Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Empirical Constraints on Tidal Dissipation in Exoplanet Host Stars

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 The distribution of tidal decay times in short-period exoplanet populations constrains the stellar tidal quality factor and favors g-mode resonance locking.

desk verdict Clever new method for constraining stellar tidal dissipation from the decay-time distribution; the qualitative result is likely right, but the quoted ranges are conditional on selection and break-age assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08992 v1 pith:FP4TBHKN submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Sarah C. Millholland , Morgan MacLeod , Felicia Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords tidaldissipationstellarqualityfactororbitaldecaytimescalehotJupitersresonancelockingcontinuityequationexoplanetpopulationstatisticstransittiming
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 claims that the population of short-period exoplanets, viewed through the time each planet has left before tidal inspiral, contains a steady-state power-law segment whose shape encodes the efficiency of tidal dissipation inside the host star. Using a continuity equation for the decay-time distribution, the authors show that the slope of this segment is set by the semi-major-axis dependence of the decay rate, and they measure that slope in a sample of 655 transiting planets, including 252 hot Jupiters. The data favor a stellar tidal quality factor $Q'_\star = Q_0 (P/2\ \mathrm{days})^\alpha$ with $10^{5.5} \lesssim Q_0 \lesssim 10^7$ and $-4.33 \lesssim \alpha \lesssim -2$, meaning dissipation must decrease sharply as orbital period shortens. This rules out constant-$Q'_\star$ equilibrium tides and, among current mechanisms, best matches resonance locking with gravity modes in the stellar interior.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tidal decay timescale $\tau_d$, the time remaining before a planet spirals into its star; under stellar tides it scales as $\tau_d \propto a^{1/\gamma}$ with $\gamma = 2/(13+3\alpha)$ for the adopted parameterization $Q'_\star = Q_0 (P/2\ \mathrm{days})^\alpha$. Planets obey a continuity equation $\partial\rho/\partial t + \partial(\rho u)/\partial x = S(x)$ in $x = \ln\tau_d$, whose steady-state solution has a log-log slope $p = [1 - (\tau_d/\tau_{d,p})^\gamma]/[1 - (\gamma+1)^{-1}(\tau_d/\tau_{d,p})^\gamma]$ that is nearly constant below the break at $\tau_{d,p} \sim$ system age. Comparing this predicted slope with the power-law slope fitted to the observed decay-time histograms is what constrains $\alpha$, while the break location constrains $Q_0$. The low-$\tau_d$ region is steady because planets with $\tau_d$ shorter than the population age have time to decay and replace one another, making the shape insensitive to most details of the birth distribution.

What would settle it

A concrete test: measure the initial semi-major axis distribution of young hot Jupiters from an unbiased survey of newly formed systems and recompute the steady-state slopes of the paper's four source-distribution models; if the true distribution moves the predicted slope at fixed $\alpha$ by more than the bootstrap uncertainties, or if transit-timing surveys find many planets near $P \simeq 1$ day decaying as fast as WASP-12 b ($|P/\dot P| \sim 3$ Myr), the inferred $\alpha$ range and the resonance-locking preference would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the tidal decay-time distribution of observed short-period planets has a steady-state power-law region below $\tau_d \sim 1$ Gyr, exactly as predicted by a continuity-equation model of planets born and then decaying inward. The slope of that region in the observed sample is too shallow ($p \simeq 0.6$) for a constant stellar tidal quality factor, which would give $p \simeq 0.86$; matching the observed slope requires a steep period dependence in $Q'_\star$. The paper consequently infers $Q'_\star = Q_0 (P/2\ \mathrm{days})^\alpha$ with $10^{5.5} \lesssim Q_0 \lesssim 10^7$ and $-4.33 \lesssim \alpha \lesssim -2$, and finds that the inferred $Q'_\star$ versus tidal period matches the resonance-locking prediction of g-modes more closely than equilibrium tides, inertial waves, or free-running internal gravity waves. The same analysis shows clean tidal sculpting only for planets around cool stars, with hot-star systems showing no steady-state segment, consistent with the g-mode resonance-locking picture.

Load-bearing premise

The whole inference rests on the assumption that the observed low-$\tau_d$ planets form a steady-state population whose fitted slope is close to the analytic steady-state solution, so that the unknown initial semi-major axis distribution and residual selection effects do not shift the slope by more than the reported uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar tidal dissipation in these systems is strongly frequency dependent, so an inspiraling planet spends more time at short orbital periods than a constant-$Q'_\star$ model would predict.
  • The observed slope rules out constant-$Q'_\star$ equilibrium-tide models and makes resonance locking with g-modes the favored mechanism among those compared.
  • Planets around cool stars below the Kraft break at $T_{\rm eff} = 6250$ K show tidal sculpting, while hot-star systems do not, implying the dominant dissipation mechanism depends on stellar interior structure.
  • Detectable orbital decay should be rare: the inferred $Q'_\star$ near $P \simeq 1$ day is large, so WASP-12 b is an outlier while Kepler-1658 b matches the population-level prediction.
  • The disruption rate of short-period planets can be estimated directly from the power-law slope via $N_{\rm dis}/N_{<\tau_{d,\max}} = (\Delta t/\tau_{d,\max})^p$, giving a population-level link to engulfment events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the steady-state slope is as robust as claimed, the same method could be applied to subsamples split by planet mass, stellar spectral type, or evolutionary stage to map where one tidal mechanism gives way to another.
  • The inferred $\alpha$ range implies $\tau_d$ depends on semi-major axis almost as weakly as $\tau_d \propto a^{1/2}$ at the steep end; future measurements of the birth semi-major axis distribution from young hot Jupiters could directly test whether the steady-state slope shifts as predicted.
  • Resonance locking predicts that individual systems' decay rates should track the stellar mode-evolution timescale rather than a smooth function of period; long-baseline transit-timing campaigns may detect scatter or clustering in $|P/\dot P|$ around this prediction.
  • The paper's relation between the steady-state slope and disruption rate could be turned around: a future sample of planetary engulfment transients would provide an independent check on the inferred $Q'_\star$ and on the supply of planets into decaying orbits.
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 presents a population-level method for constraining the stellar tidal quality factor Q'* of short-period exoplanet host stars. The authors define a tidal decay timescale tau_d and use toy simulations plus a continuity-equation model to show that the low-tau_d portion of the distribution reaches a steady state with an approximately power-law slope p that depends on the frequency exponent alpha in the parameterization Q'* = Q0 (P/2 days)^alpha. They measure the observed slope in a sample of 655 transiting planets (and a hot-Jupiter subset) from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, weighting by inverse transit probability, and compare with analytic, numerical PDE, and simulated predictions. This yields alpha in [-4.33,-2] and Q0 in [10^5.5,10^7], implying strong frequency dependence, and the authors argue that the constraints are most consistent with resonance locking of g-modes. They also find that only the cool-star subsample shows the expected steady-state broken power law, and they give predictions for |P/Pdot| and discuss WASP-12 b and Kepler-1658 b.

Significance. If the central constraints hold, this is a valuable new empirical probe: it uses the population-level shape rather than individual decay detections, and the analytic steady-state framework is elegant and clearly presented. The numerical PDE solutions and Monte Carlo simulations are internally consistent and reproduce the analytic derivation, and the independent agreement with the Penev et al. (2018) spin-up constraints is encouraging. The authors are transparent about many caveats. However, the headline ranges for alpha and Q0 are less robust than the abstract suggests because of a slope-definition mismatch between the observed and theoretical comparisons, a conditional age calibration for Q0, and selection effects that are not quantified. The qualitative conclusion of strongly negative alpha and Q0 around 10^6-10^7 is plausible, but the precise quoted ranges need revision before they should be taken as standalone empirical constraints.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Figure 6] The comparison between observed and theoretical slopes uses inconsistent slope definitions. Observed slopes are power-law fits over 0.001 < tau_d < 0.3 Gyr (Section 5.2, Figure 5) or 0.001-0.4 Gyr (Figure 7), while the simulated slopes in Figure 6 are fits over tau_d < 1 Gyr per the caption, and the analytic and PDE curves are evaluated at a single point tau_d = 0.03 Gyr with tau_d,p = 1 Gyr. Equation 17 is not constant over the fitted interval: for alpha = -3 it drops from about 0.99 at tau_d = 0.001 Gyr to about 0.71 at tau_d = 0.3 Gyr. The effective slope of a power-law fit over the interval therefore depends on the interval choice, and this dependence is not propagated into the quoted alpha range. The fitting protocol should be identical for observed and simulated samples, and the uncertainty in tau_d,p (or the break location) should be marginalized over when deriving alpha.
  2. [§5.6, Figure 11] The Q0 constraint is calibrated by requiring the break in the observed tau_d distribution to be at 2 Gyr, and the text explicitly states that other choices are reasonable. Since Q0 scales linearly with the assumed break age, the quoted range 10^5.5 - 10^7 is conditional on a 2 Gyr population age. The bootstrap percentiles in Figure 11 do not include uncertainty in this age calibration. The abstract should either quote Q0 with the age dependence made explicit, for example Q0 approximately (tau_pop/2 Gyr) times [10^5.5, 10^7], or the analysis should marginalize over a realistic stellar age distribution for the sample.
  3. [§5.1] The only selection correction applied is inverse transit probability weighting. The sample is further restricted to transiting planets with measured masses and e < 0.02, and the detection and measurement completeness as a function of orbital period is not modeled. Because the observed slope p is the key inferential quantity, any selection function that correlates with tau_d (for example, RV mass-measurement feasibility, transit signal-to-noise, or the relationship between eccentricity filtering and circularization age) can bias the inferred alpha and Q0. The authors should quantify this effect, for instance by injecting a realistic selection function into the synthetic populations, or state explicitly that the quoted ranges assume such effects are negligible.
  4. [Abstract vs. §5.5–5.7] The reported alpha range is internally inconsistent: the abstract and Section 5.3 state alpha in [-4.33,-2], while Section 5.5 gives alpha in [-4.33,-1.5] for the cool-star sample and Sections 5.6 and 5.7 use [-4.33,-1.5] for the Q0 constraints and for Figure 12. The paper should adopt a single agreed range or clearly explain why the cool-star sample is preferred in the summary statements. In addition, the lower bound -4.33 is the formal gamma > 0 boundary from Eq. 24 rather than an independently data-driven detection, so the wording should distinguish the parameterization's allowed range from the observationally favored range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, after Eq. 3] The text reads 'Planets are are born'; this should be corrected to 'Planets are born'.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption states that the analytic, PDE, and simulated curves agree for all alpha, but the curves are not identical; please specify the fitting intervals and the tolerance used for 'agreement'.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. 24] It would be helpful to state explicitly that alpha = -13/3 is excluded because tau_d diverges there, so the formal range is alpha > -4.33 rather than alpha >= -4.33.
  4. [§7 and GitHub link] The code link and data statement say the code reproduces 'some' of the results; please provide a precise list of which figures and analyses are reproducible, and confirm the GitHub URL is correct (the typeset version contains a space).
  5. [§5.7, Figure 12] The gray constraint lines in Figure 12 are described as spanning the cool-star alpha range [-4.33,-1.5], while the abstract cites [-4.33,-2]; the caption and text should use the same range so readers are not misled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the steady-state slope prediction is derived from the continuity equation, the observed slope is an independent fit, and the Q0 calibration rests on an explicit external age anchor.

full rationale

The central inference is not circular. The analytic steady-state slope p (Eq. 17) is obtained by solving the continuity equation (Eq. 11) with a specified source S(x) = A e^{gamma x}; the only model input is gamma = 2/(13+3alpha), and the formula does not contain the observed slope or any fitted parameter derived from it. The observed slope p ~ 0.6 at alpha = 0 versus p ~ 1.0 at alpha = -3 is an independent measurement obtained by fitting the decay-time histograms of the AP and HJ samples (Figs. 5, 7), so the match in Fig. 6 is a genuine comparison rather than an identity. The Q0 constraint is also not a disguised prediction: Q0 = 10^6 (2 Gyr / tau_break,10^6) is a calibration against an explicitly stated external assumption that the break sits near the mean system age; the paper notes other age choices simply rescale Q0. The resulting Q_star'(P) locus is then checked against external, independent constraints (Penev et al. 2018, Kepler-1658 b, WASP-12 b, and transit-timing upper limits), which provides real falsifiability. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Gupta et al. 2024, Millholland & Laughlin 2018/2019) are background or auxiliary interpretations and are not load-bearing for the derivation. The methodological caveat raised by a skeptic, namely that the analytic slope is evaluated at a single log-space midpoint while the observed slope is an interval power-law fit, is a legitimate modeling-uncertainty concern, but it is not a definitional reduction of the prediction to the data; it would affect error bars, not the logical independence of the comparison. Thus the paper's main claim is self-contained and no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a small number of physical and statistical assumptions. The five free parameters listed include the two target parameters (Q0, alpha) plus three modeling choices (tau_d,p, the 2 Gyr break age, and the 10^4 floor). The axioms cover the steady-state assumption, the source distribution shape, the dominance of stellar tides, the period-only dependence of Q'*, and the sufficiency of inverse transit weighting. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Q0 = 10^5.5 to 10^7
    Normalization of Q'* at P = 2 days (equation 21). Inferred in Section 5.6 by matching the observed break in the tau_d distribution to an assumed 2 Gyr population age.
  • alpha = -4.33 to -2 (cool-star subsample allows -4.33 to -1.5)
    Period-dependence exponent in Q'*(P). Inferred in Section 5.3 by matching the observed slope of the steady-state region to analytic, PDE, and simulated predictions.
  • tau_d,p = 1 Gyr (chosen)
    Location of the peak of the steady-state solution used to evaluate the analytic slope in equation 17; chosen as 1 Gyr in Section 5.3, consistent with the simulation break at approximately the population age.
  • break_age = 2 Gyr (assumed)
    Population age used to calibrate Q0 against the observed break location in Section 5.6; the paper notes other choices are reasonable and the constraints scale accordingly.
  • Q'_min = 10^4
    Floor placed on Q'* in the parameterizations (equations 21 and 26); chosen to allow flexibility, not derived from data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The short-period planet population evolves only by inward tidal decay due to stellar tides, so the number density obeys the continuity equation (7) with no other sinks or sources.
    Section 3. The model ignores planets that are destroyed by other processes or that outward-migrate; the observed sample is restricted to circular orbits (e < 0.02) to suppress planetary tides.
  • domain assumption The population is in a steady state for decay times tau_d below the system age, so the observed slope can be compared with the steady-state solution.
    Sections 2 and 3; the steady-state solution is approximately valid for tau_d < tau_d,p ~ age. Applied to the observed sample in the region 0.001 Gyr < tau_d < 0.3 Gyr.
  • ad hoc to paper The source distribution (initial semi-major axis distribution) is uniform in a, yielding S(x) = A e^(gamma x); alternative source distributions shift the predicted slope only mildly.
    Used in equations 12 through 18 and throughout the alpha inference; Appendix B tests normal, log-normal, and power-law source distributions and finds small changes that do not affect the conclusions.
  • domain assumption Stellar tides dominate planetary tides for the selected sample: eccentricities below 0.02 and assumed negligible obliquity.
    Section 2 footnote and Section 5.1; planetary tides are ignored, which is required for the decay-time formula (equation 1) to be the only orbital evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper Q'* depends only on orbital period (via Ptide = P/2) and not on stellar mass, radius, age, or rotation, within the P18 parameterization.
    Equation 21; the t* parameterization (equation 26) includes a weak stellar dynamical-time dependence but the paper concludes the data do not strongly prefer either. Section 4.1 acknowledges this ignores other dependencies.
  • ad hoc to paper The break in the observed tau_d distribution corresponds to an effective population age of approximately 2 Gyr.
    Section 5.6: we will thus look for the value of Q0 such that the break in the observed distribution of tau_d is at about 2 Gyr. The simulations place the break at tau_d ~ age, but the observed sample's age distribution is not directly measured.
  • domain assumption Inverse transit probability weighting (P_trans approximately (R_star + R_p)/a) is sufficient to correct selection effects.
    Section 5.1: the sample is restricted to transiting planets and weighted by 1/P_trans; no further completeness or detection-bias model is applied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Empirical Constraints on Tidal Dissipation in Exoplanet Host Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FP4TBHKN

@misc{pith2026250108992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Empirical Constraints on Tidal Dissipation in Exoplanet Host Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FP4TBHKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08992}
}
abstract

The orbits of short-period exoplanets are sculpted by tidal dissipation. However, the mechanisms and associated efficiencies of these tidal interactions are poorly constrained. We present robust constraints on the tidal quality factors of short-period exoplanetary host stars through the usage of a novel empirical technique. The method is based on analyzing structures in the population-level distribution of tidal decay times, defined as the time remaining before a planet spirals into its host star due to stellar tides. Using simple synthetic planet population simulations and analytic theory, we show that there exists a steady-state portion of the decay time distribution with an approximately power-law form. This steady-state feature is clearly evident in the decay time distribution of the observed short-period planet population. We use this to constrain both the magnitude and frequency dependence of the stellar tidal quality factor and show that it must decrease sharply with planetary orbital period. Specifically, with $Q_{\star}' = Q_0 (P/2 \ \mathrm{days})^{\alpha}$, we find $10^{5.5} \lesssim Q_0 \lesssim 10^7$ and $-4.33 \lesssim \alpha \lesssim -2$. Our results are most consistent with predictions from tidal resonance locking, in which the planets are locked into resonance with a tidally excited gravity mode in their host stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08992 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the τd distribution for the case of ran￾domized parameters. Even with the randomized param￾eters, the distributions appear very similar to those from the earlier simulation. The slope of the steady-state re￾gion is the same as that found earlier. If we instead keep all of the parameters the same but randomize the semi-major axis according to a normal distribution, a/AU ∼ N (µ = 0.04, σ = 0.015), then 0.0001 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the numerical PDE solution of ρ(x, t) and the simulated distributions of τd shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Numerical PDE solution to equation 11. The top and middle panels use S(x) ∝ e 2x/13 and ρ(x, t = 0) ∝ S(x) where x = ln τd. They show the solution over a time period of 1 Gyr and 5 Gyr, respectively. The blue curves show the solution at each time indicated in the legend. The red dashed line shows the source distribution S(x). The yellow dashed line shows a power law fit to the final blue curve within the range τd ∼ … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of τd for the all planets (AP) sample and hot Jupiters (HJ) sample assuming constant Q ′ ⋆ (such that α = 0, γ = 2/13). A bootstrap resampling method is used to generate 100 histograms with 100 corresponding power law fits to the region 0.001 Gyr < τd < 0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Slope of the steady-state region (equal to the exponent of the power law fit) as a function of α. The top panel corresponds to the P18 parameterization of Q ′ ⋆ (equation 21), while the bottom panel corresponds to the stellar dynamical parameterization (equation 26). W…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of τd for the all planets (AP) sample and hot Jupiters (HJ) sample using the P18 pa￾rameterization and assuming α = −3 and Q0 = 106 . A bootstrap resampling method is used to generate 100 his￾tograms with 100 corresponding power law fits to the region 0.0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Slope of the steady-state region as a function of α and split into the cool star and hot star samples. We use the P18 parameterization of Q ′ ⋆. The curves for the analytic solution, PDE solution, and simulated distribution are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of τd for the all planets (AP) sample assuming α = −3 and Q0 = 106 . The top and bottom panels show systems below and above the Kraft break at Teff = 6250 K. A bootstrap resampling method is used to generate 100 histograms with 100 corresponding power law…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Constraints on Q0 from the AP sample around cool stars. The top panel shows the mean Q0 for each α ∈ [−4.33, −1.5], with the errorbars indicating the 16th and 84th percentiles. The bottom panel shows the results across all α ∈ [−4.33, −1.5]. These constraints are obta…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Summary of empirical constraints on Q ′ ⋆ vs. Ptide. The gray lines represent constraints from the observed τd histograms of the AP sample limited to planets around cool stars only. Each line corresponds to a different combination of α ∈ [−4.33, −1.5] and Q0 inferred …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: |P/P˙ | versus orbital period for a Jupiter-mass planet orbiting a Solar-like star. The gray lines represent our empirical constraints as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    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...

    2021

  2. [2]

    R., Jackson , B., Sickafoose , A

    Adams , E. R., Jackson , B., Sickafoose , A. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07339, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07339

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.07339 2024

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    Akinsanmi , B., Barros , S. C. C., Lendl , M., et al. 2024, , 685, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348502

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348502 2024

  5. [5]

    Alexander , M. E. 1973, , 23, 459, 10.1007/BF00645172

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00645172 1973

  6. [6]

    2019, , 482, 1872, 10.1093/mnras/sty2805

    Bailey , A., & Goodman , J. 2019, , 482, 1872, 10.1093/mnras/sty2805

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2805 2019

  7. [7]

    2024, , 168, 7, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad429f

    Banerjee , B., Narang , M., Manoj , P., et al. 2024, , 168, 7, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad429f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad429f 2024

  8. [8]

    Barker , A. J. 2020, , 498, 2270, 10.1093/mnras/staa2405

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2405 2020

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    2022, , 927, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b63

    ---. 2022, , 927, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b63

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V

    Barker , A. J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V. V., & Veras , D. 2024, , 527, 5131, 10.1093/mnras/stad3530

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    2017, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 129, 509, 10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7

    Barnes , R. 2017, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 129, 509, 10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    2013, , 145, 1, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/1

    Batygin , K., & Morbidelli , A. 2013, , 145, 1, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/1

    2013 doi

  5. [14]

    Burkart , J., Quataert , E., Arras , P., & Weinberg , N. N. 2013, , 433, 332, 10.1093/mnras/stt726

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2304179120, 10.1073/pnas.2304179120

    Chen , D.-C., Xie , J.-W., Zhou , J.-L., et al. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2304179120, 10.1073/pnas.2304179120

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    K., et al

    Chontos , A., Huber , D., Grunblatt , S. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07893, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07893

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [17]

    2018, , 476, 2542, 10.1093/mnras/sty292

    Collier Cameron , A., & Jardine , M. 2018, , 476, 2542, 10.1093/mnras/sty292

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    Darwin , G. H. 1880, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, 171, 713

  10. [19]

    Dawson , R. I. 2014, , 790, L31, 10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L31

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    I., & Johnson , J

    Dawson , R. I., & Johnson , J. A. 2018, , 56, 175, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    2023, , 617, 55, 10.1038/s41586-023-05842-x

    De , K., MacLeod , M., Karambelkar , V., et al. 2023, , 617, 55, 10.1038/s41586-023-05842-x

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    D., Barker , A

    Duguid , C. D., Barker , A. J., & Jones , C. A. 2020, , 497, 3400, 10.1093/mnras/staa2216

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    D., de Vries , N

    Duguid , C. D., de Vries , N. B., Lecoanet , D., & Barker , A. J. 2024, , 966, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c40

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    Essick , R., & Weinberg , N. N. 2016, , 816, 18, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/18

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky , D., & Tremaine , S. 2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    2017, , 472, 1538, 10.1093/mnras/stx2135

    Fuller , J. 2017, , 472, 1538, 10.1093/mnras/stx2135

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    2012, , 420, 3126, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20237.x

    Fuller , J., & Lai , D. 2012, , 420, 3126, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20237.x

    2012

  19. [28]

    2017, , 604, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730661

    Gallet , F., Bolmont , E., Mathis , S., Charbonnel , C., & Amard , L. 2017, , 604, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730661

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    Goldreich , P., & Nicholson , P. D. 1977, , 30, 301, 10.1016/0019-1035(77)90163-4

    1977 doi

  21. [30]

    1966, , 5, 375, 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich , P., & Soter , S. 1966, , 5, 375, 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    1966 doi

  22. [31]

    Goodman , J., & Dickson , E. S. 1998, , 507, 938, 10.1086/306348

    1998 doi

  23. [32]

    2009, , 696, 2054, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2054

    Goodman , J., & Lackner , C. 2009, , 696, 2054, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2054

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    I., & Barker , A

    Guo , Z., Ogilvie , G. I., & Barker , A. J. 2023, , 521, 1353, 10.1093/mnras/stad569

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    F., Millholland , S

    Gupta , A. F., Millholland , S. C., Im , H., et al. 2024, , 632, 50, 10.1038/s41586-024-07688-3

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    H., & Schlaufman , K

    Hamer , J. H., & Schlaufman , K. C. 2019, , 158, 190, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3c56

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    Hansen , B. M. S. 2010, , 723, 285, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/285

    2010 doi

  28. [37]

    2012, , 757, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/6

    ---. 2012, , 757, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/6

    2012 doi

  29. [39]

    1981, , 99, 126

    Hut , P. 1981, , 99, 126

    1981

  30. [40]

    S., & Winn , J

    Ivshina , E. S., & Winn , J. N. 2022, , 259, 62, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac545b

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    2009, , 698, 1357, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1357

    Jackson , B., Barnes , R., & Greenberg , R. 2009, , 698, 1357, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1357

    2009 doi

  32. [43]

    Kraft , R. P. 1967, , 150, 551, 10.1086/149359

    1967 doi

  33. [44]

    2012, , 423, 486, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20893.x

    Lai , D. 2012, , 423, 486, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20893.x

    2012

  34. [45]

    A., Barker , A

    Lazovik , Y. A., Barker , A. J., de Vries , N. B., & Astoul , A. 2024, , 527, 8245, 10.1093/mnras/stad3689

    2024 doi

  35. [46]

    2010, , 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    Leconte , J., Chabrier , G., Baraffe , I., & Levrard , B. 2010, , 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    2010 doi

  36. [47]

    2012, , 756, L11, 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L11

    Lithwick , Y., & Wu , Y. 2012, , 756, L11, 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L11

    2012 doi

  37. [48]

    2021, , 918, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac088e

    Ma , L., & Fuller , J. 2021, , 918, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac088e

    2021 doi

  38. [49]

    2016, , 588, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628312

    Maciejewski , G., Dimitrov , D., Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2016, , 588, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628312

    2016 doi

  39. [50]

    M., Penev , K

    Mahmud , M. M., Penev , K. M., & Schussler , J. A. 2023, , 525, 876, 10.1093/mnras/stad2298

    2023 doi

  40. [51]

    2015, , 580, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526472

    Mathis , S. 2015, , 580, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526472

    2015 doi

  41. [52]

    Matsumura , S., Takeda , G., & Rasio , F. A. 2008, , 686, L29, 10.1086/592818

    2008 doi

  42. [53]

    Maxted , P. F. L., Serenelli , A. M., & Southworth , J. 2015, , 577, A90, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525774

    2015 doi

  43. [54]

    2018, , 869, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb1

    Millholland , S., & Laughlin , G. 2018, , 869, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb1

    2018 doi

  44. [55]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 424, 10.1038/s41550-019-0701-7

    ---. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 424, 10.1038/s41550-019-0701-7

    2019 doi

  45. [56]

    C., & Spalding , C

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

    2020 doi

  46. [57]

    2023, , 166, 209, 10.3847/1538-3881/acff71

    Miyazaki , S., & Masuda , K. 2023, , 166, 209, 10.3847/1538-3881/acff71

    2023 doi

  47. [58]

    J., Lambrechts , M., & Davies , M

    Mustill , A. J., Lambrechts , M., & Davies , M. B. 2022, , 658, A199, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140921

    2022 doi

  48. [59]

    2024, Planetary Systems Composite Parameters, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, 10.26133/NEA13

    NASA Exoplanet Archive . 2024, Planetary Systems Composite Parameters, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, 10.26133/NEA13

    2024 doi

  49. [60]

    E., & Hansen , B

    O'Connor , C. E., & Hansen , B. M. S. 2018, , 477, 175, 10.1093/mnras/sty645

    2018 doi

  50. [62]

    2013, , 429, 613, 10.1093/mnras/sts362

    ---. 2013, , 429, 613, 10.1093/mnras/sts362

    2013 doi

  51. [63]

    2014, , 52, 171, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035941

    ---. 2014, , 52, 171, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035941

    2014 doi

  52. [64]

    I., & Lin , D

    Ogilvie , G. I., & Lin , D. N. C. 2007, , 661, 1180, 10.1086/515435

    2007 doi

  53. [65]

    E., & Lai , D

    Owen , J. E., & Lai , D. 2018, , 479, 5012, 10.1093/mnras/sty1760

    2018 doi

  54. [67]

    C., Winn , J

    Patra , K. C., Winn , J. N., Holman , M. J., et al. 2017, , 154, 4, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d75

    2017 doi

  55. [68]

    G., Winn , J

    Penev , K., Bouma , L. G., Winn , J. N., & Hartman , J. D. 2018, , 155, 165, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf71

    2018 doi

  56. [69]

    A., Marcy , G

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

    2018 doi

  57. [70]

    2019, , 157, 180, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0e0a

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

    2019 doi

  58. [71]

    2009, , 396, 1789, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14868.x

    Pont , F. 2009, , 396, 1789, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14868.x

    2009

  59. [72]

    2019, , 488, 3568, 10.1093/mnras/stz1817

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

    2019 doi

  60. [73]

    A., & Ford , E

    Rasio , F. A., & Ford , E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954, 10.1126/science.274.5289.954

    1996 doi

  61. [74]

    2012, , 750, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/106

    Socrates , A., Katz , B., Dong , S., & Tremaine , S. 2012, , 750, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/106

    2012 doi

  62. [75]

    Spalding , C., & Winn , J. N. 2022, , 927, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4993

    2022 doi

  63. [76]

    2022, , 509, 3301, 10.1093/mnras/stab3172

    Su , Y., & Lai , D. 2022, , 509, 3301, 10.1093/mnras/stab3172

    2022 doi

  64. [77]

    2020, , 495, 1239, 10.1093/mnras/staa1306

    Su , Y., Lecoanet , D., & Lai , D. 2020, , 495, 1239, 10.1093/mnras/staa1306

    2020 doi

  65. [78]

    2014, , 786, 139, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/139

    Teitler , S., & K \"o nigl , A. 2014, , 786, 139, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/139

    2014 doi

  66. [79]

    D., Ridden-Harper , A., & Jayawardhana , R

    Turner , J. D., Ridden-Harper , A., & Jayawardhana , R. 2021, , 161, 72, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd178

    2021 doi

  67. [80]

    Vidal , J., & Barker , A. J. 2020, , 497, 4472, 10.1093/mnras/staa2239

    2020 doi

  68. [81]

    2022, , 941, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca47e

    Vissapragada , S., Chontos , A., Greklek-McKeon , M., et al. 2022, , 941, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca47e

    2022 doi

  69. [82]

    A., & Marsh , T

    Watson , C. A., & Marsh , T. R. 2010, , 405, 2037, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16602.x

    2010

  70. [83]

    N., Arras , P., Quataert , E., & Burkart , J

    Weinberg , N. N., Arras , P., Quataert , E., & Burkart , J. 2012, , 751, 136, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/136

    2012 doi

  71. [84]

    N., Davachi , N., Essick , R., et al

    Weinberg , N. N., Davachi , N., Essick , R., et al. 2024, , 960, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05c9

    2024 doi

  72. [85]

    N., Sun , M., Arras , P., & Essick , R

    Weinberg , N. N., Sun , M., Arras , P., & Essick , R. 2017, , 849, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9113

    2017 doi

  73. [86]

    N., Fabrycky , D., Albrecht , S., & Johnson , J

    Winn , J. N., Fabrycky , D., Albrecht , S., & Johnson , J. A. 2010, , 718, L145, 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L145

    2010 doi

  74. [87]

    G., & Savonije , G

    Witte , M. G., & Savonije , G. J. 1999, , 350, 129, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909073

    1999 doi arXiv

  75. [88]

    2001, , 366, 840, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000245

    ---. 2001, , 366, 840, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000245

    2001 doi

  76. [89]

    2011, , 735, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    Wu , Y., & Lithwick , Y. 2011, , 735, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    2011 doi

  77. [90]

    2014, , 784, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/66

    Xue , Y., Suto , Y., Taruya , A., et al. 2014, , 784, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/66

    2014 doi

  78. [91]

    W., Winn , J

    Yee , S. W., Winn , J. N., Knutson , H. A., et al. 2020, , 888, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c16

    2020 doi

  79. [92]

    Zahn , J. P. 1966, Annales d'Astrophysique, 29, 313

    1966

  80. [93]

    1975, , 41, 329

    ---. 1975, , 41, 329

    1975

  81. [94]

    1977, , 57, 383

    ---. 1977, , 57, 383

    1977

  82. [95]

    Zahn , J. P. 2008, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 29, EAS Publications Series, ed. M. J. Goupil & J. P. Zahn , 67--90, 10.1051/eas:0829002

    2008 doi

  83. [96]

    J., Dewberry , J., & Chiang , E

    Zanazzi , J. J., Dewberry , J., & Chiang , E. 2024, , 967, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4644

    2024 doi

  84. [97]

    J., & Wu , Y

    Zanazzi , J. J., & Wu , Y. 2021, , 161, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf097

    2021 doi

  85. [98]

    2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2158, 10.21105/joss.02158

    Zwicker, D. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2158, 10.21105/joss.02158

    2020 doi

  86. [99]

    ΏS"26< h bK V( !8@|t

    2018AJ....155..165P P18 Millholland et al. Constraining Q_ ' document Empirical Constraints on Tidal Dissipation in Exoplanet Host Stars [0000-0003-3130-2282] Sarah C. Millholland Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA MIT Kavli ...

Pith tools

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