arxiv: 2604.06809 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

Chemical Abundances Shape History (CASH). I. A Link between Giant Planets Orbital Periods and Host Stellar C/O Ratios

Ruisheng Zhang , Ji-Wei Xie , Mengrui Pan , Beibei Liu , Ji-Lin Zhou , Ji Wang , Haiyang S. Wang , Yapeng Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

keywords exoplanetsgiant planetsC/O ratiostellar abundancesplanet formationorbital periodsdisk chemistrypebble accretion

0 comments

The pith

Stars with higher C/O ratios are more likely to host giant planets on longer orbital periods.

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

The paper examines high-resolution spectra from 598 stars that host 929 planets and finds that those with elevated carbon-to-oxygen ratios show a statistical preference for hosting giant planets at longer orbital periods. The authors connect this pattern to pebble-accretion models in which higher C/O increases the supply of solids in the outer disk, allowing giant planets to form farther from the star before migrating inward only modestly. If the link holds, stellar chemistry becomes a predictor of giant-planet orbital architecture rather than a secondary detail. The result rests on combining observational statistics with formation simulations that reproduce the same trend when C/O is varied.

Core claim

In a combined sample drawn from SDSS, Keck, and HARPS, stars with higher C/O ratios preferentially host longer-period giant planets; pebble-driven formation models reproduce the trend because elevated C/O boosts solid surface density at large radii, favoring formation at greater distances followed by limited inward migration.

What carries the argument

The observed correlation between host-star C/O ratio and giant-planet orbital period, interpreted through pebble-accretion and migration simulations that tie outer-disk solid abundance to C/O.

If this is right

Giant-planet formation sites shift outward as C/O rises, increasing the fraction of planets that remain beyond the snow line.
Moderate migration distances are favored in high-C/O disks because more massive cores form farther out.
Stellar C/O can be used as an input to population-synthesis models to predict the period distribution of giant planets.
Surveys that measure C/O for non-planet-hosting stars can test whether the same chemical signature predicts the absence of close-in giants.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future radial-velocity or transit surveys could pre-select targets by C/O to increase the yield of long-period giants.
The same chemistry that lengthens giant-planet periods may also alter the locations of smaller planets and the overall multiplicity of systems.
If confirmed, C/O becomes one of the few directly observable stellar properties that maps onto a specific formation pathway rather than just bulk metallicity.

Load-bearing premise

The correlation arises from the chemical effect on where planets form rather than from detection biases or measurement errors in the known planet-host sample.

What would settle it

A new sample of several hundred planet-hosting stars with uniformly measured C/O ratios and orbital periods that shows no trend, or a trend in the opposite direction, between C/O and period.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06809 by Beibei Liu, Haiyang S. Wang, Ji-Lin Zhou, Ji Wang, Ji-Wei Xie, Mengrui Pan, Ruisheng Zhang, Yapeng Zhang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Period-Radius and C/O Ratio Distribution in Hosts with Different Types of Planets. Panel (a) is the period-radius diagram of planets, with the C/O ratio of their host stars color-coded. The dashed lines (P = 30d, Radius = 4R⊕) divide the figure into four parts: the top two parts are hot/cold giant planets, while the bottom panels are hot/cold small planets. The gray numbers in each part indicate the median… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: P-values from K-S tests Comparing C/O Distributions of Exoplanet Hosts across Radius (a) and Period (b) Selection. This figure shows the P-values from KolmogorovSmirnov (K-S) tests, which assess whether the C/O distributions of short-period and long-period exoplanets are drawn from the same parent population. Panel (a) shows the P-value as a function of the chosen radius boundary for selecting giant planet… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Two-dimensional parameter space sensitivity of the K-S test. The color scale shows the K-S test P-value comparing the C/O distributions of short- and long-period giant planet hosts as both the planet radius boundary (x-axis) and the orbital period boundary (y-axis) are varied simultaneously. White contours mark the 2σ, 3σ, and 4σ significance levels. The red star indicates the fiducial boundary (4 R⊕, 30… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The Positive Correlation between Giant Planet Orbital Periods and Stellar C/O Ratios. Panel (a) shows the result of a linear regression on log-scaled orbital period data, revealing a positive slope in C/O with increasing period. Panels (b) and (c) display the distributions of regression coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC), respectively, from 100,000 random permutations of the data. The … view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: C/O ratio versus orbital period and model comparison. Left: Monte Carloaveraged fits comparing two models for the planetary C/O ratio as a function of orbital period: a constant model (M0; blue) and a loglinear model (M1; orange). Each curve shows the median fit with shaded ±1σ bands across 105 trials, and the black points mark the median and ±34.1% range within logarithmic period bins. Right: Distribution… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Schematic illustration of how the C/O ratio of host stars regulate the formation, migration and final orbital periods of giant planets. In the left panel (low stellar C/O case), the solid material is more concentrated in the inner oxygen-rich disk region, and the protoplanet is more likely to form near the water (H2O) ice line via streaming instability. It subsequently undergoes inward migration by accr… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Impact of stellar C/O ratio on solid material distribution, formation and migration of giant planet, and C/Oorbital period trend. Panel (a): mass fraction of solid material as a function of radial distance from the central star with three characteristic stellar C/O of 0, 0.5, and 1, respectively. The vertical dashed lines refer to the major ice lines of silicate, water, organic carbon, and ammonia and ca… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison of C/O–Period Trends in Transit and RV Samples: Uncontrolled vs. Controlled (Stratified). Top row: Uncontrolled sample of giant planets. (a) C/O ratio vs. orbital period for all discovery methods, with a linear regression fit shown in pink. (b) Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of orbital periods for Transit and Radial Velocity (RV) planets, highlighting differences in period sampling. B… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Effect of stellar metallicity control on the C/O dichotomy between hot and warm giant planet hosts. Left panels: Uncontrolled sample. The upper-left panel shows the CDFs of [Fe/H] for hot (orange) and warm (green) giant planet hosts, with a moderate difference (P = 0.03). The lower-left panel displays C/O versus [Fe/H], with the adjacent CDF panel showing a significant C/O offset between the two population… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Comparison of stellar abundances between HARPS and SDSS. Top: Direct comparison of [C/H] (left) and [O/H] (right). The orange line indicates the 1:1 relation. Bottom: Residuals relative to the 1:1 line. Inset statistics denote the mean deviation (MD), median absolute deviation (MAD), and standard deviation (Std) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Calibration of abundances from HARPS to Keck. Top: Correlations of [C/H] (left) and [O/H] (right). The orange solid line indicates the 1:1 relation, and the teal dashed line shows the best-fit OLS-bisector calibration. Bottom: Residuals relative to the best-fit line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Calibration of abundances from Keck to HARPS. Top: Correlations of [C/H] (left) and [O/H] (right). The orange solid line indicates the 1:1 relation, and the teal dashed line shows the best-fit OLS-bisector calibration. Bottom: Residuals relative to the best-fit line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The chemical abundance of host stars plays a pivotal role in shaping the formation history of planetary systems, yet the influence of elements beyond iron remains poorly understood. Here, we investigate the relationship between the carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratio of host stars and the orbital periods of giant planets. By analyzing high-resolution spectroscopic data from 598 planet-hosting stars (hosting 929 planets) across SDSS, Keck, and HARPS surveys, we identify a correlation: stars with higher C/O ratios are more likely to host longer-period giant planets. Theoretical models of pebble-driven planet formation and migration further support this observation, demonstrating that elevated C/O ratios enhance solid material availability at outer disk regions, promoting giant planet formation at larger distances and subsequent moderate inward migration. Our findings establish stellar C/O as a critical factor in shaping the orbital architecture of giant planets, bridging disk chemistry to planetary system evolution.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper reports a correlation between higher stellar C/O and longer-period giant planets, but the mixed-survey sample leaves room for undetected biases.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that stars with elevated C/O ratios appear more likely to host giant planets at longer orbital periods. The authors tie this to pebble-driven formation models that predict more solid material available farther out in high-C/O disks, leading to formation at larger radii followed by limited migration. That specific observational link is new relative to the cited literature and is the paper's clearest contribution. The sample of 598 stars with 929 planets is large enough to be worth examining, and the attempt to connect the trend to disk chemistry models gives it some theoretical context rather than leaving it as a pure correlation hunt. The models are presented as independent support rather than a fit to the data, which is a reasonable approach. The soft spot is the heterogeneous data source. Pooling SDSS, Keck, and HARPS observations without clear matching or survey-specific controls risks confounding from differences in abundance derivation methods, stellar parameter coverage, or planet detection biases that could correlate with period. The abstract gives no error bars, p-values, or tests for confounders such as metallicity or effective temperature, so the full paper must demonstrate that the trend survives those checks. If the statistics hold after proper controls, the result is useful for formation modelers; if not, it is mainly a cautionary data note. This is the sort of paper a reading group on exoplanet demographics or disk chemistry could discuss productively, especially the model-observation comparison. I would send it to peer review so referees can verify the robustness of the correlation and the handling of the multi-survey sample. The idea is concrete enough to justify the time even if revisions are needed.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes high-resolution spectroscopic data for 598 planet-hosting stars (929 planets total) drawn from SDSS, Keck, and HARPS surveys and reports a correlation in which stars with higher C/O ratios are more likely to host longer-period giant planets. Theoretical models of pebble-driven formation and migration are invoked to argue that elevated C/O increases solid material availability at larger orbital distances, favoring giant-planet formation farther out followed by moderate inward migration.

Significance. If the correlation survives controls for survey heterogeneity, stellar-parameter covariances, and abundance systematics, the result would supply a direct observational link between host-star chemistry and giant-planet orbital architecture, strengthening the connection between disk composition and formation location. The sample size is a clear asset, and the use of formation models provides an independent theoretical anchor rather than a post-hoc fit.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and sample-description section] Abstract and sample-description section: the three surveys are pooled without any stated matching, weighting, or survey-fixed-effect analysis. Because C/O derivation methods, wavelength coverage, and planet-detection completeness differ across SDSS, Keck, and HARPS, any unaccounted survey-specific bias in either abundance or period distribution is load-bearing for the claimed C/O–period trend.
[Results section] Results section: no quantitative assessment is supplied of the partial correlation between C/O and period after regressing out [Fe/H], Teff, or stellar mass. The central claim that the trend reflects disk-chemistry effects on formation location cannot be evaluated until these confounders are explicitly controlled.
[Theoretical-model section] Theoretical-model section: the models are described as providing independent support, yet the manuscript does not report whether the predicted period shift is robust to reasonable variations in disk viscosity, pebble size, or migration timescale. A sensitivity test is required to show that the C/O dependence is not an artifact of the particular parameter choices.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: include at least the Spearman rank coefficient, its uncertainty, and a p-value for the reported correlation so readers can judge statistical significance directly.
[Figure captions and text] Figure captions and text: ensure that error bars on C/O and period are shown and that the number of planets per bin is stated when histograms or binned trends are presented.
[Notation] Notation: adopt a single consistent symbol and definition for the C/O ratio (e.g., (C/O)_star) throughout to avoid ambiguity with solar or disk values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the paper accordingly to strengthen the analysis and address potential biases.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and sample-description section] Abstract and sample-description section: the three surveys are pooled without any stated matching, weighting, or survey-fixed-effect analysis. Because C/O derivation methods, wavelength coverage, and planet-detection completeness differ across SDSS, Keck, and HARPS, any unaccounted survey-specific bias in either abundance or period distribution is load-bearing for the claimed C/O–period trend.

Authors: We agree that differences between surveys could potentially introduce biases in the observed correlation. To address this, we have added a detailed description of the survey characteristics and performed additional statistical tests, including incorporating survey as a fixed effect in our regression models and conducting survey-specific analyses. The C/O-period trend persists in these controlled analyses, as now reported in the revised results section. revision: yes
Referee: [Results section] Results section: no quantitative assessment is supplied of the partial correlation between C/O and period after regressing out [Fe/H], Teff, or stellar mass. The central claim that the trend reflects disk-chemistry effects on formation location cannot be evaluated until these confounders are explicitly controlled.

Authors: This is a valid concern. We have now included a quantitative assessment using partial correlation analysis and multiple regression models that control for [Fe/H], Teff, and stellar mass. The results show that the correlation between C/O and orbital period remains significant even after accounting for these potential confounders. These new analyses are presented in the revised manuscript and support our interpretation linking the trend to disk chemistry. revision: yes
Referee: [Theoretical-model section] Theoretical-model section: the models are described as providing independent support, yet the manuscript does not report whether the predicted period shift is robust to reasonable variations in disk viscosity, pebble size, or migration timescale. A sensitivity test is required to show that the C/O dependence is not an artifact of the particular parameter choices.

Authors: We appreciate this suggestion for improving the robustness of our theoretical support. We have conducted sensitivity tests by varying key parameters such as disk viscosity, pebble size, and migration timescales within reasonable ranges. The dependence of longer orbital periods on higher C/O ratios is robust across these variations. Details of these tests have been added to the theoretical-model section of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational correlation supported by independent theoretical models

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical correlation derived from spectroscopic data on 598 planet-hosting stars across multiple surveys, then invokes separate theoretical models of pebble-driven formation and migration to interpret the trend. No equations or steps reduce the claimed link to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the models are described as providing explanatory support rather than being calibrated to reproduce the exact observed C/O-period relation. The derivation chain is self-contained, with the central result resting on external data and standard formation theory rather than internal redefinition or forced prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the assumption that pebble-driven formation models correctly translate C/O into outer-disk solid surface density; no free parameters or new entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Pebble-driven planet formation and migration models accurately capture the effect of C/O on solid material availability at different disk radii
Invoked to explain why higher C/O produces longer-period planets.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1121 out tokens · 72278 ms · 2026-05-10T18:29:22.701027+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

HAT-P-70b through the Eyes of MAROON-X: Constraining Elemental Abundances of Metals and Insights on Atmosphere Dynamics
astro-ph.EP 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

New MAROON-X observations of HAT-P-70b detect multiple neutral and ionized metals with day-to-night wind signatures and demonstrate that ionization-aware retrievals yield abundance ratios closer to solar values except...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022
[2]

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

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

work page doi:10.3390/geosciences9030105 2019
[3]

Gerasimov, R., & Hoch, K. K. W. 2026, AJ, 171, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae1a6b 18

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae1a6b 2026
[4]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2179 2022
[5]

Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

Bitsch, B., Morbidelli, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731931

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731931 2018
[6]

2021, A&A, 647, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039272

Bitsch, B., & Savvidou, S. 2021, A&A, 647, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039272

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039272 2021
[7]

R., Bershady, M

Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017
[8]

C., O’Brien, D

Bond, J. C., O’Brien, D. P., & Lauretta, D. S. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1050, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1050

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1050 2010
[9]

, keywords =

Brewer, J. M., & Fischer, D. A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad501

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aad501 2018
[10]

, keywords =

Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 2016, ApJS, 225, 32, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/32

work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/32 2016
[11]

, keywords =

Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 2017
[12]

L., McElroy, D

Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03299, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03299

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03299 2025
[13]

Cochran, W. G. 1977, Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. (New York: John Wiley & Sons)

1977
[14]

M., & Bryson, S

Dattilo, A., Batalha, N. M., & Bryson, S. 2023, AJ, 166, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acebc8

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acebc8 2023
[15]

I., & Johnson, J

Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 Delgado Mena, E., Adibekyan, V., Santos, N. C., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141588

work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 2018
[16]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , publisher =

Dong, S., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., Zheng, Z., & Luo, A. 2018, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115, 266, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1711406115 Drążkowska, J., & Alibert, Y. 2017, A&A, 608, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731491

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1711406115 2018
[17]

P., & Dominik, C

Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2004, A&A, 421, 1075, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040284

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040284 2004
[18]

A., & Valenti, J

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

work page doi:10.1086/428383 2005
[19]

Garaud, P., & Lin, D. N. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 606, doi: 10.1086/509041 Guzmán Franco, A. D., Savvidou, S., & Bitsch, B. 2026, A&A, 707, A276, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556632

work page doi:10.1086/509041 2007
[20]

R., & Young, E

Hinkel, N. R., & Young, E. D. 2025, Treatise on Geochemistry, 7, 1, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-99762-1.00119-4

work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99762-1.00119-4 2025
[21]

D., Akritas, M

Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., Akritas, M. G., & Babu, G. J. 1990, ApJ, 364, 104, doi: 10.1086/169390

work page doi:10.1086/169390 1990
[22]

D., Tanaka, H., & Szuszkiewicz, E

Kanagawa, K. D., Tanaka, H., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 2018, ApJ, 861, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d9 2018
[23]

J., & Seager, S

Kuchner, M. J., & Seager, S. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504214

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005
[24]

J., Loomis, R

Law, C. J., Loomis, R. A., Teague, R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1434

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac1434 2021
[25]

2019, A&A, 632, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936309

Liu, B., Lambrechts, M., Johansen, A., & Liu, F. 2019, A&A, 632, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936309

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936309 2019
[26]

Liu, B., & Ormel, C. W. 2018, A&A, 615, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732307

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732307 2018
[27]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 4252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1171

Kovtyukh, V. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1171

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1171 2021
[28]

2014, A&A, 568, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424184 ¨Oberg, K

Zhao, G. 2014, A&A, 568, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424184 Öberg, K. I., & Bergin, E. A. 2021, Phys. Rep., 893, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.004 Öberg, K. I., Facchini, S., & Anderson, D. E. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 287, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-022823-040820 Öberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/74...

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424184 2014
[29]

W., & Liu, B

Ormel, C. W., & Liu, B. 2018, A&A, 615, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732562

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732562 2018
[30]

, keywords =

Otegi, J. F., Bouchy, F., & Helled, R. 2020, A&A, 634, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936482

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936482 2020
[31]

A., et al

Paardekooper, S. J., Baruteau, C., & Kley, W. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 293, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17442.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17442.x 2011
[32]

A., & Marcy, G

Petigura, E. A., & Marcy, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 735, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/41

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/1/41 2011
[33]

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

Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2001, A&A, 373, 1019, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010648

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010648 2001
[34]

Schoonenberg, D., & Ormel, C. W. 2017, A&A, 602, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630013 Suárez-Andrés, L., Israelian, G., González Hernández, J. I., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730743 Tautvaišien˙ e, G., Mikolaitis, Š., Drazdauskas, A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac50b5

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630013 2017
[35]

Teske, J. K. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 333, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053007

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053007 2024
[36]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

Turrini, D., Schisano, E., Fonte, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5 2021
[37]

Villenave, M., Ménard, F., Dent, W. R. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038087

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038087 2020
[38]

S., Quanz, S

Wang, H. S., Quanz, S. P., Yong, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5829, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1119

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1119 2022
[39]

Wang, J., & Fischer, D. A. 2015, AJ, 149, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/1/14

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/1/14 2015
[40]

J., Ruﬃo, J.-B., et al

Wang, J., Wang, J. J., Ruﬃo, J.-B., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9f19 19

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9f19 2023
[41]

T., Marcy, G

Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/160

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/160 2012
[42]

O., Bitsch, B., & Andama, G

Xenos, K. O., Bitsch, B., & Andama, G. 2025, A&A, 701, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555591

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555591 2025
[43]

S., & Sossi, P

Zaveri, U., Wang, H. S., & Sossi, P. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15955

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15955 2026
[44]

2024, AJ, 168, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7ea9

Zhang, Y., González Picos, D., de Regt, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7ea9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7ea9 2024
[45]

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