Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Metallicity Dependence of Giant Planets around M Dwarfs

T0 review · 2 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 finds that M dwarfs hosting confirmed giant planets are systematically more metal-rich than field M dwarfs, at 4–5 sigma significance, and that hot and warm Jupiters around M dwarfs show the same host-metallicity preference.

desk verdict Homogeneous SpeX sample gives the cleanest evidence yet that M-dwarf giant planets prefer metal-rich hosts, but the proper-motion-selected field baseline needs validation before I'd trust the 4-5 sigma. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06137 v2 pith:PB6VK6NK submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Tianjun Gan , Christopher A. Theissen , Sharon X. Wang , Adam J. Burgasser , Shude Mao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords Mdwarfsgiantplanetsstellarmetallicityplanet-metallicitycorrelationhotJupiterswarmnear-infraredspectroscopySpeX
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 M dwarfs that host giant planets are systematically more metal-rich than the general M dwarf population, in the way Sun-like stars are known to be. It compares 746 field M dwarfs without known giant planets to 22 M dwarfs hosting 27 confirmed giant planets, with all metallicities measured in one homogeneous way from near-infrared SpeX spectra. The authors find that giant planets favor metal-rich M dwarfs at the 4–5 sigma level and that hot and warm Jupiter hosts have statistically indistinguishable metallicity distributions. If correct, this extends the well-established giant planet–metallicity correlation down to the most common stars in the solar neighborhood and suggests a shared formation channel across stellar types.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a homogeneous metallicity scale applied to both samples: near-infrared H-band and K-band spectra from the single instrument SpeX, reduced with the same pipeline and converted to [Fe/H] and [M/H] using empirical calibrations anchored to wide binaries with Sun-like primaries. The field comparison sample comes from a SpeX survey of proper-motion-selected nearby M dwarfs, and the planet hosts were observed in the same mode with the same instrument. The statistical argument then rests on two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Anderson–Darling tests, with permutation and resampling procedures that fold in the metallicity measurement uncertainties, run separately on H-band and K-band outputs because the two calibrations show a small offset.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be an unbiased, volume-limited sample of M dwarfs with metallicities measured by an independent method, such as high-resolution optical spectroscopy, combined with a well-characterized giant planet survey: if the 4–5 sigma excess does not appear, the proper-motion or survey selection is the cause. A second decisive check is to show directly that the proper-motion-selected field sample's metallicity distribution differs from a Gaia-based volume-limited sample in a way that accounts for the excess.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the iron abundance distributions of field M dwarfs and M dwarfs with confirmed giant planets cannot be drawn from the same parent distribution: Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Anderson–Darling tests give p-values between $4.9 \times 10^{-7}$ and $6.3 \times 10^{-5}$ depending on the band, corresponding to 4–5 $\sigma$ significance, and the result survives resampling of the metallicity uncertainties. Hot Jupiters ($a/R_* \le 20$) and warm Jupiters ($a/R_* > 20$) show indistinguishable metallicity distributions, and the paper finds no significant correlation between host metallicity and planet mass, no special metallicity excess for multi-planet hosts, and no apparent preference for higher metallicity among mid-to-late M dwarfs compared with early-M hosts. The authors interpret the metal-rich preference as evidence that giant planet formation around M dwarfs proceeds through a channel shared with FGK stars, likely core accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 746 proper-motion-selected field M dwarfs fairly represent the parent population from which the 22 giant-planet hosts are drawn; if that field sample is biased toward older, metal-poor stars, the measured metallicity excess could be a selection artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The giant planet–metallicity correlation, previously well established for FGK stars, extends to M dwarfs, so any formation theory must explain the same metal-rich preference across a wide range of stellar mass.
  • Hot and warm Jupiters around M dwarfs appear to share a common origin, since their host metallicity distributions are statistically indistinguishable.
  • Contamination of the field sample by undetected giant planets is negligible: injecting up to 22 high-metallicity hosts into the field sample shifts its median metallicity by less than 1 sigma.
  • Within the current sample, stellar iron abundance does not set the final giant planet mass, as no significant host metallicity–planet mass correlation is found.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the correlation is real, the giant planet occurrence rate around M dwarfs should rise steeply with [Fe/H], and future uniform surveys could measure that slope and compare it with the FGK power law.
  • Beyond the paper: the tentative weaker metallicity preference of cold Jupiters with $a/R_* > 200$ hints that wide-orbit giants may form through a different pathway, such as disk gravitational instability; this is a testable prediction for long-term radial velocity and astrometry surveys.
  • Beyond the paper: because M dwarfs are the most common stars in the solar neighborhood, a robust planet–metallicity relation here strengthens the case for prioritizing metal-rich M dwarfs in future transit and RV searches for giant planets.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares the stellar metallicity distributions of 22 M dwarfs hosting 27 confirmed giant planets with 746 field M dwarfs without known giant planets. All metallicities are derived homogeneously from IRTF/SpeX near-infrared spectra using the same methodology and calibrations. The authors report that giant planets favor metal-rich M dwarfs at 4–5 sigma significance, that hot (a/R* <= 20) and warm (a/R* > 20) Jupiters have indistinguishable metallicity distributions, and that there is no significant correlation between stellar metallicity and planet mass. They also examine multi-giant-planet systems and the dependence of the metallicity signal on stellar mass.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important result: it would extend the well-established giant-planet metallicity correlation from FGK stars to M dwarfs, with direct implications for core-accretion formation models. The paper's strengths include the use of a single instrument and homogeneous analysis for all planet hosts, public machine-readable catalogs, permutation-based Anderson-Darling tests with Monte Carlo propagation of metallicity uncertainties, and an explicit contamination simulation for undetected giant planets in the field sample. The authors are also transparent about known limitations, including calibration extrapolation beyond the validated parameter range and the heterogeneity of the planet-survey selection functions. The main risk to the conclusion is the kinematic selection of the field sample, which is not tested against a volume-limited benchmark.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 5.1, Table 5] The field M dwarf sample is drawn from Terrien et al. (2012), whose targets were selected primarily from the Lépine & Shara (2005) and Lépine & Gaidos (2011) proper-motion catalogs, whereas the 22 planet hosts come from TESS, HATS, NGTS, and RV surveys that do not apply a proper-motion cut. High proper-motion M dwarfs in the solar neighborhood are kinematically older and systematically more metal-poor on average, so this selection mismatch could lower the field metallicity distribution relative to the parent population from which the planet hosts are drawn, inflating the 4–5 sigma excess reported in Table 5. The paper simulates contamination by undetected giant planets but does not test the representativeness of the field sample against a volume-limited sample, nor does it compare the kinematic properties (e.g., tangential velocity or Gaia-based U,V,W) of the two samples. I request two additional robustness tests: (a) compare the field sample metallicity distribution to a volume-complete M dwarf sample (e.g., a Gaia-selected volume-limited sample or the 10 pc RECONS sample), and (b) repeat the K-S and A-D tests after restricting both samples to a common proper-motion or tangential-velocity range. Until these tests are provided, the significance level of the central metallicity-excess claim is not fully established.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Table 3] The paper acknowledges that the Mann et al. (2013) and Rojas-Ayala et al. (2012) metallicity calibrations are untested for M dwarfs beyond M5 and for [Fe/H] > 0.56 dex, yet the planet sample contains stars outside this range, including GJ 3512 (M5V), HIP 79431 ([Fe/H]M13,K = 0.72), and TOI-5205 ([Fe/H]M13,K = 0.69). Because these are among the most metal-rich hosts, they could influence the significance of the K-S and A-D results. The authors should perform a sensitivity test that excludes these extrapolated points and report the resulting p-values, or otherwise demonstrate quantitatively that the extrapolation does not drive the conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title page] The author name 'Sharon X. W ang' appears to contain a spacing typo; it should likely read 'Sharon X. Wang'.
  2. [Section 2.1] The contamination simulation sentence is ambiguous: 'We randomly choose 22 stars in the field M dwarf sample, assuming they host giant planets and have the highest metallicity (0.7 dex) as in our planet sample' could be read as selecting the highest-metallicity stars rather than assigning the highest planet-sample metallicity to randomly chosen stars. Please rephrase for clarity.
  3. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'we do not induce the constraint on the scaled semi-major axis a/R* from the light curve' should likely be 'we do not include the constraint'.
  4. [Figure 1] The right panel of Figure 1 appears to lack an explicit color-bar label for the metallicity color coding, and the left panel caption could clarify what the color scale represents; please add the missing labels.
  5. [Section 5.2, Figure 6] The cold Jupiter boundary at a/R* = 200 is described as 'somewhat arbitrarily' chosen, and the comparison between hot and cold Jupiters yields p-values between 4.4e-3 and 2.6e-1. Given the multiple testing inherent in choosing the boundary, the authors should state explicitly that these p-values are not corrected for the boundary choice and that the trend is tentative, as they do in the text.
  6. [Table 5] For the K-band field vs. M+WJ comparison, the K-S fraction of resampled trials with p <= 0.003 is only 24.4%, and the A-D fraction is 49.2%; this indicates that the warm-Jupiter subgroup result is not robust to metallicity uncertainties in the K band. The text in Section 5.1 discusses the combined sample but does not mention this limited robustness for the subgroup; adding a sentence would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical comparison of metallicity distributions measured with external calibrations applied uniformly to both samples.

full rationale

The paper makes no fitted-parameter-to-prediction move: it measures [Fe/H] and [M/H] for both the 22 planet hosts and the 746 field dwarfs with the same SpeX SXD spectra and the same external calibrations (Mann et al. 2013; Rojas-Ayala et al. 2012), then runs K-S and A-D tests on the resulting empirical distributions. The calibrations are trained on wide binaries with Sun-like primaries, not on the planet-host/field distinction, so the comparison is not self-definitional. The contamination simulation in Sec. 2.1 is a sensitivity test, not a fit that is later called a prediction. The only self-citations (Gan et al. 2023b for the hot/warm Jupiter split, Gan et al. 2023a for occurrence-rate context) are conventional or contextual and do not carry the central claim. The acknowledged proper-motion selection of the Terrien field sample and the heterogeneous survey selection functions are possible systematic biases, but selection concerns are not circular derivations; no equation reduces the conclusion to its inputs. The paper also states limitations about calibration extrapolation beyond M5 and [Fe/H] > 0.56 dex, which are honest scope restrictions rather than circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces one ad hoc boundary (a/R* = 200) for an exploratory subgroup. It relies on external metallicity calibrations, the representativeness of a proper-motion-selected field sample, and standard statistical tests. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • a/R* = 200 cold Jupiter boundary = 200
    Chosen post hoc by visual inspection of the a/R* distribution (Section 5.2, Figure 10). Used for an exploratory comparison of cold versus hot Jupiters; the authors do not claim a significant trend.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Metallicity calibrations of Mann et al. (2013) and Rojas-Ayala et al. (2012) remain valid for all sample stars, including those beyond M5 and [Fe/H] > 0.56 dex.
    Invoked in Section 4.1; the authors state the calibrations are untested beyond this range but assume extrapolation is acceptable for the few outliers.
  • domain assumption The field M dwarf sample, selected by proper motion, is representative of the parent stellar population from which the giant planet hosts are drawn.
    Central to the statistical comparison in Section 5.1; if the field sample is biased in metallicity, the significant difference could be spurious.
  • domain assumption A spectral type difference of at most 1.0 subtype between the two determination methods does not systematically bias the derived metallicities.
    Section 4.1; only 7 overlapping stars were checked, and the difference is neglected.
  • standard math Standard statistical tests (K-S and A-D with permutation resampling) are valid for these sample sizes and distributions.
    Section 5.1; the tests are standard but rely on the resampling scheme being appropriate for the small planet sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metallicity Dependence of Giant Planets around M Dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PB6VK6NK

@misc{pith2026241206137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metallicity Dependence of Giant Planets around M Dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PB6VK6NK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06137}
}
abstract

We investigate the stellar metallicity ([Fe/H] and [M/H]) dependence of giant planets around M dwarfs by comparing the metallicity distribution of 746 field M dwarfs without known giant planets with a sample of 22 M dwarfs hosting confirmed giant planets. All metallicity measurements are homogeneously obtained through the same methodology based on the near-infrared spectra collected with a single instrument SpeX mounted on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility. We find that 1) giant planets favor metal-rich M dwarfs at a 4-5$\sigma$ confidence level, depending on the band of spectra used to derive metallicity; 2) hot ($a/R_\ast\leq 20$) and warm ($a/R_\ast> 20$) Jupiters do not show a significant difference in the metallicity distribution. Our results suggest that giant planets around M and FGK stars, which are already known to prefer metal-rich hosts, probably have a similar formation channel. In particular, hot and warm Jupiters around M dwarfs may have the same origin as they have indistinguishable metallicity distributions. With the refined stellar and planetary parameters, we examine the stellar metallicities and the masses of giant planets where we find no significant correlation. M dwarfs with multiple giant planets or with a single giant planet have similar stellar metallicities. Mid-to-late type M stars hosting gas giants do not show an apparent preference to higher metallicities compared with those early-M dwarfs with gas giants and field M dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: The Gaia color–magnitude diagram of 746 field M dwarfs colored by their [Fe/H], and 22 M stars with confirmed giant planets marked as orange stars. Right panel: The refined stellar masses and effective temperatures of two samples (see Section 4 for details). 4. ANALYSIS 4.1. Metallicity We first determined the spectral types for the planet sample by comparing the 1d merged spectra to the IRTF spectral li… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The normalized SpeX spectra of 22 M dwarfs with confirmed giant planets. The data are presented in the order of stellar types derived through spectrum match (see Section 4). Three vertical grey areas mark telluric absorption features, which we excluded during the analysis. All SpeX spectra we collected are available as the Data behind the Figure. wide binary sample used in Mann et al. (2013) did not have stars outsi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example plot of spectrum match in Section 4. The black solid line is the normalized SpeX near-infrared spectrum of the target star GJ 463 while the best-match comparison spectrum taken from the IRTF library (Rayner et al. 2009) is shown in magenta. Strong atomic and molec￾ular features are marked. The residuals (blue) are presented below. through the M∗-MK relation2 derived by Mann et al. (2019), which is suitabl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons of [Fe/H] (left) and [M/H] (right) between H-band and K-band measurements. The background grey dots are the field M stars. The red and blue dots are the M dwarfs with hot and warm Jupiters with scaled semi-major axis a/R∗ ≤ 20 and a/R∗ > 20, respectively. T…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Metallicity distribution of the field M stars (black) and M dwarfs with giant planets (orange), either hot Jupiters (red) with a/R∗ ≤ 20 or warm Jupiters (blue) with a/R∗ > 20. The left and right panels are the results from H- and K-band measurements. The vertical grey…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The cumulative [Fe/H] (top) and [M/H] (bottom) distributions from two bands of M dwarfs hosting giant planets located in three different scaled semi-major axis bins: a/R∗ ≤ 20, 20 < a/R∗ ≤ 200 and a/R∗ > 200. The outer cold Jupiters with a/R∗ > 200 tend to show a weake…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: Refined planet mass versus host metallicity [Fe/H]M13,K. The red and blue dots are giant planets with a/R∗ ≤ 20 and a/R∗ > 20. Five multi-giant planet systems are marked with black boxes. Right panel: Similar to the left but for mass ratio. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The iron abundance [Fe/H]M13,K vs. stellar mass of 22 M dwarfs with HJs (red) and WJs (blue) in our planet sample. The background grey dots and black squares rep￾resent the field M dwarfs and their binned results (binning size=0.1 M⊙) where the uncertainties are the st…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: The planet mass and scaled semi-major axis distribution of our M dwarf giant planet sample. Different colors represent planets with scaled semi-major axis belonging to different ranges (see Section 5.2 for details). Right panel: Similar to the left but for…

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. Uniform Metallicity Measurements of M Dwarf Planet Hosts Support Metallicity-Dependent Sub-Neptune Formation

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

    Homogeneous SpeX metallicities of M-dwarf planet hosts show sub-Neptune hosts are more metal-rich than super-Earth hosts, supporting ice-line formation plus migration.

  2. Formation of Giant Planets

    astro-ph.EP 2025-01 unverdicted

    A comprehensive review argues that core accretion is the dominant pathway for giant planet formation, while gas disk fragmentation rarely produces planets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 15 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 doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ?6 p` dax te[# agJ7sͮ:勿 s/o r _ J¿_ɿ ?ǥ ^^J_|KoKI58WĜ ɭvS7/9_ ϫsk!ݾ_o<PP | xe76 hKgwK, - i5 AK1l菱=q,K ^T ז靼 ]c SCoN8O x 9eSg Ǻ 1j k \˒]--9w qKs)!.h _1 zhU:* ?^C

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2019, Geosciences, 9, 105, 10.3390/geosciences9030105

    Adibekyan , V. 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105, 10.3390/geosciences9030105

    doi:10.3390/geosciences9030105 2019

  5. [5]

    L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al

    Akeson , R. L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al. 2013, , 125, 989, 10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  6. [6]

    P., Weinberger , A

    Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Boss , A. P., Weinberger , A. J., et al. 2012, , 746, 37, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/37

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/37 2012

  7. [7]

    I., Fischer , D

    Apps , K., Clubb , K. I., Fischer , D. A., et al. 2010, , 122, 156, 10.1086/651058

    work page doi:10.1086/651058 2010

  8. [8]

    2018, , 475, 4467, 10.1093/mnras/stx2778

    Bayliss , D., Gillen , E., Eigm \"u ller , P., et al. 2018, , 475, 4467, 10.1093/mnras/stx2778

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2778 2018

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    M., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al

    Bello-Garc \' a , A., Passegger , V. M., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al. 2023, , 673, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243934

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, , 549, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014704

    Bonfils , X., Delfosse , X., Udry , S., et al. 2013, , 549, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014704

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Desidera , S., Benatti , S., et al

    Bonomo , A. S., Desidera , S., Benatti , S., et al. 2017, , 602, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Boss , A. P. 2002, , 567, L149, 10.1086/340108

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    2006, , 643, 501, 10.1086/501522

    ---. 2006, , 643, 501, 10.1086/501522

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

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

    Bryant , E. M., Bayliss , D., & Van Eylen , V. 2023, , 10.1093/mnras/stad626

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Bayliss , D., Hartman , J

    Bryant , E. M., Bayliss , D., Hartman , J. D., et al. 2024, , 533, 3893, 10.1093/mnras/stae2034

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Splat Development Team

    Burgasser , A. J., & Splat Development Team . 2017, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol. 14, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 7--12, 10.48550/arXiv.1707.00062

    2017 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    2021, , 656, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140390

    Burn , R., Schlecker , M., Mordasini , C., et al. 2021, , 656, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140390

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Johnson , J

    Butler , R. P., Johnson , J. A., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2006, , 118, 1685, 10.1086/510500

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    I., Stefansson , G., Kanodia , S., et al

    Ca \ n as , C. I., Stefansson , G., Kanodia , S., et al. 2020, , 160, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abac67

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    I., Kanodia , S., Bender , C

    Ca \ n as , C. I., Kanodia , S., Bender , C. F., et al. 2022, , 164, 50, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7804

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Correia , A. C. M., Couetdic , J., Laskar , J., et al. 2010, , 511, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912700

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Rayner , J

    Cushing , M. C., Rayner , J. T., & Vacca , W. D. 2005, , 623, 1115, 10.1086/428040

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Vacca , W

    Cushing , M. C., Vacca , W. D., & Rayner , J. T. 2004, , 116, 362, 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  18. [26]

    I., et al

    Delamer , M., Kanodia , S., Ca \ n as , C. I., et al. 2024, , 962, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a19

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Hardegree-Ullman , K., Schlieder , J

    Dressing , C. D., Hardegree-Ullman , K., Schlieder , J. E., et al. 2019, , 158, 87, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2895

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    D., et al

    Endl , M., Robertson , P., Cochran , W. D., et al. 2022, , 164, 238, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8e05

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    A., & Valenti , J

    Fischer , D. A., & Valenti , J. 2005, , 622, 1102, 10.1086/428383

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Gaidos , E., & Mann , A. W. 2014, , 791, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/54

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    W., L \'e pine , S., et al

    Gaidos , E., Mann , A. W., L \'e pine , S., et al. 2014, , 443, 2561, 10.1093/mnras/stu1313

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    X., et al

    Gan , T., Lin , Z., Wang , S. X., et al. 2022, , 511, 83, 10.1093/mnras/stab3708

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    X., Wang , S., et al

    Gan , T., Wang , S. X., Wang , S., et al. 2023 a , , 165, 17, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b12

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2023 b , , 166, 165, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf56d

    Gan , T., Cadieux , C., Jahandar , F., et al. 2023 b , , 166, 165, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf56d

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    1997, , 285, 403, 10.1093/mnras/285.2.403

    Gonzalez , G. 1997, , 285, 403, 10.1093/mnras/285.2.403

    1997 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al

    Gore , R., Giacalone , S., Dressing , C. D., et al. 2024, , 271, 48, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2c0c

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Butler , R

    Haghighipour , N., Vogt , S. S., Butler , R. P., et al. 2010, , 715, 271, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/271

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, , 167, 4, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad09c2

    Han , T., Robertson , P., Kanodia , S., et al. 2024, , 167, 4, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad09c2

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

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

    Hartman , J. D., Bayliss , D., Brahm , R., et al. 2015, , 149, 166, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/166

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Bakos , G

    Hartman , J. D., Bakos , G. \'A ., Csubry , Z., et al. 2023, , 166, 163, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf56e

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

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

    Hartman , J. D., Bayliss , D., Brahm , R., et al. 2024, , 168, 202, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6f07

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Templeton , M., Terrell , D., et al

    Henden , A. A., Templeton , M., Terrell , D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/336

    2016

  36. [44]

    J., Jao , W.-C., Subasavage , J

    Henry , T. J., Jao , W.-C., Subasavage , J. P., et al. 2006, , 132, 2360, 10.1086/508233

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Hodges, J. L. 1958, Arkiv f \"o r Matematik, 3, 469. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:121451525

    1958

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08159, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08159

    Hotnisky , A., Kanodia , S., Libby-Roberts , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08159, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08159

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    W., Johnson , J

    Howard , A. W., Johnson , J. A., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2010, , 721, 1467, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1467

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    Ida , S., & Lin , D. N. C. 2004 a , , 616, 567, 10.1086/424830

    2004 doi

  41. [49]

    2004 b , , 604, 388, 10.1086/381724

    ---. 2004 b , , 604, 388, 10.1086/381724

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, , 966, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3063

    Jahandar , F., Doyon , R., Artigau , \'E ., et al. 2024, , 966, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3063

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    A., & Apps , K

    Johnson , J. A., & Apps , K. 2009, , 699, 933, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/933

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Butler , R

    Johnson , J. A., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2007, , 670, 833, 10.1086/521720

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Howard , A

    Johnson , J. A., Howard , A. W., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2010, , 122, 149, 10.1086/651007

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Gazak , J

    Johnson , J. A., Gazak , J. Z., Apps , K., et al. 2012, , 143, 111, 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/111

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    D., Bayliss , D., et al

    Jord \'a n , A., Hartman , J. D., Bayliss , D., et al. 2022, , 163, 125, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4a77

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, , 10.1093/pasj/psad031

    Kagetani , T., Narita , N., Kimura , T., et al. 2023, , 10.1093/pasj/psad031

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    I., et al

    Kanodia , S., Libby-Roberts , J., Ca \ n as , C. I., et al. 2022, , 164, 81, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7c20

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, , 165, 120, 10.3847/1538-3881/acabce

    Kanodia , S., Mahadevan , S., Libby-Roberts , J., et al. 2023, , 165, 120, 10.3847/1538-3881/acabce

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2011, , 142, 138, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/138

    L \'e pine , S., & Gaidos , E. 2011, , 142, 138, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/138

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    L \'e pine , S., & Shara , M. M. 2005, , 129, 1483, 10.1086/427854

    2005 doi

  53. [61]

    Lin , A. S. J., Libby-Roberts , J. E., Alvarado-Montes , J. A., et al. 2023, , 166, 90, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace1ef

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, , 632, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936309

    Liu , B., Lambrechts , M., Johansen , A., & Liu , F. 2019, , 632, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936309

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    Lopez-Santiago , J., Martino , L., M \' guez , J., & V \'a zquez , M. A. 2020, , 160, 273, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc171

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2012, , 541, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218800

    Maldonado , J., Eiroa , C., Villaver , E., Montesinos , B., & Mora , A. 2012, , 541, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218800

    2012 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, , 644, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    Maldonado , J., Micela , G., Baratella , M., et al. 2020, , 644, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    W., Brewer , J

    Mann , A. W., Brewer , J. M., Gaidos , E., L \'e pine , S., & Hilton , E. J. 2013, , 145, 52, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/52

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    W., Feiden , G

    Mann , A. W., Feiden , G. A., Gaidos , E., Boyajian , T., & von Braun , K. 2015, , 804, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    W., Dupuy , T., Kraus , A

    Mann , A. W., Dupuy , T., Kraus , A. L., et al. 2019, , 871, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    W., Butler , R

    Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., Fischer , D., & Lissauer , J. J. 1998, , 505, L147, 10.1086/311623

    1998 doi

  62. [70]

    M., Montes , D., et al

    Marfil , E., Tabernero , H. M., Montes , D., et al. 2021, , 656, A162, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141980

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    1995, , 378, 355, 10.1038/378355a0

    Mayor , M., & Queloz , D. 1995, , 378, 355, 10.1038/378355a0

    1995 doi

  64. [72]

    T., Crepp , J

    Montet , B. T., Crepp , J. R., Johnson , J. A., Howard , A. W., & Marcy , G. W. 2014, , 781, 28, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/28

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    C., Mustill , A

    Morales , J. C., Mustill , A. J., Ribas , I., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 1441, 10.1126/science.aax3198

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., Benz , W., & Naef , D. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 398, Extreme Solar Systems, ed. D. Fischer , F. A. Rasio , S. E. Thorsett , & A. Wolszczan , 235, 10.48550/arXiv.0710.5667

    2008 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    2018, , 156, 221, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae391

    Narang , M., Manoj , P., Furlan , E., et al. 2018, , 156, 221, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae391

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    R., Charbonneau , D., Irwin , J., et al

    Newton , E. R., Charbonneau , D., Irwin , J., et al. 2014, , 147, 20, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/20

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Charbonneau , D., Irwin , J., & Mann , A

    Newton , E. R., Charbonneau , D., Irwin , J., & Mann , A. W. 2015, , 800, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/85

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    2020, , 491, 4481, 10.1093/mnras/stz3207

    Osborn , A., & Bayliss , D. 2020, , 491, 4481, 10.1093/mnras/stz3207

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    R., et al

    Parviainen , H., Palle , E., Zapatero-Osorio , M. R., et al. 2021, , 645, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038934

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    K., Winters , J

    Pass , E. K., Winters , J. G., Charbonneau , D., et al. 2023, , 166, 11, 10.3847/1538-3881/acd349

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    M., Schweitzer , A., Shulyak , D., et al

    Passegger , V. M., Schweitzer , A., Shulyak , D., et al. 2019, , 627, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935679

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    M., Bello-Garc \' a , A., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al

    Passegger , V. M., Bello-Garc \' a , A., Ordieres-Mer \'e , J., et al. 2022, , 658, A194, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141920

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Marcy , G

    Petigura , E. A., Marcy , G. W., Winn , J. N., et al. 2018, , 155, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa54c

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    2023, , 677, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346476

    Pinamonti , M., Barbato , D., Sozzetti , A., et al. 2023, , 677, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346476

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

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

    Pollack , J. B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al. 1996, , 124, 62, 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  78. [86]

    M., Trifonov , T., et al

    Quirrenbach , A., Passegger , V. M., Trifonov , T., et al. 2022, , 663, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142915

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    T., Cushing , M

    Rayner , J. T., Cushing , M. C., & Vacca , W. D. 2009, , 185, 289, 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/289

    2009 doi

  80. [88]

    T., Toomey , D

    Rayner , J. T., Toomey , D. W., Onaka , P. M., et al. 2003, , 115, 362, 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  81. [89]

    2021, , 650, A201, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140985

    Reyl \'e , C., Jardine , K., Fouqu \'e , P., et al. 2021, , 650, A201, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140985

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Laughlin , G., Butler , R

    Rivera , E. J., Laughlin , G., Butler , R. P., et al. 2010, , 719, 890, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/890

    2010 doi

  84. [92]

    C., Reyl \'e , C., Derri \`e re , S., & Picaud , S

    Robin , A. C., Reyl \'e , C., Derri \`e re , S., & Picaud , S. 2003, , 409, 523, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117

    2003 doi

  85. [93]

    R., Muirhead , P

    Rojas-Ayala , B., Covey , K. R., Muirhead , P. S., & Lloyd , J. P. 2010, , 720, L113, 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L113

    2010 doi

  86. [94]

    2012, , 748, 93, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/93

    ---. 2012, , 748, 93, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/93

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    J., Fulton , B

    Rosenthal , L. J., Fulton , B. J., Hirsch , L. A., et al. 2021, , 255, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    2021, , 653, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140968

    Sabotta , S., Schlecker , M., Chaturvedi , P., et al. 2021, , 653, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140968

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    C., Israelian , G., & Mayor , M

    Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., & Mayor , M. 2004, , 415, 1153, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034469

    2004 doi

  90. [98]

    W., & Stephens, M

    Scholz, F. W., & Stephens, M. A. 1987, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 918. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2288805

    1987

  91. [99]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  92. [100]

    G., Santos , N

    Sousa , S. G., Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., Mayor , M., & Udry , S. 2011, , 533, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117699

    2011 doi

  93. [101]

    2023, , 670, L17, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245454

    Sozzetti , A. 2023, , 670, L17, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245454

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05654, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05654

    Stefansson , G., Mahadevan , S., Winn , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05654, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05654

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [103]

    C., Mahadevan , S., Bender , C

    Terrien , R. C., Mahadevan , S., Bender , C. F., et al. 2012, , 747, L38, 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L38

    2012 doi

  96. [104]

    C., Mahadevan , S., Deshpande , R., & Bender , C

    Terrien , R. C., Mahadevan , S., Deshpande , R., & Bender , C. F. 2015, , 220, 16, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/16

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    P., Fortney , J

    Thorngren , D. P., Fortney , J. J., Murray-Clay , R. A., & Lopez , E. D. 2016, , 831, 64, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/64

    2016 doi

  98. [106]

    2018, , 609, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731442

    Trifonov , T., K \"u rster , M., Zechmeister , M., et al. 2018, , 609, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731442

    2018 doi

  99. [107]

    J., Muirhead , P

    Veyette , M. J., Muirhead , P. S., Mann , A. W., & Allard , F. 2016, , 828, 95, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/95

    2016 doi

  100. [108]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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