Planetesimal Formation Across the Stellar Mass Spectrum and its Influence on Exoplanet-Inherited Volatile Budgets

Protoplanetary discs emerging from collapsing molecular clouds are capable of forming planetesimals at the water snowline during both the cloud collapse and Class II disc phases. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

It is relevant because exoplanet science has moved beyond the era of simple discovery into a period of comparative characterization. With more than five thousand confirmed planets known, the scientifically productive questions now concern atmospheric composition, internal structure, orbital history and the statistical properties of populations rather than the existence of individual worlds. A new detection or spectral measurement is most valuable when it adds a well-constrained data point to those comparative frameworks, not when it stands alone as an anecdote. Such a scenario could be responsible for creating the carbonaceous/non-carbonaceous (CC/NC) heterogeneity observed in the Solar System, and bears important implications for. We use 1D simulations of a viscously evolving disc coupled with cloud collapse and planetesimal formation to explore how planetesimal formation during disc build-up varies across.

We find a keen sensitivity of planetesimal formation timing, location, and outcomes on stellar mass. Discs around all investigated stellar masses form planetesimals in the Class II phase, but only the disc around low-mass M-dwarfs ($M_{\star}=0.

There is also a clear chemical heterogeneity in planetesimal populations (water-wet and dry) in discs born from clouds of $M_{\rm{cloud}} \geq 0.3M_{\odot}$. Discs around low-mass M-dwarfs form and undergo extremely fast pebble drift (t < 2 Myr), forming planetesimals well within the half-life of Aluminium-26.

This leads to dehydrated planetesimals in all M-dwarf disc formation cases considered. We argue that the variation in disc evolution across stellar mass makes it hard to pinpoint a common t = 0 for all discs, and that exoplanets emerging from dehydrated.

The broader interest lies in making the target less anecdotal and more comparable with the rest of the known planetary population. Population-level questions, such as the frequency of atmospheres around small rocky planets or the prevalence of water-rich worlds in the habitable zone, require well-characterized individual data points before statistical patterns become meaningful. Each new planet with a measured radius, mass and, ideally, atmospheric constraint is a brick in that larger structure, and the accumulation of bricks eventually allows theorists to test formation models against real distributions rather than projections.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to improve independent constraints on the mass, radius, atmospheric composition and orbital dynamics of the target. Transmission spectroscopy with JWST, radial velocity campaigns with high-resolution ground-based spectrographs and phase-curve measurements from space photometry represent the observational toolkit that can move characterization from plausible to robust. That convergence of techniques is the standard the community now expects before a planetary atmosphere result is treated as confirmed. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source