Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Are Local Group Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies the First Safe Planet-hosting Environments?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A semiempirical model of 11 Local Group dwarf spheroidals argues that if terrestrial planets can form below about one-tenth of the Sun's iron abundance, then ultra-faint dwarf galaxies were the first safe planet hosts, with 0.1%–10% of thei

desk verdict A transparent, well-scoped semiempirical estimate of safe terrestrial-planet probabilities in Local Group dSphs; the numbers are conditional on an unverified low-metallicity planet formation rate, but the conditional claim itself is honest and worth taking seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01669 v1 pith:6ABVCNNT submitted 2025-09-01 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Stefano Ciabattini , Stefania Salvadori , Leonardo Testi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords dwarfspheroidalgalaxiesultra-faintterrestrialplanetformationlow-metallicitygalactichabitabilitysupernovaandGRBsterilizationastrobiologystarhistories
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 asks whether the smallest and most ancient galaxies around the Milky Way — dwarf spheroidal galaxies, and the faintest of them, the ultra-faint dwarfs — might have been the first places in the Local Group where Earth-like planets could form and then remain undisturbed for billions of years. To find out, the authors combine each galaxy's observed spread of stellar iron abundances with its star-formation history and multiply two probabilities: that its stars reach the metallicity needed to form terrestrial planets, and that a planet escapes the sterilizing radiation of nearby supernovae and gamma-ray bursts for 1 or 4 billion years. The result is a fork rather than a single number. If planets can form at iron abundances below about a tenth of the Sun's, then 0.1% to 10% of the stars in every sampled dwarf spheroidal could have hosted safe terrestrial planets for more than a billion years, and the ultra-faint dwarfs would have been the first Local Group systems to reach that state, several billion years before our Solar System existed. If planets instead need iron abundances above roughly a quarter of the Sun's, ultra-faint dwarfs contain no such planets and only the most luminous dwarfs reach even 0.1%. The machinery also exposes a 'luminosity sweet spot' near one million solar luminosities, where dwarfs keep a positive chance of hosting safe planets for up to 4 billion years under every planet-formation model explored. If right, the search for the first potentially habitable planets should point at the tiny ancient relics of the early universe, and a single measurement — whether planets exist around very metal-poor stars — separates the two futures.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-factor product, Phost = Pform × Psurv. Pform weights each galaxy's observed metallicity distribution by one of five metallicity-dependent planet-formation probabilities: three sharp thresholds at [Fe/H] = −2.5, −1.8, −0.6, and two extrapolations of the Milky Way's close-in-planet occurrence rate (a power law and an exponential), all normalized to a 14% occurrence at solar metallicity. Psurv converts observed cumulative star-formation histories into star-formation rates and integrates the stellar mass fraction that never falls inside the volume sterilized by Type II supernovae (14 pc), Type Ia supernovae (~100 pc), and gamma-ray bursts (1 kpc, 10° opening angle), over 1

What would settle it

A transit survey of a few thousand metal-poor ([Fe/H] between −2.5 and −1) K and M dwarf stars looking for close-in terrestrial planets would settle the fork: any detections in this metallicity range favor scenario (i), while a null detection with a tight upper limit on occurrence below roughly 1% would falsify the claim that ultra-faint dwarfs formed safe planets in significant numbers. A second, independent check is to measure the Type Ia supernova rate in present-day dwarf spheroidals, since the model currently borrows the Milky Way's rate to normalize its Ia sterilization volume.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is conditional on one quantity — the minimum iron abundance at which terrestrial planets can form — and is carried by the product Phost = Pform × Psurv, the probability that a dwarf-spheroidal star forms a planet and then keeps it outside sterilizing radiation. With observed metallicity distributions and star-formation histories for six ultra-faint and five classical dwarfs, survival alone is nearly guaranteed in ultra-faint dwarfs, because their star formation is so early and brief that supernova and gamma-ray-burst rates die out within a few tens of millions of years. The decisive factor is formation. If planets can form at [Fe/H] ≲ −1 (one-tenth solar iron), all dwarfs w

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the planet-formation probabilities measured for close-in planets around Sun-like stars in the Milky Way apply unchanged to the older, cooler K and M dwarf stars in ancient dwarf galaxies, at iron abundances down to a few hundredths of the Sun's; if low-metallicity planet formation is actually suppressed, or if K and M dwarfs behave differently, the predicted numbers and the claim that ultra-faint dwarfs came first both collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the low-metallicity scenario holds, ultra-faint dwarf galaxies were the first Local Group systems to combine planet-forming metals with a long, radiation-quiet window, reaching that state several billion years before the Milky Way disk and our Solar System.
  • The two scenarios make cleanly separated observational predictions: planets around stars with [Fe/H] between −2.5 and −1 exist in scenario (i) and are absent in scenario (ii), so future planet searches around metal-poor stars can directly discriminate between them.
  • Because K and M dwarf stars dominate these galaxies and close-in orbits (0.03–1 au) around them can lie in the habitable zone, any such planets would be potentially habitable, putting the search target within reach of upcoming transit and radial-velocity surveys.
  • Using the refractory index [Ref/H] (Mg, Si, Fe) instead of [Fe/H] as the formation-metallicity proxy would raise the predicted formation probability in ultra-faint dwarfs, since roughly 35% of their most iron-poor stars are enhanced in magnesium and silicon — iron alone underestimates their planet-forming potential.
  • The model is generalizable: any stellar system with measured metallicities and a star-formation history — globular clusters, the Milky Way bulge, or other ancient environments — can be scored with the same Phost product.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'safe' criterion covers only galactic-scale threats; including stellar-scale hazards such as the intense flares and X-ray activity of young M dwarfs would lower absolute survival probabilities, but roughly uniformly across galaxy types, so the ranking of ultra-faint dwarfs as the quietest first homes would likely survive.
  • The luminosity sweet spot near 10^6 L⊙ hints at a general principle: galaxy habitability as a function of stellar mass is bell-shaped, with the smallest galaxies too metal-poor to form planets and the largest too crowded with supernovae — the same competition could be mapped onto the first galaxies at high redshift, not just surviving dwarfs today.
  • A testable extension: Milky Way halo field stars are largely debris from disrupted dwarf galaxies of exactly these types, so monitoring very metal-poor halo K/M dwarfs for close-in planets would test scenario (i) without needing to resolve planets inside the dwarfs themselves.
  • Because the sterilization volume saturates once it exceeds the galaxy volume, the survival factor is sensitive to the assumed galaxy radius; the paper's own check shows halving the radius keeps results within uncertainties, but the general lesson is that the spatial distribution of stars — not just metallicity — is a lever on habitability predictions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semiempirical model to estimate the probability that stars in 11 Local Group dwarf spheroidals (6 UFDs and 5 classical dSphs) hosted terrestrial planets that remained unsterilized by SNe and GRBs for 1 or 4 Gyr. The model writes Phost = Pform × Psurv (Eq. 1). Pform (Eq. 2) is obtained by convolving the observed stellar [Fe/H] distribution with five assumed fTP([Fe/H]) models: three sharp-threshold models (F1, F2, F3) and two extrapolated occurrence-rate models (E1, E2). Psurv (Eqs. 4–6) is computed from the observed SFHs, analytic SN II/Ia and GRB rates, and adopted critical sterilization distances. The main results are two branches: if planet formation is possible for [Fe/H] ≲ -1, then Phost ≈ 0.1%–10% in all sampled dSphs and UFDs are the first systems to reach this condition; if formation requires [Fe/H] ≳ -0.6, UFDs host no such planets and only luminous classical dSphs show Phost ≈ 0.001%–0.1%. The paper also identifies a 'luminosity sweet spot' at L_V ≈ 10^6 L_sun. All conclusions are explicitly conditional on fTP, and the authors acknowledge the main extrapolations in Sec. 5.1.

Significance. If the central conditional result holds, the paper provides a useful, falsifiable framework for identifying the earliest potentially habitable galactic environments in the Local Group. Its strengths are transparency: the equations are simple, the input data (MDFs from SAGA, SFHs from Brown et al. 2014 and Weisz et al. 2014) are public, and the authors explicitly test the effect of a more concentrated stellar distribution (Appendix C). The division into two clearly separated scenarios is honest and makes the key uncertainty visible. The main significance risk is that the quantitative reach of scenario (i) depends on an unvalidated extrapolation of close-in planet occurrence rates to low-metallicity K/M dwarfs; this is not an equation-level circularity, but it is the load-bearing input for the 'UFDs first' conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §5.1, Eq. (2)] The quantitative content of scenario (i) is carried entirely by fTP([Fe/H]) at [Fe/H] < -1. The adopted F1/F2/E1 forms are extrapolated from close-in planet occurrence around FGK stars in the Milky Way (Zink et al. 2023; Boley et al. 2024), where the data are concentrated near [Fe/H] ≈ -0.5 to +0.3, to K/M dwarfs down to [Fe/H] = -2.5—a double extrapolation that the authors acknowledge in Sec. 5.1. If the true low-metallicity fTP is lower by even an order of magnitude (e.g., suppressed dust coagulation or disk mass), Pform in UFDs drops below 1% and scenario (i) disappears; Psurv cannot rescue it because it multiplies Pform. I recommend adding a parameterized sensitivity analysis (e.g., fTP → fTP × 10^{-α([Fe/H]+1)} for [Fe/H] < -1) and reporting the critical α above which the 'UFDs first' conclusion fails. This would turn the strong scenario (i) into a robust if-then statement with a qu
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B4)] The adopted supernova Ia critical distance dcr,Ia = 100 pc is based on a single object, SN2014J, and an assumed critical fluence F_cr^γ = 10^8 erg cm^-2. SNe Ia are the dominant long-delay sterilizer for intermediate-luminosity and long-Δt cases (Carina, Fornax), so this calibration matters for the Psurv values in Fig. 4. Since Vster ∝ dcr^3, a factor-of-2 uncertainty in dcr,Ia changes the sterilized volume by roughly an order of magnitude. The paper should either propagate a plausible range for dcr,Ia into Phost or justify the single-SN calibration with additional events or theoretical modeling.
  3. [§4.3, Fig. 5] The 'luminosity sweet spot' at L_V ≈ 10^6 L_sun is presented as a robust finding, but it is largely a necessary consequence of the model construction: Pform increases with L_V (more metal-rich MDFs) while Psurv decreases with L_V (higher SFRs and more sterilizing events), so their product peaks at intermediate luminosity. In the high-threshold models (F3, E2) Pform is zero in UFDs, and in Fornax Psurv is zero for Δt = 4 Gyr, so the intermediate range is the only non-zero region. The text should qualify the sweet spot as a property of the explored model family and sample, not a model-independent physical prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1] The statement 'all stars in UFDs formed more than 9 Gyr ago, and hence they are K or M' is compressed. More precisely, all surviving low-mass stars are K/M dwarfs because more massive stars have already evolved away; please rephrase to avoid the implication that all stars formed at early times are still on the main sequence.
  2. [Fig. 3] For the smallest UFDs the MDFs contain only N_obs = 5–17 stars. The Poissonian shaded regions in Fig. 3 are large, and the interpolated curves between sparse points should be interpreted cautiously; consider plotting the individual dSph values with error bars more prominently.
  3. [§3.3] The model assumes a homogeneous stellar distribution within a sphere of radius Rgal = 2 R1/2. Appendix C tests Rgal = R1/2, but the more extreme possibility that SNe and GRBs cluster with the star-forming regions (rather than being uniformly distributed) is not explored; a brief discussion would be helpful.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments thank 'the anonymous referee and the editor' for comments that improved the manuscript. This is unusual in an arXiv submission and may be a remnant of an earlier review cycle; it should be removed before publication.
  5. [Appendix B] The calibration of dcr,Ia relies on a private communication (M. Richmond 2025). Please provide a citable public source or include the relevant data explicitly so the calculation is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Phost is an explicit product of observed-MDF-weighted fTP and SFH-based survival, and the central scenarios are transparently conditional on the assumed fTP.

full rationale

The derivation chain is Phost = Pform × Psurv (Eq. 1). Pform (Eq. 2) is defined as the observed MDF-weighted average of fTP([Fe/H]), with fTP taken from external literature (Johnson & Li 2012; Hasegawa & Hirashita 2014; Andama et al. 2024; Zink et al. 2023; Boley et al. 2024), not fitted to dSph data. Psurv (Eqs. 3-6) is computed from observed SFHs and analytic SN/GRB rates, with no reference to the planet-formation models. The two headline scenarios are explicitly conditional on the assumed fTP behavior ('If planet formation is possible for [Fe/H]≲−1', 'if planets form only for [Fe/H]≥−0.6'), so the output is not presented as an unconditional empirical prediction. The only notable author-overlapping citations (Koutsouridou et al. 2025 for NLTE corrections; Salvadori et al. and related papers for dSph/UFD context) are used for data corrections or contextual statements, not as the load-bearing justification for Phost; these are independently falsifiable tools/results and do not import the paper's own conclusion. Domain transfer from MW FGK close-in planets to dSph K/M dwarfs is an extrapolation concern (correctness risk), but it is not equation-level circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. Hence score 0.

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

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or physical entities are introduced. The central probabilities rest on literature fTP curves, adopted sterilization radii, analytic event rates, and observed MDF/SFH data, all of which carry calibration constants from the Milky Way rather than from dwarf galaxies themselves.

free parameters (5)
  • fTP normalization at [Fe/H]=0 = 0.14
    All five fTP models are normalized to this observed occurrence rate of close-in terrestrial planets around FGK stars (Boley et al. 2024), so the absolute Pform and Phost values inherit this calibration.
  • SN Ia efficiency AIa = 2.5e-3
    Fraction of binary systems producing SNe Ia, calibrated to reproduce the MW SN Ia rate (Cappellaro et al. 1999) and assumed unchanged in dSphs.
  • GRB fraction fGRB = 0.1
    Adopted fraction of massive stars yielding GRBs in Appendix A; no direct dSph constraint.
  • SN Ia critical distance dcr,Ia = ~100 pc
    Scaled from a single event, SN2014J, to the terrestrial critical fluence in Appendix B.
  • Mass-to-light ratio M/L = 1
    Chosen to convert cumulative SFH into SFR for the Psurv calculation in Section 3.3.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption fTP([Fe/H]) models from the literature apply to LG dSphs, including the thresholds [Fe/H] = -2.5, -1.8, -0.6 and the extrapolated power-law and exponential trends from MW FGK close-in planets.
    Central to Pform; Section 3.1 and Figure 2. No direct planet detections in dSphs support these curves.
  • domain assumption The observed MDFs from SAGA, corrected for 1D NLTE, are representative of each galaxy's stellar population.
    Pform is a weighted average over observed stars; spectroscopic samples can be biased by target selection and brightness, and no completeness correction is described in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Stars are homogeneously distributed in a sphere of radius Rgal = 2 R1/2, and sterilized volumes do not overlap.
    Psurv in Eqs (4)-(5); the authors test a halved radius in Appendix C, but true spatial distributions and overlap are unknown.
  • domain assumption Cumulative SFHs converted to SFRs with M/L = 1 and a 100 Myr time step are adequate for computing SN and GRB rates.
    Needed for Eq (5) and the rate integrals; M/L = 1 is chosen, not measured, and the time-step insensitivity is asserted but not shown in detail.
  • domain assumption Analytic SN II, SN Ia, and GRB rates with a MW-calibrated AIa and fixed fGRB are valid in dSphs.
    Appendix A; no observed SN rates in dSphs are used to check these prescriptions.
  • domain assumption Sterilization distances and angles from the literature (SN II 14 pc, SN Ia 100 pc, GRB 1 kpc with 10 degrees) and the terrestrial critical fluence apply in dSph environments.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix B; the SN Ia distance comes from one historical event and the GRB beaming angle from a population average.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are Local Group Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies the First Safe Planet-hosting Environments?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ABVCNNT

@misc{pith2026250901669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are Local Group Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies the First Safe Planet-hosting Environments?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ABVCNNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01669}
}
abstract

We explore whether Local Group dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies might have hosted Earth-like planets dwelling unexposed for several billions of years to major galactic threats to life, such as supernovae and gamma-ray bursts. To this aim, we developed a novel semiempirical model that exploits the observed chemical abundances and star formation histories of a selected sample of local dSphs, to explore whether their stars may have (i) reached the minimum metallicity to trigger planet formation and (ii) avoided exposure to destructive events long enough to provide time for possible biological development. From our work two scenarios emerge. If planet formation is possible for ${\rm[Fe/H]}\lesssim-1$, then in all dSphs with $5\times10^{3}L_{\odot}\leq L_V\leq2\times10^{7}L_{\odot}$ a fraction $\approx0.1\%-10\%$ of stars might have safely hosted terrestrial planets for more than $1$ Gyr. In this scenario, ancient ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFDs, $L_V\leq10^{5}L_{\odot}$) would have been the first to reach this condition in the history of the Local Group. Conversely, if planets form for ${\rm[Fe/H]}\geq-0.6$ then they should not exist in UFDs, while only $\approx0.001\%-0.1\%$ of stars in dSphs with $L_V\geq3\times10^{5}L_{\odot}$ would host planets dwelling in safe conditions for long times. Interestingly, we find a "luminosity sweet spot" at $L_V\sim10^{6}L_{\odot}$ where dSphs in our sample safely host terrestrial planets up to $4$ Gyr and in any planet formation scenario explored. In conclusion, planet formation at low metallicity is key to understanding which types of galaxies might have formed Earth-like planets that dwelt unexposed to galactic threats over several billions of years, first in the history of the Local Group.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01669 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The MDFs (left) and the SFHs (right) of dSphs with increasing luminosity from top (red) to bottom (violet-see also labels). Left panels: all [Fe/H] measurements of stars in dSphs are taken from the SAGA database (http://sagadatabase.jp/) and have been corrected for 1D NLTE effects with the NLiTE tool (Koutsouridou et al. 2025). Vertical lines represent the minimum [Fe/H] for planet formation in models F1 and E1 (sol… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Adopted metallicity-dependent probabilities of terrestrial planets formation. See labels and text for the different models assumed. the iron abundance of the hosting star and are normal￾ized to reproduce the observed occurrence rate of ter￾restrial planets at [Fe/H] = 0, i.e. fTP = 0.14 (Boley et al. 2024). Note that fTP = 0 below each minimum [Fe/H] for models F1-F3, while in E1 fTP is extrapo￾lated down to [Fe/H] … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Probability of terrestrial planets formation in lo￾cal dSphs, Pform, as a function of the dSph luminosity. Each curve corresponds to a specific model for fTP (see labels and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability of LG dSphs to host terrestrial planets dwelling for ∆t in a safe environment, Phost, as a function of the dSph luminosity. Curves are obtained through eq. (1), combining Pform resulting from different models of fTP (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized fraction of stars in UFDs (left) and dSphs (right) with different chemical abundances (see labels) obtained using the high-resolution measurements (R > 104 ) in the SAGA database. All measurements are corrected for 1D NLTE effects, using NLiTE (Koutsouridou …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: comparison between Psurv as a function of LV , computed for a galaxy radius Rgal = R1/2 (green) and Rgal = 2R1/2 (gray, same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, Geosciences, 9, 105, doi: 10.3390/geosciences9030105

    Adibekyan, V. 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105, doi: 10.3390/geosciences9030105

    doi:10.3390/geosciences9030105 2019

  2. [2]

    Z., Delgado Mena, E., Sousa, S

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Delgado Mena, E., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2012a, A&A, 547, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220167

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220167

  3. [3]

    Z., Sousa, S

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2012b, A&A, 545, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219401

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219401

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac542

    Perlman, E. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac542

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac542 2022

  5. [5]

    2024, A&A, 683, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348899

    Andama, G., Mah, J., & Bitsch, B. 2024, A&A, 683, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348899

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348899 2024

  6. [6]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  7. [7]

    Barbuy, B., Fria¸ ca, A. C. S., da Silveira, C. R., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525694

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525694 2015

  8. [8]

    Pecci, F. F. 1995, ApJ, 439, 687, doi: 10.1086/175208

    work page doi:10.1086/175208 1995

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    Belokurov, V., & Kravtsov, A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Christiansen, J

    Boley, K. M., Christiansen, J. L., Zink, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6570

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/91

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    R., O’Mahoney, C., Fields, B

    Brunton, I. R., O’Mahoney, C., Fields, B. D., Melott, A. L., & Thomas, B. C. 2023, ApJ, 947, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc728

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 351, 459, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904225

    Cappellaro, E., Evans, R., & Turatto, M. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 351, 459, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904225

    1999 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/62

    Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., Isern, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/62

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, A&A, 670, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244867

    Cold, C., & Hjorth, J. 2023, A&A, 670, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244867

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/810/1/l2

    Dayal, P., Cockell, C., Rice, K., & Mazumdar, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/810/1/l2

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Melott, A

    Ejzak, L. M., Melott, A. L., Medvedev, M. V., & Thomas, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 373, doi: 10.1086/509106

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 21008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2013774117

    Fields, B., Melott, A., Ellis, J., et al. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 21008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2013774117

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    A., & Bridges, T

    Forbes, D. A., & Bridges, T. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1203, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16373.x

    2010

  14. [22]

    R., Minniti, D., & Fern´ andez-Trincado, J

    Garro, E. R., Minniti, D., & Fern´ andez-Trincado, J. G. 2024, A&A, 687, A214, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347389

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Jackman, C

    Gehrels, N., Laird, C. M., Jackman, C. H., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1169, doi: 10.1086/346127

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    S., & Burns, E

    Goldstein, A., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Burns, E. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/18

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, L103, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00734.x

    Gonzalez, G. 2009, MNRAS, 399, L103, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00734.x

    2009

  18. [26]

    2001, Icarus, 152, 185, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6617

    Gonzalez, G., Brownlee, D., & Ward, P. 2001, Icarus, 152, 185, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6617

    2001

  19. [27]

    D., et al

    Gore, R., Giacalone, S., Dressing, C. D., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2c0c

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/62

    Hasegawa, Y., & Hirashita, H. 2014, ApJ, 788, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/62

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6

    Helmi, A. 2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    1959, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 71, 421, doi: 10.1086/127417 12

    Huang, S.-S. 1959, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 71, 421, doi: 10.1086/127417 12

    1959 doi

  23. [31]

    L., & Li, H

    Johnson, J. L., & Li, H. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/81

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

    1993

  25. [33]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 685, L43, doi: 10.1086/592432

    Frebel, A. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 685, L43, doi: 10.1086/592432

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13607

    Koutsouridou, I., Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A., & Salvadori, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13607

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    1989, ApJ, 344, 325, doi: 10.1086/167801

    Kozasa, T., Hasegawa, H., & Nomoto, K. 1989, ApJ, 344, 325, doi: 10.1086/167801

    1989 doi

  29. [37]

    Larson, R. B. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 301, 569, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02045.x

    1998

  30. [38]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18160.x

    Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18160.x

    2011

  31. [39]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    2004, Science, 303, 59, doi: 10.1126/science.1092322

    Lineweaver, C., Fenner, Y., & Gibson, B. 2004, Science, 303, 59, doi: 10.1126/science.1092322

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, A&A, 686, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348093

    Lucchesi, R., Jablonka, P., Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348093

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    I., & Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790

    1999 doi

  35. [44]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 265, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10848.x

    Matteucci, F., Panagia, N., Pipino, A., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 265, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10848.x

    2006

  36. [45]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  37. [46]

    L., & Thomas, B

    Melott, A. L., & Thomas, B. C. 2011, Astrobiology, 11, 343, doi: 10.1089/ast.2010.0603

    2011

  38. [47]

    J., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 112, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05723.x Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b

    2002

  39. [48]

    Pace, A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07424

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 5699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad912

    Pagnini, G., Salvadori, S., Rossi, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad912

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    2017, A&A, 601, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730474

    Pancino, E., Romano, D., Tang, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730474

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    2008, Space Science Reviews, 135, 313, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9236-9

    Prantzos, N. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 135, 313, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9236-9

    2008 doi

  43. [52]

    M., Villata, M., & Navarro, J

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., & Navarro, J. F. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 315, 105

    1996

  44. [53]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad029

    Rossi, M., Salvadori, S., Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A., & Vanni, I. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad029

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    Ruderman, M. A. 1974, Science, 184, 1079, doi: 10.1126/science.184.4141.1079

    1974

  46. [55]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc39f

    Saccardi, A., Salvadori, S., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc39f

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1969

    Salvadori, S., Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A., & Tolstoy, E. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1969

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt132

    Salvadori, S., Tolstoy, E., Ferrara, A., & Zaroubi, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt132

    2014 doi

  49. [58]

    1992, ApJL, 399, L95, doi: 10.1086/186615

    Sigurdsson, S. 1992, ApJL, 399, L95, doi: 10.1086/186615

    1992 doi

  50. [59]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    2021, A&A, 647, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039507

    Scuderi, G. 2021, A&A, 647, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039507

    2021 doi

  52. [61]

    2017, A&A, 605, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730545

    Spitoni, E., Gioannini, L., & Matteucci, F. 2017, A&A, 605, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730545

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu484

    Spitoni, E., Matteucci, F., & Sozzetti, A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu484

    2014 doi

  54. [63]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    Suda, T., Katsuta, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    F., et al

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141380

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    C., Jackman, C

    Thomas, B. C., Jackman, C. H., Melott, A. L., et al. 2005a, ApJL, 622, L153, doi: 10.1086/429799

    doi

  57. [66]

    C., Melott, A

    Thomas, B. C., Melott, A. L., Jackman, C. H., et al. 2005b, The Astrophysical Journal, 634, 509, doi: 10.1086/496914

    doi

  58. [67]

    Thorsett, S. E. 1995, ApJL, 444, L53, doi: 10.1086/187858

    1995 doi

  59. [68]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 325, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04486.x

    Todini, P., & Ferrara, A. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 325, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04486.x

    2001

  60. [69]

    2009, Annual Review of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V., & Tosi, M. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    2009 doi

  61. [70]

    Tucker, W. H. 1981, in NASA Conference Publication, Vol. 2156, NASA Conference Publication, ed. J. Billingham, 287–296

    1981

  62. [71]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 2620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2910 13

    Koutsouridou, I. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2910 13

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    I., Whalen, D

    Vorobyov, E. I., Whalen, D. J., Latif, M. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08375, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08375

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/147

    2014 doi

  65. [74]

    J., Latif, M

    Whalen, D. J., Latif, M. A., & Jessop, C. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 741, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02479-w

    2025 doi

  66. [75]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237

    1995 doi

  67. [76]

    K., Hardegree-Ullman, K

    Zink, J. K., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Christiansen, J. L., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd24c

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.