pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05293 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Life is But a Stream: The Distribution of Planetary Systems Along Stellar Streams and their Properties

Jeremy J. Webb , Milica Ivetic , Maxwell X. Cai , Simon Portegies Zwart , Daniella Morrone
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar streamsexoplanetsstar clustersplanetary systemsN-body simulationscluster dissolutiongravitational perturbations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stars near the edges of stellar streams retain unperturbed planetary systems while those near the centers experience more disruptions.

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

This paper uses direct N-body simulations to track planetary systems as their host stars escape from a dissolving star cluster and join a stellar stream. Stars that escape early avoid dense regions and keep all their planets, but stars that escape later encounter varying densities and interactions that can alter or remove planets. As a result, the position of a star along the stream indicates the likelihood of its planetary system remaining intact, with edges favoring unperturbed systems and centers favoring disruptions. The simulations yield specific probabilities for hosting a planet of initial semi-major axis a0 at different stream positions.

Core claim

Direct N-body simulations demonstrate that stars with early cluster escape times retain all their planets as they spend most of their time in the cluster's low-density outskirts. Stars with later escape times experience a range of survival fractions due to different local densities and encounter types. In the stellar stream formed by the cluster's dissolution, stars near the edge are more likely to have unperturbed planetary systems, while stars near the centre have a higher chance of having planets pushed to eccentric orbits, inclined orbits, or stripped from the system entirely. The suite of simulations provides an estimate of the probability that a star will host a planet with a given the

What carries the argument

Stellar stream position Delta phi as a proxy for a star's escape time and cumulative exposure to gravitational perturbations during cluster dissolution.

If this is right

  • Early-escaping stars retain all their planets.
  • Late-escaping stars show a wide range of planet survival fractions.
  • Edge stars in the stream are likely to have unperturbed planetary systems.
  • Central stars in the stream are more likely to have eccentric, inclined, or stripped planets.
  • Probability estimates link initial planet semi-major axis to stream location for hosting likelihood.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observations of exoplanets in known stellar streams could be prioritized by position to increase detection rates of intact systems.
  • This approach offers a new way to probe the effects of cluster environments on planet formation and evolution without being limited to bound clusters.
  • Accounting for stream position may help reconcile the difference in exoplanet occurrence rates between cluster and field stars.
  • Extending the simulations to include additional physics like galactic tides could refine the position-dependent probabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The N-body simulations fully capture the relevant dynamics without needing to include effects like gas drag, stellar evolution, or external galactic tides that might change escape times or interaction outcomes.

What would settle it

Surveying planetary systems in a specific stellar stream and finding that the fraction of planets with certain semi-major axes does not vary with position along the stream as predicted by the simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05293 by Daniella Morrone, Jeremy J. Webb, Maxwell X. Cai, Milica Ivetic, Simon Portegies Zwart.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial projected positions of cluster stars in clustercentric coordinates (left panel), final projected positions of cluster stars in Galactocentric cartesian coordinates after the cluster has dissolved into a stellar stream (middle panel), and angular positions of cluster stars in Galactocentric spherical coordinates after the cluster has dissolved into a stellar stream (right panel). In each panel, the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Escape time (top panel) and initial mean orbital distance (bottom panel) of host stars as a function of the angular separations between each star and the centre of the stream. A star’s ∆ϕ is an excellent proxy for when it escaped the host cluster and loosely correlated with each star’s initial orbit within the host cluster. cape times, mean orbital distances, and densities expe￾rienced by individual stars.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fraction of planets that remain bound to their host star as a function of the host star’s angular separation ∆ϕ from the stream’s centre after cluster dissolution. Points are colour-coded by each stars escape time for the cluster. Solid lines represent the mean survival fraction as a function of ∆ϕ for all stars (grey) and stars that escape after 300 Myr (red). Host stars that escape the cluster early, and… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The change in orbital eccentricity e−e0 compared to the ratio of current to initial in orbital energy E/E0 of surviving planets with an initial semi-major axis of 10 au (left panel) and 2000 au (right panel). Points are colour-coded by the natural logarithm of the host star’s initial mean orbital distance. The left panel inset focuses on the region near each planet’s initial location of e = 0 and E/E0 = 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probability of a planet with initial semi major axis a0 remaining bound to its host star after the birth cluster dissolves as a function of absolute value of the angular separation |∆ϕ| from the centre of the stream. Contours of Psurvive are determined after applying a multidimensional Gaussian filter to the dataset with a standard deviation of 1. Stars close to the centre of the stream are less likely to … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of α (top panel) and β (bottom panel) in Equation 1 on a planet’s initial semi-major axis a0. A power-law is fit to each relationship, with the best fit parameters given in Equations 2 and 3. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 P s urviv e - P s urviv e, fit 2000 AU 1000 AU 600 AU 200 AU 180 AU 160 AU 140 AU 120 AU 100 AU 80 AU 60 AU 40 AU 20 AU 10 AU view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Residuals between measured probability of sur￾vival Psurvive and fitted probability of survival Psurvive,fit as per Equation 1. the survival rate of planetary systems in star clusters depends on the a host star’s location along the stel￾lar stream that forms out of the star cluster dissolu￾tion. The location of a given star along the stream is indicative of its dynamical history within the progen￾itor clus… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of each surviving planet’s distance in (E/E0,e) parameter space from the initial state of (1,0), with the planets initial semi-major axis noted in the panel. Each bar is further broken down to illustrate the contribu￾tion of planets from systems with survival fractions less than 33% (green), between 33% and 66% (orange), and above 66% (blue) are shown. While outer planets are more easily per￾t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The majority of discovered exoplanets have been observed orbiting field stars as opposed to within a star cluster. To determine whether the lack of observed exoplanets in star clusters is due to gravitational perturbations or observational limitations, we consider the possibility of studying exoplanets in stellar streams. We present the results of direct $N$-body simulations of planetary systems around stars that orbit within a star cluster. Our simulations demonstrate that stars with early cluster escape times tend to retain all their planets as they spend most of their time orbiting in the cluster's low-density outskirts. Alternatively, stars with later escape times can have a wide range of survival fractions as they are subjected to a range of local densities and encounter types. With respect to the stellar stream that forms as the result of the cluster's dissolution, stars near the edge of the stream are therefore more likely to have unperturbed planetary systems. Conversely, stars near the centre of the stream have a higher chance of having planets pushed to eccentric orbits, inclined orbits, or stripped from the system entirely. From our suite of simulations, we provide an estimate of the probability that a star will host a planet with a given initial semi-major axis $a_0$ based on the star's location along a stellar stream $\Delta \phi$.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses direct N-body simulations of planetary systems embedded in a dissolving star cluster to argue that a star's escape time from the cluster determines the degree of gravitational perturbation its planets experience. Early escapers, which spend more time in low-density regions, retain unperturbed systems, while later escapers encounter higher densities and more disruptive interactions. This leads to the central claim that, once the cluster dissolves into a stellar stream, stars near the stream edges (small |Δϕ|) are more likely to host unperturbed planets, whereas stars near the stream center (larger |Δϕ|) have elevated probabilities of eccentric or inclined orbits or complete planet stripping. The work supplies numerical estimates of the survival probability for a planet with given initial semi-major axis a0 as a function of the star's stream position Δϕ.

Significance. If the mapping holds, the result supplies a direct, observationally testable link between stellar-stream morphology and exoplanet demographics, potentially explaining the paucity of detected planets in open clusters and offering a new diagnostic for the dynamical history of field stars. The forward-simulation approach (no fitted parameters) is a methodological strength that avoids circularity and allows falsifiable predictions for specific a0 values.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2 (N-body simulation setup): The integrations omit the external galactic tidal field. This directly affects escape times, the rate of cluster dissolution, and the differential orbital evolution that sets the observed Δϕ distribution along the stream. Because the central claim equates Δϕ with perturbation level via escape time, the probability tables P(survive | Δϕ, a0) are uncontrolled and could shift once tides are included.
  2. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (results): No details are given on initial conditions (cluster density profile, number of stars, planetary architectures), numerical resolution, integrator, or validation against standard cluster-dissolution benchmarks. Without these, the reported survival fractions and probability estimates lack the supporting evidence needed to assess numerical convergence or robustness.
  3. [§4] §4 (discussion): No uncertainty quantification, sensitivity tests, or error bars accompany the probability estimates. This is load-bearing for the claim that stream position can be used to predict planet survival, as small changes in encounter statistics could alter the quoted probabilities substantially.
minor comments (2)
  1. The symbol Δϕ is introduced in the abstract without an explicit definition or reference to a figure showing its measurement along the stream; a short equation or diagram would improve clarity.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a brief comparison table of survival fractions versus escape time to make the mapping from early/late escapers to stream edges/center more quantitative.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their thorough review and positive evaluation of the paper's significance. We have carefully considered each major comment and will make the necessary revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (N-body simulation setup): The integrations omit the external galactic tidal field. This directly affects escape times, the rate of cluster dissolution, and the differential orbital evolution that sets the observed Δϕ distribution along the stream. Because the central claim equates Δϕ with perturbation level via escape time, the probability tables P(survive | Δϕ, a0) are uncontrolled and could shift once tides are included.

    Authors: We agree that the external galactic tidal field plays an important role in determining escape times and the structure of the resulting stellar stream. Our simulations were designed to isolate the impact of close stellar encounters within the cluster on planetary systems. To address this concern, we will incorporate a galactic tidal field in follow-up simulations and update the reported probabilities P(survive | Δϕ, a0) accordingly. This revision will confirm whether the qualitative trend between stream position and planet survival persists under more complete physical conditions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (results): No details are given on initial conditions (cluster density profile, number of stars, planetary architectures), numerical resolution, integrator, or validation against standard cluster-dissolution benchmarks. Without these, the reported survival fractions and probability estimates lack the supporting evidence needed to assess numerical convergence or robustness.

    Authors: We will revise the manuscript to provide a comprehensive description of the simulation setup in §3, including the cluster initial conditions, the number of stars, the planetary system architectures considered, the numerical integrator and resolution parameters, as well as comparisons to established benchmarks for cluster dissolution. These additions will enable a proper assessment of the numerical robustness of our results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (discussion): No uncertainty quantification, sensitivity tests, or error bars accompany the probability estimates. This is load-bearing for the claim that stream position can be used to predict planet survival, as small changes in encounter statistics could alter the quoted probabilities substantially.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of uncertainty quantification. In the revised §4, we will add error bars to the probability estimates, derived from the ensemble of simulations, and include sensitivity tests to variations in initial conditions. This will provide a more rigorous basis for the predictive use of stream position. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; probabilities are direct outputs of forward N-body integrations

full rationale

The paper's central results consist of probability estimates for planetary survival as a function of stream position Δϕ and initial semi-major axis a0. These estimates are generated by running direct N-body simulations of cluster dissolution plus planetary systems and then tabulating outcomes; the mapping from escape time to Δϕ to perturbation level is therefore an emergent computational result rather than an input definition, fitted parameter, or self-referential relation. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to close the argument, and the derivation does not rename or re-express prior empirical patterns as new theoretical content. The chain is self-contained as a forward-modeling experiment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; full methods, initial conditions, and any fitted parameters are unavailable. Simulations rest on standard astrophysical assumptions.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Newtonian gravity and point-mass interactions govern stellar and planetary motions
    Implicit in all direct N-body work described
  • domain assumption Planetary systems begin stable and circular before cluster encounters
    Required for the survival-fraction results to be interpreted as cluster-induced changes

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5548 in / 1369 out tokens · 46969 ms · 2026-05-08T15:41:15.742429+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

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aarseth, S. J. 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations (Cambridge University Press)

    2003

  2. [2]

    Adams, F. C. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 47, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130830

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130830 2010

  3. [3]

    2018, A&A, 619, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834285

    Adibekyan, V., de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834285

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834285 2018

  4. [4]

    Arzoumanian, D., Arakawa, S., Kobayashi, M. I. N., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc849

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc849 2023

  5. [5]

    , year = 1993, month = oct, volume =

    Backer, D. C., Foster, R. S., & Sallmen, S. 1993, Nature, 365, 817, doi: 10.1038/365817a0

    work page doi:10.1038/365817a0 1993

  6. [6]

    Batista, S. F. A., Adibekyan, V. Z., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423645

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423645 2014

  7. [7]

    Batista, S. F. A., & Fernandes, J. 2012, NewA, 17, 514, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2011.12.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2011.12.001 2012

  8. [8]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, NewAR, 100, 101713, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713 2025

  9. [9]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , author =

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  10. [10]

    Brown, A. G. A., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Bean, J. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 458, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16921.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16921.x 2010

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Cai, M. X., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Spurzem, R. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1464

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1464 2017

  12. [12]

    X., Meiron, Y., Kouwenhoven, M

    Cai, M. X., Meiron, Y., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Assmann, P., & Spurzem, R. 2015, ApJS, 219, 31, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/31 2015

  13. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 4311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2467

    Spurzem, R. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2467

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2467 2019

  14. [14]

    , keywords =

    Cai, M. X., Portegies Zwart, S., & van Elteren, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3064

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3064 2018

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Cassan, A., Kubas, D., Beaulieu, J. P., et al. 2012, Nature, 481, 167, doi: 10.1038/nature10684

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10684 2012

  16. [16]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Mamajek, E. E., Wright, J. T., & Cummings, J. D. 2019, AJ, 158, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899 2019

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

    Daffern-Powell, E. C., Parker, R. J., & Quanz, S. P. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1392

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1392 2022

  18. [18]

    2023, AJ, 166, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acff67

    Dai, Y.-Z., Liu, H.-G., Yang, J.-Y., & Zhou, J.-L. 2023, AJ, 166, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acff67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acff67 2023

  19. [19]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1094

    Drass, H., Haas, M., Chini, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1094

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1094 2016

  20. [20]

    M., Webb J

    Grondin, S. M., Webb, J. J., Lane, J. M. M., Speagle, J. S., & Leigh, N. W. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae203 6 https://tess.mit.edu/science/

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae203 2024

  21. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , keywords =

    Hanse, J., J´ ılkov´ a, L., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Pelupessy, F. I. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2721

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2721 2018

  22. [22]

    2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics

    Heggie, D., & Hut, P. 2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics

    2003

  23. [23]

    R., Pringle, J

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  24. [24]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 2003

  25. [25]

    Luhman, K. L. 2007, ApJS, 173, 104, doi: 10.1086/520114 Mart´ ın, E. L.,ˇZerjal, M., Bouy, H., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450793

    work page doi:10.1086/520114 2007

  26. [26]

    R., Mann , A

    Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abccc6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abccc6 2021

  27. [27]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeaac

    Pang, X., Li, Y., Yu, Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeaac

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

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    Pelupessy, F. I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321252 2013

  29. [29]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9533

    Pfalzner, S., & Vincke, K. 2020, ApJ, 897, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9533

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9533 2020

  30. [30]

    E., & Carballo-Bello, J

    Piatti, A. E., & Carballo-Bello, J. A. 2020, A&A, 637, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037994

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037994 2020

  31. [31]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 Portegies Zwart, S. 2021, A&A, 647, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038888 Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S. L. W., van Elteren, E.,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 1911

  32. [32]

    Computer Physics Communications , keywords =

    Pelupessy, I., & de Vries, N. 2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024 Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S., Harfst, S., et al. 2009, NewA, 14, 369, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.10.006 Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2009, ApJL, 696, L13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L13 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 201...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024 2013

  33. [33]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 2012

  34. [34]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2164

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2164 2015

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Scholz, A., Jayawardhana, R., Muzic, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/24 2012

  36. [36]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Sigurdsson, S. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 36, Planets Around Pulsars, ed. J. A. Phillips, S. E. Thorsett, & S. R. Kulkarni, 173–179

    1993

  37. [37]

    1958, ApJ, 127, 17, doi: 10.1086/146435

    Spitzer, Lyman, J. 1958, ApJ, 127, 17, doi: 10.1086/146435

    work page doi:10.1086/146435 1958

  38. [38]

    , keywords =

    Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters 12 van Elteren, A., Portegies Zwart, S., Pelupessy, I., Cai, M. X., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2019, A&A, 624, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834641

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834641 1987

  39. [39]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv817

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv817 2015

  40. [40]

    C., & Bonaca, A

    Weatherford, N. C., & Bonaca, A. 2026, ApJ, 997, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae21e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae21e0 2026

  41. [41]

    J., & Bovy, J

    Webb, J. J., & Bovy, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3451

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3451 2022

  42. [42]

    J., Price-Jones, N., Bovy, J., et al

    Webb, J. J., Price-Jones, N., Bovy, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa788

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa788 2020

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246 2015

  44. [44]

    2021, AJ, 162, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f1f

    Ye, X., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., & Zhao, G. 2021, AJ, 162, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f1f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f1f 2021