Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Disentangling Metallicity Effects in Hot Jupiter Occurrence Across Galactic Birth Radius and Phase-Space Density

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the previously reported clustering of hot Jupiters in dense phase-space environments is not an environmental effect; a model that injects planets using only stellar metallicity reproduces the signal, so host-star…

desk verdict A metallicity-only injection cleanly reproduces Winter et al.'s hot Jupiter clustering, but the paper overstates the case by not modeling the known age correlation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16511 v1 pith:ZVUYTEUV submitted 2025-06-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Rayna Rampalli , Melissa K. Ness , Elisabeth R. Newton , Andrew Vanderburg , Tobias Buck , Jessica Mills This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords Galaxy:abundancesdiskevolutionstars:kinematicsexoplanets:demographicshotJupitersphase-spacedensity
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 the observed tendency of hot Jupiters to live in crowded stellar environments is an environmental effect or a disguise worn by chemistry. The authors inject fictitious hot Jupiters into thousands of real stars from two spectroscopic surveys and a simulated Milky Way-like galaxy, assigning each star a planet-hosting probability that depends only on its measured iron abundance through a power law. The injection alone reproduces the earlier finding that more than 92% of hot Jupiters sit in phase-space overdensities, with over 95% doing so in the two observed samples. The paper concludes that the apparent environmental signal is a byproduct of the low- and high-$$\$\alpha$$$ disk sequences: overdense regions are simply richer in the metal-rich, kinematically cool stars that preferentially form hot Jupiters. It also shows that hot Jupiter occurrence declines by roughly 0.1% per kpc with Galactic birth radius beyond 5 kpc, tracking the Milky Way's radial metallicity gradient, and that differences between surveys at smaller radii are selection effects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a toy planet-injection model built on a single empirical relation: the probability that a star hosts a hot Jupiter scales as $F_{HJ}(\mathrm{[Fe/H]}) = 0.01 \times 10^{\beta \mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$, with $\beta = 1.6$ from a fit to observed hot Jupiters. Every star in the GALAH, APOGEE, and NIHAO samples is tagged as a host or non-host by drawing a random number against this probability, so the only input is the star's measured iron abundance. The argument then runs three machineries over the tagged samples: (1) birth radii inferred from empirical $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$–$[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ tracks calibrated on the NIHAO simulation; (2) the phase-space density classifier from the 2020 clustering study, which uses the Mahalanobis distance to the 20th nearest neighbor in 5D/6D phase space and a Gaussian mixture to assign overdense/underdense membership; and (3) a separate by-eye separation of stars into low- and high-$\alpha$ sequence populations. The work of these together is to show that the overdensity classification roughly selects the low-$\alpha$ sequence, and that injecting planets along the metallicity power law alone is enough to push more than 95% of hosts into overdensities.

What would settle it

Construct a paired test in observed data: after matching overdense and underdense stars on $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ and $\alpha$-enrichment, check whether the hot Jupiter occurrence rate still differs. If the difference survives the metallicity match, then some other property, most likely age, is driving the signal, and the metallicity-only story is falsified. A complementary calculation would repeat the paper's injection using only the age power law from the same source and ask whether more than 95% of injected planets land in overdensities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the previously reported phase-space clustering of hot Jupiters does not require stimulating cluster environments; it can be generated entirely by the well-known planet–metallicity relation. When stars are assigned hot Jupiters with probability $0.01 \times 10^{1.6[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}$ and are then classified by the same phase-space density algorithm used in the 2020 study, more than 95% of injected planet hosts fall in overdense regions for GALAH and APOGEE (6,078 versus 262 and 5,832 versus 224), reproducing the earlier 92% figure. The mechanism is that phase-space overdensities are preferentially populated by the low-$\alpha$ sequence, which is metal-rich and kinematically cool, while underdensities are preferentially populated by the high-$\alpha$ sequence, which is metal-poor and kinematically hot. Since hot Jupiters favor metal-rich stars, most injected planets end up in the overdense, low-$\alpha$ regions regardless of any dynamical effect of density. As a corollary, the paper finds that occurrence declines by roughly 0.1% per kpc with birth radius from 5 to 14 kpc, tracing the disk's radial metallicity gradient, and that the differing high-$\alpha$ fractions in GALAH (5%), APOGEE (13%), and the NIHAO simulation (30%) explain the survey-to-survey differences at birth radii below 5 kpc. The authors frame this as a null hypothesis: host-star metallicity, not Galactic environment, is the primary driver of hot Jupiter occurrence.

Load-bearing premise

The injection model assumes that a metallicity-only power law fully describes hot Jupiter occurrence, omitting the known correlation between hot Jupiter occurrence and stellar age, which is strongly entangled with $\alpha$-sequence membership and metallicity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any future inference of hot Jupiter occurrence from phase-space density must first control for stellar metallicity and $\alpha$-sequence membership, because the density signal is reproduced without any environmental effect.
  • Observed occurrence trends with birth radius that are shallower than the modeled $\sim$0.1% per kpc beyond 5 kpc would be consistent with metallicity dominating; steeper trends would be evidence for an additional Galactic or environmental driver.
  • Survey selection matters quantitatively: samples with a larger fraction of kinematically hot, metal-poor high-$\alpha$ stars (APOGEE, NIHAO) show a turnover in occurrence at about 5 kpc, while a low-$\alpha$-dominated sample (GALAH) shows a monotonic decline.
  • Planet demographics studies that ignore the low/high-$\alpha$ distinction risk attributing stellar chemistry effects to the Galactic environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same injection test could be run with an age power law instead of the metallicity power law; because age and $\alpha$-sequence membership are strongly correlated, an age-only injection might reproduce the overdensity signal just as well, which would leave the paper's 'metallicity is the primary driver' conclusion underdetermined.
  • A practical control for future surveys would be to compare hot Jupiter occurrence in overdense and underdense regions after exact-matching stars on $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$, age, and $\alpha$-enrichment; if the occurrence difference vanishes, the environmental explanation is falsified.
  • For planet populations whose occurrence depends weakly on metallicity (for example, small planets), the same toy-injection methodology could provide a cleaner test of genuine environmental effects, since chemistry contamination would be weaker.
  • The survey-to-survey difference at low birth radius implies that comparing planet occurrence across heterogeneous surveys without modeling selection functions can masquerade as a Galactic-scale trend.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses GALAH, APOGEE, and the NIHAO-UHD simulation to study how the known hot Jupiter occurrence-metallicity relation propagates into occurrence as a function of Galactic birth radius (Rbirth) and phase-space density. Hot Jupiters are injected probabilistically into stars using the metallicity power law FHJ([Fe/H]) = 0.01 x 10^1.6[Fe/H] (Eq. 4), and occurrence rates are then computed in Rbirth bins and in the Winter et al. (2020) overdensity/underdensity classification. The authors find that for Rbirth >= 5 kpc occurrence declines by about 0.1% per kpc in all samples, that differences at Rbirth < 5 kpc reflect survey selection and the fraction of high-alpha sequence stars, and that a metallicity-only injection reproduces the Winter et al. (2020) result that more than 92% of hot Jupiters are in phase-space overdensities (here >95% for GALAH and APOGEE). The paper concludes that metallicity, rather than clustered environments, drives the hot Jupiter occurrence trends reported by Winter et al. (2020).

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would provide a simple, metallicity-based null hypothesis for interpreting Galactic-scale planet demographics. The phase-space density forward model is a genuinely useful contribution: because the injection uses only [Fe/H] and no clustering information, reproducing the overdense fraction is a meaningful test that a stellar-property selection can generate the observed signal. The Rbirth toy models and the accompanying robustness checks (varying beta, recalibrating Rbirth, rescaling the NIHAO simulation) are transparent and carefully executed. The main limitation is that the injection model does not distinguish metallicity from other stellar properties, particularly age, so the causal attribution in Section 5.4 is stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.4 (with Sections 1.2, 3.3, and 6)] The central claim that 'metallicity, rather than clustered environments, drives the hot Jupiter occurrence trends' is not identifiable from the injection model used here. Equation 4 injects planets using only the metallicity power law, but Section 1.2 cites Chen et al. (2023) and Miyazaki & Masuda (2023) as establishing a hot Jupiter occurrence-age correlation independent of metallicity. Age, metallicity, alpha-sequence membership, and kinematic temperature are mutually correlated, so a metallicity-only injection is effectively an injection into the low-alpha sequence and will reproduce the phase-space overdensity signal regardless of whether the causal variable is metallicity, age, or both. The paper's own Sections 1.2 and 6 postpone age to future work, confirming that this alternative is untested. To support the metallicity-specific conclusion, the authors should compare the existing metallicity-only injection with an age-only injection and a joint metallicity-plus-age injection, or relax the conclusion to state that a stellar property correlated with the low-alpha sequence, with metallicity as one candidate, is sufficient to reproduce Winter et al. (2020).
  2. [Section 5.2 with Equations 1, 2, and 4] The Rbirth occurrence trends do not provide independent evidence about Rbirth as a causal variable, because Rbirth is a deterministic function of [Fe/H] and [alpha/Fe] in Equations 1 and 2, and the injection probability in Equation 4 is a monotonic function of [Fe/H] alone. The predicted decline of 0.1% per kpc for Rbirth >= 5 kpc is therefore a composition of the adopted Rbirth calibration and the metallicity power law, not a falsifiable prediction about the role of birth radius. The sentence in Section 5.2 stating that a sample would 'need to show a steeper decrease than 0.1% per kpc' if Rbirth were the primary driver conflates the constructed correlation with a test of Rbirth's independent effect. I recommend reframing these calculations as explicit demonstrations of how the metallicity power law propagates through a chosen Rbirth calibration, and removing or heavily qualifying the causal language about Rbirth as a competing driver.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says 'We are able to replicate Winter et al. (2020)'s result,' but the hosts are synthetic injections, not the observed planet host population; please clarify that this is a forward-model reproduction, not a direct replication.
  2. [Section 4.2] The text reports that 30%, 43%, and 100% of stars are classifiable in GALAH, APOGEE, and NIHAO, but the subsequent overdensity and underdensity percentages (59%, 47%, 35% and 2%, 6%, 33%) do not sum to 100%; please state explicitly that the remainder have intermediate P(dense) values and are excluded from the overdense/underdense comparison.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Figure 5 caption] There are minor typos: 'raidal' should be 'radial' in Section 5.1, and 'visualizaiton' should be 'visualization' in the Figure 5 caption.
  4. [Section 2.3] The text says Mills et al. (in prep) infer Rbirth for 125,484 giant stars, then says 'We calculate Rbirth for 252,441 dwarf and subgiant stars from APOGEE DR17'; please clarify the relationship between these two sample sizes and the Mills et al. catalog.
  5. [Section 3.2] The text says 'we replicate the exact methods described in Winter et al. (2020)' but uses Gaia DR3 rather than Gaia DR2; please note this difference explicitly, since the phase-space density values may not be directly comparable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the metallicity-only injection is a forward model that does not encode the phase-space or Rbirth outputs it claims to reproduce.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward toy model: it takes an externally calibrated hot-Jupiter-metallicity power law (Chen et al. 2023, Eq. 4), applies it to the [Fe/H] distributions of GALAH, APOGEE, and the NIHAO simulation, and then reads off the resulting occurrence trends in Rbirth and phase-space density. The injection probability depends only on [Fe/H]; it contains no dependence on Rbirth, phase-space density, or environment. Reproducing the Winter et al. (2020) overdense-host fraction is therefore a genuine, non-tautological test: it demonstrates that the known metallicity relation, combined with the pre-existing metallicity differences between overdense and underdense stars documented in Figure 7, is sufficient to mimic the clustering signal. This is exactly the kind of forward-model check that can falsify an environmental interpretation. The Rbirth occurrence trend is an analytic consequence of propagating the input [Fe/H] power law through the Rbirth([Fe/H],[alpha/Fe]) calibration, but the paper presents it as a toy-model consequence rather than an empirical discovery, and Section 5.5 explicitly shows the main conclusions are robust to renormalizing the Rbirth scale. The known hot-Jupiter-age correlation is omitted, and the manuscript acknowledges this: Section 1.2 says it is 'beyond the scope of this work,' and Section 6 defers age to future work. That is a model-completeness and identifiability limitation, not circularity, because the age effect is an alternative explanation, not an input that is later relabeled as an output. Self-citations to Wang et al. (2024) and Mills et al. (in prep) supply the Rbirth calibration, but that calibration was derived from stellar chemistry and simulations, not from hot-Jupiter occurrence, and the phase-space conclusion is independent of it. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central results are generated entirely from inputs: the metallicity power law, the Rbirth calibrations, and the phase-space density code. No new physical entities are introduced. The key inherited parameters are the power law index/normalization and the Rbirth calibration coefficients.

free parameters (4)
  • HJ-metallicity power law index beta = 1.6 (from Chen et al. 2023)
    Used in Equation 4 to set injection probability; derived from observed HJ occurrence vs metallicity fits.
  • HJ occurrence normalization C = 0.01 (solar-metallicity occurrence, assumed)
    Chosen to match roughly 1% HJ occurrence at [Fe/H]=0; authors note precise normalization does not affect trends.
  • Rbirth calibration coefficients (GALAH, Eq. 1) = -40, 0.80, 0.4, 8.0
    Empirical fit to NIHAO simulation tracks by Wang et al. (2024); maps [Fe/H] and [alpha/Fe] to birth radius.
  • Rbirth calibration coefficients (APOGEE, Eq. 2) = -30, 0.80, 0.4, 8.89
    Same approach from Mills et al. (in prep); maps [Fe/H] and [Mg/Fe] to birth radius.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hot Jupiter occurrence follows FHJ = 0.01 x 10^(1.6 [Fe/H])
    Empirical power law from Chen et al. (2023), used as the injection rule; treated as known input.
  • domain assumption The NIHAO simulation's [Fe/H]-[alpha/Fe]-Rbirth tracks apply to Milky Way stars
    Rbirth calibration (Equations 1 and 2) is inherited from Wang et al. 2024 and Mills et al. in prep, which are based on the g2.79e12 NIHAO simulation (Buck 2020).
  • domain assumption Main-sequence and subgiant stars can be assigned Rbirth using a calibration developed for giants
    Section 3.1 states the calibration is valid because Rbirth depends on orbital dynamics, not internal structure; no direct validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Low and high-alpha sequence populations are separable by an eye-fitted line in the [Fe/H]-[alpha/Fe] plane
    Sections 2.1-2.3: boundaries are 'fit by eye' following Buck (2020), affecting the high-alpha fractions that drive survey differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disentangling Metallicity Effects in Hot Jupiter Occurrence Across Galactic Birth Radius and Phase-Space Density." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVUYTEUV

@misc{pith2026250616511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disentangling Metallicity Effects in Hot Jupiter Occurrence Across Galactic Birth Radius and Phase-Space Density},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVUYTEUV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16511}
}
abstract

We explore how the correlation between host star metallicity and giant planets shapes hot Jupiter occurrence as a function of Galactic birth radius (\rbirth) and phase-space density in the Milky Way disk. Using the GALAH and APOGEE surveys and a galaxy from the NIHAO simulation suite, we inject hot Jupiters around stars based on metallicity power laws, reflecting the trend that giant planets preferentially form around metal-rich stars. For \rbirth\ $\geq 5$ kpc, hot Jupiter occurrence decreases with \rbirth\ by $\sim -0.1%$ per kpc; this is driven by the Galaxy's chemical evolution, where the inner regions of the disk are more metal-rich. Differences in GALAH occurrence rates versus APOGEE's and the simulation's at \rbirth\ $< 5$ kpc arise from survey selection effects. APOGEE and the NIHAO simulation have more high-$\alpha$ sequence stars than GALAH, resulting in average differences in metallicity (0.2--0.4 dex), $\alpha$-process element enrichment (0.2 dex), and vertical velocities (7--14 km/s) at each \rbirth\ bin. Additionally, we replicate the result of \cite{Winter20}, which showed that over 92% of hot Jupiters are associated with stars in phase-space overdensities, or "clustered environments." However, our findings suggest that this clustering effect is primarily driven by chemical and kinematic differences between low and high-$\alpha$ sequence star properties. Our results support stellar characteristics, particularly metallicity, being the primary drivers of hot Jupiter formation, which serves as the "null hypothesis" for interpreting planet demographics. This underscores the need to disentangle planetary and stellar properties from Galactic-scale effects in future planet demographics studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GALAH (left) and APOGEE (right) identified planet hosts in the [Fe/H]-[α/Fe] plane colored by inferred Rbirth. While most planet hosts were born at 5 kpc, just inward of the current solar neighborhood at 8 kpc, there are stars that have migrated from Rbirth of 0–13 kpc. The colored lines trace different chemical evolution sequences across the disk, as defined in Equations 1 and 2 from Wang et al. (2024) and Mills et… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rcurrent and Z coordinates (left) and [Fe/H]-[O/Fe] plane colored by their ages (right) of stars from the NIHAO-UHD (Buck 2020) simulation in the same spatial range as known planet hosts. We show the low and high-α sequence boundary with the red dashed line that was fit by eye following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of stellar properties in GALAH sample. Left: Rcurrent and Z distribution. Top Right: [Fe/H]-[α/Fe] plane colored by density with low and high-α sequence boundary shown by red line; 5% of the GALAH sample’s stars belong to the high-α sequence. Bottom Right: Distribution of stars in the Teff -log g plane colored by [Fe/H]. tracks were fit from the simulation data and are empir￾ically described with the follow… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of stellar properties in APOGEE sample. Left: Rcurrent and Z distribution. Top Right: [Fe/H]-[Mg/Fe] plane colored by density with low and high-α sequence boundary shown by red line. 13% of the APOGEE sample’s stars belong to the high-α sequence. Bottom Right:…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial and kinematic distribution of APOGEE stars colored by calculated phase-space densities following calculation and visualizaiton outlined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated hot Jupiter occurrence as a function of Rbirth based on the hot Jupiter-metallicity power law from Chen et al. (2023). Mean occurrence and standard deviation of 1000 sets of injections are plotted. Top Left: GALAH (green squares), APOGEE (purple circles), and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of GALAH (in green), APOGEE (in purple), and NIHAO simulation (in gray) stars in overdense environments (shown as a solid line histogram and abbreviated as od) to those in underdense environments (shown as a dashed line histogram and abbreviated as ud) in…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Winter et al. (2020) phase-space density analysis with injected hot Jupiters based on the hot Jupiter occurrence￾metallicity power law from Chen et al. (2023). Top: Histograms of simulated hot Jupiters in phase-space underdensities (dotted lines and calculated P(dense)…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. An Increase in the Galactic Planet Host Fraction Fails to Reproduce the Galactic Height Trend in Planet Occurrence

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Time-dependent increases in the planet host fraction cannot reproduce the steep decline in small-planet occurrence with Galactic height seen by Kepler and K2.

  2. On Hot Jupiters and Stellar Clustering: The Role of Host Star Demographics

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The apparent excess of hot Jupiters in phase-space overdensities is driven by younger, more massive, more metal-rich host stars, not by an intrinsic environmental formation channel.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    C., Hollenbach, D., Laughlin, G., & Gorti, U

    Adams, F. C., Hollenbach, D., Laughlin, G., & Gorti, U. 2004, ApJ, 611, 360, doi: 10.1086/421989

    doi:10.1086/421989 2004

  3. [3]

    2019, Geosciences, 9, 105, doi: 10.3390/geosciences9030105

    Adibekyan, V. 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105, doi: 10.3390/geosciences9030105

    doi:10.3390/geosciences9030105 2019

  4. [4]

    C., Demangeon, O

    Adibekyan, V., Santos, N. C., Demangeon, O. D. S., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040201

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040201 2021

  5. [5]

    Z., Figueira, P., Santos, N

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Figueira, P., Santos, N. C., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321520

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321520 2013

  6. [6]

    R., Hayes, C

    Anguiano, B., Majewski, S. R., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9813

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9813 2020

  7. [7]

    Armitage, P. J. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 195, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521 2011

  8. [8]

    Aumer, M., & Binney, J. J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1286, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15053.x

    arXiv 2009

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10485

    Ballard, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10485

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Barker, A. J. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2405

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3596

    Bashi, D., & Zucker, S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3596

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2179

    Beleznay, M., & Kunimoto, M. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2179

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundstr¨ om, I. 2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, A&A, 633, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936463

    Bitsch, B., & Battistini, C. 2020, A&A, 633, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936463

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Parker, R

    Blaylock-Squibbs, G. A., Parker, R. J., & Daffern-Powell, E. C. 2024, ApJ, 968, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be0

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, A&A, 686, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449557

    Boettner, C., Dayal, P., Trebitsch, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449557

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Wang, J., Zinn, J

    Boley, K. M., Wang, J., Zinn, J. C., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0e2d

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

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

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3289

    Buck, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3289

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2019a, MNRAS, 483, 1314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2913

    Frings, J. 2019a, MNRAS, 483, 1314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2913

    doi

  14. [22]

    V., & Dutton, A

    Buck, T., Ness, M., Obreja, A., Macci` o, A. V., & Dutton, A. A. 2019b, ApJ, 874, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaffd0

    doi

  15. [23]

    Dutton, A. A. 2018, ApJ, 861, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac890 20 Rampalli et al

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    V., et al

    Buck, T., Obreja, A., Macci` o, A. V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3241

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1503

    Buck, T., Obreja, A., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1503

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2736

    Buck, T., Rybizki, J., Buder, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2736

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    X., Portegies Zwart, S., & van Elteren, A

    Cai, M. X., Portegies Zwart, S., & van Elteren, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3064

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd5be —

    Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd5be —. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2304179120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2304179120 Concha-Ram´ ırez, F., Wilhelm, M. J. C., Portegies Zwart, S., & Haworth, T. J...

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, AJ, 162, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac00ad

    Dai, Y.-Z., Liu, H.-G., An, D.-S., & Zhou, J.-L. 2021, AJ, 162, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac00ad

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    I., & Johnson, J

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 de Juan Ovelar, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Bressert, E., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219627 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, M...

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Snaith, O. N. 2013, A&A, 553, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220539

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    A., & Valenti, J

    Fischer, D. A., & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102, doi: 10.1086/428383

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4254 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Frankel, N., Sanders, J., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y.-S., & Ness, M. 2019, ApJ, 884, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4254 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A.,...

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025

    Gilmore, G., & Reid, N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025

    1983 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    1997, MNRAS, 285, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.2.403

    Gonzalez, G. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.2.403

    1997 doi

  30. [38]

    1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Gratton, R., Carretta, E., Matteucci, F., & Sneden, C. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    1996

  31. [39]

    A., Mann, A

    Guo, X., Johnson, J. A., Mann, A. W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6004

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    Hallatt, T., & Lee, E. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.09319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.09319

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/62

    Hasegawa, Y., & Hirashita, H. 2014, ApJ, 788, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/62

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, A&A, 625, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834155

    Khoperskov, S. 2019, A&A, 625, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834155

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1934

    Hilmi, T., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1934

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Jofr´ e, P., Heiter, U., & Soubiran, C. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 571, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104509

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Aller, K

    Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 905, doi: 10.1086/655775

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    L., & Li, H

    Johnson, J. L., & Li, H. 2012, ApJ, 751, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/81

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13256, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13256

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    2017, AJ, 153, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75

    Kunder, A., Kordopatis, G., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    W., & Bovy, J

    Leung, H. W., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3217

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    Lu, Y., Buck, T., Minchev, I., & Ness, M. K. 2022a, MNRAS, 515, L34, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac065

    doi

  45. [53]

    2022b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04515

    Lu, Y., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2022b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04515

    doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    T., Bovy, J., Leung, H

    Mackereth, J. T., Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1521

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    Maldonado, J., Micela, G., Baratella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    B., & Heggie, D

    Malmberg, D., Davies, M. B., & Heggie, D. C. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 859, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x

    2011

  50. [58]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/112

    Minchev, I., & Famaey, B. 2010, ApJ, 722, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/112

    2010 doi

  51. [59]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033 Metallicity Trends in Galactic-Scale Planet Occurrence 21

    Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033 Metallicity Trends in Galactic-Scale Planet Occurrence 21

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, AJ, 166, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acff71

    Miyazaki, S., & Masuda, K. 2023, AJ, 166, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acff71

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    C., Sousa, S., et al

    Mortier, A., Santos, N. C., Sousa, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220707

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Lambrechts, M., & Davies, M

    Mustill, A. J., Lambrechts, M., & Davies, M. B. 2022, A&A, 658, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140921 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2023, Planetary Systems, Version: 2024-09-23, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA12

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    K., Johnston, K

    Ness, M. K., Johnston, K. V., Blancato, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e3c

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, A&A, 678, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346697

    Johansen, A. 2023, A&A, 678, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346697

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3207 pandas development team, T

    Osborn, A., & Bayliss, D. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3207 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

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

    2011

  59. [67]

    A., Marcy, G

    Petigura, E. A., Marcy, G. W., Winn, J. N., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa54c

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    Piskunov, N., & Valenti, J. A. 2017, A&A, 597, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629124

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

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

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

    1996

  62. [70]

    A., Tout, C

    Rasio, F. A., Tout, C. A., Lubow, S. H., & Livio, M. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1187, doi: 10.1086/177941

    1996 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, A&A, 690, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449268

    Ratcliffe, B., Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449268

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    2014, A&A, 567, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322944

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322944

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., Quinn, T. R., Stinson, G. S., & Wadsley, J. 2008, ApJL, 684, L79, doi: 10.1086/592231

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, A&A, 653, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140968

    Sabotta, S., Schlecker, M., Chaturvedi, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140968

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

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

    Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 415, 1153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034469

    2004 doi

  69. [77]

    A., & Binney, J

    Sellwood, J. A., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x

    2002

  70. [78]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 2004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2582

    Sharma, S., Stello, D., Buder, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2582

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  73. [81]

    A., & Piskunov, N

    Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 1996, A&AS, 118, 595

    1996

  74. [82]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    K., & Buck, T

    Wang, K., Carrillo, A., Ness, M. K., & Buck, T. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3182

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Stinson, G

    Wang, L., Dutton, A. A., Stinson, G. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 83, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1937 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2015 doi

  77. [85]

    P., & Cieza, L

    Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102548

    2011 doi

  78. [86]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

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

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    2020, Nature, 586, 528, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2800-0

    Chevance, M. 2020, Nature, 586, 528, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2800-0

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  81. [89]

    K., Hardegree-Ullman, K

    Zink, J. K., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Christiansen, J. L., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd24c

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.