Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A closer look at the WISPIT 2 host star. Evidence for a spectroscopic binary

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The WISPIT 2 host star is a 4.8-day spectroscopic binary, making its imaged protoplanets the first ever seen in a circumbinary disc.

desk verdict The binarity claim is solid and the reclassification is the real news; the component masses are conditional on assumptions that should be flagged more prominently. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22405 v1 pith:KJYGDYYD submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Cade J. Bürgy , Myriam Benisty , Hala Alqubelat , Carlo F. Manara , Stefano Facchini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords spectroscopicbinarycircumbinarydiscdirectlyimagedprotoplanetsTTauriaccretionradialvelocityorbitWISPIT2planetformation
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

WISPIT 2 is one of only two known systems where giant protoplanets have been directly imaged inside their birth disc. This paper reports optical and near-infrared spectroscopy showing that the host star is a spectroscopic binary with a period of 4.8 ± 0.1 days, a K3 primary of about 0.97 solar masses, and a low-mass secondary of about 0.33 solar masses. The authors argue that, if the binary inclination matches the disc inclination, the pair orbits at 0.072 au and the disc is circumbinary. The system also shows very weak H-alpha emission, below chromospheric levels, implying little or no ongoing accretion onto the star. The discovery would make WISPIT 2 the first circumbinary system with directly imaged protoplanets, a unique benchmark for how planets form around binary stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the spectroscopic binary mass function, f(M) = M2^3 sin^3 i / (M1+M2)^2 = P K1^3 / (2πG), which converts the measured period and semi-amplitude into a projected mass for the unseen secondary. To turn that projection into individual masses, the paper combines f(M) with two external inputs: the outer disc inclination (45.66 degrees, adopted as the binary inclination) and the total dynamical mass from a Keplerian fit to CO observations. A Keplerian fit to the seven radial velocities provides the period, systemic velocity, and K1; the assumption of a circular orbit and coplanarity carries the rest of the derivation.

What would settle it

Take additional high-resolution spectra over at least three 4.8-day cycles and check whether the radial velocities phase-fold to a single period; if the 4.62-day solution fits better, or if the velocities do not phase-fold at 4.82 days, the adopted binary orbit fails. Separately, detecting the secondary's absorption lines or an astrometric wobble would directly measure the mass ratio and test whether the secondary really is about 0.33 solar masses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the heart of the paper is the claim that the radial-velocity variations of WISPIT 2, measured across seven epochs spanning 87 days, are best explained by a single-lined spectroscopic binary on a circular orbit with period P = 4.8 ± 0.1 d and primary semi-amplitude K1 = 25.17 ± 0.05 km/s. Combining the SB1 mass function with the assumption that the binary is coplanar with the disc (inclination 45.66 degrees) and with a total dynamical mass of 1.303 solar masses from a Keplerian fit to CO line observations yields a primary of about 0.97 solar masses (spectral type K3, effective temperature about 4700 K) and a secondary of about 0.33 solar masses, mass ratio about 0.34, separation 0.072 au.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the individual masses and separation rests on the assumption that the binary orbital plane coincides with the disc plane (inclination 45.66 degrees) and on a total dynamical mass of 1.303 solar masses taken from an unpublished Keplerian fit; if either is wrong, the derived masses and the K3-primary interpretation change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • WISPIT 2 becomes the first known system with directly imaged protoplanets orbiting in a circumbinary disc, providing a direct laboratory for planet formation around binary stars.
  • The 4.8-day binary, at 0.072 au, should clear a central cavity roughly 2-3 times its separation, helping explain the gas- and dust-depleted inner region and the very low accretion rate.
  • The measured accretion rate (about 2e-11 solar masses per year, consistent with chromospheric emission) implies little or no gas is reaching the star, consistent with the giant planets starving the inner disc.
  • The system joins a small class of wide-orbit planets around compact binaries, but is the only one caught during formation, allowing tests of migration and formation models.
  • If coplanarity holds, the binary-disc alignment supports the statistical trend that short-period binaries align with their outer discs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported masses and separation are conditional on the binary being coplanar with the disc; if future observations find a misalignment, the secondary could be substantially more massive, changing the interpretation of the system.
  • A direct test of the solution is to look for the secondary's spectral lines or measure the binary's astrometric wobble; detecting a double-lined binary would independently confirm the mass ratio of about 0.34.
  • Because the radial-velocity fit is bimodal (4.82 vs 4.62 days) and the photometric period is 4.736 ± 0.002 days, additional radial-velocity epochs over several orbits can settle the true period and test the adopted solution.
  • If the binary is confirmed, the presence of two giant planets at 15 and 57 au around a 4.8-day binary raises the question of how such wide-orbit planets formed; testing this may require comparing migration versus in-situ formation or gravitational instability in a truncated disc.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents VLT/X-Shooter and FEROS spectroscopy of the T Tauri star WISPIT 2. It detects large radial-velocity variations over seven epochs, fits a circular SB1 orbit with P = 4.8 ± 0.1 d, K1 = 25.17 ± 0.05 km/s, and uses the SB1 mass function together with an assumed disc-binary coplanarity and an ALMA total dynamical mass to infer M1 = 0.97 Msun, M2 = 0.33 Msun, and a separation of 0.072 au. It also measures weak Hα and Ca infrared triplet emission and concludes that accretion is at or below the chromospheric level. The paper then claims WISPIT 2 is the first circumbinary system with directly imaged protoplanets.

Significance. The detection of a short-period spectroscopic binary around WISPIT 2 is significant and robust: the RV curve is well sampled by seven epochs, with a 42 km/s shift between the two X-Shooter epochs and day-to-day changes of ~25 km/s in the FEROS run. If confirmed, the system would be the first circumbinary disc with directly imaged protoplanets, making it an important benchmark. The paper is transparent in presenting RV tables, CCFs, line diagnostics, and MCMC corner plots. However, the numerical stellar masses and the separation quoted in the abstract are conditional on two external or assumed inputs: the disc-binary inclination and an unpublished ALMA total mass. The robustness of the binarity claim itself is not in question; the quantitative characterization of the components is.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 4.1, Eq. (2)] The individual masses M1 = 0.97 Msun and M2 = 0.33 Msun, and the separation a = 0.072 au, are not directly measured. They are obtained by combining the SB1 mass function with (i) the adopted binary inclination i = 45.66°, assumed equal to the disc inclination, and (ii) the total dynamical mass M_tot = 1.303 Msun from an unpublished ALMA Keplerian fit (Benisty et al., in prep.). As the text itself notes, the mass function alone gives only a lower limit on M2. If the binary is misaligned by 10°, M1 changes by ~0.15 Msun; at i = 30° the implied masses would be M1 ≈ 0.7 Msun and M2 ≈ 0.6 Msun, inconsistent with the K3/4700 K primary interpretation. The mass assumptions are load-bearing for the abstract's numbers and for the comparison with the spectral fit. Please present the masses as explicitly conditional, or provide independent constraints; making the unpublished ALMA fit parameters avai
  2. [Sect. 3, Fig. C.3, Table 1] The MCMC posterior is bimodal, with solutions at P ≈ 4.82 d and P ≈ 4.62 d. The paper adopts the 4.82 d solution, but Table 1 quotes a single period uncertainty of ±0.1 d, and the two competing solutions are not compared quantitatively. Since the orbital period enters the mass function and hence the derived masses, this ambiguity should be reported explicitly. The TESS period of 4.736 ± 0.002 d (Fig. 3) is consistent with the 4.82 d solution within the adopted 1σ, but the reader cannot tell from the present text whether the 4.62 d solution is truly excluded or merely disfavoured. Please report the relative evidence or ΔlnL between the two modes and, if the 4.62 d solution remains viable, propagate it into the mass and separation estimates.
  3. [Appendix A.1] The data-reduction description states that the 1D spectral extraction window 'was adapted to exclude a second star located within the slit for one of the nodding positions.' This is a potentially important detail. If the second star is an unrelated field star, that should be stated; if it is related to the binary companion or a background source, the effect on the measured RVs and on the single-lined template fit should be assessed. Because the central claim of the paper is that WISPIT 2 is a spectroscopic binary, leaving the nature of this second star unexplained leaves a gap in the evidence chain.
  4. [Sect. 2, Sect. 4.1] The paper states that the derived M1 = 0.97 Msun is 'in agreement with the spectral fit,' but the FRAPPE fit in Sect. 2 reports M* = 1.1 Msun for Teff = 4600 K, while the PHOENIX fit gives a best Teff = 4700 K. These are two different stellar-characterization methods, and the uncertainties are not given. The agreement is not quantified. Please provide the uncertainty ranges for the spectral-fit stellar parameters and state explicitly how they compare with the dynamical M1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 4.1] Typo: 'we report the the orbital parameters' should read 'we report the orbital parameters.'
  2. [Table 1] The uncertainty quoted for T0, ±2.7 days, is large relative to the orbital period and seems to add little information. Consider reporting T0 with a phase constraint or omitting it from the headline table.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract correctly notes 'assuming co-planarity with the disc and a circular orbit' for the separation, but the Conclusions list the masses without this caveat. Please keep the conditional nature of the mass estimates consistent throughout.
  4. [Sect. 2, Table B.2] The accretions rates are quoted as a range in the text but as a single value (2 × 10^-11 Msun/yr) in the abstract. Please give the range and note that the Hα flux may be affected by the companion's chromosphere.
  5. [Fig. 3] The TESS period is 4.736 ± 0.002 d, which is more precise than the adopted 4.8 ± 0.1 d. It would be useful to show the TESS period overlaid on the phase-folded RV curve, and to discuss the small offset between 4.736 and 4.82 d explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: RV fit and mass function are standard parameter fits; component masses are algebraic outputs of independent external inputs (ALMA M_tot, dust-continuum inclination), not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. Load-bearing masses rely on assumed coplanarity and an unpublished in-group ALMA result — provenance/robustness caveats, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) RV data from X-Shooter and FEROS (7 epochs) are fitted with a single-lined Keplerian model (Eq. 1) to obtain P, gamma, K1, T0; this is a standard parameter fit, and reporting fitted P and K1 as results is not circular. The bimodal period posterior is disclosed, and the TESS photometric period (4.736 +/- 0.002 d) is used post-hoc as an independent cross-check for model selection, not as a prior in the RV fit. (2) The mass function f(M) = P K1^3/(2 pi G) (Eq. 2) is a direct algebraic output of the fit. (3) The individual masses M1 = 0.97, M2 = 0.33 and q = 0.34 are obtained by combining f(M) with two external inputs: M_tot = 1.303 Msun from an ALMA 12CO Keplerian fit (Benisty et al. in prep.) and the assumed binary inclination i = i_disc = 45.66 deg from dust-continuum geometry (Facchini et al. 2026), with coplanarity justified by Czekala et al. (2019). No predicted quantity is an input: the masses are algebraic outputs of measurements made with different instruments (optical spectroscopy vs mm interferometry vs dust geometry), so they do not reduce to the RV fit by construction. (4) The spectral classification (K3, Teff ~ 4700 K) comes from an independent PHOENIX/FRAPPE template fit and is only compared post-hoc with the dynamical M1. Caveats that are robustness/provenance concerns, not circularity: the masses would change under a different assumed i_bin or a revised unpublished ALMA M_tot; the quoted a = 0.072 au / 15.54 R_sun does not numerically follow from P = 4.8 d and M_tot = 1.303 (Kepler's law gives ~ 0.061 au), indicating an internal arithmetic inconsistency; and the adopted P = 4.8 +/- 0.1 d agrees with the TESS period only loosely. Self-citations are present (Alqubelat et al. 2026 for the RV model; Benisty et al. in prep. and Facchini et al. 2026 for the mass inputs), but the latter two report independent measurements, which per the review rules count as real evidence and do not constitute circularity. The central claim — that WISPIT 2 is a short-period SB1 — is directly supported by the RV data alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main fitted quantities are orbital and stellar parameters that are standard for this kind of analysis; the non-standard dependencies are the assumed binary-disc coplanarity and the unpublished ALMA total mass.

free parameters (9)
  • Orbital period P = 4.8 ± 0.1 d (alternative solution 4.62 d)
    MCMC fit to 7 RV epochs; bimodal posterior; central to the binary claim.
  • RV semi-amplitude K1 = 25.17 ± 0.05 km/s
    MCMC fit; used in the mass function.
  • Systemic velocity gamma = 6.49 ± 0.065 km/s
    MCMC fit.
  • Time of periastron T0 = 61101.7967 ± 2.7 MJD
    MCMC fit.
  • Stellar effective temperature Teff = 4700 K (PHOENIX best fit; FRAPPE gives 4600 K)
    Fitted to X-Shooter photospheric lines; drives spectral type K3.
  • Surface gravity log g = 4.0
    Fitted to X-Shooter photospheric lines.
  • Rotational broadening vsini = less than or equal to 15 km/s
    Fitted; unresolved at X-Shooter resolution.
  • Visual extinction Av = 0.15 mag
    FRAPPE fit.
  • Accretion rate Mdot = 1.4e-11 to 3.0e-11 Msun/yr
    Converted from Ha flux via Fiorellino et al. 2025; below chromospheric level, so effectively an upper limit.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The binary orbit is circular (e = 0)
    Eq. 1 is a circular sinusoid; the paper notes the data are consistent with a circular orbit but cannot constrain e (Sect. 4.1).
  • domain assumption Binary inclination equals outer disc inclination, i = 45.66 deg
    Adopted from Facchini et al. 2026 dust-continuum fit; justified by the Czekala et al. 2019 statistical alignment of short-period binaries (Sect. 4.1).
  • domain assumption Total dynamical mass M_tot = 1.303 Msun from 12CO ALMA Keplerian fit
    Unpublished (Benisty et al. in prep.); used with the mass function to derive individual masses; cannot be checked.
  • domain assumption Empirical Ha-to-accretion-luminosity relation (Fiorellino et al. 2025)
    Used to convert Ha flux to L_acc and Mdot (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption Chromospheric noise floor (Manara et al. 2017) sets the accretion detection limit
    Used to conclude little/no ongoing accretion (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption TESS photometric periodicity at 4.736 d is related to the binary orbit
    Used to support the chosen RV period; the offset from 4.82 d is not explained (Sect. 4.1, Fig. 3).
  • domain assumption PHOENIX/FRAPPE template grids are valid for a K3 5-Myr pre-main-sequence star
    Underlies spectral classification and RV shifts (Sect. 2).
invented entities (1)
  • WISPIT 2 secondary star (M2 ~ 0.33 Msun) independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the 42 km/s RV variations and the 4.8-day periodicity; the unseen companion in the SB1 orbit
    The RV curve and TESS photometric period provide a falsifiable handle (predicted RV ephemeris and future eclipses/spectral lines); the companion is not directly detected in the spectra but its gravitational influence is.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A closer look at the WISPIT 2 host star. Evidence for a spectroscopic binary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJYGDYYD

@misc{pith2026260722405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A closer look at the WISPIT 2 host star. Evidence for a spectroscopic binary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJYGDYYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22405}
}
abstract

While hundreds of protoplanetary discs have been studied in great detail, the detection of protoplanets still embedded in their native discs remains rare. WISPIT 2 is only the second laboratory allowing for direct study of planet formation while in progress. The recently discovered system hosts two giant protoplanets in a multi-ringed disc. Here, we aim at characterising the WISPIT 2 host star spectroscopically to determine its stellar properties, accretion rate, and inner disc diagnostics, providing a more complete picture of the system. We present optical and near-infrared spectroscopic observations obtained with the ESO VLT/X-Shooter and 2.2 m/FEROS instruments. We model the stellar spectrum to determine the spectral type and effective temperature, analyse the emission lines to estimate the accretion rate, and search for evidence of a close stellar companion using radial velocity measurements. Our observations reveal that WISPIT 2 is a spectroscopic binary. The binary has a period of $4.8\pm 0.1$ days, which corresponds to a semi-major axis of $0.072$ au or $15.54 R_\odot$, assuming co-planarity with the disc and a circular orbit. The binary system consists of a $\sim 0.97 M_{\odot}$ primary of spectral type K3 ($T_{\rm eff} \sim 4700K$), and a $\sim 0.33M_\odot$ secondary (mass ratio $\sim$0.34). We detect weak H$\alpha$ emission, implying an accretion rate of $\sim 2 \times 10^{-11}\,M_{\odot}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. However, this value is below the chromospheric level, suggesting little to no ongoing accretion onto the young stars. This discovery makes the WISPIT 2 disc the first circumbinary system with directly imaged protoplanets, establishing this system as a unique benchmark for studying planet formation and disc evolution around binary stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Zoom-in on the Hα and Calcium Infrared Triplet lines. in line flux. A gallery of typical tracers of accretion and winds is shown in Figs. B.3 and B.4 for the two epochs, after removing the photospheric contribution. 3. Radial Velocity Variations and Orbital Fitting Between the two X-Shooter epochs, we measured a radial veloc￾ity (RV) shift of 42.4 km s−1 over 37 days. To investigate the ob￾served RV variation, we ta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Orbital solution for WISPIT 2 fitted to the RV data (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TESS light curve folded at the period of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted disc mass and mass accretion rates in models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. A Quiet Host in an Active Planet-Forming Disk: Optical Spectroscopy of WISPIT 2

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The host star of the double-protoplanet system WISPIT 2 shows no detectable stellar accretion, with a 95% upper limit of 3.6e-11 solar masses per year.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2012, ApJ, 757, L29

    Alexander, R. 2012, ApJ, 757, L29

    2012

  2. [2]

    F., Campbell-White, J., et al

    Alqubelat, H., Manara, C. F., Campbell-White, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A228

    2026

  3. [3]

    & Lubow, S

    Artymowicz, P. & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651

    1994

  4. [4]

    2017, PASP, 129, 034002

    Brahm, R., Jordán, A., & Espinoza, N. 2017, PASP, 129, 034002

    2017

  5. [5]

    F., Benisty, M., et al

    Campbell-White, J., Manara, C. F., Benisty, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 25

    2023

  6. [6]

    Claes, R. A. B., Campbell-White, J., Manara, C. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A122

    2024

  7. [7]

    M., van Capelleveen, R

    Close, L. M., van Capelleveen, R. F., Weible, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, L9

    2025

  8. [8]

    Cuello, N., Alaguero, A., & Poblete, P. P. 2025, Symmetry, 17, 344

    2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Czekala, I., Chiang, E., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 22 Duchêne, G. & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

    2019

  2. [10]

    2026, ApJ, 998, L16

    Facchini, S., Curone, P., Benisty, M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, L16

    2026

  3. [11]

    M., Manara, C

    Fiorellino, E., Alcalá, J. M., Manara, C. F., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A42

    2025

  4. [12]

    M., et al

    Freudling, W., Romaniello, M., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A96

    2013

  5. [13]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 167

    Gaidos, E., Thanathibodee, T., Hoffman, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 167

    2024

  6. [14]

    F., et al

    Galloway-Sprietsma, M., Bae, J., Izquierdo, A. F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, L10

    2025

  7. [15]

    2024, A&A, 685, A119 Hernández, J., Hartmann, L., Megeath, S

    Gratton, R., Bonavita, M., Mesa, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A119 Hernández, J., Hartmann, L., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 662, 1067

    2024

  8. [16]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6

    2013

  9. [17]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    Kaufer, A., Stahl, O., Tubbesing, S., et al. 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    1999

  10. [18]

    2015, A&A, 576, A78

    Kausch, W., Noll, S., Smette, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A78

    2015

  11. [19]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., Müller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44

    2018

  12. [20]

    F., Bourdarot, G., et al

    Lawlor, C., van Capelleveen, R. F., Bourdarot, G., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, L38

    2026

  13. [21]

    E., Manara, C

    Lodato, G., Scardoni, C. E., Manara, C. F., & Testi, L. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4700

    2017

  14. [22]

    F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., 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, 539

    2023

  15. [23]

    F., Frasca, A., Alcalá, J

    Manara, C. F., Frasca, A., Alcalá, J. M., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A86

    2017

  16. [24]

    F., Mordasini, C., Testi, L., et al

    Manara, C. F., Mordasini, C., Testi, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, L2

    2019

  17. [25]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Modigliani, A., Goldoni, P., Royer, F., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7737, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems III, ed. D. R. Silva, A. B. Peck, & B. T. Soifer, 773728

    2010

  18. [26]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1139

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y ., & Benz, W. 2009, A&A, 501, 1139

    2009

  19. [27]

    2012, A&A, 547, A111

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y ., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 547, A111

    2012

  20. [28]

    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 Article number, page 4 C. J. Bürgy et al.: A closer look a...

    2023

  21. [29]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 32

    Pinilla, P., Tazzari, M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 32

    2018

  22. [30]

    P., Guilera, O

    Ronco, M. P., Guilera, O. M., Cuadra, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 113 Ruíz-Rodríguez, D., Kastner, J. H., Dong, R., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 237

    2021

  23. [31]

    2015, A&A, 576, A77

    Smette, A., Sana, H., Noll, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A77

    2015

  24. [32]

    2025, A&A, 702, L10 van Capelleveen, R

    Squicciarini, V ., Mazoyer, J., Wilkinson, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, L10 van Capelleveen, R. F., Kenworthy, M. A., Ginski, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A221

    2025

  25. [33]

    Clear", while in the second epoch

    Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105 Article number, page 5 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main Appendix A: Observational Information A.1. Observations and data reduction The two epochs of X-Shooter spectra were observed within the DDT program 116.2ASZ...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.