Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Revisiting the Li abundances of Stars with and without Detected Planets from the High Resolution Spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hundreds of stars with and without detected planets show the same lithium abundance distribution, indicating that hosting Kepler-like planets does not measurably deplete stellar lithium.

desk verdict Useful homogeneous non-LTE Li catalog for 450 FGK stars, but the headline null result is under-powered by the acknowledged ~30% hidden-planet contamination in the 'isolated' sample and the absence of any quantitative significance testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21957 v1 pith:UFVTCOED submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Jinxiao Qin , Hong-Liang Yan , Wenyuan Cui , Jian-Rong Shi , Subo Dong , Shuai Liu , Zeming Zhou , Miao Tian
show 7 more authors
Zhenyan Huo Xiangsong Fang Jinghua Zhang Chunqian Li Mingyi Ding Song Wang Henggeng Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords StellarabundancesPlanethostingstarsspectrallinesLithiumdepletionNon-LTEcorrectionsKeplerplanetsFGKdwarfs
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 hosting planets makes a star more likely to have a low lithium abundance, a claim that has been argued since 2004 but never settled. The authors compare non-LTE lithium abundances of 279 stars with confirmed Kepler planets against 171 stars with no detected planets, matched in temperature, gravity, and metallicity. They find the two groups have statistically consistent lithium distributions, including in the 5600–5900 K range where earlier work reported strong lithium depletion in planet hosts. The conclusion is that the presence of Kepler-like planets does not have a significant impact on lithium depletion, and any apparent effect in earlier studies likely came from small samples or mismatched comparison stars.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the matched HS–IS comparison sample: 279 planet hosts and 171 isolated stars, each isolated star selected to minimize a combined difference in effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity relative to a host star. Lithium abundances come from spectral synthesis of the Li I 6707.8 Å lines with the MARCS model atmospheres, under non-LTE using the Shi et al. atomic model, and the S-index from Ca II H&K measures chromospheric activity. This matched design is what lets the authors attribute any abundance difference to planet presence rather than to stellar parameters, and the non-LTE treatment is what makes the comparison reliable for stars with high lithium.

What would settle it

A matched comparison of lithium abundances between a sample of stars with planet absence confirmed by long-baseline radial-velocity monitoring or direct imaging and a sample of confirmed planet hosts; if the planet-free stars show systematically higher lithium, the null result reported here would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that planet-host stars and isolated stars do not differ significantly in their surface lithium abundance once stellar parameters are matched and non-LTE corrections are applied. Using 279 host stars from the California-Kepler Survey and 171 isolated stars from the Keck archive, all observed with Keck/HIRES, the authors derive A(Li) from spectral synthesis of the Li I 6707.8 Å doublet under both LTE and non-LTE assumptions. The full sample, the unevolved subsample, and the specific 5600–5900 K window all show statistically indistinguishable A(Li) distributions between the two groups. The paper attributes the scatter seen in unevolved 5500–5800 K stars to stellar mass and convection-envelope depth rather than to the presence of planets, and shows that chromospheric activity does not bias the comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The isolated-star comparison group is defined by an absence of detected radial-velocity variations, not by a confirmed absence of planets, so hidden planetary systems may be mixed into the 'no-planet' sample and dilute any true lithium-depletion signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The earlier 5600–5900 K signal of lithium depletion in planet hosts is not reproduced in a larger, parameter-matched sample, so that result should be treated as a small-sample artifact.
  • Because lithium distributions are indistinguishable, lithium remains usable as an age and mixing indicator for FGK stars without needing to correct for the presence or absence of planets.
  • Non-LTE corrections should be applied to any lithium abundance above roughly 2.5 dex, since LTE abundances at that end are systematically offset and would bias comparisons.
  • For evolved stars in this sample, stellar evolution dominates lithium depletion, so planet effects, if any, are below the detection threshold of this dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cleaner falsification would compare lithium in stars with planet absence confirmed by long-baseline RV or direct imaging rather than by non-detection; the paper's IS sample likely contains roughly 30% hidden Kepler-like systems, which would dilute any true planet-induced depletion.
  • The non-LTE correction curve derived here could be applied to large spectroscopic surveys, potentially shifting the reported fractions of lithium-rich and lithium-poor stars once LTE-based catalogs are recalibrated.
  • Subdividing the host sample by planet size, multiplicity, or orbital distance, as earlier work did, could reveal effects that the aggregate presence/absence comparison washes out; the paper's null result bounds but does not exclude such effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents non-LTE Li abundances for 279 planet-host stars (HS) from the California-Kepler Survey and 171 isolated stars (IS) from Keck/HIRES spectra, spanning Teff = 4600–6600 K and [Fe/H] = −0.55 to +0.50. Using MARCS model atmospheres, SIU spectral synthesis, and the Shi et al. (2007) Li model atom, the authors compare the Li distributions of HS and IS and conclude that the distributions are generally consistent, implying that Kepler-like planets do not significantly impact Li depletion. They also report that non-LTE corrections become important for A(Li) above about 2.5 dex. The LTE measurements are validated against Berger et al. (2018), and chromospheric activity is discussed as a possible confounder, with particular attention to the 5600–5900 K range where earlier work claimed enhanced depletion in planet hosts.

Significance. If the null result were firmly established, the paper would strengthen the recent consensus (Baumann et al. 2010; Llorente de Andrés et al. 2024) against earlier claims that planet hosts are systematically Li-depleted, using a homogeneous Keck/HIRES sample with non-LTE corrections and an external comparison to Berger et al. (2018). The measurements themselves are a useful resource, and the paper explicitly acknowledges a key limitation of the IS sample. However, the central claim currently rests on visual comparisons, is diluted by an acknowledged ~30% contamination of the IS sample by undetected Kepler-like planets, and does not properly account for upper-limit censoring. These issues are addressable with sensitivity analysis and statistical tests, so the paper is promising but not yet conclusive.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2 and §4.3] The central null claim is not supported by the sample design because the IS sample is not planet-free. Section 2.2 concedes that RV non-detections "do not necessarily exclude the presence of Kepler-like planetary systems" and cites a ~30% occurrence rate around FGK dwarfs. For 171 IS stars this implies roughly 50 hidden planet hosts, so if the true Li-depletion effect of Kepler-like planets is δ, the expected HS−IS difference is only (1−f)δ with f≈0.3. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis, mixture model, or upper limit on δ that would let the reader convert "generally consistent" into "no significant impact." Please add such an analysis or explicitly weaken the conclusion to an upper limit consistent with the dilution.
  2. [§4.3; Fig. 6] The claim that the HS and IS Li distributions are consistent rests on visual inspection: phrases such as "generally consistent" and "we do not see a significant deviation" are not accompanied by any two-sample statistical test. Please add quantitative tests (for example, Kolmogorov–Smirnov or Anderson–Darling tests on detections, plus survival-analysis variants that include upper limits) for the full sample, for evolved/unevolved subsamples, and for the 5600–5900 K bin, and report effect sizes with uncertainties. The apparent larger scatter of unevolved HS at 5500–5800 K should also be tested rather than attributed to mass only via Fig. 7.
  3. [§3.2 and §4.1] The distributional comparison treats stars with only upper limits on A(Li) as if they were detections or ignores them, despite the red arrows in Fig. 6 marking censored values. Because the low-Li tail is dominated by upper limits, and the censoring fraction may differ between HS and IS, this can bias the conclusion. Please state the number and fraction of upper limits in each sample and repeat the comparison using survival analysis or another method that properly handles censored data.
  4. [§4.4] The S-index comparison is purely descriptive, and the text concludes that the chromospheric activities "do not differ significantly" without a statistical test. This matters because the RV-based IS selection is biased toward low-activity (likely older) stars, and age is the main alternative driver of Li depletion highlighted by Baumann et al. (2010). Please quantify the activity difference (e.g., a two-sample test or a comparison restricted to the common low-activity regime) and, ideally, include an age/activity proxy in the matching or in a sensitivity check.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence "There are much less evolved stars than the unevolved ones in the CKS, and thus we include all the unevolved CKS stars in our HS sample" appears to have "unevolved" and "evolved" reversed in the final clause; please correct the sample-selection description.
  2. [§2.1] The Keck/HIRES instrument is cited as Wolszczan (1994), but that reference is for the discovery of pulsar planets; please replace it with the appropriate HIRES instrument paper.
  3. [§3.2] The phrase "checked by eyes" should read "checked by eye."
  4. [§4.5] The phrase "references theirin" contains a typo; it should be "references therein."
  5. [Eq. (1)] The matching metric gives equal weight to ΔTeff/1000, Δlogg, and Δ[Fe/H]; please justify the weighting or state whether the conclusions are robust to the chosen weights.
  6. [§4.2; Fig. 5] The paper states that non-LTE corrections cannot be neglected for A(Li) above 2.5 dex; please quote the typical correction amplitude in this regime, since Fig. 5 shows values up to roughly 0.1–0.15 dex.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Li abundances are measured independently and compared between planet-host and isolated samples; author-overlap citations provide tools and data, not the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that HS and IS Li distributions are consistent—rests on spectroscopic Li abundance measurements, not on any parameter fitted to the HS-IS difference. The IS sample is matched to HS only in Teff, log g, and [Fe/H] via Eq. (1); Li is deliberately excluded from the matching, so the subsequent comparison is not forced by construction. Model atoms (Shi et al. 2007), atomic data (Yan et al. 2018), and stellar parameters (Liu et al. 2020, Johnson et al. 2017) are external inputs applied identically to both groups; although some of these references share authors with the present paper, they are tool/data provenance and are independently validated or falsifiable, so they do not encode the null conclusion. The A(Li) measurements are externally benchmarked against Berger et al. (2018) in Fig. 4 and agree with independent samples (I09, L24) in Fig. 9. The acknowledged ~30% undetected-planet contamination of the IS sample (Sec. 2.2) weakens the statistical power of the null result but is a sample-design limitation, not a circularity: the paper does not assume no planet-Li depletion in order to conclude it. No load-bearing step reduces by definition or by fit to its own inputs. Score 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations (Shi et al. 2007; Yan et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2020; Zhu et al. 2018).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The comparison rests on two sample-definition assumptions: that RV-quiet stars approximate planet-free stars, and that stellar parameters from two different surveys are on the same scale. No new particles or physical entities are introduced. The matching weights in Eq. 1 are a hand-chosen normalization that shapes the comparison sample but are not fitted to the lithium data.

free parameters (1)
  • Sample matching weights in Eq. 1 = 1/1000 (Teff), 1 (log g), 1 ([Fe/H])
    Weights in the selection distance of Eq. 1 are chosen to balance parameter units; they determine which IS stars are paired with each HS and therefore shape the comparison sample. They are not fitted to the lithium data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Stars with no detected RV variations are representative of stars without Kepler-like planets, or contamination is small enough to preserve a difference if one existed.
    The IS sample is defined by RV non-detection; Section 2.2 concedes RV non-detections do not exclude Kepler-like planets and cites about 30% Kepler-like planet frequency, so the comparison is diluted.
  • domain assumption Adopted atmospheric parameters from Johnson et al. (2017) and Liu et al. (2020) are mutually consistent and accurate.
    Teff, log g, and [Fe/H] are taken from different surveys for HS and IS; systematic offsets between the two parameter scales would bias the lithium comparison.
  • domain assumption MARCS model atmospheres, SIU spectral synthesis, and the Shi et al. non-LTE Li model atom correctly describe the 6707 A line formation.
    All measured Li abundances rest on the validity of these standard modeling tools, as described in Section 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the Li abundances of Stars with and without Detected Planets from the High Resolution Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UFVTCOED

@misc{pith2026250521957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the Li abundances of Stars with and without Detected Planets from the High Resolution Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UFVTCOED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21957}
}
read the original abstract

Whether the presence of planets affects the lithium (Li) abundance of their host stars is still an open question. To investigate the difference of the Li abundance between planet-host stars (HS) and isolated stars (IS) with no detected planets, we analyze a large sample of stars with temperatures ranging from 4600 to 6600 K and metallicity ranging from -0.55 to +0.50. The sample consists of 279 HS whose spectra were taken from the California-Kepler Survey (CKS), which followed up planets detected by Kepler, and 171 IS whose spectra were taken from the Keck archive. The non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) effects were taken into consideration. It is found that the distribution of Li abundances in both the HS and IS groups are generally consistent with each other. This suggests that the presence of Kepler-like planets does not have a significant impact on Li depletion. We also found that the non-LTE corrections can not be neglected for stars with A(Li) over ~ 2.5 dex.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The positions of the 1305 HS on the H-R diagram are shown in the figure. Brown open circles represent the 1305 plant-host stars from CKS and blue spots represent the 327 adopted HS sample in this work. exoplanet archive1 to ensure that all the selected HS are reliable. We found that 47 stars are not found in the NASA exoplanet archive, and removed them from the sample. Finally, our HS sample consists of 279 stars. T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of stellar sample. (a) Histogram showing Teff for the 279 HS and 171 IS. (b) log g (c) [Fe/H] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of spectral synthesis used in this work. The black dots are the observed spectra and the red lines are the theoretical spectra. From right to left, the gray areas represent synthesis spectra with A(Li)NLTE ± 0.1 dex, A(Li)NLTE ± 0.2 dex and A(Li)NLTE ± 0.3 dex, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A(Li)NLTE − A(Li)LTE of HS (triangle) and IS (points) versus Teff . The color-bar indicates A(Li)LTE unevolved HS and IS samples in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Li abundance measured in this work is compared with those measured by Berger et al. (2018). Blue circles represent best-fit Li abundance, and gray crosses rep￾resent the upper limit. The red line shows the 1:1 relation￾ship between the two parameters. dance determi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Teff vs. A(Li)NLTE. The figure shows the HS sample as gray filled dots and the IS sample as blank empty circles. The red down-arrows indicates stars with upper limit of Li abundance. Figure(a) shows the whole sample. The two panels (b) and (c) represent unevolved stars…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Teff vs. A(Li)NLTE; symbols have the same mean￾ings as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of S-index. The left two panels represent unevolved stars and evolved stars, respectively. The HS sample is shown as brown filled circles and the IS sample is shown as blue empty circles. The histogram showing the frequency distribution of the S-index for …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A(Li) vs. Teff for the stars from our sample (filled and empty dots), Llorente de Andr´es et al. (2024, filled and empty triangle) and Israelian et al. (2009, filled and empty square). Filled and empty markers represent stars with and without detected planets, respecti…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of S-index in 5600-5900 K; symbols have the same meanings as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    *o rW S 5 x8

    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...

    2017

  2. [2]

    Z., Delgado Mena , E., Sousa , S

    Adibekyan , V. Z., Delgado Mena , E., Sousa , S. G., et al. 2012, , 547, A36

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Z., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J

    Adibekyan , V. Z., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., Delgado Mena , E., et al. 2014, , 564, L15

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    H., & Carlberg , J

    Aguilera-G \'o mez , C., Chanam \'e , J., Pinsonneault , M. H., & Carlberg , J. K. 2016, , 833, L24

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    S., O'Mara , B

    Barklem , P. S., O'Mara , B. J., & Ross , J. E. 1998, , 296, 1057

    1998

  6. [6]

    2010, , 519, A87

    Baumann , P., Ram \' rez , I., Mel \'e ndez , J., Asplund , M., & Lind , K. 2010, , 519, A87

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    A., Howard , A

    Berger , T. A., Howard , A. W., & Boesgaard , A. M. 2018, , 855, 115

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    J., Jeffers , S

    Boro Saikia , S., Marvin , C. J., Jeffers , S. V., et al. 2018, , 616, A108

    work page 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    2008, , 489, L53

    Bouvier , J. 2008, , 489, L53

    2008

  2. [10]

    1993, , 100, 647

    Bressan , A., Fagotto , F., Bertelli , G., & Chiosi , C. 1993, , 100, 647

    1993

  3. [11]

    2012, , 427, 127

    Bressan , A., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127

    2012

  4. [12]

    M., Fischer , D

    Brewer , J. M., Fischer , D. A., Valenti , J. A., & Piskunov , N. 2016, , 225, 32

    2016

  5. [13]

    2018, , 478, 4513

    Buder , S., Asplund , M., Duong , L., et al. 2018, , 478, 4513

    2018

  6. [14]

    2021, , 506, 150

    Buder , S., Sharma , S., Kos , J., et al. 2021, , 506, 150

    2021

  7. [15]

    R., Ho , A

    Casey , A. R., Ho , A. Y. Q., Ness , M., et al. 2019, , 880, 125

    2019

  8. [16]

    2019, , 487, 3162

    Chavero , C., de la Reza , R., Ghezzi , L., et al. 2019, , 487, 3162

    2019

  9. [17]

    Q., & Zhao , G

    Chen , Y. Q., & Zhao , G. 2006, , 131, 1816

    2006

  10. [18]

    M., Freeman , K

    De Silva , G. M., Freeman , K. C., Bland-Hawthorn , J., et al. 2015, , 449, 2604

    2015

  11. [19]

    Z., et al

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    I., et al

    Delgado Mena , E., Israelian , G., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., et al. 2014, , 562, A92

    2014

  13. [21]

    2022, , 260, 45

    Ding , M.-Y., Shi , J.-R., Wu , Y., et al. 2022, , 260, 45

    2022

  14. [22]

    2024 a , , 271, 58

    Ding , M.-Y., Shi , J.-R., Yan , H.-l., et al. 2024 a , , 271, 58

    2024

  15. [23]

    2024 b , , 976, 243

    Ding , Y., Zhang , S., Han , H., et al. 2024 b , , 976, 243

    2024

  16. [24]

    M., Stancil , P

    Fontenla , J. M., Stancil , P. C., & Landi , E. 2015, , 809, 157

    2015

  17. [25]

    J., Petigura , E

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

    2017

  18. [26]

    M., et al

    Gao , X., Lind , K., Amarsi , A. M., et al. 2018, , 481, 2666

    2018

  19. [27]

    V., & de la Reza , R

    Ghezzi , L., Cunha , K., Smith , V. V., & de la Reza , R. 2010, , 724, 154

    2010

  20. [28]

    2008, , 486, 951

    Gustafsson , B., Edvardsson , B., Eriksson , K., et al. 2008, , 486, 951

    2008

  21. [29]

    A., Hasselquist , S., Shetrone , M., et al

    Holtzman , J. A., Hasselquist , S., Shetrone , M., et al. 2018, , 156, 125

    2018

  22. [30]

    C., Mayor , M., & Rebolo , R

    Israelian , G., Santos , N. C., Mayor , M., & Rebolo , R. 2004, , 414, 601

    2004

  23. [31]

    C., et al

    Israelian , G., Delgado Mena , E., Santos , N. C., et al. 2009, , 462, 189

    2009

  24. [32]

    2015, , 574, A50

    Jofr \'e , E., Petrucci , R., Saffe , C., et al. 2015, , 574, A50

    2015

  25. [33]

    A., Petigura , E

    Johnson , J. A., Petigura , E. A., Fulton , B. J., et al. 2017, , 154, 108

    2017

  26. [34]

    R., Deliyannis , C

    King , J. R., Deliyannis , C. P., Hiltgen , D. D., et al. 1997, , 113, 1871

    1997

  27. [35]

    2024, , 273, 18

    Li , C.-q., Shi , J.-r., Yan , H.-l., et al. 2024, , 273, 18

    2024

  28. [36]

    Lind , K., Asplund , M., & Barklem , P. S. 2009, , 503, 541

    2009

  29. [37]

    2020, , 896, 64

    Liu , S., Shi , J., & Wu , Z. 2020, , 896, 64

    2020

  30. [38]

    2024, , 684, A28

    Llorente de Andr \'e s , F., de la Reza , R., Cruz , P., et al. 2024, , 684, A28

    2024

  31. [39]

    E., & Heiter , U

    Luck , R. E., & Heiter , U. 2006, , 131, 3069

    2006

  32. [40]

    Mishenina , T., Kovtyukh , V., Soubiran , C., & Adibekyan , V. Z. 2016, , 462, 1563

    2016

  33. [41]

    2002, , 386, 1039

    Montalb \'a n , J., & Rebolo , R. 2002, , 386, 1039

    2002

  34. [42]

    A., Howard , A

    Petigura , E. A., Howard , A. W., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2017, , 154, 107

    2017

  35. [43]

    H., Kawaler , S

    Pinsonneault , M. H., Kawaler , S. D., & Demarque , P. 1990, , 74, 501

    1990

  36. [44]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 6

    Randich , S., & Magrini , L. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 6

    2021

  37. [45]

    1999, in Chemical Evolution from Zero to High Redshift, ed

    Reetz , J. 1999, in Chemical Evolution from Zero to High Redshift, ed. J. R. Walsh & M. R. Rosa , 66

    1999

  38. [46]

    Ryan , S. G. 2000, , 316, L35

    2000

  39. [47]

    R., Gehren , T., Zhang , H

    Shi , J. R., Gehren , T., Zhang , H. W., Zeng , J. L., & Zhao , G. 2007, , 465, 587

    2007

  40. [48]

    M., King , J

    Stephens , A., Boesgaard , A. M., King , J. R., & Deliyannis , C. P. 1997, , 491, 339

    1997

  41. [49]

    E., Avrett , E

    Vernazza , J. E., Avrett , E. H., & Loeser , R. 1981, , 45, 635

    1981

  42. [50]

    X., Nordlander , T., Asplund , M., et al

    Wang , E. X., Nordlander , T., Asplund , M., et al. 2021, , 500, 2159

    2021

  43. [51]

    Wilson , O. C. 1978, , 226, 379

    1978

  44. [52]

    1994, Science, 264, 538

    Wolszczan , A. 1994, Science, 264, 538

    1994

  45. [53]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 790

    Yan , H.-L., Shi , J.-R., Zhou , Y.-T., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 790

    2018

  46. [54]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 86

    Yan , H.-L., Zhou , Y.-T., Zhang , X., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 86

    2021

  47. [55]

    L., et al

    Zhao , G., Mashonkina , L., Yan , H. L., et al. 2016, , 833, 225

    2016

  48. [56]

    2021, , 59, 291

    Zhu , W., & Dong , S. 2021, , 59, 291

    2021

  49. [57]

    2018, , 860, 101

    Zhu , W., Petrovich , C., Wu , Y., Dong , S., & Xie , J. 2018, , 860, 101

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.