The New Generation Planetary Population Synthesis (NGPPS). VII. Statistical comparison with the HARPS/Coralie survey

Alexandre Emsenhuber; Christoph Mordasini; Erik Asphaug; Lokesh Mishra; Martin Schlecker; Maxime Marmier; Michel Mayor; Remo Burn; St\'ephane Udry; Willy Benz

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 225 references

The New Generation Planetary Population Synthesis (NGPPS). VII. Statistical comparison with the HARPS/Coralie survey

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A planet-formation model not tuned to any survey overproduces detectable planets by ~70% and yields orbits too close and too circular, the paper finds.

desk verdict The first genuinely quantitative benchmark of the Gen III Bern model against HARPS/Coralie, with honest Monte Carlo machinery and a specific discrepancy list; the eccentricity deficit is the softest headline number because it compares against RV fits the paper itself shows are biased. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09762 v1 pith:PXV5PITD submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.EP

Alexandre Emsenhuber , Christoph Mordasini , Michel Mayor , Maxime Marmier , Stéphane Udry , Remo Burn , Martin Schlecker , Lokesh Mishra

show 3 more authors

Yann Alibert Willy Benz Erik Asphaug

This is my paper

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords planetformationpopulationsynthesiscoreaccretionradialvelocitysurveyHARPS/Coralieplanetarymassfunctioneccentricitydistributionmigration

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 asks whether a modern planet-formation simulation can reproduce, as a statistical population, the planets found by the HARPS/Coralie radial-velocity survey. The authors run their nominal Generation III Bern model—not tuned to any particular survey—apply the survey's detection completeness to the synthetic planets, and compare 1000 mock observations with the actual 169 detected planets. The central finding is that the model captures several qualitative features (two planet groups, bimodal mass function, multiplicity near 1.6, some correlations) but fails quantitatively: too many planets, a too-deep desert, too many giants, too-low eccentricities, a too-weak metallicity effect, and planets too close to their stars. The paper then shows that modest parameter changes (larger planetesimals, slightly weaker migration, slower disc-limited gas accretion) nearly fix the mass function, but the orbital distances and dynamical excitation remain wrong, implying missing physical processes rather than simple parameter tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Generation III Bern model: a global population-synthesis code in which protoplanets grow by core accretion from planetesimals, accrete gas, migrate under type I and type II disc migration, and interact dynamically through N-body physics, all starting from observationally motivated disc initial conditions. The comparison mechanism is the survey's mean completeness map—a detection-probability grid in minimum mass and period built by injecting circular-orbit signals into the actual HARPS/Coralie data—applied uniformly to every synthetic planet, with 1000 Monte-Carlo mock observations used to build confidence intervals and run KS tests on mass, period, mass-period,

What would settle it

Recompute the comparison star-by-star: inject each synthetic planet into the actual HARPS/Coralie noise and detection pipeline rather than using the averaged circular-orbit completeness map. If the corrected count drops from 290 toward 169 and the eccentricity distributions agree, the missing-physics conclusion weakens; if the 70% excess and the median-eccentricity gap persist, the conclusion stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, stated on its own terms, is that the nominal generation-III Bern model population, once passed through the HARPS/Coralie detection bias, is statistically inconsistent with the observed sample: it predicts 290 planets where 169 are found (~70% excess), a planetary desert between about 20 and 200 Earth masses that is ~60% too empty, a ~40% relative excess of giant planets, a median eccentricity of 0.07 versus an observed 0.15, a too-weak dependence of planet occurrence on stellar metallicity, and planets systematically closer to their stars. Extending the N-body integration to 100 Myr does not cure the dynamical discrepancies. The authors then construct an adjusted populatio

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the survey's mean completeness map—an average detection probability derived from the same unpublished survey and applied uniformly to all 822 stars and all synthetic planets—accurately represents what HARPS/Coralie would detect, including for eccentric orbits and varied system architectures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The too-deep desert and the over-massive giants both point to the same model element: disc-limited gas accretion rates that are too high in the detached phase.
Because the period-ratio distribution changes little when the N-body integration is extended to 100 Myr, late dynamical instabilities are not what breaks 2:1 resonances in the RV-accessible regime.
Migration strength is tightly constrained: reducing it enough to push planets outward would overproduce giant planets relative to sub-Neptunes.
The optimised population gets total planet count and mass distribution nearly right but leaves distances and eccentricities wrong, so the deficit is in missing processes, not just parameter values.
The metallicity correlation is reproduced in shape but too weak, and the model cannot form enough metal-poor, close-packed sub-Neptune systems of the kind observed.

Reading between the lines

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

A star-by-star completeness calculation that also accounts for eccentricity and per-star noise could shrink or shift the claimed 70% excess and factor-two eccentricity gap; the averaged circular-orbit map smooths over exactly the regions where the model's overabundance might be concentrated.
If wide initial orbits are indeed the missing ingredient, then a synthesis with a larger initial disc radius or with pebble accretion should populate the 300–3000 day giant-planet region without also filling the desert; that is a directly testable prediction.
The model's failure to produce hot Jupiters through disc migration while finding ~20 planets destined to hit the star on eccentric orbits suggests that adding tidal circularisation could close the hot-Jupiter gap without invoking new initial conditions.
The same biasing-the-synthesis approach could be applied to transit surveys, testing whether the missing-physics conclusion is detection-technique-specific or fundamental to the formation model.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline first: this is the first quantitative comparison of the Generation III Bern model against the full HARPS/Coralie sample that actually does the work — 1000 mock observations, KS tests, 95% confidence intervals — and it produces specific, checkable discrepancy numbers instead of "the model looks roughly similar." The nominal NG76 population wasn't tuned to HARPS, so the main comparison is a genuine test, and the paper is properly honest about its own caveats.

What it does well: the headline discrepancy list (70% overproduction, ~60% desert depth, ~40% giant excess, median e 0.07 vs 0.15) is internally consistent with the figures. The optimized NG192 population is explicitly labeled as fitted, not predictive, and its near-miss KS result (1.35 vs a 1.36 rejection threshold) is reported squarely. The parameter study in Appendix B is a genuinely instructive example of how coupled the model parameters are — you can fix the mass function but the orbital distances stay wrong.

The soft spots, in proportion. The biggest is the M11 completeness map: a mean detection probability averaged over the sample stars, ignoring eccentricity and system architecture, and taken from the same unpublished survey that provides the observed sample. Every quantitative percentage inherits uncertainty from that map, and the paper doesn't quantify how sensitive the discrepancy list is to it. Second, the stress-test on eccentricity lands. The paper compares synthetic eccentricities with no observational error against catalog values fitted from noisy RV time series. It cites Zakamska et al.'s finding that proper reanalysis puts 38% of RV planets at e<0.05 versus 17% in standard fits, and it notes Kepler multi-planet systems sit at e≈0.03–0.05 — right at the synthetic value. Yet the factor-of-two deficit is still one of the four headline claims, without an observer-twin re-fit of synthetic signals to show the bias can't explain it. That's the softest number in the paper, and the missing eccentricity-excitation conclusion leans on it. The fixed 1 M⊙ stellar mass versus the sample's 0.91 M⊙ mean is acknowledged and is probably minor.

Who gets value: anyone doing population synthesis, RV demographics, or model-observation comparisons. It's a good template for how to run this kind of benchmark, and the discrepancy list is a useful target list for modelers. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it out, and ask the referee to push on the observer-twin eccentricity test and on sensitivity of the headline percentages to the completeness map. The framework is reproducible and the core result — the nominal model is informative but wrong in specific, tractable ways — will survive that scrutiny.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares synthetic planet populations from the Bern model (NG76 and NG76longshot) against the HARPS/Coralie RV survey of Mayor et al. (2011), updated to 2015. A synthetic detection bias based on the M11 completeness map is applied to the synthetic populations, and 1000 mock observations of 822-star samples are compared to the observed sample via KS tests. The nominal population reproduces several qualitative features: the bimodal mass function, close-in sub-Neptunes versus distant giants, mean multiplicity ~1.6, period-ratio pile-ups, and broad metallicity and eccentricity trends. The headline discrepancies are a ~70% overproduction of detectable planets, a planetary desert too deep by ~60%, a ~40% relative excess of giants, median eccentricity 0.07 versus 0.15, and planets too close to their stars. A tuned population NG192 (2 km planetesimals, reduced migration, modified gas accretion) nearly matches the mass function (KS distance 1.35 vs 1.36) but still fails on orbital distances and has even lower eccentricities. The paper concludes that missing physics, such as wider formation orbits, eccentricity excitation, and slower gas accretion, is needed.

Significance. The nominal population was not tuned to the HARPS/Coralie survey, so this is a valuable, independent stress test of the Bern model. The Monte Carlo mock-observation procedure is clearly described, and the internally consistent discrepancy list provides a concrete benchmark for the community. The tuned-population experiment illustrates parameter degeneracies and correctly identifies that no single parameter change fixes both the mass and period distributions. The main weaknesses are that all quantitative claims inherit the assumptions of a single mean completeness map, and that the eccentricity comparison uses catalog eccentricities that are affected by RV fitting bias, as the paper itself partly notes.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.7.1, Fig. 10; Abstract] The factor-of-two eccentricity deficit is a headline discrepancy, but the comparison is not apples-to-apples. The synthetic eccentricities are noiseless model values, while the HARPS/Coralie eccentricities come from noisy, sparsely sampled RV fits. The paper cites Zakamska et al. (2011), who found that about 38 percent of RV planets have e<0.05 versus 17 percent in standard catalogs. Since the synthetic median is 0.07, an end-to-end test that injects synthetic RV signals and recovers eccentricities with the same pipeline could substantially reduce or even reverse the claimed deficit. This matters because the dynamically cold conclusion is used as evidence for missing eccentricity-excitation physics. Please provide such a test or re-derive the observed eccentricity distribution with an upper-limit-aware method.
[Sec. 2.3, Fig. 3; Sec. 3] All quantitative discrepancy percentages (70 percent overproduction, 60 percent desert depth, 40 percent giant excess, and the eccentricity comparison) are computed under one mean detection-completeness map that, as stated in Sec. 2.3, ignores eccentricity and system architecture and is averaged over stars. The map is also from the same unpublished M11 analysis used as the observed sample. The quantitative claims would be much more robust with a sensitivity analysis, e.g., applying an eccentricity-aware or star-by-star completeness correction and checking how much the percentages change. Without this, the direction and magnitude of some discrepancies could plausibly change.
[Sec. 4, Fig. 13] The claim that NG192 nearly matches the observed mass function is based on a KS distance of 1.35 at the 95 percent level versus a threshold of 1.36. Because NG192's parameters were selected using the HARPS/Coralie mass distribution, this near-threshold value is a fitting residual, not an independent validation. The paper's main conclusion that mass and period cannot be simultaneously matched is still valid, but the near-threshold wording risks overinterpretation. A holdout split or a clear statement that this is a posterior fit would be more appropriate.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. C.1 caption] The caption says the median is indicated by the vertical dashed red line and then refers to the synthetic value also as the vertical dashed red line. This is ambiguous; please clarify which line is which.
[Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'we detect 290+30-28 planets' could be misread as an actual detection. Consider writing 'the mock observations yield...' or 'the biased synthetic sample contains...'.
[Sec. 3.2] The desert-depth metric uses the 20-200 M_earth range chosen from the synthetic cumulative distribution. Since the observed desert may be located elsewhere, please report the sensitivity of the 57-60 percent number to the adopted mass boundaries.
[Sec. 2.3] Given that the quantitative claims rest on the M11 completeness map, please make that map available in machine-readable form, since the M11 survey paper remains unpublished.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mostly independent comparison; one minor in-sample fit is presented as a validation but is transparently labeled an optimization.

fitted input called prediction [Sect. 4, paragraphs 3-5 (Fig. 13 discussion)]
"our goal is find a combination of parameters that best reproduces the total number of planets and their mass distribution (that is, not their location). ... The planetary mass function of the new population better reproduces the observed population overall. ... the KS distance at the 95 % of the random observation is 1.35 compared to a limit value of 1.36, which means that we are just below the rejection threshold"

NG192's parameters (planetesimal radius, migration efficiency, gas-accretion cap) are explicitly chosen to reproduce the HARPS/Coralie planet number and mass function. Reporting that the resulting mass function is close (KS 1.35 vs 1.36) is a goodness-of-fit statement with the same quantity as the fitting objective, so it is in-sample validation rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The paper does not disguise this, and its main nominal-population comparison (NG76) is independent, so the circularity is minor and secondary.

full rationale

The central nominal comparison (Sect. 3) uses NG76/NG76longshot, populations from prior NGPPS papers whose parameters were not adjusted to the HARPS/Coralie sample; the paper explicitly stresses this (Sect. 3.1). The M11 detection map (Sect. 2.3) is an empirical injection-recovery completeness function for the same survey, and applying it to synthetic planets is the standard way to form a mock observation, not a fit of the model to the observed planet properties. The paper's main discrepancy percentages are therefore independent predictions of the model. The only place where a fitted result is used as if it were a validation is the NG192 mass-function comparison (Sect. 4): the population is optimized to match the number and mass distribution, so its KS distance of 1.35 is a fit diagnostic. This does not infect the central claim because the paper uses NG192's remaining period/eccentricity failures to argue for missing physics, and those were not fitting targets. Two limitations are acknowledged in-text but are correctness, not circularity, concerns: the M11 map is an average that ignores eccentricity and system architecture (Sect. 2.3), and RV eccentricities are prone to overestimation (Sect. 3.7.1), so the factor-of-two eccentricity discrepancy may be partly an artifact of comparing noiseless synthetic eccentricities to catalog fitted eccentricities. Footnote 1 also notes M11 is not refereed. These caveats lower confidence in the quantitative percentages but do not make the derivation circular.

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

The nominal comparison relies on the survey completeness map, the synthetic initial conditions, and the model structure. The NG192 optimization adds three fitted parameters. No invented entities are introduced. The main load-bearing assumptions are stated transparently in the text.

free parameters (4)

R_plan, planetesimal radius in NG192 = 2 km (nominal 300 m)
Selected in Sect. 4/Appendix B.1 to reduce giant formation efficiency and re-balance sub-Neptune vs giant numbers against the HARPS/Coralie sample.
Migration efficiency multiplier in NG192 = 7/8 of nominal Type I and II rates
Selected in Sect. 4/Appendix B.2; a modest reduction improves the mass function, while stronger reduction overproduces giants.
Disc-limited gas accretion cap in NG192 = min(Bondi rate, radial gas flow)
Adopted to slow detached-phase gas accretion and better match giant planet masses (Sect. 4).
Detection probability floor in synthetic bias = 1%
Planets with detection probability below 1% are unconditionally treated as undetected (Sect. 2.3); a hand-set cutoff that trims the long-period tail.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The M11 mean detection probability map is a valid per-star completeness function for all 822 HARPS/Coralie stars.
The map is an average over survey stars and ignores per-star noise, eccentricity, and system architecture (Sect. 2.3); all quantitative comparisons in Sects. 3.1-3.7 rest on it.
domain assumption Synthetic initial conditions (disc masses, sizes, lifetimes, dust-to-gas from [Fe/H], M*=1 Msun) are representative of the HARPS sample.
Sample mean stellar mass 0.91 Msun and mean [Fe/H] -0.11 differ from the synthetic assumptions; the authors argue via Burn et al. (2021) that the mass offset cannot fully explain the mismatch (Sect. 2.4, 3.2).
domain assumption The Bern model's existing processes (core accretion, migration, N-body, disc evolution) are the right framework, so residual mismatch indicates missing physics rather than wrong model structure.
The main conclusion (Sect. 5) that wider orbits, eccentricity excitation, and slower gas accretion are needed presumes the model's structural choices are not the cause.
standard math KS test procedures (1D and 2D) applied to correlated, multiplicities-containing samples behave as implemented.
The paper uses Monte Carlo calibration for significance (Hope 1968; Press et al. 2002), but the 2D test with 169 observed planets drawn from systems with correlated planets may have non-standard properties (Sect. 2.5).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The New Generation Planetary Population Synthesis (NGPPS). VII. Statistical comparison with the HARPS/Coralie survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXV5PITD

@misc{pith2026250909762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The New Generation Planetary Population Synthesis (NGPPS). VII. Statistical comparison with the HARPS/Coralie survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXV5PITD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09762}
}

read the original abstract

We seek to quantify the fidelity with which modern population syntheses reproduce observations in view of their use as predictive tools. We compared synthetic populations from the Generation 3 Bern Model of Planet Formation and Evolution (core accretion, solar-type host stars) and the HARPS/Coralie radial velocity sample. We biased the synthetic planet population according to the completeness of the observed data and performed quantitative statistical comparisons and systematically identified agreements and differences. Our nominal population reproduces many of the main features of the HARPS planets: two main groups of planets (close-in sub-Neptunes and distant giants), a bimodal mass function with a less populated `desert', an observed mean multiplicity of about 1.6, and several key correlations. The remaining discrepancies point to areas that are not fully captured in the model. For instance, we find that the synthetic population has 1) in absolute terms too many planets by ~70%, 2) a `desert' that is too deep by ~60%, 3) a relative excess of giant planets by ~40%, 4) planet eccentricities that are on average too low by a factor of about two (median of 0.07 versus 0.15), and 5) a metallicity effect that is too weak. Finally, the synthetic planets are overall too close to the star compared to the HARPS sample. The differences allowed us to find model parameters that better reproduce the observed planet masses, for which we computed additional synthetic populations. We find that physical processes appear to be missing and that planets may originate on wider orbits than our model predicts. Mechanisms leading to higher eccentricities and slower disc-limited gas accretion also seem necessary. We advocate that theoretical models should make a quantitative comparison between the many current and future large surveys to better understand the origins of planetary systems. (Abridged.)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09762 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Mass-distance of the (unbiased) NG76longshot population at an age of 5 Gyr. Each point corresponds to one synthetic planet. The population consists of 1000 synthetic planetary systems. Colours represent the bulk composition: red are planet where the H/He mass is larger than the mass of solids (the core mass). Open circles are planets containing H/He but with a core mass higher than the envelope mass. Filled circle… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Unbiased mass function for planets within a < 3 au at three moments in time. The blue solid line shows the distribution at 100 Myr (NG76longshot) while the black dotted one is at 20 Myr (NG76). The red dashed line additionally shows the situation at the moment when the gas disc disappears in the systems (corresponding to 3 Myr on average). The reduction of the number of low-mass (proto)planets of mainly (sub- )Mars … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Histograms of the number of detected planets per system in both the HARPS/Coralie surveys (red) and the biased synthetic population (black). The histogram of the synthetic system is based on 1000 samples of the synthetic population, with the solid line denoting the median while grey band shows the 95 % confidence interval. The left panel compares the absolute number of systems, while the right panel compares the rel… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of the planet masses between the synthetic biased population (NG76, black) and the HARPS/Coralie sample (red). The data of the synthetic population is based on 1000 Monte Carlo synthetic observations, with the bold line showing the median of these, the grey …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of the planet periods between the biased synthetic population (NG76, black and blue lines) and the observed HARPS/Coralie sample. The curves have the same meaning as in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Left: Comparison of the minimum mass (M sin i) versus orbital period of the biased synthetic 100-embryo population (NG76, black circles) and the actual HARPS/Coralie survey (red crosses; M11). Both samples have 822 systems. Right: Same but only for the synthetic popula…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Stellar metallicity versus planet mass (M sin i) for the biased 100-embryo population (NG76, in black) and the HARPS/Coralie survey (M11, in red). The scatter plot shows one random observation of the synthetic population against the HARPS/Coralie planets. The lines sh…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Cumulative distribution (left) and histogram (right) of the period ratios of adjacent planets for the biased 100-embryo population (NG76, in black), the same population but with N-body interactions extended to 100 Myr (NG76longshot, in blue), and the HARPS/Coralie surv…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Cumulative distribution (left) and histogram (right) of the planets’ eccentricities for the biased 100-embryo population (NG76, in black), the same population but with N-body interactions extended to 100 Myr (NG76longshot, in blue), and the HARPS/Coralie surveys (M11,…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Eccentricity as a function of planet mass (M sin i) for the biased 100-embryo population (NG76, in black) and the HARPS/Coralie surveys (M11, in red). The scatter plot shows one random observation of the synthetic population against the HARPS/Coralie planets. The lin…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Histogram of the number of planets per systems in both the HARPS/Coralie surveys (red) and the optimised synthetic population NG192 (green). �� [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Cumulative distribution of the planet masses in the optimised synthetic population NG192 (in green), the canonical 100 embryo population (in black), and the observed population (in red). The resulting population, which we refer to as NG192, contains 1000 systems and …

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Mass-period diagram comparing one random mock observation of the optimised synthetic population NG192 (in green) and the actual HARPS/Coralie planets (in red). multiplicity is a good match with the combined HARPS/Coralie sample, although the synthetic populations show…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

225 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

[1]

2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

Adibekyan , V. 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

2019
[2]

Z., Figueira , P., Santos , N

Adibekyan , V. Z., Figueira , P., Santos , N. C., et al. 2013, , 554, A44

2013
[3]

M., et al

Ahrer , E., Queloz , D., Rajpaul , V. M., et al. 2021, , 503, 1248

2021
[4]

2013, , 558, A109

Alibert , Y., Carron , F., Fortier , A., et al. 2013, , 558, A109

2013
[5]

2004, , 417, L25

Alibert , Y., Mordasini , C., & Benz , W. 2004, , 417, L25

2004
[6]

2011, , 526, A63

Alibert , Y., Mordasini , C., & Benz , W. 2011, , 526, A63

2011
[7]

2005, , 434, 343

Alibert , Y., Mordasini , C., Benz , W., & Winisdoerffer , C. 2005, , 434, 343

2005
[8]

2018, , 2, 873

Alibert , Y., Venturini , J., Helled , R., et al. 2018, , 2, 873

2018

Show all 225 references

[9]

T., Sousa , S

Andreasen , D. T., Sousa , S. G., Tsantaki , M., et al. 2017, , 600, A69

2017
[10]

M., Terrell , M., Tripathi , A., et al

Andrews , S. M., Terrell , M., Tripathi , A., et al. 2018, , 865, 157

2018
[11]

M., Wilner , D

Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., Hughes , A. M., Qi , C., & Dullemond , C. P. 2010, , 723, 1241

2010
[12]

P., Trapman , L., et al

Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., Trapman , L., et al. 2018, , 859, 21

2018
[13]

& Bai , X.-N

Aoyama , Y. & Bai , X.-N. 2023, , 946, 5

2023
[14]

Ayliffe , B. A. & Bate , M. R. 2012, , 427, 2597

2012
[15]

2018, , 615, A175

Barbato , D., Sozzetti , A., Desidera , S., et al. 2018, , 615, A175

2018
[16]

2016, , 205, 77

Baruteau , C., Bai , X., Mordasini , C., & Molli \`e re , P. 2016, , 205, 77

2016
[17]

2011, , 528, A2

Ben \' tez-Llambay , P., Masset , F., & Beaug \'e , C. 2011, , 528, A2

2011
[18]

P., Ranc , C., & Fernandes , R

Bennett , D. P., Ranc , C., & Fernandes , R. B. 2021, , 162, 243

2021
[19]

2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

Benz , W., Ida , S., Alibert , Y., Lin , D., & Mordasini , C. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 691

2014
[20]

& Ivanova , A

Bertaux , J.-L. & Ivanova , A. 2022, , 512, 5552

2022
[21]

2020, , 643, A66

Bitsch , B., Trifonov , T., & Izidoro , A. 2020, , 643, A66

2020
[22]

Bodenheimer , P., Hubickyj , O., & Lissauer , J. J. 2000, , 143, 2

2000
[23]

& Pollack , J

Bodenheimer , P. & Pollack , J. B. 1986, , 67, 391

1986
[24]

2009, , 496, 527

Bouchy , F., Mayor , M., Lovis , C., et al. 2009, , 496, 527

2009
[25]

2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 463

Burn , R., Mordasini , C., Mishra , L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 463

2024
[26]

2021, , 656, A72

Burn , R., Schlecker , M., Mordasini , C., et al. 2021, , 656, A72

2021
[27]

P., Marcy , G

Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., Vogt , S. S., et al. 2003, , 582, 455

2003
[28]

P., Marcy , G

Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., Vogt , S. S., et al. 2002, , 578, 565

2002
[29]

P., Tinney , C

Butler , R. P., Tinney , C. G., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2001, , 555, 410

2001
[30]

P., Vogt , S

Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2000, , 545, 504

2000
[31]

P., Wright , J

Butler , R. P., Wright , J. T., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2006, , 646, 505

2006
[32]

N., & Davies , M

Carrera , D., Raymond , S. N., & Davies , M. B. 2019, , 629, L7

2019
[33]

D., Butler , R

Carter , B. D., Butler , R. P., Tinney , C. G., et al. 2003, , 593, L43

2003
[34]

2006, , 180, 496

Chambers , J. 2006, , 180, 496

2006
[35]

2018, , 865, 30

Chambers , J. 2018, , 865, 30

2018
[36]

Chambers , J. E. 1999, , 304, 793

1999
[37]

2022, , 514, 3844

Charalambous , C., Teyssandier , J., & Libert , A.-S. 2022, , 514, 3844

2022
[38]

B., Matsumura , S., & Rasio , F

Chatterjee , S., Ford , E. B., Matsumura , S., & Rasio , F. A. 2008, , 686, 580

2008
[39]

2018, , 614, A16

Cheetham , A., S \'e gransan , D., Peretti , S., et al. 2018, , 614, A16

2018
[40]

O., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Flock , M

Chrenko , O., Chametla , R. O., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Flock , M. 2022, , 666, A63

2022
[41]

J., Gendrin , A., & Sotomayor , M

Clarke , C. J., Gendrin , A., & Sotomayor , M. 2001, , 328, 485

2001
[42]

Coleman , G. A. L. & Nelson , R. P. 2014, , 445, 479

2014
[43]

Correia , A. C. M., Udry , S., Mayor , M., et al. 2009, , 496, 521

2009
[44]

G., Harris , R

Cox , E. G., Harris , R. J., Looney , L. W., et al. 2017, , 851, 83

2017
[45]

2006, , 181, 587

Crida , A., Morbidelli , A., & Masset , F. 2006, , 181, 587

2006
[46]

P., Hunziker , S., et al

Cugno , G., Quanz , S. P., Hunziker , S., et al. 2019, , 622, A156

2019
[47]

2022, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2204.00633 ]

Currie , T., Lawson , K., Schneider , G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2204.00633 ]

2022 arXiv
[48]

Dawson , R. I. & Johnson , J. A. 2018, , 56, 175

2018
[49]

Z., et al

Delgado Mena , E., Tsantaki , M., Adibekyan , V. Z., et al. 2017, , 606, A94

2017
[50]

B., S \'e gransan , D., Dumusque , X., et al

Delisle , J. B., S \'e gransan , D., Dumusque , X., et al. 2018, , 614, A133

2018
[51]

& Barbieri , M

Desidera , S. & Barbieri , M. 2007, , 462, 345

2007
[52]

F., S \'e gransan , D., Udry , S., et al

D \' az , R. F., S \'e gransan , D., Udry , S., et al. 2016, , 585, A134

2016
[53]

M., Mordasini , C., Klahr , H., Alibert , Y., & Henning , T

Dittkrist , K. M., Mordasini , C., Klahr , H., Alibert , Y., & Henning , T. 2014, , 567, A121

2014
[54]

2011, , 535, A55

Dumusque , X., Lovis , C., S \'e gransan , D., et al. 2011, , 535, A55

2011
[55]

2006, , 447, 1159

Eggenberger , A., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al. 2006, , 447, 1159

2006
[56]

2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 181

Emsenhuber , A., Mordasini , C., & Burn , R. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 181

2023
[57]

2021 a , , 656, A69

Emsenhuber , A., Mordasini , C., Burn , R., et al. 2021 a , , 656, A69

2021
[58]

2021 b , , 656, A70

Emsenhuber , A., Mordasini , C., Burn , R., et al. 2021 b , , 656, A70

2021
[59]

L., Bennett , D

ExoPAG Science Interest Group , Christiansen , J. L., Bennett , D. P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.12442

2023 arXiv
[60]

C., Lissauer , J

Fabrycky , D. C., Lissauer , J. J., Ragozzine , D., et al. 2014, , 790, 146

2014
[61]

P., Vogt , S

Feng , F., Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., et al. 2022, , 262, 21

2022
[62]

2008, , 101, 171

Ferraz-Mello , S., Rodr \' guez , A., & Hussmann , H. 2008, , 101, 171

2008
[63]

2009, , 703, 1545

Fischer , D., Driscoll , P., Isaacson , H., et al. 2009, , 703, 1545

2009
[64]

A., Marcy , G

Fischer , D. A., Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., & Apps , K. 1999, , 111, 50

1999
[65]

A., Marcy , G

Fischer , D. A., Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., et al. 2001, , 551, 1107

2001
[66]

Fischer , D. A. & Valenti , J. 2005, , 622, 1102

2005
[67]

J., Mulders , G

Flock , M., Turner , N. J., Mulders , G. D., et al. 2019, , 630, A147

2019
[68]

Ford , E. B. & Rasio , F. A. 2008, , 686, 621

2008
[69]

Fortier , A., Alibert , Y., Carron , F., Benz , W., & Dittkrist , K. M. 2013, , 549, A44

2013
[70]

H., & Ballering , N

G \'a sp \'a r , A., Rieke , G. H., & Ballering , N. 2016, , 826, 171

2016
[71]

1997, , 285, 403

Gonzalez , G. 1997, , 285, 403

1997
[72]

& Lissauer , J

Greenzweig , Y. & Lissauer , J. J. 1992, , 100, 440

1992
[73]

Y., Bohn , A

Haffert , S. Y., Bohn , A. J., de Boer , J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749

2019
[74]

C., Bou \'e , G., Laskar , J., Delisle , J

Hara , N. C., Bou \'e , G., Laskar , J., Delisle , J. B., & Unger , N. 2019, , 489, 738

2019
[75]

J., Andrews , S

Harris , R. J., Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., & Kraus , A. L. 2012, , 751, 115

2012
[76]

Hope , A. C. A. 1968, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 968, 582

1968
[77]

W., Johnson , J

Howard , A. W., Johnson , J. A., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2011, , 730, 10

2011
[78]

Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[79]

& Lin , D

Ida , S. & Lin , D. N. C. 2004, , 604, 388

2004
[80]

& Makino , J

Ida , S. & Makino , J. 1993, , 106, 210

1993
[81]

D., & Tanigawa , T

Ida , S., Tanaka , H., Johansen , A., Kanagawa , K. D., & Tanigawa , T. 2018, , 864, 77

2018
[82]

& Ikoma , M

Inaba , S. & Ikoma , M. 2003, , 410, 711

2003
[83]

N., et al

Izidoro , A., Bitsch , B., Raymond , S. N., et al. 2021, , 650, A152

2021
[84]

2009, , 698, 1357

Jackson , B., Barnes , R., & Greenberg , R. 2009, , 698, 1357

2009
[85]

S., Jones , H

Jenkins , J. S., Jones , H. R. A., Tuomi , M., et al. 2013, , 766, 67

2013
[86]

& Mordasini , C

Jin , S. & Mordasini , C. 2018, , 853, 163

2018
[87]

2014, , 795, 65

Jin , S., Mordasini , C., Parmentier , V., et al. 2014, , 795, 65

2014
[88]

Jones , H. R. A., Butler , R. P., Tinney , C. G., et al. 2006, , 369, 249

2006
[89]

Jones , H. R. A., Butler , R. P., Tinney , C. G., et al. 2003, , 341, 948

2003
[90]

Jones , H. R. A., Butler , R. P., Tinney , C. G., et al. 2010, , 403, 1703

2010
[91]

Jones , H. R. A., Paul Butler , R., Tinney , C. G., et al. 2002, , 333, 871

2002
[92]

2001, , 379, 992

Jorissen , A., Mayor , M., & Udry , S. 2001, , 379, 992

2001
[93]

& Tremaine , S

Juri \'c , M. & Tremaine , S. 2008, , 686, 603

2008
[94]

2018, , 617, A44

Keppler , M., Benisty , M., M \"u ller , A., et al. 2018, , 617, A44

2018
[95]

& Dirksen , G

Kley , W. & Dirksen , G. 2006, , 447, 369

2006
[96]

2016, , 817, 105

Kobayashi , H., Tanaka , H., & Okuzumi , S. 2016, , 817, 105

2016
[97]

Lau , T. C. H., Dr a \.z kowska , J., Stammler , S. M., Birnstiel , T., & Dullemond , C. P. 2022, , 668, A170

2022
[98]

T., Klahr , H., & Birnstiel , T

Lenz , C. T., Klahr , H., & Birnstiel , T. 2019, , 874, 36

2019
[99]

R., Brandt , T

Li , Z., Kane , S. R., Brandt , T. D., et al. 2024, , 167, 155

2024
[100]

2003, , 591, 1220

Lodders , K. 2003, , 591, 1220

2003
[101]

2005, , 437, 1121

Lovis , C., Mayor , M., Bouchy , F., et al. 2005, , 437, 1121

2005
[102]

2006, , 441, 305

Lovis , C., Mayor , M., Pepe , F., et al. 2006, , 441, 305

2006
[103]

2011, , 528, A112

Lovis , C., S \'e gransan , D., Mayor , M., et al. 2011, , 528, A112

2011
[104]

Lucy , L. B. & Sweeney , M. A. 1971, , 76, 544

1971
[105]

1952, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 7, 87

L \"u st , R. 1952, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 7, 87

1952
[106]

& Pringle , J

Lynden-Bell , D. & Pringle , J. E. 1974, , 168, 603

1974
[107]

B., & Heggie , D

Malmberg , D., Davies , M. B., & Heggie , D. C. 2011, , 411, 859

2011
[108]

F., Ansdell , M., Rosotti , G

Manara , C. F., Ansdell , M., Rosotti , G. P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 539

2023
[109]

F., Mordasini , C., Testi , L., et al

Manara , C. F., Mordasini , C., Testi , L., et al. 2019, , 631, L2

2019
[110]

W., Butler , R

Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., & Vogt , S. S. 2000, , 536, L43

2000
[111]

W., Butler , R

Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., Fischer , D., & Liu , M. C. 1999, , 520, 239

1999
[112]

W., Butler , R

Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., et al. 2005, , 619, 570

2005
[113]

W., Butler , R

Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., et al. 2001, , 555, 418

2001
[114]

2013, , 551, A90

Marmier , M., S \'e gransan , D., Udry , S., et al. 2013, , 551, A90

2013
[115]

2003, , 582, 893

Matsuyama , I., Johnstone , D., & Hartmann , L. 2003, , 582, 893

2003
[116]

2023, , 677, A133

Matuszewski , F., Nettelmann , N., Cabrera , J., B \"o rner , A., & Rauer , H. 2023, , 677, A133

2023
[117]

2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497

Mayor , M., Marmier , M., Lovis , C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497

2011 arXiv
[118]

2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

Mayor , M., Pepe , F., Queloz , D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

2003
[119]

2009, , 493, 639

Mayor , M., Udry , S., Lovis , C., et al. 2009, , 493, 639

2009
[120]

2004, , 415, 391

Mayor , M., Udry , S., Naef , D., et al. 2004, , 415, 391

2004
[121]

P., Tinney , C

McCarthy , C., Butler , R. P., Tinney , C. G., et al. 2004, , 617, 575

2004
[122]

S., et al

Meschiari , S., Laughlin , G., Vogt , S. S., et al. 2011, , 727, 117

2011
[123]

P., L \'o pez-Morales , M., et al

Minniti , D., Butler , R. P., L \'o pez-Morales , M., et al. 2009, , 693, 1424

2009
[124]

2021, , 656, A74

Mishra , L., Alibert , Y., Leleu , A., et al. 2021, , 656, A74

2021
[125]

1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544

Mizuno , H. 1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544

1980
[126]

2024, , 685, A22

Mol Lous , M., Mordasini , C., & Helled , R. 2024, , 685, A22

2024
[127]

2014, , 572, A118

Mordasini , C. 2014, , 572, A118

2014
[128]

2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed

Mordasini , C. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte (Springer Living Reference Work), 143

2018
[129]

2009 a , , 501, 1139

Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., & Benz , W. 2009 a , , 501, 1139

2009
[130]

2009 b , , 501, 1161

Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., Benz , W., & Naef , D. 2009 b , , 501, 1161

2009
[131]

2012 a , , 547, A112

Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., Georgy , C., et al. 2012 a , , 547, A112

2012
[132]

2012 b , , 547, A111

Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., Klahr , H., & Henning , T. 2012 b , , 547, A111

2012
[133]

& Burn , R

Mordasini , C. & Burn , R. 2024, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 90, 55

2024
[134]

2014, , 566, A141

Mordasini , C., Klahr , H., Alibert , Y., Miller , N., & Henning , T. 2014, , 566, A141

2014
[135]

2011, , 526, A111

Mordasini , C., Mayor , M., Udry , S., et al. 2011, , 526, A111

2011
[136]

M., Jin , S., & Alibert , Y

Mordasini , C., Molli \`e re , P., Dittkrist , K. M., Jin , S., & Alibert , Y. 2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 201

2015
[137]

D., Mordasini , C., Pascucci , I., et al

Mulders , G. D., Mordasini , C., Pascucci , I., et al. 2019, , 887, 157

2019
[138]

D., Pascucci , I., Manara , C

Mulders , G. D., Pascucci , I., Manara , C. F., et al. 2017, , 847, 31

2017
[139]

2018, , 617, L2

M \"u ller , A., Keppler , M., Henning , T., et al. 2018, , 617, L2

2018
[140]

2001, , 375, 205

Naef , D., Mayor , M., Pepe , F., et al. 2001, , 375, 205

2001
[141]

& Nakagawa , Y

Nakamoto , T. & Nakagawa , Y. 1994, , 421, 640

1994
[142]

2019, , 488, L12

Nayakshin , S., Dipierro , G., & Szul \'a gyi , J. 2019, , 488, L12

2019
[143]

P., Lega , E., & Morbidelli , A

Nelson , R. P., Lega , E., & Morbidelli , A. 2023, , 670, A113

2023
[144]

K., & Morbidelli , A

Ogihara , M., Kokubo , E., Suzuki , T. K., & Morbidelli , A. 2018, , 615, A63

2018
[145]

R., & Ida , S

Ohtsuki , K., Stewart , G. R., & Ida , S. 2002, , 155, 436

2002
[146]

Ormel , C. W. & Klahr , H. H. 2010, , 520, A43

2010
[147]

Ormel , C. W. & Kobayashi , H. 2012, , 747, 115

2012
[148]

G., Butler , R

O'Toole , S., Tinney , C. G., Butler , R. P., et al. 2009, , 697, 1263

2009
[149]

2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

Paardekooper , S., Dong , R., Duffell , P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 685

2023
[150]

2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

2011
[151]

Pepe , F., Correia , A. C. M., Mayor , M., et al. 2007, , 462, 769

2007
[152]

2011, , 534, A58

Pepe , F., Lovis , C., S \'e gransan , D., et al. 2011, , 534, A58

2011
[153]

2002, , 388, 632

Pepe , F., Mayor , M., Galland , F., et al. 2002, , 388, 632

2002
[154]

& Cameron , A

Perri , F. & Cameron , A. G. W. 1974, , 22, 416

1974
[155]

A., Marcy , G

Petigura , E. A., Marcy , G. W., Winn , J. N., et al. 2018, , 155, 89

2018
[156]

B., & Reynolds , R

Podolak , M., Pollack , J. B., & Reynolds , R. T. 1988, , 73, 163

1988
[157]

B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al

Pollack , J. B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al. 1996, , 124, 62

1996
[158]

H., Teukolsky , S

Press , W. H., Teukolsky , S. A., Vetterling , W. T., & Flannery , B. P. 2002, Numerical recipes in C++ : the art of scientific computing (Cambridge University Press)

2002
[159]

Rafikov , R. R. 2004, , 128, 1348

2004
[160]

E., Roccatagliata , V., et al

Ricciardi , G., van Terwisga , S. E., Roccatagliata , V., et al. 2025, , 695, A257

2025
[161]

L., S \'e gransan , D., Marmier , M., et al

Rickman , E. L., S \'e gransan , D., Marmier , M., et al. 2019, , 625, A71

2019
[162]

J., Butler , R

Rivera , E. J., Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., et al. 2010, , 708, 1492

2010
[163]

J., Arriagada , P., Faherty , J., et al

Rodigas , T. J., Arriagada , P., Faherty , J., et al. 2016, , 818, 106

2016
[164]

J., Knutson , H

Rosenthal , L. J., Knutson , H. A., Chachan , Y., et al. 2022, , 262, 1

2022
[165]

C., Bouchy , F., Mayor , M., et al

Santos , N. C., Bouchy , F., Mayor , M., et al. 2004 a , , 426, L19

2004
[166]

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

Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., & Mayor , M. 2001 a , , 373, 1019

2001
[167]

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

Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., & Mayor , M. 2004 b , , 415, 1153

2004
[168]

C., Israelian , G., Mayor , M., et al

Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., Mayor , M., et al. 2005, , 437, 1127

2005
[169]

C., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al

Santos , N. C., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al. 2001 b , , 379, 999

2001
[170]

C., Sousa , S

Santos , N. C., Sousa , S. G., Mortier , A., et al. 2013, , 556, A150

2013
[171]

2022, , 664, A138

Schib , O., Mordasini , C., & Helled , R. 2022, , 664, A138

2022
[172]

2022, , 664, A180

Schlecker , M., Burn , R., Sabotta , S., et al. 2022, , 664, A180

2022
[173]

2021 a , , 656, A71

Schlecker , M., Mordasini , C., Emsenhuber , A., et al. 2021 a , , 656, A71

2021
[174]

2021 b , , 656, A73

Schlecker , M., Pham , D., Burn , R., et al. 2021 b , , 656, A73

2021
[175]

2019, , 632, A118

Schulik , M., Johansen , A., Bitsch , B., & Lega , E. 2019, , 632, A118

2019
[176]

2011, , 535, A54

S \'e gransan , D., Mayor , M., Udry , S., et al. 2011, , 535, A54

2011
[177]

2010, , 511, A45

S \'e gransan , D., Udry , S., Mayor , M., et al. 2010, , 511, A45

2010
[178]

Shakura , N. I. & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 24, 337

1973
[179]

G., Adibekyan , V., Delgado-Mena , E., et al

Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V., Delgado-Mena , E., et al. 2018, , 620, A58

2018
[180]

G., Santos , N

Sousa , S. G., Santos , N. C., Mayor , M., et al. 2008, , 487, 373

2008
[181]

Stevenson , D. J. 1982, , 30, 755

1982
[182]

X., Spurzem , R., Kouwenhoven , M

Stock , K., Cai , M. X., Spurzem , R., Kouwenhoven , M. B. N., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2020, , 497, 1807

2020
[183]

P., Ida , S., et al

Suzuki , D., Bennett , D. P., Ida , S., et al. 2018, , 869, L34

2018
[184]

K., Muto , T., & Inutsuka , S.-i

Suzuki , T. K., Muto , T., & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2010, , 718, 1289

2010
[185]

2008, , 480, L33

Tamuz , O., S \'e gransan , D., Udry , S., et al. 2008, , 480, L33

2008
[186]

W., Duncan , M

Thommes , E. W., Duncan , M. J., & Levison , H. F. 2003, , 161, 431

2003
[187]

E., Coughlin , J

Thompson , S. E., Coughlin , J. L., Hoffman , K., et al. 2018, , 235, 38

2018
[188]

G., Butler , R

Tinney , C. G., Butler , R. P., Jones , H. R. A., et al. 2011, , 727, 103

2011
[189]

G., Butler , R

Tinney , C. G., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2002, , 571, 528

2002
[190]

G., Butler , R

Tinney , C. G., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2005, , 623, 1171

2005
[191]

G., Butler , R

Tinney , C. G., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2001, , 551, 507

2001
[192]

J., Sheehan , P

Tobin , J. J., Sheehan , P. D., Megeath , S. T., et al. 2020, , 890, 130

2020
[193]

& Kiyaeva , O

Tokovinin , A. & Kiyaeva , O. 2016, , 456, 2070

2016
[194]

R., et al

Trapman , L., Ansdell , M., Hogerheijde , M. R., et al. 2020, , 638, A38

2020
[195]

M., Birnstiel , T., & Wilner , D

Tripathi , A., Andrews , S. M., Birnstiel , T., & Wilner , D. J. 2017, , 845, 44

2017
[196]

G., Adibekyan , V

Tsantaki , M., Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V. Z., et al. 2013, , 555, A150

2013
[197]

2013, , 549, A48

Tuomi , M., Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Gerlach , E., et al. 2013, , 549, A48

2013
[198]

J., Karska , A., et al

Tychoniec , ., Tobin , J. J., Karska , A., et al. 2018, , 238, 19

2018
[199]

2019, , 622, A37

Udry , S., Dumusque , X., Lovis , C., et al. 2019, , 622, A37

2019
[200]

2006, , 447, 361

Udry , S., Mayor , M., Benz , W., et al. 2006, , 447, 361

2006
[201]

2002, , 390, 267

Udry , S., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al. 2002, , 390, 267

2002
[202]

2000 a , , 356, 590

Udry , S., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al. 2000 a , , 356, 590

2000
[203]

2000 b , in From Extrasolar Planets to Cosmology: The VLT Opening Symposium, ed

Udry , S., Mayor , M., Queloz , D., Naef , D., & Santos , N. 2000 b , in From Extrasolar Planets to Cosmology: The VLT Opening Symposium, ed. J. Bergeron & A. Renzini , 571

2000
[204]

& Santos , N

Udry , S. & Santos , N. C. 2007, , 45, 397

2007
[205]

2021, , 654, A104

Unger , N., S \'e gransan , D., Queloz , D., et al. 2021, , 654, A104

2021
[206]

& Helled , R

Valletta , C. & Helled , R. 2020, , 900, 133

2020
[207]

2016, , 596, A90

Venturini , J., Alibert , Y., & Benz , W. 2016, , 596, A90

2016
[208]

M., et al

Venuti , L., Bouvier , J., Cody , A. M., et al. 2017, , 599, A23

2017
[209]

E., et al

Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

2020
[210]

2021, , 645, A132

Voelkel , O., Deienno , R., Kretke , K., & Klahr , H. 2021, , 645, A132

2021
[211]

2022, , 666, A90

Voelkel , O., Klahr , H., Mordasini , C., & Emsenhuber , A. 2022, , 666, A90

2022
[212]

S., Butler , R

Vogt , S. S., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2005, , 632, 638

2005
[213]

S., Butler , R

Vogt , S. S., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2002, , 568, 352

2002
[214]

S., Marcy , G

Vogt , S. S., Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., & Apps , K. 2000, , 536, 902

2000
[215]

S., Wittenmyer , R

Vogt , S. S., Wittenmyer , R. A., Butler , R. P., et al. 2010, , 708, 1366

2010
[216]

2023, , 674, A165

Weder , J., Mordasini , C., & Emsenhuber , A. 2023, , 674, A165

2023
[217]

M., Millholland , S

Weiss , L. M., Millholland , S. C., Petigura , E. A., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 863

2023
[218]

A., Clark , J

Wittenmyer , R. A., Clark , J. T., Zhao , J., et al. 2019, , 484, 5859

2019
[219]

A., Horner , J., Tuomi , M., et al

Wittenmyer , R. A., Horner , J., Tuomi , M., et al. 2012, , 753, 169

2012
[220]

T., Marcy , G

Wright , J. T., Marcy , G. W., Howard , A. W., et al. 2012, , 753, 160

2012
[221]

T., Upadhyay , S., Marcy , G

Wright , J. T., Upadhyay , S., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2009, , 693, 1084

2009
[222]

Youdin , A. N. & Goodman , J. 2005, , 620, 459

2005
[223]

L., Pan , M., & Ford , E

Zakamska , N. L., Pan , M., & Ford , E. B. 2011, , 410, 1895

2011
[224]

& Dong , S

Zhu , W. & Dong , S. 2021, , 59 [ [arXiv] 2103.02127 ]

2021 arXiv
[225]

2020, , 633, A119

Zurlo , A., Cugno , G., Montesinos , M., et al. 2020, , 633, A119

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

Adibekyan , V. 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

2019

[2] [2]

Z., Figueira , P., Santos , N

Adibekyan , V. Z., Figueira , P., Santos , N. C., et al. 2013, , 554, A44

2013

[3] [3]

M., et al

Ahrer , E., Queloz , D., Rajpaul , V. M., et al. 2021, , 503, 1248

2021

[4] [4]

2013, , 558, A109

Alibert , Y., Carron , F., Fortier , A., et al. 2013, , 558, A109

2013

[5] [5]

2004, , 417, L25

Alibert , Y., Mordasini , C., & Benz , W. 2004, , 417, L25

2004

[6] [6]

2011, , 526, A63

Alibert , Y., Mordasini , C., & Benz , W. 2011, , 526, A63

2011

[7] [7]

2005, , 434, 343

Alibert , Y., Mordasini , C., Benz , W., & Winisdoerffer , C. 2005, , 434, 343

2005

[8] [8]

2018, , 2, 873

Alibert , Y., Venturini , J., Helled , R., et al. 2018, , 2, 873

2018