Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A tale of dynamical instabilities and giant impacts in the radius valley

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Late dynamical instabilities and giant impacts after disk dispersal can explain the elevated eccentricities of planets in the radius valley.

desk verdict First self-consistent formation model for the radius-valley eccentricity bump, but the case depends on one scenario and an untested atmospheric-stripping assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23943 v1 pith:R357R6KB submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.EP

Sho Shibata , Andre Izidoro This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords radiusvalleysuper-Earthsmini-Neptunesdynamicalinstabilitiesgiantimpactsorbitaleccentricitybreakingthechainsplanetformationsimulations
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

The paper proposes that the radius valley, the observed deficit of planets around 1.8 Earth radii, is not only a compositional boundary but also a dynamical one. It argues that planets inside the valley owe their slightly higher eccentricities to late dynamical instabilities and giant impacts that occur after the protoplanetary gas disk disperses. In the simulations, rocky planets that survive many late giant impacts grow into the valley and have their orbits excited, while larger water-rich planets just beyond the valley undergo weaker instabilities and stay dynamically cooler. If correct, this connects two observed features, the size dip and the eccentricity bump, to a single formation history within the breaking-the-chains model.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the post-disk giant impact cascade among rocky protoplanets, where a giant impact is defined as a collision with a target-to-impactor mass ratio above 0.1 and is assumed to trigger atmospheric mass loss. The paper quantifies the trigger using $N_{\rm size,rock}$, the number of rocky protoplanets orbiting interior to the innermost icy protoplanet at disk dispersal, and shows that final eccentricity rises with this number. External icy perturbers with periods beyond 100 days amplify the instability by coupling the inner rocky system to more massive outer bodies, increasing both collision rates and eccentricity excitation.

What would settle it

Take the planets in the observed 1.6 to 1.9 Earth-radius eccentricity peak and measure their masses: if a substantial fraction show inferred water fractions above 10% or retain H/He envelopes, the rocky impact-stripping story fails. Equivalently, a re-analysis of the Kepler eccentricity data with complete detection-bias modeling that removes the eccentricity peak at the valley would falsify the observational premise this paper explains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed excess of eccentric planets at adjusted radii between about 1.6 and 1.9 Earth radii arises from rocky super-Earths that formed as compact resonant chains and then experienced post-disk dynamical instabilities and repeated giant impacts. Those impacts strip or prevent atmospheres, keeping the planets on the bare rocky mass-radius track while increasing their radii into the valley and pumping up their eccentricities. Water-rich planets beyond the valley, formed from the outer icy ring, experience fewer collisions and retain lower eccentricities, producing a peak in eccentricity inside the valley. The excitation appears only when the pre-instability system contains roughly five or more rocky planets inside 100 days and is amplified when icy planets beyond 100 days act as external perturbers.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism works only if a late giant impact actually strips or prevents a rocky planet's atmosphere, so that collision-grown planets stay on the bare rocky radius track instead of retaining or regrowing an envelope and sitting above the valley.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The radius valley is a dynamical boundary as well as a compositional one: high-eccentricity valley planets can be a natural outcome of breaking-the-chains formation without invoking a separate excitation mechanism.
  • The strength and presence of the eccentricity peak becomes a diagnostic of pre-instability architecture, since it appears only when at least about five rocky planets form inside 100 days before the disk dissipates.
  • External perturbers beyond 100 days boost inner-system instabilities, so detecting eccentric valley planets may hint at undetected outer planets in those systems.
  • Formation models must reproduce the eccentricity bump and the radius valley simultaneously, placing a joint constraint that single-feature models do not face.
  • Observational bias corrections matter: the paper's M3T2 scenario overproduces single-transit eccentric planets, so matching the observed multi-planet eccentric valley population likely requires a mix of dynamically quiet and violent systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that, if this model is right, the valley's location in period-radius space is partly a record of when instabilities happened, so high-eccentricity valley planets should preferentially be single or have lost neighboring planets during the collision phase.
  • An extension of the impact-stripping assumption is that valley planets should be systematically denser than planets just above the valley at equal orbital period, a prediction testable with mass and radius measurements.
  • The external-perturber requirement suggests that eccentric, single-transit valley planets may be systems where a massive outer planet remains unseen; counting such single-transit systems against multi-transit systems would test the proposed architecture.
  • Because the model needs a narrow range of inner planetesimal disk mass to put rocky planets into the valley, the eccentricity peak should be strongest for systems whose formation disks were near that sweet spot, which could be checked by linking observed valley eccentricities to host-star properties that trace disk mass.
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 revisits the 'breaking the chains' formation model to explain the elevated orbital eccentricities reported for planets in the radius valley (Gilbert et al. 2025). Using four scenarios from the authors' earlier formation simulations (M3T2, M3T3, M6T2, M6T3), it shows that in the M3T2 scenario rocky planets that undergo late dynamical instabilities and multiple giant impacts grow into the radius valley while having higher eccentricities than their neighbors. A set of idealized N-body experiments with external perturbers is used to argue that outer planets amplify the inner instability and reproduce the eccentricity-radius trend. The paper concludes that the radius valley is not only a compositional divide but also a dynamical signature of late instabilities.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would add a genuinely new dynamical dimension to the radius-valley problem and explain an otherwise puzzling statistical signal. The main strengths are that the analysis uses a published, observationally calibrated formation model; that the eccentricity trends are computed from time-averaged orbital elements; and that the idealized external-perturber experiments provide a transparent, falsifiable mechanistic test. However, the significance is conditional on two load-bearing points: the statistical signal appears in only one of four scenarios, and the radius-valley placement of high-eccentricity planets depends on an untested impact-driven atmospheric-stripping rule. If either point fails, the proposed explanation does not follow from the simulations as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 5] The central statistical claim is supported by only one of the four scenarios. The KS test gives p ≈ 0.003 for M3T2, but the M3T3 scenario produces essentially no radius-valley planets, and M6T2 and M6T3 show no statistically significant enhancement. No KS test or equivalent is reported for the combined sample shown in the bottom panel, and the number of planets in the valley is small. The abstract's general statement that radius-valley planets have elevated eccentricities therefore rests on a single scenario selected after inspecting the results. Please report a combined-sample test, an effect size, and a discussion of why M3T2, rather than a weighted mix of scenarios, is the appropriate comparison to the Kepler sample.
  2. [§2 and §3.1] The mechanism relies entirely on the assumption that a late giant impact strips the planetary atmosphere (Biersteker & Schlichting 2019), with no sensitivity test. In the representative system shown in Fig. 3, planet EM136 enters the radius valley only because four late impacts both increase the core radius and remove any envelope; if atmospheric stripping is inefficient, angle-dependent, or if a residual envelope is retained, the same high-eccentricity planets would sit above the valley and the predicted eccentricity peak would not appear. Given that this stripping rule is the physical link between the number of impacts (Fig. 8) and the eccentricity peak in the valley (Fig. 5), the paper should quantify the dependence of the result on this assumption, for example by rerunning the analysis with a conservative mass-radius mapping that retains a small H/He envelope or with an impact-stripping efficiency parameter.
  3. [§4.2 and Fig. 1] The comparison with observations is not made through a synthetic transit survey. The paper states that no observational biases are applied, that the M3T2 scenario overestimates valley eccentricities relative to Fig. 1, and that it produces an excess of single-transit systems. Since the Gilbert et al. (2025) signal is derived from transit-detected multiplanet systems, a direct comparison of all simulated planets with the digitized eccentricities is not a fully valid test. At minimum, the analysis should be restricted to synthetic multi-planet systems that would be detected in transit, or the paper should show that the eccentricity peak persists after such a cut; the current caveat leaves the level of agreement with observation unquantified.
  4. [§3.4, Fig. 9] The idealized external-perturber experiment uses a single, relatively arbitrary configuration: eleven 0.5 M⊕ inner planets and five 2 M⊕ perturbers between 0.7 and 1.4 au, with a 30 mutual-Hill-radius gap between the inner and outer systems. This is sufficient to demonstrate that such a configuration can enhance eccentricities, but it does not show that the effect is robust to the mass, separation, or number of perturbers, nor that such architectures are plausible for the Kepler multi-planet sample that shows the Gilbert et al. signal. Please add at least a small parameter sweep or an observational plausibility argument (e.g., constraints on outer companions from transit-timing or radial-velocity surveys) before claiming that external perturbers are a key ingredient.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] In the sentence 'Given this broad math to observations,' 'math' should presumably be 'match'; please correct the typo.
  2. [Table 1] The table header contains a formatting artifact: 'T able 1' should read 'Table 1'.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption says the bins have '1 M⊕ width in the mass coordinate,' but the axes are labeled as radius versus eccentricity; please specify whether the binning is in mass or radius and make the axes consistent.
  4. [§3.2] The text says the grid size is the same as in Gilbert et al. (2025), but the binning here is performed on the adjusted radius R_p,adj from Eq. (1), whereas the observational analysis likely uses the unadjusted radius; please clarify whether this choice affects the comparison at the bin edges.
  5. [General] No statement is given about code or data availability for the new idealized simulations in §3.4 and for the analysis scripts; adding a data-availability statement would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the eccentricity trend is a new simulation output, not an input or a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that late dynamical instabilities and giant impacts, in simulations from Shibata & Izidoro (2025), produce elevated eccentricities for radius-valley planets. The eccentricity distribution is not fitted: no parameter of the model is adjusted to the Gilbert et al. (2025) eccentricity data, and the paper reports transparently that the enhancement appears in only one of the four scenarios (M3T2, p≈0.003). The radius valley itself is an output of the prior formation model, and the present work uses it as a selection/classification, not as a fitted target. The atmospheric-stripping assumption (Biersteker & Schlichting 2019) is an external physical input that could be wrong, but it is not equivalent to the predicted eccentricity peak; a failed assumption would invalidate the model, not make the derivation circular. Self-citations to Shibata & Izidoro (2025) and Izidoro et al. (2022) provide the simulation sample, but the eccentricity analysis is a new, independent use of those simulations. No equation or definition reduces the predicted eccentricity trend to an input by construction, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is scenario-based and depends on the inherited formation model (Shibata & Izidoro 2025) with its tuned disk parameters, on the prescription that giant impacts strip atmospheres, and on the idealized external-perturber experiment. No new physical entities are introduced. The most important free parameters are the disk masses and lifetimes selected in the prior paper and the hand-set masses and separations of the idealized model.

free parameters (4)
  • Inner planetesimal ring mass Mdisk,in = 3 and 6 M_Earth (grid values)
    Input from Shibata & Izidoro (2025), selected because those runs reproduce the observed radius valley; the claimed eccentricity peak appears only for the M3T2 case.
  • Disk dispersal timescale tau_disk,life = 2 and 3 Myr
    Same origin; the peak is sensitive to the combination (M3T2) and does not appear in M3T3.
  • Idealized model: inner planet count and mass = 11 planets of 0.5 M_Earth
    Chosen by hand to mimic M3T2 systems at disk dispersal; the occurrence of instabilities depends on these values.
  • Idealized model: external perturber mass and separation = 5 planets of 2 M_Earth at 0.7-1.4 au, 10/30 mutual Hill radii spacing
    Hand-set to demonstrate the effect of outer perturbers; the 60% instability fraction is tied to these choices.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Two-ring initial condition: inner planetesimal ring at 0.5-1.5 au growing rocky planets, outer ring at 8-15 au growing icy planets.
    Section 2; this setup from Shibata & Izidoro (2025) is the foundation of the model and defines the rocky/icy dichotomy.
  • domain assumption Giant impacts after disk dispersal strip planetary atmospheres (Biersteker & Schlichting 2019); collisions are perfect mergers conserving mass and momentum.
    Section 2; required for collision-grown rocky planets to land in the radius valley rather than above it.
  • domain assumption Planet radii are computed from Zeng et al. (2019) mass-radius models, with photoevaporation following Lopez & Fortney (2013) and Owen (2019).
    Section 2; defines which simulated planets fall in the valley.
  • domain assumption The adjusted radius exponent m = 0.10 (Petigura et al. 2022) maps planets onto the observed valley location.
    Equation (1); different m would shift valley membership.
  • domain assumption The observed eccentricity enhancement in the valley (Gilbert et al. 2025) is a real feature, reproduced from their Fig. 4 by visual digitization.
    Section 1 and Fig. 1; the target of the modeling and the comparison data set.
  • ad hoc to paper In the idealized experiment, external perturbers are represented as 2 M_Earth bodies beyond the inner rocky system, standing in for undetected outer planets.
    Section 3.4; initial conditions are motivated by M3T2-like systems, not derived from a self-consistent formation calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A tale of dynamical instabilities and giant impacts in the radius valley." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R357R6KB

@misc{pith2026250523943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A tale of dynamical instabilities and giant impacts in the radius valley},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R357R6KB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23943}
}
abstract

The size distribution of planets with radii between 1 and $4 R_\oplus$ peaks near 1.4 and $2.2R_\oplus$, with a dip around $1.8 R_\oplus$ -- the so-called "radius valley." Recent statistical analyses suggest that planets within this valley ($1.5 < R < 2R_\oplus$) tend to have slightly higher orbital eccentricities than those outside it. The origin of this dynamical signature remains unclear. We revisit the "breaking the chains" formation model and propose that late dynamical instabilities -- occurring after disk dispersal -- may account for the elevated eccentricities observed in the radius valley. Our simulations show that sub-valley planets ($R < 2 R_\oplus$) are generally rocky, while those beyond the valley ($R > 2 R_\oplus$) are typically water-rich. Rocky planets that undergo strong dynamical instabilities and numerous late giant impacts have their orbits excited and their radii increased, ultimately placing them into the radius valley. In contrast, the larger, water-rich planets just beyond the valley experience weaker instabilities and fewer impacts, resulting in lower eccentricities. This contrast leads to a peak in the eccentricity distribution within the valley. The extent to which planets in the radius valley are dynamically excited depends sensitively on the orbital architecture before the orbital instability. Elevated eccentricities among radius valley planets arise primarily in scenarios that form a sufficiently large number of rocky planets within 100 days (typically $\gtrsim 5$) prior to instability, and that also host external perturbers ($P > 100$ days), which further amplify the strength of dynamical instabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Eccentricity distribution of close-in super-Earths and mini-Neptunes. The data is extracted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Planet adjusted radius distribution of Shi￾bata & Izidoro (2025) combining different sets of simula￾tions. The red and blue lines show the distribution of rocky and icy planets, respectively. The black line shows the dis￾tribution of all planets. The gray area is the radius gap (1.59R⊕ < Rp,adj < 1.90R⊕). We use the adjusted radius to account for the shift of the radius valley along the orbital period. Note that we … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of the evolution of planets in the ”breaking-the-chain” model. Here, we show one of the simu￾lations obtained in M3T2 6. Panel (a) shows the time evolu￾tion of the semi-major axis of planets. We plot protoplanets that grow larger than 0.1M⊕. The colored lines show the planets that survive at t = 50 Myrs. The thin lines show the pericenter and apocenter of the planets. The vertical dotted black line is the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Eccentricity of rocky planets as a func￾tion of the size of the primordial rocky protoplanetary sys￾tem, Nsize,rock. Gray dots represent individual planets, and white markers indicate the mean eccentricity in each bin. The dashed line shows a linear fit to the dis…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Eccentricity of planets at the end of the simula￾tions as a function of the number of late giant impacts that each planet had. The gray plots show the raw data. The white plots are the mean eccentricity, and the error bars show 1-σ standard deviation. The dashed lines …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radius v.s. eccentricity of planets obtained in our additional simulations. The blue crosses show the mean eccentricity of planets without external protoplanets (e.p.). The bins have 1 M⊕ width in the mass coordinate. The green circles show the mean eccentricity of pla…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The structure of planetary systems at the disk dissipation time. Kuchner, M. J. 2003, ApJL, 596, L105, doi: 10.1086/378397 Liu, S.-F., Hori, Y., Lin, D. N. C., & Asphaug, E. 2015, Astrophys. J., 812, 164 Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, Astrophys. J., 776, 2 Matsu…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The structure of planetary systems at the end of the simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

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

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    R., Seager , S., & Elkins-Tanton , L

    Adams , E. R., Seager , S., & Elkins-Tanton , L. 2008, , 673, 1160, 10.1086/524925

    doi:10.1086/524925 2008

  5. [5]

    B., & Schlichting, H

    Biersteker, J. B., & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 485, 4454

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2024, Nat Astron, 8, 463

    Burn, R., Mordasini, C., Mishra, L., et al. 2024, Nat Astron, 8, 463

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2022, Astrophys

    Chance, Q., Ballard, S., & Stassun, K. 2022, Astrophys. J., 937, 39

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    2022, , 509, 2856, 10.1093/mnras/stab3203

    Esteves , L., Izidoro , A., Bitsch , B., et al. 2022, , 509, 2856, 10.1093/mnras/stab3203

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3203 2022

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    J., Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Marley , M. S., & Barnes , J. W. 2007, , 659, 1661, 10.1086/512120

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    J., & Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., & Petigura, E. A. 2018, AJS, 156, 264

    2018

  3. [11]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, Astron. J., 154, 109

    2017

  4. [12]

    J., Petigura, E

    Gilbert, G. J., Petigura, E. A., & Entrican, P. M. 2025, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 122, e2405295122

    2025

  5. [13]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 476, 759

    2018

  6. [14]

    Gupta , A., & Schlichting , H. E. 2020, , 493, 792, 10.1093/mnras/staa315

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Ho, C. S. K., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc

    2023

  8. [16]

    K., & Schlichting, H

    Inamdar, N. K., & Schlichting, H. E. 2016, Astrophys. J. Lett., 817, L13

    2016

  9. [17]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Dasgupta, R., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 357

    2021

  10. [18]

    E., Isella, A., et al

    Izidoro, A., Schlichting, H. E., Isella, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 939, L19

    2022

  11. [19]

    A., Eke, V

    Kegerreis, J. A., Eke, V. R., Catling, D. C., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 901, L31

    2020

  12. [20]

    Kuchner , M. J. 2003, , 596, L105, 10.1086/378397

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    Liu, S.-F., Hori, Y., Lin, D. N. C., & Asphaug, E. 2015, Astrophys. J., 812, 164

    2015

  14. [22]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, Astrophys. J., 776, 2

    2013

  15. [23]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 81

    Matsumoto, Y., Kokubo, E., Gu, P.-G., & Kurosaki, K. 2021, ApJ, 923, 81

    2021

  16. [24]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 106

    Matsumoto, Y., Nagasawa, M., & Ida, S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 106

    2015

  17. [25]

    2025, Astron

    Nielsen, J., Johansen, A., Bali, K., & Dorn, C. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 695, A184

    2025

  18. [26]

    Owen, J. E. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 67

    2019

  19. [27]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2017, Astrophys. J., 847, 29

    2017

  20. [28]

    A., Rogers, J

    Petigura, E. A., Rogers, J. G., Isaacson, H., et al. 2022, Astron. J., 163, 179

    2022

  21. [29]

    Richert, A. J. W., Getman, K. V., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 477, 5191

    2018

  22. [30]

    A., & Seager , S

    Rogers , L. A., & Seager , S. 2010, , 712, 974, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/974

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, , 979, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada3d1

    Shibata , S., & Izidoro , A. 2025, , 979, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada3d1

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Haldemann, J., Ronco, M

    Venturini, J., Guilera, O. M., Haldemann, J., Ronco, M. P., & Mordasini, C. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 643, L1

    2020

  25. [33]

    B., Sasselov, D

    Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S. B., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2019, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116, 9723

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.