Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Planets Around Solar Twins/Analogs (PASTA) I.: High precision stellar chemical abundance for 17 planet-hosting stars and the condensation temperature trend

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Sun is depleted in refractory elements even when compared with stars that host giant planets, and the deficit does not scale with rocky-planet mass.

desk verdict A useful abundance catalog whose central Tc-trend conclusion is not yet supported; the result flips sign when the unexplained C/O offsets are excluded. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13825 v2 pith:BBPDPQSS submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Qinghui Sun , Sharon Xuesong Wang , Tianjun Gan , Chenyang Ji , Zitao Lin , Yuan-Sen Ting , Johanna Teske , Haining Li
show 25 more authors
Fan Liu Xinyan Hua Jiaxin Tang Jie Yu Jiayue Zhang Mariona Badenas-Agusti Andrew Vanderburg George R. Ricker Roland Vanderspek David W. Latham Sara Seager Jon M. Jenkins Richard P. Schwarz Tristan Guillot Thiam-Guan Tan Dennis M. Conti Kevin I. Collins Gregor Srdoc Chris Stockdale Olga Suarez Roberto Zambelli Don Radford Khalid Barkaoui Phil Evans Allyson Bieryla
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords solartwinsanalogschemicalabundancescondensationtemperaturerefractoryelementsplanetformationGalacticevolutionTESShosts
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

This paper asks whether the Sun's unusual chemistry—being poorer in refractory (high-condensation-temperature) elements than its solar twins—was caused by planet formation. The authors measure abundances of 22 elements in 17 planet-hosting solar-like stars with high precision and compare each star's abundance pattern to the Sun. After applying corrections for Galactic chemical evolution to the five true solar twins, they find that every star known to host a giant planet lies on the refractory-rich side of the Sun, and that there is no relation between the condensation-temperature trend slope and the total mass of detected terrestrial planets. If the measurements hold, the Sun's refractory depletion is not the signature of rocky-planet formation, and the Sun is unusual even among giant-planet hosts.

What carries the argument

The condensation-temperature trend: for each star, the differential abundance relative to the Sun is plotted against the 50% equilibrium condensation temperature of each element, with $T_c = 1300$ K dividing volatile from refractory elements. The slope of this trend is the diagnostic. To isolate planet-formation effects, the abundances are derived line-by-line differentially against a solar spectrum using the same line list, and Galactic chemical evolution corrections from a 79-star solar-twin sample are applied to the five solar twins, removing the age- and metallicity-dependent part of the trend.

What would settle it

Re-measure carbon and oxygen in the same five solar twins with an independent line list, different oscillator strengths, or a non-LTE treatment; if the offsets disappear, the central negative slope disappears. Alternatively, check whether the offsets persist when the same spectra are reduced against a different solar reference spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Sun is relatively depleted in refractory elements compared to planet-hosting solar twins and analogs, and specifically that this depletion is not tied to the mass of terrestrial planets. The differential abundance analysis yields a negative slope in $([X/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{solar}} - [X/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{star}})$ versus condensation temperature for all stars with known gas giants, in both the raw and the Galactic-chemical-evolution-corrected abundances. For the five solar twins, the mean GCE-corrected trend has a negative slope significant at the $2\sigma$ level, driven primarily by carbon and oxygen. The paper reports no correlation between the trend slope and the total terrestrial planet mass and concludes that terrestrial planet formation is unlikely to explain the Sun's refractory-element depletion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured carbon and oxygen abundances are accurate to better than about 0.05 dex, so the offsets of roughly -0.19 dex (C) and -0.10 dex (O) relative to the comparison sample are real stellar differences; the paper reports these offsets without a resolved explanation, and the negative temperature trend disappears when C and O are removed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Sun appears chemically unusual compared with other stars known to host gas giants, not only compared with planet-free solar twins.
  • Refractory-element depletion in the Sun is not a simple function of how much rocky material sits in detected planets.
  • The result is sensitive to C and O: excluding them removes the negative slope, so the conclusion depends on the accuracy of those two abundances.
  • Giant-planet formation is not ruled out as a cause; rather, the comparison set of giant-planet hosts now provides a new baseline for testing dust-trapping models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the carbon and oxygen offsets are later shown to be zero-point artifacts, the paper's headline conclusion would invert; an independent line list or non-LTE treatment of C and O would settle this.
  • The same data imply a testable prediction: systems with more massive giant-planet cores, or with earlier gap-opening, should show more positive $[X/\mathrm{Fe}]$ versus $T_c$ slopes than systems with late or low-mass giants.
  • Larger follow-up samples comparing solar twins with and without giant planets could distinguish dust-trapping from stochastic accretion by checking whether the slope distribution of giant-planet hosts is narrower than that of non-host twins.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents high-resolution MIKE spectroscopy for 17 planet-hosting solar-like stars, derives stellar atmospheric parameters and abundances for 22 elements via line-by-line differential analysis relative to the Sun, and analyzes the differential abundance versus condensation temperature (Tc) trend. For five solar twins the authors apply Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) corrections from Bedell et al. (2018). They report that all giant-planet-host stars in the sample show negative Tc-trend slopes, interpret this as the Sun being relatively depleted in refractory elements compared to similar giant-planet hosts, and find no correlation between Tc-trend slope and total terrestrial planet mass. The paper also makes available machine-readable line lists, equivalent widths, per-line abundances, and a full target list.

Significance. The survey addresses a genuine open question: whether the Sun's refractory-element depletion is related to planet formation. The strengths are the careful differential analysis, the explicit error propagation (measurement plus atmospheric-parameter systematics), the use of GCE corrections, and the public release of detailed line-by-line data, which will be useful for future comparative studies. The sample of planet-hosting solar twins/analogs, though small, is a valuable addition to the literature. However, the central astrophysical claim—that all giant-planet hosts show negative Tc slopes and that the Sun is unusual among them—is not yet robust, because the paper itself shows the slope is primarily driven by C and O and that excluding those elements flips the average solar-twin slope to a value consistent with zero. The unresolved systematic offsets in C and O relative to Bedell et al. (2018) therefore become load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2 and §8 (Summary)] The headline result—a negative GCE-corrected Tc slope for the five solar twins, significant at the 2σ level—is not robust to the removal of C and O. Section 6.2 reports that excluding C and O changes the average slope from -6.73e-05 to +3.05e-05 ± 1e-04, i.e., consistent with zero and opposite in sign. The Summary itself concedes that the trends in Figures 4–6 are 'primarily driven by the abundances of carbon (C) and oxygen (O).' Since the abstract and Section 6 claim that 'all stars hosting known gas giant planets exhibit negative Tc trend slopes,' the paper must show whether the individual slopes in Figure 9 and Table 6 remain negative when C and O are excluded, and must report the significance of the slopes without these two elements. As written, the central claim is only as secure as the C and O abundance measurements.
  2. [§5.1] The unexplained systematic offsets of C and O relative to Bedell et al. (2018)—0.186 dex for C and 0.096 dex for O for the solar twins—are larger than the quoted C/O uncertainties (0.03–0.07 dex) and are in the direction that creates the negative Tc slopes. The manuscript states that 'the reason for the systematically low abundances remains unclear.' This is a load-bearing systematic-error risk: if these offsets are analysis artifacts (e.g., continuum placement, line selection, or NLTE corrections), the central conclusion fails. The authors should resolve this by testing the sensitivity of the Tc slopes to plausible C and O zero-point shifts, by comparing C and O in a common set of stars analyzed with both pipelines, or by identifying a physical cause for the offset.
  3. [§5.2 and §6.1] The GCE corrections from Bedell et al. (2018) are applied to abundances that differ systematically from Bedell et al. in C and O. While the slopes of [C/Fe] and [O/Fe] versus age agree with Bedell et al. within 1σ, the zero-point offsets mean the GCE-corrected [X/Fe] values retain a C/O-dependent bias. The paper should quantify how the final Tc slopes and the Figure 9 distributions change if the C and O abundances are shifted to match Bedell et al. (2018) before applying the GCE correction, or if the GCE correction is applied to C and O using the age-slopes measured in this work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.1] Typo: 'equiqva lent' should be 'equivalent'.
  2. [§1 and §2] The Bedell et al. (2018) definition of solar twins is quoted as 'surface gravity also differs by less than 100 K'; the units should be 0.1 dex, as correctly used in Section 2.
  3. [§7.2] The definition of giant versus terrestrial planets uses 'R < 7 R_L' but R_L is not defined in the text; the caption of Table 1 uses the same symbol for Earth radii, so the notation should be clarified (e.g., R⊕).
  4. [§6.2 and Figure 9] The statement that 'The Sun, with a Tc trend slope of 0' is tautological because the differential abundances are defined relative to the Sun; the text should clarify that the Sun is used as a zero-point reference rather than an independent measurement.
  5. [§3.2] The sentence 'The average [X/H] and the combined uncertainties are shown in Table 4' repeats the earlier description of the averaging scheme; the paragraph could be shortened for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Tc slopes are measured quantities, and the C/O caveat is an explicitly acknowledged robustness limitation, not a definitional or fitted-input reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is observational: EW measurements, differential abundances relative to the Sun, [X/Fe] ratios, and linear fits of [X/Fe]_solar - [X/Fe]_star versus condensation temperature. The claimed negative Tc slopes for giant-planet hosts and the absence of a correlation with terrestrial planet mass are direct summaries of the fitted slopes in Table 6 and Figures 9-10; no slope is fixed a priori and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. The GCE correction for the five solar twins is imported from Bedell et al. (2018), an independent external dataset, and is applied only to remove age trends before fitting the Tc slope. Self-citations (Sun et al. 2020a, 2022, 2023, 2024; Gan et al. 2021) concern data-reduction and fitting procedures or provide supporting context, not the load-bearing astrophysical conclusion. The paper explicitly flags its own main limitation: Section 6.2 and the Summary state that the trend is "primarily driven by the abundances of carbon (C) and oxygen (O)" and that excluding C and O changes the five-twin slope to +3.052e-05 +/- 1e-04; Section 5.1 reports an unexplained -0.186 dex (C) and -0.096 dex (O) offset relative to Bedell et al. (2018). These are accuracy and robustness concerns, not circularity: the measurement does not reduce by definition to its inputs, and no self-citation is used to forbid alternatives or to define the target quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on standard stellar atmosphere models, external GCE corrections, published condensation temperatures, and the assumption that the detected transiting planets are representative.

free parameters (2)
  • GCE correction coefficients from Bedell et al. (2018) = adopted, slope and intercept per element from their Table 3
    Applied to five solar twins in Section 5.2. They are not fitted to the present data, but their uncertainty is propagated and affects the GCE-corrected Tc slopes.
  • Refractory/volatile threshold Tc = 1300 K = 1300 K
    Chosen following Taylor (2001), Lodders (2021), and Maltagliati (2020) in Section 6.1. It is used to compute average volatile and refractory abundances, though the linear slope fits do not depend on this cut.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 1D-LTE abundance analysis with MARCS model atmospheres
    Used to convert measured equivalent widths to abundances in Section 3. Differential analysis removes some systematics, but NLTE effects remain for some elements.
  • domain assumption NLTE corrections for O from Ramirez et al. (2007)
    Applied to the O 7777 A triplet in Section 3.2. The accuracy of these corrections directly affects the O abundance, which is one of the two drivers of the central trend.
  • domain assumption Yonsei-Yale isochrones and the q2 package for stellar ages, masses, and radii
    Used in Section 4. The model-dependent ages are used for GCE corrections, so age systematics propagate into the GCE-corrected abundances.
  • domain assumption GCE corrections from Bedell et al. (2018) are applicable to these five solar twins
    Adopted in Section 5.2 despite the paper noting systematic C and O offsets relative to that sample. If the offsets indicate a fundamental mismatch, the corrections may not apply cleanly.
  • domain assumption Condensation temperatures from Lodders (2003)
    Used to define the Tc axis in Section 6.1. Uncertainties in Tc values can affect the fitted slopes, though the qualitative trend is usually robust.
  • domain assumption Transiting planet detections from TESS are complete enough that total terrestrial planet mass is not severely underestimated
    The null correlation in Section 7.2 depends on detected masses. The paper notes that undetected outer cold Jupiters could change the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planets Around Solar Twins/Analogs (PASTA) I.: High precision stellar chemical abundance for 17 planet-hosting stars and the condensation temperature trend." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBPDPQSS

@misc{pith2026241113825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planets Around Solar Twins/Analogs (PASTA) I.: High precision stellar chemical abundance for 17 planet-hosting stars and the condensation temperature trend},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBPDPQSS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13825}
}
abstract

The Sun is depleted in refractory elements compared to nearby solar twins, which may be linked to the formation of giant or terrestrial planets. Here we present high-resolution, high signal-to-noise spectroscopic data for 17 solar-like stars hosting planets, obtained with Magellan II/MIKE, to investigate whether this depletion is related to planet formation. We derive stellar parameters, including stellar atmosphere, age, radius, mass, and chemical abundances for 22 elements from carbon to europium through line-by-line differential analysis. Our uncertainties range from 0.01 dex for Fe and Si to 0.08 dex for Sr, Y, and Eu. By comparing the solar abundances to those of the 17 stars, we investigate the differential abundance ([X/Fe]$_{\rm solar}$ - [X/Fe]$_{\rm star}$) versus condensation temperature ($T_c$) trend. In particular, we apply Galactic chemical evolution corrections to five solar twins within the full sample. Our results conform to previous studies that the Sun is relatively depleted in refractory compared to volatile elements. For both five solar twins and the rest of solar-like stars, we find that all stars hosting known gas giant planets exhibit negative $T_c$ trend slopes, suggesting that the Sun is relatively depleted in refractory elements compared to similar giant-planet-host stars. Additionally, we find no correlation between $T_c$ trend slopes and the total mass of detected terrestrial planets in each system, suggesting that terrestrial planet formation may not be the cause of refractory element depletion in the Sun.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The observed and synthetic spectra for the Ba II 5853.67 ˚A line for star TOI-1055. We retrieve the linelist around 10 ˚A of the line using the linemake code (Placco et al. 2021), and use the synth driver in MOOG to create synthetic spectra. The background dashed black line shows the observed spectra for TOI-1055 in this region. The best￾fitted Ba abundance is shown as an orange line, while the no Ba case (-10.0 dex… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The [X/Fe] versus [Fe/H] trend for the 22 elements, color-coded based on their isochrone age. We compare our data to the background light purple points, which represent abundances from the GALAH DR2 survey (Buder et al. 2018). Since the GALAH DR2 survey does not report abundances for S and Sr, these elements are not shown. The background purple points are restricted to stars with ∆Teff < 200 K, ∆ log g < 0.2 dex, an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The [X/Fe] versus age trend for 22 elements, color-coded by their [Fe/H]. We compare our findings with the sample of 68 solar twins from Bedell et al. (2018). The isochrone ages and abundances of the four neutron capture elements for this sample are detailed in Spina et al. (2018). Since potassium abundance is not available for this sample, we exclude it from the plot. Additionally, the carbon and oxygen abundances … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The trend of differential elemental abundance ([X/Fe]solar - [X/Fe]star) versus Tc, with a linear fit to the blue symbols that include error bars, shown by a blue line. The background blue band displays the 1σ confidence interval. The Sun is located at a value and slop…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trend of the GCE-corrected differential elemental abundance ([X/Fe]solar - [X/Fe]star) versus Tc for five solar twins. The blue symbols show the data points with associated error bars. A linear fit is applied to these data points, shown by the blue line. Error bars are…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The GCE-corrected, differential elemental abundance relative to the Sun ([X/Fe]solar - [X/Fe]star). The five solar twins with -0.1 < [Fe/H] < 0.1 dex, ∆ Teff < 100 K, ∆ log g < 0.1 are TOI-1055, TOI-2426, TOI-744, TOI-755, and TOI-818, are shown as gray symbols in the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Tc trend slopes versus multiple stellar parameters, color-scaled by [Fe/H]. The parameters include [Y/Mg], [Al/Mg], isochrone age, Teff , log g, and [Fe/H]. The blue dashed line represents the best linear fit for all stars, while the orange dashed line indicates th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The [X/Fe]solar - [X/Fe]star (equivalent to −[X/Fe]) vs. Tc trend slopes for GCE-corrected abundances of five solar twins (TOI-1055, TOI-2426, TOI-744, TOI-755, TOI-818) are plotted against various stellar parameters, color-scaled by [Fe/H]. The parameters include [Y/M…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The [X/Fe]star - [X/Fe]solar (equivalent to [X/Fe]) vs. Tc trend slope distribution for stars with and without giant planets. The left panel displays the [X/Fe] vs. Tc trend slope distribution for all 17 Sun-like stars, while the right panel shows the GCE-corrected [X/…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Tc trend slope versus total terrestrial planet mass. The left panel shows all solar-like stars hosting terrestrial planets, while the right panel focuses on the three solar twins hosting terrestrial planets. We compute planet mass by using the planet radius in [P…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, A&A, 564, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423435

    Mena, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423435

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423435 2014

  2. [2]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134001

    Asplund, M. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134001

    work page arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    N., Serenelli, A

    Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli, A. M., & Basu, S. 2005, ApJL, 621, L85, doi: 10.1086/428929

    doi:10.1086/428929 2005

  5. [5]

    L., Mel´ endez, J., et al

    Bedell, M., Bean, J. L., Mel´ endez, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad908

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad908 2018

  6. [6]

    A., Gunnels, S

    Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1694–1704, doi: 10.1117/12.461502

    doi:10.1117/12.461502 2003

  7. [7]

    A., & Owen, J

    Booth, R. A., & Owen, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa578

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa578 2020

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    Buder, S., Asplund, M., Duong, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1281 2018

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Chambers, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 724, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/92 The PASTA Survey 25 de Val-Borro, M., Bakos, G. ´A., Brahm, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 161, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/161

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    R., Johnson, J

    Epstein, C. R., Johnson, J. A., Dong, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 447, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/447 ExoFOP. 2019, Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program -

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Sarro, L

    Kepler, IPAC, doi: 10.26134/EXOFOP1 Gaia Collaboration, Creevey, O. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243800

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    X., et al

    Gan, T., Bedell, M., Wang, S. X., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2224

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Giacalone, S., & Dressing, C. D. 2020, triceratops: Candidate exoplanet rating tool, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2002.004

    2020

  7. [15]

    D., Jensen, E

    Giacalone, S., Dressing, C. D., Jensen, E. L. N., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc6af Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1592, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1592

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Seager, S., Huang, C

    Guerrero, N. M., Seager, S., Huang, C. X., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abefe1

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    N., Helled, R., et al

    Guillot, T., Fletcher, L. N., Helled, R., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 947

    2023

  10. [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

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Kelson, D. D. 2003, PASP, 115, 688, doi: 10.1086/375502

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    2000, ApJ, 531, 159, doi: 10.1086/308445

    Franx, M. 2000, ApJ, 531, 159, doi: 10.1086/308445

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, A&A, 665, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244516

    Knierim, H., Shibata, S., & Helled, R. 2022, A&A, 665, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244516

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, A&A, 655, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141256

    Kunitomo, M., & Guillot, T. 2021, A&A, 655, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141256

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, A&A, 667, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244169

    Kunitomo, M., Guillot, T., & Buldgen, G. 2022, A&A, 667, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244169

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, A&A, 618, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833127

    Kunitomo, M., Guillot, T., Ida, S., & Takeuchi, T. 2018, A&A, 618, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833127

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Anderson, D

    Lister, T. A., Anderson, D. R., Gillon, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 752, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/752

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    H., Crossfield, I

    Livingston, J. H., Crossfield, I. J. M., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae778

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492 —

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492 —. 2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 314, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1083-6 Mel´ endez, J., Asplund, M., Gustafsson, B., & Yong, D

    Maltagliati, L. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 314, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1083-6 Mel´ endez, J., Asplund, M., Gustafsson, B., & Yong, D. 2009, ApJL, 704, L66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/L66 Mel´ endez, J., Bergemann, M., Cohen, J. G., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A29, doi: 10.1051/0...

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Twicken, J

    Morris, R. L., Twicken, J. D., Smith, J. C., et al. 2020, Kepler Data Processing Handbook: Photometric

    2020

  23. [31]

    2019, Confirmed Planets Table, IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA1

    Analysis, Kepler Science Document KSCI-19081-003 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2019, Confirmed Planets Table, IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA1

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Jain, B., et al

    Nibauer, J., Baxter, E. J., Jain, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd0f1

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Nissen, P. E. 2015, A&A, 579, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 —. 2016, A&A, 593, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628888

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Brewer, J

    Oh, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Brewer, J. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab4d

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Armstrong, D

    Osborn, H. P., Armstrong, D. J., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4842, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab182

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 5693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3504

    Parviainen, H., Luque, R., & Palle, E. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3504

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 92, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abf651 Ram ´ ırez, I., Allende Prieto, C., & Lambert, D. L. 2007, A&A, 465, 271, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066619 Ram ´ ırez, I., Mel´ end...

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Fish, J. R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/76 Ram ´ ırez, I., Mel´ endez, J., Bean, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424244

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Edwards, G

    Rampalli, R., Ness, M. K., Edwards, G. H., Newton, E. R., & Bedell, M. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16954 —. 2024b, ApJ, 965, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad303e

    doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2017, A&A, 604, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731492

    Slumstrup, D., Grundahl, F., Brogaard, K., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731492

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Collier Cameron, A., et al

    Smalley, B., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015992

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    I., et al

    Spina, L., Mel´ endez, J., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628557

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2015, A&A, 582, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526896

    Spina, L., Palla, F., Randich, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526896

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    I., et al

    Spina, L., Mel´ endez, J., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2580, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2938 26 Sun et al

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 STScI. 2018, TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    List, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/FWDT-2X66

    doi

  40. [48]

    J., & Twarog, B

    Anthony-Twarog, B. J., & Twarog, B. A. 2023, ApJ, 952, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc5e3

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    P., Steinhauer, A., Twarog, B

    Sun, Q., Deliyannis, C. P., Steinhauer, A., Twarog, B. A., & Anthony-Twarog, B. J. 2020a, AJ, 159, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab83ef

    doi

  42. [50]

    P., Twarog, B

    Sun, Q., Deliyannis, C. P., Twarog, B. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1251

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    J., & Steinhauer, A

    Anthony-Twarog, B. J., & Steinhauer, A. 2020b, AJ, 159, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8814

    doi

  44. [52]

    X., Welbanks, L., Teske, J., & Buchner, J

    Sun, Q., Wang, S. X., Welbanks, L., Teske, J., & Buchner, J. 2024, AJ, 167, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad298d

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Taylor, S. R. 2001, Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective

    2001

  46. [54]

    2014, A&A, 562, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322208

    Thiabaud, A., Marboeuf, U., Alibert, Y., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322208

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    R., & Lunine, J

    Truong, N., Glein, C. R., & Lunine, J. I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02103

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    D., Clarke, B

    Twicken, J. D., Clarke, B. D., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2010, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7740, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy, 774023, doi: 10.1117/12.856790

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    2019, A&A, 622, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731173

    Udry, S., Dumusque, X., Lovis, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731173

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2001, ApJS, 136, 417, doi: 10.1086/321795

    Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., et al. 2001, ApJS, 136, 417, doi: 10.1086/321795

    2001 doi

  51. [59]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6d5

    Zhu, W., Petrovich, C., Wu, Y., Dong, S., & Xie, J. 2018, ApJ, 860, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6d5

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.