which the mass-luminosity relation becomes stron… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Binary fraction estimation in the LMC field. Left panel. mF322W2 vs. mF115W − mF322W2 CMD of LMC stars, zoomed-in on the region used to estimate the binary fraction. Right panel. Same as the left panel but for artificial and field stars (azure star symbols). In both panels, the green lines outline region A of the CMD, adopted to derive the bi￾nary fraction. The green shaded area marks region B, a subregion… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Determination of the MF of the LMC field analyzed in this work. Panel a. mF322W2 vs. mF115W − mF322W2 CMD of LMC stars. The red solid line represents the 2 Gyr BaSTI isochrone adopted to derive the mass–luminosity relation over the magnitude interval 22.5 < mF322W2 < 26.6. The stellar masses associated with the magnitude bins used to derive the MF are marked along the isochrone. Panel b. Zoomed-in view of … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MF slope, α, as a function of the stellar-mass range probed in a variety of Galactic and extragalactic environments. Each symbol shows the best-fitting single power-law slope measured over a given mass in￾terval; horizontal error bars indicate the width of that interval. Red tri￾angles denotes SMC and LMC clusters, gold squares UFDs, gray dia￾monds Milky Way field stars, the magenta star the Galactic bulge… view at source ↗

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

62 extracted references

  1. [1]

    L., & Norman, M

    Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 2002, Science, 295, 93

    2002

  2. [2]

    R., Koerner, D

    Allen, P. R., Koerner, D. W., Reid, I. N., & Trilling, D. E. 2005, ApJ, 625, 385

    2005

  3. [3]

    R., et al

    Anderson, J., Sarajedini, A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2055

    2008

  4. [4]

    R., & Meyer, M

    Bastian, N., Covey, K. R., & Meyer, M. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 339

    2010

  5. [5]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 3991

    Baumgardt, H., Hénault-Brunet, V ., Dickson, N., & Sollima, A. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3991

    2023

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Bellini, A., Anderson, J., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 6

    2017

  7. [7]

    J., Hawley, S

    Bochanski, J. J., Hawley, S. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2679

    2010

  8. [8]

    P., et al

    Bortolan, E., Bruce, J., Milone, A. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A220

    2025

  9. [9]

    S., & Larson, R

    Bromm, V ., Coppi, P. S., & Larson, R. B. 2002, ApJ, 564, 23

    2002

  10. [10]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 2765

    Calura, F., Gilli, R., Vignali, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2765

    2014

  11. [11]

    & Menci, N

    Calura, F. & Menci, N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1347

    2009

  12. [12]

    M., Alatalo, K., et al

    Cappellari, M., McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., et al. 2012, Nature, 484, 485

    2012

  13. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  14. [14]

    E., Gennaro, M., Correnti, M., McQuinn, K

    Cohen, R. E., Gennaro, M., Correnti, M., McQuinn, K. B. W., & Chandra, V . 2026, ApJ, 1000, 151

    2026

  15. [15]

    & van Dokkum, P

    Conroy, C. & van Dokkum, P. G. 2012, ApJ, 760, 71

    2012

  16. [16]

    P., Marino, A

    Cordoni, G., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A29 Da Rio, N., Gouliermis, D. A., & Henning, T. 2009, ApJ, 696, 528

    2023

  17. [17]

    P., Renzini, A., et al

    Dondoglio, E., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 207

    2022

  18. [18]

    Elson, R. A. W., Fall, S. M., & Freeman, K. C. 1987, ApJ, 323, 54

    1987

  19. [19]

    M., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Geha, M., Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 29

    2013

  20. [20]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895

    2005

  21. [21]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 35

    Goudfrooij, P., Girardi, L., Kozhurina-Platais, V ., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 35

    2014

  22. [22]

    2005, ApJ, 623, 846

    Gouliermis, D., Brandner, W., & Henning, T. 2005, ApJ, 623, 846

    2005

  23. [23]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 838

    Gouliermis, D., Brandner, W., & Henning, T. 2006, ApJ, 641, 838

    2006

  24. [24]

    A., Mould, J

    Holtzman, J. A., Mould, J. R., Gallagher, III, J. S., et al. 1997, AJ, 113, 656

    1997

  25. [25]

    M., Carraro, G., Evans, C

    Kalari, V . M., Carraro, G., Evans, C. J., & Rubio, M. 2018, ApJ, 857, 132

    2018

  26. [26]

    S., Anderson, J., Dotter, A., et al

    Kalirai, J. S., Anderson, J., Dotter, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 110

    2013

  27. [27]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2177

    Kamann, S., Bastian, N., Gossage, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2177

    2020

  28. [28]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  29. [29]

    & Boily, C

    Kroupa, P. & Boily, C. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1188

    2002

  30. [30]

    V ., Muratore, F., Milone, A

    Legnardi, M. V ., Muratore, F., Milone, A. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A180

    2025

  31. [31]

    D., Broby Nielsen, P., Ferguson, A

    Mackey, A. D., Broby Nielsen, P., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Richardson, J. C. 2008, ApJ, 681, L17

    2008

  32. [32]

    D., Da Costa, G

    Mackey, A. D., Da Costa, G. S., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Yong, D. 2013, ApJ, 762, 65

    2013

  33. [33]

    V ., Muratore, F., Milone, A

    Marchuk, A. V ., Muratore, F., Milone, A. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A329

    2026

  34. [34]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Legnardi, M. V ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 189

    2024

  35. [35]

    A., Kirkpatrick, J

    Metchev, S. A., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Berriman, G. B., & Looper, D. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1281

    2008

  36. [36]

    P., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., & Anderson, J. 2009, A&A, 497, 755

    2009

  37. [37]

    P., Cordoni, G., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Cordoni, G., Marino, A. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A161

    2023

  38. [38]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3009

    2016

  39. [39]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Bernizzoni, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A247

    2025

  40. [40]

    P., Cordoni, G., et al

    Mohandasan, A., Milone, A. P., Cordoni, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A42

    2024

  41. [41]

    Morgan, D. H. 1994, A&AS, 103, 235

    1994

  42. [42]

    V ., Milone, A

    Muratore, F., Legnardi, M. V ., Milone, A. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A100

    2026

  43. [43]

    P., D’Antona, F., et al

    Muratore, F., Milone, A. P., D’Antona, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A135

    2024

  44. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3382

    Nardiello, D., Libralato, M., Piotto, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3382

    2018

  45. [45]

    Offner, S. S. R., Clark, P. C., Hennebelle, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 53–75

    2014

  46. [46]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275

    2023

  47. [47]

    S., Nordlander, T., Da Costa, G

    Oh, W. S., Nordlander, T., Da Costa, G. S., & Mackey, A. D. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 831

    2023

  48. [48]

    Paust, N. E. Q., Reid, I. N., Piotto, G., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 476

    2010

  49. [49]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 102

    Pietrinferni, A., Hidalgo, S., Cassisi, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 102

    2021

  50. [50]

    J., Burningham, B., Tamura, M., et al

    Pinfield, D. J., Burningham, B., Tamura, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 304

    2008

  51. [51]

    2022, A&A, 664, A26

    Pouteau, Y ., Motte, F., Nony, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A26

    2022

  52. [52]

    N., Gizis, J

    Reid, I. N., Gizis, J. E., & Hawley, S. L. 2002, AJ, 124, 2721

    2002

  53. [53]

    N., Kirkpatrick, J

    Reid, I. N., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Liebert, J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 521, 613

    1999

  54. [54]

    J., Anderson, J., et al

    Sabbi, E., Lennon, D. J., Anderson, J., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 11

    2016

  55. [55]

    D., & Loeb, A

    Safarzadeh, M., Simon, J. D., & Loeb, A. 2022, ApJ, 930, 54

    2022

  56. [56]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Schröder, K. P. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1231

    1955

  57. [57]

    2025, PASP, 137, 104103

    Shariat, C., El-Badry, K., Gennaro, M., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 104103

    2025

  58. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 2377

    Sollima, A. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2377

    2019

  59. [59]

    & Baumgardt, H

    Sollima, A. & Baumgardt, H. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3668

    2017

  60. [60]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3828 van Dokkum, P

    Usher, C., Pastorello, N., Bellstedt, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3828 van Dokkum, P. G. & Conroy, C. 2010, Nature, 468, 940

    2017

  61. [61]

    Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., Houdashelt, M. L., et al. 2002, New A, 7, 395

    2002

  62. [62]

    A., et al

    Zoccali, M., Cassisi, S., Frogel, J. A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 530, 418 Article number, page 10 of 10

    2000