Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Effect of Galactic Chemical Evolution on Exoplanet Properties

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper predicts that planets become denser as the galaxy ages because iron arrives late, from low-mass stars.

desk verdict A useful first-generation coupling of galactic chemical evolution to rocky planet interiors, with a plausible qualitative trend and a quantitative signal that is not yet robust to the paper's own key inputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10942 v1 pith:HUPF6IUP submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Jason H. Steffen (UNLV) , Cody Shakespeare (UNLV) , Robert Royer (UNLV) , David Rice (Open University of Israel) , Allona Vazan (Open University of Israel) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords galacticchemicalevolutionexoplanetinteriorstructurecoremassfractionplanetdensitynucleosynthesistimescalesprotoplanetarydiskcondensationstellarage
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 argues that the Milky Way's chemical enrichment history imprints itself on rocky exoplanets: planets that form early, when only massive stars have contributed, are built from mantle-rich material with small iron cores, while planets that form later incorporate iron and nickel from low-mass stars and end up denser. The authors couple a two-channel model of galactic chemical evolution—fast enrichment from high-mass stars and delayed enrichment from low-mass stars—through a dust-condensation model to an interior-structure solver. Over the galaxy's history, the predicted core mass fraction of a rocky planet grows from roughly 0.13-0.14 at 1 Gyr to about 0.30 by 6 Gyr and then plateaus, making stellar age a measurable predictor of planet composition and density. If right, it explains the observed tendency for young planets to be denser and turns well-characterized exoplanets into probes of galactic history.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a two-timescale decomposition of nucleosynthesis: high-mass stars of 12 solar masses enrich the galaxy instantly, while low-mass stars of 2 solar masses contribute only after a fixed 2 Gyr delay, with each element assigned a fast/slow fraction (iron about 68% slow, oxygen 100% fast, magnesium and silicon mostly fast). This composition history feeds a dust-condensation calculation that turns galactic abundances into condensed rocky solids in a protoplanetary disk, and those solids are passed to a two-layer, differentiated interior-structure solver that predicts planet mass, radius, and core mass fraction. The changing balance of fast and slow material is what drives the secular growth of core mass fraction and density.

What would settle it

Find a sample of volatile-free rocky exoplanets with masses, radii, and asteroseismic stellar ages; the model predicts that planets younger than about 2 Gyr should have core mass fractions roughly 0.15-0.20 higher than planets older than 8 Gyr, so observing no systematic density-age difference, or the opposite, across such a sample would cast the central claim in doubt.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that planets become more dense as the galaxy evolves because iron and other siderophile elements are mostly produced by low-mass stars and arrive on a delayed timescale, while oxygen, silicon, and magnesium come promptly from massive stars. Early rocky planets therefore have larger mantles and smaller cores; later planets have relatively larger iron cores and higher bulk density. The paper predicts core mass fractions rising from about 0.13-0.14 at 1 Gyr to about 0.30 by 6 Gyr, with little change afterward, and radius decreases of 1-2% over the same interval. The model also reproduces the direction of the observed density-age trend for 26 Kepler planets but yields a shallower age dependence than the published linear fit.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that iron and other core-forming elements are delivered mostly by low-mass stars with a delay of about two billion years, while oxygen, silicon, and magnesium arrive promptly from massive stars; if those delays or element splits are wrong, the core-mass-fraction trend could change or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar age becomes a useful predictor of rocky exoplanet composition: older stars should host planets with smaller iron cores and lower bulk density, with the core mass fraction rising from about 0.13-0.14 at 1 Gyr to about 0.30 at 6 Gyr.
  • Bulk density changes are small but measurable, with planet radii shrinking by roughly 1-2% over the main enrichment window between 2 and 5 Gyr, and the effect is strongest for close-in planets.
  • The predicted trend matches the direction of the observed density-age relation for 26 Kepler planets, though with a shallower slope than the reported linear fit and without requiring a large population of extreme iron-rich super-Mercuries.
  • The framework yields ancillary predictions, such as rising C/O and Fe/Mg ratios with time and declining Mg/Si, which affect mantle mineralogy and the carbon chemistry of rocky bodies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same mechanism implies that the distribution of core mass fractions among old-star rocky planets should be both lower and narrower than among young-star planets, a population-level signature that averaged data could test.
  • Because oxygen, silicon, and magnesium are assigned to the fast channel, early planets should carry systematic mantle-mineralogy differences, such as higher Mg/Si, which could alter crust thickness and volcanic activity; the paper does not model those geological consequences.
  • If the assumed two-billion-year delay is inaccurate, the timing of the predicted plateau near 6 Gyr would shift, so measuring the age-density inflection point in a large exoplanet sample would constrain the enrichment timescale of low-mass stars.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper couples a simplified two-channel galactic chemical evolution (GCE) model with a protoplanetary disk condensation code and the MAGRATHEA interior solver to predict how rocky exoplanet compositions and densities depend on the time of planet formation. The GCE model assigns elements to either a prompt 'fast' channel (high-mass stars) or a delayed 'slow' channel (low-mass stars, with a fixed 2 Gyr delay), and normalizes the mixture to solar composition at a formation time of 8 Gyr. The central finding is that early-forming planets have smaller iron cores and lower bulk densities, while planets formed after roughly 6 Gyr have substantially higher core mass fractions (CMF), implying that older host stars should host less dense rocky planets. The model also produces trends in C/O, Fe/Mg, and Mg/Si, and the authors compare the predicted CMF-age relation qualitatively with the 26-planet sample of Weeks et al. (2025).

Significance. If the central prediction survives robustness checks, this framework is a valuable first step in connecting galactic chemical evolution to exoplanet interior properties. The paper's main strength is that the result is not tuned to the target planet-density data: the only external calibration is the solar composition, and the Weeks et al. sample is used for comparison rather than fitting. The prediction that older planets should be less dense is falsifiable with upcoming asteroseismic ages from PLATO, and the framework is clearly described and reproducible from public tools. The primary weakness is that the two load-bearing inputs—the 2 Gyr delay and the element-by-element fast/slow fractions—are never varied, and no uncertainties are propagated through the model. Because the paper explicitly presents itself as a first application, these gaps are fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2), Eq. (4), Table A1] The predicted growth in CMF from roughly 0.14 at 1 Gyr to 0.30 by 6 Gyr (Table A2, 1 AU, 1 M_sun) is controlled by two assumptions: the fixed 2 Gyr delay in Eq. (2) and the element-specific fast/slow fractions in Table A1, especially Fe being 32% fast / 68% slow while Mg is 99% fast. The paper never varies either input or propagates their uncertainties. This matters because Table A3 shows that changing the fast/slow enrichment mixture at a fixed age shifts CMF by up to ~0.16 (e.g., 8 Gyr, 1 AU: CMF 0.238 for fast-enriched versus 0.397 for slow-enriched), which is comparable to the entire nominal age trend of ~0.16. A substantial prompt Fe component or a modestly larger fast fraction of Fe would reduce the early-time Fe deficit and flatten or reverse the predicted age-density relation. I request a sensitivity scan over the delay (e.g., 0.5–5 Gyr) and over the Fe, Mg, Si, and O fast/slow fractions, with the resulting spread shown on the CMF-age curves.
  2. [§4, Figure 5] The claim that the model is 'broadly consistent' with Weeks et al. (2025) rests on a visual overlay of three deterministic model curves on 26 data points. There is no statistical test, no model uncertainty band, and no statement of how the data would scatter if the model were correct. Given the large 1-sigma CMF uncertainties and the limited age range of the sample, the current comparison cannot distinguish the predicted trend from a null or much weaker trend. Please add a quantitative comparison—for example, a likelihood or at least the model spread including the enrichment scenarios—or soften the claim of observational support.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The formula for the main-sequence lifetime is typeset ambiguously; please define M_star in solar masses and write the relation explicitly, e.g., T_star = 10 Gyr (M_star/M_sun)^{-2.5}, so that the exponent is unambiguous.
  2. [Eqs. (6)–(7)] The factor (8/9)(Slow/Total)_C evaluated with Slow/Total = 0.75 is 2/3, so the carbon enhancement factor is 5/3 rather than 3/2; this gives C/O ≈ 0.83, not the claimed 0.75. Please correct the arithmetic or the intended formula.
  3. [§2.2] Typo: 'astonomical' should be 'astronomical'.
  4. [§4 and Figure 5 caption] 'Verses' should be 'versus' in the phrase 'CMF verses the stellar age' and in the figure caption.
  5. [§3] The statement that at 1 Gyr 'Iron levels in the condensed materials are below Silicon and Magnesium' should specify whether the comparison is by number or by mass; later text suggests by mass.
  6. [§4] The sentence beginning 'Another, more subtle trend is the relationship between elements of similar sources' is vague; consider rewriting to state the predicted correlation explicitly, e.g., that high Ca/Al ratios should correlate with high Fe/Mg and C/O ratios.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the age–CMF trend is a forward consequence of externally sourced nucleosynthesis inputs, not a fit to the target planet data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained as a forward model. The galactic chemical evolution input combines an SFR profile (Snaith et al. 2015), a Salpeter IMF, a 2 Gyr low-mass-star lifetime from Eq. 2 anchored to Salaris & Cassisi (2006), and element-specific fast/slow fractions from Johnson (2019), Table A1. These are externally sourced inputs, not parameters fitted to the Weeks et al. (2025) planet sample. The model is normalized to solar abundances at t = 8 Gyr using Lodders (2003), which anchors the absolute scale but does not impose the sign or magnitude of the predicted time trend. The Weeks et al. data are used only for comparison in Figure 5; no constant in the model is tuned to reproduce the observed density or CMF trend. The predicted increase in CMF with time follows from the assumed delayed iron input (Fe mostly slow) versus prompt Mg/Si/O (mostly fast), which is exactly the physical premise being tested rather than an output recycled as an input. Self-citations to Huang et al. (2022), Rice et al. (2025), Shakespeare et al. (2025), and Li et al. (2020) concern software tools and prior model components; the central nucleosynthesis timing assumption comes from independent stellar evolution and GCE literature. The skeptical concern that the 2 Gyr delay and Johnson fast/slow splits are not varied is a robustness or uncertainty issue, not a circularity issue. No equation reduces to its own output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of domain assumptions, chiefly the temporal separation of fast and slow nucleosynthesis sources and the element fractions assigned to each. The model introduces no new physical entities; 'fast/slow material' is an accounting category. The key calibration is the solar normalization of the fast/slow yields, which is a legitimate benchmark fit.

free parameters (2)
  • Fast/slow yield normalization (UF and US scales) = Set so the mixture equals the Sun's composition at t=8 Gyr
    The paper states 'These units are corrected to reproduce the Sun's composition at t=8 Gyr.' This is a calibration to a single external benchmark, not to the target exoplanet data, but it is a free parameter of the model.
  • C/O enrichment factors for fast/slow enriched models = 8/9 and 0.561 multipliers
    These coefficients are chosen so the enriched models reproduce the observed C/O extremes (0.75 and 0.333) at the Sun's formation epoch (Eqs. 6-9). They bracket the model uncertainty but are not used in the nominal prediction.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption The Sun is representative of stellar composition at t=8 Gyr.
    Stated in Section 2: 'we use the Sun and the solar system as a benchmark, with an implicit assumption that the Sun is representative of stellar composition at the time that it formed.'
  • domain assumption The piecewise star formation history approximates the Milky Way's enrichment: high SFR for 4 Gyr, 93% drop for 2 Gyr, 26% recovery until today.
    Section 2.1, following Snaith et al. 2015, Haywood et al. 2016, and Maoz & Graur 2017. The CMF-age trend depends on this SFR shape.
  • domain assumption A Salpeter IMF with two representative masses, 12 Msun (fast) and 2 Msun (slow), captures the enrichment ratio.
    Section 2.1. The slow-to-fast yield ratio is set by the IMF slope and the chosen masses.
  • domain assumption The element-specific fractions produced by fast and slow processes are those from Johnson (2019), listed in Table A1.
    Section 2.2 and Table A1. The core-vs-mantle split over time is controlled by these fractions, especially the iron assignment (32% fast, 68% slow).
  • domain assumption The 2 Gyr delay for slow-process material equals the main-sequence lifetime of a 2 Msun star.
    Section 2.1, Eq. 2. This delay sets the timescale over which the CMF grows.
  • domain assumption All siderophile elements partition into the core; the planet has two fully differentiated layers (core and mantle).
    Section 2.4: 'We assume that all of the siderophile elements will be in the core...' with 13 siderophile elements listed.
  • domain assumption Dust condensation only above 300 K; no volatile ices are included.
    Section 2.3: 'we only consider condensation temperatures above 300K (we form rocks, but not ices).' This excludes water and other volatiles that would change radii.
  • domain assumption The disk evolution parameters are those tuned to the solar system and are used unchanged for 2 Msun stars.
    Section 2.3: 'for the 2 Msun stars we leave the disk parameters unchanged aside from the mass... implying that they are not optimized for higher masses.'
  • domain assumption The observed C/O variation range (0.333-0.75) corresponds to differences in fast/slow enrichment at fixed stellar age.
    Section 2.2: 'we implicitly assume the observed C/O variation of 0.333-0.75 corresponds to stars formed at that time due to heterogeneous exposure to fast and slow materials.'
  • domain assumption Observed short-period planets formed at the modeled radii (0.5-4 AU) and migrated inward.
    Section 4, Figure 5 caption: 'there is an implicit assumption that the observed planets migrated inwards after formation.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Galactic Chemical Evolution on Exoplanet Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HUPF6IUP

@misc{pith2026250710942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Galactic Chemical Evolution on Exoplanet Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HUPF6IUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10942}
}
read the original abstract

We couple a simplified model for the galactic chemical evolution, with software that models the condensation of dust in protoplanetary disks and software that models the interior structure of planets in order to estimate the effects that the galactic chemical evolution has on the properties of planets as they form over time. We find that the early abundance of elements formed from the evolution and death of high-mass stars (such as Oxygen, Silicon, and Magnesium) yields planets with larger mantles and smaller cores. The later addition of elements produced in low-mass stars (such as Iron and Nickel) causes the planet cores to become relatively larger. The result is planets that orbit older stars are less dense than planets orbiting younger stars. These results are broadly consistent with recent observations of planet properties from stars of varying ages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10942 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The percent change in initial cosmochemical abundance for select metals, normalized to Silicon and to the Solar abundances at t = 8 Gyr, for each odd time step. calculate C US =  C⊙ US  1 +  8 9   Slow Total C  , (6) or C US =  C⊙ US  1 +  8 9  (0.75) , (7) which yields C/O=0.75 at the time of the Sun’s forma￾tion, t=8 Gyr. The same calculation applies for all other elements with their own cosmochemica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) The initial percent mass of Z ∗ 0 /X0, iron over total elements, and iron over hydrogen. Z ∗ 0 is the sum of all metals used in our dust condensation program. The exclusion of the other metals results in our Solar Z ∗ 0 /X0 = 1.9% compared with Lodders (2003)’s Z0/X0 = 2.1%. (Right) The initial percent cosmological abundance of select elemental ratios. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Gyr after Galaxy Formation … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The elemental ratio of solid material after chemi￾cal condensation around a 1M⊙ star of varying age. The ele￾mental ratio represents the total sum of those elements over the entire disc. Some areas of the disc can experience signif￾icant differences from the ratios shown. Discs around 2M⊙ stars show small differences that are imperceptible. Upward triangles represent the corresponding fast-material enriched simulati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radius vs mass for planets formed at different times and selected orbital radii. Color indicates the time at which the planet was formed, from 1 to 13 Gyr. The left panel shows three orbital radii around a 1 Solar mass star. The right panel shows the same orbital radii…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The stellar age and CMF (%) of planets from Weeks et al. (2025) with 1σ uncertainties. The CMF (%) is found with MAGRATHEA given the masses and radii in Weeks et al. (2025). The planet’s equilibrium temperature is repre￾sented by the color and the planet’s mass by the …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    G., et al

    Adibekyan, V., Dorn, C., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2021, Science, 374, 330, 10.1126/science.abg8794

    doi:10.1126/science.abg8794 2021

  5. [5]

    2023, , 670, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245106

    Bogdan , T., Pillich , C., Landers , J., Wende , H., & Wurm , G. 2023, , 670, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245106

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245106 2023

  6. [6]

    M., Christiansen , J

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6570 2024

  7. [7]

    C., O'Brien , D

    Bond , J. C., O'Brien , D. P., & Lauretta , D. S. 2010, , 715, 1050, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1050

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1050 2010

  8. [8]

    M., & Fischer , D

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

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

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    L., Polanski , A

    Brinkman , C. L., Polanski , A. S., Huber , D., et al. 2024, , 168, 281, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad82eb

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, , 673, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243882

    Cabral , N., Guilbert-Lepoutre , A., Bitsch , B., Lagarde , N., & Diakite , S. 2023, , 673, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243882

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    1996, , 31, 793, 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1996.tb02114.x

    Cassen , P. 1996, , 31, 793, 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1996.tb02114.x

    1996

  4. [12]

    C., & Steffen , J

    Ferich , N., Childs , A. C., & Steffen , J. H. 2025, , 114, 102315, 10.1016/j.newast.2024.102315

    2025

  5. [13]

    Goldschmidt, V. M. 1937, J. Chem. Soc., 655, 10.1039/JR9370000655

    1937 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Di Matteo , P., et al

    Haywood , M., Lehnert , M. D., Di Matteo , P., et al. 2016, , 589, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527567

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    R., & Steffen , J

    Huang , C., Rice , D. R., & Steffen , J. H. 2022, , 513, 5256, 10.1093/mnras/stac1133

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2012, , 220, 162, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.022

    Jacquet , E., Gounelle , M., & Fromang , S. 2012, , 220, 162, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.022

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Johnson , J. A. 2019, Science, 363, 474, 10.1126/science.aau9540

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    I., & Lugaro , M

    Kobayashi , C., Karakas , A. I., & Lugaro , M. 2020, , 900, 179, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07311, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07311

    Kroupa , P., Gjergo , E., Jerabkova , T., & Yan , Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07311, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07311

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    I., Zhu , Z., & Steffen , J

    Li , M., Huang , S., Petaev , M. I., Zhu , Z., & Steffen , J. H. 2020, , 495, 2543, 10.1093/mnras/staa1149

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2003, , 591, 1220, 10.1086/375492

    Lodders , K. 2003, , 591, 1220, 10.1086/375492

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1399, 10.1038/s41550-024-02347-z

    Luo , H., Dorn , C., & Deng , J. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1399, 10.1038/s41550-024-02347-z

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, , 848, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    Maoz , D., & Graur , O. 2017, , 848, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Sasselov , D., Hernquist , L., & Stewart , S

    Marcus , R. A., Sasselov , D., Hernquist , L., & Stewart , S. T. 2010, , 712, L73, 10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L73

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Johnston, K

    Ness, M. K., Johnston, K. V., Blancato, K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e3c

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Nissen , P. E. 2015, , 579, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Petaev, M. I. 2009, Calphad, 33, 317, 10.1016/j.calphad.2008.12.001

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26, 10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26, 10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Huang , C., Steffen , J

    Rice , D. R., Huang , C., Steffen , J. H., & Vazan , A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.16201, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16201

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    G., Dorn , C., Aditya Raj , V., Schlichting , H

    Rogers , J. G., Dorn , C., Aditya Raj , V., Schlichting , H. E., & Young , E. D. 2025, , 979, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9f61

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    2006, Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations

    Salaris , M., & Cassisi , S. 2006, Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations

    2006

  26. [34]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Li , M., Huang , S., Zhu , Z., & Steffen , J

    Shakespeare , C. J., Li , M., Huang , S., Zhu , Z., & Steffen , J. H. 2025, , 169, 180, 10.3847/1538-3881/adaead

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2015, , 578, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424281

    Snaith , O., Haywood , M., Di Matteo , P., et al. 2015, , 578, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424281

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e20240076, 10.1002/asna.20240076

    Teixeira , J., Adibekyan , V., & Bossini , D. 2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e20240076, 10.1002/asna.20240076

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    2016, , 590, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527848

    Tucci Maia , M., Ram \' rez , I., Mel \'e ndez , J., et al. 2016, , 590, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527848

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, , 10.1093/mnras/staf474

    Weeks , A., Van Eylen , V., Huber , D., et al. 2025, , 10.1093/mnras/staf474

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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