Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Homogeneous Analysis of Hot Earths: Masses, Sizes, and Compositions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Analyzing all 11 known hot Earths with one uniform pipeline, this paper finds that every one is less massive than 8 Earth masses, and argues that this ceiling is the critical mass for runaway gas accretion.

desk verdict A genuinely useful homogeneous catalog of all known hot Earths, with a suggestive but not conclusive critical-mass claim that needs a bit more statistical care. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06299 v2 pith:TG3OXKRY submitted 2019-08-17 astro-ph.EP

Fei Dai , Kento Masuda , Joshua N. Winn , Li Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords hotEarthsultra-short-periodplanetsexoplanetcompositionrunawaygasaccretionphotoevaporationGaussianprocessregressionGaiaparallaxesmass-radiusrelations
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

The paper re-analyzes every known 'hot Earth' — a small, rocky planet orbiting so close to its star that any hydrogen/helium atmosphere should have been boiled away — using one consistent set of tools. By combining all available transit, radial-velocity, and Gaia parallax data and modeling stellar noise with Gaussian processes, it produces more precise mass and radius measurements for 11 planets. The result is a tighter clustering of inferred compositions: most of the planets look Earth-like (about 35% iron), with two iron-rich exceptions and one that may hold a volatile envelope. The paper's central claim is that all 11 planets are less massive than $8\,M_\oplus$, and it reads that ceiling as evidence that $8\,M_\oplus$ is the threshold above which a rocky core rapidly accretes gas into a giant planet.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the homogeneous analysis pipeline. For each of the 11 systems it feeds Gaia parallaxes, literature spectroscopic parameters, and K-band magnitudes through stellar evolutionary tracks to get stellar masses and radii; fits transit light curves with priors on stellar mean density; and models radial velocities with a quasi-periodic Gaussian-process kernel whose hyperparameters are trained on the out-of-transit light curve, so correlated stellar activity is separated from the planetary signal. Compositions are then read off a two-layer iron-core plus MgSiO$_3$-mantle mass–radius model, with water-envelope limits computed separately. The single pipeline is what lets the paper compare planets that had previously been modeled by different groups with conflicting results.

What would settle it

A Doppler measurement of one additional hot Earth satisfying the same selection (insolation above 650 times Earth's, radius below $2\,R_\oplus$, FGK host) with a mass above $8\,M_\oplus$ would overturn the proposed ceiling; alternatively, evidence that giant impacts have stripped a substantial fraction of mantle mass from hot Earths would break the link between observed masses and the critical core mass for accretion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an observational upper bound with a formation interpretation. After homogenizing stellar parameters, transit fits, and radial-velocity noise models across the complete sample of hot Earths with insolation $F/F_\odot > 650$, radii below $2\,R_\oplus$, and FGK hosts ($\log g > 4$), every planet has a Doppler mass below about $8\,M_\oplus$ — even though radial-velocity surveys preferentially detect more massive planets. Because hot Earths are thought to be the exposed rocky cores of sub-Neptunes that lost their envelopes to photoevaporation, the maximum surviving core mass should trace the critical core mass for runaway gas accretion. The paper therefore proposes that the critical mass is roughly $8\,M_\oplus$, consistent with recent envelope-opacity calculations (2–8 $M_\oplus$) and below the older canonical $10\,M_\oplus$. A secondary result is that the apparent spread in hot-Earth compositions shrinks under the homogeneous treatment: K2-106b is no longer extremely iron-rich, most planets match an Earth-like iron/rock ratio, and none require a substantial water or volatile atmosphere.

Load-bearing premise

The central inference assumes that hot Earths are the stripped rocky cores of sub-Neptune planets whose masses have not been significantly reduced by giant impacts, and that the 11-planet sample is representative of the most massive cores that avoided runaway gas accretion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $8\,M_\oplus$ is the critical core mass for runaway accretion, then giant-planet cores in this formation picture should cluster below that value; the hot-Earth sample provides a direct, if indirect, measurement of that threshold.
  • The absence of any detected hot Earth above $8\,M_\oplus$ sharpens the allowed range for critical core mass from the older $10\,M_\oplus$ estimate down to about $8\,M_\oplus$.
  • The homogeneous re-analysis removes the previously reported ultra-iron-rich composition of K2-106b, implying that at least some claimed compositional extremes among hot Earths were artifacts of heterogeneous modeling.
  • Water-mass-fraction upper limits mostly below 10–20% support formation from volatile-depleted planetesimals inside the snow line rather than migration from beyond it.
  • The lack of correlation between core mass fraction and insolation is additional evidence that these planets have no significant H/He envelope, as photoevaporation theory predicts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $8\,M_\oplus$ ceiling is a formation threshold rather than a selection artifact, future transit surveys with brighter host stars should keep the ceiling intact; a single well-measured hot Earth above $8\,M_\oplus$ would force a different explanation.
  • The same homogeneous pipeline could be applied to the broader sub-Neptune population; if their inferred core masses also pile up below about $8\,M_\oplus$, that would strengthen the link between hot Earths and the cores of wider-orbiting planets.
  • The two iron-rich planets (K2-141b and K2-229b) and the two low-density planets (55 Cnc e and WASP-47e) hint that more than one formation channel operates; a larger sample could test whether the iron-rich cases correlate with host-star metallicity or the presence of giant companions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a homogeneous re-analysis of the 11 known 'hot Earths' (ultra-short-period planets with Fp/Fsun > 650, Rp < 2 Rearth, and log g > 4). The authors combine all publicly available transit and radial-velocity data, use Gaia DR2 parallaxes to refine stellar parameters through MESA isochrone fitting, fit the transits with BATMAN, and model the radial velocities with a Gaussian-process framework whose hyperparameters are informed by out-of-transit photometry. For each planet they report the mass, radius, and composition under a two-layer iron/rock model. Their main results are: (1) the homogeneous analysis reduces the scatter in inferred iron mass fractions compared with the heterogeneous literature values, (2) most hot Earths are consistent with an Earth-like composition, with K2-141b and K2-229b showing possible iron enhancement and 55 Cnc e requiring either a very low iron fraction or a volatile envelope, and (3) all of the planets are less massive than 8 Mearth, which the authors interpret as evidence that 8 Mearth is the critical mass for runaway gas accretion.

Significance. The homogeneous re-analysis itself is a valuable contribution: it demonstrates the power of combining Gaia parallaxes, uniform stellar modeling, and Gaussian-process noise treatment, and it resolves a specific published contradiction (the composition of K2-106b). A reliable catalog of masses, radii, and compositions for hot Earths is important for testing photoevaporation and formation scenarios. If the composition results hold, they support the picture of hot Earths as exposed rocky cores with little or no H/He envelope. However, the headline claim that 8 Mearth is the critical mass for runaway accretion is not quantitatively supported by the current analysis; the maximum of an 11-object sample is a weak estimator of the upper edge of the core-mass distribution unless selection and the underlying distribution are modeled. The paper's central measurement results are sound, but the formation-theory conclusion requires additional statistical work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.2, Table 2] The inference that 8 Mearth is the critical mass for runaway gas accretion is not supported by the presented analysis. The evidence is the maximum mass among 11 planets, 55 Cnc e at 7.74 +/- 0.37 Mearth. A sample maximum is a high-variance estimator of the upper edge of a distribution unless the underlying distribution and the selection function are modeled; with only 11 objects, the maximum could easily be several Mearth below the true threshold. The sentence in Section 6.2 that selection bias 'works in our favor' is qualitative and does not replace a completeness calculation, since the 11 systems come from different surveys with different detection thresholds and follow-up criteria. Furthermore, the two most massive planets in Table 2, 55 Cnc e and WASP-47e, have core mass fractions consistent with zero (-0.10 +/- 0.14 and 0.09 +/- 0.21), so their total masses are not clean upper limits on the rocky core mass; the observed maximum is not even a robust bound on the core-mass threshold. I recommend either adding an explicit order-statistics calculation with a stated prior on the core-mass distribution and selection function, or substantially softening the conclusion to a statement about the observed masses rather than the critical mass.
  2. [Section 6.1, Figure 2, Table 2] The claim of a smaller dispersion in composition and of residual intrinsic dispersion is not quantitatively established. The paper reports a mean core mass fraction of 26% with a standard deviation of 23%, but this is the raw scatter of the posterior modes and does not separate measurement uncertainty from intrinsic scatter. Given that individual core mass fractions have uncertainties of roughly 0.15 to 0.35 (Table 2), the data may be consistent with a single common composition, or with a wide range of intrinsic dispersions. The comparison with the literature in Figure 2 is visual, and no significance test is reported. A formal model comparison, such as a common-composition model versus an intrinsic-scatter model, is needed to support the conclusions that the dispersion is reduced relative to the literature and that a real intrinsic dispersion remains.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence 'We inflated the uncertainties on uncertainties of Teff to 110 K' appears to have a typo; presumably it should read 'the uncertainties of Teff'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The notation '(Rp/R)earth' in the caption is unclear; it should probably be '(Rp/Rearth)'.
  3. [Section 6.1] There is a typo in the discussion of Dorn et al. (2019): 'whcih' should be 'which'.
  4. [Table 1] System names are not rendered consistently (e.g., '55 Cnc e', 'CoRot-7b', 'K2-291b'); standardizing the names would improve readability.
  5. [References] Wang & Dai (2017) is cited only as an arXiv e-print; if a peer-reviewed version exists, it should be updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 8 M⊕ statement is an empirical maximum of independently measured masses, not an input to the fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is data-driven rather than self-referential: stellar parameters are obtained from Gaia parallaxes, literature spectroscopy, and MESA isochrones; transit radii are fitted from photometry; masses are fitted from radial velocities with a Gaussian-process activity model; and compositions are interpreted by comparing the derived mass-radius values with the externally published Zeng et al. (2016) Fe-MgSiO3 curves. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no target quantity is inserted into the likelihood. The '8 M⊕ is the critical mass' claim is explicitly presented as an inference from the maximum observed mass of the sample, with the paper stating, 'With these premises, we can use the maximum observed mass of a hot Earth as an indicator of the critical mass for initiating runaway gas accretion,' and immediately noting the giant-impact caveat. This is an estimator based on an order statistic, not a circular reduction: the critical mass is not defined as the sample maximum, and the paper compares its empirical bound with independent theoretical estimates (Rafikov 2006; Lee & Chiang 2016). Self-citations (Dai et al. 2017 Gaussian-process pipeline, Dai et al. 2018 stellar-parameter procedure, Wang & Dai 2017 mass-loss calculation, Zeng et al. 2016 composition curves) are methodological or theoretical tools with stated assumptions and are not fitted to the paper's conclusions; none is a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that forces the headline result. The acknowledged limitations (small sample, possible volatile envelopes for 55 Cnc e and WASP-47 e, possible giant-impact mass stripping) weaken the astrophysical interpretation but do not constitute circularity. The paper is benchmarked against earlier literature values in Figure 2 and is self-contained against external data.

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

The central mass and radius measurements depend on standard Bayesian fitting with Gaussian processes, and the composition conclusions depend on the adopted two-layer interior model from Zeng et al. (2016). The critical mass interpretation adds assumptions about the nature of the sample and the absence of significant mass loss.

free parameters (2)
  • GP hyperparameters h, tau, Gamma, T per star = not listed (posteriors)
    Fitted to out-of-transit photometric variability and used as priors for the RV GP; they affect the inferred planetary masses but are not the scientific output.
  • Stellar jitter per instrument = not listed
    Fitted with log-uniform priors in the RV model to absorb excess white noise.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-layer Fe-MgSiO3 interior model from Zeng et al. (2016) applies to hot Earths.
    Used to convert measured mass and radius to iron mass fraction and water content; results are conditional on this model.
  • domain assumption Hot Earths have lost all H/He envelopes via photoevaporation, so their masses are core masses.
    Underpins the interpretation of the mass distribution and the critical mass argument (Section 6.2).
  • domain assumption The quasi-periodic GP kernel trained on photometry captures the correlated noise in RVs.
    Assumed in Section 5; if stellar activity affects RVs differently, the mass uncertainties could be underestimated.
  • domain assumption Hot Earth orbits are circular due to tidal circularization.
    Adopted for the hot Earth in each system (Sections 4 and 5), justified by a ~10 Myr circularization timescale.
  • domain assumption The sample defined by F/F_sun > 650, Rp < 2 R_earth, and logg > 4 is complete for maximum-mass inference.
    The 8 M_earth claim relies on the most massive hot Earth in this sample being near the true upper limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Homogeneous Analysis of Hot Earths: Masses, Sizes, and Compositions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TG3OXKRY

@misc{pith2026190806299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Homogeneous Analysis of Hot Earths: Masses, Sizes, and Compositions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TG3OXKRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06299}
}
abstract

Terrestrial planets have been found orbiting Sun-like stars with extremely short periods --- some as short as 4 hours. These "ultra-short-period planets" or "hot Earths" are so strongly irradiated that any initial H/He atmosphere has probably been lost to photoevaporation. As such, the sample of hot Earths may give us a glimpse at the rocky cores that are often enshrouded by thick H/He envelopes on wider-orbiting planets. However, the mass and radius measurements of hot Earths have been derived from a hodgepodge of different modeling approaches, and include several cases of contradictory results. Here, we perform a homogeneous analysis of the complete sample of 11 known hot Earths with an insolation exceeding 650 times that of the Earth. We combine all available data for each planet, incorporate parallax information from {\it Gaia} to improve the stellar and planetary parameters, and use Gaussian Process regression to account for correlated noise in the radial-velocity data. The homogeneous analysis leads to a smaller dispersion in the apparent composition of hot Earths, although there does still appear to be some intrinsic dispersion. Most of the planets are consistent with an Earth-like composition (35\% iron and 65\% rock), but two planets (K2-141b and K2-229b) show evidence for a higher iron fraction, and one planet (55\,Cnc\,e) has either a very low iron fraction or an envelope of low-density volatiles. All of the planets are less massive than 8\,$M_\oplus$, despite the selection bias towards more massive planets, suggesting that 8\,$M_\oplus$ is the critical mass for runaway accretion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06299 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrative example of our Gaussian Process radial-velocity analysis, for the K2-141 system. Top: The out-of-transit flux variation is used to train the hyperparameters of the Gaussian Process model. Middle: Measured and calculated radial velocities of planets b and c. Bottom: Data and best-fitting model for planet b, after subtracting the calculated radial-velocity variation due to planet c and stellar activity [… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Masses and radii of hot Earths in our sample (Rp/R)⊕ < 2, F/F⊕ > 650, log g > 4.0) and theoretical mass-radius curves for various compositions from Zeng et al. (2016). The color of the symbols conveys the value of F/F⊕. Top: Results drawn from the literature. For the cases in which more than one report is available, the leading initials of the first author are printed (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 40 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 note 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.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    main" (lambda () (LaTeX-add-bibitems

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    work page arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    2017, , 154, 232

    Angelo , I., & Hu , R. 2017, , 154, 232

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Mantelet , G., & Andrae , R. 2018, , 156, 58

    2018

  6. [6]

    2018, , 612, A95

    Barrag \'a n , O., Gandolfi , D., Dai , F., et al. 2018, , 612, A95

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    C., Vanderburg , A., Adams , F

    Becker , J. C., Vanderburg , A., Adams , F. C., Rappaport , S. A., & Schwengeler , H. M. 2015, , 812, L18

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Benz , W., Anic , A., Horner , J., & Whitby , J. A. 2008, The Origin of Mercury , ed. A. Balogh , L. Ksanfomality , & R. von Steiger , 7

    work page 2008

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    S., Zeng , L., Damasso , M., et al

    Bonomo , A. S., Zeng , L., Damasso , M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 416

    2019

  2. [10]

    2018, , 619, A1

    Bourrier , V., Dumusque , X., Dorn , C., et al. 2018, , 619, A1

    2018

  3. [11]

    L., Vanderburg , A., Burt , J., et al

    Christiansen , J. L., Vanderburg , A., Burt , J., et al. 2017, , 154, 122

    2017

  4. [12]

    Dai , F., Masuda , K., & Winn , J. N. 2018, , 864, L38

    2018

  5. [13]

    N., Gandolfi , D., et al

    Dai , F., Winn , J. N., Gandolfi , D., et al. 2017, , 154, 226

    2017

  6. [14]

    2016, , 532, 207

    Demory , B.-O., Gillon , M., de Wit , J., et al. 2016, , 532, 207

    2016

  7. [15]

    Dorn , C., Harrison , J. H. D., Bonsor , A., & Hands , T. O. 2019, , 484, 712

    2019

  8. [16]

    2016, , 222, 8

    Dotter , A. 2016, , 222, 8

    2016

  9. [17]

    D., Charbonneau , D., Dumusque , X., et al

    Dressing , C. D., Charbonneau , D., Dumusque , X., et al. 2015, , 800, 135

    2015

  10. [18]

    S., Haywood , R

    Dumusque , X., Bonomo , A. S., Haywood , R. D., et al. 2014, , 789, 154

    2014

  11. [19]

    S., & Agol , E

    Eastman , J., Gaudi , B. S., & Agol , E. 2013, , 125, 83

    2013

  12. [20]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  13. [21]

    J., & Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., & Petigura , E. A. 2018, , 156, 264

    2018

  14. [22]

    J., Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., Petigura , E. A., Howard , A. W., et al. 2017, , 154, 109

    2017

  15. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  16. [24]

    P., et al

    Gandolfi , D., Barrag \'a n , O., Hatzes , A. P., et al. 2017, , 154, 123

    2017

  17. [25]

    2017, , 469, 278

    Ginzburg , S., & Sari , R. 2017, , 469, 278

    2017

  18. [26]

    M., Schlafly , E

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E. F., Finkbeiner , D., et al. 2018, , 478, 651

    2018

  19. [27]

    W., Barrag \'a n , O., Dai , F., et al

    Guenther , E. W., Barrag \'a n , O., Dai , F., et al. 2017, , 608, A93

    2017

  20. [28]

    A., Margot, J.-L., Solomon, S

    Hauck II, S. A., Margot, J.-L., Solomon, S. C., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 118, 1204. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jgre.20091

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al

    Haywood , R. D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al. 2014, , 443, 2517

    2014

  22. [30]

    W., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Marcy , G

    Howard , A. W., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2013, , 503, 381

    2013

  23. [31]

    2006, , 451, 951

    Isella , A., Testi , L., & Natta , A. 2006, , 451, 951

    2006

  24. [32]

    R., Blunt , S., L \'o pez-Morales , M., et al

    Kosiarek , M. R., Blunt , S., L \'o pez-Morales , M., et al. 2019, , 157, 116

    2019

  25. [33]

    2015, , 127, 1161

    Kreidberg , L. 2015, , 127, 1161

    2015

  26. [34]

    2009, , 506, 399

    Lammer , H., Odert , P., Leitzinger , M., et al. 2009, , 506, 399

    2009

  27. [35]

    J., & Chiang , E

    Lee , E. J., & Chiang , E. 2016, , 817, 90

    2016

  28. [36]

    2017, , 842, 40

    ---. 2017, , 842, 40

    2017

  29. [37]

    2009, , 506, 287

    L \'e ger , A., Rouan , D., Schneider , J., et al. 2009, , 506, 287

    2009

  30. [38]

    Lewis, J. S. 1972, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 15, 286 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X72901744

    1972

  31. [39]

    Lopez , E. D. 2017, , 472, 245

    2017

  32. [40]

    S., Kjeldsen , H., Albrecht , S., et al

    Lundkvist , M. S., Kjeldsen , H., Albrecht , S., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11201

    2016

  33. [41]

    W., Louden , T., et al

    Malavolta , L., Mayo , A. W., Louden , T., et al. 2018, , 155, 107

    2018

  34. [42]

    Morton , T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package , Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1503.010

    2015

  35. [43]

    2017, , 154, 266

    Niraula , P., Redfield , S., Dai , F., et al. 2017, , 154, 266

    2017

  36. [44]

    2018, , 234, 9

    Ofir , A., Xie , J.-W., Jiang , C.-F., Sari , R., & Aharonson , O. 2018, , 234, 9

    2018

  37. [45]

    E., & Wu , Y

    Owen , J. E., & Wu , Y. 2017, , 847, 29

    2017

  38. [46]

    2011, , 192, 3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3

    2011

  39. [47]

    C., Latham , D

    Pepe , F., Cameron , A. C., Latham , D. W., et al. 2013, , 503, 377

    2013

  40. [48]

    A., Marcy , G

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

    2018

  41. [49]

    2018, , 618, A116

    Prieto-Arranz , J., Palle , E., Gandolfi , D., et al. 2018, , 618, A116

    2018

  42. [50]

    Rafikov , R. R. 2006, , 648, 666

    2006

  43. [51]

    2019, , 484, 3731

    Rice , K., Malavolta , L., Mayo , A., et al. 2019, , 484, 3731

    2019

  44. [52]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 914320

    2014

  45. [53]

    Rogers , L. A. 2015, , 801, 41

    2015

  46. [54]

    N., et al

    Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Rappaport , S., Winn , J. N., et al. 2014, , 787, 47

    2014

  47. [55]

    2013, , 774, 54

    ---. 2013, , 774, 54

    2013

  48. [56]

    J., et al

    Santerne , A., Brugger , B., Armstrong , D. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 393

    2018

  49. [57]

    W., Petigura , E

    Sinukoff , E., Howard , A. W., Petigura , E. A., et al. 2017, , 153, 271

    2017

  50. [58]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  51. [59]

    2008, , 386, 1644

    Southworth , J. 2008, , 386, 1644

    2008

  52. [60]

    2009, , 394, 272

    ---. 2009, , 394, 272

    2009

  53. [61]

    K., Wang , S., Wolfgang , A., et al

    Teske , J. K., Wang , S., Wolfgang , A., et al. 2018, , 155, 148

    2018

  54. [62]

    A., Sozzetti , A., et al

    Torres , G., Fischer , D. A., Sozzetti , A., et al. 2012, , 757, 161

    2012

  55. [63]

    A., Marchant , P., & Rogers , L

    Valsecchi , F., Rappaport , S., Rasio , F. A., Marchant , P., & Rogers , L. A. 2015, , 813, 101

    2015

  56. [64]

    C., Buchhave , L

    Vanderburg , A., Becker , J. C., Buchhave , L. A., et al. 2017, , 154, 237

    2017

  57. [65]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.03826

    Wang , L., & Dai , F. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.03826

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    G., Gillen , E., Bayliss , D., et al

    West , R. G., Gillen , E., Bayliss , D., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.00678

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., & Rappaport , S

    Winn , J. N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., & Rappaport , S. 2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1803.03303

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Rogers , L., et al

    Winn , J. N., Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Rogers , L., et al. 2017, , 154, 60

    2017

  61. [69]

    2013, , 769, 78

    Wurm , G., Trieloff , M., & Rauer , H. 2013, , 769, 78

    2013

  62. [70]

    W., Petigura , E

    Yee , S. W., Petigura , E. A., & von Braun , K. 2017, , 836, 77

    2017

  63. [71]

    D., & Jacobsen , S

    Zeng , L., Sasselov , D. D., & Jacobsen , S. B. 2016, , 819, 127

    2016

  64. [72]

    B., Sasselov, D

    Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S. B., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 9723. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/20/9723

    2019

Pith tools

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