pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06029 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

The Cohesive Object Sequence: The Mass-Density Distribution of Astronomical Objects from Asteroids to Stars

Gabriel M Steward , Matthew Hedman
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords mass-density relationastronomical objectscohesive sequenceasteroidsplanetsstarsstellar remnantsgravitational contraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Most astronomical objects from asteroids to giant stars align on a single mass-density sequence when plotted against mass.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that when the densities of many different astronomical bodies are plotted against their masses, the points form a continuous sequence running from small asteroids through planets to the largest stars. This alignment arises because gravity and other physical processes shape objects in related ways across scales. The sequence breaks for compact remnants like white dwarfs and neutron stars, highlighting their distinct formation paths. Such a plot makes visible the underlying connections that link seemingly separate classes of objects.

Core claim

Plotting the mass-density of a wide range of astronomical objects as a function of their mass reveals that the vast majority of these objects fall along a cohesive object sequence that extends all the way from asteroids to the largest stars. Trends and features within this sequence reflect fundamental astronomical processes and phenomena, including the gravitational contraction of progressively higher-mass planets and the onset of nuclear reactions within stars. Compact stellar remnants fall well off this sequence, reflecting their extreme natures.

What carries the argument

The cohesive object sequence, the observed continuous trend in mass-density versus mass that links diverse bodies through shared gravitational and nuclear processes.

If this is right

  • The sequence encodes the effects of gravitational contraction as planet masses increase.
  • The onset of nuclear fusion in stars produces a visible feature or change in slope along the sequence.
  • Compact stellar remnants lie distinctly off the sequence because their densities are set by degeneracy pressure rather than the same equilibrium processes.
  • The plot provides a practical way to classify objects by seeing whether they fall on or off the main trend.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the sequence holds across more complete samples, it could serve as a quick diagnostic for whether an object has reached hydrostatic equilibrium or experienced unusual formation history.
  • Extending the same plot to include exoplanets with measured densities might reveal whether the sequence continues smoothly into the super-Earth and mini-Neptune regime.
  • Deviations at the high-mass end could help identify the transition to objects that undergo pair-instability supernovae or other mass-loss events.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen objects and their measured masses and densities are sufficiently complete and unbiased to reveal a physically meaningful sequence rather than an artifact of catalog selection or measurement inconsistencies across scales.

What would settle it

New, independent measurements of objects in under-sampled mass ranges such as large brown dwarfs or low-mass stars that place them far from the reported sequence without corresponding adjustments for selection effects or measurement error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06029 by Gabriel M Steward, Matthew Hedman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The relationship between density (in g cm−3 ) and mass (in Earth masses) for cohesive objects in the universe. Symbol colors and shapes indicate the kind of object. The transparency of each point represents how large the errors are: the more transparent objects have larger errors with a maximum relative permitted error of 0.5 in either mass or volume, whichever was larger for the object in question. No obj… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Zoomed in views of the cohesive object sequence shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Alternate views of the data set showing different combinations of mass, radius, density, and surface gravity. Colors and shapes are identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Plotting the mass-density of a wide range of astronomical objects as a function of their mass reveals that the vast majority of these objects fall along a ``cohesive object sequence'' that extends all the way from asteroids to the largest stars. Trends and features within this sequence reflect fundamental astronomical processes and phenomena, including the gravitational contraction of progressively higher-mass planets and the onset of nuclear reactions within stars. Meanwhile, compact stellar remnants fall well off this sequence, reflecting their extreme natures. This type of plot is therefore useful both for showcasing the relationships and connections between a wide range of astronomical objects and for clarifying the distinctions used to identify particular types of objects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that plotting mass-density against mass for a wide range of astronomical objects reveals that the vast majority align along a 'cohesive object sequence' extending from asteroids to the largest stars. Trends within the sequence are said to reflect gravitational contraction of planets and the onset of nuclear reactions in stars, while compact remnants deviate from it. The diagram is presented as useful for illustrating relationships and classification distinctions across object types.

Significance. If the alignment were shown to be robust against selection effects and measurement inconsistencies, the sequence could serve as a unifying pedagogical tool linking planetary and stellar regimes through shared physics of contraction and ignition. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations are provided; the contribution is primarily conceptual and visual.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the vast majority of these objects fall along' the sequence supplies no data sources, inclusion criteria, total population considered, quantitative scatter metric, or statistical test. Without these, the claim cannot be evaluated and selection bias remains a load-bearing concern for the central result.
  2. No section on data or methods: masses and densities are drawn from heterogeneous techniques (radar/photometric for small bodies, spectroscopic/evolutionary models for stars) with no discussion of how inconsistencies are propagated or normalized, undermining the physical continuity interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. The invented term 'cohesive object sequence' is used without reference to prior literature on mass-radius or mass-density relations.
  2. Figures (if present) should include error bars and outlier annotations to allow readers to assess the tightness of the claimed alignment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have prompted us to clarify key aspects of the manuscript. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the changes made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the vast majority of these objects fall along' the sequence supplies no data sources, inclusion criteria, total population considered, quantitative scatter metric, or statistical test. Without these, the claim cannot be evaluated and selection bias remains a load-bearing concern for the central result.

    Authors: We agree the abstract requires more context. The revised abstract now states that the sequence is illustrated with a representative compilation of objects drawn from the published literature, with sources and references detailed in the main text. We clarify that 'vast majority' is a qualitative description of the visual trend across known object classes rather than a statistical claim about the complete astronomical population. No quantitative scatter metric or formal statistical test is added, as the work is conceptual and visual in nature; such analysis would require a different scope. Selection effects are inherent to any literature compilation, but the alignment spans many orders of magnitude and multiple independent datasets, supporting the physical interpretation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [—] No section on data or methods: masses and densities are drawn from heterogeneous techniques (radar/photometric for small bodies, spectroscopic/evolutionary models for stars) with no discussion of how inconsistencies are propagated or normalized, undermining the physical continuity interpretation.

    Authors: We have added a dedicated 'Data Sources and Methods' section. It describes the literature origins of the mass and density values for each object class, including radar and photometric methods for small bodies and spectroscopic plus evolutionary models for stars. The section notes the heterogeneous techniques and explains that the plot uses standard accepted values without attempting quantitative normalization or error propagation, as the diagram is schematic and intended to reveal broad trends rather than precise inter-comparisons. The continuity interpretation rests on the persistence of the sequence despite these differences, not on the assumption of uniform data quality. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical sequence defined directly from plotted data with no reducing equations or self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational pattern identified by plotting existing mass and density measurements for a range of astronomical objects. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles derivations are presented that could reduce to inputs by construction. The sequence is not derived mathematically but is instead the visual result of the data points themselves. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps. Selection and measurement bias concerns affect the physical interpretation but do not constitute circularity in any derivation chain, as there is none.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard astrophysical domain assumptions about gravity and nuclear physics plus the descriptive entity of the sequence itself; no free parameters or invented particles are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gravitational contraction increases density with mass for planets and lower-mass stars.
    Invoked to explain the overall trend and features in the sequence.
  • domain assumption Onset of nuclear reactions alters the mass-density relation for stars.
    Cited as the cause of specific features within the stellar portion of the sequence.
invented entities (1)
  • Cohesive object sequence no independent evidence
    purpose: Descriptive label for the observed trend line in the mass-density plot.
    This is a named observational pattern; the abstract provides no independent falsifiable prediction outside the plot itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5406 in / 1458 out tokens · 71497 ms · 2026-05-10T18:48:38.688642+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    47, A Global Degree and Order 1200 Model of the Lunar Gravity Field Using GRAIL Mission Data, Houston, Texas, 1484

    2016, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Vol. 47, A Global Degree and Order 1200 Model of the Lunar Gravity Field Using GRAIL Mission Data, Houston, Texas, 1484

    2016

  2. [2]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Adams, E. R., Seager, S., & Elkins-Tanton, L. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 1160–1164, doi: 10.1086/524925

    work page doi:10.1086/524925 2008

  3. [3]

    B., & Hamilton, D

    Agnor, C. B., & Hamilton, D. P. 2006, Nature, 441, 192–194, doi: 10.1038/nature04792 12

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04792 2006

  4. [4]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141

    Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., Alef, W., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141 2019

  5. [5]

    R., Trilling, D

    Allen, P. R., Trilling, D. E., Koerner, D. W., & Reid, I. N. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 595, 1222–1230, doi: 10.1086/377436

    work page doi:10.1086/377436 2003

  6. [6]

    D., Colombo, G., Esposito, P

    Anderson, J. D., Colombo, G., Esposito, P. B., Lau, E. L., & Trager, G. B. 1987, Icarus, 71, 337–349, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90033-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(87)90033-9 1987

  7. [7]

    D., Johnson, T

    Anderson, J. D., Johnson, T. V., Schubert, G., et al. 2005, Science, 308, 1291–1293, doi: 10.1126/science.1110422

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1110422 2005

  8. [8]

    A., Acton, C

    Archinal, B. A., Acton, C. H., A’Hearn, M. F., et al. 2018, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 130, doi: 10.1007/s10569-017-9805-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-017-9805-5 2018

  9. [9]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 880, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ba2

    Veras, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 880, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ba2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ba2 2019

  10. [10]

    J., Lopez, T

    Armstrong, D. J., Lopez, T. A., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2020, Nature, 583, 39–42, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2421-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2421-7 2020

  11. [11]

    2007, Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press)

    Bagenal, F., Dowling, T., & McKinnon, W. 2007, Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press)

    2007

  12. [12]

    1998, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.ASTRO-PH/9805009

    Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 1998, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.ASTRO-PH/9805009

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9805009 1998

  13. [13]

    J., & Bodenheimer, P

    Batygin, K., Stevenson, D. J., & Bodenheimer, P. H. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/1 2011

  14. [14]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Beyer, A. C., & White, R. J. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b0d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b0d 2024

  15. [15]

    2019, Icarus, 326, 10–17, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.027

    Bierson, C., & Nimmo, F. 2019, Icarus, 326, 10–17, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.027 2019

  16. [16]

    G., Neumann, G

    Bills, B. G., Neumann, G. A., Smith, D. E., & Zuber, M. T. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 110, doi: 10.1029/2004je002376

    work page doi:10.1029/2004je002376 2005

  17. [17]

    Bodenheimer, P., & Pollack, J. B. 1986, Icarus, 67, 391–408, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90122-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(86)90122-3 1986

  18. [18]

    E., Schaefer, G

    Bond, H. E., Schaefer, G. H., Gilliland, R. L., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af8 2017

  19. [19]

    P., Butler, R

    Boss, A. P., Butler, R. P., Hubbard, W. B., et al. 2005, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 1, 183–186, doi: 10.1017/s1743921306004509

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921306004509 2005

  20. [20]

    E., & Butler, B

    Brown, M. E., & Butler, B. J. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6346 Brozovi´ c, M., Showalter, M. R., Jacobson, R. A., & Buie, M. W. 2015, Icarus, 246, 317–329, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.03.015

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6346 2017

  21. [21]

    2025, Emergent Scientist, 9, 2, doi: 10.1051/emsci/2025001

    Camposeo, S. 2025, Emergent Scientist, 9, 2, doi: 10.1051/emsci/2025001

    work page doi:10.1051/emsci/2025001 2025

  22. [22]

    W., & Ostlie, D

    Carroll, B. W., & Ostlie, D. A. 2017, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781108380980

    work page doi:10.1017/9781108380980 2017

  23. [23]

    2012, Planetary and Space Science, 73, 98–118, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.03.009

    Carry, B. 2012, Planetary and Space Science, 73, 98–118, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.03.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2012.03.009 2012

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 2016

  25. [25]

    Collaboration, E. H. T., Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 930, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6736

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6736 2022

  26. [26]

    A., Donahue, M., O’Dea, C

    Daly, R. A., Donahue, M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 428–436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3228

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3228 2023

  27. [27]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1444–1451, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    Santangelo, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1444–1451, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1 2022

  28. [28]

    R., Bush, R

    Emilio, M., Kuhn, J. R., Bush, R. I., & Scholl, I. F. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/135

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/135 2012

  29. [29]

    2021, Butsuri, 76, 637, doi: 10.11316/butsuri.76.10 637

    Enoto, T., & Yasutake, N. 2021, Butsuri, 76, 637, doi: 10.11316/butsuri.76.10 637

    work page doi:10.11316/butsuri.76.10 2021

  30. [30]

    M., Williams, J

    Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs, D. 2009, Interplanetary Network Progress Report, 42-178, 1

    2009

  31. [31]

    Gillies, G. T. 1997, Reports on Progress in Physics, 60, 151–225, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/60/2/001

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/60/2/001 1997

  32. [32]

    1985, Astrophysics and Space Science, 114, 259–269, doi: 10.1007/bf00653969 Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., Guillot, S., & Reisenegger, A

    Gimnez, A., & Zamorano, J. 1985, Astrophysics and Space Science, 114, 259–269, doi: 10.1007/bf00653969 Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., Guillot, S., & Reisenegger, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5848–5859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2941

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00653969 1985

  33. [33]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141145

    Grieves, N., Bouchy, F., Lendl, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141145

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141145 2021

  34. [34]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 135–180, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 2016

  35. [35]

    2023, p, 675, L8, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346850 22 Sol `ene Ulmer-Moll and Babatunde Akinsanmi and Simon M¨ uller Helled, R., & Howard, S

    Helled, R. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346850

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346850 2023

  36. [36]

    2021, Icarus, 355, 114130, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114130

    Holler, B., Grundy, W., Buie, M., & Noll, K. 2021, Icarus, 355, 114130, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114130

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114130 2021

  37. [37]

    Jacobson, R. A. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 4322–4329, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4322 —. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/76 —. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac90c9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4322 2009

  38. [38]

    A., Antreasian, P

    Jacobson, R. A., Antreasian, P. G., Bordi, J. J., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 132, 2520–2526, doi: 10.1086/508812 13

    work page doi:10.1086/508812 2006

  39. [39]

    F., Ca˜ nas, C

    Kanodia, S., Gupta, A. F., Ca˜ nas, C. I., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7796

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7796 2024

  40. [40]

    H., et al

    Kiss, C., Marton, G., Parker, A. H., et al. 2019, Icarus, 334, 3–10, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.013 2019

  41. [41]

    1999, Icarus, 139, 3–18, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6086

    Konopliv, A., Banerdt, W., & Sjogren, W. 1999, Icarus, 139, 3–18, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6086

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6086 1999

  42. [42]

    Lange, S., Murphy, J. M. A., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad34d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad34d9 2024

  43. [43]

    M., Gerasimov, R., & Burgasser, A

    Larkin, M. M., Gerasimov, R., & Burgasser, A. J. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b43 2022

  44. [44]

    S., DellaGiustina, D

    Lauretta, D. S., DellaGiustina, D. N., Bennett, C. A., et al. 2019, Nature, 568, 55–60, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1033-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1033-6 2019

  45. [45]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/90

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/90 2016

  46. [46]

    G., Goossens, S., Sabaka, T

    Lemoine, F. G., Goossens, S., Sabaka, T. J., et al. 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 3382–3389, doi: 10.1002/2014gl060027

    work page doi:10.1002/2014gl060027 2014

  47. [47]

    E., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., D´ esert, J.-M., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36 2020

  48. [48]

    A., Vos, J

    Limbach, M. A., Vos, J. M., Vanderburg, A., & Dai, F. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ed5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ed5 2024

  49. [49]

    H., & Norman, M

    Lineweaver, C. H., & Norman, M. 2010, The Potato Radius: a Lower Minimum Size for Dwarf Planets, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1004.1091

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1004.1091 2010

  50. [50]

    H., & Patel, V

    Lineweaver, C. H., & Patel, V. M. 2023, American Journal of Physics, 91, 819–825, doi: 10.1119/5.0150209

    work page doi:10.1119/5.0150209 2023

  51. [51]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Maio, U., Ciardi, B., Dolag, K., Tornatore, L., & Khochfar, S. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1003–1015, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17003.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17003.x 2010

  52. [52]

    B., Murk, S., & Terno, D

    Mann, R. B., Murk, S., & Terno, D. R. 2022, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31, doi: 10.1142/s0218271822300154

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271822300154 2022

  53. [53]

    T., Grundy, W., Sykes, M

    Metzger, P. T., Grundy, W., Sykes, M. V., et al. 2022, Icarus, 374, 114768, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114768

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114768 2022

  54. [54]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  55. [55]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Morin, J., Donati, J.-F., Petit, P., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 2269–2286, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17101.x M¨ uller, S., Baron, J., Helled, R., Bouchy, F., & Parc, L. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A296, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348690 M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astr...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17101.x 2010

  56. [56]

    2023, Nature, 622, 255–260, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06499-2 NASA Exoplanet Science Institute

    Naponiello, L., Mancini, L., Sozzetti, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 255–260, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06499-2 NASA Exoplanet Science Institute. 2020, Planetary Systems Table, IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA12 N¨ attil¨ a, J., Miller, M. C., Steiner, A. W., et al. 2017, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 608, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731082

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06499-2 2023

  57. [57]

    M., et al

    Nimmo, F., Umurhan, O., Lisse, C. M., et al. 2017, Icarus, 287, 12–29, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.027 2017

  58. [58]

    L., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2012, Nature, 491, 566–569, doi: 10.1038/nature11597

    work page doi:10.1038/nature11597 2012

  59. [59]

    L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al. 2017, Nature, 550, 219–223, doi: 10.1038/nature24051

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24051 2017

  60. [60]

    2005, A&A, 432, L57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500020

    Palla, F., & Baraffe, I. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 432, L57–L60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500020

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500020 2005

  61. [61]

    J., Gladman, B., et al

    Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs, D. H. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd414

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd414 2021

  62. [62]

    G., G¨ ansicke, B

    Parsons, S. G., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4473–4492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1522 P¨ atzold, M., Andert, T., Hahn, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 530, 63–65, doi: 10.1038/nature16535

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1522 2017

  63. [63]

    S., Youngblood, A., & France, K

    Pineda, J. S., Youngblood, A., & France, K. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aea 2021

  64. [64]

    Ragozzine, D., & Brown, M. E. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 4766–4776, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4766

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4766 2009

  65. [65]

    J., Hobbs, G., Coles, W., et al

    Reardon, D. J., Hobbs, G., Coles, W., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1751–1769, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2395 2015

  66. [66]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019

  67. [67]

    T., Raymond, C

    Russell, C. T., Raymond, C. A., Coradini, A., et al. 2012, Science, 336, 684–686, doi: 10.1126/science.1219381

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1219381 2012

  68. [68]

    Schlaufman, K. C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa961c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa961c 2018

  69. [69]

    Scott, E. R. D. 2020, Iron Meteorites: Composition, Age, and Origin, Oxford University Press, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.206

    work page doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.206 2020

  70. [70]

    L., Assafin, M., et al

    Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., Assafin, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 478, 493–496, doi: 10.1038/nature10550

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10550 2011

  71. [71]

    2006, The Astronomical Journal, 132, 2513–2519, doi: 10.1086/508861 14

    Soter, S. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 132, 2513–2519, doi: 10.1086/508861 14

    work page doi:10.1086/508861 2006

  72. [72]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038526

    Souami, D., Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038526

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038526 2020

  73. [73]

    M., Torres G., Zejda M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Southworth, J. 2014, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1411.1219

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1411.1219 2014

  74. [74]

    2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1561–1570, doi: 10.1016/s0032-0633(01)00093-9

    Spohn, T., Sohl, F., Wieczerkowski, K., & Conzelmann, V. 2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1561–1570, doi: 10.1016/s0032-0633(01)00093-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(01)00093-9 2001

  75. [75]

    G., Mathieu, R

    Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., & Valenti, J. A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, 1154–1166, doi: 10.1086/519231

    work page doi:10.1086/519231 2007

  76. [76]

    A., Grundy, W

    Stern, S. A., Grundy, W. M., McKinnon, W. B., Weaver, H. A., & Young, L. A. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 357–392, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051935

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051935 2018

  77. [77]

    A., & Levison, H

    Stern, S. A., & Levison, H. F. 2002, Highlights of Astronomy, 12, 205–213, doi: 10.1017/s1539299600013289

    work page doi:10.1017/s1539299600013289 2002

  78. [78]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 492, L22–L27, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz176

    Tamburini, F., Thid´ e, B., & Della Valle, M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 492, L22–L27, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz176

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz176 2019

  79. [79]

    1988, Icarus, 73, 427–441, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(88)90054-1 —

    Thomas, P. 1988, Icarus, 73, 427–441, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(88)90054-1 —. 2000, Icarus, 148, 587–588, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6511

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(88)90054-1 1988

  80. [80]

    2020, Icarus, 344, 113355, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.06.016

    Thomas, P., & Helfenstein, P. 2020, Icarus, 344, 113355, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.06.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.06.016 2020

Showing first 80 references.