Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

The Radius, Composition, Albedo, and Absolute Magnitude of Planet Nine Based on Exoplanets with Teq less than 600 K and the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Drawing on cool exoplanets, this paper predicts Planet Nine is a mini-Neptune with radius 2.0-2.6 Earth radii, a hydrogen-helium envelope of 0.6-3.5 percent by mass, and apparent magnitude +21.9 to +22.7 at aphelion.

desk verdict A useful but under-derived attempt to pin down Planet Nine's radius and brightness; the radius range needs a physical justification before it becomes a strong prior. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22297 v1 pith:6IBPN3D5 submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.EP

David G. Russell , Terry L. White This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords PlanetNinemini-Neptuneexoplanetmass-radiusrelationequilibriumtemperaturegeometricalbedoabsolutemagnitudeReferencePopulationtrans-Neptunianobjects
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

This paper tries to settle what Planet Nine is made of and how bright it should be, using the measured properties of the coolest well-characterized exoplanets as stand-ins. The authors combine the latest mass estimate for Planet Nine ($6.6^{+2.6}_{-1.7}\,M_\oplus$) with the fact that no known exoplanet with equilibrium temperature $\le600\,\mathrm{K}$ and mass above $2.9\,M_\oplus$ is purely rocky; core-accretion theory says such planets should have accreted a hydrogen-helium envelope. From the median radii of 27 exoplanets with masses $4.9$--$9.2\,M_\oplus$, temperatures $\le600\,\mathrm{K}$, and tight mass/radius uncertainties, corrected from about $10$ times Earth's insolation down to $0.1$ times, they conclude the most likely radius is $2.0$--$2.6\,R_\oplus$ with a hydrogen-helium fraction of $0.6$ to $3.5$ percent by mass. Using giant-planet albedos ($0.33$--$0.47$) and the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0 orbit, they predict an absolute magnitude of $-6.1$ to $-5.2$ and an apparent magnitude of $+21.9$ to $+22.7$ at aphelion ($630\,\mathrm{au}$). If correct, Planet Nine is a moderately bright mini-Neptune whose disk could be resolved by Keck and ALMA, giving upcoming searches a concrete size, composition, and brightness target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a three-part chain: the $T_\mathrm{eq}\le600\,\mathrm{K}$ exoplanet sample, 142 planets meeting the uncertainty cuts with 27 in the $4.9$--$9.2\,M_\oplus$ window; the published sub-Neptune mass-radius tables that translate measured radii into hydrogen-helium mass fractions and correct those radii from $\sim10\,F_\oplus$ to $0.1\,F_\oplus$; and the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0, which supplies the aphelion distance of $630\,\mathrm{au}$ and the current mass distribution. The core-accretion threshold ($\sim4\,M_\oplus$ for substantial gas accretion, $2$--$3\,M_\oplus$ for the solid-to-envelope radius transition) is what rules out the terrestrial interpretation in advance. The median-of-medians step ($1.98$, $2.31$, and $2.57\,R_\oplus$ at $0.6\%$, $2\%$, and $3.5\%$ hydrogen-helium) is what converts the exoplanet population into a specific Planet Nine prediction. A mini-Neptune is defined here as a planet with a rock-ice core and a modest hydrogen-helium envelope, intermediate between a super-Earth and an ice giant.

What would settle it

Run a thermal-evolution calculation for a 4.9-9.2 Earth-mass mini-Neptune with 0.6-3.5 percent hydrogen-helium at $10^{-6}$ F⊕; if the resulting radius differs from the 0.1 F⊕ value by more than about 0.1 Earth radii, the claimed 2.0-2.6 Earth-radius range is not supported. A direct detection with measured angular diameter and V-band magnitude would settle the radius and albedo empirically.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Planet Nine is not a dark ice giant and not a bare rocky core; it is most likely a mini-Neptune, an intermediate planet with a rock-ice core and a modest hydrogen-helium envelope. The chain of evidence: the mass is $6.6^{+2.6}_{-1.7}\,M_\oplus$, well above the $\sim4\,M_\oplus$ threshold at which core accretion starts adding substantial hydrogen-helium; the cool-exoplanet population contains no terrestrial-composition planet above $2.9\,M_\oplus$; and published sub-Neptune mass-radius tables applied to 27 exoplanets of $4.9$--$9.2\,M_\oplus$ give median radii of $1.98$, $2.31$, and $2.57\,R_\oplus$ after correcting from $\sim10\,F_\oplus$ to $0.1\,F_\oplus$, corresponding to hydrogen-helium fractions of $0.6\%$, $2\%$, and $3.5\%$ by mass. The quoted most-likely range is therefore $2.0$--$2.6\,R_\oplus$ with hydrogen-helium at $0.6$--$3.5\%$ by mass. Combining these radii with an albedo of $0.465$ (Uranus/Neptune average) or $0.333$ (power-law scaling of all giant planets) yields absolute magnitudes $-6.1$ to $-5.2$ and, at aphelion $630\,\mathrm{au}$, apparent magnitudes $+21.9$ to $+22.7$, with an angular diameter of $55$--$72\,\mathrm{mas}$ that is resolvable by Keck/NIRC2 and ALMA.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that a mini-Neptune's radius is essentially unchanged when the sunlight it receives drops from 0.1 times Earth's insolation (the lowest value in the mass-radius tables) to about one millionth of Earth's insolation, the actual flux at 630 au; this extrapolation is asserted, not derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Planet Nine is a mini-Neptune with albedo 0.33-0.47 rather than a dark trans-Neptunian body (albedo 0.02-0.1), it is several magnitudes brighter than the dark-core alternative, so surveys need only cover the remaining 22% of the Planet Nine reference population orbit distribution to find it.
  • The predicted apparent magnitude +21.9 to +22.7 at aphelion gives a concrete limiting-magnitude target: a search reaching about magnitude 22.7 over the remaining orbit region would either detect the object or exclude the mini-Neptune interpretation at that mass.
  • A measured angular diameter of 55-72 mas with Keck/NIRC2 or ALMA would directly test the radius range, because resolving the disk removes the albedo degeneracy that otherwise plagues radius estimates from brightness alone.
  • The core-accretion argument implies a general expectation: any 4.9-9.2 Earth-mass planet found in the outer Solar System should carry a hydrogen-helium envelope, so a future detection of Planet Nine as a bare rocky body would contradict the formation model used here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: whether Planet Nine keeps the same radius between 0.1 F⊕ and its actual flux (about 10^-6 F⊕) is the single most testable assumption; a dedicated low-flux thermal-evolution run could confirm or undermine the 2.0-2.6 Earth-radius range within existing model infrastructure.
  • Inference: if the power-law albedo estimate (0.333) is closer to reality than the Uranus/Neptune mean (0.465), the same radius range yields a roughly half-magnitude fainter target, which changes survey depth requirements as much as the radius uncertainty does.
  • Inference: the same method transfers to other proposed distant planets or Kuiper Belt objects: take a mass from orbital dynamics, read the radius from the cool-exoplanet mass-radius relation, and scale the albedo from giant planets, producing a detection prior for direct-imaging searches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper estimates the radius, composition, V-band albedo, absolute magnitude, and apparent magnitude of the hypothetical Planet Nine by combining the mass estimate of Brown et al. (2024) with mass-radius models, a sample of low-equilibrium-temperature exoplanets from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, and the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0. The central claims are that Planet Nine is most likely a mini-Neptune with a radius of 2.0 to 2.6 R⊕, an H-He mass fraction of 0.6 to 3.5%, a V-band albedo between 0.333 and 0.465, an apparent magnitude of +21.9 to +22.7 at aphelion (630 au), and a disk resolvable by Keck and ALMA.

Significance. If the radius and composition estimates are robust, the paper provides a useful, falsifiable target for ongoing Planet Nine surveys and connects the Solar System prediction to the exoplanet population. The authors state explicit selection criteria, use public data (NASA Exoplanet Archive and PNRP 3.0), and give concrete magnitude predictions that can be tested by future observations. However, the central radius range rests on a correction and an extrapolation that are not demonstrated in the manuscript: the correction from observed fluxes to 0.1 F⊕ is not shown, and the subsequent identification of the 0.1 F⊕ radius with Planet Nine's radius at roughly 10^-6 F⊕ is unsupported by any physical argument or model calculation. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions, so major revision is required before the claims can be considered reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The central corrected median radii (1.98, 2.31, and 2.57 R⊕) are asserted but not derived. The text says the Table 3 median radii are "corrected from 10 F⊕ to 0.1 F⊕ using the Tables of Lopez and Fortney, (2014) and Table 2 in this analysis," but Table 2 lists radii at 0.1 F⊕ as a function of H-He fraction; it is not a correction mapping from observed fluxes to 0.1 F⊕. The sample fluxes vary from 0.43 F⊕ to roughly 25 F⊕, not a single 10 F⊕ value, so a single additive or multiplicative correction to the medians is not justified. The authors need to show the per-object or per-group calculation that maps the observed radii to 0.1 F⊕, including how the degenerate envelope-mass solutions are handled. Without this, the reported 2.0 to 2.6 R⊕ range is not reproducible from the stated inputs.
  2. [Section 4] The paper implicitly treats radii at 0.1 F⊕ as equal to Planet Nine's actual radius, but Planet Nine at 630 au receives roughly 2.5×10^-6 F⊕ and has an equilibrium temperature of order 10 K. The Lopez and Fortney (2014) tables used for Table 2 are computed down to 0.1 F⊕ only, leaving five orders of magnitude in flux and roughly an order of magnitude in effective temperature unexplored. For sub-Neptunes, the radius depends on the thermal state and entropy of the H-He envelope, which is set by the cooling history and external irradiation; there is no a priori reason the radius is constant between 0.1 F⊕ and 10^-6 F⊕. The authors need to provide either a physical argument, a separate cooling calculation, or an explicit uncertainty estimate for this extrapolation. If cold radii are only 10% smaller than at 0.1 F⊕, the derived H-He fractions and apparent magnitudes shift materially, so this is a load-bearing issue for the central claim.
  3. [Section 5] The albedo power-law fit is not presented. The text states the fit "gives a very good fit with only two parameters given by" and then continues without displaying the equation or parameter values; the value A9 = 0.333 appears in the following paragraph without derivation. Since the absolute and apparent magnitude predictions in Tables 4 and 5 depend directly on this albedo value, the missing equation, the fitted parameter values, the uncertainty on the fit, and the data used (presumably from Mallama et al., 2016) must be supplied. The statement that the fit "explains over 91% of the variance" is not sufficient without showing the fit and its residuals.
  4. [Section 4, Table 3] The sample contains objects that are extreme outliers relative to the mass-radius models used, notably Kepler 51 d (9.46 R⊕) and Kepler 87 c (6.14 R⊕), both classified as super-puffs. The paper mentions these objects but does not quantify their effect on the median-based conclusions or on the H-He fraction assignments. Because the corrected median radii are the direct basis for the final radius range, the authors should show the sensitivity of their result to including or excluding super-puffs and to the systematic uncertainties in the TTV-derived masses and radii.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 2] The text says ZTF+DES+PS1 surveys removed 78% of the PNRP and the remaining fraction is 22%, but the Figure 2 caption states "The remaining 24% of the PNRP" — these numbers are inconsistent and should be reconciled.
  2. [Table 6] The JWST/NIRISS band entry is listed as "300 → 2000 um" but the visible-to-near-infrared range is in nanometers; the unit appears to be a typo.
  3. [Table 6 and Section 6] The resolvability criterion "requires 3 to 5 pixels across the disk" is not a standard diffraction-limited resolution criterion. For Keck/NIRC2 the pixel scale is 10 mas, but the diffraction limit at 900-5300 nm is substantially larger; the claim that Planet Nine's disk is "definitely resolvable" should be based on the actual point-spread function and expected signal-to-noise, not pixel count alone.
  4. [Figure 1] The Figure 1 caption is unclear about what is plotted and what the axes represent; the figure should be described in the text with axis labels and the fitted power-law curve shown explicitly.
  5. [Section 6] The phrase "no matter what the remaining 34% of the PNRP favors" in the discussion of the aphelion distance is confusing and appears inconsistent with the stated 22% remaining fraction; the argument for choosing aphelion over the current distance should be stated more carefully.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central radius and composition estimates are exoplanet-analog extrapolations from external data and published mass-radius models, not self-referential fits.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is anchored in external benchmarks: the NASA Exoplanet Archive sample (Teq<=600K, mass 4.9-9.2 M_Earth), published mass-radius tables (Lopez & Fortney 2014, Zeng et al.), and the independently generated PNRP. The median radii (1.98, 2.31, 2.57 R_Earth) are empirical statistics of the selected exoplanet sample after a model-based correction from roughly 10 F_Earth to 0.1 F_Earth, then mapped to H-He fractions through the same published tables. This is an extrapolation, not a circular reduction: the target quantity (Planet Nine's radius) is not used to define the input sample or to fit any free parameter. The only self-citation, Russell (2023)'s Teq<=600K catalog, is a data compilation whose underlying values come from the external NASA archive, so it is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The two-parameter albedo power law is fitted to solar-system giant planets, not to Planet Nine, and is not needed for the central 2.0-2.6 R_Earth radius claim. The main validity concern, which is a correctness risk rather than circularity, is that the Lopez-Fortney tables are computed down to 0.1 F_Earth while Planet Nine receives roughly 1e-6 F_Earth; the paper gives no argument that radii are unchanged across this gap. That unsupported extrapolation does not make the result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central radius estimate rests on the assumption that low-temperature exoplanets are good analogs for Planet Nine and that the mass-radius models remain valid at extremely low irradiance. The albedo lower bound relies on an unexplained power-law fit.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law albedo fit parameters = not given in text
    A two-parameter power-law fit to the V-band albedos of the four giant planets (Mallama et al. 2016) is used to extrapolate Planet Nine's albedo to 0.333. The parameter values are not reported, and the fit is an empirical extrapolation with no physical model.
  • H-He fraction group boundary = 1%
    The sample is split into groups with H-He fraction <1% and >1% based on Lopez-Fortney model comparison; the boundary is a hand-chosen threshold that determines the two median radii used as the lower and upper limits.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Core accretion critical core mass is about 4 M⊕
    Used in Section 3 to argue that a 6.6 M⊕ Planet Nine must have accreted an H-He envelope. Based on literature (Ida & Lin 2004; Hasegawa 2016; Alessi et al. 2020).
  • domain assumption Lopez and Fortney (2014) mass-radius models apply at very low stellar flux, and the radius at 0.1 F⊕ approximates the radius at 10^-6 F⊕
    The models only go down to 0.1 F⊕, but Planet Nine at 630 au receives roughly 10^-6 F⊕. The paper assumes no additional radius change without justification.
  • domain assumption The Teq<=600 K exoplanet sample is representative of the underlying planet population in the 4.9-9.2 M⊕ range
    Section 4 uses median radii of 27 selected planets as the basis for Planet Nine's radius. This assumes the sample is not strongly biased by detection limits or the author's catalog selection.
  • domain assumption The Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0 provides correct orbital distributions
    The paper adopts the most likely aphelion 630 au and mass 6.6 M⊕ from Brown et al. (2024) and the PNRP v3.0 without independent verification.
  • domain assumption Aphelion distance is the appropriate location for apparent magnitude estimates
    Section 6 uses aphelion for m9 despite the current distance estimate of 550 au, justified only by residence time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Radius, Composition, Albedo, and Absolute Magnitude of Planet Nine Based on Exoplanets with Teq less than 600 K and the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IBPN3D5

@misc{pith2026250722297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Radius, Composition, Albedo, and Absolute Magnitude of Planet Nine Based on Exoplanets with Teq less than 600 K and the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IBPN3D5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22297}
}
read the original abstract

Evidence suggests the existence of a large planet in the outer Solar System, Planet Nine, with a predicted mass of 6.6 +2.6 / -1.7 Earth masses (Brown et al., 2024). Based on mass radius composition models, planet formation theory, and confirmed exoplanets with low mass and radius uncertainty and equilibrium temperature less than 600 K, we determine the most likely composition for Planet Nine is a mini-Neptune with a radius in the range 2.0 to 2.6 Earth radii and a H-He envelope fraction in the range of 0.6 percent to 3.5 percent by mass. Using albedo estimates for a mini-Neptune extrapolated from V-band data for the Solar Systems giant planets gives albedo values for Planet Nine in the range of 0.47 to 0.33. Using the most likely orbit and aphelion estimates from the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0, we estimate Planet Nines absolute magnitude in the range of -6.1 to -5.2 and apparent magnitude in the range of +21.9 to +22.7. Finally, we estimate that, if the hypothetical Planet Nine exists and is detected by upcoming surveys, it will have a resolvable disk using some higher resolution world class telescopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Mean of Uranus and Neptune Albedos vs. Power Law Scaling of all giant Planet Albedos to Estimate the Albedo of Planet Nine at Aphelon. Brown et al., (2024) report that the ZTF+DES+PS1 surveys have removed 78% of the PNRP, and the current distance of Planet Nine, r9, is now 550 + 250 / - 180 au, based on the remaining 22% of the PNRP. They also report that the aphelion, Q9, is now 630 + 290 / - 170 au. Aphelion, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The remaining 24% of the PNRP after the ZTF+DES+PS1 surveys. Using power law scaling A9 = 0.333 and is shown in column 3 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Batygin, K., Brown M.,

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.10103. Batygin, K., Brown M.,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.10103 1902

  2. [2]

    Lopez, E., Fortney, J.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36. Lopez, E., Fortney, J.,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36

  3. [6]

    Generation of Low-inclination, Neptune-crossing Trans-Neptunian Objects by Planet Nine. Ap. J. L. 966, L8. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad3cd2. Belyakov, M., Bernardinelli, P., Brown, M.,

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3cd2

  4. [9]

    Characterising TOI-732 b and c: New insights into the M-dwarf radius and density valley. A. A. 682, A66. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348180. Brown, M., Batygin, K.,

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348180

  5. [14]

    Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Exoplanet LHS 1140 b with JWST/NIRISS. Ap. J. L. 970, L2. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa. Chaturvedi et al.,

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa

  6. [15]

    https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202244056

    TOI-1468: A system of two transiting planets, a super-Earth and a mini-Neptune, on opposite sides of the radius valley. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202244056. Christiansen, J., et al.,

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244056

  7. [19]

    Mallorquín et al.,

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.023. Mallorquín et al.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.023 2016

  8. [20]

    Batygin, K., Morbidelli, A., Brown, M., Nesvorný, D.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abee1f . Batygin, K., Morbidelli, A., Brown, M., Nesvorný, D.,

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abee1f

Show all 47 references
  1. [28]

    Characterisation of TOI-406 as a showcase of the THIRSTEE program A two-planet system straddling the M-dwarf density gap. A. A. 692, A238. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452244. Leleu et al.,

    doi

  2. [29]

    Six transiting planets and a chain of Laplace resonances in TOI-178. A. A. 649, A26. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039767. Leleu et al., 2023a. Resonant sub-Neptunes are puffier. A. A. 687, L1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450587. Leleu et al., 2023b. Removing b...

    doi

  3. [30]

    Mahajan, Eastman and Kirk,

    https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1. Mahajan, Eastman and Kirk,

    doi

  4. [31]

    Using JWST Transits and Occultations to Determine ∼1% Stellar Radii and Temperatures of Low-mass Stars. Astroph. J. L. 963, L37. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad29f3. Mallama, A., Krobusek, B., Pavlov, H., 2016, Comprehensive wide-band magnitudes and albedos for the planet...

    2016 doi

  5. [33]

    TOI-1801 b: A temperate mini-Neptune around a young M0.5 dwarf. A. A. 680, A76. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004- 6361/202347346. Millholland, S., Petigura, E., Batygin, K.,

    doi

  6. [35]

    An inner eccentric sub-Neptune and an outer sub-Neptune-mass candidate around BD+00 444 (TOI-2443)

    The GAPS programme at TNG LXIV. An inner eccentric sub-Neptune and an outer sub-Neptune-mass candidate around BD+00 444 (TOI-2443). A. A. 693, A7. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451859. NASA Exoplanet Archive. https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/. D. G. Russell et ...

    doi

  7. [38]

    HD 191939 revisited: New and refined planet mass determinations, and a new planet in the habitable zone. A. A. 669, A40. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202244120. Otegi, J., Bouchy, F., Helled, R.,

    doi

  8. [39]

    Orell-Miquel et al.,

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/abfb6f. Orell-Miquel et al.,

    doi

  9. [40]

    https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936482

    Revisited Mass-Radius Relations for Exoplanets Below 120 M⊕. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936482. Parc, L., Bouchy, F., Venturini, J., Dorn, C., Helled, R.,

    doi

  10. [41]

    https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449911

    From super-Earths to sub-Neptunes: Observational Constraints and Connections to Theoretical Models. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449911. Peterson et al.,

    doi

  11. [44]

    https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816540068

    Solar System Formation in the Context of Extra-Solar Planets. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816540068. Russell, D.,

    doi

  12. [45]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06214

    A Catalog of Exoplanets with Equilibrium Temperature ≤ 600 °K. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06214. Schlaufman, K.,

    doi arXiv

  13. [48]

    Goffo et al.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac8553. Goffo et al.,

    doi

  14. [49]

    https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127

    Mass–Radius Relation for Rocky Planets Based on Prem. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127. Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S., Sasselov, D., Wordsworth, R.,

    doi

  15. [50]

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812905116

    Growth Model Interpretation of Planet Size Distribution. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812905116. Zingales et al.,

    doi

  16. [51]

    A joint effort to discover and characterize two resonant mini-Neptunes around TOI-1803 with TESS, HARPS-N, and CHEOPS. A. A. 695, A273. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451180

    doi

  17. [61]

    Raymond S., Izidoro, A., Morbidelli, A.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad2201. Raymond S., Izidoro, A., Morbidelli, A.,

    doi

  18. [79]

    Delraz et al.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a3b. Delraz et al.,

    doi

  19. [102]

    Brown, M.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac32ddhttps://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac32dd. Brown, M.,

    doi

  20. [114]

    Zeng, L., Sasselov, D., Jacobsen, S.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abc87a. Zeng, L., Sasselov, D., Jacobsen, S.,

    doi

  21. [133]

    Hasegawa, Y.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab32e3. Hasegawa, Y.,

    doi

  22. [146]

    Cadieux et al.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ad24e9. Cadieux et al.,

    doi

  23. [172]

    Greklek-McKeon et al.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac7807. Greklek-McKeon et al.,

    doi

  24. [216]

    Benneke et al.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac5c56. Benneke et al.,

    doi

  25. [219]

    Brown, M., Batygin, K.,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac2056. Brown, M., Batygin, K.,

    doi

  26. [388]

    JWST / NIRISS, JWST Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph

    https://doi.org/10.1086/381724. JWST / NIRISS, JWST Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph. https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-imager-and-slitless- spectrograph#gsc.tab=0. Keck / NIRC2 - Narrow Camera, NIRC2 General Specifications. https://www2.keck.hawaii....

    doi

  27. [701]

    Pollack, J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J., Podolak, M., Greenzweig, Y.,

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05934-8. Pollack, J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J., Podolak, M., Greenzweig, Y.,

    doi

  28. [775]

    Diamond-Lowe et al.,

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.14491. Diamond-Lowe et al.,

    doi arXiv

  29. [989]

    Alessi, M., Inglis, J., Pudritz, R., 2020, Formation of Planetary Populations – III

    https://doi.org/10.1086/672273. Alessi, M., Inglis, J., Pudritz, R., 2020, Formation of Planetary Populations – III. Core Composition and Atmospheric Evaporation. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2087. ALMA (Band 10), ALMA Basics. https://almascience.eso.org/about-alma/alma-b...

    2020 doi

  30. [1996]

    https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    Formation of the Giant Planets by Concurrent Accretion of Solids and Gas. https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996.0190. Porter, M., Gerdes, D., Napier, K., Lin, H., Adams, F.,

    1996

  31. [2014]

    An extremely low-density super-Earth mass planet around Kepler-87

    An independent planet search in the Kepler dataset II. An extremely low-density super-Earth mass planet around Kepler-87. A. A. 561, A103. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220935. Oldroyd , W., Trujillo, C.,

    doi

  32. [2016]

    Astrophys

    Super-Earths as Failed Cores in Orbital Migration Traps. Astrophys. J., http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/83. Hubble / ACS - WFC. https://hst-docs.stsci.edu/acsihb/chapter-5-imaging/5-3-wide-field-optical-ccd-imaging. Stark, D., et al., 2024, ACS Instrument Handbook. V...

    doi

  33. [2018]

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538- 4357/aa961c

    Evidence of an Upper Bound on the Masses of Planets and Its Implications for Giant Planet Formation. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538- 4357/aa961c. Van Eylen et al.,

    doi

  34. [2019]

    Water Vapor and Clouds on the Habitable-zone Sub-Neptune Exoplanet K2-18b. Ap. J. L. 887, L14. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041- 8213/ab59dc. Bonfanti et al.,

    doi

  35. [2022]

    HD 23472: a multi-planetary system with three super-Earths and two potential super-Mercuries. A. A. 655, A154. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202244293. Batygin, K., Adams, F., Brown, M., Becker, J.,

    doi

  36. [2023]

    CaltechDATA

    Planet Nine reference population, Version 3.0 (Version 3, including ZTF, DES, and PS1 results) [Data set]. CaltechDATA. https://doi.org/10.22002/8fjad-x7y61. Brown, M., Holman, M., Batygin, K.,

    doi

  37. [2024]

    submitted to astro-ph.EP

    Planet Formation Theory: An Overview. submitted to astro-ph.EP. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.11064. Barros et al.,

    doi arXiv

  38. [2025]

    submitted to Astro- ph.EP, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03299

    The NASA Exoplanet Archive and Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program: Data, Tools, and Usage. submitted to Astro- ph.EP, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03299. D. G. Russell et al. 9 Clement, M., Sheppard, S.,

    doi arXiv

  39. [2154]

    Yoffe, Ofir and Aharonson,

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2143. Yoffe, Ofir and Aharonson,

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.