Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Host--Non-host Differences in Stellar Chemistry, Activity, and Birth Radius: Hints of Distinct Formation Environments for Earth-like Planets and Sub-Neptunes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Host stars differ from similar non-host stars only after planets are split by size, with Earth-like and sub-Neptune hosts showing opposite chemical trends.

desk verdict A careful, honest study with a useful bias-correction method, but the headline radius-dependent chemistry trends are below the sample's own detection thresholds and look post hoc. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07331 v1 pith:O24N5S36 submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Xunzhou Chen , Tiancheng Sun , Yuxi (Lucy) Lu , Liu Long , Zixuan Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanethoststarsKeplerLAMOSTstellarabundancesactivitybirthradiussub-Neptunesplanetformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using 28,383 Kepler–LAMOST–Gaia dwarf and subgiant stars, including 629 planet hosts, this paper asks whether planet-hosting stars differ from otherwise similar stars without detected planets. After matching each host to 50 non-host stars of similar age and mass and correcting for matching biases, the full planet sample shows almost no host–non-host differences. The differences appear when planets are separated by radius: at the high-abundance end of [O/Fe], [Mg/Fe], and [Si/Fe], hosts of Earth-like planets (radii below $2\,R_\oplus$) tend to be oxygen-rich but magnesium-poor and silicon-poor relative to matched non-hosts, while sub-Neptune hosts (radii $2$–$4\,R_\oplus$) tend toward the opposite. Sub-Neptune hosts also tend to be less chromospherically active and to have been born closer to the Galactic center. The result matters because it suggests that Earth-like planets and sub-Neptunes form in distinct chemical and Galactic environments rather than through one universal formation process.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on age–mass matched control samples plus a Monte Carlo fake-host baseline correction. Each host star is compared with the mean of its 50 nearest non-host stars in normalized age–mass space; then, for each parameter $X$, a fake-host experiment using only non-host stars measures the average offset that the matching procedure alone produces as a function of $X$, and this baseline is subtracted via $\Delta X_{\rm corr} = \Delta X_{\rm raw} - \Delta X_{\rm bias}(X)$. Planet radii are recomputed from Kepler DR25 transit depths and updated stellar radii, and the radius valley near $2\,R_\oplus$ sets the division between Earth-like planets and sub-Neptunes.

What would settle it

Recompute the corrected offsets using only stars with near-complete planet detection, where non-detection can rule out planets down to Earth size (e.g., using injection-recovery completeness maps for each Kepler star), and check whether the high-abundance [O/Fe], [Mg/Fe], and [Si/Fe] offsets for Earth-like and sub-Neptune hosts persist; if they vanish or reverse sign, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that host–non-host differences in stellar chemistry, activity, and birth radius are largely absent when all detected planets are pooled together, but become visible once planets are divided by size. After age–mass matching and a fake-host baseline correction, Earth-like hosts ($R_p<2\,R_\oplus$) show positive corrected offsets in [O/Fe] and negative corrected offsets in [Mg/Fe] and [Si/Fe] at the high-abundance end, whereas sub-Neptune hosts ($2 \le R_p < 4\,R_\oplus$) show the opposite pattern. Sub-Neptune hosts additionally show lower chromospheric activity in the relatively active regime and systematically smaller birth radii over $R_b\sim4$–$7$ kpc, while Earth-like hosts show no such birth-radius offset. The paper reads these patterns as evidence that Earth-like planets and sub-Neptunes may form in different chemical environments, inherit different rocky building blocks, and follow different evolutionary paths, with the tentative result that hot-Jupiter hosts are more metal-rich, more active, and born at smaller Galactic radii than hosts of longer-period Jupiters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fake-host correction removes exactly the bias created by the matching process, and does not remove any real difference between planet hosts and non-hosts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future host–non-host comparisons that do not split planets by radius may miss real differences, so demographic studies should analyze planet-size classes separately.
  • The opposite Mg/Si trends imply that Earth-like and sub-Neptune systems may inherit systematically different rocky building blocks, which could be tested through interior-composition modeling of individual systems.
  • Lower chromospheric activity among sub-Neptune hosts is consistent with weaker high-energy irradiation that helps preserve volatile envelopes, linking stellar activity to atmospheric retention.
  • Sub-Neptunes' smaller birth radii suggest inner-disk formation environments, connecting planet demographics to the chemical and dynamical evolution of the Milky Way.
  • The tentative hot-Jupiter versus longer-period Jupiter contrasts indicate that close-in giant planet formation may be tied to metal-rich, active, inner-disk stellar populations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the trends survive, one testable consequence is that sub-Neptune atmospheric compositions (e.g., C/O ratios from transmission spectra) should differ systematically from rocky-planet systems, reflecting the different Mg/Si and O abundances of their host stars.
  • The fake-host correction's validity could be checked by injecting synthetic host–non-host differences of known size into mock catalogs and verifying that the corrected offsets recover the input; this would isolate any residual bias in small high-abundance bins.
  • A larger sample, ideally with measured detection completeness per star, could turn the tentative hot-Jupiter versus longer-period Jupiter signal into a robust test of whether migration pathways depend on stellar metallicity and birth environment.
  • If sub-Neptune hosts are truly born at smaller Galactic radii, then planet occurrence models that include Galactic chemical evolution should predict a radial dependence in sub-Neptune frequency; this could be checked with future transit surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compares 629 Kepler planet-host stars with age- and mass-matched non-host stars drawn from a homogeneous Kepler-LAMOST-Gaia sample of 28,383 dwarfs and subgiants, applying a fake-host Monte Carlo baseline correction to remove distribution-induced matching biases. The authors report that most host-non-host differences vanish for the full planet sample, but that after splitting planets by radius, Earth-like hosts appear more O-rich yet Mg- and Si-poor at the high-abundance end, while sub-Neptune hosts show opposite tendencies, lower chromospheric activity, and smaller birth radii. The paper also reports tentative contrasts between hot-Jupiter and longer-period Jupiter hosts. The central claim is that these radius-dependent differences indicate distinct formation environments for Earth-like planets and sub-Neptunes, though the authors frame the results as hints in the title and discuss statistical sensitivity limitations.

Significance. If the radius-dependent trends are real, the paper would provide a valuable population-level clue that small-planet host stars differ systematically from non-host stars only when separated by planet size, potentially linking formation pathways to stellar chemistry, activity, and Galactic birth environment. The methodology is a strength: the sample is homogeneous and well-characterized, the age-mass matching is clearly described, the fake-host baseline correction is a thoughtful treatment of a known bias, and the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis is an honest assessment of the detectability limits. However, the headline abundance trends are of smaller amplitude than the paper's own stated detection thresholds, and the post hoc selection of the high-abundance end weakens the statistical foundation. The activity and birth-radius results are also modest in amplitude and would benefit from more explicit significance testing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.6, Figures 7-9] The paper's own Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis (Section 3.6, Figure 13) states that intrinsic abundance differences of approximately 0.070 dex in [C/Fe], 0.112 dex in [O/Fe], 0.112 dex in [Mg/Fe], and 0.079 dex in [Si/Fe] are required to achieve a 68% probability of a 3-sigma detection with the current sample sizes. The headline abundance offsets shown in Figures 7-9 are of order 0.02-0.05 dex, with the [O/Fe] offset for Earth-like hosts reaching only about +0.02 dex at the high-abundance end. Therefore, the abstract's claim that 'separating planets by radius reveals distinct trends' in O, Mg, and Si is not supported by the paper's own sensitivity criterion; these trends are below the detection threshold and should be presented as non-detections or as upper limits, not as revealed trends.
  2. [Section 3.2] The radius-dependent abundance trends are identified by scanning a grid of four elements, roughly eight abundance bins, and three planet-radius classes, and then focusing on the high-abundance end where the patterns appear. No multiple-testing correction (e.g., false discovery rate) or permutation-based control is presented. Under the null hypothesis of no host-non-host differences, such a scan would be expected to produce some 'opposite tendencies' in isolated bins by chance. The central claim depends crucially on these selected bins, so the analysis should report how many independent comparisons were made and whether the trends survive a multiple-testing correction.
  3. [Section 2.6, Eq. (5)] The fake-host baseline correction subtracts the mean offset obtained when random non-host stars are matched to other non-host stars, implicitly assuming that the matching-induced bias for true host stars is identical to that for non-host stars of the same X. If host stars are drawn from a different parent distribution in age-mass or abundance space, or if the bias depends on variables not captured by the eight-bin interpolation, the correction could over-subtract genuine host-non-host signals or leave residual artifacts. Because the headline trends are only 0.02-0.05 dex, the analysis should include robustness tests varying the number of nearest neighbors k (e.g., 20 and 100), the number of bias-correction bins (e.g., 6 and 12), and the interpolation scheme, to demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions are insensitive to these choices.
  4. [Section 3.3 and 3.4] The activity offset for sub-Neptune hosts (about -0.04 dex at log R'HK > -5) and the birth-radius offsets (about -0.2 to -0.4 kpc in the R_b ~4-7 kpc range) are presented as coherent trends, but their statistical significance is not quantified in a way that accounts for the same post hoc selection of bins and sub-populations. Please provide significance levels (e.g., p-values or confidence intervals that include a multiple-testing correction) for these specific claims, or explicitly label them as tentative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The phrase 'more Mg- and Si-poor' should be 'more Mg-poor and Si-poor' for parallel construction and clarity.
  2. [Figure 12] The caption and text refer to 'hot-Jupiter and longer-period Jupiters' with inconsistent singular/plural usage; use 'hot-Jupiter hosts and longer-period Jupiter hosts' throughout.
  3. [References] The reference list contains Johnson et al. (2010) twice with identical bibliographic information (PASP, 122, 905); the duplicate should be removed.
  4. [Section 2.6] The text says 'using the NearestNeighbors algorithm implemented in scikit-learn'; more precisely, the NearestNeighbors class from scikit-learn is used to perform the matching. The phrasing is acceptable but could be clarified for readers unfamiliar with the library.
  5. [Figures 5-11] Open symbols marking edge bins are difficult to distinguish from filled symbols in grayscale; consider using different marker shapes or adding a legend entry for edge bins.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the radius-dependent differences are empirical comparisons, not outputs of a fitted model or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central host–non-host comparison is computed from the data: age–mass matching selects non-host controls, and the fake-host baseline is estimated from non-host stars alone. No parameter in the matching or bias correction is fitted to the host–non-host offsets that are later reported, so the corrected differences are not forced to equal the input or the correction. The birth radius is a derived quantity (Eq. 1) from [Fe/H] and age, but it is used as an observable and is not fed back into any fit; whether it is a fully independent probe of the metallicity comparison is a model-dependence question, not a circularity. The self-citations (Chen et al. 2025 sample, Chen et al. 2026 parameters, Lu et al. 2024 R_birth calibration) supply data and calibrations but are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as proofs of the radius-dependent trends. The paper even quantifies its sensitivity limits (Section 3.6), consistent with an empirical rather than definitional result. No specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs by construction could be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on four assumptions: non-host controls only dilute differences, the fake-host baseline removes matching bias without signal loss, isochrone ages and masses are accurate enough for matching, and the birth-radius inversion is valid. No new physical entities are introduced. The only hand-set quantities are matching and binning choices, none of which are fit to the target trends.

free parameters (4)
  • nearest-neighbor matching count k = 50
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.6 to balance statistical robustness and age-mass agreement; affects the width of the control distribution and the magnitude of baseline offsets.
  • number of bins for fake-host baseline = 8 bins spanning 5th to 95th percentile
    Chosen in Section 2.6; binning and interpolation of the baseline bias affect the corrected offsets, particularly at the high-abundance ends that drive the main conclusions.
  • radius regime boundaries = 2 and 4 R_Earth; 8 to 20 R_Earth and P=10 days for Jupiters
    Adopted from radius-valley literature in Section 3 and Zhu and Dong 2021 in Section 3.5; the qualitative conclusions depend on these splits.
  • bootstrap resampling count = 5000
    Chosen for uncertainty estimates in Figures 4 through 11; affects quoted percentile ranges but not central values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Non-host stars without detected Kepler planets are acceptable controls, with undetected planets only diluting true host-nonhost differences.
    Stated in Sections 2.6 and 3.6; if detection completeness correlates with chemistry, activity, or birth radius, dilution is not the only effect and the control sample would be biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The fake-host Monte Carlo baseline, computed from non-host stars only, estimates the matching bias under the null hypothesis that host and non-host samples share the same parent distribution.
    Used in Section 2.6 to define Delta X_corr; if the true host population is not from the same parent distribution, subtracting this baseline may remove real signal.
  • domain assumption Stellar ages and masses from Bayesian isochrone fitting with YY isochrones and DD-Payne abundances are sufficiently precise and homogeneous for age-mass matching.
    Section 2.2; systematic uncertainties in age (median 0.48 Gyr) propagate into matching residuals, and the paper notes matching differences are smaller than quoted stellar-parameter uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Birth radius is inferred from an assumed radially linear ISM metallicity gradient with age-dependent normalization from Lu et al. 2024.
    Section 2.4, Equation (1); any residual gradient curvature or scatter maps directly into R_birth offsets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Host--Non-host Differences in Stellar Chemistry, Activity, and Birth Radius: Hints of Distinct Formation Environments for Earth-like Planets and Sub-Neptunes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O24N5S36

@misc{pith2026260807331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Host--Non-host Differences in Stellar Chemistry, Activity, and Birth Radius: Hints of Distinct Formation Environments for Earth-like Planets and Sub-Neptunes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O24N5S36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07331}
}
read the original abstract

Host-star properties provide important clues to planet formation and evolution, yet it remains unclear whether the observed differences between planet-hosting stars and stars without detected planets reflect genuine signatures of planet formation or underlying differences in stellar populations. Using a homogeneous sample of 28,383 Kepler-LAMOST-Gaia dwarf and subgiant stars, including 629 host stars with 865 planets, we compare host stars with age-mass matched non-host stars after correcting for distribution-induced matching biases. Most host-non-host differences disappear when the full planet sample is considered. However, separating planets by radius reveals distinct trends. At the high-abundance end of the [O/Fe], [Mg/Fe], and [Si/Fe] distributions, Earth-like hosts tend to be more O-rich but more Mg-poor and Si-poor than their age-mass matched non-host stars, whereas sub-Neptune hosts tend to show the opposite behavior. Sub-Neptune hosts also tend to exhibit lower chromospheric activity and smaller birth radii than comparable non-host stars. These results suggest that host-non-host differences become apparent primarily after separating planets by size and that Earth-like planets and sub-Neptunes may be associated with distinct formation environments and evolutionary pathways. We also find that hot-Jupiter hosts are tentatively more metal-rich, chromospherically active, and formed at smaller Galactic birth radii than hosts of longer-period Jupiters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Age precision and distribution of 28,383 sample stars. (a) Two-dimensional histogram of stellar age versus age uncertainty, with dashed lines indicating fractional age uncertainties of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 100%. The colorbar indicates the number of stars per bin in logarithmic scale. (b) Age histogram (gray bars) overlaid with a KDE-smoothed curve (black). Vertical dashed lines and arrows highlight the detec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radius precision and radius distribution for the 845 planets with measured radii in our sample. (a) Two-dimensional histogram of planetary radius versus radius uncertainty. Dashed lines indicate fractional radius uncertainties of 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%. The colorbar shows the number of planets per bin on a logarithmic scale. (b) Distribution of planetary radii shown as a histogram (light-blue bars) together with a … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quality of the age–mass matching procedure. Panel (a) compares the age of each planet-host star with the median age of its 50 matched non-host stars, while panel (b) shows the corresponding comparison for stellar mass. The dashed lines indicate the one-to-one relations. The error bars represent the reported uncertainties of the host stars and the median uncertainties of the corresponding matched non-host samples. to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the bias-correction procedure using [Fe/H] as an example. (a) Raw [Fe/H] difference between host stars and their age–mass matched non-host stars, defined as ∆[Fe/H]raw. Points show the mean values in [Fe/H] bins, and error bars denote the 16th–84th perc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Host–non-host comparison in overall metallicity Z. Top row: raw metallicity difference, ∆Zraw, between host stars and their age–mass matched non-host stars. Bottom row: corrected metallicity difference, ∆Zcorr, after subtracting the fake-host baseline matching bias. Co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Corrected host–non-host differences in stellar properties for hot-Jupiter and longer-period Jupiter systems. We select Jupiter-sized planets with 8R⊕ ≤ Rp < 20R⊕ and divide them into hot Jupiters with P < 10 days and longer-period Jupiters with P ≥ 10 days. Red and bl…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Monte Carlo estimate of the detectability of intrinsic host–non-host abundance differences. The curves show the probability of obtaining a 3σ detection as a func￾tion of the assumed intrinsic population difference for [C/Fe], [O/Fe], [Mg/Fe], and [Si/Fe]. The horizont…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    M., Rosenfeld, K

    Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/129

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/129 2013

  3. [3]

    J., & Elsworth, Y

    Basu, S., Chaplin, W. J., & Elsworth, Y. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1596, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1596

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1596 2010

  4. [4]

    A., Huber, D., van Saders, J

    Berger, T. A., Huber, D., van Saders, J. L., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/159/6/280

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

  5. [5]

    M., Christiansen, J

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6570 2024

  6. [6]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  7. [7]

    M., & Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., & Fischer, D. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/20

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/20 2016

  8. [9]

    M., et al

    Bryson, S., Coughlin, J., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8a30

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8a30 2020

Show all 75 references
  1. [10]

    A., Bizzarro, M., Latham, D

    Buchhave, L. A., Bizzarro, M., Latham, D. W., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 593, doi: 10.1038/nature13254

    2014 doi

  2. [11]

    C., O’Brien, D

    Carter-Bond, J. C., O’Brien, D. P., Delgado Mena, E., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L2

    2012 doi

  3. [12]

    2007, MNRAS, 374, L42, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00261.x

    Alecian, E. 2007, MNRAS, 374, L42, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00261.x

    2007

  4. [13]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 92, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02693-6

    Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 92, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02693-6

    2026 doi

  5. [14]

    2021, AJ, 162, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0f08

    Chen, D.-C., Yang, J.-Y., Xie, J.-W., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0f08

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    Chen, H., & Rogers, L. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 180, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/180

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    L., Lu, Z., & Ye, L

    Chen, X., Sun, T., Lu, Y. L., Lu, Z., & Ye, L. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5633

    2026 doi

  8. [17]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae12a2

    Chen, X., Sun, T., & Ye, L. 2025, ApJ, 995, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae12a2

    2025 doi

  9. [18]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Contardo, G., Sandoval, A., et al

    David, T. J., Contardo, G., Sandoval, A., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf439

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2013, ApJL, 767, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv327

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., & Yi, S. K. 2004, ApJS, 155, 667, doi: 10.1086/424966

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    2014, ApJL, 789, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L3

    Dong, S., Zheng, Z., Zhu, Z., et al. 2014, ApJL, 789, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L3

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    E., Howell, S

    Everett, M. E., Howell, S. B., Silva, D. R., & Szkody, P. 2013, ApJ, 771, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/107

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    K., Frankel, N., Lind, K., et al

    Feuillet, D. K., Frankel, N., Lind, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1742, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2221

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    K., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J., et al

    Feuillet, D. K., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2326, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty779

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    A., & Valenti, J

    Fischer, D. A., & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102, doi: 10.1086/428383

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

    W., Mahadevan, S., Deshpande, R., et al

    Fleming, S. W., Mahadevan, S., Deshpande, R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/143

    2015 doi

  19. [28]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    2013, Physics and Chemistry of Circumstellar Dust Shells

    Gail, H.-P., & Sedlmayr, E. 2013, Physics and Chemistry of Circumstellar Dust Shells

    2013

  21. [30]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 301, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae317d

    Ghezzi, L., Costa-Almeida, E., Loaiza-Tacuri, V., & Cunha, K. 2026, ApJ, 998, 301, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae317d

    2026 doi

  22. [31]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty290

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1230

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 792, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa315

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321397

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/65

    Jin, S., Mordasini, C., Parmentier, V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/65

    2014 doi

  27. [37]

    A., Aller, K

    Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 905, doi: 10.1086/655775

    2010 doi

  28. [38]

    2010, A&A, 522, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015263 Kov´ acs, G., Hartman, J

    Kallinger, T., Mosser, B., Hekker, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015263 Kov´ acs, G., Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G.´A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2081, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu946

    2010 doi

  29. [39]

    J., & Seager, S

    Kuchner, M. J., & Seager, S. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0504214

    2005 doi arXiv

  30. [40]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 776, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/2

    2013 doi

  32. [42]

    L., Ness, M

    Lu, Y. L., Ness, M. K., Buck, T., Zinn, J. C., & Johnston, K. V. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac610 18

    2022 doi

  33. [43]

    L., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al

    Lu, Y. L., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2364

    2024 doi

  34. [44]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  35. [45]

    R., Grasser, N., Snellen, I

    Malcolm, C. R., Grasser, N., Snellen, I. A. G., et al. 2026, The ESO SupJup Survey XI. Atmospheric properties of six isolated M- and L-type dwarfs with CRIRES+, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2606.27107

    2026 doi arXiv

  36. [46]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.2497 Mel´ endez, J., Asplund, M., Gustafsson, B., & Yong, D

    Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.2497 Mel´ endez, J., Asplund, M., Gustafsson, B., & Yong, D. 2009, ApJL, 704, L66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/L66

    2011 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    P., Gallo, E., Greene, J

    Miller, B. P., Gallo, E., Greene, J. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/98

    2015 doi

  38. [48]

    Mittag, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Schr¨ oder, K.-P. 2013, A&A, 549, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219868

    2013 doi

  39. [49]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/81 NASA Exoplanet Archive

    Moriarty, J., Madhusudhan, N., & Fischer, D. 2014, ApJ, 787, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/81 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2021, K2 Planets and

    2014 doi

  40. [50]

    Candidates, Version: 2025-06-29 15:33 IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA19

    2025 doi

  41. [51]

    E., & Jackson, A

    Owen, J. E., & Jackson, A. P. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21481.x

    2012

  42. [52]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105

    2013 doi

  43. [53]

    J., et al

    Pascucci, I., Testi, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/125

    2016 doi

  44. [54]

    A., Marcy, G

    Petigura, E. A., Marcy, G. W., Winn, J. N., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa54c

    2018 doi

  45. [55]

    Pignatari, M., Trueman, T. C. L., Womack, K. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2167

    2023 doi

  46. [56]

    M., Salyk, C., Bergin, E

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Salyk, C., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S

    2014

  47. [57]

    Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 363–385, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch016

    doi

  48. [58]

    Poppenhaeger, K., & Wolk, S. J. 2014, A&A, 565, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423454 Ram ´ ırez, I., Mel´ endez, J., & Asplund, M. 2009, A&A, 508, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913038

    2014 doi

  49. [59]

    G., Gupta, A., Owen, J

    Rogers, J. G., Gupta, A., Owen, J. E., & Schlichting, H. E. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2897

    2021 doi

  50. [60]

    C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M

    Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 415, 1153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034469

    2004 doi

  51. [61]

    2026, Science, 392, 1167, doi: 10.1126/science.adu3916 Su´ arez-Andr´ es, L., Israelian, G., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J

    Shin, K.-T., An, D.-S., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., & Dai, F. 2026, Science, 392, 1167, doi: 10.1126/science.adu3916 Su´ arez-Andr´ es, L., Israelian, G., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629434

    2026 doi

  52. [62]

    2023a, MNRAS, 523, 1199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1499

    Sun, T., Chen, X., Bi, S., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 523, 1199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1499

    doi

  53. [63]

    2023b, ApJS, 268, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5b0

    Sun, T., Ge, Z., Chen, X., et al. 2023b, ApJS, 268, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5b0

    doi

  54. [64]

    2025, Nature Communications, 16, 1581, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-56550-1

    Sun, T., Bi, S., Chen, X., et al. 2025, Nature Communications, 16, 1581, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-56550-1

    2025 doi

  55. [65]

    K., Narang, M., et al

    Swastik, C., Banyal, R. K., Narang, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac756a

    2022 doi

  56. [66]

    K., Narang, M., et al

    Swastik, C., Banyal, R. K., Narang, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd802

    2021 doi

  57. [67]

    E., Coughlin, J

    Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., Hoffman, K., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

    2018 doi

  58. [68]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 995, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02539-1

    Tu, P.-W., Xie, J.-W., Chen, D.-C., & Zhou, J.-L. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 995, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02539-1

    2025 doi

  59. [69]

    2022, AJ, 164, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8b7c

    Unni, A., Narang, M., Sivarani, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8b7c

    2022 doi

  60. [70]

    V., et al

    Wanderley, F., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae058e

    2025 doi

  61. [71]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 280, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adea39

    Wang, T., Yuan, H., Chen, B., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 280, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adea39

    2025 doi

  62. [72]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    2022 doi

  63. [73]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5364

    Xiang, M., Ting, Y.-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5364

    2019 doi

  64. [74]

    M.-R., & Savel, A

    Yang, J., Kempton, E. M.-R., & Savel, A. B. 2026, ApJL, 1003, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae6914

    2026 doi

  65. [75]

    2023, AJ, 166, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0368

    Yang, J.-Y., Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0368

    2023 doi

  66. [76]

    2025, ApJS, 279, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/add016

    Zhang, M., Xiang, M., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2025, ApJS, 279, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/add016

    2025 doi

  67. [77]

    2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 291–336, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    Zhu, W., & Dong, S. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 291–336, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.