Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Short-Period Small Planets with High Mutual Inclinations are more Common around Metal-Rich Stars

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The innermost two planets in short-period multi-planet systems around metal-rich stars have significantly larger and more diverse mutual inclinations than those around metal-poor stars.

desk verdict Plausible metallicity-inclination correlation with an unresolved eccentricity-bias channel; worth a serious referee but with an injection test required. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00442 v2 pith:KSDA4OAZ submitted 2025-02-01 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Xinyan Hua , Sharon Xuesong Wang , Dongsheng An , Songhu Wang , Yang Huang , Dichang Chen , Johannes Buchner , Wei Zhu
show 2 more authors
Fei Dai Jiwei Xie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords mutualinclinationstellarmetallicityshort-periodplanetsmulti-planetsystemsKeplerTESSplanetaryarchitecturedynamicalevolution
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 innermost two planets in short-period multi-planet systems are more inclined relative to one another when the host star is metal-rich. Analyzing 89 systems from Kepler, K2, and TESS with innermost periods under 10 days, the authors measure the mutual inclination Δi as the absolute difference of the two best-fit transit inclinations, a lower limit on the true value. For metal-rich hosts the mean Δi is 3.1° with a variance of 3.1°, whereas for metal-poor hosts the mean is 1.3° with a variance of 1.0°. If correct, this means inner planetary systems around metal-rich stars are dynamically hotter, linking stellar composition to the architecture of planetary systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mutual-inclination proxy Δi = |i1 − i2|, the absolute difference of the best-fit orbital inclinations of the innermost two planets from transit-light-curve modeling. Because it assumes both planets transit parallel chords on the same stellar hemisphere and fixes eccentricities to zero (except for TOI-451), Δi is a lower limit on the true mutual inclination. The statistical machinery is β-distribution modeling of the metal-rich and metal-poor groups, with posterior inference by nested-sampling Monte Carlo, plus Spearman rank correlation, Anderson-Darling tests, and nearest-neighbor sample-control matching to separate metallicity from stellar mass, orbital period, and the geometric Δimax selection effect.

What would settle it

A synthetic injection-recovery test that simulates transits over a grid of true mutual inclinations, eccentricities, and nodal angles, then applies the paper's Δi = |i1 − i2| estimator, would settle whether the measured [Fe/H]–Δi correlation can be reproduced purely by geometric and completeness biases. If the shift between metal-rich and metal-poor groups vanishes when eccentricities are fitted freely for all systems, or when opposite-hemisphere and different-node transit geometries are included, the claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a sample of 89 short-period multi-planet systems (innermost planet with a/R⋆ < 12, radius < 4 R⊕, period < 10 days), the authors report a moderate positive correlation between host-star metallicity [Fe/H] and the mutual inclination Δi of the innermost two planets (Spearman r = 0.31, p = 0.0031). Modeling the Δi distribution with β-distributions, the metal-rich subsample (45 systems) has mean μ = 3.13°±0.5 and variance σ = 3.12°±0.43, while the metal-poor subsample (44 systems) has μ = 1.30°±0.2 and variance σ = 1.00°±0.19; an Anderson-Darling test rejects a common parent distribution at p = 0.0025. The authors argue that this [Fe/H]–Δi relationship is intrinsic rather than a projection of period or stellar-mass correlations, using control subsamples matched in mass and in period, and correcting for the maximum detectable Δi (Δimax) selection bias. They interpret the result as evidence that inner systems around metal-rich stars are dynamically hotter.

Load-bearing premise

The correlation holds only if the lower-limit proxy Δi = |i1 − i2| is biased the same way for metal-rich and metal-poor systems; if metal-rich hosts preferentially have opposite-hemisphere transits, non-zero eccentricities, or different detection completeness, the inferred metallicity trend could be exaggerated or spurious.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inner multi-planet systems around metal-rich stars are dynamically hotter, so the mechanisms that shrink and excite short-period orbits act more strongly in metal-rich environments.
  • Formation and population-synthesis models that assume coplanarity or ignore inclination evolution will fail to reproduce this demographic trend and must track mutual inclinations explicitly.
  • Follow-up radial-velocity searches for outer giant planets in these systems can test whether inclination excitation is driven by distant companions, which are already known to be more common around metal-rich stars.
  • Transit-based studies of exoplanet architecture must treat the maximum detectable mutual inclination Δimax as a metallicity-dependent selection effect when measuring intrinsic inclination distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the reported Δi values are lower limits, fitting eccentric orbits and different nodal geometries could push the metal-rich mean above 3.1°, likely strengthening rather than weakening the claim.
  • The same metallicity–inclination trend may extend to the broader Kepler population; a uniform re-analysis using transit-duration ratios could determine whether the short-period trend is a distinct population or the tail of a general relationship.
  • A dedicated split between ultra-short-period (P < 1 day) and 1–10 day hosts, with matched metallicity distributions, would reveal whether the dynamically hot inner systems are dominated by USPs or by the wider short-period population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 89 multi-planet systems with innermost planets at a/R*<12 and periods shorter than 10 days, combining Kepler/K2 systems from Dai et al. (2018) with 14 TESS systems modeled by the authors. The mutual inclination proxy is Δi = |i1 - i2| from best-fit transit inclinations, which the authors treat as a lower limit on the true mutual inclination. They report that metal-rich hosts have higher and more dispersed Δi: a Spearman correlation of r=0.31 (p=0.0031), an Anderson-Darling p=0.0025 between groups split at the median [Fe/H]=0.055 dex, and beta-distribution fits giving mean and variance of 3.1±0.5 deg and 3.1±0.4 deg for metal-rich versus 1.3±0.2 deg and 1.0±0.2 deg for metal-poor systems. The paper runs control tests for stellar mass, radius, period, USP removal, and Δimax selection bias, and the correlation survives in all cases.

Significance. If the correlation is real, it connects stellar metallicity to the dynamical excitation of inner planetary systems, extending previous work on eccentricity and mutual inclinations and offering a new constraint on planet formation models. The paper's strengths include a moderately large sample, several independent statistical tests, careful handling of heterogeneous metallicity catalogs, and multiple control analyses. The TESS light-curve modeling is a useful contribution. However, the central interpretation as a lower limit on mutual inclination relies on the circular-orbit assumption, which is not tested against a metallicity-dependent eccentricity bias; this gap threatens the main conclusion and requires a quantitative correction or test.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Section 6.3] The central claim that metal-rich stars host higher mutual inclinations is potentially confounded by a metallicity-dependent bias in the circular-orbit fits. Section 4 fixes e=0 and ω=90° for the TESS fits (except TOI-451), and the Kepler/K2 inclinations are inherited from Dai et al. (2018) without revisiting eccentricity. The paper itself cites evidence (Mills et al. 2019; An et al. 2023) that orbital eccentricity correlates with stellar metallicity. With independent eccentricities and arguments of periastron for the two planets, the circular-fit inclination errors have a positive mean effect on |i1−i2| that grows with the eccentricity variance, so even true coplanar systems can yield nonzero Δi. This bias would be larger for metal-rich hosts if their eccentricities are larger, potentially producing the observed correlation without any difference in intrinsic mutual inclinations. The claim in Section 2 that Δi is a lower limit on the true mutual inclination is not guaranteed once e≠0, because a coplanar pair of eccentric planets can be fitted with different circular inclinations. Section 6.3 addresses opposite-hemisphere transits and ascending nodes but not this eccentricity effect. A quantitative injection-recovery test using the published e([Fe/H]) relation (e.g., Mills et al. 2019) is necessary to show that the bias cannot account for the reported difference in mean Δi (3.1° vs. 1.3°). Without such a test, the central correlation remains ambiguous.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Figure 4] The beta-distribution model is not fully specified: the text does not state the upper bound used to scale the beta distribution from [0,1] to degrees, nor whether the same bound is applied to both groups. This is important for reproducing the reported means and variances and for interpreting the posterior distributions. The authors should state the scaling parameter and any priors on it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The sample selection in Section 2 does not explicitly state a period cutoff, although the abstract and Section 7 mention that the innermost planets have periods shorter than 10 days. Add this criterion explicitly to the sample definition.
  2. [Section 5.1] The Mann-Whitney U test is applied to the posterior distributions of the beta-distribution parameters; it would be clearer to report the probability that the metal-rich mean exceeds the metal-poor mean (e.g., 100% of posterior samples) rather than a p-value from a test designed for independent observations.
  3. [Section 4] The eccentric-vs-circular model comparison is described only for the TESS sample. Since the Kepler/K2 inclinations are taken from Dai et al. (2018) without re-analysis, the authors should state whether that sample was also fitted assuming circular orbits and, if so, acknowledge that the same eccentricity concern applies to those systems.
  4. [Section 6.2] There is a typo in the paragraph on high pebble flux: 'higher ∆iand eingeneral' should read 'higher Δi and e in general.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Δi measurements come from independent transit fits and the [Fe/H] values from external catalogs; the β-distribution fit is descriptive rather than predictive.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity Δi = |i1 − i2| is computed from best-fit transit inclinations: for the 14 TESS systems from new Juliet light-curve fits in Section 4, and for the 75 Kepler/K2 systems from the published Dai et al. (2018) fits. The [Fe/H] values are taken from external spectroscopic catalogs (PASTEL, LAMOST, APOGEE, SWEET-Cat) as described in Section 3. Neither input is defined in terms of the other, and no parameter is fitted to the metallicity–Δi relation and then used to generate the Δi values. The β-distribution modeling in Section 5.1 is descriptive: its mean and variance simply summarize the already-measured Δi distributions of the metal-rich and metal-poor groups, so it cannot manufacture the correlation. The paper also performs control tests against stellar mass, stellar radius, period, and Δimax (Section 5.2), showing the correlation survives these selection effects; that is a bias analysis, not a circular step. The lower-limit interpretation in Section 6.3 is an acknowledged geometric caveat rather than a claim derived from the fitted values. Several cited works have overlapping authors (Dai et al. 2018; An et al. 2023), but these citations supply the sample and a comparison measurement, not the paper's conclusion; the correlation would stand or fall on the independently measured inclinations and external metallicities. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the lower-limit Δi proxy, the circular-orbit assumption, the representativeness of the multi-transit sample after controls, and the metallicity scale. The only fitted quantities are the beta-distribution shape parameters and the median split; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • beta distribution alpha, metal-rich = not reported numerically in text; posterior shown in Figure 4
    Shape parameter fitted to the metal-rich Δi distribution; determines the reported mean and variance.
  • beta distribution beta, metal-rich = not reported numerically in text; posterior shown in Figure 4
    Shape parameter fitted to the metal-rich Δi distribution; determines the reported mean and variance.
  • beta distribution alpha, metal-poor = not reported numerically in text; posterior shown in Figure 4
    Shape parameter fitted to the metal-poor Δi distribution; determines the reported mean and variance.
  • beta distribution beta, metal-poor = not reported numerically in text; posterior shown in Figure 4
    Shape parameter fitted to the metal-poor Δi distribution; determines the reported mean and variance.
  • median [Fe/H] split threshold = 0.055 dex
    Threshold chosen as the sample median to define the metal-rich and metal-poor groups; changing it changes group assignment and the reported distribution parameters.
  • beta distribution upper bound scale = not stated
    Beta distributions require data in [0,1]; the paper does not specify the upper bound used to normalize Δi before fitting, which is needed to convert the fitted parameters back to degrees.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The absolute difference between best-fit transit inclinations, |i1-i2|, is a lower limit proxy for the true mutual inclination and is unbiased with respect to metallicity.
    Invoked in Section 2 and Section 6.3; the entire comparison rests on this proxy.
  • domain assumption Eccentricities of the innermost two planets are negligible (circular orbits) for the Kepler sample and for all but TOI-451 in the TESS sample.
    Section 4 fixes e=0 and ω=90 degrees in the initial fits; nonzero eccentricities could bias the inclination estimates.
  • domain assumption The selected sample of 89 multi-transiting systems is representative of the short-period small-planet population after the Δimax and mass/radius controls.
    Section 5.2 controls for several known biases but does not model full detection completeness; Section 7 calls for better completeness modeling.
  • domain assumption Stellar metallicities from PASTEL, LAMOST, APOGEE, SWEET-Cat, and literature are on a consistent scale and the prioritization order does not introduce a metallicity-dependent bias.
    Section 3; the authors verified the conclusion with uniform catalogs, but some targets rely on heterogeneous literature values.
  • domain assumption The beta distribution is an adequate model for the mutual inclination distribution and the nested sampling inference correctly accounts for asymmetric uncertainties.
    Section 5.1; the model choice affects the reported mean and variance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short-Period Small Planets with High Mutual Inclinations are more Common around Metal-Rich Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSDA4OAZ

@misc{pith2026250200442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short-Period Small Planets with High Mutual Inclinations are more Common around Metal-Rich Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSDA4OAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00442}
}
read the original abstract

We present a correlation between the stellar metallicities and the mutual inclinations of multi-planet systems hosting short-period small planets (a/Rs<12, Rp<4Re). We analyzed 89 multi-planet systems discovered by Kepler, K2, and TESS, where the innermost planets have periods shorter than 10 days. We found that the mutual inclinations of the innermost two planets are higher and more diverse around metal-rich stars. The mutual inclinations are calculated as the absolute differences between the best-fit inclinations of the innermost two planets from transit modeling, which represent the lower limits of the true mutual inclinations. The mean and variance of the mutual inclination distribution of the metal-rich systems are 3.1+-0.5 and 3.1+-0.4 degrees, while for the metal-poor systems they are 1.3+-0.2 and 1.0+-0.2 degrees. This finding suggests that inner planetary systems around metal-rich stars are dynamically hotter. We summarized the theories that could plausibly explain this correlation, including the influence of giant planets, higher solid densities in protoplanetary disks around metal-rich stars, or secular chaos coupled with an excess of angular momentum deficits. Planet formation and population synthesis models tracking the mutual inclination evolution would be essential to fully understand this correlation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00442 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. String plot for the 89 planetary systems in this work, with system names labeled on the left. Host stars are sorted and color-coded based on their [Fe/H] values, with more metal-rich stars plotted on top with warmer colors. The background grids are shaded according to mutual inclinations, ∆i, where darker shades correspond to higher values. The sizes of the star and planet symbols are scaled by their radii. [Fe/H] a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of stellar metallicity ([Fe/H]) between each database (y-axis) and the literature (x-axis) for overlapping systems in our sample. The measurements show good agreement with published data within the error bars, with no obvious offset or bias recognized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stellar metallicity vs. mutual inclination plot. The mutual inclinations come from light curve fitting, and [Fe/H] are carefully picked from multiple uniform databases (see Section 3). In total, we have 89 systems in our sample. We found that as stellar metallicity increases, the distribution of mutual inclination tends to be more spread [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of ∆i of metal-poor (blue) and metal-rich (red) samples modeled by β-distributions. The posterior distributions of the model parameters are attached on the right, where µ is the mean value of the β-distribution derived using α and β, and σ is the square r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relations between mutual inclination and stellar metallicity and stellar mass after sample control. Left: stellar metallicity vs. mutual inclination plot for a subsample of 78 systems selected to minimize the influence of stellar mass. Right: stellar mass vs. mutual in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, AJ, 165, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb533

    An, D.-S., Xie, J.-W., Dai, Y.-Z., & Zhou, J.-L. 2023, AJ, 165, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb533

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb533 2023

  2. [2]

    G., Dittmann, J

    Anderson, S. G., Dittmann, J. A., Ballard, S., & Bedell, M. 2021, AJ, 161, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe70b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe70b 2021

  3. [3]

    2020, AJ, 160, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abbad3

    Becker, J., Batygin, K., Fabrycky, D., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abbad3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abbad3 2020

  4. [4]

    C., & Adams, F

    Becker, J. C., & Adams, F. C. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx461

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx461 2017

  5. [5]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  6. [6]

    G., et al

    Bonfanti, A., Brady, M., Wilson, T. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348180

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348180 2024

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  8. [8]

    Brefka, L., & Becker, J. C. 2021, AJ, 162, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2a32

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2a32 2021

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    2018, ApJL, 867, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae710

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, ApJL, 867, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae710

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    A., Bitsch, B., Johansen, A., et al

    Buchhave, L. A., Bitsch, B., Johansen, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafca

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Latham, D

    Buchhave, L. A., Latham, D. W., Johansen, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 486, 375, doi: 10.1038/nature11121

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —

    Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd5be —

    Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd5be —. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2304179120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2304179120

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

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

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2013, ApJL, 767, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24 Drążkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Mu...

    2013 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.09359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.09359

    Faridani, T., Naoz, S., Li, G., Rice, M., & Inzunza, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.09359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.09359

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    A., & Valenti, J

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

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Seager, S., Huang, C

    Guerrero, N. M., Seager, S., Huang, C. X., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abefe1

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Hansen, B. M. S., & Murray, N. 2013, ApJ, 775, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/53

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al

    Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Wolf, C., et al

    Huang, Y., Beers, T. C., Wolf, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac21cb

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2008, ApJ, 673, 487, doi: 10.1086/523754

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Bitsch, B., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935336

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Ogihara, M., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1232

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Aller, K

    Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 905, doi: 10.1086/655775

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, AJ, 153, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/42

    Lai, D., & Pu, B. 2017, AJ, 153, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/42

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Lam, K. W. F., Cabrera, J., Hooton, M. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3639

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    A., et al

    Lambrechts, M., Morbidelli, A., Jacobson, S. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834229 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ...

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D

    Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/8

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Dupuy, T., Muirhead, P

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Muirhead, P. S., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7140

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    B., & Whitney, D

    Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. 1947, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50 , doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177730491

    1947

  29. [37]

    2017, ApJL, 849, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    Millholland, S., Wang, S., & Laughlin, G. 2017, ApJL, 849, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    C., He, M

    Millholland, S. C., He, M. Y., Ford, E. B., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0f7a 14

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Howard, A

    Mills, S. M., Howard, A. W., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1009

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2012, A&A, 547, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118457

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 547, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118457

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/34

    Moriarty, J., & Ballard, S. 2016, ApJ, 832, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/34

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    D., Pascucci, I., Apai, D., Frasca, A., & Molenda-Żakowicz, J

    Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Apai, D., Frasca, A., & Molenda-Żakowicz, J. 2016, AJ, 152, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/187

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Davies, M

    Mustill, A. J., Davies, M. B., & Johansen, A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx693

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2815

    Ndugu, N., Bitsch, B., & Jurua, E. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2815

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al

    Peterson, M. S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 701, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05934-8

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Marcy, G

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

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1098 —

    Pu, B., & Lai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1098 —. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1817 —. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2504

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Stumpe, M

    Smith, J. C., Stumpe, M. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1000, doi: 10.1086/667697

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    2016, A&A, 591, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628497

    Soubiran, C., Le Campion, J.-F., Brouillet, N., & Chemin, L. 2016, A&A, 591, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628497

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Adibekyan, V., Delgado-Mena, E., et al

    Sousa, S. G., Adibekyan, V., Delgado-Mena, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141584

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/5

    Spalding, C., & Batygin, K. 2016, ApJ, 830, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/5

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.02180. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02180

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    C., Smith, J

    Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Catanzarite, J. H., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 100, doi: 10.1086/674989

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Smith, J

    Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 985, doi: 10.1086/667698

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    Wang, J., & Fischer, D. A. 2015, AJ, 149, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/1/14

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    N., Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rogers, L., et al

    Winn, J. N., Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rogers, L., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7b7c

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113, 11431, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604692113

    Xie, J.-W., Dong, S., Zhu, Z., et al. 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113, 11431, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604692113

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, AJ, 166, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0368

    Yang, J.-Y., Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0368

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1075

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    Zhou, J.-L., Lin, D. N. C., & Sun, Y.-S. 2007, ApJ, 666, 423, doi: 10.1086/519918

    2007 doi

  57. [65]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0205 —

    Zhu, W. 2019, ApJ, 873, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0205 —. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 045013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad3132

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    Zhu, W., & Dong, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.