Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 64 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the lower average mass of M-dwarf Jupiters comes from a scarcity of super-Jupiters; below 2 Jupiter masses, Jupiter-sized planets have the same mass whether they orbit a 0.4 or a 1.6 solar-mass star.

desk verdict A legitimate, clearly-scoped empirical comparison whose headline overstates the evidence; the sub-2 M_J mass independence is a useful tentative result, not an established fact. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03416 v2 pith:IW3WJEH4 submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.EP

Shubham Kanodia This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords giantplanetsM-dwarfsuper-Jupitersexoplanetmassestransitingexoplanetscoreaccretionprotoplanetarydiskmassplanetoccurrence
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 around low-mass stars are fundamentally different from those around Sun-like stars, and answers that for Jupiter-sized transiting planets the answer is no. Using a sample of roughly 550 well-characterized transiting giant planets, it reconstructs the conditional distribution of planet mass given planet radius and stellar mass. The analysis finds that the lower average mass of M-dwarf Jupiters is driven almost entirely by a scarcity of super-Jupiters above about two Jupiter masses. Once planets above 2 Jupiter masses are removed, the mass distributions of Jupiter-radius planets around host stars from 0.4 to 1.6 solar masses are statistically indistinguishable. The paper proposes a minimum disk dust mass threshold for Jovian core accretion as the explanation, which also accounts for the lower occurrence of giant planets around M-dwarfs.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the paper's n-dimensional nonparametric density model, which approximates the joint distribution of planet mass, planet radius, and stellar mass as a sum of beta-density polynomial basis functions convolved with normal kernels to carry measurement uncertainties, with the polynomial complexity selected by 10-fold cross-validation. Conditioning this joint density at one Jupiter radius yields the normalized conditional distribution of planet mass as a function of stellar mass, allowing the paper to compare planet masses across host stars without depending on absolute occurrence rates. The comparison tools are the Earth-mover (Wasserstein) distance and Welch's t-test applied to bootstrapped conditional distributions, supplemented by a Gaussian kernel-density histogram comparison of M-dwarf and FGK subsamples. The interpretive mechanism proposed is a minimum disk dust mass threshold for Jovian formation through core accretion, illustrated with measured disk dust-mass distributions.

What would settle it

Conduct a homogeneous radial-velocity confirmation campaign for transiting Jupiter-radius candidates around stars spanning 0.4 to 1.6 solar masses, with the same follow-up threshold and published non-detections; if after excluding planets above 2 Jupiter masses the median masses of the M-dwarf and FGK subsamples differ by more than the roughly 10 percent seen in the current comparison, or the Earth-mover distance again rejects stellar-mass independence at the 3-sigma level, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is that after accounting for the stellar-mass-dependent prevalence of super-Jupiters by excluding planets above 2 Jupiter masses, the average mass of Jupiter-sized transiting planets is independent of stellar mass between 0.4 and 1.6 solar masses. This is established by fitting a three-dimensional nonparametric density to planet mass, planet radius, and stellar mass, conditioning the density at one Jupiter radius, and comparing the resulting conditional mass distributions with the Earth-mover distance and Welch's t-test. Before the cut, the conditional distributions differ at the 3-sigma level between the lowest-mass and solar-type hosts; after the cut, the null hypothesis of independence cannot be rejected, and a direct M-dwarf versus FGK histogram comparison gives median masses within about 10 percent. The paper interprets this as evidence that stellar mass sets the probability of forming a giant planet but not the typical mass of the Jupiters that do form, and it ties that interpretation to a minimum disk dust mass required for core accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the published sample is an unbiased draw of planet masses at fixed radius and stellar mass, so a planet of a given mass around an M-dwarf is just as likely to receive a published mass measurement as one around an FGK star, and the paper does not provide a quantitative selection function to back this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below about 2 Jupiter masses, a Jupiter-radius transiting planet has the same average mass and bulk density around host stars from 0.4 to 1.6 solar masses.
  • The lower average mass of M-dwarf Jupiters in the full sample is a population effect: super-Jupiters are rarer around lower-mass stars, not that the Jupiters that do form are lighter.
  • A minimum disk dust mass threshold for core accretion would simultaneously explain the declining occurrence of giant planets with stellar mass and the flat mass of the Jupiters that do form.
  • The apparent jump in the super-Jupiter-to-Jupiter ratio near 1.3 solar masses, close to the Kraft break, is currently tentative and could be a rotation-related detection bias; a controlled sample with published non-detections is needed to confirm it.
  • The sample of planets around stars below about 0.5 solar masses is only about five objects, so the paper's conclusions should not yet be extended to the lowest-mass M-dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the minimum-disk-mass explanation is correct, the disks that do form Jupiters around M-dwarfs should have dust masses comparable to the disks around FGK hosts of Jupiters, not scaled down with stellar mass; a disk survey of stars hosting these planets could test this directly.
  • Re-running the same conditional-density comparison with per-planet selection weights accounting for each survey's radial-velocity follow-up threshold would show whether the below-2-Jupiter-mass convergence survives a formal completeness correction, a test the current heterogeneous sample cannot perform.
  • Because the paper treats bulk density as a proxy for bulk metallicity, the flat mass trend hints that atmospheric metallicity measurements of M-dwarf giants and FGK warm Jupiters may also look similar; this is a natural follow-up that the paper does not itself claim.
  • A homogeneous radial-velocity survey of transiting warm Jupiters around F stars on both sides of the Kraft break would settle whether the super-Jupiter ratio jump is astrophysical or a rotational-broadening artifact.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares the bulk properties of transiting giant planets (Rp ≳ 8 R⊕) around FGKM host stars using archival data from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, supplemented by recent GEMS discoveries. It applies the MRExo nonparametric density estimator in two and three dimensions, conditions the 3D distribution at Rp = 1 RJ, and uses Earth-mover distance and Welch's t-test with bootstrap resampling to compare conditional planet-mass distributions across stellar mass. The two central results are: (1) including all planets, the average mass of Jupiter-sized planets around M dwarfs is lower than around FGK stars, driven by a scarcity of super-Jupiters (≳2 MJ) around M dwarfs; and (2) after excluding planets above 2 MJ, the average masses of Jupiter-sized planets appear independent of stellar mass from 0.4 to 1.6 M☉. The paper proposes a minimum disk dust mass threshold for Jovian formation via core accretion and tentatively discusses an abrupt change in the super-Jupiter-to-Jupiter ratio near the Kraft break, attributing it to a possible vsini-related detection bias.

Significance. If the second result is robust, it would provide an important empirical constraint on giant planet formation: the final masses of close-in Jupiters would be largely independent of stellar mass once the rare super-Jupiter population is removed, with the stellar-mass dependence appearing mainly in occurrence rates. The paper has genuine strengths: the use of MRExo, EMD, and Welch tests is appropriate for comparing normalized conditional distributions; the bootstrap resampling is a reasonable way to propagate finite-sample uncertainty; and the super-Jupiter scarcity around M dwarfs is an interesting empirical pattern visible already in Figure 1d. The discussion candidly recognizes many caveats, especially in Section 5.1. However, the central claim of mass independence is a positive statement built on a failure to reject the null in a small sample, under an unquantified selection function and with a mass cut chosen after inspecting the data. The evidence is therefore suggestive rather than conclusive, and the title/abstract overstate the current support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Result 2 (Section 4)] The claim that f(Mp | Rp ≈ 1 RJ, M*) is unbiased with respect to stellar mass is not established. The sample requires published >3σ mass measurements, and the FGK and M-dwarf samples come from different surveys with different follow-up and publication histories. The argument in Section 2.2 that a median FGK planet would have K ≳ 50 m/s addresses measurement precision once RV data are obtained, not the probability that a target is selected for RV follow-up or that a mass measurement is published. The paper itself concedes in Section 5.1 that the FGK transiting giant planet sample has a heterogeneous selection function. A quantitative selection function, or at least a demonstration that the mass distributions of planets with and without published masses are consistent, is needed before Result 2 can be interpreted as a physical statement rather than a statement about the observed sample.
  2. [Section 3.1.2 and Result 2 (Section 4)] The 2 MJ threshold is introduced after inspecting the data: the text describes starting from the 4 MJ literature cut, finding a residual bimodality, then reducing the cutoff from 4 MJ to 2 MJ, and noting that 1.5 MJ gives a similar conclusion. Evaluating the null hypothesis at a threshold chosen from the same data inflates the chance of a non-rejection, and with roughly 20 M-dwarf planets a failure to reject is low-power evidence. The manuscript should either justify the threshold from an independent sample or present the test as exploratory; in either case, a power calculation is needed to state what difference would have been detectable.
  3. [Section 4, Section 5.1, and Figure 6] The title's positive claim of similarity rests on a null result in a small sample. Section 5.1 notes that only about 20 GEMS are used, with about 5 below 0.5 M☉, and Figure 6 cautions against interpreting trends around these lowest-mass stars. The EMD and Welch tests reject the all-planet case at the 3σ level, but for the <2 MJ subset the tests are not shown to have power to detect a plausible stellar-mass dependence. Consequently, 'do not seem to show a dependence' is a fair summary, but 'are independent of stellar mass' and the abstract's 'striking similarity' overstate the evidence. Please add a quantitative statement of the smallest mass offset or trend that the current sample could detect at, say, 90% power.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] There is a typo: 'betea polynomials' should be 'beta polynomials'.
  2. [Section 3.1.2] 'bootstrap the sample and estimate the conditional distributions a 100 times' should read '100 times'.
  3. [Section 1] The sentence 'Gravitational instability has been as a potential alternative to core-accretion' is missing a verb and should be rephrased.
  4. [Section 5.2] The sentence 'In the disk instability massive disks that are large and cool enough to initiate instabilities are required (Boss 1997, 2006; Boss & Kanodia 2023) necessitates.' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised.
  5. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The abstract says 'over two dozen' transiting GEMS while Section 5.1 says 'only ∼20 transiting GEMS'; please reconcile the number.
  6. [Figure 7] The blue numerator/denominator labels for the super-Jupiter-to-Jupiter ratios are small and difficult to read; a table or larger font would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central mass comparison is a stated conditional analysis; the self-cited MRExo tool is published and independently grounded, and the 2 MJ cut is post-hoc but not definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical comparison of conditional mass distributions, not a construction that reduces to its own inputs. Result 2 asserts that after excluding super-Jupiters the conditional mass distribution f(Mp | Rp ≈ 1 RJ, M*) does not depend on stellar mass; this is a falsifiable statement about a restricted sub-sample, and excluding the discrepant population does not by itself guarantee that the remaining distributions match. The MRExo framework is self-cited (Kanodia et al. 2023a), but it is a published, externally applicable method built on Ning et al. (2018) and Kanodia et al. (2019), and the paper uses it as a density-estimation tool rather than as an authority that forces the conclusion. The 2 MJ threshold is admittedly chosen after inspecting the data—the paper states that reducing the cut from 4 MJ to 2 MJ makes the PDFs consistent—which is a legitimate statistical concern about post-hoc threshold selection and low power with ~20 M-dwarf planets, not a circularity in the sense of an equation or fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. Likewise, the Section 2.2 argument that selection biases are not conditional on Mp|Rp, M* is an assumption about the sample, and Section 5.1 explicitly concedes the heterogeneous FGK selection function; this affects evidential strength but does not make the claim self-defined. No self-citation is load-bearing in the sense of invoking an unverified uniqueness theorem, and no predication reduces by construction to its inputs. Therefore the paper has no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a public catalog, a published statistical method, and several domain assumptions about selection functions and radius degeneracy. The only hand-tuned free parameter that materially changes the conclusion is the 2 M_J super-Jupiter cut.

free parameters (3)
  • super-Jupiter mass cut = 2 M_J (also 4 M_J and 1.5 M_J tested)
    Chosen post hoc in Section 3.1.2 after inspecting the bimodal mass distribution; the conclusion of mass independence depends on this threshold.
  • Jupiter-radius conditioning point = 1 R_J
    Conditioning the 3D PDF at Rp = 1 R_J in Section 3.1.2 focuses on warm Jupiters and exploits the radius degeneracy; a 0.8-1.2 R_J band is used for the categorical check.
  • Kraft break location = 1.3 M_sun
    Inferred from the data in Figure 7 as the transition in the super-Jupiter to Jupiter ratio; close to the literature Kraft break, but the binning and transition point are data-driven.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The observed sample's conditional mass distribution is unbiased with respect to stellar mass despite heterogeneous survey selection
    Stated in Section 2.2 without a quantitative selection function; if mass measurement follow-up favors higher-mass planets preferentially around FGK stars, the comparison is biased.
  • standard math MRExo beta-density cross-validation produces unbiased joint distributions for sparse samples
    Relies on Kanodia et al. 2023a and Ning et al. 2018; the method is published, but the small GEMS sample (< 20) may test its limits.
  • domain assumption At Rp ~ 1 R_J, planet radius is nearly independent of mass, so mass comparisons are not confounded by radius
    Based on electron degeneracy pressure models (Saumon et al. 1996; Chabrier et al. 2014), invoked in Section 3.1.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transiting Jupiters around M-dwarfs have similar masses to FGK warm-Jupiters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IW3WJEH4

@misc{pith2026241203416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transiting Jupiters around M-dwarfs have similar masses to FGK warm-Jupiters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IW3WJEH4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03416}
}
abstract

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the bulk properties (mass and radius) of transiting giant planets ($\gtrsim$ 8$R_{\oplus}$) orbiting FGKM stars. Our findings suggest that the average mass of M-dwarf Jupiters is lower than that of their solar-type counterparts, primarily due to the scarcity of super-Jupiters ( $\gtrsim$ 2 $M_J$) around M-dwarfs. However, when super-Jupiters are excluded from the analysis, we observe a striking similarity in the average masses of M-dwarf and FGK warm-Jupiters. We propose that these trends can be explained by a minimum disk dust mass threshold required for Jovian formation through core accretion, which is likely to be satisfied more often around higher mass stars. This simplistic explanation suggests that the disk mass has more of an influence on giant planet formation than other factors such as the host star mass, formation location, metallicity, radiation environment, etc., and also accounts for the lower occurrence of giant planets around M-dwarf stars. Additionally, we explore the possibility of an abrupt transition in the ratio of super-Jupiters to Jupiters around F-type stars at the Kraft break, which could be a product of $v$sin$i$ related detection biases, but requires additional data from an unbiased sample with published non-detections to confirm. Overall, our results provide valuable insights into the formation and evolution of giant exoplanets across a diverse range of stellar environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03416 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. All the planets in our sample in a) planet mass - radius space colour coded by stellar mass, b) planet mass - insolation colour coded by stellar mass, c) planet density - radius colour coded by insolation, d) planet mass as a function of stellar mass, and e) planet-to-stellar mass ratio as a function of stellar mass. We indicate Jupiter and Saturn in red with ‘J’ and ‘S’ respectively. We also include a shaded blue r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left) Conditional distribution of planet masses as a function of stellar mass — f(Mp|M∗) — for our sample, where the dashed lines indicate the expectation value for the distribution. Right) 2D planet mass histograms for different stellar mass bins, where each bin spans ± 20% of the nominal stellar mass and the horizontal lines depict the median value of the planet mass distribution. On average the giant planets arou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 3D f(Mp, Rp, M∗) fit conditioned on Rp = 1RJ . The top row shows the 2D PDF f(Mp, M∗|Rp = 1RJ ) overlaid with planets between 0.8 – 1.2 RJ . The bottom row shows a 1D PDF for f(Mp|Rp = 1RJ , M∗) similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The expectation values for planetary masses (left) and mass ratios (right) as a function of stellar mass. The shaded region shows the 16th–84th percentile distribution of the expectation values from bootstrapping the sample. Given the few GEMS (∼ 5) around < 0.5 M⊙ sta…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio of Super-Jupiters to Jupiters as a function of stellar mass with the threshold between the two classes at 2 MJ in blue. The errors for each bin are propagated after assuming a Poisson distribution, i.e., σN = √ N. The vertical dashed line indicates this tentative…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A schematic that shows the median (± 16–84-th percentile) disk dust masses from the Lupus complex (Ansdell et al. 2016) in orange. Our hypothesis for the minimum threshold disk mass is shown in red, where disks more massive than this are able to successfully form Jovia…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 526, id.A63, <NUMPAGES>12</NUMPAGES> pp., 526, A63

    Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., & Benz, W. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 526, id.A63, <NUMPAGES>12</NUMPAGES> pp., 526, A63

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    P., van der Marel, N., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 46 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123 Bernab` o, L. M., Kanodia, S., Ca˜ nas, C. I., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 273

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    C., & White, R

    Beyer, A. C., & White, R. J. 2024, The Kraft Break Sharply Divides Low Mass and Intermediate Mass Stars, , , doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.02638

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.02638 2024

  4. [4]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836 —. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, 501 11

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    P., & Kanodia, S

    Boss, A. P., & Kanodia, S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 4

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2001, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.374, p.733-739 (2001), 374, 733

    Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., & Queloz, D. 2001, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.374, p.733-739 (2001), 374, 733

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

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

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, The Occurrence Rate of Giant Planets Orbiting Low-Mass Stars with TESS, ,

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    M., Bayliss, D., Hartman, J

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2034

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2034 2024

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 514, 344

    1999

  2. [10]

    2021, A&A, 656, A72

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

    2021

  3. [11]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Chabrier, G., Johansen, A., Janson, M., & Rafikov, R. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S

    2014

  4. [12]

    I., et al

    Delamer, M., Kanodia, S., Ca˜ nas, C. I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, L22

    2024

  5. [13]

    X., Dawson, R

    Dong, J., Huang, C. X., Dawson, R. I., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 255, 6

    2021

  6. [14]

    D., K¨ urster, M., et al

    Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., K¨ urster, M., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 649, 436

    2006

  7. [15]

    J., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Barnes, J. W. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1661

    2007

  8. [16]

    X., Wang, S., et al

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

    2023

  9. [17]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 681

    Ginzburg, S., & Chiang, E. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 681

    2019

  10. [18]

    S., & Rice, W

    Greaves, J. S., & Rice, W. K. M. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1981

    2010

  11. [19]

    Guillot, T., & Showman, A. P. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 385, 156

    2002

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  13. [21]

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

    Hartman, J. D., Bayliss, D., Brahm, R., et al. 2024, TOI 762 A b and TIC 46432937 b: Two Giant Planets Transiting M Dwarf Stars, ,

    2024

  14. [22]

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

    2007

  15. [23]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, 1045

    2005

  16. [24]

    A., Aller, K

    Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 122, 905

    2010

  17. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 38

    Mahadevan, S. 2019, ApJ, 882, 38

    2019

  18. [26]

    Kantorovich, L. V. 1960, Management Science, 6, 366

    1960

  19. [27]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, The Astrophysical Journal, 150, 551

    1967

  20. [28]

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

    2004

  21. [29]

    Lin, D. N. C., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1993, On the Tidal Interaction Between Protostellar Disks and Companions, 749

    1993

  22. [30]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 668, A175

    Liu, Y., Linz, H., Fang, M., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 668, A175

    2022

  23. [31]

    2019, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, Volume 624, id.A94, <NUMPAGES>7</NUMPAGES> pp., 624, A94

    Maldonado, J., Villaver, E., Eiroa, C., & Micela, G. 2019, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, Volume 624, id.A94, <NUMPAGES>7</NUMPAGES> pp., 624, A94

    2019

  24. [32]

    F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2022, Demographics of Young Stars and Their Protoplanetary Disks: Lessons Learned on Disk Evolution and Its Connection to Planet Formation, ,

    2022

  25. [33]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 56–61

    2010

  26. [34]

    Miller, N., & Fortney, J. J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, L29 Molli` ere, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 74

    2011

  27. [35]

    T., Crepp, J

    Montet, B. T., Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 28

    2014

  28. [36]

    2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 501, 1139 M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., & Benz, W. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 501, 1139 M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 2094 —. 2024, The Bulk Metallicity of Giant Planets around M Stars, arXiv, arXiv:2411.16197 NASA Exoplane...

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 5

    Ning, B., Wolfgang, A., & Ghosh, S. 2018, ApJ, 869, 5

    2018

  30. [38]

    2006/, NumPy: A Guide to NumPy

    Oliphant, T. 2006/, NumPy: A Guide to NumPy

    2006

  31. [39]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 10 P´ erez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21 12 Kanodia 2024

    2007

  32. [40]

    A., & Lindegren, L

    Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. A., & Lindegren, L. 2014, ApJ, 797, 14

    2014

  33. [41]

    2022, HADES R V Programme with HARPS-N at TNG XV

    Pinamonti, M., Sozzetti, A., Maldonado, J., et al. 2022, HADES R V Programme with HARPS-N at TNG XV. Planetary Occurrence Rates around Early-M Dwarfs, ,

    2022

  34. [42]

    2015, On Wasserstein Two Sample Testing and Related Families of Nonparametric Tests, , , doi:10.48550/arXiv.1509.02237

    Ramdas, A., Garcia, N., & Cuturi, M. 2015, On Wasserstein Two Sample Testing and Related Families of Nonparametric Tests, , , doi:10.48550/arXiv.1509.02237

    2015 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    L., Huber, K

    Reiners, A., Bean, J. L., Huber, K. F., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 710, 432

    2010

  36. [44]

    2024, Searching for GEMS: TOI-5688 A b, a Low-Density Giant Orbiting a High-Metallicity Early M-dwarf, arXiv, arXiv:2409.01371

    Reji, V., Kanodia, S., Ninan, J., et al. 2024, Searching for GEMS: TOI-5688 A b, a Low-Density Giant Orbiting a High-Metallicity Early M-dwarf, arXiv, arXiv:2409.01371

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2014

  38. [46]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

    2013

  39. [47]

    1998, in Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat

    Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., & Guibas, L. 1998, in Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271), 59–66

    1998

  40. [48]

    Ruxton, G. D. 2006, Behavioral Ecology, 17, 688

    2006

  41. [49]

    2024, The Impact of Cometary ’impacts’ on the Chemistry, Climate, and Spectra of Hot Jupiter Atmospheres, arXiv, arXiv:2402.05509

    Sainsbury-Martinez, F., & Walsh, C. 2024, The Impact of Cometary ’impacts’ on the Chemistry, Climate, and Spectra of Hot Jupiter Atmospheres, arXiv, arXiv:2402.05509

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C., Adibekyan, V., Figueira, P., et al

    Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., Figueira, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A30

    2017

  43. [51]

    B., Burrows, A., et al

    Saumon, D., Hubbard, W. B., Burrows, A., et al. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, 993

    1996

  44. [52]

    2024, There Is No Disk Mass Budget Problem of Planet Formation, arXiv, arXiv:2407.08533

    Savvidou, S., & Bitsch, B. 2024, There Is No Disk Mass Budget Problem of Planet Formation, arXiv, arXiv:2407.08533

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Schlaufman, K. C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 37

    2018

  46. [54]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 664, A180

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

    2022

  47. [55]

    P., & Fortney, J

    Thorngren, D. P., & Fortney, J. J. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 214

    2018

  48. [56]

    Lopez, E. D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 64

    2016

  49. [57]

    P., Lee, E

    Thorngren, D. P., Lee, E. J., & Lopez, E. D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, L36

    2023

  50. [58]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J., Dransfield, G., Kagetani, T., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 525, L98

    2023

  51. [59]

    F., Rosotti, G

    Tychoniec, L., Manara, C. F., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 640, A19 van der Marel, N., & Mulders, G. D. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 28

    2020

  52. [60]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  53. [61]

    M., Marcy, G

    Weiss, L. M., Marcy, G. W., Rowe, J. F., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 14

    2013

  54. [62]

    Welch, B. L. 1947, Biometrika, 34, 28

    1947

  55. [63]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 4

    Macias, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 4

    2023

  56. [64]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2022, The TESS Grand Unified Hot Jupiter Survey. II. Twenty New Giant Planets, ,

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.