pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31017 · v1 · pith:WSZGFJSFnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Formation and evolution pathways of planets. I. Comparison between theory and observations

Yasuhiro Hasegawa , Renyu Hu , Amine Bouzerzour This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 00:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet formationcore accretionphotoevaporationcollisional mass lossmass-radius diagramplanet classificationwater-rich planetshabitable zone
0
0 comments X

The pith

Photoevaporative and collisional mass losses diversify planet distributions in mass-radius diagrams after core accretion.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper integrates interior structure models with gas accretion and mass loss recipes to trace how planets move through mass-radius and mass-density space. It establishes that photoevaporative and collisional mass losses spread planets across the observed distributions, while planets prior to these losses match the properties predicted by standard core accretion. Collisional growth and loss in particular shift planets into regions that would otherwise require nearly pure water compositions, removing the need to invoke such planets. The framework expands classification into eight types across four evolutionary stages and applies the pathways to habitable zone planets.

Core claim

The distribution of planets in the diagrams is diversified by two evolution processes: photoevaporative and collisional mass losses, and the properties of planets before experiencing these processes are consistent with predictions of standard core accretion. In particular, collisional mass growth and loss move planets to the parameter space which is otherwise occupied by water-dominated planets, gathering non-necessity of invoking such planets. A potentially high abundance of water-rich planets are possible with the ice-to-rock ratio capped at 1/3.

What carries the argument

The integrated framework combining gas accretion/retention recipes, photoevaporative mass loss, and collisional mass loss models that divides evolution into four stages and maps resulting planet populations.

If this is right

  • The classification scheme recovers four canonical planet types and expands to eight classes due to the evolution processes.
  • Collisional mass growth and loss allow water-rich planets with an ice-to-rock ratio of 1/3 to explain observed properties.
  • Planets populate distinct regions of the diagrams depending on the timing and combination of the two mass-loss processes.
  • The four-stage tracing produces time-dependent predictions for how planets fill the diagrams.
  • The framework generates specific predictions when applied to habitable zone planets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Observed dense small planets could often result from collisional stripping of initially larger bodies rather than direct formation as compact cores.
  • Young cluster surveys could directly test the pre-loss core accretion signatures before mass loss acts.
  • The model implies that occurrence rates of different planet classes depend on the efficiency of collisions in multi-planet systems.
  • Precise measurements of small planets become the key observable for distinguishing the pathways.

Load-bearing premise

The integrated recipes for gas accretion/retention, photoevaporative mass loss, and collisional mass loss drawn from prior studies accurately capture the dominant processes without major missing physics, unaccounted observational selection effects, or inconsistencies between the cited models.

What would settle it

A census of planets around young stars that shows a mass-radius distribution incompatible with applying the mass-loss processes to an initial population generated by core accretion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31017 by Amine Bouzerzour, Renyu Hu, Yasuhiro Hasegawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Exoplanet samples used in this work. The left panel represents the mass-radius diagram, and the right one denotes the mass-density diagram. They are adopted from the PlanetS catalog and have accurate measurements of mass (relatively measurement uncertainties of 25 % or lower) and radius (relatively measurement uncertainties of 8 % or lower) as shown by the error bar. Insolation flux planets receive current… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Possible parameter spaces filled out by formation processes operating during the gas disk stage in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams on the left and right panels, respectively. Three characteristic compositions of planetary cores, Earth-like rock, water rich, and pure water, are denoted by the brown, light blue, and blue dashed lines, respectively ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Canonical and refined classification schemes of exoplanets. Key planet properties and relevant physical pro￾cesses are summarized. In the canonical classification scheme, four types (super-Mercuries, super/sub-Earths, sub-giants and gas giants) are recovered as often used in the literature (Section 2.6). The refined classification scheme expands these types to eight in total due to evolution processes (Sec… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Classification of observed exoplanets. On the upper left and right panels, the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams are shown (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mass ratio of envelopes that are accreted during the gas disk stage and can be lost subsequently by photoevaporation as a function of planet mass and insolation flux on the left and right panels, respectively. Exoplanets classified as sub-giants in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mass ratio of envelopes that are accreted during the gas disk stage and can be lost subsequently by photoevaporation as a function of planet mass and insolation flux on the left and right panels, respectively (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The behavior of collisional envelope mass loss in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams on the left and right panels, respectively (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The effect of collisional envelope mass loss in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams on the left and right panels, respectively (as in Figures 4 and 7). In these plots, sub-Neptunes and super-Earths defined in Figures 5 and 6 and their progenitors are only considered. For comparison, the current properties of sub-Neptunes and super-Earths are shown on the top panels. On the middle panels, the properti… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mass ratio of envelopes that are accreted during the gas disk stage and can be lost subsequently by photoevaporation as a function of planet mass and insolation flux on the left and right panels, respectively (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The properties of catastrophic collisions that account for the present properties of super-Mercuries. On the upper panels, the behavior of planet radius (Rp,cat, equation (27)) that satisfies equation (26) is shown in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams for two sets of fFe and vimp/vesc. The red solid line denotes the case that (fFe, vimp/vesc) = (0.7, 4.0), while the brown solid line is for the cas… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The primordial properties of progenitors of exoplanets that likely experienced collisions (i.e., sub-Neptunes, super-Earths, and super-Mercuries, as in Figures 8 and 10). On each panel, the color bar represents impact velocity, and the red line in the histograms shows the distribution of their descendants (i.e., sub-Neptunes, super-Earths, and super-Mercuries). The mass-radius and mass-density diagrams (t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The possible combination of dust opacities and solid accretion rates that reproduces the mass range of the critical core mass (equation (32)). The profiles are plotted, using equation (33), and three values of the critical core mass are considered (Mc,crit = 1.6M⊕, 3M⊕, and 10M⊕). The resulting wide parameter space (the green shaded region) makes it difficult to tightly constrain these quantities. if 1.6M… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The computed value of the initial envelope mass as a function of planet mass for gas giants and photoe￾vaporated sub-giants. On the left panel, all the exoplanets classified as gas giants and photoevaporated sub-giants in Figures 4 and 5 respectively are plotted, while on the right panel, photoevaporated sub-giants that meet the condition that MZ,env/MXY,int > 1 are excluded. On the color bar, the compute… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The properties of planets at different formation and evolution stages in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams on the left and right panels, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (Continued.) Observed exoplanets treated in this work are categorized by the refined classification scheme ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Integration of the formation and evolution pathways (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Predictions about the properties of planets in habitable zones in the mass-radius and mass-density dia￾grams (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison between the power-law mass-radius relation and the detailed one (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The properties of planets after core formation (as in Figures 4, 8, 11, 14). As expected, most planets are distributed in the blue shaded region in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams on the upper left and right panels, respectively. Their distributions in the orbital period-radius and orbital period-mass diagrams are shown in the lower left and right panels, respectively. Vapor-rich sub-giant plane… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The properties of planets after gas accretion (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The properties of planets after collisional mass growth and loss, which take place due to the dispersal of disk gas (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The properties of planets after photoevaporation, which is the final process of planet formation and evo￾lution (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Discoveries of numerous exoplanets by various methods enable detailed characterization including bulk density. Formation and evolution pathways of planets can thus be probed in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams. We develop a framework to identify dominant processes shaping parameter space in these diagrams by integrating previous studies. These include interior structure models, gas accretion/retention recipes, and photoevaporative and collisional mass losses. We find that the distribution of planets in the diagrams is diversified by two evolution processes: photoevaporative and collisional mass losses, and the properties of planets before experiencing these processes are consistent with predictions of standard core accretion. In particular, collisional mass growth and loss move planets to the parameter space, which is otherwise occupied by water-dominated (i.e., nearly pure water) planets, gathering non-necessity of invoking such planets. A potentially high abundance of water-rich planets are possible with the ice-to-rock ratio capped at $1/3$, similar to solar system comets. We propose a new classification scheme and apply to observed exoplanets. The classification scheme recovers four canonical planet types widely used in the literature and is expended to eight classes in total due to evolution processes. We divide formation and evolution pathways into four stages (core formation, gas accretion, collisional mass growth and loss, and photoevaporation) and trace how planets populate in the mass-radius and mass-density diagrams with time. We apply the framework to habitable zone planets and discuss possible predictions. This work emphasizes the importance of precise mass and radius measurements, especially for small-sized, potentially habitable planets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a framework integrating prior interior structure models, gas accretion/retention recipes, and photoevaporative/collisional mass loss processes to interpret exoplanet distributions in mass-radius and mass-density diagrams. It claims that pre-evolution properties match standard core accretion predictions, that collisional growth and loss can populate regions otherwise attributed to water-dominated planets (thus reducing the need to invoke them), proposes an eight-class classification scheme extending four canonical types, traces four evolutionary stages, and applies the framework to habitable zone planets while stressing the value of precise mass-radius measurements.

Significance. If the integrated framework holds, the work provides a unified evolutionary interpretation of planet demographics that could simplify explanations of observed parameter space occupancy and generate predictions for future observations, particularly for small planets in the habitable zone. The emphasis on tracing pathways through distinct stages and the potential to cap ice-to-rock ratios at 1/3 (analogous to solar system comets) offers a falsifiable angle on composition diversity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Framework development and results sections (as described in abstract and skeptic note)] The central claim that collisional mass growth and loss move planets into the parameter space occupied by water-dominated planets (and thereby gather non-necessity of invoking such planets) rests on integration of recipes from separate prior studies; however, no explicit consistency checks are performed on differing assumptions about core composition, envelope structure, opacity treatments, or loss timescales across the cited models. This is load-bearing for the pathway-tracing conclusion.
  2. [Core accretion consistency claim (abstract and pathway tracing)] The assertion that properties of planets before experiencing photoevaporative and collisional processes are consistent with predictions of standard core accretion references prior literature but supplies no new self-consistent calculations or direct model comparisons within the manuscript to validate the mapping from initial conditions to observed distributions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the central claims but would benefit from inclusion of at least one quantitative example (e.g., a specific mass-radius shift due to collisional loss) to allow immediate assessment of effect sizes.
  2. [Classification scheme section] Notation for the new eight-class scheme and the four evolutionary stages should be defined with explicit criteria or a table early in the text to improve traceability when applying the classification to observed exoplanets.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to improve the robustness of our framework.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that collisional mass growth and loss move planets into the parameter space occupied by water-dominated planets (and thereby gather non-necessity of invoking such planets) rests on integration of recipes from separate prior studies; however, no explicit consistency checks are performed on differing assumptions about core composition, envelope structure, opacity treatments, or loss timescales across the cited models. This is load-bearing for the pathway-tracing conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that our approach integrates results from independent prior studies without performing additional consistency simulations across all models. This integration is the core of the framework, and while each component has been validated in its original context, we recognize the value of explicit checks. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection discussing the assumptions regarding core composition, envelope structure, opacities, and timescales from the cited works, highlighting potential areas of inconsistency and justifying their use in the integrated model. This will strengthen the pathway-tracing conclusions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The assertion that properties of planets before experiencing photoevaporative and collisional processes are consistent with predictions of standard core accretion references prior literature but supplies no new self-consistent calculations or direct model comparisons within the manuscript to validate the mapping from initial conditions to observed distributions.

    Authors: Our claim of consistency with standard core accretion is drawn from comparisons to established results in the literature rather than new calculations, as the manuscript focuses on post-formation evolutionary processes. To make this mapping more explicit, we will include direct comparisons by referencing specific predictions from core accretion models (such as those in the cited works) and add a figure showing how our pre-evolution planet properties align with those predictions in the mass-radius diagram. This revision will provide a clearer validation without altering the scope of the work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework integrates independent prior recipes without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper constructs its framework by combining interior models, gas accretion recipes, photoevaporative loss, and collisional loss drawn from separate prior studies, then applies the composite to observed distributions. The claim that pre-evolution planets match standard core accretion is presented as an outcome of this tracing rather than a definitional input or fitted parameter renamed as prediction. No equations reduce to their own outputs by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the same authors to force choices, and the classification scheme is an explicit post-processing step applied to data. The derivation chain remains externally anchored in the cited literature without load-bearing self-citation loops or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract alone supplies insufficient detail to enumerate specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the mention of an ice-to-rock ratio capped at 1/3 is noted as a possible outcome but not derived here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5824 in / 1217 out tokens · 51109 ms · 2026-07-01T00:37:38.445166+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C., & Laughlin, G

    Adams, F. C., & Laughlin, G. 2006, ApJ, 649, 992, doi: 10.1086/506142

    work page doi:10.1086/506142 2006

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Aguichine, A., Batalha, N., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add935 28Hasega w a et al. 0 20 40 60# of Cores 0.6 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 20 40 Core Mass (M ) 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 Core Radius (R ) Gas Giant Photoevaporated Sub-Giant Collisionally Sculpted Sub-Giant Collisionally Sculpted Core Super-Mercury Photoevaporated Core Bare Core ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add935 2025

  3. [3]

    Bodenheimer, P., & Pollack, J. B. 1986, Icarus, 67, 391, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90122-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(86)90122-3 1986

  4. [4]

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

    Bonomo, A. S., Zeng, L., Damasso, M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 416, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0684-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0684-9 2019

  5. [5]

    Science , keywords =

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  6. [6]

    J., Leinhardt, Z

    Carter, P. J., Leinhardt, Z. M., Elliott, T., Stewart, S. T., & Walter, M. J. 2018, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 484, 276, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.12.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.12.012 2018

  7. [7]

    J., van Dishoeck, E

    Cridland, A. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., Alessi, M., & Pudritz, R. E. 2019, A&A, 632, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936105

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936105 2019

  8. [8]

    Farr, W. M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2830

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2830 2019

  9. [9]

    R., Leinhardt, Z

    Denman, T. R., Leinhardt, Z. M., & Carter, P. J. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac923

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac923 2022

  10. [10]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1623

    Mordasini, C. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1623

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1623 2020

  11. [11]

    J., & Leinhardt, Z

    Dou, J., Carter, P. J., & Leinhardt, Z. M. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae644

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae644 2024

  12. [12]

    2021, A&A, 656, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

    Emsenhuber, A., Mordasini, C., Burn, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038553 2021

  13. [13]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb 2017

  14. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 79, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2962

    Ghosh, T., & Chatterjee, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 79, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2962

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2962 2024

  15. [15]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2016, ApJ, 825, 29, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/29 2016

  16. [16]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty290

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty290 2018

  17. [17]

    Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1230

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1230 2019

  18. [18]

    Hasegawa, Y. 2022, ApJ, 935, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b79 29 0 10 20 30 40# of Planets 0.6 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 20 40 Planet Mass (M ) 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 Planet Radius (R ) Gas Giant Photoevaporated Sub-Giant Vapor-rich Sub-Giant Collisionally Sculpted Sub-Giant Collisionally Sculpted Core Super-Mercury Photoevaporated Core Bare Core 0 20 40 60 # of Planets 0...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b79 2022

  19. [19]

    Hasegawa, Y., & Pudritz, R. E. 2012, ApJ, 760, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/117

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/2/117 2012

  20. [20]

    Hasegawa, Y., & Pudritz, R. E. 2013, ApJ, 778, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/78

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/78 2013

  21. [21]

    J., Livne, E., et al

    Hori, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1419, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19140.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19140.x 2011

  22. [22]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 604, 388, doi: 10.1086/381724

    work page doi:10.1086/381724 2004

  23. [23]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/66

    Ikoma, M., & Hori, Y. 2012, ApJ, 753, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/66

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/66 2012

  24. [24]

    2000, ApJ, 537, 1013, doi: 10.1086/309050

    Ikoma, M., Nakazawa, K., & Emori, H. 2000, ApJ, 537, 1013, doi: 10.1086/309050

    work page doi:10.1086/309050 2000

  25. [25]

    A., Zheng, J

    Innanen, K. A., Zheng, J. Q., Mikkola, S., & Valtonen, M. J. 1997, AJ, 113, 1915, doi: 10.1086/118405

    work page doi:10.1086/118405 1997

  26. [26]

    2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 2021

  27. [27]

    A., Eke, V

    Kegerreis, J. A., Eke, V. R., Massey, R. J., & Teodoro, L. F. A. 2020, ApJ, 897, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9810

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9810 2020

  28. [28]

    M.-R., Lessard, M., Malik, M., et al

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Lessard, M., Malik, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace10d 2023

  29. [29]

    D., Desjarlais, M

    Knudson, M. D., Desjarlais, M. P., Lemke, R. W., et al. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 091102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.091102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.091102 2012

  30. [30]

    2025, ApJL, 991, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae06fc

    Kokubo, E., Hoshino, H., Matsumoto, Y., & Sari, R. 2025, ApJL, 991, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae06fc 2025

  31. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9ba

    Kurosaki, K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2023, ApJ, 954, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace9ba 2023

  32. [32]

    Lam, K. W. F., Csizmadia, S., Astudillo-Defru, N., et al. 2021, Science, 374, 1271, doi: 10.1126/science.aay3253

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay3253 2021

  33. [33]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2015, ApJ, 811, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/41 2015

  34. [34]

    2019, Nature, 572, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1470-2

    Liu, S.-F., Hori, Y., Müller, S., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1470-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1470-2 2019

  35. [35]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 776, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/2 2013

  36. [36]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/1 2014

  37. [37]

    D., Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., Fortney, J. J., & Miller, N. 2012, ApJ, 761, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/1/59 2012

  38. [38]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    Luque, R., & Pallé, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl7164 2022

  39. [39]

    A., & Kennedy, G

    Madhusudhan, N., Amin, M. A., & Kennedy, G. M. 2014, ApJL, 794, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L12 30Hasega w a et al. 0 10 20 30 40# of Planets 0.6 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 20 40 Planet Mass (M ) 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 Planet Radius (R ) Gas Giant Photoevaporated Sub-Giant Vapor-rich Sub-Giant Collisionally Sculpted Sub-Giant Collisionally Sculpted Core Super-Mercury P...

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/l12 2014

  40. [40]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/l73 2010

  41. [41]

    , year = 1995, month = nov, volume =

    Mayor, M., & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355, doi: 10.1038/378355a0

    work page doi:10.1038/378355a0 1995

  42. [42]

    2024, A&A, 688, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450177

    Miyayama, R., & Kobayashi, H. 2024, A&A, 688, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450177

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450177 2024

  43. [43]

    1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544, doi: 10.1143/PTP.64.544

    Mizuno, H. 1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544, doi: 10.1143/PTP.64.544

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.64.544 1980

  44. [44]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., & Benz, W. 2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810301 2009

  45. [45]

    J., & Charnley, S

    Mumma, M. J., & Charnley, S. B. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 471, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130811 Öberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130811 2011

  46. [46]

    W., & Kobayashi, H

    Ormel, C. W., & Kobayashi, H. 2012, ApJ, 747, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/115 2012

  47. [47]

    Confirmation of four multiple planet systems by a Fourier-domain study of anticorrelated transit timing variations

    Owen, J. E., & Jackson, A. P. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21481.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21481.x 2012

  48. [48]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2016, ApJ, 817, 107, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/107

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/107 2016

  49. [49]

    2024, A&A, 688, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449911

    Parc, L., Bouchy, F., Venturini, J., Dorn, C., & Helled, R. 2024, A&A, 688, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449911

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449911 2024

  50. [50]

    , year = 1996, month = nov, volume =

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0190 1996

  51. [51]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2504

    Pu, B., & Lai, D. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2504

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2504 2021

  52. [52]

    Rafikov, R. R. 2006, ApJ, 648, 666, doi: 10.1086/505695

    work page doi:10.1086/505695 2006

  53. [53]

    G., Owen, J

    Rogers, J. G., Owen, J. E., & Schlichting, H. E. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae563

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae563 2024

  54. [54]

    J., et al

    Santerne, A., Brugger, B., Armstrong, D. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 393, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0420-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0420-5 2018

  55. [55]

    A., & Militzer, B

    Seager, S., Kuchner, M., Hier-Majumder, C. A., & Militzer, B. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1279, doi: 10.1086/521346

    work page doi:10.1086/521346 2007

  56. [56]

    A Validated Low-to-Intermediate Mass Planetary Interior Structure Model and New Mass-Radius Relations

    Skinner, B. N., Pudritz, R. E., & Cloutier, R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.15304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.15304

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.15304 2026

  57. [57]

    Stevenson, D. J. 1982, Planet. Space Sci., 30, 755, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(82)90108-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(82)90108-8 1982

  58. [58]

    Zellem, R. T. 2019, ApJ, 881, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2714 Toledo-Padrón, B., Lovis, C., Suárez Mascareño, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038187 31 0 10 20 30 40# of Planets 0.6 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 20 40 Planet Mass (M ) 1.0 2.0 4.0 10 Planet Radius (R ) Gas Giant Photoevaporated Sub-Giant Vapor-rich Sub-Giant Collisionally Scu...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2714 2019

  59. [59]

    Udry, S., & Santos, N. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 397, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110529

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110529 2007

  60. [60]

    2015, ApJL, 806, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/L26

    Volk, K., & Gladman, B. 2015, ApJL, 806, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/L26

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/l26 2015

  61. [61]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246 2015

  62. [62]

    D., & Jacobsen, S

    Zeng, L., Sasselov, D. D., & Jacobsen, S. B. 2016, ApJ, 819, 127, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/127 2016

  63. [63]

    B., Sasselov, D

    Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S. B., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 9723, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812905116

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1812905116 2019

  64. [64]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    Zhu, W., & Dong, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055 2021