Unexpected gap creating two peaks in the periods of planets of metal-rich sunlike single stars

Stuart F. Taylor

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Unexpected gap creating two peaks in the periods of planets of metal-rich sunlike single stars

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The period distribution of planets around metal-rich, Sun-like, single stars is bimodal: two peaks separated by a sharp, almost empty gap from 653 to 924 days.

desk verdict A genuinely new empirical claim about a bimodal period distribution in metal-rich sunlike single stars, but the significance analysis is too post-hoc and the detection-bias argument is not modeled; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01679 v1 pith:E7EA2GED submitted 2019-08-01 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Stuart F. Taylor This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

keywords exoplanetsplanetperioddistributionplanet-metallicitycorrelationradialvelocityformationbimodalSun-likestars

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 reports that the long-known 'pileup' of exoplanet orbital periods at roughly one year and beyond is not a single smooth bump for a major population of planets. For planets orbiting single stars with roughly solar surface gravity and metallicity at least solar, the pileup splits into two peaks separated by a gap from 493.7 to 923.8 days, with zero such planets found between 653.2 and 923.8 days. The author argues that the gap is neither a random fluctuation nor an observational artifact: Monte Carlo simulations put the chance of a gap of this size appearing at random below 1 in 10,000, and the same period range is densely populated among planets of lower-metallicity stars, binary stars, and evolved stars. The structure is sharpest for near-Jupiter-mass planets in single-planet systems, suggesting the feature belongs to a specific planet population. If correct, the discovery implies that planet formation and migration are more regular and uniform than the current stochastic picture assumes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the period distribution of the 'rSLSS' population: planets orbiting single stars with solar-like surface gravity (log g ≥ 4), effective temperature 4500–6500 K, and metallicity [Fe/H] ≥ 0. The paper bins the log periods of 113 such objects and defines a natural unit, the gap-width (0.272 in log period, 493.7–923.8 days), to compare densities across regions. Within this unit, the mean ROI density is 18.1 objects per gap-width; the gap contains only six objects (0.33 of mean), while the quarter-gap-width bins adjacent to the gap hold 10 and 13 objects respectively (2.2 and 2.9 times the mean). The unlikelihood argument runs on two independent tests: Monte Carlo simulations of random distributions over two bracketing ranges (one log-period wide and three-gap-width wide) yield deep-gap frequencies of roughly 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 9,000, full-gap frequencies of about 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 4,500, and both-together frequencies of 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 85,000; and a Bernoulli-style calculation shows a consecutive run of 33 non-rSLSS objects in the deep-gap region has probability about 1.1 × $10^{-4}$.

What would settle it

Track the detection completeness of the RV surveys as a function of period for rSLSS stars: if a period-dependent completeness model predicts a dip as deep as observed in exactly 653–924 days, or a blind RV survey with longer than five-year baselines finds a statistically significant number of such planets in that window, the claim of a physical gap is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 113 radial-velocity planets around 'rSLSS' stars—single stars with surface gravity log g ≥ 4, effective temperature 4500–6500 K, and metallicity [Fe/H] ≥ 0—the author finds that the period distribution in the 100–5000 day range consists of two distinct peaks, not one. The short-period peak (SPP) and long-period peak (LPP) are separated by a shallow gap from 493.7 to 923.8 days containing only six objects, and by a completely empty deep gap from 653.22 to 923.8 days. Density per log period in the bins immediately adjacent to the gap is 2–3 times the mean ROI density, while the gap sits at 0.33 of that mean. The gap survives in multiple-planet systems but is most prominent among single-planet systems with masses 0.3–9 Jupiter masses; applying that mass cut removes the last two gap objects. The author quantifies unlikelihood in two ways: Monte Carlo draws of random period distributions with the same counts produce comparable deep gaps with frequency below $10^{-4}$, and the probability that 33 consecutive objects in the deep-gap region all fall outside the rSLSS selection is about 1.1 × $10^{-4}$. Because the comparison populations (metal-poor sunlike, binary, and low-surface-gravity-hosted planets) have their own pileup across exactly that period range, the paper concludes the gap is a physical feature, not a selection effect.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that radial-velocity surveys would detect planets in the 653–924 day period range around metal-rich, Sun-like, single stars as readily as around the comparison stars, so the empty gap reflects a real scarcity rather than a period-dependent selection effect tied to the very stellar properties used to define the subset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The period distribution of giant planets is not smooth: a population comprising nearly 40% of planets past 200 days shows preferred period bands and a nearly forbidden band between roughly 653 and 924 days.
Standard stochastic planet-formation models need a mechanism that suppresses or relocates planets in this window for metal-rich single stars, since random assembly would not preserve such a sharp gap.
New planet surveys that measure host-star metallicity, surface gravity, and binarity can test the claim directly; even period-only surveys should show a notch in the all-planet histogram where the gap sits.
The sharp edge of the gap at 923.8 days is a clock-like feature: its abruptness constrains migration timescales and disk properties regardless of the exact formation mechanism.
For binary-hosted planets of similar metallicity, the gap is partially filled, so stellar companions serve as a control population that can help isolate the mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

A full detection-completeness model of the underlying RV surveys, treating period, stellar metallicity, and binarity as covariates, could either confirm or weaken the physical-gap conclusion, which this paper reaches by comparing group counts rather than by modeling detectability.
If the gap is set by a condensation front or resonance, its location should scale with stellar mass or disk temperature; observations of lower-mass stars could test whether the gap shifts in period.
A natural next check is whether eccentricity differs across the gap; the author's earlier eccentricity–metallicity correlation suggests that the two peaks may belong to dynamically distinct populations.
The persistence of the gap in multi-planet systems could be sharpened by testing whether its boundaries correlate with the presence of outer companions, which would point to dynamical sculpting rather than formation alone.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing to know: this paper reports a genuinely new empirical pattern — a gap splitting the period pileup of planets around metal-rich, sunlike, single stars (rSLSS) into two peaks — and it would be a useful constraint on giant-planet formation if it holds. The other thing to know: the statistical support is weaker than the paper claims, and the main hole is the unmodeled RV selection function.

What is actually new: the specific bimodal structure in this population. The paper uses a public RV catalog, defines the rSLSS subset, and shows that the gap around 500–900 days is present in data from both major observing groups. That cross-group check is a good instinct. It also shows the gap is not present in the same period range for low-surface-gravity stars or metal-poor sunlike stars, which is a fair way to argue against a simple period-dependent selection effect.

Where it gets soft: the gap boundaries and the metallicity cut are chosen after looking at the data, so the Monte Carlo tests that count how often a gap "anywhere" appears are not fully post-hoc — the paper does allow the gap to move — but the null is a uniform random distribution. A uniform null is not realistic for a period distribution that has a broad physical pileup; testing against a smooth, single-peaked null would be more convincing, and would probably weaken the claimed 10^-4 to 10^-5 numbers. The deeper issue is in §5.2.1: the binomial probability of 33 consecutive non-rSLSS objects assumes each object in the gap region has the global 113/313 chance of being rSLSS. That is exactly the assumption that detection efficiency is period-independent and identical for the rSLSS and comparison populations. RV sensitivity depends on period, eccentricity, and stellar properties, and the rSLSS subset is defined by the very stellar properties that correlate with target selection. So the gap could be deepened by a period-dependent bias confined to this subset. The cross-group comparison helps, but it doesn't model detectability.

There are also minor issues: the "no low msini" and "no high msini" cuts are applied after seeing that the two remaining gap objects are at the extremes, which is a mild post-hoc selection, and the paper acknowledges some of this.

Net: the empirical pattern is plausibly real and worth taking seriously, but the significance analysis is not robust enough to carry the strong conclusions. This paper deserves a serious referee — I would send it out, with the expectation of major revision. It is a good candidate for a reading group on selection effects and post-hoc inference, though I probably wouldn't cite it in my own work in the near term.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes radial-velocity planets from exoplanets.org and defines a subset of 113 'rSLSS' planets hosted by metal-rich, sun-like (log g >= 4), single stars with 4500 < Teff < 6500 K. Within a 100-5000 day region of interest it finds a bimodal pileup in the period distribution separated by a shallow gap at 493.7-923.8 days and a completely empty deep gap at 653.2-923.8 days. It argues via Monte Carlo spacing tests, a binomial run statistic, and a comparison of observing groups that this structure is neither random nor produced by observational effects, and that the gap is strongest for single-planet, roughly Jupiter-mass systems. The authors interpret the feature as evidence that planet formation is more uniform than previously assumed.

Significance. If the gap is physical, the claim is significant: it would be a sharp, large-population feature in the giant-planet period distribution, with strong implications for migration and formation models. The paper has the merit of using a public catalog, presenting detailed count tables, and attempting several independent arguments against a random or observational origin. However, the analysis does not currently establish the feature: the null model is unrealistic, the selection boundaries are post hoc, and no RV completeness model is included. The central result is therefore plausible but unproven; the paper would need a substantially more rigorous statistical treatment and preferably an independent-sample validation before this claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§2.3, Table 1, §3.1] The gap boundaries (493.7-923.8 d; deep gap 653.2-923.8 d) and the msini cut 0.30 < m sin i < 9.0 MJ are chosen after inspecting the observed distribution: §3.1 explicitly says the cut is 'made possible' by the two in-gap objects lying at the extremes of msini. The significance calculations do not include a multiplicity correction for the number of possible gap locations, gap widths, and selection cuts that could have been tried. Consequently the p-values in Table 3 and the strengthened tail-to-peak ratios for the rlJ subset cannot be quoted as false-alarm probabilities for the discovery. The authors should either pre-specify the cuts, or evaluate the null distribution of the full search procedure (allowing gap position, width, and msini bounds to vary), or validate the feature on an independent later sample.
[§5.1, Table 3] The Monte Carlo null draws N points uniformly in log period over a chosen ROI. This is not a realistic null for a period distribution that already contains a broad pileup at hundreds of days (Figure 1). A central gap will appear artificially unlikely when compared to a uniform distribution, because the uniform null does not reproduce the high-density wings that bracket the gap. The authors should generate nulls from a smooth single-peaked model fitted to the comparison populations or to the combined all-planet distribution, and should run the same gap-finding algorithm (including a search over positions and widths) on those nulls. In addition, the algorithm described in §5.1.2 (largest empty spacing) does not by itself produce the 'Full Gap' or 'Both-Together' entries in Table 3, so those calculations are not reproducible from the text.
[§5.2.1] The binomial calculation treats the 33 objects in the deep gap as independent draws with probability 113/313 of being rSLSS. This assumes that the rSLSS fraction is constant across the ROI, i.e., that RV detectability is independent of period and identical for rSLSS and comparison stars. That is precisely the assumption at issue. The rSLSS subset is defined by log g, [Fe/H], and Teff, which enter RV target selection, and planet eccentricity (which affects detection probability) also correlates with these stellar properties. Section 2.6 shows only that several observing groups found planets on both sides of the gap; it does not model detection probability versus period, eccentricity, or stellar parameters. Without a completeness model or a matched control sample, a period-dependent detection bias confined to this subset cannot be excluded, and the empty deep gap could be an artifact.
[§3.1, §3.2] The rlJ selection is constructed by choosing msini bounds that exclude the two objects remaining in the gap. The subsequent statement that the gap becomes 'even more distinct' in this selection is therefore guaranteed by construction and is not independent evidence. The abstract's claim that the feature is characteristic of planets with masses near Jupiter's rests on this circular step. The mass cut should be defined before inspecting the gap, or the rlJ test should be applied to an independent data set.

minor comments (6)

[§2.2 vs Table 1 caption] The data download date is given as 2017 January 31 in §2.2 but as 2016 January 31 in the Table 1 caption; this should be reconciled, since it affects reproducibility.
[Abstract, §2.2] The abstract says 'nearly 40% of planets with periods past 200 days' and the ROI starts at 100 days, while the quoted fraction 113/313 is 36% of the 100-5000 day ROI; please use consistent period boundaries and percentages.
[Figure 6] Figure 6 appears to be never referenced in the text; it should be discussed in Section 4 or 5, or removed.
[Section 4] The text says the metallicity dividing line is set at [Fe/H]=0 for simplicity but 'would be better drawn at -0.03'; Table 1 should state explicitly which boundary is used, and the counts should be recomputed for the alternative boundary if it changes the rSLSS membership.
[§5.1.2, Table 3] The Monte Carlo program is not provided; including code, a random seed, and the exact gap-detection statistic is necessary to reproduce the 1-in-10^4 values in Table 3.
[General] There are numerous typos and incomplete placeholders: the abstract begins 'Thepileupofplanets', §2.6 has 'detemined', §2.1 has 'of of', and the citation block contains duplicated 'How cite this article' lines and a placeholder journal abbreviation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's gap claim is an empirical finding with post-hoc significance tests, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical description of a period gap in rSLSS planets, supported by Monte Carlo and binomial significance calculations. The Monte Carlo tests use the observed gap width and emptiness as the test statistic; this is a posteriori hypothesis test, not a derivation of the feature from an input that already contains it. The binomial calculation in Section 5.2.1 uses the global fraction 113/313 as a null probability; this null is contestable because period-dependent RV detectability could make it invalid, but the paper is explicitly testing a null assumption rather than renaming a fitted parameter as a prediction. The paper itself notes in Section 5.1.2 that the narrower 'three-gap-width' range 'might be argued... presupposes the existence of the gap'; this is an honest caveat about post-hoc testing, not a self-definitional reduction. The self-citations to Taylor (2012, 2013) support background eccentricity correlations and the motivation for defining rSLSS, but the gap claim does not reduce to those citations. No equation in the paper is identical by construction to its input, and no fitted parameter is being relabeled as a prediction. Therefore, while the statistical analysis may have validity and selection-effect concerns, there is no significant circularity as defined by the review criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the completeness and classification quality of the exoplanets.org RV catalog, the assumption that period-dependent detection biases do not selectively remove rSLSS planets, and the choice of a uniform null for the significance tests. The boundaries of the gap, the metallicity threshold, and the mass cut are selected after inspecting the data and therefore act as free parameters that inflate the apparent significance. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Shallow gap boundaries = 493.7 to 923.8 days
Chosen after inspecting the period histogram to isolate the low-density region; the width (0.272 in log period) is used as the unit for density calculations and Monte Carlo tests.
Deep gap start = 653.22 days
Set at the longest period of the six rSLSS objects in the shallow gap, creating a zero-object region from 653.22 to 923.8 days. This boundary maximizes the empty interval.
Metallicity threshold = [Fe/H] = 0 (with -0.03 noted as better)
Divides metal-rich (rSLSS) from metal-poor (pSLSS) planets. The exact threshold shifts the sample and the gap contrast (Section 2.2, Figure 3).
msini cut for rlJ selection = 0.3 to 9.0 MJ
Chosen to exclude the two remaining gap objects at mass extremes, which sharpens the two peaks (Section 3.1, Table 1).
Teff range = 4500 to 6500 K
Standard sunlike cut; removes two objects that would otherwise strengthen the two peaks (Section 2.2).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The exoplanets.org RV catalog as downloaded on 2017 Jan 31 is a complete enough sample of RV-discovered planets with periods up to 5000 days for period-distribution comparisons.
The analysis assumes the catalog's selection function does not strongly distort the period distribution for the defined subsets. Invoked in Section 2.2.
domain assumption Detection efficiency for RV planets is period-independent (or at least does not differ between rSLSS and the comparison populations) across 100-5000 days.
The argument that the gap is not observational (Section 5.2) requires that no period-dependent detection bias selectively removes rSLSS objects. This is argued qualitatively, not modeled.
domain assumption The log g and [Fe/H] classifications are accurate enough that binning at log g=4 and [Fe/H]=0 separates physically distinct populations.
All inferences depend on the star classification; measurement errors in log g near 4 or [Fe/H] near 0 could scatter objects across the selection boundary (Section 2.2).
ad hoc to paper The Monte Carlo uniform-spacing test is an appropriate null model for evaluating the gap significance.
The null distribution used for the 'unlikelihood' calculations is uniform over the chosen range (Section 5.1.2), which is not the actual observed single-peaked pileup; this choice tends to make gaps look less likely than under a realistic pileup null.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unexpected gap creating two peaks in the periods of planets of metal-rich sunlike single stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7EA2GED

@misc{pith2026190801679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unexpected gap creating two peaks in the periods of planets of metal-rich sunlike single stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7EA2GED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01679}
}

read the original abstract

The pileup of planets at periods of roughly one year and beyond is actually a bimodal peak with a wide, sharp gap splitting the peak of the pileup in a major population of large planets. Consisting of nearly 40\% of planets with periods past 200 days, the periods of the planets of metal-rich stars like the sun in surface gravity which do not have a stellar companion show two strong peaks separated by a sparsely populated region. Monte Carlo tests show that this structure is unlikely to occur in random distributions, and a comparison with objects from all the other populations show that this feature is unlikely to be due to observational effects. The peaks have their highest density next to the gap. These two peaks are most strongly seen in single-planet systems, though the gap persists in multiple planet systems. These features are likely characteristic of planets with masses not too much lower than Jupiter, and perhaps not too much higher. The presence of well-defined features in the period distribution show that planet formation may be much more uniform than previously expected.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

, Huang , J

and18 APACrefauthors Andrews , S M. , Huang , J. , P \'e rez , L M. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2018 Dec , 869 2 L41 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 APACrefDOI

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018
[2]

\ Marcy , G W

mar96 APACrefauthors Butler , R P. \ Marcy , G W. APACrefauthors \ 1996 06 , 464 L153 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/310102 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1086/310102 1996
[3]

On the formation of our solar system and many other protoplanetary systems observed by ALMA and SPHERE

chr19 APACrefauthors Christodoulou , D M. \ Kazanas , D. APACrefauthors \ 2019 Jan , arXiv e-prints arXiv:1901.02593

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[4]

\ Murray-Clay , R A

daw13 APACrefauthors Dawson , R I. \ Murray-Clay , R A. APACrefauthors \ 2013 04 , 767 L24 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/l24 2013
[5]

\ Valenti , J

Fis05 APACrefauthors Fischer , D A. \ Valenti , J. APACrefauthors \ 2005 04 , 622 1102-1117 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/428383 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1086/428383 2005
[6]

APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , MNRAS 285 403-412

gon97 APACrefauthors Gonzalez , G. APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , MNRAS 285 403-412 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/285.2.403 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1093/mnras/285.2.403 1997
[7]

, Wang , S X

han14 APACrefauthors Han , E. , Wang , S X. , Wright , J T. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2014 09 , 126 827 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/678447 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1086/678447 2014
[8]

, Andrews , S M

hua18 APACrefauthors Huang , J. , Andrews , S M. , Dullemond , C P. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2018 Dec , 869 2 L42 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740 APACrefDOI

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740 2018

Show all 33 references

[9]

\ Queloz , D

may95 APACrefauthors Mayor , M. \ Queloz , D. APACrefauthors \ 1995 11 , 378 355-359 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1038/378355a0 APACrefDOI

1995 doi
[10]

, Israelian , G

sant03 APACrefauthors Santos , N C. , Israelian , G. , Mayor , M. , Rebolo , R. \ Udry , S. APACrefauthors \ 2003 01 , 398 363-376 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021637 APACrefDOI

2003 doi
[11]

, Gehrels , N

spe15 APACrefauthors Spergel , D. , Gehrels , N. , Baltay , C. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2015 Mar , arXiv e-prints arXiv:1503.03757

2015 arXiv
[12]

APACrefauthors \ 2012 11 , ArXiv e-prints

tay12b APACrefauthors Taylor , S F. APACrefauthors \ 2012 11 , ArXiv e-prints

2012
[13]

APACrefauthors \ 2013 05 , ArXiv e-prints

tay13b APACrefauthors Taylor , S F. APACrefauthors \ 2013 05 , ArXiv e-prints

2013
[14]

\ Santos , N C

udr03 APACrefauthors Udry , S. \ Santos , N C. APACrefauthors \ 2007 09 , 45 397-439 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110529 APACrefDOI

2007 arXiv
[15]

, Huang , J

and18 APACrefauthors Andrews , S M. , Huang , J. , P \'e rez , L M. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2018 Dec , 869 2 L41

2018
[16]

\ Marcy , G W

mar96 APACrefauthors Butler , R P. \ Marcy , G W. APACrefauthors \ 1996 06 , 464 L153

1996
[17]

\ Kazanas , D

chr19 APACrefauthors Christodoulou , D M. \ Kazanas , D. APACrefauthors \ 2019 Jan , arXiv e-prints

2019
[18]

\ Murray-Clay , R A

daw13 APACrefauthors Dawson , R I. \ Murray-Clay , R A. APACrefauthors \ 2013 04 , 767 L24

2013
[19]

\ Valenti , J

Fis05 APACrefauthors Fischer , D A. \ Valenti , J. APACrefauthors \ 2005 04 , 622 1102-1117

2005
[20]

APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , MNRAS 285 403-412

gon97 APACrefauthors Gonzalez , G. APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , MNRAS 285 403-412

1997
[21]

, Wang , S X

han14 APACrefauthors Han , E. , Wang , S X. , Wright , J T. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2014 09 , 126 827

2014
[22]

, Andrews , S M

hua18 APACrefauthors Huang , J. , Andrews , S M. , Dullemond , C P. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2018 Dec , 869 2 L42

2018
[23]

\ Queloz , D

may95 APACrefauthors Mayor , M. \ Queloz , D. APACrefauthors \ 1995 11 , 378 355-359

1995
[24]

, Israelian , G

sant03 APACrefauthors Santos , N C. , Israelian , G. , Mayor , M. , Rebolo , R. \ Udry , S. APACrefauthors \ 2003 01 , 398 363-376

2003
[25]

\ Santos , N C

udr03 APACrefauthors Udry , S. \ Santos , N C. APACrefauthors \ 2007 09 , 45 397-439

2007
[26]

, Sutterlin, P

Bettonvil2003 APACrefauthors Bettonvil, F C. , Sutterlin, P. , Hammerschlag, R H. , Rutten, R J. \ Stix, M. APACrefauthors \ 2003 , Proc. SPIE Conf. Ser. Proc. SPIE Conf. Ser. \ 4853, 306

2003
[27]

, van Breugel, W

Bland2001 APACrefauthors Bland-Hawthorn, J. , van Breugel, W. \ Gillingham, P R. APACrefauthors \ 2001 , ApJ 563 611

2001
[28]

\ Gillingham, R H

Kosugi2007 APACrefauthors Kosugi, T. \ Gillingham, R H. APACrefauthors \ 2007 , Sol. Phys. 243 3

2007
[29]

, Matsuzaki, K

Kosugi2009 APACrefauthors Kosugi, T. , Matsuzaki, K. , Sakao, R. , Bettonvil, F C. , Sutterlin, P. \ Hammerschlag, R H. APACrefauthors \ 2009 , Sol. Phys. 243 3

2009
[30]

, Cohen, A L

Paivio1975 APACrefauthors Power, J D. , Cohen, A L. , Nelson, S M. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 1975 , Cognition 37 2 635

1975
[31]

APACrefauthors \ 2007 , The Physics of Chromospheric Plasmas The Physics of Chromospheric Plasmas

Rutten2007 APACrefauthors Rutten, R J. APACrefauthors \ 2007 , The Physics of Chromospheric Plasmas The Physics of Chromospheric Plasmas . P. Heinzel, I. Dorotovic \ R J. Rutten\ ( ), ASP Conf. Ser. ASP Conf. Ser. \ 368, 27

2007
[32]

APACrefauthors \ 2004 , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library Astronomy and Astrophysics Library \ ( 2 \ )

Stix2004 APACrefauthors Stix, M. APACrefauthors \ 2004 , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library Astronomy and Astrophysics Library \ ( 2 \ ). Berlin Springer

2004
[33]

Strunk1979 APACrefauthors Strunk Jr. , W. \ White, E B. APACrefauthors \ 1979 , The Elements of Style The Elements of Style \ ( 3 \ ). New York MacMillan

1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, Huang , J

and18 APACrefauthors Andrews , S M. , Huang , J. , P \'e rez , L M. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2018 Dec , 869 2 L41 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 APACrefDOI

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

[2] [2]

\ Marcy , G W

mar96 APACrefauthors Butler , R P. \ Marcy , G W. APACrefauthors \ 1996 06 , 464 L153 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/310102 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1086/310102 1996

[3] [3]

On the formation of our solar system and many other protoplanetary systems observed by ALMA and SPHERE

chr19 APACrefauthors Christodoulou , D M. \ Kazanas , D. APACrefauthors \ 2019 Jan , arXiv e-prints arXiv:1901.02593

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

\ Murray-Clay , R A

daw13 APACrefauthors Dawson , R I. \ Murray-Clay , R A. APACrefauthors \ 2013 04 , 767 L24 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24 APACrefDOI

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

[5] [5]

\ Valenti , J

Fis05 APACrefauthors Fischer , D A. \ Valenti , J. APACrefauthors \ 2005 04 , 622 1102-1117 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/428383 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1086/428383 2005

[6] [6]

APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , MNRAS 285 403-412

gon97 APACrefauthors Gonzalez , G. APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , MNRAS 285 403-412 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/285.2.403 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1093/mnras/285.2.403 1997

[7] [7]

, Wang , S X

han14 APACrefauthors Han , E. , Wang , S X. , Wright , J T. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2014 09 , 126 827 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/678447 APACrefDOI

doi:10.1086/678447 2014

[8] [8]

, Andrews , S M

hua18 APACrefauthors Huang , J. , Andrews , S M. , Dullemond , C P. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2018 Dec , 869 2 L42 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740 APACrefDOI

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740 2018