Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Long-lived Habitable Zones around White Dwarfs undergoing Neon-22 Distillation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that white dwarfs undergoing neon-22 distillation hold their habitable zones nearly fixed for up to about 10 billion years, roughly doubling or tripling the time a planet can continuously stay in the liquid-water zone…

desk verdict A clean new application of 22Ne distillation to WD habitable zones; the logic holds, but the water-retaining cases rely on the least-tested part of the model grid. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06613 v1 pith:2MDACBVA submitted 2025-01-11 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Andrew Vanderburg , Antoine Bédard , Juliette C. Becker , Simon Blouin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfhabitablezoneneon-22distillationcoolingpauseQ-branchexoplanethabitabilitywaterretentiontidalheating
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

White dwarfs cool and fade, so their habitable zones sweep inward; a planet parked at one radius stays in the liquid-water zone for only a few billion years. This paper argues that in the subset of white dwarfs enriched in neon-22, distillation of that isotope creates a cooling pause lasting up to about 10 billion years, freezing the habitable zone in place. The result, in the authors' cooling models, is a continuous habitable zone lasting two to three times longer than under standard cooling—for example, 15.56 billion years versus 6.67 billion years for a 0.6 solar-mass white dwarf—with the outer edge moving from 0.0183 AU to 0.0203 AU, where tidal heating is roughly 20 times weaker. The paper also couples tidal evolution and ocean loss and concludes that lower-mass distillers (0.6-0.8 solar masses) can retain substantial surface water in the habitable zone, while 1.0 solar-mass distillers likely desiccate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 22Ne core-distillation cooling track: in a crystallizing white dwarf with a 22Ne mass fraction near 3%, 22Ne-poor crystals are buoyant and separate from the melt, and the resulting rearrangement releases gravitational energy that offsets the star's heat loss. This pauses cooling at a specific effective temperature and luminosity (for the 0.6 solar-mass track, near 5,800 K and log L/Lsun about -3.9) for roughly 10 billion years. The paper computes habitable-zone boundaries from this track using Kopparapu et al. for the outer edge, Zhan et al. for the inner edge, and the tidal disruption radius as a floor, then feeds the cooling track into a coupled tidal-evolution and ocean-loss model following Becker et al. to estimate water retention.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic census of Q-branch white dwarfs measuring 22Ne abundances would settle the mechanism: if the paused coolers show solar neon-22 abundance (about 1.5% by mass) rather than the required roughly 3% enhancement, distillation is not the cause and the habitable-zone extension is unsupported. Similarly, a 0.6-0.8 solar-mass white dwarf with measured 3% neon-22 that cools without a pause near 5,800-8,600 K would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that 22Ne distillation in a white dwarf host greatly increases the time a planet can continuously reside within the habitable zone, and that the long-lasting habitable zone sits farther from the star, reducing tidal forces. The mechanism is a cooling pause: as the white dwarf crystallizes, buoyant 22Ne-poor crystals rise and release gravitational energy, holding the star's luminosity and temperature nearly constant for up to about 10 billion years. Across the model grid, the maximum continuous habitable-zone duration increases by a factor of about 2-3, and the outer edge of the continuous habitable zone expands by over 50%. For the 0.6 solar-mass case the pause begins near 5,800 K and yields a 15.56 billion-year continuous habitable zone; for a 1.0 solar-mass single-star model the pause begins near 12,900 K and is less favorable for water retention. The authors conclude that distilling white dwarfs are more promising locations for habitability than standard cooling white dwarfs, particularly at lower masses.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on whether the Q-branch cooling pause is really caused by 22Ne distillation in stars with about 3% 22Ne by mass, with the pause starting at the temperature, luminosity, and duration the STELUM models predict; if the pause has a different physical cause, or if the required 22Ne enhancement arises mainly from mergers that destroy planets, the predicted habitable-zone extension collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a 0.6 solar-mass white dwarf with 3% neon-22, the continuous habitable zone lasts about 15.56 billion years instead of 6.67 billion years, with the outer edge moving from 0.0183 AU to 0.0203 AU.
  • The roughly 50% larger outer-edge distance reduces tidal heating by about a factor of 20, making the 'tidal greenhouse' desiccation identified by Barnes and Heller much less likely.
  • Lower-mass (0.6-0.8 solar-mass) distilling white dwarfs can retain the bulk of a terrestrial ocean in the habitable zone, while 1.0 solar-mass cases lose all surface water by 3 billion years.
  • Because the pause stabilizes the incident flux, planets in the continuous habitable zone experience a nearly constant climate for billions of years, simplifying the conditions for life to arise and thrive.
  • Only white dwarfs with enhanced neon-22 (from primordial alpha-element enhancement or merger remnants) undergo core distillation; the paper expects most habitable cases to be primordial-enhancement stars because mergers are destructive to existing planetary systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable population prediction follows from the paper: if distillation is real, planets around distilling white dwarfs should preferentially be found at the paused-zone radius, because that is where they would remain habitable longest; a transit survey of Q-branch white dwarfs could test this pile-up.
  • The paper's water-retention grid suggests a near-term observational selection: 0.6-0.8 solar-mass distillers with effective temperatures near the pause (roughly 5,800-8,600 K) are the most promising biosignature targets, a set identifiable from existing wide-area photometric surveys.
  • A dynamical effect the paper does not model: a planet migrating inward during the roughly 10 billion-year pause would experience a nearly constant radiation field, which could qualitatively change the orbital circularization and water-loss history compared with the standard inward-sweeping habitable zone.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that 22Ne distillation in white dwarf interiors can pause cooling for several to ~10 billion years, and that this pause freezes the location of the habitable zone for that interval. Using STELUM cooling models with and without core distillation for 0.6-1.0 solar-mass single-star remnants and 1.0-1.2 solar-mass merger remnants, the authors compute habitable-zone evolution with Kopparapu et al. (2013) outer-edge fits and Zhan et al. (2024) inner-edge fits. They find that 22Ne distillation increases the maximum time any orbital location remains in the habitable zone by a factor of about 2-3 and moves the outer edge of the continuous habitable zone outward. They then apply the Becker et al. (2024) water-retention framework and report that surface water can be retained in the habitable zone for 0.6 and 0.8 solar-mass white dwarfs, but not for the 1.0 solar-mass case. The paper concludes that 22Ne-distilling white dwarfs may be more promising locations for habitability than standard-cooling white dwarfs.

Significance. If the core assumption is correct, this is a conceptually important result: it identifies a concrete stellar-evolution mechanism that can hold a white dwarf's habitable zone at a fixed location for Gyr timescales, directly countering the usual inward-migration problem. The use of external habitable-zone fitting functions applied to cooling tracks is not circular, and the paper is transparent about the main limitation of the HZ boundary treatment at high effective temperatures. The quantitative claims are clearly tabulated, and the qualitative factor-of-2-3 increase is robust under the assumed cooling models. However, the significance for actual habitability depends on water retention, and that conclusion rests on 0.6-0.8 solar-mass models for which the 22Ne pause is asserted rather than observationally calibrated. The paper's central derivation is sound conditional on the low-mass pause being real; the unresolved question is whether that condition is satisfied.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1] The 0.6 and 0.8 solar-mass CHZ durations (15.56 Gyr and 12.91 Gyr) are the entries that support the 'more promising' conclusion in Section 5, but they come from STELUM models that extend the core-distillation scenario to masses below the observed Q-branch population. Cheng et al. (2019) identified the cooling pause in ≳1 solar-mass white dwarfs, and no observational calibration is presented for pauses at 0.6-0.8 solar masses. Because the models assume a uniform 3% 22Ne mass fraction and footnote 5 states that core distillation requires more than 2.5% 22Ne, these entries are contingent on an assumed abundance with no yield calculation and no sensitivity study. Please add a 22Ne-yield estimate for the adopted progenitor metallicities and masses, and test the sensitivity of the CHZ durations to 22Ne mass fractions around the 2.5% threshold, or restrict the habitability conclusion to masses with observationally established pauses.
  2. [Section 3] The HZ boundary treatment is applied partly outside its calibration range. For the 0.8 and 1.0 solar-mass pause models, the effective temperatures at the pause are 8600 K and 12900 K, respectively, but the outer edge is computed by clamping the Kopparapu et al. (2013) fluxes to their 7200 K values, and the inner edge uses piecewise-linear fits from Zhan et al. (2024). The resulting systematic uncertainty in the Table 1 CHZ durations and locations is not quantified. Since the factor-of-2-3 increase in CHZ duration is the central quantitative claim, please provide a sensitivity estimate, for example by varying the inner and outer flux boundaries by the range allowed by the fitting-function uncertainties or by adopting alternate climate-model prescriptions.
  3. [Section 4, Table 2] The water-retention result is decisive for the Section 5 conclusion, but it is computed only for the same uncalibrated low-mass models. The 1.0 solar-mass case, which lies in the observed Q-branch mass range, retains 0.00 terrestrial oceans in both the 1 T.O. and 10 T.O. cases, while substantial retention appears only for 0.6 and 0.8 solar masses. Thus if the low-mass 22Ne pause is not realized, the astrobiological conclusion does not follow. Please either tie the water-retention calculation to observationally anchored pause models or temper the 'more promising' claim in Section 5 accordingly.
  4. [Section 5, item 2] The claim that 22Ne distillation increases the outer edge of the continuous habitable zone by over 50% is not true for all cases in Table 1; the 0.6 solar-mass outer edge increases from 0.0183 to 0.0203 AU, about 11%, whereas the 0.8 solar-mass case does show a larger increase. This claim should be reported per mass rather than as a general factor.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The note defines the CHZ as locations where stationary planets remain in the habitable zone for at least 3 Gyr, but the table header reports 'maximum duration'; please clarify whether the quoted duration is the maximum over the quoted radial range or the duration at a specific optimal radius, and state the exact algorithm used to compute the radial ranges.
  2. [Section 1] The word 'dessication' should be 'desiccation'.
  3. [Figure 1] The solid and dashed outlines are helpful, but the two green shaded regions are difficult to distinguish in grayscale; consider using different hatching or labels directly in the figure.
  4. [Section 4] The text says the water-retention results indicate that water retention is unlikely for the 1.0 solar-mass case, but Table 2 only includes 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 solar masses; please state explicitly that the 1.1 and 1.2 solar-mass merger models were not included in the water-retention calculation.
  5. [Section 2] The cooling tracks are not provided and the paper refers to Bédard et al. (2024) for details; making the STELUM tracks for the new low-mass models available would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CHZ durations are derived from published HZ flux fitting functions applied to cooling tracks that are independently motivated by the observed Q-branch and NGC 6791; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward application of external habitable-zone fitting functions (Kopparapu et al. 2013; Zhan et al. 2024) to white-dwarf cooling tracks from STELUM. The claimed increase in continuous habitable zone duration follows from the plateau in luminosity during 22Ne distillation, but the plateau itself is an input from stellar modeling (Section 2: "We find that our 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 Msun models experience cooling delays of about 10, 9, and 6 Gyr"), not a parameter fitted to the habitable-zone output. The cooling models are the authors' own prior STELUM/Bédard et al. (2024) setup, but they are independently anchored to the observed Q-branch (Cheng et al. 2019) and to the NGC 6791 luminosity function (Salaris et al. 2024), so the self-citation is not load-bearing in the circular sense. The water-retention calculation follows the prior Becker et al. (2024) framework and is likewise not fitted to the habitability conclusion. The paper explicitly flags its main limitations rather than hiding them: footnote 5 notes it "ignore[s] this shell distillation" and Section 5 admits "we were unable to account for how the different spectrum of incident radiation on Earth-like planets from host stars hotter than 7200 K affects habitable zone boundaries." These are uncertainties about the reality of the assumed pause and high-temperature HZ boundaries, not circular reductions. I find no equation or fitted parameter that makes the claimed result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence and fidelity of the neon-22 distillation cooling pause, which is an established but still model-dependent phenomenon. The habitable zone boundary choices introduce additional model dependence, especially for hot white dwarfs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • 22Ne mass fraction for distillation models = 3% by mass
    Chosen to represent high-metallicity single-star evolution; distillation and hence the cooling pause only occurs above about 2.5% by mass. This value is not fitted to data in this paper.
  • Continuous habitable zone duration threshold = 3 Gyr
    Definition of the continuous habitable zone as regions where orbiting planets remain in the habitable zone for at least 3 Gyr. This is an arbitrary but standard threshold.
  • Tidal quality factor Qp for water retention models = 10 for 1 T.O. and 100 for 10 T.O. cases
    Assumed values for rocky planets in the water retention modeling. These affect the water retention results in Table 2 but not the habitable zone duration calculations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 22Ne distillation causes cooling pauses in about 6% of massive white dwarfs and is the leading explanation of the Q-branch.
    The paper relies on this as established, citing Cheng et al. (2019), Blouin et al. (2021), and Bédard et al. (2024). If the distillation mechanism or the Q-branch interpretation is wrong, the central result collapses.
  • domain assumption Kopparapu et al. (2013) habitable zone flux limits are valid for white dwarfs and can be extrapolated to effective temperatures above 7200 K by assuming the 7200 K values.
    The outer habitable zone boundary uses polynomial fits calibrated for 2600-7200 K; for hotter white dwarfs the paper fixes the boundary at the 7200 K value, explicitly ignoring spectral effects.
  • domain assumption The Zhan et al. (2024) GCM-based inner habitable zone limits, including the 'bat rotation' circulation pattern, apply to planets around white dwarfs.
    The inner habitable zone is defined using a piecewise linear fit from the Zhan et al. (2024) global climate models. If these models are incorrect, the inner edge and resulting continuous habitable zone locations change.
  • domain assumption The STELUM cooling models correctly simulate crystallization and 22Ne distillation in white dwarf interiors.
    The cooling tracks are generated with the STELUM code described in prior papers by the same group. The models are validated against observations of the Q-branch, but they are not independently reproduced in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-lived Habitable Zones around White Dwarfs undergoing Neon-22 Distillation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MDACBVA

@misc{pith2026250106613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-lived Habitable Zones around White Dwarfs undergoing Neon-22 Distillation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MDACBVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06613}
}
abstract

White dwarf stars have attracted considerable attention in the past 15 years as hosts for potentially habitable planets, but their low luminosity and continuous cooling are major challenges for habitability. Recently, astronomers have found that about 6% of massive white dwarfs seem to have "paused" their cooling for up to ~10 Gyr. The leading explanation for this cooling delay is the distillation of neutron-rich isotopes such as $^{22}$Ne in the white dwarf's interior, which releases a considerable amount of gravitational energy as the star's internal structure rearranges. Here, we consider the impact of $^{22}$Ne distillation on the evolution of white dwarf habitable zones. We find that $^{22}$Ne distillation in the white dwarf host dramatically increases the time that a planet can continuously reside within the habitable zone (giving more time for life to arise) and that long-lasting habitable zones are located farther from the star (decreasing the impact of tidal forces). These properties may make white dwarfs undergoing $^{22}$Ne distillation more promising locations for habitability than white dwarfs undergoing standard cooling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Location of the habitable zone over time for 0.6 M⊙ white dwarfs cooling with and without 22Ne distillation. We color the region within the habitable zone dark green for white dwarfs with 22Ne distillation and transparent light green for white dwarfs undergoing standard cooling. We show the outlines for white dwarfs with and without 22Ne distillation in solid and dashed lines, respectively. At the bottom of the pl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Ocean retention (in terrestrial oceans) for a planet with 1 T.O. of initial surface water orbiting a 0.8 M⊙ white dwarf as a function of its final orbital distance af and the planet’s time of arrival at its observed orbit (measured since the white dwarf’s formation). Red shading represents desiccation of the planetary surface, while blue shading represents substantial retention or sur￾face water. The black lines d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 279

    Barnes, R., & Heller, R. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 279

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Bauer, E. B. 2023, ApJ, 950, 115

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    B., Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., & Cheng, S

    Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., & Cheng, S. 2020, ApJ, 902, 93

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Z., Adams, F

    Becker, J., Seligman, D. Z., Adams, F. C., & Styczinski, M. J. 2023, ApJ, 945, L24

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12056

    Becker, J., Vanderburg, A., & Livesey, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12056

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    E., Farihi, J., Jura, M., et al

    Becklin, E. E., Farihi, J., Jura, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, L119 B´ edard, A., Blouin, S., & Cheng, S. 2024, Nature, 627, 286 B´ edard, A., Brassard, P., Bergeron, P., & Blouin, S. 2022, ApJ, 927, 128

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    W., Beaulieu, J

    Blackman, J. W., Beaulieu, J. P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 272

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    2021, ApJ, 911, L5

    Blouin, S., Daligault, J., & Saumon, D. 2021, ApJ, 911, L5

    work page 2021

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Blouin, S., Dufour, P., Thibeault, C., & Allard, N. F. 2019, ApJ, 878, 63

    2019

  2. [10]

    D., & M´ enard, B

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., & M´ enard, B. 2019, ApJ, 886, 100

    2019

  3. [11]

    M., & Bryson, S

    Dattilo, A., Batalha, N. M., & Bryson, S. 2023, AJ, 166, 122 Di Stefano, R., Howell, S. B., & Kawaler, S. D. 2010, ApJ, 712, 142

    2023

  4. [12]

    B., & Huang, Y

    Doshi, D., Cowan, N. B., & Huang, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1982

    2022

  5. [13]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 6

    Dufour, P., Kilic, M., Fontaine, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 6

    2012

  6. [14]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Weisz, D. R. 2018, ApJ, 860, L17

    2018

  7. [15]

    G., Burleigh, M

    Faedi, F., West, R. G., Burleigh, M. R., Goad, M. R., & Hebb, L. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 899

    2011

  8. [16]

    T., & Koester, D

    Farihi, J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Koester, D. 2013, Science, 342, 218

    2013

  9. [17]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5984

    Fleury, L., Caiazzo, I., & Heyl, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5984

    2022

  10. [18]

    J., Tonry, J

    Fulton, B. J., Tonry, J. L., Flewelling, H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 114 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A10 G¨ ansicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., Toloza, O., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 61

    2014

  11. [19]

    T., & Johnson, J

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

    2018

  12. [20]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375

    1966

  13. [21]

    A., Tremblay, P

    Hollands, M. A., Tremblay, P. E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 663

    2020

  14. [22]

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

    2007

  15. [23]

    J., Kozakis, T., et al

    Kaltenegger, L., MacDonald, R. J., Kozakis, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, L1

    2020

  16. [24]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108

    1993

  17. [25]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 159

    Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Blouin, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 159

    2024

  18. [26]

    K., & Winget, D

    Kilic, M., von Hippel, T., Leggett, S. K., & Winget, D. E. 2006, ApJ, 646, 474

    2006

  19. [27]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131

    2013

  20. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 894, L6

    Kozakis, T., Lin, Z., & Kaltenegger, L. 2020, ApJ, 894, L6

    2020

  21. [29]

    A., Vanderburg, A., Stevenson, K

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., Stevenson, K. B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2622

    2022

  22. [30]

    W., Gonzalez Abad, G., & Loeb, A

    Lin, H. W., Gonzalez Abad, G., & Loeb, A. 2014, ApJ, 792, L7

    2014

  23. [31]

    W., & Loeb, A

    Lin, H. W., & Loeb, A. 2014, ApJ, 793, L43

    2014

  24. [32]

    2022, ApJ, 925, L10

    Lin, Z., Seager, S., Ranjan, S., Kozakis, T., & Kaltenegger, L. 2022, ApJ, 925, L10

    2022

  25. [33]

    E., & Wood, K

    Livio, M., Pringle, J. E., & Wood, K. 2005, ApJ, 632, L37

    2005

  26. [34]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, L11

    Loeb, A., & Maoz, D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, L11

    2013

  27. [35]

    L., Burgasser, A

    Luhman, K. L., Burgasser, A. J., & Bochanski, J. J. 2011, ApJ, 730, L9

    2011

  28. [36]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Eggl, S., et al. 2019, Science, 364, 66

    2019

  29. [37]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497

    Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al

    Mullally, S. E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, L32

    2024

  31. [39]

    J., & Villaver, E

    Mustill, A. J., & Villaver, E. 2012, ApJ, 761, 121

    2012

  32. [40]

    Nordhaus, J., & Spiegel, D. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 500

    2013

  33. [41]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A guide to NumPy pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, ApJ, 759, L30

    Passy, J.-C., Mac Low, M.-M., & De Marco, O. 2012, ApJ, 759, L30

    2012

  35. [43]

    2024, AJ, 167, 257

    Poulsen, S., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 257

    2024

  36. [44]

    Winn, J. N. 2013, ApJ, 773, L15

    2013

  37. [45]

    Salaris, M., Blouin, S., Cassisi, S., & Bedin, L. R. 2024, A&A, 686, A153

    2024

  38. [46]

    1996, A&A, 310, 485

    Segretain, L. 1996, A&A, 310, 485

    1996

  39. [47]

    J., Blouin, S., & Breivik, K

    Shen, K. J., Blouin, S., & Breivik, K. 2023, ApJ, 955, L33

    2023

  40. [48]

    L., Wolf, E

    Shields, A. L., Wolf, E. T., Agol, E., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02694

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A

    Tremblay, P. E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 128

    2011

  42. [50]

    P., et al

    Tremblay, P.-E., Fontaine, G., Gentile Fusillo, N. P., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 202

    2019

  43. [51]

    A., Rappaport, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Johnson, J. A., Rappaport, S., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 546

    2015

  44. [52]

    A., Xu, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Rappaport, S. A., Xu, S., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 363

    2020

  45. [53]

    2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 1

    Veras, D. 2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 1

    2021

  46. [54]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 6059 Wes McKinney

    Veras, D., & Fuller, J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6059 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61

    2020

  47. [55]

    T., Quiroga-Nu˜ nez, L

    Whyte, C. T., Quiroga-Nu˜ nez, L. H., Lingam, M., & Pinilla, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.18934

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Wolszczan, A., & Frail, D. A. 1992, Nature, 355, 145

    1992

  49. [57]

    Zhan, R., Koll, D. D. B., & Ding, F. 2024, ApJ, 971, 125

    2024

  50. [58]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 725 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template

    Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., Klein, B., Koester, D., & Jura, M. 2010, ApJ, 722, 725 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the astro-ph section of the arXiv, mak...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.