Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Super-Earth ingestion can explain the anomalously high metal abundances of M67 Y2235

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single ingested super-Earth of roughly five Earth masses explains the anomalously high metal abundances of the turn-off star M67 Y2235.

desk verdict A credible quantitative case that a ~5 Mearth super-Earth ingested by M67 Y2235 on a grazing orbit explains its 0.128 dex metal offset; the main weakness is the undertested CH coefficient, but the argument is worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06988 v1 pith:NRSMQO2X submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Ross P. Church , Alexander J. Mustill , Fan Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords super-EarthingestionM67Y2235stellarabundanceenhancementconvectiveenvelopeplanet-planetscatteringLidov-Kozaioscillationsdifferentialspectroscopyopenclusters
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 argues that the unexplained 0.128 dex metal excess of the turn-off star M67 Y2235 can be produced by the late ingestion of a single rocky super-Earth. The mechanism is economical: the star's surface convection zone holds only $3.45\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot$, so about $5.2\,M_\oplus$ of metals is enough to raise every measured abundance by a constant factor. The paper's key result is a geometric dissolution criterion: a planet dissolves completely in the convective envelope if it hits the star with radial speed less than 40% of its total speed at the surface, i.e. impact parameter above about 0.9. It then shows that both planet-planet scattering and Lidov-Kozai oscillations deliver planets almost always on such grazing orbits. If correct, the result turns one anomalous star into evidence that late dynamical instability of planetary systems can be detected through cluster abundance surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fractional radial velocity at first stellar contact, $\tilde v_\perp = v_\perp/v_0$, equivalently the impact parameter $b = v_\parallel/v_0$; the key identity is the dissolution boundary $\tilde v_\perp \lesssim 0.4$ ($b\gtrsim 0.9$). It is obtained from a numerical model in which a spherical iron-density planet loses mass at the rate $\dot M_p = C_H F_D v /(\epsilon_{\rm bind,p}+L_{\rm vap})$ under gas drag $F_D=\frac12 C_D\pi R_p^2 \rho_\star v^2$ while its orbit decays. This boundary does the central work of the paper: it turns the abundance anomaly into an orbital-geometry question, and the paper's N-body simulations then show that both delivery channels produce the required grazing geometry.

What would settle it

Measure the heat-transfer coefficient $C_H$ for iron-rich bodies at Mach numbers near 50 in tenuous gas through meteor-ablation observations or shock-tube experiments: if $C_H$ is much smaller than 0.005, the dissolution boundary shifts from $\tilde v_\perp\lesssim0.4$ toward far more grazing orbits, so typical scattering and Kozai impacts would no longer dissolve in the convective zone and the explanation for Y2235 would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the anomalously high metal abundances of the M67 turn-off star Y2235—a constant 0.128 dex offset in every measured species relative to two sibling turn-off stars—can be explained by the late ingestion of a single super-Earth. For its fiducial 4 Gyr, 1.18 solar-mass model of Y2235, the surface convective envelope contains only $3.45\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot$, so the required metal mass is about $5.2\,M_\oplus$. The paper's dissolution model then shows that a rocky planet of up to about $30\,M_\oplus$ is fully vaporized inside this convective layer provided it enters on a grazing orbit, $\tilde v_\perp = v_\perp/v_0 \lesssim 0.4$, i.e. impact parameter $b\gtrsim0.9$. Planets that plunge more steeply deposit most of their mass below the convective zone and leave no photospheric signature. Since N-body simulations of both planet-planet scattering and Lidov-Kozai oscillations deliver planets with median $\tilde v_\perp$ of 0.12 and 0.05–0.29 respectively, essentially all ingested planets dissolve where their metals are observable. The paper therefore concludes that super-Earth ingestion is a viable explanation and suggests M67-like clusters as testbeds for late planetary-system instability.

Load-bearing premise

The whole dissolution criterion assumes that one percent of the drag energy goes into vaporizing the planet (C_H = 0.01); if the true fraction is much smaller, a grazing planet could survive passage through the convective zone and deposit its metals deeper, where they would not be observed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A total of about 5 Earth masses of rock, delivered as one super-Earth, is sufficient to raise the photospheric metal abundance of a turn-off star such as Y2235 by 0.128 dex.
  • Most planets ingested after dynamical instability arrive with $\tilde v_\perp$ well below 0.4 (medians 0.05–0.29 in the paper's simulations), so full dissolution in the convective envelope is the typical outcome.
  • The species-independent enhancement observed in Y2235 points to an icy/water-rich super-Earth rather than an Earth-like dry body, because carbon and oxygen are not depleted relative to other metals.
  • Late ingestion introduces abundance scatter among coeval stars, limiting the precision of chemical tagging and potentially biasing abundance-based inferences about exoplanet compositions.
  • A high-resolution spectroscopic survey of M67 turn-off and upper-main-sequence stars could measure how often late dynamical instability destroys planetary systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ingestion is common, abundance scatter among coeval turn-off stars should grow with stellar mass, because the surface convective envelope shrinks for higher-mass stars; a cluster survey could test this gradient.
  • The dissolution criterion implies that stars with essentially radiative envelopes would show no photospheric pollution even after ingesting planets, so the absence of metal offsets in warmer stars would not rule out ingestion.
  • The $\tilde v_\perp\lesssim0.4$ boundary is a sharp prediction: any polluted star should show evidence of a dynamical delivery channel, such as an eccentric outer giant planet or a binary companion, which radial-velocity monitoring could check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that the 0.128 dex enhancement in the photospheric metal abundances of the M67 turn-off star Y2235, relative to two sibling turn-off stars, is due to the late ingestion of a ~5.2 M_earth rocky or icy planet. The authors construct a stellar model of Y2235 and find a surface convective envelope of mass 3.45e-3 M_sun at 4 Gyr, so that Eq. (2) yields 5.2 M_earth of accreted metals for the observed offset. They then develop a simple drag-plus-vaporization model (Eqs. 3-7) in which a planet dissolves in the convective envelope if its radial velocity at first contact is less than about 40% of the total velocity (impact parameter b > 0.9). N-body simulations of planet-planet scattering and Lidov-Kozai cycles show that most delivered planets arrive on grazing orbits. The paper concludes that super-Earth ingestion is a good explanation and suggests a high-resolution spectroscopic survey of M67 to test the frequency of such events.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a concrete, physically motivated explanation for a striking abundance anomaly in a cluster member, with a testable observational prediction. The calculation of the required planet mass is transparent and parameter-free once the convective envelope mass is accepted, and the delivery simulations are a useful first exploration of the orbital phase space of ingested planets. The paper's main strengths are its clarity, the explicit treatment of the dissolution criterion, and the fact that the proposed survey is falsifiable. However, the central quantitative claim rests on the value of the heat-transfer coefficient C_H, which is acknowledged to be highly uncertain and is tested over only a factor of two; this weakens the robustness of the v_tilde < 0.4 dissolution boundary.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (7); Sec. 3.3.5, Fig. 8] The mass-loss rate in Eq. (7) is proportional to C_H, the fraction of frictional energy deposited in the planet, yet the paper sets C_H = 0.01 after noting that meteor-ablation formulae give values between about 3% and 30%, and then varies C_H only by a factor of two (0.005 and 0.02). This does not bracket the order-of-magnitude uncertainty the authors themselves identify. If C_H were as low as 0.001, the ablation rate would be ten times slower and a grazing impactor could survive long enough to sink below the base of the convective zone before fully dissolving, moving the critical v_tilde threshold to lower values. Because the scenario requires essentially all 5.2 M_earth of metals to remain in the thin convective envelope, the paper should either map the dissolution boundary as a function of C_H over the plausible range (e.g., 0.001-0.3) or provide a first-principles argument that C_H cannot be much smaller than 0.01. As written, the clean separation in Fig. 7 and the 40% threshold are not yet robust.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.1 and Sec. 3.3.3] The treatment of differential settling and of ingestion time is a hand-wave. The present-day abundance is compared with the stellar model at 4 Gyr, but ingestion could occur at earlier times when the convective envelope was smaller (Fig. 3), and subsequent settling/levitation could alter the surface pattern. The manuscript states that the 'only likely effect is to slightly increase the mass of planet' (Sec. 3.3.1), but no calculation is shown. A simple time-dependent model--add the planet's metals at time t_ing, then evolve the convective mass and surface abundances using the same diffusion treatment that fits the comparison stars--is needed to demonstrate that the 5.2 M_earth estimate and the flat abundance pattern survive. This is load-bearing because the quantitative claim is the 0.128 dex offset at the current age.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 9] The N-body delivery statistics are reported without uncertainties. The scattering sample yields 49 impactors from 100 systems, with a median tilde-v_perp of 0.12 and 'only three' impactors that would penetrate below the convective zone; the Poisson uncertainty on that number is large, and the fraction of impactors above the critical threshold (which itself depends on C_H, see comment 1) is not quantified. Since the paper's conclusion is that 'almost all planets that are ingested arrive at the star on grazing orbits,' the authors should report the full distribution or at least a confidence interval on the fraction of grazing impacts. This is especially important because the scattering tail lies near tilde-v_perp ~ 0.4 and could cross the threshold if C_H is lower.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.4] The units 'g cm-2' for density should be 'g cm-3'; this appears for rho_p = 7.9, 5.5, and 10 g cm-2.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.3] The phrase 'between 0.02 and 0.035 M_sun from the stellar surface' should presumably read 'between 0.02 and 0.035 R_sun from the stellar surface' (or a mass coordinate), as the units are inconsistent with the context of Fig. 3.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.4] The term 'entropy of vaporisation of 5 kJ g-1' should be 'latent heat of vaporisation' or 'specific energy of vaporisation,' since entropy has units of energy per temperature, not per mass.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The text gives 'ten Earth masses (3e-5 M_sun)'; using 3.003e-5 M_sun would be more precise.
  5. [Sec. 3.3.5 and Fig. 8] The results of the C_H sensitivity runs appear only in the caption of Fig. 8; the text should explicitly state that changing C_H from 0.01 to 0.005 and 0.02 has a small effect on the mass deposited, and should comment on the direction of the effect.
  6. [Sec. 5] The statement that the flat abundance pattern 'likely represents the ingestion of an icy/water-rich super-Earth' is a strong inference; the paper should acknowledge that a planet with exactly stellar metal ratios (except H/He) is a non-trivial compositional requirement and discuss its plausibility in more detail, or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the required planet mass, dissolution criterion, and delivery simulations are independently derived; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central chain is not circular. The 5.2 Mearth requirement is not a fitted prediction: it follows from Equation (2), the adopted Z0=0.013, and the stellar-model convective-envelope mass m_cz=3.45e-3 Msun, with the observed 0.128 dex offset serving as an input from Liu et al. (2019), not as an output of the model. The dissolution criterion v_tilde<0.4 is obtained by numerically integrating Equations (3)-(7), with the uncertain coefficient CH set to 0.01 from the external meteor-ablation literature (Brykina 2018); CH is not tuned to reproduce the abundance offset, and the paper includes robustness tests around this value. The delivery simulations in Section 4 are independent N-body experiments with stated initial conditions; their result that impacts are mostly grazing is a genuinely derived outcome, and the comparison with the v_tilde=0.4 line is a consistency check rather than a re-use of the conclusion. Prior work sharing authors (Liu et al. 2019 observations; Mustill et al. 2017 scattering statistics) is either observational input or independent simulation evidence and does not carry the central derivation. The admitted uncertainty in CH is a model-robustness concern, not a circularity, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. All parameters are either standard physical constants, literature values, or conservative choices. The only fitted quantities are the stellar mass and age from isochrone matching, which are not adjusted to force the abundance result.

free parameters (6)
  • CH (radiative heat transfer coefficient) = 0.01 fiducial; 0.005-0.02 tested
    Scales planet mass-loss rate in Eq 7. Chosen from meteor ablation literature (Brykina 2018), not fitted to the M67 abundance.
  • CD (drag coefficient) = 1
    Order-unity drag coefficient assumed in Eq 3.
  • Planet bulk density rho_p = 7.9 g/cm3 fiducial; 5.5 and 10 g/cm3 tested
    Assumed iron-like density for the fiducial; bounding values for rock and massive-core densities (Sec 3.3.4).
  • Latent heat of vaporization L_vap = 6 kJ/g (iron); 5 kJ/g (silicate)
    From Zhang et al. 2011 and Ahrens & O'Keefe 1972; enters the vaporization energy in Eq 7.
  • Stellar mass and age of Y2235 model = 1.18 Msun, 4 Gyr
    Fit to the star's position on theoretical isochrones (Fig 2). Sets m_cz and therefore the required planet mass of 5.2 Mearth.
  • Convective overshooting parameter delta_os = 0.12
    Adopted from Schroder et al. 1997; no-overshoot variant (3.8 Gyr) tested and found to make little difference.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption M67 stars formed from gas of identical initial chemical composition.
    Invoked in Sec 1 to justify using Y535 and Y1388 as abundance baselines for Y2235.
  • domain assumption Accreted planetary material has total metal fraction Z=1 with the same relative metal ratios as the original stellar material.
    Used in Eq 2 to convert the abundance offset to a required mass; the observed flat abundance pattern (Sec 5) partially supports this.
  • domain assumption The stars stellar evolution code gives an accurate surface convective-zone mass for Y2235 (3.45e-3 Msun).
    The 5.2 Mearth requirement scales inversely with m_cz; the authors test no-overshoot and 2-Gyr impact variants.
  • domain assumption Differential gravitational settling between the polluted and unpolluted stars does not erase the 0.128 dex offset.
    Argued in Sec 3.3.1 without a detailed calculation; the authors state that if wrong, the required planet mass would increase slightly.
  • domain assumption The chosen N-body initial conditions represent plausible late-time delivery channels.
    Sec 4.2 uses a 0.1 Msun companion at 2 and 5 au for Lidov-Kozai and 100 systems of 2 super-Earths plus 3 giants for scattering; the authors state these are representative, not a full rate calculation.
  • domain assumption Gas drag and vaporization physics (Eqs 3-7) dominate planet disruption; dynamical friction and accretion drag are negligible.
    Standard assumptions justified in Sec 3.3 using Eq 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Super-Earth ingestion can explain the anomalously high metal abundances of M67 Y2235." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NRSMQO2X

@misc{pith2026190806988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Super-Earth ingestion can explain the anomalously high metal abundances of M67 Y2235},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NRSMQO2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06988}
}
abstract

We investigate the hypothesis that ingestion of a terrestrial or super-Earth planet could cause the anomalously high metal abundances seen in a turn-off star in the open cluster M67, when compared to other turn-off stars in the same cluster. We show that the mass in convective envelope of the star is likely only $3.45\,\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm M}_\odot$, and hence $5.2\,{\rm M}_\oplus$ of rock is required to obtain the observed 0.128 dex metal enhancement. Rocky planets dissolve entirely in the convective envelope if they enter it with sufficiently tangential orbits: we find that the critical condition for dissolution is that the planet's radial speed must be less than 40% of its total velocity at the stellar surface; or, equivalently, the impact parameter must be greater than about 0.9. We model the delivery of rocky planets to the stellar surface both by planet-planet scattering in a realistic multi-planet system, and by Lidov-Kozai cycles driven by a more massive planetary or stellar companion. In both cases almost all planets that are ingested arrive at the star on grazing orbits and hence will dissolve in the surface convection zone. We conclude that super-Earth ingestion is a good explanation for the metal enhancement in M67 Y2235, and that a high-resolution spectroscopic survey of stellar abundances around the turn-off and main sequence of M67 has the potential to constrain the frequency of late-time dynamical instability in planetary systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06988 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Differences in special abundances between M67 Y2235 and the mean value for M67 Y535 and M67 Y1388. Data are taken from tab. 3 of Liu et al. (2019). Uncertainties are those for Y2235. The red horizontal line shows the mean abundance offset of 0.128 dex. Y535 and Y2235), and three subgiants (Y1844, Y519, and Y923). We focus here on the turn-off stars. Y1388 and Y535 have the same elemental abundances as one another to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of the convective zone of a 1.18 M , solar-metallicity star as a function of time t. The black solid line, plotted on the left-hand ordinate axis, shows the mass contained within the surface convective zone, mcz, in solar masses. The blue diamond is the turn-off model that fits M67 Y2235. The thin dotted horizontal blue line shows the value of mCZ at 4 Gyr; as can be seen, other than for the brief inte… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Orbits of a planet as it dissolves in a stellar envelope. The planet has an initial mass of ten Earth masses (3×10−5 M ), initial orbital semi-major axis of 0.5 au, and ˜v⊥ = 0.14, a grazing orbit. The stellar model is a 1.18 M , solar-metallicity star at an age of 4 Gyr, matching the position of Y2235 in our isochrones. The top panel shows the first few orbits after the planet enters the stellar surface; the orbita… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of planetary mass dissolved in the surface convective zone of a star as a function of the initial planetary mass, Mp and fractional tangential velocity ˜v⊥. The black line marks the locus where enough material is deposited in the convec￾tive zone to produc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The effects of our assumptions on the mass dissolved in the surface convective zone of a star, Mingested,CZ, as a function of the fractional tangential velocity ˜v⊥. The planet has an initial mass of 6 M⊕. The stellar model is a 1.18 M , solar-metallicity star. The bla…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Orbital properties of planets that impact the surface of their host stars in our N-body simulations. The orbital semi￾major axis at impact, a, is plotted as a function of the ratio of the perpendicular velocity to the total planetary velocity, ˜v⊥ (lower axis), and equ…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the mass in the surface convection zones of solar-metallicity stars as a function of stellar mass and time. Black contours enclose regions where (left to right) 20, 10, 5 and 2 M⊕ of metals are required to cause a 0.1 dex increase in surface metal abundance. Thi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., O'Keefe J

    Ahrens T. J., O'Keefe J. D., 1972, @doi [Moon] 10.1007/BF00562927 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Moon....4..214A 4, 214

    doi:10.1007/bf00562927 1972

  2. [2]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Princeton University Press

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition . Princeton University Press

    2008

  4. [4]

    G., 2018, @doi [Solar System Research] 10.1134/S0038094618050027 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SoSyR..52..426B 52, 426

    Brykina I. G., 2018, @doi [Solar System Research] 10.1134/S0038094618050027 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SoSyR..52..426B 52, 426

    doi:10.1134/s0038094618050027 2018

  5. [5]

    E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..793C 304, 793

    Chambers J. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..793C 304, 793

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724...92C 724, 92

    Chambers J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724...92C 724, 92

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/92 2010

  7. [7]

    E., Wetherill G

    Chambers J. E., Wetherill G. W., Boss A. P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1996.0019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Icar..119..261C 119, 261

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    I., Fabrycky D

    Dawson R. I., Fabrycky D. C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..937D 722, 937

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/937 2010

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Demory B.-O., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature17169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.532..207D 532, 207

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Venturini J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A..38D 597, A38

    Dorn C., Hinkel N. R., Venturini J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A..38D 597, A38

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Alibert Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad95d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...20D 865, 20

    Dorn C., Mosegaard K., Grimm S. L., Alibert Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad95d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...20D 865, 20

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Dotter A., Conroy C., Cargile P., Asplund M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...99D 840, 99

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    P., 1971, , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1971MNRAS.151..351E&amp;db_key=AST 151, 351

    Eggleton P. P., 1971, , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1971MNRAS.151..351E&amp;db_key=AST 151, 351

    1971

  6. [14]

    Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA

    2002

  7. [15]

    Fressin F., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...81F 766, 81

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Gao X., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.2666G 481, 2666

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Latham D

    Geller A. M., Latham D. W., Mathieu R. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...97G 150, 97

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Hansen B. M. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1531H 467, 1531

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Ford E

    Hsu D. C., Ford E. B., Ragozzine D., Morehead R. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aab9a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..205H 155, 205

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Ford E

    Hsu D. C., Ford E. B., Ragozzine D., Ashby K., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190201417H p. arXiv:1902.01417

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    N., Morbidelli A., Pierens A., Bitsch B., Cossou C., Hersant F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1750I 470, 1750

    Izidoro A., Ogihara M., Raymond S. N., Morbidelli A., Pierens A., Bitsch B., Cossou C., Hersant F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1750I 470, 1750

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    N., Johansen A., Morbidelli A., Lambrechts M., Jacobson S

    Izidoro A., Bitsch B., Raymond S. N., Johansen A., Morbidelli A., Lambrechts M., Jacobson S. A., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190208772I p. arXiv:1902.08772

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jackson B., Greenberg R., Barnes R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678.1396J 678, 1396

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Church R

    Johansen A., Davies M. B., Church R. P., Holmelin V., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...39J 758, 39

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Juri \'c M., Tremaine S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..603J 686, 603

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Kozai Y., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1086/108790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AJ.....67..591K 67, 591

    1962 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Johansen A., Bitsch B., Izidoro A., Raymond S

    Lambrechts M., Morbidelli A., Jacobson S. A., Johansen A., Bitsch B., Izidoro A., Raymond S. N., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190208694L p. arXiv:1902.08694

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J., Davies M

    Li D., Mustill A. J., Davies M. B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1366L 488, 1366

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    L., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962P&SS....9..719L 9, 719

    Lidov M. L., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962P&SS....9..719L 9, 719

    1962 doi

  23. [31]

    Liu F., Asplund M., Ramirez I., Yong D., Melendez J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442L..51L 442, L51

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    I., Carlos M., Marino A

    Liu F., Asplund M., Yong D., Mel \'e ndez J., Ram \' rez I., Karakas A. I., Carlos M., Marino A. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..696L 463, 696

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Mel \'e ndez J., Ram \' rez I., Lin J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A.138L 614, A138

    Liu F., Yong D., Asplund M., Feltzing S., Mustill A. J., Mel \'e ndez J., Ram \' rez I., Lin J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A.138L 614, A138

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Liu F., Asplund M., Yong D., Feltzing S., Dotter A., Mel \'e ndez J., Ram \' rez I., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Schuler S

    Mack III C. E., Schuler S. C., Stassun K. G., Norris J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...98M 787, 98

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    B., Chambers J

    Malmberg D., Davies M. B., Chambers J. E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377L...1M 377, L1

    2007

  29. [37]

    B., Heggie D

    Malmberg D., Davies M. B., Heggie D. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411..859M 411, 859

    2011

  30. [38]

    Marzari F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1110M 442, 1110

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    arXiv:1109.2497

    Mayor M., et al., 2011, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1109.2497M p. arXiv:1109.2497

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mel \'e ndez J., Asplund M., Gustafsson B., Yong D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/L66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704L..66M 704, L66

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Mel \'e ndez J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A..34M 597, A34

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Giannios D., Spiegel D

    Metzger B. D., Giannios D., Spiegel D. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21444.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2778M 425, 2778

    2012

  35. [43]

    J., Davies M

    Mustill A. J., Davies M. B., Johansen A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...14M 808, 14

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Davies M

    Mustill A. J., Davies M. B., Johansen A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx693 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3000M 468, 3000

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Davies M

    Mustill A. J., Davies M. B., Johansen A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.2896M 478, 2896

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Naoz S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..441N 54, 441

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Neuh \"a user R., Mugrauer M., Fukagawa M., Torres G., Schmidt T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...462..777N 462, 777

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    \"O nehag A., Korn A., Gustafsson B., Stempels E., Vandenberg D. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    \"O nehag A., Gustafsson B., Korn A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A.102O 562, A102

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    E., Wu Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...29O 847, 29

    Owen J. E., Wu Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...29O 847, 29

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Pace G., Pasquini L., Fran c ois P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...489..403P 489, 403

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Tout C

    Pols O. R., Tout C. A., Eggleton P. P., Han Z., 1995, , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995MNRAS.274..964P&amp;db_key=AST 274, 964

    1995

  45. [53]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19555.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1043Q 418, 1043

    Quillen A. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19555.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1043Q 418, 1043

    2011

  46. [54]

    D., Tout C

    Railton A. D., Tout C. A., Aarseth S. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2014.10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31...17R 31, e017

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    U., Fish J

    Ram \' rez I., Mel \'e ndez J., Cornejo D., Roederer I. U., Fish J. R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...740...76R 740, 76

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    Ram \' rez I., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...13R 808, 13

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    Randich S., Sestito P., Primas F., Pallavicini R., Pasquini L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...450..557R 450, 557

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Ford E

    Rasio F. A., Ford E. B., 1996, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.274.5289.954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...274..954R 274, 954

    1996 doi

  51. [59]

    N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A..62R 530, A62

    Raymond S. N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A..62R 530, A62

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    L., Dokter J

    Sandquist E. L., Dokter J. J., Lin D. N. C., Mardling R. A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572.1012S 572, 1012

    2002 doi

  53. [61]

    R., Eggleton P

    Schroder K.-P., Pols O. R., Eggleton P. P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/285.4.696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..696S 285, 696

    1997 doi

  54. [62]

    Souto D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...97S 874, 97

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Fossati L., Passy J.-C., Schneider F

    Stancliffe R. J., Fossati L., Passy J.-C., Schneider F. R. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Shectman S

    Teske J. K., Shectman S. A., Vogt S. S., D \' az M., Butler R. P., Crane J. D., Thompson I. B., Arriagada P., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..167T 152, 167

    doi

  57. [65]

    K., Khanal S., Ram \' rez I., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...19T 819, 19

    Teske J. K., Khanal S., Ram \' rez I., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...19T 819, 19

    doi

  58. [66]

    Tucci Maia M., Mel \'e ndez J., Ram \' rez I., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790L..25T 790, L25

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Marzari F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/384619a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.384..619W 384, 619

    Weidenschilling S. J., Marzari F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/384619a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.384..619W 384, 619

    1996 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Jacobsen S

    Zeng L., Sasselov D. D., Jacobsen S. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..127Z 819, 127

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    R., Yang S., 2011, Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 56, 328

    Zhang Y., Evans J. R., Yang S., 2011, Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 56, 328

    2011

  62. [70]

    Zhu W., Petrovich C., Wu Y., Dong S., Xie J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6d5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860..101Z 860, 101

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    K., Christiansen J

    Zink J. K., Christiansen J. L., Hansen B. M. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4479Z 483, 4479

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

  65. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.