Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Architecture Classification for Extrasolar Planetary Systems

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Three architecture questions classify nearly all multiplanet systems.

desk verdict A genuinely useful taxonomy for exoplanet system architectures, with an honestly flagged overfit threshold that should temper the headline 97% coverage claim until it is tested on held-out data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08191 v2 pith:ITGVOMBD submitted 2025-01-14 astro-ph.EP

Alex R. Howe , Juliette C. Becker , Christopher C. Stark , Fred C. Adams This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsystemarchitecturesclassificationschemepeasinapodsystemswarmJupiterinnerandouterplanetdividegappedNASAArchivemultiplanet
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 tries to show that the bewildering variety of known planetary systems is actually organized into a small number of architecture types, and that three simple questions are enough to sort nearly all of them. Working from the complete confirmed-exoplanet catalog, the authors split each system into inner and outer planets, ask whether the inner planets include a Jupiter, and ask whether the inner planets contain a gap with a period ratio larger than 5. These three questions classify about 97 percent of systems with three or more planets, with the rest mostly fitting into named subcategories such as “gapped” and “warm Jupiter” systems. If the claim holds, exoplanetary systems are far more uniform than the “zoo” narrative suggests, and the Solar System is a fairly ordinary peas-in-a-pod system with an outer giant population. The classification matters because it gives future surveys and formation models a concrete, observationally grounded set of target architectures to explain.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-question classification tree applied to the 314 confirmed systems with at least three planets, built on radius classes (Earths, sub-Neptunes, Neptunes, Jupiters) and period-ratio thresholds. The load-bearing definitions are: an inner/outer divide requires a period ratio $>5$ between adjacent planets with the outer planet a Jupiter beyond 130 days; a “gapped” system has any inner pair with period ratio $>5$; “peas-in-a-pod” means no inner Jupiters. The tree then splits gapped systems by whether the gap lies between the innermost pair, the middle, or the outermost pair, and this location distinction is argued to be physically meaningful because inner gaps track ultra-short-period planets while outer gaps track cooler exterior planets.

What would settle it

Re-run the classification on the same 314 systems with the inner/outer cutoff moved to 80 days and 200 days and the gap threshold moved to 4 and 6; the framework's claim would fail if many systems change class or if the fraction classified “with minimal ambiguity” drops well below the reported 97%. A second decisive test is the discovery of a non-Jovian outer planet, which the framework predicts should be rare enough to leave a conspicuous empty class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the architecture of a planetary system can be captured by a short decision tree. First, does the system have distinct inner and outer regimes, defined by a period gap with ratio $>5$ where the outer planet has period $>130$ days and is Jupiter-sized? Second, among the inner planets, is there at least one Jupiter (radius $>6\,R_\oplus$)? Third, do the inner planets contain a gap with period ratio $>5$? Answering these questions assigns roughly 97% of confirmed $N \geq 3$ systems to a category: closely-spaced peas-in-a-pod, gapped peas-in-a-pod (inner-, middle-, or outer-gap), or warm Jupiter systems, with hot Jupiters and strongly-inverted mass ratios as auxiliary dynamical features. The same lens makes the Solar System typical: an inner peas-in-a-pod group of small planets, separated by a wide gap from outer giants. The paper presents this as a working classification for the current catalog, explicitly qualitative in its statistics, and argues that the existence of the categories is robust even if individual assignments can shift as data improve.

Load-bearing premise

The classification only works as a statement about nature if the chosen thresholds—a period ratio above 5 for a gap and 130 days for an outer planet—carve at physical joints rather than being boundaries fitted to today's catalog; the paper itself concedes this definition is “both arbitrary and over-fit to our small sample.”

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Roughly 80% of systems with at least three inner planets are closely-spaced peas-in-a-pod systems, making that the default outcome of planet formation.
  • Warm Jupiter systems are a minority (about 8% of $N \geq 3$ inner systems) but are much more likely to be gapped and to show strongly inverted mass ratios, pointing to different formation histories.
  • Large gaps among inner planets usually sit at the inner or outer edge of the system, not the middle, so inner-gap and outer-gap systems are separate dynamical subclasses.
  • Hot Jupiters rarely have close companions, but about 3% have distant cold Jupiter companions, consistent with high-eccentricity migration as a dominant formation channel.
  • The Solar System, with its small inner planets and outer giants, fits the standard peas-in-a-pod-plus-outer-Jupiters pattern rather than being an oddity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the architecture classes are real, population synthesis models should be constrained to reproduce the observed 80% closely-spaced peas-in-a-pod fraction and the roughly 39% gap rate among warm Jupiter systems, not just broad occurrence rates.
  • The 130-day and period-ratio-5 boundaries may track the ice line and giant-planet migration; one testable extension is whether gap location shifts with stellar mass as the ice line moves, which the paper's period-only definition does not capture.
  • The framework predicts that upcoming microlensing surveys will find non-Jovian outer planets, like Uranus and Neptune analogs, filling the paper's one conspicuously empty class; their absence would instead suggest a real formation barrier.
  • If the peas-in-a-pod pattern extends to M-dwarfs, their compact chains can place planets in the habitable zone, so the framework focuses future habitability searches on M-dwarf multis; this follows from the paper's claims but goes beyond its classification result.
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. This paper proposes an architecture classification for exoplanetary systems based on the September 2024 NASA Exoplanet Archive catalog. Systems are first divided into inner and outer regimes using a period-ratio gap >5 and a minimum outer-planet period of 130 days; inner systems are then classified as peas-in-a-pod, warm Jupiter, closely spaced, or gapped, with further subdivision by gap location. The paper reports that three questions (inner/outer divide, presence of inner Jupiters, and inner gaps with period ratio >5) classify roughly 97% of N>=3 systems with minimal ambiguity, and it gives qualitative prevalence statistics, outlier case studies, and predictions for future classes. It concludes that exoplanetary systems are more uniform than often claimed and that the Solar System fits as a peas-in-a-pod system with an outer giant population.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the framework would be a useful organizing taxonomy for the full confirmed multiplanet population, complementing earlier work on peas-in-a-pod systems (Weiss et al.) and gap complexity (Gilbert & Fabrycky). The paper is commendably transparent about its qualitative statistical approach and selection effects, and the census tables and architecture figures are valuable resources. However, the headline quantitative claim of ~97% classification with minimal ambiguity is not yet adequately supported: the 130-day minimum outer-planet period is explicitly admitted to be arbitrary and over-fit to the same catalog used to compute the classification rate, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. The paper also introduces several empirical thresholds (e.g., the 1/7 strongly-inverted mass ratio) without independent validation. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim, so the manuscript requires substantive revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Section 1] The central claim that three questions classify ~97% of N>=3 systems depends critically on the 130-day minimum outer-planet period, which is chosen by inspecting the same September 2024 catalog. The paper explicitly states that this definition is 'both arbitrary and over-fit to our small sample' (Section 5.2). Since systems such as HD 33142, HD 141399, and Kepler-148 are discussed as borderline cases, moving the cutoff to 80 or 200 days would change individual classifications and shift the prevalence fractions in Tables 3 and 4. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis that recomputes the classification counts and the 'unambiguity' fraction over a plausible range of cutoff values (e.g., 80, 100, 160, 200 days), and they should state how much the reported numbers change.
  2. [Section 6.4 and Table 5] The strongly-inverted mass ratio threshold of M_outer/M_inner < 1/7 is defined as 'an empirical result based on looking at the distribution of mass ratios' (Section 6.4). No independent sample, stability test, or goodness-of-fit justification is given for this specific value. The counts of strongly-inverted systems (8 peas-in-a-pod and 8 warm Jupiter systems in Table 5) and the claim that these systems form a 'distinctive dynamical cluster' depend directly on this threshold. The authors should test the sensitivity of these counts to reasonable changes in the threshold (e.g., 1/5 and 1/10) or derive the threshold from a principled statistical procedure.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Tables 3, 5] The TTV mass corrections introduce several free parameters: the rocky-planet scaling factor 8.0/5.5, the 1.75 R_Earth boundary, and the pure-iron-core model with a core radius 0.5 R_Earth smaller than the observed radius. These corrections can change whether a planet is classified as a Jupiter, which directly affects the warm-Jupiter vs. peas-in-a-pod counts that are central to the classification. The paper does not report how many planets were affected by each correction, nor how the final classification changes if these parameters are varied within plausible bounds. At minimum, the authors should report the number of affected planets and a brief stability check of the key class fractions.
  4. [Section 8.1 and Table 1] The 'minimal ambiguity' claim is not quantified. The paper states that only 9 out of 314 N>=3 systems are difficult to classify, which is ~2.9%, but there is no measure of how many systems lie near the boundaries of the definitions (e.g., period ratios near 5, periods near 130 days, or planet radii/masses near the Jupiter cutoff). A robustness measure, such as the number of systems whose classification changes under small perturbations of the thresholds or under plausible measurement uncertainties, would be needed to substantiate the ~97% figure and to make the claim falsifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The first paragraph contains a duplicated phrase: 'in our analysis, in our analysis'.
  2. [Section 6] The introductory paragraph contains a typo: 'better-charaterized' should be 'better-characterized'.
  3. [Section 5.3] The phrase 'the gapped systems compromise only a small minority' should use 'comprise' rather than 'compromise'.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] The caption begins with 'F ramework summary' with an extra space; the same spacing issue appears in several table captions ('T able').
  5. [Abstract and Section 8.1] The abstract quotes ~97%, and Section 8.1 reports 9 out of 314 systems as difficult to classify; the arithmetic (305/314 = 97.1%) should be made explicit so the reader can verify the claim.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline 97% classification rate is an in-sample fit: the 130-day inner/outer cutoff is fitted to the same catalog it then classifies, with the paper itself calling the definition 'arbitrary and over-fit.'

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2 (threshold definition); Section 1 (97% claim); Section 7 (admission)]
    "However, in the current context, we exclude them from our analysis so that all systems with longer-period Jupiters >130 days can be cleanly divided into inner and outer planets. ... To be sure, this definition of the inner-outer divide is both arbitrary and over-fit to our small sample."

    The central claim that three questions classify ~97% of N>=3 systems with minimal ambiguity is measured on the same September 2024 catalog used to choose the 130-day minimum outer-planet period. The threshold was not derived independently: near-limit systems were analyzed case by case, outliers Kepler-90 and HD 10180 were excluded so that longer-period Jupiters would divide cleanly, and the paper concedes the definition is 'over-fit to our small sample.' Thus the clean inner/outer division, and hence much of the unambiguous classification, is constructed by the fitted cutoff rather than discovered. No quantitative sensitivity of the 97% figure to moving the cutoff to 80 or 200 days is given, so the headline statistic remains an in-sample fit masquerading as a general property.

  2. self definitional [Section 7]
    "While the framework presented in this paper is very effective at classifying the known population of exoplanet systems, which was used to define it, it is necessarily limited by the kinds of planets we are able to detect, which are extremely non-uniform across the population."

    This is an explicit admission that the framework was defined using the same population it is then claimed to classify effectively. The classification categories and thresholds were selected from this catalog, so the 'very effective' classification statement is a description of the fitting set, not an out-of-sample test. This does not by itself prove circularity, but it confirms that the ~97% coverage and class prevalences are in-sample statistics and should not be read as independent validation of the framework.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.4; prevalence counts reported in Section 5.3]
    "For non-Jupiter pairs, we define two adjacent planets to have a strongly inverted mass ratio if Mouter/Minner < 1/7. (This is an empirical result based on looking at the distribution of mass ratios in multiplanet systems.)"

    The 1/7 threshold for 'strongly-inverted mass ratios' is chosen by inspecting the same distribution it is then used to characterize, and the resulting counts (8 of 266 peas-in-a-pod systems, 8 of 23 warm Jupiter systems) are presented as findings. A different break point would assign different systems to this category and change the reported prevalence. This is a secondary classification feature rather than the core three-question framework, so it contributes less to the overall circularity score, but it is another example of a sample-fitted threshold being reported as an empirical result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular in the sense of importing a uniqueness theorem or relying on a load-bearing self-citation; the authors are unusually candid that thresholds are empirical and over-fit. However, the headline claim that three questions classify ~97% of N>=3 systems with minimal ambiguity is computed on the same catalog used to choose those thresholds. Specifically, the 130-day minimum outer-planet period was set after excluding Kepler-90 and HD 10180 as outliers and after case-by-case decisions for near-limit systems such as Kepler-148, HD 33142, and HD 141399, making the clean inner/outer division partly a product of the fitting process. The paper's own Section 7 admission that the framework is effective at classifying 'the known population of exoplanet systems, which was used to define it' confirms the in-sample nature of the statistic. The period-ratio >5 component is less problematic, since the paper reports only one system changes when that cutoff is varied from 4 to 6, but no analogous robustness check is provided for the headline 97% figure against changes in the 130-day cutoff. The peas-in-a-pod vs. warm-Jupiter distinction and the gap-location subcategories retain independent content, so the circularity is partial rather than total, meriting a score of 6 rather than higher.

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

The central classification depends on several hand-chosen thresholds: the period-ratio cutoff of 5, the 130-day outer planet period, the 1/7 strongly-inverted mass ratio, and the TTV density-correction parameters. These are fitted to or tuned for the same catalog that the paper classifies. The framework also assumes the mass-radius relation, adopted planet-radius classes, real gaps, and robustness to selection effects without independent validation.

free parameters (6)
  • Inner-outer period ratio cutoff = 5
    Adopted as a natural break point for dividing inner and outer planets and for defining gapped systems (Section 5.2). The authors note that moving it from 4 to 6 excludes only Kepler-46, indicating tuning to the current sample.
  • Minimum outer planet period = 130 days
    Chosen from an observed transition at 100-200 days. Section 5.2 calls it 'both arbitrary and over-fit to our small sample.' Different limits would change the list of systems classified as having outer planets.
  • Strongly-inverted mass ratio threshold = M_outer/M_inner < 1/7
    Section 6.4 states this is 'an empirical result based on looking at the distribution of mass ratios.' It is used to count strongly-inverted pairs in Table 5.
  • Gap period ratio threshold for gapped systems = 5
    The same value as the inner-outer cutoff is applied to define closely-spaced versus gapped inner systems in Section 5.3. This is a fitted boundary rather than a derived one.
  • TTV mass correction: rocky scaling factor = 8.0/5.5 times the rocky mass-radius relation
    Ad hoc correction in Section 2.2 to cap densities at pure iron for radii <1.75 R_Earth. This alters masses used in mass-ratio classifications.
  • TTV mass correction: iron-core radius offset = core radius = R_p - 0.5 R_Earth for radii 2.25-6 R_Earth
    Toy model in Section 2.2 chosen to set limiting masses for ambiguous TTV measurements. It affects which mass measurements are retained for classification.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Chen & Kipping (2017) mass-radius relation is valid for inferring missing radii and masses and for correcting unreliable measurements.
    Used throughout Sections 2.1-2.2 to fill missing data and reset masses or radii; errors in this relation propagate into the classifications but are not quantified.
  • domain assumption Kopparapu et al. (2018) radius classes are physically meaningful breaks in the planet population.
    Section 2.3 adopts Jupiter, Neptune, sub-Neptune, and Earth classes, with modifications. The presence or absence of Jupiters is a key axis of the classification.
  • domain assumption Undetected planets are unlikely to fill observed inner-outer gaps, so the gaps used to define architectures are real.
    Section 5.2 relies on analogies to the Solar System and Millholland et al. (2022). If gaps contain undiscovered planets, systems would reclassify, often into the closely-spaced peas-in-a-pod class.
  • ad hoc to paper Observational selection effects do not erase the category structure.
    Section 7 asserts that categories are robust in aggregate despite large biases, but no quantitative bias model or completeness correction is provided.
  • domain assumption TTV-derived masses exceeding a pure-iron density upper limit are unphysical and can be replaced or recalculated.
    Section 2.2 assumes that no planet can be denser than pure iron at a given radius and uses toy models to cap masses. This affects which systems enter the final sample.
  • domain assumption Stability criteria for planets in binary systems inform the period-ratio scale for dynamical gaps.
    Section 5.2 uses Holman & Wiegert (1999) critical period ratios to motivate the gap cutoff of ~5, while noting that stability depends on eccentricity and can be chaotic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Architecture Classification for Extrasolar Planetary Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITGVOMBD

@misc{pith2026250108191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Architecture Classification for Extrasolar Planetary Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITGVOMBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08191}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a classification framework for the architectures of planetary systems based on a complete survey of the confirmed exoplanet population. With nearly 6000 confirmed exoplanets discovered, including more than 300 multiplanet systems with three or more planets, the current observational sample has reached the point where it is both feasible and useful to build a classification system that divides the observed population into meaningful categories. This framework provides a criterion to split planetary systems into inner and outer regimes, and then further divides inner systems into dynamical classes. The resulting categories include "peas-in-a-pod systems" with uniformly small planets and "warm Jupiter systems" with a mix of large and small planets, as well as "closely-spaced systems" and "gapped systems," with further subdivisions based on the locations of gaps and other features. These categories can classify nearly all of the confirmed systems with three or more planets with minimal ambiguity. We qualitatively examine the relative prevalence of each type of system, subject to observational selection effects, as well as other notable features such as the presence of hot Jupiters. A small number of outlier systems are also discussed. Potential additional classes of systems yet to be discovered are proposed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08191 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quick-reference chart for our classification of planetary system architectures, with representative model systems for each category. Each row corresponds to one planetary system, with horizontal spacing corresponding to orbital period on a log scale and point sizes corresponding to planet size. Colors correspond to planet type, as described in Section 2.3: Jupiters (>6 R⊕, red), Neptunes (3.5-6 R⊕, gold), Sub-Neptun… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative distributions of confirmed exoplanets with period, comparing total numbers of planets (dashed) to those in single-planet systems (solid), according to the same color scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scatter plot and histograms of two-planet systems by mass ratio versus inner planet mass, divided into Jupiter pairs (red) Jupiter and non-Jupiter pairs (lavender), and non-Jupiter pairs (blue, here representing all types of non-Jupiters). Overlaps between the color-coded regions (defined by planet size) are due to differences in assigning Jupiter status by radius rather than mass when possible. Systems with unusual… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Architectures of directly-imaged multiplanet systems, using the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plot of mass ratios versus inner planet masses for adjacent pairs of planets in 2-planet (purple), 3-planet (green), and higher-multiplicity systems (orange). Each dot represents one pair of planets, for N − 1 dots per system. The 2-planet systems include more …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Architectures of all exoplanet systems with N ≥3 inner planets that meet the criteria of closely-spaced peas-in-a-pod systems, plotted using the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Architectures of the subset of systems with N ≥4 inner planets plus a wide gap with a period ratio >5, ordered by a location-specific metric of “gap period.” This figure shows the relative abundance of inner-gap, middle-gap, and outer-gap systems in a population with c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Architectures of gapped peas-in-a-pod systems with N ≥3 inner planets, divided by gap location and ordered by a location-specific measure of “gap period.” This figure includes all systems in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Architectures of warm Jupiter systems (with and without gaps), ordered by period of the innermost planet within each category. This figure includes all systems in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Architectures of N ≥3 systems with one or more detected outer planets, ordered by the period of the first outer planet. All known outer planets under our definition are Jupiters, although this is not a definitional requirement. Five systems do not have any detected in…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Architectures of multiplanet systems (including 2-planet systems) with hot Jupiters (P < 10 days), ordered by the period of the second planet in the system to illustrate the distribution of companions. In this sample, this is always the hot Jupiter in systems with nea…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Architectures of multiplanet systems (including 2-planet systems) that include an ultra-short period planet (USP) with P < 1 day. The USPs have a variable degree of dynamical detachedness from the other (usually peas-in-a-pod) planets in their systems. Kepler-42 is th…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Architectures of planetary systems (of any multiplicity) that contain super-puffs (circled), ordered by period of the innermost planet. We define super-puffs as <0.3 g cm−3 and <30 M⊕. All super-puffs are classified as “Neptunes” in our analysis regardless of other pr…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Architectures of multiplanet systems (including 2-planet systems) that have planet pairs with strongly-inverted mass ratios, ordered by period of the innermost planet in each class. We define these systems as warm Jupiter systems with a non-Jupiter exterior to a Jupit…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Architectures of N ≥3 systems with one or more detected Jupiters (of any period) ordered by period of the first Jupiter in the system and colored by discovery method. Radial velocity discoveries (orange) and transit discoveries (purple) are distinguished from all othe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Estimating Orbital Parameters of Direct Imaging Exoplanet Using Neural Network

    astro-ph.EP 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Warm-starting parallel-tempered MCMC with flow-matching posterior proposals infers β Pictoris b's orbit about 78-365× faster than conventional samplers with comparable posteriors, though the comparison is not fully ap...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R., Jackson, B., Johnson, S., et al

    Adams, E. R., Jackson, B., Johnson, S., et al. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 152, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac0ea0

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac0ea0 2021

  2. [2]

    Adams, F. C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1446, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1832

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1832 2019

  3. [3]

    C., Batygin, K., Bloch, A

    Adams, F. C., Batygin, K., Bloch, A. M., & Laughlin, G. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa624

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa624 2020

  4. [4]

    L., et al

    Agol, E., Dorn, C., Grimm, S. L., et al. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 1, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd022

    doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  5. [5]

    C., Faria, J

    Akinsanmi, B., Santos, N. C., Faria, J. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037618

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037618 2020

  6. [6]

    M., H´ ebrard, G., D ´ ıaz, R

    Almenara, J. M., H´ ebrard, G., D ´ ıaz, R. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142964

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142964 2022

  7. [7]

    H., & Laughlin, G

    Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ, 829, 114, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/114

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/114 2016

  8. [8]

    C., Batygin, K., & Adams, F

    Becker, J. C., Batygin, K., & Adams, F. C. 2021, ApJ, 919, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac111e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac111e 2021

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    C., Vanderburg, A., Adams, F

    Becker, J. C., Vanderburg, A., Adams, F. C., Rappaport, S. A., & Schwengeler, H. M. 2015, ApJL, 812, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L18

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, AJ, 163, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6353

    Belkovski, M., Becker, J., Howe, A., Malsky, I., & Batygin, K. 2022, AJ, 163, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6353

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 627, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201835003

    Blokesz, A., Krzesinski, J., & Kedziora-Chudczer, L. 2019, A&A, 627, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201835003

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346211

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, A&A, 619, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833154

    Bourrier, V., Dumusque, X., Dorn, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833154

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Knutson, H

    Bryan, M. L., Knutson, H. A., Lee, E. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf57f

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    L., & Lee, E

    Bryan, M. L., & Lee, E. J. 2024, ApJL, 968, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5013

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    W., West, R

    Butters, O. W., West, R. G., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015655 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Wang, S., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 870, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafa1e

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/18

    Cabrera, J., Csizmadia, S., Lehmann, H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/18

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    O., D’Angelo, G., Reyes-Ruiz, M., & S´ anchez-Salcedo, F

    Chametla, R. O., D’Angelo, G., Reyes-Ruiz, M., & S´ anchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6007, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa260

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 Cort´ es-Zuleta, P., Rojo, P., Wang, S., et al

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 Cort´ es-Zuleta, P., Rojo, P., Wang, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936279

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Dai, F., Masuda, K., & Winn, J. N. 2018, ApJL, 864, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd4f

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    N., Schlaufman, K., et al

    Dai, F., Winn, J. N., Schlaufman, K., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b8

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Batalha, N

    Dai, F., Howard, A. W., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac02bd

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Halverson, S., et al

    Dai, F., Howard, A. W., Halverson, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21167

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    V., Fatuzzo, M., & Adams, F

    David, E.-M., Quintana, E. V., Fatuzzo, M., & Adams, F. C. 2003, PASP, 115, 825, doi: 10.1086/376395

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Petigura, E

    David, T. J., Petigura, E. A., Luger, R., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4c99

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12251, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12251

    Davoult, J., Alibert, Y., & Mishra, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12251, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12251

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    H., & Sigurdsson, S

    Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 556, doi: 10.1086/340291

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, AJ, 160, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba61d

    Dietrich, J., & Apai, D. 2020, AJ, 160, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba61d

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Feng, F., Tuomi, M., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa83b4

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Vogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e57

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2148

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    1994, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Ferraz-Mello, S. 1994, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 160,

    1994

  25. [33]

    Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1993, ed. A. Milani, M. di Martino, & A. Cellino, 175

    1993

  26. [34]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a9b

    Gao, P., & Zhang, X. 2020, ApJ, 890, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a9b

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Fabrycky, D

    Gilbert, G. J., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2020, AJ, 159, 281, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8e3c

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/80 Harpsøe, K

    Hadden, S., & Lithwick, Y. 2014, ApJ, 787, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/80 Harpsøe, K. B. W., Hardis, S., Hinse, T. C., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219996

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Y., Ford, E

    He, M. Y., Ford, E. B., & Ragozzine, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2869

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Y., & Weiss, L

    He, M. Y., & Weiss, L. M. 2023, AJ, 166, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdd56 H´ ebrard, G., Arnold, L., Forveille, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527585 H´ ebrard, G., D ´ ıaz, R. F., Correia, A. C. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-63...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    J., & Wiegert, P

    Holman, M. J., & Wiegert, P. A. 1999, AJ, 117, 621, doi: 10.1086/300695

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Col´ on, K

    Hord, B. J., Col´ on, K. D., Berger, T. A., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6f57

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Stark, C

    Howe, A. R., Stark, C. C., & Sadleir, J. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08883, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08883 34

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    X., Quinn, S

    Huang, C. X., Quinn, S. N., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 892, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7302

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Fulton, B., Isaacson, H., et al

    Hurt, S. A., Fulton, B., Isaacson, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5c47

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Clanton, C., Howard, A

    Johnson, J. A., Clanton, C., Howard, A. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 26, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/26

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 141, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060352

    Jontof-Hutter, D. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 141, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060352

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    R., & Gelino, D

    Kane, S. R., & Gelino, D. M. 2014, ApJ, 792, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/111 K¨ onigl, A., Giacalone, S., & Matsakos, T. 2017, ApJL, 846, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa861f

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    K., H´ ebrard, E., Belikov, R., et al

    Kopparapu, R. K., H´ ebrard, E., Belikov, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab205

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17798, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.17798

    Korth, J., Chaturvedi, P., Parviainen, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17798, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.17798

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Lammers, C., & Winn, J. N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06697, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06697

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    A., Gillon, M., Demory, B

    Lanotte, A. A., Gillon, M., Demory, B. O., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424373

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    Laughlin, G., Crismani, M., & Adams, F. C. 2011, ApJL, 729, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L7

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    Lee, E. J. 2019, ApJ, 878, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b40

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, AJ, 161, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe6a7

    Liang, Y., Robnik, J., & Seljak, U. 2021, AJ, 161, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe6a7

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., D´ esert, J.-M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606, doi: 10.1038/380606a0

    1996 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Fabrycky, D

    Lissauer, J. J., Fabrycky, D. C., Ford, E. B., et al. 2011, Nature, 470, 53, doi: 10.1038/nature09760

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    2020, AcA, 70, 181, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/70.3.2

    Maciejewski, G. 2020, AcA, 70, 181, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/70.3.2

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad078

    Maciejewski, G., Golonka, J., Loboda, W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad078

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    W., Louden, T., et al

    Malavolta, L., Mayo, A. W., Louden, T., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa5b5

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    2008, Science, 322, 1348, doi: 10.1126/science.1166585

    Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1348, doi: 10.1126/science.1166585

    2008 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/53

    Masuda, K. 2014, ApJ, 783, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/53

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.2497

    Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.2497

    2011 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3196

    Michel, K.-U., & Mugrauer, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3196

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    C., He, M

    Millholland, S. C., He, M. Y., & Zink, J. K. 2022, AJ, 164, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7c67

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    C., & Spalding, C

    Millholland, S. C., & Spalding, C. 2020, ApJ, 905, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc4e5

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    C., & Winn, J

    Millholland, S. C., & Winn, J. N. 2021, ApJL, 920, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2c77

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    M., & Fabrycky, D

    Mills, S. M., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2017, ApJL, 838, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6543

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    2023a, A&A, 670, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243751 —

    Mishra, L., Alibert, Y., Udry, S., & Mordasini, C. 2023a, A&A, 670, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243751 —. 2023b, A&A, 670, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244705

    doi

  62. [70]

    D., Bryson, S

    Morton, T. D., Bryson, S. T., Coughlin, J. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 86, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/86

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    S., Johnson, J

    Muirhead, P. S., Johnson, J. A., Apps, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/144

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    X., Burt, J

    Nabbie, E., Huang, C. X., Burt, J. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04225, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04225 NASA Exoplanet Science Institute. 2020, Planetary Systems Composite Table, NASA IPAC DataSet, NEA13, doi: 10.26133/NEA13

    2024 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    D., Brahm, R., Bouchy, F., et al

    Nielsen, L. D., Brahm, R., Bouchy, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037941

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Welsh, W

    Orosz, J. A., Welsh, W. F., Haghighipour, N., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca0

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    F., Helled, R., & Bouchy, F

    Otegi, J. F., Helled, R., & Bouchy, F. 2022, A&A, 658, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142110

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Howard, A

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80de

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    2019, AJ, 157, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0e0a

    Petrovich, C., Deibert, E., & Wu, Y. 2019, AJ, 157, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0e0a

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    L., & Vissapragada, S

    Piro, A. L., & Vissapragada, S. 2020, AJ, 159, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7192

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

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

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

    1996

  72. [80]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1817

    Pu, B., & Lai, D. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1817

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    P., Amara, A., Meyer, M

    Quanz, S. P., Amara, A., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/64

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    Chambers, J. E. 2007, ApJ, 660, 807, doi: 10.1086/512542

    2007 doi

  75. [83]

    D., et al

    Rabus, M., Jord´ an, A., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 88, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/88

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/1

    Rappaport, S., Levine, A., Chiang, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/1

    2012 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Fulton, B

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

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    F., Bryson, S

    Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/45 35

    2014 doi

  79. [87]

    N., et al

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rappaport, S., Winn, J. N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/47

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/112

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rappaport, S., Pall` e, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/112

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    J., et al

    Santerne, A., Brugger, B., Armstrong, D. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 393, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0420-5

    2018 doi

  82. [90]

    R., et al

    Santerne, A., Malavolta, L., Kosiarek, M. R., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.07355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1911.07355

    2019 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    M., Huang, C

    Sha, L., Vanderburg, A. M., Huang, C. X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1666

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    D., Wu, Y.-L., Eisner, J

    Sheehan, P. D., Wu, Y.-L., Eisner, J. A., & Tobin, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 874, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09f9

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    2017, AJ, 153, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/61

    Shvartzvald, Y., Bryden, G., Gould, A., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/61

    2017 doi

  86. [94]

    P., & Fortney, J

    Thorngren, D. P., & Fortney, J. J. 2018, AJ, 155, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaba13

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    P., et al

    Tian, F., G¨ udel, M., Johnstone, C. P., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 65, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0490-9

    2018 doi

  88. [96]

    E., Benz, W., Guillot, T., et al

    Trilling, D. E., Benz, W., Guillot, T., et al. 1998, ApJ, 500, 428, doi: 10.1086/305711

    1998 doi

  89. [97]

    2015, Nature, 528, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature16322

    Tsiganis, K. 2015, Nature, 528, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature16322

    2015 doi

  90. [98]

    Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Nature, 435, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature03539

    2005 doi

  91. [99]

    2012, A&A, 543, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118518

    Tuomi, M. 2012, A&A, 543, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118518

    2012 doi

  92. [100]

    Uzsoy, A. S. M., Rogers, L. A., & Price, E. M. 2021, ApJ, 919, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bb8

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    Valizadegan, H., Martinho, M. J. S., Jenkins, J. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd344 Van Zandt, J., & Petigura, E. A. 2024, AJ, 168, 268, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8c3b

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science (Oxford University Press), 1, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.238

    Veras, D. 2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science (Oxford University Press), 1, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.238

    2021

  95. [103]

    2024, AJ, 167, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3241

    Vissapragada, S., Greklek-McKeon, M., Linssen, D., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3241

    2024 doi

  96. [104]

    2024, AJ, 167, 271, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3de5

    Volk, K., & Malhotra, R. 2024, AJ, 167, 271, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3de5

    2024 doi

  97. [105]

    A., Horch, E

    Wang, J., Fischer, D. A., Horch, E. P., & Huang, X. 2015, ApJ, 799, 229, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/229

    2015 doi

  98. [106]

    2019, ApJL, 873, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0653

    Wang, L., & Dai, F. 2019, ApJL, 873, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0653

    2019 doi

  99. [107]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8868

    Wang, Y., Zhou, J.-l., hui-gen, L., & Meng, Z. 2017, ApJ, 848, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8868

    2017 doi

  100. [108]

    M., Millholland, S

    Weiss, L. M., Millholland, S. C., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 863

    2023

  101. [109]

    M., Marcy, G

    Weiss, L. M., Marcy, G. W., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9ff6

    2018 doi

  102. [110]

    F., Barclay, T., Powell, B

    Wilson, R. F., Barclay, T., Powell, B. P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf3df

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    N., Sanchis-Ojeda, R., & Rappaport, S

    Winn, J. N., Sanchis-Ojeda, R., & Rappaport, S. 2018, NewAR, 83, 37, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2019.03.006

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    A., Wang, S., Horner, J., et al

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Wang, S., Horner, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3436

    2020 doi

  105. [113]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca286

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    W., et al

    Yoshida, S., Vissapragada, S., Latham, D. W., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf858

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9

    Zhang, K., Zang, W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9

    2024 doi

  108. [116]

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

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

    2018 doi

  109. [117]

    2018, AJ, 156, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad22a

    Zhu, W., & Wu, Y. 2018, AJ, 156, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad22a

    2018 doi

  110. [118]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.01567, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.01567

    Zink, J., & Howard, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.01567, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.01567

    2023 doi arXiv

  111. [119]

    2012, A&A, 537, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117691

    Zorec, J., & Royer, F. 2012, A&A, 537, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117691

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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