pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18410 · v1 · pith:DKOH35JSnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Super-earths and mini-neptunes follow different orbital period-eccentricity relations

Ke-Ting Shin , Dong-Sheng An , Ji-Wei Xie , Ji-Lin Zhou , Fei Dai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 22:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetssuper-earthsmini-neptunesorbital eccentricityorbital perioddynamical evolutionplanet formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mini-neptunes show an anti-correlation between orbital period and eccentricity while super-earths follow a different, possibly opposite relation.

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

The paper examines how orbital period relates to eccentricity for two classes of exoplanets that sit between Earth and Neptune in size. It reports that mini-neptunes display a clear anti-correlation, with shorter-period objects tending to have higher eccentricities, whereas super-earths show no such anti-correlation and may even trend the other way. The authors interpret the split as evidence that the two groups experienced different dynamical histories after formation. If correct, this means radius-based classification captures real differences in how the planets were shaped by scattering, impacts, or secular processes.

Core claim

Mini-neptunes follow an anti-correlation between orbital period and eccentricity, but super-earths follow a different relation, possibly in the opposite direction. These trends imply that mini-neptunes and super-earths are dynamically distinct populations, with super-earths more strongly influenced by violent processes such as gravitational scattering and giant impacts while mini-neptunes predominantly experienced quiescent secular evolution.

What carries the argument

Separate analysis of orbital period-eccentricity relations for planets divided by radius into super-earths and mini-neptunes, using both ensemble statistics and individual measurements.

If this is right

  • Mini-neptunes and super-earths must be treated as separate dynamical classes in formation models.
  • Super-earths require stronger contributions from scattering and giant impacts to explain their eccentricity distribution.
  • Mini-neptunes can be explained largely by gradual secular evolution without needing frequent violent events.
  • Radius remains a useful proxy for distinguishing the two populations even when direct mass measurements are unavailable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Formation theories that produce a continuous range of outcomes across the super-Earth to mini-Neptune radius range would need additional mechanisms to create the observed dynamical split.
  • Future radial-velocity or transit-timing surveys could test whether the eccentricity difference persists at longer periods where current samples are sparse.
  • If the radius cut is not perfectly sharp, some overlap objects might blur the trends and require a more continuous classification approach.

Load-bearing premise

Dividing planets into super-earths and mini-neptunes solely by measured radius cleanly separates two populations whose eccentricity values are not dominated by selection or measurement biases.

What would settle it

A larger, bias-controlled sample of eccentricity measurements in which the period-eccentricity trend for mini-neptunes matches that for super-earths would falsify the claim of distinct dynamical populations.

read the original abstract

Many exoplanets have been observed with radius sizes between that of Earth and that of Neptune and are thus classified into two groups: super-earths (SEs) and mini-neptunes (MNs). There are no SEs and MNs in the Solar System, and the mechanisms responsible for their formation and evolution are debated. We investigate the relationships between the orbital period and eccentricity of SEs and MNs using both ensemble analyses and individual measurements. We found that MNs follow an anti-correlation between orbital period and eccentricity, but SEs follow a different relation, possibly in the opposite direction. These trends imply that MNs and SEs are dynamically distinct populations. We suggest that SEs have been more strongly influenced by violent processes such as gravitational scattering and giant impacts, whereas MNs predominantly experienced quiescent secular evolution.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that mini-neptunes (MNs) exhibit an anti-correlation between orbital period and eccentricity, whereas super-earths (SEs) follow a different relation that may be in the opposite direction. These trends are interpreted as evidence that MNs and SEs are dynamically distinct populations, with SEs shaped more by violent processes such as gravitational scattering and giant impacts, and MNs by quiescent secular evolution. The analysis draws on both ensemble statistics and individual planet measurements.

Significance. If the reported period-eccentricity relations prove robust after bias corrections, the result would provide empirical support for distinct dynamical histories in the sub-Neptune regime and help discriminate between formation scenarios. The work also highlights the value of radius-based population splits for testing evolutionary pathways, though the strength of this implication depends on the statistical controls that are not described in the available text.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The manuscript provides no information on sample size, the radius boundary used to separate SEs from MNs, the statistical methods for fitting the period-eccentricity relations, treatment of eccentricity uncertainties (including upper limits), or any forward-modeling of transit/RV detection biases. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim requires that the sign difference in the fitted trends is intrinsic rather than produced by the selection effects and measurement precision changes that occur near the ~1.6–2 R⊕ radius boundary (as noted in the stress-test concern).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We agree that the abstract should be expanded to include key methodological details and will revise it accordingly to address concerns about sample characteristics, fitting procedures, uncertainty handling, and bias considerations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The manuscript provides no information on sample size, the radius boundary used to separate SEs from MNs, the statistical methods for fitting the period-eccentricity relations, treatment of eccentricity uncertainties (including upper limits), or any forward-modeling of transit/RV detection biases. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim requires that the sign difference in the fitted trends is intrinsic rather than produced by the selection effects and measurement precision changes that occur near the ~1.6–2 R⊕ radius boundary (as noted in the stress-test concern).

    Authors: We agree that the abstract lacks these details and will revise it to summarize the sample size, the radius boundary separating the populations, the statistical fitting methods, the treatment of eccentricity uncertainties and upper limits, and our handling of detection biases. The full manuscript already describes these elements, including robustness tests showing that the differing period-eccentricity trends between SEs and MNs persist after accounting for selection effects and are not driven by changes near the radius boundary. We will add a concise statement to the abstract clarifying that the sign difference appears intrinsic based on the ensemble analysis and individual measurements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical observational claims

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical analysis of observed exoplanet data, identifying period-eccentricity trends separately for super-Earths and mini-Neptunes. No mathematical derivation, model fitting, or uniqueness theorem is presented that reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes are invoked. The central claims are direct statistical results from the data, rendering the analysis self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the domain assumption that radius-based classification cleanly separates two populations whose orbital properties can be compared directly; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Planets can be reliably classified into super-earths and mini-neptunes using radius measurements alone.
    The entire analysis depends on this binary split to define the two samples being compared.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5684 in / 1079 out tokens · 34716 ms · 2026-06-26T22:17:57.408164+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

95 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    D. M. Williams, D. Pollard, Earth-like worlds on ec- centric orbits: excursions beyond the habitable zone. International Journal of Astrobiology 1 (1), 61–69 (2002), doi:10.1017/S1473550402001064

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550402001064 2002

  2. [2]

    C. D. Dressing, D. S. Spiegel, C. A. Scharf, K. Menou, S. N. Raymond, Habitable Climates: The Influence of Eccentricity. Astrophys. J. 721 (2), 1295–1307 (2010), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1295

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1295 2010

  3. [3]

    Bolmont, A.-S

    E. Bolmont, A.-S. Libert, J. Leconte, F. Selsis, Hab- itability of planets on eccentric orbits: Limits of the mean flux approximation. Astron. Astrophys. 591, A106 (2016), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628073

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628073 2016

  4. [4]

    R. I. Dawson, R. A. Murray-Clay, Giant Planets Orbit- ing Metal-rich Stars Show Signatures of Planet-Planet Interactions. Astrophys. J. Lett. 767 (2), L24 (2013), doi:10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/l24 2013

  5. [5]

    M. A. Limbach, E. L. Turner, Exoplanet orbital eccentricity: Multiplicity relation and the Solar System. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 112 (1), 20–24 (2015), doi:10.1073/pnas. 1406545111

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas 2015

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , year = 2023, month = may, volume =

    S. Sagear, S. Ballard, The orbital eccentricity distribu- tion of planets orbiting M dwarfs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 120 (23), e2217398120 (2023), doi:10.1073/pnas.2217398120. 8

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2217398120 2023

  7. [7]

    J. L. Halbwachs, M. Mayor, S. Udry, Statistical prop- erties of exoplanets. IV . The period-eccentricity re- lations of exoplanets and of binary stars. Astron. As- trophys. 431 (3), 1129–1137 (2005), doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361:20041219

    2005

  8. [8]

    R. I. Dawson, J. A. Johnson, Origins of Hot Jupiters. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 56, 175–221 (2018), doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 2018

  9. [9]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 1396, doi: 10.1086/529187

    B. Jackson, R. Greenberg, R. Barnes, Tidal Evolution of Close-in Extrasolar Planets. Astrophys. J. 678 (2), 1396–1406 (2008), doi:10.1086/529187

    work page doi:10.1086/529187 2008

  10. [10]

    E. B. Ford, F. A. Rasio, Origins of Eccentric Ex- trasolar Planets: Testing the Planet-Planet Scattering Model. Astrophys. J. 686 (1), 621–636 (2008), doi: 10.1086/590926

    work page doi:10.1086/590926 2008

  11. [11]

    Chatterjee, E

    S. Chatterjee, E. B. Ford, S. Matsumura, F. A. Ra- sio, Dynamical Outcomes of Planet-Planet Scattering. Astrophys. J. 686 (1), 580–602 (2008), doi:10.1086/ 590227

    2008

  12. [12]

    Goldreich, R

    P . Goldreich, R. Sari, Eccentricity Evolution for Plan- ets in Gaseous Disks. Astrophys. J. 585 (2), 1024– 1037 (2003), doi:10.1086/346202

    work page doi:10.1086/346202 2003

  13. [13]

    Chen, H.-G

    Y .- Y . Chen, H.-G. Liu, G. Zhao, J.-L. Zhou, Mecha- nism for Exciting Planetary Inclination and Eccentric- ity through a Residual Gas Disk.Astrophys. J. 769 (1), 26 (2013), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/26 2013

  14. [15]

    Bashi, T

    D. Bashi, T. Mazeh, S. Faigler, Different Planetary Eccentricity-period (PEP) Distributions of Small and Giant Planets. Astron. J. 168 (3), 115 (2024), doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5ffa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad5ffa 2024

  15. [17]

    B., Sasselov, D

    L. Zeng, et al. , Growth model interpretation of planet size distribution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 116 (20), 9723–9728 (2019), doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812905116

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1812905116 2019

  16. [18]

    Science , keywords =

    R. Luque, E. Pallé, Density, not radius, separates rocky and water-rich small planets orbiting M dwarf stars. Science 377 (6611), 1211–1214 (2022), doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl7164 2022

  17. [19]

    Materials and methods are available as supplementary materials

  18. [20]

    S. E. Thompson, et al. , Planetary Candidates Ob- served by Kepler. VIII. A Fully Automated Catalog with Measured Completeness and Reliability Based on Data Release 25. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 235 (2), 38 (2018), doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9 2018

  19. [21]

    Kepler Objects of Interest DR25 Table, NASA Exo- planet Archive (2019), doi:10.26133/NEA5, version: 2020-06-04

    work page doi:10.26133/nea5 2019

  20. [22]

    E. B. Ford, S. N. Quinn, D. Veras, Characterizing the Orbital Eccentricities of Transiting Extrasolar Planets with Photometric Observations. Astrophys. J. 678 (2), 1407–1418 (2008), doi:10.1086/587046

    work page doi:10.1086/587046 2008

  21. [23]

    Xie, et al

    J.-W . Xie, et al. , Exoplanet orbital eccentricities de- rived from LAMOST-Kepler analysis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 113 (41), 11431– 11435 (2016), doi:10.1073/pnas.1604692113. 9

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1604692113 2016

  22. [24]

    D. M. Kipping, E. Sandford, Observational biases for transiting planets. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 463 (2), 1323–1331 (2016), doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1926

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1926 2016

  23. [25]

    Gabrielle Suissa, Eric T

    D.-S. An, J.-W . Xie, Y .-Z. Dai, J.-L. Zhou, Plan- etary Orbit Eccentricity Trends (POET). I. The Eccentricity-Metallicity Trend for Small Planets Re- vealed by the LAMOST-Gaia-Kepler Sample. As- tron. J. 165 (3), 125 (2023), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ acb533

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ 2023

  24. [26]

    R. L. Akeson, et al., The NASA Exoplanet Archive: Data and Tools for Exoplanet Research. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125 (930), 989 (2013), doi:10.1086/672273

    work page doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  25. [27]

    Planetary Systems Table, NASA Exoplanet Archive (2020), doi:10.26133/NEA12, version: 2024-06-06

    work page doi:10.26133/nea12 2020

  26. [28]

    Van Eylen, S

    V . Van Eylen, S. Albrecht, Eccentricity from Tran- sit Photometry: Small Planets in Kepler Multi- planet Systems Have Low Eccentricities. Astrophys. J. 808 (2), 126 (2015), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/808/ 2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/ 2015

  27. [29]

    Van Eylen,et al., The Orbital Eccentricity of Small Planet Systems

    V . Van Eylen,et al., The Orbital Eccentricity of Small Planet Systems. Astron. J. 157 (2), 61 (2019), doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf22f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf22f 2019

  28. [30]

    Kokubo, H

    E. Kokubo, H. Hoshino, Y . Matsumoto, R. Sari, A Scaling Law for the Orbital Architecture of Planetary Systems Formed by Gravitational Scattering and Col- lisions. Astrophys. J. Lett. 991 (2), L49 (2025), doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae06fc 2025

  29. [31]

    D. R. Ciardi, et al. , On the Relative Sizes of Plan- ets within Kepler Multiple-candidate Systems. Astro- phys. J. 763 (1), 41 (2013), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 763/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2013

  30. [32]

    Charalambous, J

    C. Charalambous, J. Teyssandier, A. S. Libert, Prox- imity of exoplanets to first-order mean-motion reso- nances. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 514 (3), 3844–3856 (2022), doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1554

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1554 2022

  31. [33]

    Dai, et al

    F. Dai, et al. , California-Kepler Survey. IX. Revisit- ing the Minimum-mass Extrasolar Nebula with Pre- cise Stellar Parameters. Astron. J. 159 (6), 247 (2020), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b8 2020

  32. [34]

    Y . Wu, Y . Lithwick, Secular Chaos and the Produc- tion of Hot Jupiters. Astrophys. J. 735 (2), 109 (2011), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/109 2011

  33. [35]

    Laskar, A

    J. Laskar, A. C. Petit, AMD-stability and the classi- fication of planetary systems. Astron. Astrophys. 605, A72 (2017), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630022

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630022 2017

  34. [36]

    Laskar, Large scale chaos and the spacing of the in- ner planets

    J. Laskar, Large scale chaos and the spacing of the in- ner planets. Astron. Astrophys. 317, L75–L78 (1997)

    1997

  35. [37]

    Moriarty, S

    J. Moriarty, S. Ballard, The Kepler Dichotomy in Planetary Disks: Linking Kepler Observables to Sim- ulations of Late-stage Planet Formation. Astrophys. J. 832 (1), 34 (2016), doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/ 34

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/ 2016

  36. [38]

    G. D. Mulders, I. Pascucci, D. Apai, A. Frasca, J. Molenda-Żakowicz, A Super-solar Metallicity for Stars with Hot Rocky Exoplanets. Astron. J. 152 (6), 187 (2016), doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/187

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/187 2016

  37. [39]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , year = 2012, month = sep, volume =

    X.-Q. Cui, et al. , The Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST). Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 12 (9), 1197–1242 (2012), doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  38. [40]

    R. I. Dawson, E. J. Lee, E. Chiang, Correlations be- tween Compositions and Orbits Established by the Giant Impact Era of Planet Formation. Astrophys. J. 822 (1), 54 (2016), doi:10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/ 54. 10

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/1/ 2016

  39. [41]

    Matsumoto, E

    Y . Matsumoto, E. Kokubo, Formation of Close-in Super-Earths by Giant Impacts: Effects of Initial Ec- centricities and Inclinations of Protoplanets. Astron. J. 154 (1), 27 (2017), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa74c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa74c7 2017

  40. [42]

    H. Y . A. Meng,et al., Planetary Collisions Outside the Solar System: Time Domain Characterization of Ex- treme Debris Disks. Astrophys. J. 805 (1), 77 (2015), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/77

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/77 2015

  41. [43]

    S.-F. Liu, Y . Hori, D. N. C. Lin, E. Asphaug, Gi- ant Impact: An Efficient Mechanism for the De- volatilization of Super-Earths. Astrophys. J. 812 (2), 164 (2015), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/164

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/164 2015

  42. [44]

    H. E. Schlichting, R. Sari, A. Y alinewich, Atmo- spheric mass loss during planet formation: The im- portance of planetesimal impacts. Icarus 247, 81–94 (2015), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.053 2015

  43. [45]

    Zhong, C

    W . Zhong, C. Yu, S. Jia, S.-F. Liu, The Impact-driven Atmospheric Loss of Super-Earths around Different Spectral T ypes of Host Stars. Astrophys. J. 967 (1), 38 (2024), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3af9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3af9 2024

  44. [46]

    Shin, D.-S

    K.-T. Shin, D.-S. An, J.-W . Xie, J.-L. Zhou, F. Dai, Software for super-earths and mini-neptunes follow different orbital period–eccentricity relations (2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.19445100

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19445100 2026

  45. [47]

    T. A. Berger,et al., The Gaia-Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog. I. Homogeneous Fundamental Properties for 186,301 Kepler Stars. Astron. J. 159 (6), 280 (2020), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/159/6/280

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/159/6/280 2020

  46. [51]

    T. A. Berger, D. Huber, E. Gaidos, J. L. van Saders, Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets Using Gaia Data Release 2. Astrophys. J. 866 (2), 99 (2018), doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada83 2018

  47. [52]

    W . J. Borucki,et al., Characteristics of Planetary Can- didates Observed by Kepler. II. Analysis of the First Four Months of Data. Astrophys. J. 736 (1), 19 (2011), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/19 2011

  48. [53]

    S. M. Mills, et al. , The California-Kepler Survey. VIII. Eccentricities of Kepler Planets and Tentative Evidence of a High-metallicity Preference for Small Eccentric Planets. Astron. J. 157 (5), 198 (2019), doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1009

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab1009 2019

  49. [54]

    A. W. Howard, et al. , Planet Occurrence within 0.25 AU of Solar-type Stars from Kepler. Astro- phys. J. Suppl. Ser. 201 (2), 15 (2012), doi:10.1088/ 0067-0049/201/2/15

    2012

  50. [55]

    E. A. Petigura, G. W. Marcy, A. W. Howard, A Plateau in the Planet Population below T wice the Size of Earth. Astrophys. J. 770 (1), 69 (2013), doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/69 2013

  51. [56]

    D. C. Fabrycky, et al., Architecture of Kepler’s Multi- transiting Systems. II. New Investigations with T wice as Many Candidates. Astrophys. J. 790 (2), 146 (2014), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/146

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/146 2014

  52. [57]

    Van Eylen, et al

    V . Van Eylen, et al. , An asteroseismic view of the radius valley: stripped cores, not born rocky. Mon. 11 Not. R. Astron. Soc. 479 (4), 4786–4795 (2018), doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1783

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1783 2018

  53. [58]

    T. A. Berger, D. Huber, E. Gaidos, J. L. van Saders, L. M. Weiss, The Gaia-Kepler Stellar Properties Cat- alog. II. Planet Radius Demographics as a Function of Stellar Mass and Age. Astron. J. 160 (3), 108 (2020), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba18a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba18a 2020

  54. [59]

    W . Zhu, S. Dong, Exoplanet Statistics and Theoretical Implications. Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 59, 291–336 (2021), doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055 2021

  55. [60]

    F. A. Rasio, E. B. Ford, Dynamical instabilities and the formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science 274, 954–956 (1996), doi:10.1126/science.274.5289. 954

    work page doi:10.1126/science.274.5289 1996

  56. [61]

    S. J. Weidenschilling, F. Marzari, Gravitational scat- tering as a possible origin for giant planets at small stellar distances. Nature 384 (6610), 619–621 (1996), doi:10.1038/384619a0

    work page doi:10.1038/384619a0 1996

  57. [62]

    J. F. Otegi, F. Bouchy, R. Helled, Revisited mass- radius relations for exoplanets below 120 M⊕. Astron. Astrophys. 634, A43 (2020), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201936482

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2020

  58. [63]

    M. J. Kuchner, A Minimum-Mass Extrasolar Neb- ula. Astrophys. J. 612 (2), 1147–1151 (2004), doi: 10.1086/422577

    work page doi:10.1086/422577 2004

  59. [64]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt424

    E. Chiang, G. Laughlin, The minimum-mass extraso- lar nebula: in situ formation of close-in super-Earths. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 431 (4), 3444–3455 (2013), doi:10.1093/mnras/stt424

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt424 2013

  60. [65]

    Kokubo, S

    E. Kokubo, S. Ida, Oligarchic Growth of Protoplan- ets. Icarus 131 (1), 171–178 (1998), doi:10.1006/icar. 1997.5840

    work page doi:10.1006/icar 1998

  61. [66]

    Laskar, On the Spacing of Planetary Systems

    J. Laskar, On the Spacing of Planetary Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (15), 3240–3243 (2000), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.84.3240

    2000

  62. [67]

    G. W. Wetherill, G. R. Stewart, Accumulation of a swarm of small planetesimals. Icarus 77 (2), 330–357 (1989), doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90093-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90093-6 1989

  63. [68]

    Goldreich, S

    P . Goldreich, S. Soter, Q in the Solar System. Icarus 5 (1), 375–389 (1966), doi:10.1016/0019-1035(66) 90051-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(66 1966

  64. [69]

    C. V . Morley, et al. , Forward and Inverse Modeling of the Emission and Transmission Spectrum of GJ 436b: Investigating Metal Enrichment, Tidal Heat- ing, and Clouds. Astron. J. 153 (2), 86 (2017), doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/86

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/86 2017

  65. [70]

    Puranam, K

    A. Puranam, K. Batygin, Chaotic Excitation and Tidal Damping in the GJ 876 System.Astron. J. 155 (4), 157 (2018), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab09f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab09f 2018

  66. [71]

    E. M. Louden, G. P . Laughlin, S. C. Millholland, Tidal Dissipation Regimes among the Short-period Exo- planets. Astrophys. J. Lett. 958 (2), L21 (2023), doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0843

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0843 2023

  67. [72]

    Lainey, Quantification of tidal parameters from So- lar System data

    V . Lainey, Quantification of tidal parameters from So- lar System data. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 126 (1-3), 145–156 (2016), doi:10.1007/ s10569-016-9695-y

    2016

  68. [73]

    Zhang, D

    K. Zhang, D. P . Hamilton, Orbital resonances in the inner neptunian system. II. Resonant history of Pro- teus, Larissa, Galatea, and Despina. Icarus 193 (1), 267–282 (2008), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.08.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.08.024 2008

  69. [74]

    Efroimsky, Tidal Dissipation Compared to Seis- mic Dissipation: In Small Bodies, Earths, and Super- Earths

    M. Efroimsky, Tidal Dissipation Compared to Seis- mic Dissipation: In Small Bodies, Earths, and Super- Earths. Astrophys. J. 746 (2), 150 (2012), doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/746/2/150. 12

    2012

  70. [75]

    G. M. Szabó, L. L. Kiss, A Short-period Censor of Sub-Jupiter Mass Exoplanets with Low Density. As- trophys. J. Lett. 727 (2), L44 (2011), doi:10.1088/ 2041-8205/727/2/L44

    2011

  71. [76]

    2016, A&A, 589, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

    T. Mazeh, T. Holczer, S. Faigler, Dearth of short- period Neptunian exoplanets: A desert in period-mass and period-radius planes. Astron. Astrophys.589, A75 (2016), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528065 2016

  72. [77]

    , keywords =

    A. Castro-González, et al. , Mapping the exo- Neptunian landscape: A ridge between the desert and savanna. Astron. Astrophys. 689, A250 (2024), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450957

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450957 2024

  73. [78]

    Dai, et al

    F. Dai, et al. , The Prevalence of Resonance Among Y oung, Close-in Planets. Astron. J. 168 (6), 239 (2024), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6 2024

  74. [79]

    W . Zhu, C. Petrovich, Y . Wu, S. Dong, J. Xie, About 30% of Sun-like Stars Have Kepler-like Plan- etary Systems: A Study of Their Intrinsic Architec- ture. Astrophys. J. 860 (2), 101 (2018), doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aac6d5

    2018

  75. [80]

    2020, AJ, 159, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7373

    J.- Y . Y ang, J.-W . Xie, J.-L. Zhou, Occurrence and Ar- chitecture of Kepler Planetary Systems as Functions of Stellar Mass and Effective Temperature. Astron. J. 159 (4), 164 (2020), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab7373

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab7373 2020

  76. [81]

    Tremaine, S

    S. Tremaine, S. Dong, The Statistics of Multi-planet Systems. Astron. J. 143 (4), 94 (2012), doi:10.1088/ 0004-6256/143/4/94

    2012

  77. [82]

    V . Z. Adibekyan, et al., Orbital and physical proper- ties of planets and their hosts: new insights on planet formation and evolution. Astron. Astrophys. 560, A51 (2013), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322551. Acknowledgments We thank the editors and referees for their insightful com- ments and suggestions. We also thank Y anqin Wu, Hui- Gen Liu, Jia- Yi Y ang...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322551 2013

  78. [83]

    Not false positive 4034

  79. [84]

    Stellar properties cross-match ( 47) 3826

  80. [85]

    Gaia RUWE < 1.2 3413

Showing first 80 references.