Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Hot Jupiters are Destroyed by Tides While Their Host Stars are on the Main Sequence

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Hot Jupiters do not survive their host stars' main-sequence lifetimes: their hosts are kinematically colder than field stars, implying tidal destruction.

desk verdict A clever and clean Gaia-based kinematic result that is likely a real age signal, but the paper's control for the metallicity–kinematics alternative is weaker than it appears and needs a direct [Fe/H] comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06998 v2 pith:B53A7ISM submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Jacob H. Hamer , Kevin C. Schlaufman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords hotJupiterstidaldissipationexoplanetevolutionstellarkinematicsagesGaiaDR2qualityfactormainsequence
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

The paper claims that hot Jupiters—giant planets orbiting their stars in less than ten days—are destroyed by tidal decay before their host stars finish their main-sequence lifetimes, the long stable hydrogen-burning phase of a star. Using positions, distances, and velocities from Gaia Data Release 2, it shows that stars hosting hot Jupiters have a smaller spread of Galactic velocities than a carefully matched population of otherwise similar field stars. Because a stellar population's Galactic velocity dispersion grows with age, the smaller spread means hot Jupiter hosts are on average younger than field stars. The paper argues that the only tenable explanation is that hot Jupiters spiral inward and are consumed on the main sequence, and that this requires the modified stellar tidal quality factor to satisfy $\log_{10} Q'_{\ast} \lesssim 7$. If correct, hot Jupiters are a transient population continuously replenished by formation and destroyed by tides.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing idea is the well-established correlation between Galactic velocity dispersion and age: older stellar populations have been dynamically heated and show larger velocity spreads, so a colder sample of otherwise matched stars is inferred to be younger. The comparison is made rigorous by Monte Carlo control samples matched in height above the plane $|z|$ and in $(G_{BP}-G_{RP})_0$ color, which the paper argues removes correlations of hot Jupiter occurrence with metallicity and thin/thick disk membership. On the tidal side, the central object is the modified stellar tidal quality factor $Q'_{\ast}$, approximately the ratio of tidal energy stored to tidal energy dissipated per cycle. The inspiral-time relation $t_{\rm in} = (2/13) t_a$, with $t_a = (2 Q'_{\ast}/9)(M_{\ast}/M_p)(a/R_{\ast})^5 (P/2\pi)$, converts the requirement that destruction happen before the end of the main sequence into the constraint $\log_{10} Q'_{\ast} \lesssim 7$.

What would settle it

Recompute the velocity-dispersion comparison with a field control matched on spectroscopic metallicity rather than only on height above the plane and color; if the cold kinematics of hot Jupiter hosts disappear, the age inference and the tidal-destruction conclusion collapse. Independently, finding a securely old stellar population that hosts hot Jupiters at the expected rate would rule out destruction within a main-sequence lifetime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that main-sequence hot Jupiter hosts are a systematically younger population than matched field stars, and that the only tenable explanation is tidal destruction of the planets during the main sequence. The evidence is a kinematic comparison: 338 main-sequence stars hosting hot Jupiters have a smaller three-dimensional Galactic velocity dispersion than Monte Carlo control samples drawn from 385,036 field stars and matched in height above the Galactic plane and color; the probability that the hot Jupiter hosts and the field sample came from the same parent distribution is less than one in 40,000. The same analysis applied to 367 hosts of longer-period giant planets shows no such offset, ruling out a generic formation bias. Inverting the standard inspiral-time formula, the paper finds that destruction before the end of the main sequence requires $\log_{10} Q'_{\ast} \lesssim 7$, with median values around $\log_{10} Q'_{\ast} < 5.95^{+0.98}_{-0.83}$ or $< 6.48^{+0.57}_{-0.52}$ depending on which set of spectroscopic stellar parameters is used.

Load-bearing premise

The inference stands on the premise that the colder kinematics of hot Jupiter hosts reflect a genuine age difference, not an unremoved correlation between hot Jupiter occurrence and metallicity, disk membership, or any selection effect tied to velocity dispersion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hot Jupiters observed today are a transient snapshot: they must be formed or delivered on timescales shorter than their host stars' main-sequence lifetimes to be seen at all.
  • The modified tidal quality factor of solar-type stars is constrained to $\log_{10} Q'_{\ast} \lesssim 7$ for the period range roughly 2–5 days and planet masses 0.5–2 Jupiter masses.
  • Hosts of longer-period giant planets should show no systematic age offset relative to field stars, matching the paper's control result.
  • Individual systems with claimed secular orbital decay, such as WASP-12 and WASP-4, should have tidal quality factors consistent with this bound; the paper reports that they do.
  • The method avoids assumptions about the initial period distribution of hot Jupiters and precise individual stellar ages, so it gives a model-independent demographic constraint on tidal efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if hot Jupiters are destroyed within a main-sequence lifetime, the steady-state number of hot Jupiters directly measures the rate at which new ones are formed or delivered; the paper does not derive this supply-rate implication.
  • An extension the paper sketches but does not perform: applying the same velocity-dispersion test to ultra-short-period planets would test whether tidal efficiency depends on planet mass or orbital period—a null result would signal such a dependence.
  • This also implies that in a coeval population, hot Jupiter occurrence should decline with age; surveys of open clusters of different ages could test the claim independently of kinematics.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses Gaia DR2 astrometry to measure the Galactic velocity dispersion of 338 main-sequence hot Jupiter host stars and compares it with a Monte Carlo-matched field-star sample. The authors report that hot Jupiter hosts have a significantly colder velocity dispersion (probability less than 1 in 40,000), while a control sample of 367 longer-period giant planet hosts shows kinematics indistinguishable from the field. They interpret the colder kinematics as evidence that hot Jupiter hosts are younger than field stars, implying that hot Jupiters are tidally destroyed during the main-sequence lifetimes of their hosts. They then derive an upper limit on the modified stellar tidal quality factor, log10 Q'_* < 5.95–6.48 depending on the stellar parameter catalog, and conclude that this is the first unambiguous evidence of tidal inspiral of hot Jupiters.

Significance. If the age interpretation holds, this paper provides a novel, population-level constraint on tidal dissipation in hot Jupiter systems that avoids assumptions about initial period distributions and individual stellar ages. The kinematic measurement itself is robust and the longer-period control is a sensible falsification test. The paper is well written and the Monte Carlo matching methodology is appropriate. However, the central inference depends on excluding a metallicity-based selection effect, and that exclusion is not fully demonstrated, which is the main risk to the conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, 'Monte Carlo simulation' and Section 4] The control sample of longer-period giant planet hosts is used to rule out a metallicity-based explanation, but the paper does not compare the metallicity distributions of the hot Jupiter and longer-period host samples. If close-in giant planet hosts are more metal-rich than longer-period hosts, as suggested by some studies, the longer-period control would show no kinematic anomaly even under the metallicity-kinematics alternative, so the control does not falsify that alternative. The authors should compare [Fe/H] between the two host samples using available catalogs (e.g., SWEET-Cat), or present an argument that the color and |z| matching already equalizes metallicity. Without this, the central claim that the age interpretation is the only tenable explanation is not fully supported.
  2. [Section 3, 'Monte Carlo simulation'] The statement that matching on the z distribution 'accounts for possible correlations of hot Jupiter occurrence with age, metallicity, and thin/disk membership' is too strong. At fixed |z|, a metallicity-velocity dispersion correlation persists within the thin disk, and the paper does not demonstrate that the matched field-star sample reproduces the metallicity distribution of the hot Jupiter hosts. This matters because the kinematic signal could be a metallicity effect rather than an age effect. A direct test, such as repeating the analysis on subsamples with measured [Fe/H] or adding [Fe/H] as a matching variable, would strengthen the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'unambiguous evidence' is stronger than the observational result warrants; the inference relies on the age-kinematics assumption and the exclusion of selection effects. Suggest softening to 'compelling' or 'strong evidence'.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The velocity dispersion formula uses 1/N instead of 1/(N-1); with N~338 the difference is negligible, but a brief note would avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states log10 Q'_* is 'in the range log10 Q'_* ≲ 7', while the text gives upper limits of log10 Q'_* < 5.95 and < 6.48 for different catalogs; rephrase for consistency between the abstract and the detailed results.
  4. [Figure 4] The top and bottom panels have different y-axis scales; aligning them would make the comparison between hot Jupiter hosts and longer-period hosts more visually direct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Gaia kinematical measurement and the derived Q'_* constraint are independent of the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that main-sequence hot Jupiter host stars have a smaller Galactic velocity dispersion than a matched field-star sample, which is a direct measurement from Gaia DR2 astrometry and radial velocities. This observation is in no way constructed from tidal theory or from the Q'_* value later quoted. The subsequent interpretation that hot Jupiter hosts are younger relies on the external, empirical velocity-dispersion-age relation, and the longer-period giant planet host control sample provides a falsification test: had the cold kinematics been caused by a metallicity-planet occurrence bias rather than by tides, the longer-period hosts should also appear cold. The Q'_* constraint is derived by solving the standard tidal inspiral formula (Equation 4) for Q'_*, setting t_in = t_MS (Equation 5), using observed orbital periods, planet masses, stellar masses, and radii. This is an inversion of a physical model with stated assumptions, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper does cite prior work by one of the authors (Schlaufman & Winn 2013; Schlaufman 2010), but these citations are contextual support rather than load-bearing premises, and the central kinematic result does not reduce to them. The residual-metallicity concern raised by skeptics is a possible alternative physical explanation, not a circular step: the paper's argument does not assume the conclusion into its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the observational data, and no step equates a predicted quantity with an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The kinematic comparison relies on literature-established relations (velocity dispersion-age, no thin-disk age-metallicity relation, no formation bias) and on hand-chosen sample-selection thresholds. The Q'_* constraint additionally assumes standard tidal inspiral and main-sequence lifetime scaling relations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Main-sequence polynomial fit coefficients = a_i = (1.07857, 6.23258, -10.85944, 21.65561, -20.27879, 9.78665, -2.52543, 0.33004, -0.0170556)
    Eighth-order polynomial fit to Pleiades members in the (GBP-GRP)0-MG0 plane; used to define the main sequence and exclude evolved stars from both samples. This is a calibration derived from Pleiades data, not tuned to the central result, but it determines sample membership.
  • Main-sequence magnitude cutoff = 1 magnitude above the Pleiades relation
    Stars more than one G magnitude above the main sequence are excluded as evolved. Chosen by hand; affects which stars enter the host and control samples.
  • Monte Carlo color-matching tolerance = 0.025 mag in (GBP-GRP)0
    In each Monte Carlo iteration, control stars are selected to match each hot Jupiter host within 0.025 mag in color. This tolerance is chosen by hand and affects the degree of color matching between host and control samples.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Galactic velocity dispersion of a stellar population is correlated with its age (Binney et al. 2000).
    Used in Section 1 and 3 to interpret the smaller velocity dispersion of hot Jupiter hosts as a younger population.
  • domain assumption There is no evidence for an age-metallicity relation in the thin disk (Casagrande et al. 2011; Bensby et al. 2014; Silva Aguirre et al. 2018).
    Used in Section 3 to argue that matching on |z| (height above the plane) sufficiently controls for the hot Jupiter-metallicity correlation without inducing an age bias.
  • domain assumption Hot Jupiter formation is not favored in low-velocity-dispersion populations (McTier & Kipping 2019).
    Used in Section 4 to conclude that the colder kinematics imply younger ages rather than a formation preference for kinematically cold stars.
  • domain assumption The tidal inspiral time formula t_in = (2/13) t_a = (2/13) * (2 Q'_* / 9) * (M_*/M_p) * (a/R_*)^5 * (P/2π) (Equation 4, from Rasio et al. 1996; Matsumura et al. 2010; Lai 2012).
    Used in Section 4 to translate the inferred destruction into an upper limit on Q'_*.
  • domain assumption Main sequence lifetime scaling relation t_MS ∝ (M_*/M_sun)^-2.5 (Equation 2).
    Used in Section 4 to estimate the main sequence lifetime for each host star in the Q'_* calculation.
  • domain assumption Pleiades members represent a zero-age main sequence population (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018a).
    Used in Section 3 to construct the polynomial main-sequence relation for excluding evolved stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hot Jupiters are Destroyed by Tides While Their Host Stars are on the Main Sequence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B53A7ISM

@misc{pith2026190806998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hot Jupiters are Destroyed by Tides While Their Host Stars are on the Main Sequence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B53A7ISM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06998}
}
abstract

While cooler giant planets are often observed with non-zero eccentricities, the short-period circular orbits of hot Jupiters suggest that they lose orbital energy and angular momentum due to tidal interactions with their host stars. However, orbital decay has never been unambiguously observed. We use data from Gaia Data Release 2 to show that hot Jupiter host stars have a smaller Galactic velocity dispersion than a similar population of stars without hot Jupiters. Since Galactic velocity dispersion is correlated with age, this observation implies that the population of hot Jupiter host stars is on average younger than the field population. The best explanation for this inference is that tidal interactions cause hot Jupiters to inspiral while their host stars are on the main sequence. This observation requires that the typical modified stellar tidal quality factor $Q_{\ast}^{'}$ for solar-type stars be in the range $\log_{10}{Q_{\ast}^{'}} \lesssim 7$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Members of the Pleiades in Gaia Data Release 2 from Gaia Collaboration et al. (2018a) used to construct a polynomial fit to the zero-age main-sequence. We first fit a smoothing spline to these data and then fit an eighth￾order polynomial to the densely sampled points on the spline (shown here in black). We use the spline fit to the main sequence to exclude all stars more than one G magnitude above the main sequence … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hot Jupiter host and field star samples. We plot hot Jupiter hosts as black points and the density of stars in the field star sample as the background color map. We indicate the main sequence spline fit used to remove evolved stars as the orange line. show the resulting hot Jupiter host and field star sam￾ples in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Galactic velocity dispersions of hot Jupiter host and field star samples. From smallest to largest, the gray ellipses are the 1-, 2-, and 3σ regions, and each ellipse is centered at the mean velocity of the field star sample. The blue contours represent the same data for the hot Jupiter host star sample. We plot individual hot Jupiter hosts as blue points. The number in each panel represents the number of hot Jupite… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity dispersion distribution of the matched control samples (blue histograms) compared to the velocity dispersion of our exoplanet host samples (orange vertical lines). The black vertical lines show the (2nd, 16th, 50th, 84th, and 98th) percentiles of the Monte Car…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maximum Q 0 ∗ required for tidal decay during the main sequence. We use the formalism presented in Lai (2012) and homogeneously derived spectroscopic stellar parameters from the literature to derive the limit on Q 0 ∗. The vertical line shows the median period of the J…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  3. [3]

    5d>A r4=d>ye d

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    N., Johnson , J

    Albrecht , S., Winn , J. N., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2012, , 757, 18

    2012

  5. [5]

    T., Sousa , S

    Andreasen , D. T., Sousa , S. G., Tsantaki , M., et al. 2017, , 600, A69

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Mantelet , G., & Andrae , R. 2018, , 156, 58

    2018

  8. [8]

    J., & Ogilvie , G

    Barker , A. J., & Ogilvie , G. I. 2009, , 395, 2268

    work page 2009

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    2010, , 404, 1849

    ---. 2010, , 404, 1849

    2010

  2. [10]

    M., Rowe , J

    Batalha , N. M., Rowe , J. F., Bryson , S. T., et al. 2013, , 204, 24

    2013

  3. [11]

    Bensby , T., Feltzing , S., & Oey , M. S. 2014, , 562, A71

    2014

  4. [12]

    2000, , 318, 658

    Binney , J., Dehnen , W., & Bertelli , G. 2000, , 318, 658

    2000

  5. [13]

    S., Desidera , S., Benatti , S., et al

    Bonomo , A. S., Desidera , S., Benatti , S., et al. 2017, , 602, A107

    2017

  6. [14]

    G., Winn, J

    Bouma, L. G., Winn, J. N., Baxter, C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 217

    2019

  7. [15]

    M., & Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., & Fischer, D. A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 38

    2018

  8. [16]

    M., Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 225, 32

    2016

  9. [17]

    L., Elyajouri , M., & Monreal-Ibero , A

    Capitanio , L., Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., Elyajouri , M., & Monreal-Ibero , A. 2017, , 606, A65

    2017

  10. [18]

    2011, , 530, A138

    Casagrande , L., Sch \"o nrich , R., Asplund , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A138

    2011

  11. [19]

    Casagrande , L., & VandenBerg , D. A. 2018, , 479, L102

    2018

  12. [20]

    2018, , 476, 2542

    Collier Cameron , A., & Jardine , M. 2018, , 476, 2542

    2018

  13. [21]

    P., Marcy , G

    Cumming , A., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2008, , 120, 531

    2008

  14. [22]

    P., Kiseleva , L

    Eggleton , P. P., Kiseleva , L. G., & Hut , P. 1998, , 499, 853

    1998

  15. [23]

    Essick , R., & Weinberg , N. N. 2016, , 816, 18

    2016

  16. [24]

    Evans, D. F. 2018, Research Notes of the AAS , 2, 20

    2018

  17. [25]

    A., & Valenti , J

    Fischer , D. A., & Valenti , J. 2005, , 622, 1102

    2005

  18. [26]

    2013, , 766, 81

    Fressin , F., Torres , G., Charbonneau , D., et al. 2013, , 766, 81

    2013

  19. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  20. [28]

    2018 a , , 616, A10

    Gaia Collaboration , Babusiaux , C., van Leeuwen , F., et al. 2018 a , , 616, A10

    2018

  21. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018 b , , 616, A1

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hansen , B. M. S. 2012, , 757, 6

    2012

  23. [31]

    2016, , 151, 137

    Hoyer , S., Pall \'e , E., Dragomir , D., & Murgas , F. 2016, , 151, 137

    2016

  24. [32]

    C., Ford , E

    Hsu , D. C., Ford , E. B., Ragozzine , D., & Ashby , K. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.01417

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 3151

    Husnoo, N., Pont, F., Mazeh, T., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 3151

    2012

  26. [34]

    1981, , 99, 126

    Hut , P. 1981, , 99, 126

    1981

  27. [35]

    2009, , 698, 1357

    Jackson , B., Barnes , R., & Greenberg , R. 2009, , 698, 1357

    2009

  28. [36]

    2008, , 678, 1396

    Jackson , B., Greenberg , R., & Barnes , R. 2008, , 678, 1396

    2008

  29. [37]

    2016, , 151, 17

    Jiang , I.-G., Lai , C.-Y., Savushkin , A., et al. 2016, , 151, 17

    2016

  30. [38]

    2019, , 622, A205

    Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., Cropper , M., et al. 2019, , 622, A205

    2019

  31. [39]

    E., Stassun, K

    Labadie-Bartz, J., Rodriguez, J. E., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 240, 13

    2019

  32. [40]

    2012, , 423, 486

    Lai , D. 2012, , 423, 486

    2012

  33. [41]

    2009, , 692, L9

    Levrard , B., Winisdoerffer , C., & Chabrier , G. 2009, , 692, L9

    2009

  34. [42]

    2018, , 616, A2

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2

    2018

  35. [43]

    2016, , 588, L6

    Maciejewski , G., Dimitrov , D., Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2016, , 588, L6

    2016

  36. [44]

    2018, , 68, 371

    Maciejewski , G., Fern \'a ndez , M., Aceituno , F., et al. 2018, , 68, 371

    2018

  37. [45]

    M., & Brown , A

    Marchetti , T., Rossi , E. M., & Brown , A. G. A. 2018, , arXiv:1804.10607

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J., & Rasio , F

    Matsumura , S., Peale , S. J., & Rasio , F. A. 2010, , 725, 1995

    2010

  39. [47]

    Maxted , P. F. L., Serenelli , A. M., & Southworth , J. 2015, , 577, A90

    2015

  40. [48]

    1995, , 378, 355

    Mayor , M., & Queloz , D. 1995, , 378, 355

    1995

  41. [49]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol

    McKinney, W., et al. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol. 445, Austin, TX, 51--56

    2010

  42. [50]

    2013, , 775, L11

    McQuillan , A., Mazeh , T., & Aigrain , S. 2013, , 775, L11

    2013

  43. [51]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.02663

    McTier , M., & Kipping , D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.02663

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Meibom , S., & Mathieu , R. D. 2005, , 620, 970

    2005

  45. [53]

    E., Mathieu , R

    Milliman , K. E., Mathieu , R. D., Geller , A. M., et al. 2014, , 148, 38

    2014

  46. [54]

    Ogilvie , G. I. 2009, , 396, 794

    2009

  47. [55]

    2014, , 52, 171

    ---. 2014, , 52, 171

    2014

  48. [56]

    I., & Lin , D

    Ogilvie , G. I., & Lin , D. N. C. 2004, , 610, 477

    2004

  49. [57]

    C., Winn , J

    Patra , K. C., Winn , J. N., Holman , M. J., et al. 2017, , 154, 4

    2017

  50. [58]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Pecaut , M. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9

    2013

  51. [59]

    G., Winn , J

    Penev , K., Bouma , L. G., Winn , J. N., & Hartman , J. D. 2018, , 155, 165

    2018

  52. [60]

    2012, , 751, 96

    Penev , K., Jackson , B., Spada , F., & Thom , N. 2012, , 751, 96

    2012

  53. [61]

    2011, , 731, 67

    Penev , K., & Sasselov , D. 2011, , 731, 67

    2011

  54. [62]

    2009, , 396, 1789

    Pont , F. 2009, , 396, 1789

    2009

  55. [63]

    2018, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1228136

    Price-Whelan, A. 2018, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1228136

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., G \"u nther , H. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  57. [65]

    A., & Ford , E

    Rasio , F. A., & Ford , E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954

    1996

  58. [66]

    A., Tout , C

    Rasio , F. A., Tout , C. A., Lubow , S. H., & Livio , M. 1996, , 470, 1187

    1996

  59. [67]

    N., et al

    Sanchis-Ojeda , R., Rappaport , S., Winn , J. N., et al. 2014, , 787, 47

    2014

  60. [68]

    2016, , 587, A64

    Santerne , A., Moutou , C., Tsantaki , M., et al. 2016, , 587, A64

    2016

  61. [69]

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

    Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., & Mayor , M. 2004, , 415, 1153

    2004

  62. [70]

    C., Sousa , S

    Santos , N. C., Sousa , S. G., Mortier , A., et al. 2013, , 556, A150

    2013

  63. [71]

    Schlaufman , K. C. 2010, , 719, 602

    2010

  64. [72]

    C., & Winn , J

    Schlaufman , K. C., & Winn , J. N. 2013, , 772, 143

    2013

  65. [73]

    2018, , 475, 5487

    Silva Aguirre , V., Bojsen-Hansen , M., Slumstrup , D., et al. 2018, , 475, 5487

    2018

  66. [74]

    Soderblom , D. R. 2010, , 48, 581

    2010

  67. [75]

    G., Adibekyan , V., Delgado-Mena , E., et al

    Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V., Delgado-Mena , E., et al. 2018, , 620, A58

    2018

  68. [76]

    2014, , 786, 139

    Teitler , S., & K \"o nigl , A. 2014, , 786, 139

    2014

  69. [77]

    2010, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 18, 67

    Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Gim \'e nez, A. 2010, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 18, 67

    2010

  70. [78]

    Udry , S., & Santos , N. C. 2007, , 45, 397

    2007

  71. [79]

    2000, , 143, 9

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9

    2000

  72. [80]

    N., Delrez , L., Barker , A

    Wilkins , A. N., Delrez , L., Barker , A. J., et al. 2017, , 836, L24

    2017

  73. [81]

    N., Fabrycky , D., Albrecht , S., & Johnson , J

    Winn , J. N., Fabrycky , D., Albrecht , S., & Johnson , J. A. 2010, , 718, L145

    2010

  74. [82]

    T., Marcy , G

    Wright , J. T., Marcy , G. W., Howard , A. W., et al. 2012, , 753, 160

    2012

  75. [83]

    1977, , 57, 383

    Zahn , J.-P. 1977, , 57, 383

    1977

  76. [84]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.00462

    Zhou , G., Huang , C., Bakos , G., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.00462

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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