Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The bulk metallicity of giant planets around M stars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 paper claims that giant planets orbiting M-dwarf stars contain systematically less heavy material than giant planets around FGK stars, with the two populations' mass–metallicity trends separated mainly by a lower offset for M-dwarf…

desk verdict First population-level claim of lower giant-planet bulk metallicity around M dwarfs, but the offset rests on a small sample and an unquantified interior-model bias that runs in the direction of the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16197 v2 pith:X35CZQGN submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Simon Müller , Ravit Helled This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords giantplanetsMdwarfsbulkmetallicitymass–metallicityrelationthermalevolutionmodelsplanetinteriorsexoplanetformationcharacterization
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 giant planets that orbit cool M-dwarf stars are built from less heavy material than giant planets around Sun-like stars. Using thermal evolution models to convert 20 M-dwarf and 104 FGK-host mass–radius measurements into bulk heavy-element fractions, the authors find that both populations follow inverse mass–metallicity relations with statistically similar slopes, but the M-dwarf relation sits at a lower offset: for masses from 0.3 to 2 Jupiter masses, the normalized metallicity at a given mass is about five times smaller than for FGK stars. They conclude that current data lack the metal-rich giant planets around M dwarfs, and they interpret this deficit as a signature of different formation conditions around low-mass stars. The result matters because it connects planetary composition to the mass of the host star, giving formation and evolution models a new population-level constraint.

What carries the argument

The central object is planetsynth, a grid of thermal-evolution models computed with a stellar-evolution code modified for giant planets; the models assume homogeneous, adiabatic interiors with a hydrogen–helium equation of state. For each planet, Monte Carlo sampling draws mass, radius, and age from observed priors and finds the heavy-element fraction whose modeled cooling radius matches the measured radius, building a posterior distribution for $Z$ and heavy-element mass $M_z$. A monotonicity-preserving interpolation and extrapolation scheme extends the radius evolution past the models' original 10-gigayear limit. The mass–metallicity and mass–heavy-element relations come from Bayesian linear regression in log–log space with a Student-$t$ likelihood and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling. This machinery is what converts an observed mass–radius point into a position on the $Z$–$M$ plane where the two host-star populations can be compared.

What would settle it

Re-derive the M-dwarf metallicity offsets with non-adiabatic, compositionally stratified evolution models on the same planets; if those models raise the inferred $Z/Z_*$ values into agreement with the FGK relation, the claimed population difference is an artifact of the homogeneous, adiabatic assumption. Alternatively, measure atmospheric metallicities for several M-dwarf giants in the 0.3–2 $M_J$ range; atmospheric values systematically above the bulk inferences would signal the same bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a population offset: giant planets around M dwarfs are systematically metal-poor compared with giant planets around FGK stars. In the preferred mass-limited sample ($0.3\le M_p/M_J \le 2$), the inferred normalized-metallicity relations are $Z/Z_* = (8.01\pm1.19) M^{-0.41\pm0.17}$ for FGK hosts and $Z/Z_* = (1.71\pm0.73) M^{-0.74\pm0.60}$ for M dwarfs, with intercepts inconsistent at more than two standard deviations; the heavy-element masses are $M_z = (46.81\pm9.86) M^{0.37\pm0.24}$ and $M_z = (20.17\pm6.83) M^{0.40\pm0.53}$ in Earth masses. The authors also report that for FGK hosts the bulk metallicity and residual heavy-element mass correlate moderately with stellar metallicity, while the small M-dwarf sample shows no significant such correlation. They attribute the lower M-dwarf offset to a lack of metal-rich giant planets, consistent with longer core-accretion timescales, fewer available solids, or formation by disk instability with little post-formation heavy-element accretion. They caution that poorly known M-dwarf ages and interior-model assumptions could shift absolute values, but argue the population difference itself is robust.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that a measured radius maps to a unique heavy-element fraction through standard well-mixed, evenly cooling interior models; if slowly formed M-dwarf giants really have layered compositions and cool unevenly, their interiors would be hotter than modeled and their inferred metallicities could be biased low, possibly erasing the reported population offset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both populations show statistically compatible mass–metallicity slopes in the 0.3–2 $M_J$ range, so the difference between them is a vertical offset rather than a different scaling with mass.
  • If the offset is real, giant-planet formation around M dwarfs must deliver systematically less heavy material, favoring formation paths that either grow cores slowly in low-mass disks or assemble by disk instability with limited post-formation solid accretion.
  • The traditional picture of a fixed critical core mass of about 10 $M_\oplus$ for runaway gas accretion becomes questionable around M dwarfs; formation models should test whether gas accretion can begin with significantly smaller cores.
  • More transit and radial-velocity detections of 0.3–2 $M_J$ planets around M dwarfs directly test the result by shrinking the uncertainty on the M-dwarf intercept.
  • Atmospheric metallicity measurements of M-dwarf giants would connect their atmospheres to their inferred bulk interiors and help break the degeneracy that interior characterization alone cannot resolve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editor's inference: the homogeneous, adiabatic interior assumption is the main uncontrolled variable; if slowly accreting M-dwarf planets really develop composition gradients and non-adiabatic cooling, the inferred bulk metallicities could shift upward enough to partially or fully close the gap.
  • A testable prediction follows from the astrophysical interpretation: systematic searches for giant planets around M dwarfs should find a deficit of high-heavy-element-mass planets at fixed $M_p$, which upcoming transit surveys can check.
  • Transmission-spectrum atmospheric metallicities of the M-dwarf giants provide an independent probe; atmospheres that are richer in heavy elements than the inferred bulk would point to the interior-model bias rather than to a truly metal-poor population.
  • The FGK stellar-metallicity correlation found here, if it persists in larger samples, gives formation models a quantitative target that earlier smaller studies could not resolve.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter by Müller and Helled uses the planetsynth thermal evolution models (built on MESA) to infer bulk metallicities and heavy-element masses for warm giant planets with reliable mass–radius measurements, split into planets around FGK stars (104 successful retrievals) and around M dwarfs (20 successful retrievals). For a mass-limited sample of 0.3–2 Jupiter masses, Bayesian regression yields power-law relations in Eq. (3): Z/Z* = (8.01±1.19) M^(-0.41±0.17) for FGK hosts and Z/Z* = (1.71±0.73) M^(-0.74±0.60) for M dwarfs, with the intercepts stated to be inconsistent by more than 2σ. The paper concludes that the currently available data suggest a lack of metal-rich giant planets around M dwarfs compared to FGK-star counterparts, and it also reports a moderate correlation between stellar metallicity and planetary heavy-element mass for FGK hosts. The appendix tests the influence of age priors on the M-dwarf results and examines various correlations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is an important observational constraint on giant-planet formation across stellar mass, suggesting that the heavy-element content of giant planets around M dwarfs is systematically lower than around FGK stars, possibly due to different formation conditions such as lower disk solid content or a different accretion history. The authors provide a transparent presentation of their sample, the adopted priors, and the posterior distributions of all fit parameters, and they explicitly test the sensitivity to age priors in Appendix D. The use of a published, MESA-validated evolution model and a robust Bayesian regression with Student-t likelihoods are strengths of the analysis. The significance of the result is, however, limited by the small M-dwarf sample and by the dependence of the inferred metallicities on the homogeneous-adiabatic interior assumption, which the authors themselves identify as a potential source of bias for slowly formed M-dwarf planets.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4] The paper argues, in the second paragraph of Section 4, that model uncertainties (equation of state, atmospheric model, interior profiles) apply equally to planets around FGK and M-dwarf stars, so that relative differences between the populations are preserved. This defense is incomplete because the final paragraph of the same section states that slow growth around M dwarfs is expected to lead to very extended composition gradients and non-adiabatic cooling for a large portion of the interior, making real interiors hotter than the homogeneous adiabatic models. For a fixed observed radius, a hotter planet can contain more heavy elements, so the inferred Z and Z/Z* for M-dwarf giants would be biased low, and this bias is specific to the M-dwarf formation regime. Since the claimed offset in Eq. (3) is driven by the M-dwarf intercept (1.71±0.73 versus 8.01±1.19), an unquantified low-Z bias of this type could in principle erase the headline result. Please provide a quantitative estimate of this effect using non-homogeneous or composition-gradient evolution models, or explicitly reframe the conclusion as conditional on the homogeneous-adiabatic assumption.
  2. [Appendix D] Appendix D demonstrates that if the eight M dwarfs without stellar age estimates were all very young (1–3 Gyr), the M-Mz difference between the populations would drop from about 2σ to about 1σ. Because the nominal age prior of 1–10 Gyr for these eight objects is arbitrary, and because Section 3.2 states that the metal-poor result for M dwarfs is "robust," the robustness claim is too strong without quantifying the prior probability of the young-age scenario or extending the age-prior test to the Z/Z* quantity used in the headline relation. Please report the significance of the Z/Z* offset under both extreme age priors and discuss the implications of the ~1σ outcome for the central claim.
  3. [Section 3.1] The choice of the mass-limited sample, 0.3 ≤ Mp(MJ) ≤ 2, is partly motivated by "the masses of the current observed giant planets around M-dwarf stars," as stated in Section 3.1. This makes the mass window of the central comparison selected on the very M-dwarf sample whose metallicity is being characterised, which is a source of potential selection bias. The full-sample fits in Appendix B behave differently (e.g., the negative M-Mz slope for M dwarfs), and the authors themselves prefer the mass-limited sample partly for that reason. Because the headline offset in Eq. (3) depends on this post-hoc mass cut, please justify the 0.3–2 MJ range from independent grounds (e.g., from the FGK population alone or from formation theory) and show how the inferred offsets change under reasonable variations of the upper cut (e.g., 1.5, 2.5, and 3 MJ).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The description of the prior distribution on the fit parameters, "p(β0, β1) ∝ N(µ = 0, σ = 1)", is imprecise; it should be written as independent normal priors on β0 and β1, each with mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that the two populations have "similar slopes" for the M-Z/Z* relations refers only to the mass-limited sample; for the full sample in Appendix B, Eq. (B.1) gives slopes that are formally inconsistent (−0.71 ± 0.04 versus −1.42 ± 0.19). Please make this qualification explicit in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Appendix D] Appendix D would be clearer if the text stated which 8 of the 20 M-dwarf planets have unknown ages and which 12 have stellar-age estimates, so that the reader can evaluate the representativeness of the re-analysis without cross-referencing Table 1.
  4. [Table 1] Several rows in Table 1 have missing entries for age or metallicity; please add a footnote clarifying that missing values indicate either no successful interior retrieval or no published age/metallicity estimate, to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the population offset in the mass-metallicity relations is an outcome of the fit, not an input to the evolution models.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: observed mass, radius, age, and irradiation are fed into planetsynth thermal evolution models (Müller & Helled 2021, built on MESA); the models produce posterior distributions of Z and Mz for each planet; Bayesian regression on those posteriors (Eqs. 1-2) yields the population relations in Eqs. 3-4. No equation defines the inferred metallicity in terms of the fitted relation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The FGK versus M-dwarf offset is a free result of the regression, not an imposed input. The self-citation to planetsynth is not load-bearing circularity because the model is validated externally against MESA and the equation-of-state choice is compared with prior independent results. The paper's own Section 4 limitation—that slow growth around M dwarfs is expected to cause composition gradients and non-adiabatic cooling, which could bias inferred bulk metallicities low—is a model-validity caveat rather than a circular step; it affects the physical interpretation of the result but does not make any derived quantity equal to its input by construction. Similarly, the age-prior sensitivity tests in Appendix D address robustness without introducing circularity. Overall, the analysis is self-contained and does not reduce to a fit or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the thermal evolution modeling framework (planetsynth) and on the choice of age priors and equation of state; the fit intercepts and slopes are fitted to the inferred metallicities, not derived from first principles.

free parameters (5)
  • Intercept beta0 (log Z/Z* at 1 Jupiter mass, FGK, mass-limited) = 0.90 ± 0.06
    Fitted to inferred metallicities via Bayesian linear regression; drives the offset claim.
  • Slope beta1 (FGK, mass-limited) = -0.41 ± 0.17
    Fitted slope of log Z/Z* vs log Mp for FGK-hosted giants.
  • Intercept beta0 (M dwarfs, mass-limited) = 0.23 ± 0.19
    Fitted intercept for M-dwarf sample; central to the claimed offset.
  • Slope beta1 (M dwarfs, mass-limited) = -0.74 ± 0.60
    Fitted slope for M dwarfs; consistent with FGK within one sigma.
  • Age prior for M dwarfs with unknown ages = uniform 1-10 Gyr
    Chosen by the authors for 8 of 20 M dwarfs; Appendix D shows younger (1-3 Gyr) priors reduce the Mz offset significance to about one sigma.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption planetsynth thermal evolution models with homogeneous, adiabatic interiors correctly map (mass, age, irradiation) to radius for warm giant planets.
    Used throughout Section 2 to infer Z from observed radius; if M-dwarf giants have non-adiabatic interiors and composition gradients, inferred metallicities could be biased low (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The Chabrier et al. (2019) hydrogen-helium equation of state is more accurate than SCvH for the relevant pressure-temperature conditions.
    Section 3.2 attributes the lower absolute metallicities relative to Thorngren et al. to this EOS choice; a different EOS would shift absolute values.
  • domain assumption The PCHIP extrapolation of radius evolution beyond 10 Gyr is accurate.
    Section 2 states validation against MESA showed agreement well below observational uncertainties; some planets are older than 10 Gyr.
  • domain assumption The M-dwarf sample is representative of the underlying population and not strongly biased toward detectable, metal-poor planets.
    Section 4 discusses possible observational bias; the paper argues detection is not easier for metal-poor planets but admits small-number chance selection.
  • ad hoc to paper Model uncertainties (EOS, atmospheric model, interior profiles) apply equally to FGK and M-dwarf populations, so relative differences are preserved.
    Section 4 states the largest model effects should apply equally; this is an unverified assumption that underpins the population comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The bulk metallicity of giant planets around M stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X35CZQGN

@misc{pith2026241116197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The bulk metallicity of giant planets around M stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X35CZQGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16197}
}
read the original abstract

The bulk-metallicity determination of giant exoplanets is essential to constrain their formation and evolution pathways and to compare them to the solar system. Previous studies inferred an inverse relation between the mass and bulk metallicity. However, the data almost exclusively contained planets that orbit FGK stars. The recent discoveries of giant exoplanets around M-dwarf stars present an opportunity to probe whether they follow a mass-metallicity trend different from that of their FGK counterparts. Using evolution models we characterised the interiors of giant exoplanets with reliable mass-radius measurements that orbit FGK and M-dwarf stars. We then inferred the mass-metallicity trends for both populations. We found that the bulk metallicity of giant planets around M stars is overall lower compared to those around FGK stars. This yielded mass-metallicity relations for the two populations with similar slopes but significantly different offsets. The lack of metal-rich giant planets around M dwarfs could explain the difference in the inferred offset and be a result of different formation conditions. However, there were only 20 successful bulk-metallicity retrievals for the giant planets around M dwarfs, which resulted in rather large uncertainties. Therefore, it is of great importance to continue detecting these planets with both transit and radial velocities. Additionally, the characterisation of the atmospheres of giant planets around M-stars can further help to constrain their interiors and to investigate the atmosphere-interior connection. This will significantly contribute towards understanding the possible formation pathways of giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16197 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalised metallicity (top) and heavy-element mass (bottom) as a function of planet mass for 0.3 ≤ Mp(MJ ) ≤ 2. The scatter points and error bars show the inferred normalised metallicity or heavy el￾ement mass by the thermal evolution models. Solid lines show the fits constructed by Bayesian regression, and the shaded contours are the one and two σ uncertainties. Planets around FGK stars are depicted in blue, while… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Planetary bulk metallicity vs. stellar metallicity. Bottom: Planetary residual heavy-element mass (the ratio of the calculated and predicted heavy-element mass) vs. stellar metallicity. Planets around FGK and M-dwarf stars are depicted in blue circles and red hexagons. Filled symbols mark planets that were included in the mass-limited sample. We find that for FGK stars, the bulk metallicity and residual heavy-e… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The influence of composition gradients on giant planet radii

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Composition gradients change giant-planet radii only by altering total entropy over time; after a ~Gyr decoupling age the radius depends only on mass and bulk metallicity.

  2. Transiting Jupiters around M-dwarfs have similar masses to FGK warm-Jupiters

    astro-ph.EP 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    After excluding super-Jupiters, transiting Jupiter-sized exoplanets have similar average masses around M-dwarf and FGK stars, with the difference driven by a scarcity of super-Jupiters around low-mass stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., Rosenfeld , K

    Andrews , S. M., Rosenfeld , K. A., Kraus , A. L., & Wilner , D. J. 2013, , 771, 129

    2013

  4. [4]

    \'A ., Hartman , J

    Bakos , G. \'A ., Hartman , J. D., Bhatti , W., et al. 2015, , 149, 149

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    2017, , 604, A83

    Bashi , D., Helled , R., Zucker , S., & Mordasini , C. 2017, , 604, A83

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Boss , A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836

    1997

  7. [7]

    Boss , A. P. 2006, , 643, 501

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Boss , A. P. & Kanodia , S. 2023, , 956, 4

    work page 2023

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    M., Bayliss , D., & Van Eylen , V

    Bryant , E. M., Bayliss , D., & Van Eylen , V. 2023, , 521, 3663

    2023

  2. [10]

    2021, , 656, A72

    Burn , R., Schlecker , M., Mordasini , C., et al. 2021, , 656, A72

    2021

  3. [11]

    2019, , 872, 51

    Chabrier , G., Mazevet , S., & Soubiran , F. 2019, , 872, 51

    2019

  4. [12]

    & Kipping , D

    Chen , J. & Kipping , D. 2017, , 834, 17

    2017

  5. [13]

    & Lissauer , J

    D'Angelo , G. & Lissauer , J. J. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte , 140

    2018

  6. [14]

    I., et al

    Delamer , M., Kanodia , S., Ca \ n as , C. I., et al. 2024, , 962, L22

    2024

  7. [15]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16733

    Edmondson , K., Norris , J., & Kerins , E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16733

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2023, , 269, 31

    Edwards , B., Changeat , Q., Tsiaras , A., et al. 2023, , 269, 31

    2023

  9. [17]

    D., K \"u rster , M., et al

    Endl , M., Cochran , W. D., K \"u rster , M., et al. 2006, , 649, 436

    2006

  10. [18]

    Fischer , D. A. & Valenti , J. 2005, , 622, 1102

    2005

  11. [19]

    X., Wang , S., et al

    Gan , T., Wang , S. X., Wang , S., et al. 2023, , 165, 17

    2023

  12. [20]

    T., & Johnson , J

    Ghezzi , L., Montet , B. T., & Johnson , J. A. 2018, , 860, 109

    2018

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  14. [22]

    D., Bayliss , D., Brahm , R., et al

    Hartman , J. D., Bayliss , D., Brahm , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07187

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    H \'e brard , G., Collier Cameron , A., Brown , D. J. A., et al. 2013, , 549, A134

    2013

  16. [24]

    2023, , 675, L8

    Helled , R. 2023, , 675, L8

    2023

  17. [25]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Helled , R., Bodenheimer , P., Podolak , M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 643--665

    2014

  18. [26]

    & Schubert , G

    Helled , R. & Schubert , G. 2009, , 697, 1256

    2009

  19. [27]

    & Stevenson , D

    Helled , R. & Stevenson , D. 2017, , 840, L4

    2017

  20. [28]

    & Guillot , T

    Howard , S. & Guillot , T. 2023, , 672, L1

    2023

  21. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21382

    Howard , S., Helled , R., & M \"u ller , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21382

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  23. [31]

    2001, , 553, 999

    Ikoma , M., Emori , H., & Nakazawa , K. 2001, , 553, 999

    2001

  24. [32]

    S., Bauer , E

    Jermyn , A. S., Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 15

    2023

  25. [33]

    A., Aller , K

    Johnson , J. A., Aller , K. M., Howard , A. W., & Crepp , J. R. 2010, , 122, 905

    2010

  26. [34]

    2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 141

    Jontof-Hutter , D. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 141

    2019

  27. [35]

    I., Mahadevan , S., et al

    Kanodia , S., Ca \ n as , C. I., Mahadevan , S., et al. 2024, , 167, 161

    2024

  28. [36]

    2023, , 165, 120

    Kanodia , S., Mahadevan , S., Libby-Roberts , J., et al. 2023, , 165, 120

    2023

  29. [37]

    Kennedy , G. M. & Kenyon , S. J. 2008, , 673, 502

    2008

  30. [38]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P \'e rez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Scmidt (Netherlands: IOS Press), 87--90

    2016

  31. [39]

    Laughlin , G., Bodenheimer , P., & Adams , F. C. 2004, , 612, L73

    2004

  32. [40]

    Lopez , E. D. & Fortney , J. J. 2014, , 792, 1

    2014

  33. [41]

    2019, , 624, A94

    Maldonado , J., Villaver , E., Eiroa , C., & Micela , G. 2019, , 624, A94

    2019

  34. [42]

    & Fortney , J

    Miller , N. & Fortney , J. J. 2011, , 736, L29

    2011

  35. [43]

    2014, , 572, A118

    Mordasini , C. 2014, , 572, A118

    2014

  36. [44]

    C., Sousa , S., et al

    Mortier , A., Santos , N. C., Sousa , S., et al. 2013, , 551, A112

    2013

  37. [45]

    C., Sozzetti , A., et al

    Mortier , A., Santos , N. C., Sozzetti , A., et al. 2012, , 543, A45

    2012

  38. [46]

    Movshovitz , N., Bodenheimer , P., Podolak , M., & Lissauer , J. J. 2010, , 209, 616

    2010

  39. [47]

    2024, , 686, A296

    M \"u ller , S., Baron , J., Helled , R., Bouchy , F., & Parc , L. 2024, , 686, A296

    2024

  40. [48]

    2020 a , , 903, 147

    M \"u ller , S., Ben-Yami , M., & Helled , R. 2020 a , , 903, 147

    2020

  41. [49]

    & Helled , R

    M \"u ller , S. & Helled , R. 2021, , 507, 2094

    2021

  42. [50]

    & Helled , R

    M \"u ller , S. & Helled , R. 2023 a , , 669, A24

    2023

  43. [51]

    & Helled , R

    M \"u ller , S. & Helled , R. 2023 b , Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1179000

    2023

  44. [52]

    2020 b , , 638, A121

    M \"u ller , S., Helled , R., & Cumming , A. 2020 b , , 638, A121

    2020

  45. [53]

    2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516

    Oriol, A.-P., Virgile, A., Colin, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516

    2023

  46. [54]

    2024, , 688, A59

    Parc , L., Bouchy , F., Venturini , J., Dorn , C., & Helled , R. 2024, , 688, A59

    2024

  47. [55]

    J., et al

    Pascucci , I., Testi , L., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2016, , 831, 125

    2016

  48. [56]

    2011, , 192, 3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3

    2011

  49. [57]

    2013, , 208, 4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4

    2013

  50. [58]

    2015, , 220, 15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15

    2015

  51. [59]

    B., et al

    Paxton , B., Schwab , J., Bauer , E. B., et al. 2018, , 234, 34

    2018

  52. [60]

    2019, , 243, 10

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10

    2019

  53. [61]

    B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al

    Pollack , J. B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al. 1996, , 124, 62

    1996

  54. [62]

    J., Nettelmann , N., & Redmer , R

    Poser , A. J., Nettelmann , N., & Redmer , R. 2019, Atmosphere, 10, 664

    2019

  55. [63]

    Poser , A. J. & Redmer , R. 2024, , 529, 2242

    2024

  56. [64]

    Rogers , L. A. & Seager , S. 2010, , 716, 1208

    2010

  57. [65]

    Saumon , D., Chabrier , G., & van Horn , H. M. 1995, , 99, 713

    1995

  58. [66]

    2022, , 664, A180

    Schlecker , M., Burn , R., Sabotta , S., et al. 2022, , 664, A180

    2022

  59. [67]

    A., & Militzer , B

    Seager , S., Kuchner , M., Hier-Majumder , C. A., & Militzer , B. 2007, , 669, 1279

    2007

  60. [68]

    S., Fortney , J

    Spiegel , D. S., Fortney , J. J., & Sotin , C. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12622

    2014

  61. [69]

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

    Sun , Q., Wang , S. X., Welbanks , L., Teske , J., & Buchner , J. 2024, , 167, 167

    2024

  62. [70]

    2024, , 971, 104

    Sur , A., Su , Y., Tejada Arevalo , R., Chen , Y.-X., & Burrows , A. 2024, , 971, 104

    2024

  63. [71]

    R., Hasegawa , Y., Thorngren , D

    Swain , M. R., Hasegawa , Y., Thorngren , D. P., & Roudier , G. M. 2024, , 220, 61

    2024

  64. [72]

    K., Thorngren , D., Fortney , J

    Teske , J. K., Thorngren , D., Fortney , J. J., Hinkel , N., & Brewer , J. M. 2019, , 158, 239

    2019

  65. [73]

    P., Fortney , J

    Thorngren , D. P., Fortney , J. J., Murray-Clay , R. A., & Lopez , E. D. 2016, , 831, 64

    2016

  66. [74]

    & Helled , R

    Vazan , A. & Helled , R. 2020, , 633, A50

    2020

  67. [75]

    2015, , 576, A114

    Venturini , J., Alibert , Y., Benz , W., & Ikoma , M. 2015, , 576, A114

    2015

  68. [76]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  69. [77]

    F., et al

    Welbanks , L., Madhusudhan , N., Allard , N. F., et al. 2019, , 887, L20

    2019

  70. [78]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61

    2010

  71. [79]

    G., Henry , T

    Winters , J. G., Henry , T. J., Lurie , J. C., et al. 2015, , 149, 5

    2015

  72. [80]

    2019, , 873, 8

    Zhu , W. 2019, , 873, 8

    2019

Pith tools

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