Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Where in the Milky Way Do Exoplanets Preferentially Form?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The formation efficiency of exoplanets decreases with galactocentric distance, and this decline is steeper for high-mass planets than for low-mass planets, tracking the Milky Way's chemical evolution.

desk verdict A careful but model-dependent application of Minchev et al.'s birth-radius reconstruction; the radial gradient in F_p is essentially the planet-metallicity correlation remapped onto radius, so the central claim needs reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11660 v1 pith:VVPTNRRJ submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Joana Teixeira , Vardan Adibekyan , Diego Bossini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanetformationGalacticchemicalevolutionbirthradiimetallicitygradientplanetefficiencystellaragesMilkyWaydiskhigh-massplanets
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 tries to establish where in the Milky Way exoplanets preferentially form by reconstructing the Galactic birth radii of planet-hosting stars from their ages and iron abundances. The authors find that stars with planets are born closer to the Galactic center than stars without detected planets, and that this displacement is larger for stars hosting high-mass planets than for those hosting low-mass planets. They define the formation efficiency of planets as the relative frequency of planetary systems among all stars in a bin and show that this efficiency declines with galactocentric distance while rising over cosmic time for high-mass planets. The trends match the Galaxy's inside-out chemical enrichment, in which the inner disk is metal-rich and the ISM metallicity gradient flattens with time. If correct, the work connects exoplanet demographics to Galactic chemical evolution and predicts where future surveys should find the most planetary systems.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the birth-radius inference of Minchev et al. (2018), which maps a star's [Fe/H] and age to a unique Galactic birth radius by inverting logarithmic functions for the time evolution of the ISM metallicity at the solar radius and of the radial metallicity gradient. Stellar ages come from PARAM isochrone fitting with PARSEC models, using effective temperature, [Fe/H], and bolometric luminosities from Gaia and 2MASS photometry. The relative frequency $F_p = \frac{\text{number of planetary systems}}{\text{total number of stars}}$ is then computed in bins of [Fe/H], age, and $r_{\mathrm{birth}}$ as a proxy for formation efficiency.

What would settle it

Compare the birth radii inferred from [Fe/H] and age with kinematic birth radii (guiding radii) from Gaia astrometry for the same stars; if the two do not agree, or if stars in open clusters with known distances do not lie on the assumed [Fe/H]–radius relation at their cluster age, the radial and temporal trends in formation efficiency would be artifacts of the chemical evolution model rather than real spatial patterns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the formation efficiency of planets, measured as the relative frequency of stars hosting a given planet type, declines with galactocentric distance and that this decline is more pronounced for high-mass planets (≥50 Earth masses) than for low-mass planets (≤30 Earth masses). High-mass planet formation efficiency also rises with time and spreads to larger galactocentric radii, while low-mass planet efficiency is nearly flat, with a mild increase between 4 and 8 Gyr. Stars without detected planets appear to form at progressively larger galactocentric distances with time. The authors attribute these trends to Galactic chemical evolution: the ISM's negative metallicity gradient makes the inner disk metal-rich and planet-friendly, and enrichment with time allows planet formation to reach larger radii.

Load-bearing premise

The entire birth-radius reconstruction rests on the adopted Minchev et al. (2018) relation between a star's [Fe/H] and age and its birth radius; if that chemical evolution calibration is wrong, every inferred $r_{\mathrm{birth}}$ value and every trend in formation efficiency shifts systematically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Planet formation efficiency is highest in the inner Galactic disk and declines outward, implying that the Galaxy's planetary systems are centrally concentrated.
  • High-mass planets form preferentially in metal-rich, inner regions and increasingly at later times, consistent with core accretion's metallicity dependence.
  • Low-mass planets form more uniformly, with a slight peak at intermediate ages, suggesting their formation is less sensitive to metallicity.
  • The time-spreading of formation efficiency to larger radii means younger planetary systems are found farther out, a signature that can be tested with large-area surveys.
  • If the birth-radius mapping is correct, exoplanet occurrence rates should correlate with stellar birth radius, not just present-day Galactocentric distance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to compare the [Fe/H]-based birth radii with kinematic guiding radii from Gaia astrometry for the same stars; if they do not reproduce the same radial gradient, the reported $F_p$ trends would be artifacts of the chemical evolution model rather than real spatial variation.
  • The paper's interpretation implies that the first generation of planets formed almost exclusively in the inner disk; bulge or thick-disk planetary systems may represent an older, metal-poor population with distinct mass demographics.
  • The reported increase of $F_p$ with time for high-mass planets could be sharpened into a quantitative prediction for the PLATO mission: the fraction of stars hosting giant planets among young (<4 Gyr) inner-disk stars should exceed that of older populations by a measurable factor.
  • Because the HARPS-GTO comparison sample is small and volume-limited, a larger homogeneous survey could test whether the host-star versus single-star differences persist after accounting for detection biases.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper infers the Galactic birth radii of exoplanet host stars by combining stellar ages from PARAM/PARSEC isochrones with the Minchev et al. (2018) method, which maps a star's [Fe/H] and age onto the radius where the ISM had the same [Fe/H] at the star's birth. Using SWEET-Cat planet hosts (548 stars) and HARPS-GTO stars with (83) and without (491) planets, the authors find that hosts are more metal-rich, younger, and have smaller inferred r_birth than non-hosts, with high-mass planet hosts showing the strongest offsets. Defining F_p as the relative frequency of planetary systems, they report that F_p increases with [Fe/H], decreases with age, and decreases with r_birth, more steeply for high-mass than for low-mass planets; splitting by age, they report that high-mass planet formation efficiency increases with time and extends to larger galactocentric radii, in agreement with the assumed ISM enrichment and gradient flattening. They conclude that exoplanet formation follows Galactic chemical evolution.

Significance. If the central result were an independent measurement, the paper would establish an empirical radial and temporal map of exoplanet formation efficiency across the Galactic disk, a valuable benchmark for chemical evolution and planet formation models (Baba et al. 2023; Boettner et al. 2024). The paper has real strengths: homogeneous host and comparison samples from SWEET-Cat and HARPS-GTO, a transparent age-inference pipeline (PARAM with PARSEC isochrones), bootstrap-based uncertainties on ages and r_birth, binomial confidence intervals on F_p, KS significance tests, an explicit statement of the incompleteness caveat (Sect. 4.4), and predictions that future surveys such as PLATO can falsify. The confirmation of the planet-metallicity and planet-mass-metallicity trends is solid and useful. However, the central spatial claim is not an independent measurement: it is the well-established planet-metallicity correlation remapped through the assumed Minchev et al. (2018) ISM metallicity evolution, whose time-dependent gradient also prescribes the reported temporal expansion. Reframed as a model-conditional projection, the paper is a reasonable application with modest novelty.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, §4.4, §4.5, Figs. 8-9] The central claim of the abstract—that planet formation efficiency decreases with galactocentric distance, and that high-mass planet formation 'increases with time and encompasses a larger galactocentric distance over time'—is largely prescribed by the construction rather than measured. In Section 3, r_birth is inferred by inverting the Minchev et al. (2018) relation between [Fe/H], age, and the ISM metallicity, in which the ISM [Fe/H] is a strictly monotonic decreasing function of radius at every age; any star with above-average [Fe/H] is therefore assigned a below-average r_birth by construction. Since Fig. 6 shows that F_p increases with [Fe/H] (an independent, well-established result), the decline of F_p with r_birth in Fig. 8 is, to first order, the same relation relabeled through the assumed chemical evolution model, and the KS tests on r_birth in Table 1 are tests on a deterministic transform of [Fe/H] and age rather than on independent spatial information. The time-evolution claims (Fig. 9, Sect. 4.5) inherit the same structure: the adopted gradient flattens with time (from about -0.15 to -0.07 dex kpc^-1), so younger stars are assigned larger r_birth automatically, making the 'encompasses a larger galactocentric distance over time' conclusion a consequence of the assumed gradient flattening. Accordingly, the characterization of the method as 'semi-empirical and model-independent' (Section 3) is not supportable, and the closing statement of Section 5 that the results 'are in agreement with the observed negative ISM metallicity gradient and its enrichment and flattening with time' is circular, since that gradient is an input to the analysis. To make the central claim supportable, the authors should (i) validate the inferred r_birth against an independent estimate such as kinematic guiding radii from Gaia astrometry for the HARPS-GTO sample; (ii) test the sensitivity of Figs. 8-9 to the assumed gradient and its time evolution, e.g., by freezing the present-day gradient or by perturbing the Minchev et al. (2018) fits within their uncertainties; and (iii) examine F_p versus r_birth within fixed [Fe/H] bins, which would isolate the age-dependent part of the projection. Without such tests, the abstract's 'we show' should be revised to a model-conditional statement.
  2. [§4.4, Eq. (2), Figs. 6-8] The construction of F_p in Eq. (2) is ambiguous for the SWEET-Cat panels. SWEET-Cat contains 548 host stars and no stars without detected planets, so the denominator 'total number of stars' must draw on the HARPS-GTO single-star sample; the figures (Figs. 6-8) indeed show single-star counts in the SWEET-Cat panels, but the text never states that HARPS-GTO stars are used as the denominator there. This matters because the two catalogues have different selection functions: HARPS-GTO is a volume-limited radial-velocity survey within 500 pc, whereas SWEET-Cat is a compiled catalogue of planet hosts within 2 kpc assembled from heterogeneous surveys. The paper acknowledges that 'this is not the mathematically correct way to compute the frequency of planetary systems' but then asserts that 'the observed trends should reflect the true dependencies' without demonstrating that the trends survive the incompleteness; mixing a local single-star denominator with a more distant host numerator can imprint spurious trends in age and metallicity through distance-dependent detectability. Please specify exactly how N_total is computed for each panel of Figs. 6-8, and show whether the reported trends persist when the analysis is restricted to the volume-limited HARPS-GTO sample alone or when basic completeness corrections are applied.
  3. [§4.3] There is a direct internal contradiction in Section 4.3. The text states that 'HMPHs have, on average, smaller r_birth than LMPHs and ELMPHs, the latter having the smallest r_birth among the three groups,' but the quoted mean values are 5.7 ± 0.1, 5.9 ± 0.2, and 6.1 ± 0.2 kpc for SWEET-Cat HMPHs, LMPHs, and ELMPHs, respectively, and 5.6 ± 0.2, 5.6 ± 0.3, and 6.0 ± 0.4 kpc for the HARPS-GTO sample. In both samples the ELMPHs have the largest mean r_birth, not the smallest; the sentence should read 'the latter having the largest r_birth.' More importantly, because Table 1 shows no statistically significant differences in r_birth among the three planet-host groups in either sample, the discussion in Section 5 should not present differences in mean r_birth between the planetary groups as a measured result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4, Table 1] Because systems containing both a high- and a low-mass planet are counted in both the HMPH and LMPH groups (as noted in Section 4), the KS tests comparing HMPHs with LMPHs are not comparisons of independent samples, and the two F_p curves in Figs. 6-9 are not mutually exclusive; this should be acknowledged where the tests are interpreted.
  2. [Abstract; §4.4-4.5] F_p is repeatedly called the 'formation efficiency of planets,' but Eq. (2) defines it as the ratio of detected planetary systems to sample stars with no completeness correction; a more neutral term such as 'detected planet-host fraction' would better match the quantity actually measured.
  3. [§3] The rule that a star is retained when only one of its two age estimates (tau_G or tau_KS) falls below the 13.3 Gyr limit, with the below-limit estimate used in isolation, is asymmetric and could bias the inferred ages of the oldest stars; the authors should either justify the rule or demonstrate that it does not affect the age and r_birth distributions.
  4. [§3, §4.2] The paper quotes mean ages and standard errors but never the typical 68% uncertainty on individual PARAM ages; because r_birth depends on age through the time-evolving metallicity gradient, the median individual age uncertainty should be reported (the acknowledgement in the discussion that ages are a key limiting factor is welcome but does not replace this information).
  5. [§4.5, Fig. 9] The low-mass-planet time-evolution claims rest on 23, 40, and 17 SWEET-Cat LMPHs in the three age bins (and only 19 HARPS-GTO LMPHs in total); the text should quote these counts next to the claims in abstract items (ii) and (iii) and should hedge wherever the binomial uncertainties are comparable to the reported trends.
  6. [§5 (Data availability)] The manuscript does not provide a machine-readable table of the derived ages and birth radii or a data/code availability statement; providing these would materially help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central radial and temporal F_p trends are remappings of the adopted [Fe/H]-age-to-r_birth calibration, not independent spatial measurements.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 (Stellar ages and Galactic birth radii)]
    "To infer the r_birth of stars, we adopted the same method as Minchev et al. (2018), using [Fe/H] and age estimations. We choose this method because it consists of projecting stars back to their birth position according to only their [Fe/H] and age measurements... In practice, the r_birth was inferred from the [Fe/H]–r relation for a given age."

    r_birth is computed by inverting an assumed monotonically decreasing [Fe/H]–radius relation at each age, so higher-[Fe/H] stars are assigned smaller r_birth by construction. Because the paper independently shows that planet hosts are metal-richer (Sect. 4.1) and that F_p rises with [Fe/H] (Fig. 6), the claimed decline of F_p with galactocentric distance (Fig. 8) is a remapping of the F_p–[Fe/H] relation through the adopted chemical-evolution model. No new spatial information is added by the projection; the radial gradient is an input, not an output.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5 (Discussion and Conclusion), time-evolution claim]
    "Our results suggest that the formation efficiency of high-mass planets increases with time and encompasses a larger galactocentric distance over time. These results are in agreement with ... the ISM enrichment and flattening with time at any radius, which favours the formation of these planets around younger and metal-richer stars, encompassing larger galactocentric radii."

    The age-dependent radial mapping already assumes the ISM metallicity gradient flattens with time (Minchev et al. 2018 logarithmic fits), so younger stars at a given [Fe/H] are assigned larger r_birth. The conclusion that high-mass planet formation 'encompasses a larger galactocentric distance over time' is therefore encoded in the calibration before any data are examined; the stated 'agreement' with the assumed flattening is tautological rather than an independent empirical finding.

full rationale

The paper's genuinely independent measurements are the [Fe/H], age, and planet-mass distributions and the F_p([Fe/H]) and F_p(age) trends. Those results stand on their own. The circularity enters when the same data are projected onto a Galactic radius axis: r_birth is not measured but is defined as the radius at which the adopted ISM metallicity equals the star's observed [Fe/H] at the star's age. Since the adopted Minchev et al. (2018) relation is monotonic and since planet hosts are systematically metal-richer, the abstract's central claim that planet formation efficiency decreases with galactocentric distance follows by construction from the well-known F_p–[Fe/H] correlation. The same holds for the time evolution claim, which inherits the assumed flattening of the gradient. The paper does not validate the adopted calibration on its own stars or test an alternative radial mapping, and Section 4.3 even contains an internal inconsistency: the text states ELMPHs have the smallest r_birth while the quoted means show they have the largest (6.1 +/- 0.2 kpc vs. 5.7 +/- 0.1 kpc for HMPHs). These issues do not invalidate the [Fe/H]-based results, but they mean the specifically spatial conclusions are partially circular and need external validation against samples with kinematic or asteroseismic birth-radius estimates.

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

The central claims rest on an external chemical evolution calibration (Minchev et al. 2018), chosen sample cuts, and an admittedly incomplete frequency estimator. No new first-principles derivation is offered; the r_birth coordinate is reconstructed from the same [Fe/H] that already correlates with planet occurrence.

free parameters (4)
  • Minchev et al. (2018) ISM metallicity evolution parameters = not quoted in paper
    The r_birth inference inverts the adopted logarithmic relations for [Fe/H]_ISM(r_sun,t) and d[Fe/H]/dr(t) from Minchev et al. (2018). These were fitted to stellar populations in that paper; the present results inherit them without re-fitting or sensitivity testing.
  • Age cut at 13.3 Gyr = 13.3 Gyr
    Stars with both age estimates above 13.3 Gyr were removed (Section 3), truncating the old stellar population and potentially biasing age and r_birth distributions.
  • Mass thresholds for HMPH and LMPH grouping = >= 50 M_earth and <= 30 M_earth
    Cuts adopted from literature (Section 4) to define high- and low-mass planet hosts; the exact values affect the composition and relative sizes of the subgroups.
  • Added systematic uncertainties = 0.04 dex [Fe/H], 60 K T_eff, 0.1 dex log g
    Adopted from Sousa et al. (2011) and added in quadrature (Section 2); these inflate the age PDFs and hence the width of inferred r_birth distributions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stellar photospheric [Fe/H] is unchanged since birth and reflects the ISM metallicity at the formation site and time.
    Central to the birth radius method; invoked throughout Sections 3 and 4. If stars alter their surface [Fe/H] through mixing or accretion, the inferred r_birth is biased.
  • domain assumption The Minchev et al. (2018) [Fe/H]-age-radius relations correctly describe the chemical evolution of the Milky Way disc.
    Section 3 states 'we adopted the same method as Minchev et al. (2018)'. The logarithmic gradient and its flattening over time are taken as true without independent validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption The relative frequency F_p = N_systems / N_stars from the combined SWEET-Cat and HARPS-GTO samples can be interpreted as formation efficiency despite incompleteness.
    Section 4.4 acknowledges this is not the mathematically correct frequency and that completeness corrections are needed, yet the abstract and conclusions treat the resulting trends as formation efficiencies.
  • domain assumption PARAM/PARSEC isochrone-based ages are reliable for the FGK stars in the samples.
    Section 3 uses PARAM to derive ages from T_eff, [Fe/H], and luminosity. No independent age validation (e.g., asteroseismology or gyrochronology) is provided, and age is a key input to r_birth.
  • standard math Standard statistical tests (KS and binomial CI) are applicable despite overlapping group membership.
    Section 4 uses KS tests between groups; some planetary systems appear in both HMPH and LMPH groups, so the samples are not strictly independent, which can affect the validity of the p-values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Where in the Milky Way Do Exoplanets Preferentially Form?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VVPTNRRJ

@misc{pith2026250111660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Where in the Milky Way Do Exoplanets Preferentially Form?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VVPTNRRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11660}
}
abstract

Exoplanets are detected around stars of different ages and birthplaces within the Galaxy. The aim of this work is to infer the Galactic birth radii ($r_\text{birth}$) of stars and, consequently, their planets, with the ultimate goal of studying the Galactic aspects of exoplanet formation. We used photometric, spectroscopic, and astrometric data to estimate the stellar ages of two samples of stars hosting planets and, for comparison, a sample of stars without detected planets. The $r_\text{birth}$ of exoplanets were inferred by projecting stars back to their birth positions based on their estimated age and metallicity [Fe/H]. We find that stars hosting planets have higher [Fe/H], are younger, and have smaller $r_\text{birth}$ compared to stars without detected planets. In particular, stars hosting high-mass planets show higher [Fe/H], are younger, and have smaller $r_\text{birth}$ than stars hosting low-mass planets. We show that the formation efficiency of planets, calculated as the relative frequency of planetary systems, decreases with the galactocentric distance, which relationship is stronger for high-mass planets than for low-mass planets. Additionally, we find that (i) the formation efficiency of high-mass planets increases with time and encompasses a larger galactocentric distance over time; (ii) the formation efficiency of low-mass planets shows a slight increase between the ages of 4 and 8 Gyr and also encompasses a larger galactocentric distance over time; and (iii) stars without detected planets appear to form at larger galactocentric distances over time. We conclude that the formation of exoplanets throughout the Galaxy follows the Galactic chemical evolution, for which our results are in agreement with the observed negative interstellar medium (ISM) metallicity gradient and its enrichment and flattening with time at any radius.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Benchmark Brown Dwarf Systems I: Chemical Abundance Analysis of FGK Stars with Wide-Separation Brown Dwarf Companions Using PEPSI

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Uniform BACCHUS abundances from PEPSI spectra of 32 FGK brown-dwarf hosts show C/O dispersion, predict silicate cloud species via Mg/Si, and test the [Y/Mg] age clock.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    APACrefauthors \ 2019 02 , Geosciences 9 3 105

    HeavyMetalRules APACrefauthors Adibekyan , V. APACrefauthors \ 2019 02 , Geosciences 9 3 105 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3390/geosciences9030105 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.3390/geosciences9030105 2019

  2. [2]

    , Delgado-Mena , E

    Tc_Adibekyan2016 APACrefauthors Adibekyan , V. , Delgado-Mena , E. , Figueira , P. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2016 08 , 592 A87 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628883 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628883 2016

  3. [3]

    , Santos , N C

    Adibekyan2015 APACrefauthors Adibekyan , V. , Santos , N C. , Figueira , P. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2015 09 , 581 L2 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527059 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527059 2015

  4. [4]

    , Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J I

    Tc_Adibekyan2014 APACrefauthors Adibekyan , V Z. , Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J I. , Delgado Mena , E. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2014 04 , 564 L15 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423435 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423435 2014

  5. [5]

    , Sousa , S G

    HARPS-GTO_2012 APACrefauthors Adibekyan , V Z. , Sousa , S G. , Santos , N C. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2012 09 , 545 A32 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219401 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219401 2012

  6. [6]

    \ Bailer-Jones , C A L

    distance_from_parallax APACrefauthors Astraatmadja , T L. \ Bailer-Jones , C A L. APACrefauthors \ 2016 12 , 832 2 137 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/137 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/137 2016

  7. [7]

    , Saitoh , T R

    Baba2023 APACrefauthors Baba , J. , Saitoh , T R. \ Tsujimoto , T. APACrefauthors \ 2023 12 , 526 4 6088-6102 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3188 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3188 2023

  8. [8]

    , Dayal , P

    Boettner2024 APACrefauthors Boettner , C. , Dayal , P. , Trebitsch , M. , Libeskind , N. , Rice , K. , Cockell , C. \ Tieleman , B I. APACrefauthors \ 2024 02 , arXiv e-prints arXiv:2402.08029 . APACrefDOI doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.08029 APACrefDOI

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.08029 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    , Marigo , P

    PARSEC APACrefauthors Bressan , A. , Marigo , P. , Girardi , L. , Salasnich , B. , Dal Cero , C. , Rubele , S. \ Nanni , A. APACrefauthors \ 2012 11 , 427 1 127-145 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x APACrefDOI

    2012

  2. [10]

    , Guilbert-Lepoutre , A

    Cabral2023 APACrefauthors Cabral , N. , Guilbert-Lepoutre , A. , Bitsch , B. , Lagarde , N. \ Diakite , S. APACrefauthors \ 2023 05 , 673 A117 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243882 APACrefDOI

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    , Kubas , D

    Cassan_2012 APACrefauthors Cassan , A. , Kubas , D. , Beaulieu , J P. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2012 01 , 481 7380 167-169 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1038/nature10684 APACrefDOI

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    , Girardi , L

    YBC APACrefauthors Chen , Y. , Girardi , L. , Fu , X. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2019 12 , 632 A105 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936612 APACrefDOI

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    , Girardi , L

    PARAM2006 APACrefauthors da Silva , L. , Girardi , L. , Pasquini , L. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2006 11 , 458 2 609-623 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065105 APACrefDOI

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    , Tsantaki , M

    HARPS-GTO_2017 APACrefauthors Delgado Mena , E. , Tsantaki , M. , Adibekyan , V Z. , Sousa , S G. , Santos , N C. , Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J I. \ Israelian , G. APACrefauthors \ 2017 10 , 606 A94 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730535 APACrefDOI

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    , Santos , N C

    Faria2016 APACrefauthors Faria , J P. , Santos , N C. , Figueira , P. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2016 05 , 589 A25 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527522 APACrefDOI

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    \ Valenti , J

    2005ApJ...622.1102F APACrefauthors Fischer , D A. \ Valenti , J. APACrefauthors \ 2005 04 , 622 2 1102-1117 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/428383 APACrefDOI

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    , Brown , A G A

    GAIADR3 APACrefauthors Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A. , Brown , A G A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2022 07 , arXiv e-prints arXiv:2208.00211 . APACrefDOI doi:10.48550/arXiv.2208.00211 APACrefDOI

    2022 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , 285 2 403-412

    Gonzalez_1997 APACrefauthors Gonzalez , G. APACrefauthors \ 1997 02 , 285 2 403-412 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/285.2.403 APACrefDOI

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    APACrefauthors \ 2009 06 , 698 1 L1-L5

    Haywood2009 APACrefauthors Haywood , M. APACrefauthors \ 2009 06 , 698 1 L1-L5 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L1 APACrefDOI

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    , Babusiaux , C

    STILISM2019 APACrefauthors Lallement , R. , Babusiaux , C. , Vergely , J L. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2019 05 , 625 A135 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834695 APACrefDOI

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    , Vergely , J L

    STILISM2014 APACrefauthors Lallement , R. , Vergely , J L. , Valette , B. , Puspitarini , L. , Eyer , L. \ Casagrande , L. APACrefauthors \ 2014 01 , 561 A91 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322032 APACrefDOI

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    , Schlaufman , K C

    Lu2020 APACrefauthors Lu , C X. , Schlaufman , K C. \ Cheng , S. APACrefauthors \ 2020 12 , 160 6 253 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb773 APACrefDOI

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    , Torres , G

    IAU_2015 APACrefauthors Mamajek , E E. , Torres , G. , Prsa , A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2015 10 , arXiv e-prints arXiv:1510.06262 . APACrefDOI doi:10.48550/arXiv.1510.06262 APACrefDOI

    2015 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    APACrefauthors \ 2021 12 , 29 1 5

    Matteucci_2021 APACrefauthors Matteucci , F. APACrefauthors \ 2021 12 , 29 1 5 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8 APACrefDOI

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    \ Francois , P

    Matteucci_Francois1989 APACrefauthors Matteucci , F. \ Francois , P. APACrefauthors \ 1989 08 , 239 885-904 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/239.3.885 APACrefDOI

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    , Marmier , M

    Mayor2011 APACrefauthors Mayor , M. , Marmier , M. , Lovis , C. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2011 09 , arXiv e-prints arXiv:1109.2497 . APACrefDOI doi:10.48550/arXiv.1109.2497 APACrefDOI

    2011 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    , Anders , F

    Minchev APACrefauthors Minchev , I. , Anders , F. , Recio-Blanco , A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2018 12 , 481 2 1645-1657 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2033 APACrefDOI

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    , Alibert , Y

    Mordasini2009 APACrefauthors Mordasini , C. , Alibert , Y. , Benz , W. \ Naef , D. APACrefauthors \ 2009 07 , 501 3 1161-1184 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810697 APACrefDOI

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    , Santos , N C

    Mortier APACrefauthors Mortier , A. , Santos , N C. , Sousa , S. , Israelian , G. , Mayor , M. \ Udry , S. APACrefauthors \ 2013 03 , 551 A112 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220707 APACrefDOI

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    , Gent , M R

    Nielsen2023 APACrefauthors Nielsen , J. , Gent , M R. , Bergemann , M. , Eitner , P. \ Johansen , A. APACrefauthors \ 2023 10 , 678 A74 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346697 APACrefDOI

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    , Lowman , J

    GCE_terrestrialexoplanets2020 APACrefauthors O'Neill , C. , Lowman , J. \ Wasiliev , J. APACrefauthors \ 2020 12 , 352 114025 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114025 APACrefDOI

    2020

  24. [32]

    APACrefauthors \ 1984 01 , 22 389-424

    Pollack1984 APACrefauthors Pollack , J B. APACrefauthors \ 1984 01 , 22 389-424 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002133 APACrefDOI

    1984

  25. [33]

    , Aerts , C

    PLATO APACrefauthors Rauer , H. , Aerts , C. , Cabrera , J. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2024 06 , arXiv e-prints arXiv:2406.05447 . APACrefDOI doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447 APACrefDOI

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    , De Angeli , F

    GaiaEDR3 APACrefauthors Riello , M. , De Angeli , F. , Evans , D W. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2021 05 , 649 A3 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039587 APACrefDOI

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    , Bossini , D

    PARAM2017 APACrefauthors Rodrigues , T S. , Bossini , D. , Miglio , A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2017 05 , 467 2 1433-1448 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/stx120 APACrefDOI

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    , Girardi , L

    PARAM2014 APACrefauthors Rodrigues , T S. , Girardi , L. , Miglio , A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2014 12 , 445 3 2758-2776 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1907 APACrefDOI

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    , Moutou , C

    Santerne2016 APACrefauthors Santerne , A. , Moutou , C. , Tsantaki , M. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2016 03 , 587 A64 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527329 APACrefDOI

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    , Israelian , G

    Santos_2000 APACrefauthors Santos , N C. , Israelian , G. \ Mayor , M. APACrefauthors \ 2000 11 , 363 228-238 . APACrefDOI doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0009182 APACrefDOI

    2000 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    , Sousa , S G

    SWEETCat2013 APACrefauthors Santos , N C. , Sousa , S G. , Mortier , A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2013 08 , 556 A150 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321286 APACrefDOI

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    \ Binney , J J

    Sellwood_2002 APACrefauthors Sellwood , J A. \ Binney , J J. APACrefauthors \ 2002 11 , 336 3 785-796 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x APACrefDOI

    2002

  33. [41]

    , Cutri , R M

    2MASS APACrefauthors Skrutskie , M F. , Cutri , R M. , Stiening , R. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2006 02 , 131 2 1163-1183 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/498708 APACrefDOI

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    , Adibekyan , V

    SWEETCat2021 APACrefauthors Sousa , S G. , Adibekyan , V. , Delgado-Mena , E. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2021 12 , 656 A53 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141584 APACrefDOI

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    , Adibekyan , V

    Sousa2019 APACrefauthors Sousa , S G. , Adibekyan , V. , Santos , N C. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2019 05 , 485 3 3981-3990 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/stz664 APACrefDOI

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    , Santos , N C

    Sousa2011 APACrefauthors Sousa , S G. , Santos , N C. , Israelian , G. , Lovis , C. , Mayor , M. , Silva , P B. \ Udry , S. APACrefauthors \ 2011 02 , 526 A99 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015646 APACrefDOI

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    , Burrows , A

    BD_limit APACrefauthors Spiegel , D S. , Burrows , A. \ Milsom , J A. APACrefauthors \ 2011 01 , 727 1 57 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/57 APACrefDOI

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    , Banyal , R K

    Swastik2022 APACrefauthors Swastik , C. , Banyal , R K. , Narang , M. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2022 08 , 164 2 60 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac756a APACrefDOI

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    , Banyal , R K

    Swastik2023 APACrefauthors Swastik , C. , Banyal , R K. , Narang , M. , Unni , A. , Banerjee , B. , Manoj , P. \ Sivarani , T. APACrefauthors \ 2023 09 , 166 3 91 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace782 APACrefDOI

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    , Banyal , R K

    Swastik2024 APACrefauthors Swastik , C. , Banyal , R K. , Narang , M. , Unni , A. \ Sivarani , T. APACrefauthors \ 2024 04 , arXiv e-prints arXiv:2404.13398 . APACrefDOI doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.13398 APACrefDOI

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    \ Santos , N C

    2007ARA&A..45..397U APACrefauthors Udry , S. \ Santos , N C. APACrefauthors \ 2007 09 , 45 1 397-439 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110529 APACrefDOI

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot :...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.