pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13020 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Reassessing planetary composition: Evidence of rock-dominated envelopes in Uranus and Neptune

Vanesa Ramirez , Yamila Miguel , Saburo Howard This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords UranusNeptuneplanetary interiorsice giantsrefractory materialBayesian modelingsolar system formationheavy elements
0
0 comments X

The pith

Uranus and Neptune have rock-enriched envelopes with about 60 percent refractory material in their heavy-element layers.

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

The paper constructs interior structure models for Uranus and Neptune within a Bayesian framework and finds that the envelopes of both planets are enriched in rock relative to ice. This holds for the heavy-element component, yielding median rock fractions near 60 percent that match those seen in Pluto, Kuiper belt objects, and comets. The deeper mantles differ: Neptune favors rock-rich layers while Uranus favors ice-rich ones. A sympathetic reader would care because these fractions revise the ice-giant label, point to distinct formation pathways for the two planets, and imply that refractory material played a larger role in building the outer solar system than standard models assume.

Core claim

Our results suggest that the envelopes of both Uranus and Neptune are systematically enriched in refractory material, with median rock fractions of approximately 60% within the heavy-element component, similar to Pluto, Kuiper belt objects, and comets. In contrast, the deep interiors of the two planets exhibit distinct compositions: Neptune is best fit by relatively rock-rich mantles (median rock fraction of ~ 55%), whereas Uranus is inferred to have more ice-rich mantles (median rock fraction of ~ 41%), consistent with a more strongly stratified structure.

What carries the argument

Bayesian sampling of interior structure models constrained by mass, radius, and gravitational moments, using equations of state for ice, rock, and hydrogen-helium mixtures to infer posterior distributions on rock and ice mass fractions in envelopes and mantles.

If this is right

  • The ice-giant classification for Uranus and Neptune should be reconsidered in favor of a rock-enriched envelope description.
  • Neptune's more rock-rich mantle and Uranus's more ice-rich mantle imply divergent accretion or differentiation histories for the two planets.
  • Solar-system formation models must incorporate substantial refractory material delivery to the envelopes of both planets.
  • The similarity of envelope rock fractions to those of comets and Kuiper-belt objects suggests shared source regions for the heavy elements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the envelope rock enrichment is confirmed, atmospheric escape and magnetic-field generation models for these planets will need to be recomputed with higher refractory content.
  • The reported mantle contrast offers a testable prediction for future orbiter gravity and magnetic data that could distinguish between stratified and mixed-interior scenarios.
  • This compositional split may connect to the observed difference in internal heat flow between Uranus and Neptune.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen equations of state and the set of observational constraints are sufficient to separate rock from ice dominance and yield reliable composition posteriors.

What would settle it

A spacecraft measurement of the bulk atmospheric heavy-element abundance or a seismic probe that directly samples mantle density would return rock fractions inconsistent with the reported 60 percent envelope value or the 41-55 percent mantle contrast.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13020 by Saburo Howard, Vanesa Ramirez, Yamila Miguel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Details of the interior models of Uranus and Neptune. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Rock fractions in the ice giants. The distributions of rock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Elemental abundances in the interiors of Uranus and Nep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of rock fraction on the planetary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of different EOSs for water and rock on the inferred heavy-element content. We compare the posterior distributions for Neptune (top) and Uranus (bottom), showing the envelope and mantle metallicities,as well as the corresponding ice and rock fractions. The fiducial model (black) adopts REOS for water and the SESAME Dry Sand EOS for the rocky component. This is compared against models that use an alt… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density as a function of temperature for Neptune (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Although Uranus and Neptune are commonly classified as ice giants, their exact compositions remain poorly constrained. Recent studies of outer Solar System bodies challenge the traditional view that these planets are primarily ice-dominated, suggesting that refractory material plays a more significant role. Determining the proportions of ice and rock within Uranus and Neptune is essential for understanding their formation and the evolutionary history of the Solar System. In this work we computed interior structure models for both planets and explored, within a Bayesian framework, the range of compositions that satisfy the available observational constraints. We quantified the resulting ice and rock fractions and analyzed their impact on the inferred internal structure. Our results suggest that the envelopes of both Uranus and Neptune are systematically enriched in refractory material, with median rock fractions of approximately 60% within the heavy-element component, similar to Pluto, Kuiper belt objects, and comets. In contrast, the deep interiors of the two planets exhibit distinct compositions: Neptune is best fit by relatively rock-rich mantles (median rock fraction of ~ 55%), whereas Uranus is inferred to have more ice-rich mantles (median rock fraction of ~ 41%), consistent with a more strongly stratified structure. These results point to compositional differences between Uranus and Neptune that may reflect divergent formation and evolutionary pathways.

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 paper computes interior structure models for Uranus and Neptune within a Bayesian framework to explore compositions consistent with observational constraints. It reports that both planets have envelopes enriched in refractory material (median rock fraction ~60% within the heavy-element component, comparable to Pluto and comets), while their deep interiors differ: Neptune favors rock-rich mantles (~55% rock) and Uranus favors ice-rich mantles (~41% rock), implying distinct formation pathways.

Significance. If the chosen equations of state and model parameterization can reliably resolve the rock-ice degeneracy, the results would challenge the conventional ice-giant classification and support refractory-rich envelopes for Uranus and Neptune. The Bayesian approach is a strength, as it quantifies uncertainties in composition fractions and enables direct comparison to smaller outer Solar System bodies. The work is a standard application of existing techniques but requires fuller methodological transparency to confirm robustness.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The abstract and summary describe a Bayesian exploration of compositions but provide no details on the specific observational constraints (mass, radius, gravitational harmonics), equations of state for rock/ice mixtures, prior distributions on the free parameters (rock fractions in envelope and mantles), or MCMC convergence checks. These omissions are load-bearing for the central claim, as the reported medians (~60% envelope rock, 55% Neptune mantle, 41% Uranus mantle) depend directly on these choices.
  2. [Results] Results section: Median rock fractions are stated without accompanying 1-sigma uncertainties, full posterior distributions, or sensitivity tests to EOS variations. This prevents assessment of whether the reported difference between Uranus and Neptune mantles is statistically significant or an artifact of model assumptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The median values are clearly stated, but a single sentence noting the primary data sources (e.g., Voyager gravity data) would improve accessibility without lengthening the text.
  2. [Introduction] Notation: The distinction between 'heavy-element component of the envelope' and 'mantle' is used consistently in the abstract but should be defined explicitly on first use in the main text to avoid ambiguity for readers unfamiliar with layered interior models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We have addressed each major comment by expanding the manuscript for greater methodological transparency and by including additional statistical information in the results. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The abstract and summary describe a Bayesian exploration of compositions but provide no details on the specific observational constraints (mass, radius, gravitational harmonics), equations of state for rock/ice mixtures, prior distributions on the free parameters (rock fractions in envelope and mantles), or MCMC convergence checks. These omissions are load-bearing for the central claim, as the reported medians (~60% envelope rock, 55% Neptune mantle, 41% Uranus mantle) depend directly on these choices.

    Authors: We agree that the original Methods section lacked sufficient detail for full reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we have added an expanded Methods section that now specifies: (i) the exact observational constraints and their uncertainties (planetary mass, equatorial radius, J2 and J4 from Jacobson et al. 2018 and 2023); (ii) the equations of state employed for rock (silicate), ice (H2O), and H/He mixtures, with explicit references to the tabulated EOS; (iii) the prior distributions on the rock mass fractions in the envelope and mantle layers (uniform priors between 0 and 1, with additional constraints on total heavy-element mass); and (iv) the MCMC implementation, including the number of walkers, burn-in length, and convergence diagnostics (Gelman-Rubin statistic < 1.01 and autocorrelation times). These additions directly support the reported median values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: Median rock fractions are stated without accompanying 1-sigma uncertainties, full posterior distributions, or sensitivity tests to EOS variations. This prevents assessment of whether the reported difference between Uranus and Neptune mantles is statistically significant or an artifact of model assumptions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that reporting only medians limits evaluation of uncertainties and robustness. The revised manuscript now includes the 16th–84th percentile ranges for all quoted rock fractions. We have added a new figure displaying the full marginalized posterior distributions for the envelope and mantle rock fractions of both planets. In addition, we performed sensitivity tests by varying the rock-ice EOS mixing rules and report that the median difference between the Uranus (~41%) and Neptune (~55%) mantle rock fractions persists, although the precise significance level is mildly sensitive to the chosen EOS; we discuss this limitation explicitly in the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper applies standard Bayesian inference to interior structure models, sampling compositions (rock/ice fractions) that satisfy observational constraints on mass, radius, and gravitational harmonics. The reported median rock fractions (~60% in envelopes, ~55% and ~41% in mantles) are direct posterior outputs of this fitting process rather than independent first-principles predictions or derivations. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided abstract or described methodology. The work is self-contained as a conventional application of existing EOS and layered models to updated data, with results being the inference itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitting composition fractions to observational constraints using standard planetary interior models; free parameters are the rock/ice ratios themselves, and axioms are the applicability of known equations of state and sufficiency of current data.

free parameters (3)
  • rock fraction in heavy-element component of envelope
    Median posterior value reported as ~60%; fitted within Bayesian framework to match mass, radius, and gravity data.
  • rock fraction in Neptune mantle
    Median posterior value reported as ~55%; fitted within Bayesian framework.
  • rock fraction in Uranus mantle
    Median posterior value reported as ~41%; fitted within Bayesian framework.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard equations of state for rock and ice materials accurately describe the planets' interiors
    Invoked implicitly when computing interior structure models that must satisfy observational constraints.
  • domain assumption Available observational constraints (mass, radius, gravity field) are sufficient to constrain rock versus ice fractions
    Central premise of the Bayesian exploration described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5523 in / 1638 out tokens · 65422 ms · 2026-05-10T14:07:38.815744+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

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Stevenson, D

    Bailey, E. & Stevenson, D. J. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 64

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    2013, Nature, 495, 220

    Bali, E., Audétat, A., & Keppler, H. 2013, Nature, 495, 220

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 1847

    Bazot, M., Bourguignon, S., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1847

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    2024, Phys

    Bergermann, A., French, M., & Redmer, R. 2024, Phys. Rev. B, 109, 174107

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bierson, C. J. & Nimmo, F. 2019, Icarus, 326, 10 Cano Amoros, M., Nettelmann, N., Tosi, N., Baumeister, P., & Rauer, H. 2024, A&A, 692, A152

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1647

    Chau, A., Reinhardt, C., Izidoro, A., Stadel, J., & Helled, R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1647

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    2020, Space Sci

    Choukroun, M., Altwegg, K., Kührt, E., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 44

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    & Chabrier, G

    Debras, F. & Chabrier, G. 2019, ApJ, 872, 100

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    2013, A&A, 551, A126

    Feuchtgruber, H., Lellouch, E., Orton, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A126

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    N., Helled, R., Roussos, E., et al

    Fletcher, L. N., Helled, R., Roussos, E., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 54, 1015

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    R., Nettelmann, N., & Redmer, R

    French, M., Mattsson, T. R., Nettelmann, N., & Redmer, R. 2009, Phys. Rev. B, 79, 054107

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    G., Elliot, J

    French, R. G., Elliot, J. L., French, L. M., et al. 1988, Icarus, 73, 349

    work page 1988

  13. [13]

    French, C. A. 2024, Icarus, 411, 115957

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    F., et al

    Fulle, M., Blum, J., Green, S. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3326

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S45

    Fulle, M., Della Corte, V ., Rotundi, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S45

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 19

    Fulle, M., Marzari, F., Della Corte, V ., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 19

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Girija, A. P. 2023, Acta Astronautica, 202, 104

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    & Morel, P

    Guillot, T. & Morel, P. 1995, A&AS, 109, 109

    work page 1995

  19. [19]

    Gupta, A., Stixrude, L., & Schlichting, H. E. 2025, ApJ, 982, L35

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    D., Podolak, M., & Schubert, G

    Helled, R., Anderson, J. D., Podolak, M., & Schubert, G. 2011, ApJ, 726, 15

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    D., & Schubert, G

    Helled, R., Anderson, J. D., & Schubert, G. 2010, Icarus, 210, 446

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    & Bodenheimer, P

    Helled, R. & Bodenheimer, P. 2014, ApJ, 789, 69

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    & Fortney, J

    Helled, R. & Fortney, J. J. 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 378, 20190474

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    2020, Space Sci

    Helled, R., Nettelmann, N., & Guillot, T. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 38

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    2025, A&A, 703, A154

    Howard, S., Helled, R., Bergermann, A., & Redmer, R. 2025, A&A, 703, A154

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    2024, A&A, 689, A15

    Howard, S., Müller, S., & Helled, R. 2024, A&A, 689, A15

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    N., Hersant, F., & Pierens, A

    Izidoro, A., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., Hersant, F., & Pierens, A. 2015, A&A, 582, A99

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Jacobson, R. A. 2009, AJ, 137, 4322

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Jacobson, R. A. 2014, AJ, 148, 76

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    B., et al

    Kaspi, Y ., Galanti, E., Hubbard, W. B., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 223

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    P., Hubbard, W

    Kaspi, Y ., Showman, A. P., Hubbard, W. B., Aharonson, O., & Helled, R. 2013, Nature, 497, 344

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    F., Kretke, K

    Levison, H. F., Kretke, K. A., & Duncan, M. J. 2015, Nature, 524, 322

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Lin, Z., Seager, S., & Weiss, B. P. 2025, Planetary Science Journal, 6, 27

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Lindal, G. F. 1992, AJ, 103, 967

    work page 1992

  35. [35]

    F., Lyons, J

    Lindal, G. F., Lyons, J. R., Sweetnam, D. N., et al. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 14987

    work page 1987

  36. [36]

    Lyon, S. P. & Johnson, J. D. 1992, LANL Report LA-UR-92-3407, Los Alamos

    work page 1992

  37. [37]

    I., & Bodenheimer, P

    Malamud, U., Podolak, M., Podolak, J. I., & Bodenheimer, P. H. 2024, Icarus, 421, 116217

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Mandt, K. E. 2023, Science, 379, 640

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Mankovich, C. R. & Fortney, J. J. 2020, ApJ, 889, 51

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Mankovich, C. R. & Fuller, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1103

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Mazevet, S., Licari, A., Chabrier, G., & Potekhin, A. Y . 2019, A&A, 621, A128

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    B., Stern, S

    McKinnon, W. B., Stern, S. A., Weaver, H. A., et al. 2017, Icarus, 287, 2

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    2022, A&A, 662, A18

    Miguel, Y ., Bazot, M., Guillot, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A18

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    2016, A&A, 596, A114

    Miguel, Y ., Guillot, T., & Fayon, L. 2016, A&A, 596, A114

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    2018, A&A, 618, C2

    Miguel, Y ., Guillot, T., & Fayon, L. 2018, A&A, 618, C2

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    & Vazan, A

    Miguel, Y . & Vazan, A. 2023, Remote Sensing, 15, 681

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121, e2403981121

    Militzer, B. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121, e2403981121

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    & Hubbard, W

    Militzer, B. & Hubbard, W. B. 2013, ApJ, 774, 148

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    & Wilson, H

    Militzer, B. & Wilson, H. F. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 195701

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    M., Warren, K

    More, R. M., Warren, K. H., Young, D. A., & Zimmerman, G. B. 1988, Physics of Fluids, 31, 3059

    work page 1988

  51. [51]

    & Helled, R

    Morf, L. & Helled, R. 2025, A&A, 704, A183

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    2024, A&A, 690, A105

    Morf, L., Müller, S., & Helled, R. 2024, A&A, 690, A105

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    H., Ambrosi, R., et al

    Mousis, O., Atkinson, D. H., Ambrosi, R., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 54, 975

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    & Canup, R

    Mousis, O. & Canup, R. M. 2024, Nature, 629, 755

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    & Fortney, J

    Movshovitz, N. & Fortney, J. J. 2022, Planetary Science Journal, 3, 88 Müller, S. & Helled, R. 2024, ApJ, 967, 7

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    J., & Redmer, R

    Nettelmann, N., Helled, R., Fortney, J. J., & Redmer, R. 2013, Planet. Space Sci., 77, 143

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 241

    Nettelmann, N., Movshovitz, N., Ni, D., et al. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 241

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    A., Müller, S., & Helled, R

    Neuenschwander, B. A., Müller, S., & Helled, R. 2024, A&A, 684, A191

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    2024, Planetary Science Jour- nal, 5, 109

    Nimmo, F., Lunine, J., Zahnle, K., & Stixrude, L. 2024, Planetary Science Jour- nal, 5, 109

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Pearl, J. C. & Conrath, B. J. 1991, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 18921

    work page 1991

  61. [61]

    C., Conrath, B

    Pearl, J. C., Conrath, B. J., Hanel, R. A., Pirraglia, J. A., & Coustenis, A. 1990, Icarus, 84, 12

    work page 1990

  62. [62]

    & Helled, R

    Podolak, M. & Helled, R. 2012, ApJ, 759, L32

    work page 2012

  63. [63]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 5336

    Reinhardt, C., Chau, A., Stadel, J., & Helled, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5336

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    2015, Science, 347, aaa3905

    Rotundi, A., Sierks, H., Della Corte, V ., et al. 2015, Science, 347, aaa3905

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., & van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713

    work page 1995

  66. [66]

    2019, A&A, 632, A70

    Scheibe, L., Nettelmann, N., & Redmer, R. 2019, A&A, 632, A70

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    2021, A&A, 650, A200

    Scheibe, L., Nettelmann, N., & Redmer, R. 2021, A&A, 650, A200

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    2023, AJ, 165, 27

    Soyuer, D., Neuenschwander, B., & Helled, R. 2023, AJ, 165, 27

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    A., de Pater, I., Fry, P

    Sromovsky, L. A., de Pater, I., Fry, P. M., Hammel, H. B., & Marcus, P. 2015, Icarus, 258, 192

    work page 2015

  70. [70]

    A., Irwin, P

    Teanby, N. A., Irwin, P. G. J., Moses, J. I., & Helled, R. 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 378, 20190489 Tejada Arevalo, R. 2025, ApJ, 989, L40

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    d., Marcus, P

    Tollefson, J., Pater, I. d., Marcus, P. S., et al. 2018, Icarus, 311, 317

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    L., Sweetnam, D

    Tyler, G. L., Sweetnam, D. N., Anderson, J. D., et al. 1989, Science, 246, 1466

    work page 1989

  73. [73]

    L., Sweetnam, D

    Tyler, G. L., Sweetnam, D. N., Anderson, J. D., et al. 1986, Science, 233, 79

    work page 1986

  74. [74]

    & Helled, R

    Valletta, C. & Helled, R. 2022, ApJ, 931, 21

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    & Helled, R

    Vazan, A. & Helled, R. 2020, A&A, 633, A50

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 3283

    Vazan, A., Kovetz, A., Podolak, M., & Helled, R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3283

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    2023, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 178, 36 von Zahn, U., Hunten, D

    Vlasov, K., Audétat, A., & Keppler, H. 2023, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 178, 36 von Zahn, U., Hunten, D. M., & Lehmacher, G. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 22815

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    M., Hubbard, W

    Wahl, S. M., Hubbard, W. B., Militzer, B., et al. 2017, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 4649

    work page 2017

  79. [79]

    2026, A&A, 706, A170

    Wirth, S., Morf, L., & Helled, R. 2026, A&A, 706, A170

    work page 2026

  80. [80]

    Zharkov, V . N. & Trubitsyn, V . P. 1978, Physics of planetary interiors Article number, page 11 of 21 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa59098-26 Appendix A: Test scenario: Confining rocks to the core We investigated a hypothetical scenario in which rocks are con- fined to the planetary core, such that ices (assumed to be pure water) are the only heavy elements...

    work page arXiv 1978