Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

On Hot Jupiters and Stellar Clustering: The Role of Host Star Demographics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The apparent excess of hot Jupiters in dense regions of phase space disappears once host star age, mass, and metallicity are taken into account.

desk verdict A careful, largely convincing demographics explanation for the hot Jupiter phase-space overdensity, but the abstract overstates the null result — the ZGR23 residual is left unresolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11225 v1 pith:LXE6EWRV submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Mika V. Kontiainen , Cathie J. Clarke , Andrew J. Winter This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords hotJupitersplanetoccurrencephasespacedensitystellarclusteringhoststardemographicsisochronalageskinematicsplanetarysystems
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

Hot Jupiters are gas giants on orbits shorter than about ten days, and earlier work reported that they orbit stars in dense regions of six-dimensional phase space more often than expected, hinting that crowded birth environments helped form them. This paper asks whether that signal is real or an illusion created by the ages, masses, and metallicities of the host stars. Using a parent sample of 2265 confirmed exoplanet hosts and two homogeneously derived sets of stellar parameters, it confirms the raw excess: hot-Jupiter hosts do sit at higher phase-space density than other hosts. But stars in overdensities are also younger, more massive, and more metal-rich, and these are exactly the stars known to host hot Jupiters more often. After detrending the density against stellar age or matching over- and underdense hosts like-for-like, the paper finds the excess largely disappears or falls to at most marginal significance, and concludes that the clustering signal is demographic rather than environmental.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Mahalanobis phase-space density $\tilde{\rho}_{M,20}$, a local measure of how many stellar neighbours a host has in six-dimensional phase space (position plus velocity), computed by inverting the 20th-nearest-neighbour Mahalanobis distance after normalising by the covariance of the local neighbourhood. Hosts are split into over- and underdensities with a two-component Gaussian mixture model on $\log_{10} \tilde{\rho}_{M,20}$, with hosts above $\tilde{\rho}_{M,20} > 50$ treated as bound clusters. The argument is carried by two correction schemes applied to this split. First, ordinary least squares detrending of $\log_{10} \tilde{\rho}_{M,20}$ against the logarithm of isochronal age, where ages are computed with isoclassify and MIST isochrones from homogeneous SWEET-Cat and Gaia XP parameter sets; this removes the age channel linking density to planet occurrence. Second, like-for-like matching of over- and underdensity hosts in a min-max rescaled space of age, mass, and metallicity, repeated 1000 times with values resampled from isoclassify posteriors, which controls the full multivariate host distribution. Significance is assessed with a Poisson means test (E-test) for hot-Jupiter host counts and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on density residuals.

What would settle it

Take a sample of planet hosts with precise asteroseismic ages, which are far more accurate than isochrone ages for main-sequence stars, and repeat the detrending and like-for-like matching. If a significant excess of hot Jupiters in phase-space overdensities persists after matching on those ages plus mass and metallicity, the paper's central conclusion is wrong. A cheaper check is to split the overdensity and underdensity samples into narrow $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]$ bins and ask whether the hot-Jupiter fraction still differs within bins where the age distributions overlap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the previously reported preference of hot Jupiters for phase-space overdensities does not survive correction for host star properties. In both homogeneous samples the raw difference in hot-Jupiter host fraction between over- and underdense regions is significant, with Poisson p-values around $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-4}$, but the overdensities are dominated by younger, more massive, and more metal-rich stars. Removing the age correlation by linear detrending of log phase-space density against log age erases the difference in one sample and reduces it to marginal in the other, and the residual difference there is between giant and non-giant planets rather than between hot and cold Jupiters. Like-for-like matching on rescaled age, mass, and metallicity likewise shifts the Poisson p-values to 0.28 and 0.08 in the two samples, values that random sampling of the same size does not reproduce. The paper therefore states that phase-space density is largely a proxy for stellar kinematics and age, and that no intrinsic environmental enhancement of hot-Jupiter formation is required.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the isochronal ages of main-sequence FGK field stars are accurate enough that, after detrending or matching, any residual correlation between age and phase-space density is small; if those ages are systematically biased in a way that tracks phase-space density, the corrections would over- or under-shoot, and the disappearing hot-Jupiter excess could be an artefact of the age model rather than a real demographic effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the phase-space-density correlation cannot be used as evidence that stellar flybys in clustered environments create hot Jupiters via high-eccentricity migration.
  • The Mahalanobis phase-space density should be treated as a kinematic-age proxy, so studies using it must control for host age, mass, and metallicity before attributing planetary differences to the environment.
  • The small residual difference in the transit-dominated sample is between giant and non-giant planets, not hot and cold Jupiters, so even the residual does not point specifically to hot-Jupiter formation.
  • Splitting the homogeneous sample into RV and transit hosts separately removes the raw excess, implying the apparent signal is inflated by the different detection mixes in dense and sparse regions.
  • Future larger samples should match hosts on multivariate property distributions rather than individual parameters, because single-parameter cuts can leave spurious environmental signals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this conclusion holds, earlier interpretations of phase-space clustering as evidence for environment-driven hot-Jupiter formation are overturned; the more direct test would be to look for a clustering signal among wide-orbit planets, which are the planets that stellar encounters actually perturb.
  • The paper's residual $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ difference in the ZGR23 sample is a hint that age is not fully removed by detrending; a sharp test would be to repeat the analysis with asteroseismic ages, which are far more accurate than isochrones for main-sequence field stars.
  • We would also read the results as predicting that any genuine environmental effect on planets should appear preferentially around older, kinematically heated hosts with wide-orbit planets, rather than around the young overdensity stars that dominate the current sample.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper re-examines the reported excess of hot Jupiters (HJs) in phase-space overdensities, testing whether the excess survives after controlling for host-star demographics. The authors construct homogeneous stellar parameters for FGK main-sequence planet hosts from SWEET-Cat and the Zhang et al. (2023, ZGR23) Gaia XP catalogue, derive isochronal ages with isoclassify, and reproduce the Winter et al. (2020) Mahalanobis phase-space density decomposition. They find that overdensity hosts are younger, more massive, and more metal-rich, and that after detrending phase-space density against age or matching overdensity and underdensity hosts in age, mass, and metallicity, the HJ excess is strongly diminished. The paper concludes that the previously reported environmental correlation is driven by host-star demographics rather than an intrinsic clustering effect.

Significance. If the null result were fully established, this would be an important resolution of an active debate about whether hot Jupiters form preferentially in clustered environments. The paper has real strengths: it uses two independent homogeneous stellar-parameter samples, propagates uncertainties through resampling, constructs size-controlled comparison samples, and makes its data publicly available. However, the central claim of 'no significant differences' is undercut by the authors' own ZGR23 results, where a residual difference survives detrending and the matching exercise produces a substantial fraction of significant draws. Because the paper's headline conclusion is stronger than the evidence it presents, the result is not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.1, Figure 4] The abstract's statement that 'we find no significant differences in the HJ populations between over- and underdense regions' is not supported by the ZGR23 results. In the full ZGR23 sample the residual phase-space density distributions of HJ and non-HJ hosts differ at p_KS = 4.1e-3 even after detrending, and the difference remains marginally significant (p_KS = 0.042) after the 1-5 Gyr age cut. These are the paper's own numbers, so the conclusion must either be restricted to the SWEET-Cat sample or the ZGR23 residual must be quantitatively explained before a general null claim can appear in the abstract.
  2. [Section 4, alpha-enhancement analysis] The paper reports that hosts in the bottom half of the residual density distribution are significantly alpha-enhanced in the ZGR23 sample (p_KS = 1.7e-5), and notes that [alpha/Fe] is commonly used as an age proxy. This is direct evidence that the detrending has not removed all age-related information: the residual phase-space density still correlates with an independent age indicator. The manuscript mentions this only as a possibility and does not test whether the residual difference in HJ occurrence can be explained by this residual age correlation. A quantitative test, such as including [alpha/Fe] in the detrending or matching variables, is needed before attributing the residual to 'inadequate detrending or isochronal age uncertainties'.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 5] The matching results for ZGR23 are reported as a median Poisson p-value of 0.063 with 39.7% of 1000 resampled matching draws giving p < 0.05. The authors argue that the high fraction of significant draws cannot be interpreted as grounds for rejecting the null because the draws use resampled rather than independent data. While the p-values are indeed not independent, under a true null one would still expect roughly 5% of draws to fall below 0.05, not 39.7%. The observed fraction is therefore itself a sign of a residual difference. The manuscript should either provide a proper permutation test that accounts for the resampling design or explicitly acknowledge that the matching analysis does not establish a null result for ZGR23.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Section 4, age uncertainties] The central demographic correction depends heavily on isochronal ages, and the authors report median relative age uncertainties of 55% in the ZGR23 sample. Detrending against a very noisy independent variable attenuates the regression slope, so a residual difference of the kind seen in Figure 4 is exactly what one would expect even if the underlying effect were entirely demographic. The manuscript claims that the residual 'could be due to inadequate detrending or isochronal age uncertainties' but does not test this. A simulation that injects realistic age noise into a demographics-only null model and compares the resulting residual p-value distribution to the observed one would make the argument quantitative and is necessary to support the paper's central conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 and Figure 4 captions] The captions state 'log10 pKS = 10.21' and similar values, which is ambiguous. It should be written as p_KS = 10^{-10.21} or the text should explicitly say that the displayed number is the base-10 logarithm of the p-value.
  2. [Section 3.3, detection-method subsamples] The conclusion that the absence of a significant RV/transit subsample difference is 'not purely a sample size effect' is based on randomly drawing subsets of the full sample down to the subsample size. This is a useful sanity check, but it is not a formal power calculation, and the wording should be softened to say that the test is suggestive rather than definitive.
  3. [Section 2.3, outlier removal] The paper removes sources with normalized phase-space density greater than 50 as outliers, but then assigns hosts with rho > 50 to overdensities regardless of P_high. Please clarify how these two statements are reconciled in the actual sample construction.
  4. [Section 2.1 and Table 1] The numbers in Table 1 are informative, but the text does not explain why the number of hosts with valid ages (690 in SWEET-Cat, 1392 in ZGR23) is much smaller than the number of hosts with atmospheric parameters (711 and 1826). A brief explanation of the cuts leading from one to the other would help the reader.
  5. [Section 3.2, matching threshold] The matching threshold of 0.25 in min-max normalized feature space is described as producing 'generally a good match', but no sensitivity analysis is shown for this choice. Given that the matching result is used to support the null claim, a small exploration of threshold values would strengthen the robustness argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the demographic corrections rely on independently estimated host properties, and the residual ZGR23 difference is openly reported rather than fitted away.

full rationale

The paper's central test is not circular by construction. The phase-space density metric is taken from Winter et al. (2020), a paper co-authored by one of the present authors, but that metric is used as an externally defined observable rather than as evidence for the conclusion; the question is whether the hot-Jupiter excess associated with that metric survives adjustment for host mass, metallicity, and age. These host properties are derived independently of the density metric and of HJ status, via isoclassify fits to Gaia DR3 and 2MASS photometry, parallaxes, and spectroscopic or spectrophotometric parameters from SWEET-Cat and ZGR23. The detrending procedure fits a regression of log10 rho_M,20 on log Age using the full sample, but the claim rests on the residuals for HJ versus non-HJ hosts; this comparison could in principle have remained significant, and in the ZGR23 sample it does remain moderately significant (p_KS ~ 4.1e-3 full range, 0.042 after the 1-5 Gyr cut). Thus the null result for SWEET-Cat is not forced by the fit, and the ZGR23 result explicitly does not fully vanish. The like-for-like matching constructs comparison samples from the same independent property distributions and then compares HJ fractions, rather than fitting the HJ excess itself. Self-citations to Winter et al. (2020) and Mustill et al. (2022) provide context and the previous age-bias hypothesis, but the demographic covariates are measured independently, so no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The paper's own stated limitations, including median relative age uncertainties of 20-55% and residual metallicity and [alpha/Fe] differences in ZGR23, are statistical caveats rather than definitional identities. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on several domain assumptions about stellar age dating, dynamical heating, the meaning of the phase-space metric, and Gaia completeness, plus a set of threshold choices that affect sample membership and significance.

free parameters (6)
  • ZGR23 systematic error floors = 100 K in Teff, 0.1 dex in logg and [Fe/H]
    Added in quadrature to ZGR23 parameters before sample selection and isochrone fitting; chosen following Zhang et al. (2023), affects inferred ages and sample membership.
  • Parallax uncertainty inflation = 30 per cent
    Gaia DR3 parallax uncertainties inflated by 30 per cent following El-Badry et al. (2021); directly widens isochronal age posteriors.
  • Hot Jupiter definition = Mp > 50 M_Earth, a < 0.2 AU
    Adopted from Winter et al. (2020); the paper shows that using the more common 0.1 AU boundary changes the statistical significance of the residual difference in the ZGR23 sample, so the classification choice is consequential.
  • Phase space density thresholds = Phigh > 0.84, Phigh < 0.16, rho_tilde > 50, at least 400 neighbours in 40 pc
    Same thresholds as Winter et al. (2020) and Mustill et al. (2022); these choices determine which hosts are called over- or underdense and discard about a third of the original sample.
  • Matching distance threshold = 0.25 in rescaled feature space
    Chosen to generally produce a good match while maximising the sample size (Section 3.2); changing it changes the matched sample and hence the resulting p-values.
  • Age range 1-5 Gyr = 1 to 5 Gyr
    Exploratory sub-sample motivated by disc stabilisation and contamination arguments; results are sensitive to this choice (SWEET-Cat p ~ 0.57 versus ZGR23 p ~ 0.087).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dynamical heating: stellar velocity dispersion grows with age, so phase-space density can serve as an age proxy (Wielen 1977; Nordstrom et al. 2004; Tarricq et al. 2021).
    This underpins the age-bias hypothesis and the detrending; if the density-age relationship is not monotonic or is driven by another variable, the correction is invalid. Invoked in Section 1 and Section 3.
  • domain assumption Isochrone models (MIST), dust maps (Combined19), and input photometry and atmospheric parameters are accurate enough for main-sequence field stars to yield unbiased ages.
    All age corrections rely on isoclassify outputs; the authors themselves note large age uncertainties for main-sequence stars in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The Mahalanobis phase-space density metric with the adopted neighbour rules measures the same quantity as in Winter et al. (2020) and is dominated by kinematics.
    The paper follows Winter et al. and notes velocity coordinates dominate; if the metric does not trace real spatial clustering, the environmental interpretation is moot. Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 6D astrometry is complete enough within 40 pc to compute reliable phase-space densities for all planet host classes.
    The authors report HJ hosts have far fewer neighbours within 40 pc than CJ hosts, which could bias density estimates and cannot be ruled out. Section 4.
  • domain assumption The FGK main-sequence selection with Teff 3900-7300 K and logg > 4.0 does not introduce a strong selection bias correlated with phase-space density.
    This cut is required for reliable ages but may preferentially exclude some planet hosts; the paper does not quantify the selection function. Section 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Hot Jupiters and Stellar Clustering: The Role of Host Star Demographics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXE6EWRV

@misc{pith2026250711225,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Hot Jupiters and Stellar Clustering: The Role of Host Star Demographics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXE6EWRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11225}
}
read the original abstract

The variation in hot Jupiter (HJ) occurrence across stellar environments holds clues as to the dominant formation channels of these extreme planets. Recent studies suggest HJ hosts preferentially reside in regions of high phase space density, possibly reflecting natal environmental conditions. These regions are kinematically cold (|v| < 40 km/s), prompting the alternative hypothesis that the correlation reflects an age bias: planetary systems in overdensities are systematically younger and therefore less likely to have undergone tidal inspiral and destruction. We test whether the apparent excess of HJs in phase space overdensities arises from differences in intrinsic host properties -- mass, metallicity, age -- which may correlate with phase space density or whether there is evidence for an additional environmental effect. We derive homogeneous estimates for the mass, metallicity, and age of planet-hosting stars using 2MASS and Gaia DR3 photometry, parallaxes, and self-consistent spectroscopic and spectrophotometric observables. In a sample of 2265 confirmed exoplanet hosts, we find a significant relative excess of HJs orbiting stars in overdense regions. However, we also find that overdensities preferentially host younger, more massive, and more metal-rich stars compared to underdensities. After correcting for these differences, either by detrending the phase space density against age or by matching host properties across subsamples, we find no significant differences in the HJ populations between over- and underdense regions. Our results suggest that the previously reported correlation between HJ occurrence and phase space density is driven by underlying differences in host star demographics rather than an intrinsic environmental effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11225 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distributions of planet semi-major axes and masses in the homogeneous SWEET-Cat (top) and ZGR23 (bottom) host samples split by phase space density into underdensities (left) and overdensities (right) before matching for host properties or applying any age cuts. The region of the parameter space (𝑀p > 50 M⊕, 𝑎 < 0.2 AU) occupied by hot Jupiters is indicated by dashed lines. hot Jupiters appear more abundant aroun… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Host star age distributions in the overdensity (red) and underden￾sity (blue) subsamples obtained using the homogeneously derived SWEET￾Cat (top) and ZGR23 (bottom) stellar parameters. The faint lines show the distributions obtained by resampling the values from the corresponding isoclassify age posteriors 100 times. biguity, Mustill et al. (2022) identified a strong correlation between the Mahalanobis phase space d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalised phase space density before (middle) and residuals after (bottom) detrending against stellar age for HJ (orange) and non-HJ (grey) hosts in the homogeneous SWEET-Cat sample with no age cuts applied. The contours corresponding to the 30th and 70th percentiles of each distribution are shown. The Pearson correlation coefficient (𝑟) is shown in the top right corner of each panel, and the linear regression line… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of 𝑝-values from the Poisson means test quantifying the difference in the occurrence of HJ hosts between over- and underdensities using resampled age, mass, and metallicity values. The histograms represent 1000 pairs of unmatched (grey), size-controlle…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z., et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219564 , 543, A89

    Adibekyan V. Z., et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219564 , 543, A89

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219564 2012

  2. [2]

    Adibekyan V., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040201 , 649, A111

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040201 2021

  3. [3]

    K., Tripathi M., 2024, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad429f , 168, 7

    Banerjee B., Narang M., Manoj P., Henning T., Tyagi H., Surya A., Nayak P. K., Tripathi M., 2024, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad429f , 168, 7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad429f 2024

  4. [4]

    Bashi D., Zucker S., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3596 , 510, 3449

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3596 2022

  5. [5]

    S., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 , 562, A71

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  6. [6]

    A., Huber D., Gaidos E., van Saders J

    Berger T. A., Huber D., Gaidos E., van Saders J. L., Weiss L. M., 2020, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aba18a , 160, 108

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba18a 2020

  7. [7]

    A., Schlieder J

    Berger T. A., Schlieder J. E., Huber D., 2023, The Gaia - Kepler - TESS - Host Stellar Properties Catalog : Uniform Physical Parameters for 7993 Host Stars and 9324 Planets , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11338 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11338

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.11338 2023

  8. [8]

    Bitsch B., Trifonov T., Izidoro A., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038856 , 643, A66

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038856 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    A., Parker R

    Blaylock-Squibbs G. A., Parker R. J., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3683 , 519, 3643

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Parker R

    Blaylock-Squibbs G. A., Parker R. J., Daffern-Powell E. C., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be0 , 968, 108

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    I., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449557 , 686, A167

    Boettner C., Dayal P., Trebitsch M., Libeskind N., Rice K., Cockell C., Tieleman B. I., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449557 , 686, A167

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Schlafly E

    Bovy J., Rix H.-W., Green G. M., Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130 , 818, 130

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Brucalassi A., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527561 , 592, L1

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Chen D.-C., et al., 2023, @doi [PNAS] 10.1073/pnas.2304179120 , 120, e2304179120

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    D., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , 823, 102

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    I., Johnson J

    Dawson R. I., Johnson J. A., 2018, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 , 56, 175

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , 222, 8

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Drimmel R., Cabrera-Lavers A., López-Corredoira M., 2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070 , 409, 205

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    M., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , 506, 2269

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., Heintz T. M., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , 506, 2269

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Sanders J

    Fallows C. P., Sanders J. L., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1303 , 531, 2126

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Valenti J., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/428383 , 622, 1102

    Fischer D. A., Valenti J., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/428383 , 622, 1102

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    C., 1987, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.003131 , 25, 603

    Freeman K. C., 1987, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.003131 , 25, 603

    1987

  15. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , 674, A1

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , 887, 93

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    H., Schlaufman K

    Hamer J. H., Schlaufman K. C., 2019, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3c56 , 158, 190

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Dullemond C

    Helled R., et al., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI . pp 643--665, @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch028

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Huber D., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca , 844, 102

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Aller K

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

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Kamdar H., Conroy C., Ting Y.-S., Bonaca A., Johnson B., Cargile P., 2019a, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44be , 884, 173

    doi

  22. [30]

    C., Brown A

    Kamdar H., Conroy C., Ting Y.-S., Bonaca A., Smith M. C., Brown A. G. A., 2019b, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4997 , 884, L42

    doi

  23. [31]

    Kamdar H., Conroy C., Ting Y.-S., El-Badry K., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe5d , 922, 49

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Sandford E., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1926 , 463, 1323

    Kipping D. M., Sandford E., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1926 , 463, 1323

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Kruijssen J. M. D., Longmore S. N., Chevance M., Laporte C. F. P., Motylinski M., Keller B. W., Henshaw J. D., 2021, Not the Birth Cluster : the Stellar Clustering that Shapes Planetary Systems is Generated by Galactic - Dynamical Perturbations , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2109.06182...

    2021 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    M., 2020, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b0 , 159, 248

    Kunimoto M., Matthews J. M., 2020, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b0 , 159, 248

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Robin A

    Marshall D. J., Robin A. C., Reylé C., Schultheis M., Picaud S., 2006, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 , 453, 635

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Miyazaki S., Masuda K., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acff71 , 166, 209

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Lambrechts M., Davies M

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

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Nordström B., et al., 2004, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20035959 , 418, 989

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    Osborn A., Bayliss D., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz3207 , 491, 4481

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa54c , 155, 89

    Petigura E. A., et al., 2018, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa54c , 155, 89

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Newton E

    Rampalli R., Ness M. K., Newton E. R., Vanderburg A., Buck T., Mills J., 2025, Disentangling Metallicity Effects in Hot Jupiter Occurrence Across Galactic Birth Radius and Phase - Space Density , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16511 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.16511

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Rauer H., et al., 2024, The PLATO Mission , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05447

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Rodet L., Su Y., Lai D., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8a7 , 913, 104

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    C., et al., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321286 , 556, A150

    Santos N. C., et al., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321286 , 556, A150

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Schönrich R., Binney J., Dehnen W., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x , 403, 1829

    2010

  38. [46]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/498708 , 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/498708 , 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    Sousa S. G., 2014, in Niemczura E., Smalley B., Pych W., eds, , Determination of Atmospheric Parameters of B -, A -, F - and G - Type Stars : Lectures from the School of Spectroscopic Data Analyses . Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 297--310, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-...

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    G., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141584 , 656, A53

    Sousa S. G., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141584 , 656, A53

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    K., Narang M., Manoj P., Sivarani T., Rajaguru S

    Swastik C., Banyal R. K., Narang M., Manoj P., Sivarani T., Rajaguru S. P., Unni A., Banerjee B., 2022, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac756a , 164, 60

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Narang M., Unni A., Banerjee B., Manoj P., Sivarani T., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ace782 , 166, 91

    Swastik C., Banyal R. K., Narang M., Unni A., Banerjee B., Manoj P., Sivarani T., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ace782 , 166, 91

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    K., Narang M., Unni A., Sivarani T., 2024, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad40ae , 167, 270

    Swastik C., Banyal R. K., Narang M., Unni A., Sivarani T., 2024, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad40ae , 167, 270

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Tarricq Y., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039388 , 647, A19

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Winn J

    Tejada Arevalo R. A., Winn J. N., Anderson K. R., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1429 , 919, 138

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-025-02539-1 , pp 1--12

    Tu P.-W., Xie J.-W., Chen D.-C., Zhou J.-L., 2025, @doi [Nat. Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-025-02539-1 , pp 1--12

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Valle G., Dell’Omodarme M., Moroni P. G. P., Degl’Innocenti S., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220069 , 549, A50

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    Wielen R., 1977, A&A, 60, 263

    1977

  49. [57]

    J., Kruijssen J

    Winter A. J., Kruijssen J. M. D., Longmore S. N., Chevance M., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2800-0 , 586, 528

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Tremaine S., 2004, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/422023 , 128, 869

    Zakamska N. L., Tremaine S., 2004, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/422023 , 128, 869

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    M., Rix H.-W., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad1941 , 524, 1855

    Zhang X., Green G. M., Rix H.-W., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad1941 , 524, 1855

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Zhao G., Zhao Y., Chu Y., Jing Y., Deng L., 2012, @doi [RAA] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 , 12, 723

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acd24c , 165, 262

    Zink J. K., et al., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acd24c , 165, 262

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.