Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Simultaneous Evolutionary Fits for Jupiter and Saturn Incorporating Fuzzy Cores

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New non-adiabatic, inhomogeneous evolutionary models simultaneously fit Jupiter and Saturn's effective temperature, radius, atmospheric composition, and low-order gravity moments while preserving fuzzy heavy-element cores from birth.

desk verdict First simultaneous fuzzy-core evolutionary fits for both giants, with an honest limitations section; send it to review, but the Saturn J4 miss and the unresolved semi-convection question keep the verdict conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17127 v2 pith:BVIKYOVO submitted 2024-12-22 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Ankan Sur , Roberto Tejada Arevalo , Yubo Su , Adam Burrows This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords giantplanetevolutionJupiterSaturnfuzzycoreheliumraingravitationalmomentsnon-adiabaticmodelsstablystratifiedinteriors
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 tries to establish that Jupiter and Saturn can be fit simultaneously by one set of evolutionary models that are not adiabatic and not chemically homogeneous, using the same microphysical inputs for both planets. The models reproduce the present-day effective temperatures, equatorial radii, atmospheric helium and heavy-element abundances, and the gravity moments $J_2$ and $J_4$ after 4.56 Gyr of evolution, while preserving an extended 'fuzzy' heavy-element core from birth. To keep such a core, the deep interior must start at lower entropy than traditional hot-start adiabatic models, though the outer envelope may start hot or warm. The result matters because Juno and Cassini data indicate that both planets have stably stratified, non-convective interiors, and previous evolutionary models either ignored fuzzy cores or could not match all major observables together.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-dimensional planet evolution code that solves hydrostatic structure with energy and species transport implicitly in time. A 'fuzzy core' is a heavy-element enrichment that extends over a sizable fraction of the planet's radius rather than a small compact core; in these models it is set up as an initial interior composition gradient. Three ingredients carry the argument: the Ledoux criterion for convective stability, which lets stable composition gradients suppress convection; a flux-conservative helium rain scheme using the LHR0911 hydrogen-helium demixing curve shifted by +410 K; and Theory of Figures to fourth order for $J_2$, $J_4$, and the time-dependent moment of inertia. The stabilizing identity is that a composition gradient creates a Brunt-Väisälä frequency barrier, which both preserves the fuzzy core and prevents helium from settling all the way to the center, so the same microphysics can account for the observed depletion of atmospheric helium and the absence of a helium ocean.

What would settle it

Measure Saturn's atmospheric helium mass fraction precisely: the model predicts $Y_{\rm atm}\simeq0.205$, so a future high-precision value below $\sim0.13$ or above $\sim0.25$ would falsify this family of models. Alternatively, compute the gravity-mode frequencies implied by the model's Brunt-Väisälä profile and compare them with the C-ring mode frequencies observed by Cassini.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the measured bulk properties of both Jupiter and Saturn are compatible with deep fuzzy cores that survive to the present epoch, provided the planets' initial interior entropies are low enough. In the best-fit models, Jupiter contains 42.5 Earth masses of heavy elements (3 in a compact core) and Saturn contains 25 (4 in a compact core), roughly 14% and 26% of their total masses. The models match the observed effective temperatures within about 1%, the radii within roughly 1%, $J_2$ within about 0.2--0.4%, and $J_4$ within about 1%, with Saturn's $J_4$ the least exact. Saturn's atmospheric helium mass fraction is predicted to be $\sim0.205$, near the higher end of current estimates, and no helium ocean forms; instead helium accumulates in an intermediate layer bounded above by the rain zone. The inner, non-convective part of Saturn barely cools over the age of the solar system, and its Brunt-Väisälä ratio reaches $\sim2$ over roughly half the planet's radius, matching the ring-seismology inference.

Load-bearing premise

The models assume the deep composition gradient is stable because convective stability is judged by the Ledoux criterion and no semi-convective or doubly diffusive mixing is included; if such mixing operates, the fuzzy core would erode and the simultaneous fit would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these models are correct, Saturn's atmospheric helium mass fraction should be close to 0.2, roughly three times the prediction of the adiabatic helium-rain model this paper reproduces and compares against.
  • The deep interiors of both planets should be stably stratified today, with Saturn's inner roughly half of its radius supporting gravity modes at a Brunt-Väisälä ratio near 2, as inferred from C-ring seismology.
  • A fuzzy core that survives from birth rules out a helium ocean in Saturn; instead, helium accumulates in an intermediate layer below the rain region, which future helium abundance profiles could test.
  • Because the fit requires low initial interior entropy, the cooling histories of Jupiter and Saturn are tied to their formation conditions: hot-start adiabatic initial states would erase the fuzzy core and spoil the simultaneous match.
  • The same microphysical inputs can explain both planets, so differences between Jupiter and Saturn's observables arise chiefly from mass, radius, and initial entropy rather than from different internal physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader might extend this to exoplanets: if fuzzy cores require low-entropy, cool-start formation, then a giant planet's present-day luminosity and envelope composition could encode its assembly pathway, not just its age and mass.
  • The paper's +410 K shift of the LHR0911 miscibility curve is fixed by Jupiter's helium abundance; a precise Saturn helium measurement would provide an independent check that the same shifted curve is physical, since the model already applies it to both planets.
  • If semi-convection or other doubly diffusive transport turns out to be efficient, the stable composition gradient would erode on a shorter timescale than 4.56 Gyr; the fuzzy-core survival claim is therefore a prediction about the strength of mixing in deep giant-planet interiors, which could be tested by 3D simulations.
  • The residual mismatch in Saturn's J4 suggests the one-dimensional assumption of solid-body rotation and the fourth-order figure theory may be the limiting factor; a treatment with differential rotation could shift the predicted gravity moments while leaving the thermal fit intact.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents evolutionary models for Jupiter and Saturn computed with the APPLE code, using non-adiabatic, inhomogeneous structure, helium rain with a shifted LHR0911 miscibility curve, the CD21 H-He EOS, and Chen et al. (2023) atmospheric boundary conditions. After validating APPLE by reproducing the results of Mankovich & Fortney (2020) and Howard et al. (2024), the authors perform grid searches over initial entropy profiles and heavy-element distributions to identify models that preserve a fuzzy core to 4.56 Gyr while approximately matching Teff, radius, Yatm, Zatm, and J2/J4 for both planets with a common +410 K miscibility shift. Their best models give Yatm = 0.236 for Jupiter and 0.205 for Saturn, total heavy-element masses of about 42.5 and 25 Earth masses, no helium ocean in Saturn, and a stably stratified inner region extending to about 0.5 Saturn radii. The paper's central claim is that these models simultaneously fit the major bulk observables for both planets while preserving a fuzzy core from birth.

Significance. The reproduction of two independent published evolutionary results with the same code is a valuable validation, and the attempt to unify Jupiter and Saturn with one microphysical set is a useful step for the field. If the fuzzy-core survival is robust, the models provide testable predictions for Saturn's atmospheric helium abundance and interior stratification, and the no-helium-ocean prediction is a clear quantitative outcome. However, the conclusions rest on the Ledoux stability assumption with semi-convection neglected, and the reported mismatches in Saturn's J4 and in both planets' radii are larger than the formal measurement uncertainties. The paper's central empirical claim is therefore only conditionally supported, and the quantitative strength of the fit claim needs to be stated more carefully.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The best-fit Saturn model gives J4 = -850.11e-6, whereas the measured Cassini value is -935.314e-6. This is a 9.1% deviation (85.2e-6 in absolute terms), and the text's description of 'a small margin' is misleading. Because the abstract and Table 1 count J4 among the matched observables, this discrepancy needs to be quantified and discussed, or J4 should be explicitly excluded from the claimed set of fitted quantities. As it stands, the claim of a respectable fit to all major bulk observables is overstated.
  2. [Section 5] The paper explicitly states that the Ledoux criterion was used and semi-convection ignored, and acknowledges that the Schwarzschild condition might be better. The stable composition gradient produced by Ledoux stability is the mechanism that preserves the fuzzy core and sustains the Brunt-Vaisala region; if doubly diffusive mixing erodes this gradient, the fuzzy core would homogenize and the evolutionary fits would change. Because no estimate of the semi-convective transport timescale or test with the Schwarzschild criterion is provided, the central claim that the fuzzy core survives from birth is not yet established. Please add a quantitative assessment or a test model using the Schwarzschild criterion.
  3. [Section 4.2, Figure 4 caption, Table 1] The caption of Figure 4 states that the model matches the current values 'within observational uncertainties', but Table 1 shows a Saturn equatorial radius of 59,551.8 km versus 60,268 ± 4 km measured, a deviation of about 716 km (1.2%), more than a hundred times the stated formal uncertainty. Jupiter's radius is similarly 0.7% high. These mismatches should be reported explicitly as percent deviations and discussed as systematic modeling uncertainties rather than being described as within observational uncertainties.
  4. [Sections 4.1 and 4.2] The conclusion that the interiors 'must start out at lower entropies' is drawn from models in which the initial interior entropy is an imposed free parameter (7.5 kB/baryon for Jupiter, 6.2 for Saturn) and in which Ledoux stability is assumed. The exploration does not include a range of intermediate entropy profiles or a derivation from formation physics, so the word 'must' is too strong; at present the result shows that low-entropy initial conditions are sufficient in this model family to preserve a fuzzy core, not that they are necessary. A parameter study varying the entropy profile, or initial states taken from formation models, would be needed to support the necessity claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a spacing artifact: 'F uzzy Cores' should be 'Fuzzy Cores'.
  2. [Table 1 and throughout] The draft retains LaTeX artifacts such as 'T able 1' and 'V¨ais¨al¨a' in the text; these should be cleaned before publication.
  3. [Section 4.2 versus Table 1] The atmospheric helium measured ranges are internally inconsistent: the text lists 0.02-0.13 for Conrath et al. (1984) and Achterberg & Flasar (2020), while Table 1 lists 0.075-0.22 for the same references; please reconcile the quoted ranges.
  4. [Page 3 footnote] The footnote defining Rρ is not clearly connected to the helium-rain parameter Hr in the surrounding text; consider moving it to the code description in Section 2.
  5. [Section 4] No model-uncertainty propagation is presented for the derived quantities such as total heavy-element mass, core mass, or Yatm; at minimum, a discussion of how sensitive the best-fit values are to the grid step sizes would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central simultaneous fits are calibrated against external observables and the code is validated on prior benchmarks; the only notable circularity is a mild self-imposed Brunt-Vaisala ratio reported as an achieved result.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2 (Saturn model), second paragraph and bullet list; Figure 4 caption]
    "This configuration establishes an initial value of N/ωdyn ∼ 2 in the diffuse core. ... We simultaneously achieve a current Brunt-Väisälä ratio of∼2 in the interior ∼50% of Saturn’s radius."

    The Saturn model was initialized with a composition-gradient and entropy profile that already gives N/ωdyn ≈ 2, and the inner region is described as barely cooling over solar-system timescales. The later statement that the model 'achieves' a current Brunt-Väisälä ratio of about 2, and the comparison with Mankovich & Fuller (2021), therefore report the (slightly evolved) input condition as an independent structural result. The agreement is partly by construction rather than a free prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a fitting exercise: a grid search over core mass, total heavy-element mass, Gaussian extent, and miscibility shift is used to match Teff, radius, Yatm, Zatm, J2, and J4 for each planet against external measurements. That is calibrated modeling, not circular, because the observables are not defined in terms of the fitted parameters and the code is independently checked against the published Mankovich & Fortney (2020) and Howard et al. (2024) models. Saturn's Yatm ≈ 0.205 is a genuine cross-check: the +410 K miscibility shift was fixed by Jupiter, and Saturn's poorly measured Yatm was not used as a fit target. The fuzzy-core survival is built into the modeling choices — the authors adopt the Ledoux criterion, ignore semi-convection, and start from low interior entropies — so the persistence of a composition gradient is an assumed outcome rather than an independently predicted one. Section 5 explicitly concedes that the Schwarzschild condition might be better and that doubly diffusive mixing is unresolved; that is a robustness limitation, not a circularity. The only mild circular step is the presentation of the Saturn Brunt-Väisälä ratio: an initial N/ω ∼ 2 is imposed and then reported as an achieved match to Mankovich & Fuller (2021). This does not undermine the overall simultaneous-fit claim, which remains anchored to external data.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a compact set of physical assumptions about transport, rotation, EOS mixing, and helium immiscibility, plus a substantial list of free parameters set by grid search. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The central quantities (fuzzy core survival, Saturn Yatm, absence of a helium ocean) are outputs of fitted initial conditions and microphysical parameters rather than parameter-free derivations.

free parameters (9)
  • Miscibility curve temperature shift (LHR0911) = +410 K
    Chosen so Jupiter's atmospheric helium matches Galileo and reused for Saturn; controls helium rain onset and Yatm.
  • Jupiter initial interior entropy = 7.5 kB/baryon
    Grid-searched and chosen to keep the fuzzy core stable at 4.56 Gyr.
  • Jupiter initial outer entropy = 8.2 kB/baryon
    Fixed at the outer boundary; the paper notes its influence dissipates within a few million years.
  • Saturn initial interior entropy = 6.2 kB/baryon
    Chosen to give a surviving fuzzy core and a Brunt-Vaisala ratio near 2.
  • Saturn initial surface entropy = 7.9 kB/baryon
    Grid-searched from 7.4 to 8.0 kB/baryon; affects early envelope structure.
  • Jupiter heavy-element mass and compact core mass = 42.5 M_E total, 3 M_E core
    Grid-searched over total masses 36-44 M_E and core masses 1-15 M_E to match radius and gravity moments.
  • Saturn heavy-element mass and compact core mass = 25 M_E total, 4 M_E core
    Grid-searched over 24-28 M_E total and 1-5 M_E core to match observables.
  • Gaussian Z-profile width and radial extent = varied; Saturn extent 0.4-0.6 R_Sat, Jupiter fuzzy core to 42% radius
    The standard deviation is adjusted to set the fuzzy core extent, which directly controls the surviving composition gradient.
  • Saturn atmospheric metallicity for boundary conditions = 5 x solar
    Assumed for the Chen et al. (2023) boundary conditions; within the observed range of 5-10 x solar but not independently fixed.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Hydrostatic structure with energy and species transport equations
    Section 2 equations (1)-(4) are the standard one-dimensional stellar/planetary structure equations with a rotational correction.
  • domain assumption Ledoux criterion for convective stability
    Used in Section 4 for heat transport; the paper acknowledges the Schwarzschild criterion might be better.
  • domain assumption No semi-convection or double-diffusive mixing
    Section 5 states the physics is still in flux and that semi-convection is ignored; efficient mixing would erode the stratified fuzzy core.
  • domain assumption Solid-body rotation with angular momentum conservation
    Section 4 and Discussion: rotation enters the hydrostatic equation and gravity moments via the Theory of Figures; differential rotation is not included.
  • domain assumption Theory of Figures to fourth order is adequate for gravity moments
    Section 2 and Discussion: ToF4 provides J2, J4, and moment of inertia; the paper notes it may not fully capture the real shape and rotation state.
  • domain assumption Volume addition law for mixing H-He EOS with heavy-element EOS
    Section 5: the authors state they were forced to use the volume addition law because no published mixture EOS is available.
  • domain assumption Mantle heavy elements are water (AQUA EOS)
    Section 5: the authors explicitly assume the mantle 'metal' is water; other compositions would change the structure.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial entropy and composition profiles are imposed by hand
    Section 4: initial interior entropy and Z gradients are adjustable initial conditions; the fuzzy core survival result depends on these choices.
  • ad hoc to paper LHR0911 hydrogen-helium miscibility curve with a +410 K temperature shift is the relevant immiscibility physics
    The temperature shift is a free adjustment, not independently measured, and is tuned to Jupiter then applied to Saturn.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous Evolutionary Fits for Jupiter and Saturn Incorporating Fuzzy Cores." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVIKYOVO

@misc{pith2026241217127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous Evolutionary Fits for Jupiter and Saturn Incorporating Fuzzy Cores},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVIKYOVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17127}
}
read the original abstract

With the recent realization that there likely are stably-stratified regions in the interiors of both Jupiter and Saturn, we construct new non-adiabatic, inhomogeneous evolutionary models with the same microphysics for each that result at the present time in respectable fits for all major bulk observables for both planets. These include the effective temperature, radius, atmospheric heavy-element and helium abundances (including helium rain), and the lower-order gravity moments J2 and J4. The models preserve from birth most of an extended "fuzzy" heavy-element core. Our predicted atmospheric helium mass fraction for Saturn is ~0.2, close to some measured estimates, but in disagreement with some published predictions. To preserve a fuzzy core from birth, the interiors of both planets must start out at lower entropies than would be used for traditional "hot start" adiabatic models, though the initial exterior mantle entropies can range from hot to warm start values. We do not see a helium ocean in Saturn's interior, and both models have inner envelopes with significant Brunt-Vaisala frequencies; this region for Saturn at the current epoch is more extended and in it, the Brunt is larger. The total heavy-element mass fraction in Jupiter and in Saturn is determined to be ~14% and ~26%, respectively, though there is some play in these determinations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reproduction of the Mankovich & Fortney (2020, MF2020) results for Jupiter and Saturn using APPLE. The left panels depict the helium abundance in the H-He envelope of the planet with the colorscale indicating the age in Gyr. The dashed line in the top left panel represents the Galileo constraint Yatm = 0.238 × (1 − Zatm) = 0.234 (von Zahn et al. 1998) while the dashed line in the bottom left panel shows the total he… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reproduction of the Howard et al. (2024) results using APPLE with the SR18 (blue) and LHR0911 (red) miscibility curves, with their suggested temperature shifts (+350 K and -1250 K, respectively). Our comparison models, represented by solid lines, include a core of mass 30 M⊕ for Jupiter and 20 M⊕ for Saturn. The CMS19+HG23 EOS is used for the H-He envelope and the models are evolved with the Fortney et al. (2011) bo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A very slightly improved evolutionary model for Jupiter (see Tejada Arevalo et al. 2024b) with an initial fuzzy core that matches within observational uncertainties the current values of the effective temperature, equatorial radius, atmospheric helium abundance, outer envelope metallicity, and J2 and J4 gravitational moments. The initial outer entropy is 8.2 kB/baryon, while the interior entropy is 7.5 kB/baryon. Th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The best fit evolutionary model for Saturn with an initial fuzzy core that matches its current values of the effec￾tive temperature, equatorial radius, atmospheric helium abundance, outer envelope metallicity, Brunt-V¨ais¨al¨a frequency, and gravitational moments withi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., & Flasar, F

    Achterberg, R. K., & Flasar, F. M. 2020, PSJ, 1, 30, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ab9cb6

    doi:10.3847/psj/ab9cb6 2020

  2. [2]

    H., Jermyn, A

    Anders, E. H., Jermyn, A. S., Lecoanet, D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 928, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5cb5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5cb5 2022

  3. [3]

    N., Serenelli, A

    Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli, A. M., & Basu, S. 2006, ApJS, 165, 400, doi: 10.1086/504043

    doi:10.1086/504043 2006

  4. [4]

    Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9805009

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9805009 1998

  5. [5]

    Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  6. [6]

    J., Lunine, J., Stevenson, D., et al

    Bolton, S. J., Lunine, J., Stevenson, D., et al. 2017a, SSRv, 213, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0429-6 Simultaneous Fits to Jupiter and Saturn 11

    doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0429-6

  7. [7]

    J., Adriani, A., Adumitroaie, V., et al

    Bolton, S. J., Adriani, A., Adumitroaie, V., et al. 2017b, Science, 356, 821, doi: 10.1126/science.aal2108

    doi:10.1126/science.aal2108

  8. [8]

    2021, Nature, 593, 517, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03516-0

    Brygoo, S., Loubeyre, P., Millot, M., et al. 2021, Nature, 593, 517, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03516-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03516-0 2021

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    B., Lunine, J

    Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    B., et al

    Burrows, A., Marley, M., Hubbard, W. B., et al. 1997, ApJ, 491, 856, doi: 10.1086/305002

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    2007, ApJL, 661, L81, doi: 10.1086/518473

    Chabrier, G., & Baraffe, I. 2007, ApJL, 661, L81, doi: 10.1086/518473

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, ApJ, 917, 6pp, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48

    Chabrier, G., & Debras, F. 2021, ApJ, 917, 6pp, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    Chabrier, G., Mazevet, S., & Soubiran, F. 2019, ApJ, 872, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Chen, Y.-X., Burrows, A., Sur, A., & Arevalo, R. T. 2023, ApJ, 957, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf456

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    J., & Gautier, D

    Conrath, B. J., & Gautier, D. 2000, Icarus, 144, 124, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6265

    2000

  8. [16]

    J., Gautier, D., Hanel, R

    Conrath, B. J., Gautier, D., Hanel, R. A., & Hornstein, J. S. 1984, ApJ, 282, 807, doi: 10.1086/162267

    1984 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff65

    Debras, F., & Chabrier, G. 2019, ApJ, 872, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff65

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, PSJ, 2, 198, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac0e2a

    Xu, W. 2021, PSJ, 2, 198, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac0e2a

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, Geophys

    Durante, D., Parisi, M., Serra, D., et al. 2020, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e86572, doi: 10.1029/2019GL086572

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Hubbard, W

    Fortney, J. J., & Hubbard, W. B. 2003, Icarus, 164, 228, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00130-1

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    Marley, M. S. 2011, ApJ, 729, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/32

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, ApJS, 202, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/202/1/5

    French, M., Becker, A., Lorenzen, W., et al. 2012, ApJS, 202, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/202/1/5

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Nettelmann, N., & Redmer, R

    French, M., Mattsson, T. R., Nettelmann, N., & Redmer, R. 2009, PhRvB, 79, 054107, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.054107

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Fraser, A

    Fuentes, J., Hindman, B. W., Fraser, A. E., & Anders, E. H. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 975, L1

    2024

  17. [25]

    R., Anders, E

    Fuentes, J. R., Anders, E. H., Cumming, A., & Hindman, B. W. 2023, ApJL, 950, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd774

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2014, Icarus, 242, 283, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.08.006

    Fuller, J. 2014, Icarus, 242, 283, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.08.006

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/133

    Garaud, P., Gagnier, D., & Verhoeven, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/133

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    N., Helled, R., et al

    Guillot, T., Fletcher, L. N., Helled, R., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 947

    2023

  21. [29]

    1995, A&AS, 109, 109

    Guillot, T., & Morel, P. 1995, A&AS, 109, 109

    1995

  22. [30]

    2020, A&A, 643, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367

    Haldemann, J., Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., & Benz, W. 2020, A&A, 643, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/113

    Helled, R., & Guillot, T. 2013, ApJ, 767, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/113

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.11120, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.11120

    Howard, S., M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.11120, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.11120

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2023, A&A, 672, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245625

    Howard, S., Guillot, T., Bazot, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245625

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Hubbard, W. B. 1968, ApJ, 152, 745, doi: 10.1086/149591 —. 1969, ApJ, 155, 333, doi: 10.1086/149868 —. 1970, ApJ, 162, 687, doi: 10.1086/150700

    1968 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Durante, D., et al

    Iess, L., Folkner, W. M., Durante, D., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 220, doi: 10.1038/nature25776

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, Science, 364, aat2965, doi: 10.1126/science.aat2965

    Iess, L., Militzer, B., Kaspi, Y., et al. 2019, Science, 364, aat2965, doi: 10.1126/science.aat2965

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    1954, Australian Journal of Physics, 7, 322, doi: 10.1071/PH540322

    Keane, A. 1954, Australian Journal of Physics, 7, 322, doi: 10.1071/PH540322

    1954 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.09341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.09341

    Knierim, H., & Helled, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.09341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.09341

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Korre, L., Garaud, P., & Brummell, N. H. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz047

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    T., & Guerlet, S

    Koskinen, T. T., & Guerlet, S. 2018, Icarus, 307, 161, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.02.020

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cb

    Lacy, B., & Burrows, A. 2023, ApJ, 950, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cb

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, A&A, 540, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117595

    Leconte, J., & Chabrier, G. 2012, A&A, 540, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117595

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Gierasch, P

    Li, L., Conrath, B. J., Gierasch, P. J., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 115, E11002, doi: 10.1029/2010JE003631

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    H., Smith, M

    Li, L., Baines, K. H., Smith, M. A., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 117, E11002, doi: 10.1029/2012JE004191

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, PhRvL, 102, 115701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.115701 —

    Lorenzen, W., Holst, B., & Redmer, R. 2009, PhRvL, 102, 115701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.115701 —. 2011, PhRvB, 84, 235109, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235109

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    J., & Moore, K

    Mankovich, C., Fortney, J. J., & Moore, K. L. 2016, ApJ, 832, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/113

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    R., & Fortney, J

    Mankovich, C. R., & Fortney, J. J. 2020, ApJ, 889, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6210

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    R., & Fuller, J

    Mankovich, C. R., & Fuller, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1103, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01448-3 12 Sur et al

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2024–950, doi: 10.5194/epsc2024-950

    Markham, S., & Guillot, T. 2024, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2024–950, doi: 10.5194/epsc2024-950

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2014, ApJL, 792, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L30

    Medrano, M., Garaud, P., & Stellmach, S. 2014, ApJL, 792, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L30

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, A&A, 662, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243207

    Miguel, Y., Bazot, M., Guillot, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243207

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Militzer, B., & Hubbard, W. B. 2013, ApJ, 774, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/148 —. 2023, PSJ, 4, 95, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acd2cd —. 2024, Icarus, 411, 115955, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.115955

    2013

  45. [53]

    Militzer, B., Wahl, S., & Hubbard, W. B. 2019, ApJ, 879, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab23f0

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    B., Wahl, S., et al

    Militzer, B., Hubbard, W. B., Wahl, S., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 185, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac7ec8

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Wood, T. S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/61

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    Moll, R., Garaud, P., Mankovich, C., & Fortney, J. J. 2017, ApJ, 849, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d74

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Mankovich, C., Thorngren, D., & Helled, R

    Movshovitz, N., Fortney, J. J., Mankovich, C., Thorngren, D., & Helled, R. 2020, ApJ, 891, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab71ff M¨ uller, S., Helled, R., & Cumming, A. 2020, A&A, 638, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937376

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, A&A, 606, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731550

    Nettelmann, N. 2017, A&A, 606, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731550

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/52

    Nettelmann, N., Becker, A., Holst, B., & Redmer, R. 2012, ApJ, 750, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/52

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    2013, Icarus, 225, 548, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.04.018

    Nettelmann, N., P¨ ustow, R., & Redmer, R. 2013, Icarus, 225, 548, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.04.018

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    2021, PSJ, 2, 241, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac390a ¨Oberg, K

    Nettelmann, N., Movshovitz, N., Ni, D., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 241, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac390a ¨Oberg, K. I., & Wordsworth, R. 2019, AJ, 158, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab46a8

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    S., & Ingersoll, A

    Orton, G. S., & Ingersoll, A. P. 1980, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 5871, doi: 10.1029/JA085iA11p05871 P¨ ustow, R., Nettelmann, N., Lorenzen, W., & Redmer, R. 2016, Icarus, 267, 323, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.12.009

    1980 doi

  55. [63]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/66

    Rosenblum, E., Garaud, P., Traxler, A., & Stellmach, S. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/66

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., & van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713, doi: 10.1086/192204

    1995 doi

  57. [65]

    2004, ApJ, 609, 1170, doi: 10.1086/421257 Sch¨ ottler, M., & Redmer, R

    Saumon, D., & Guillot, T. 2004, ApJ, 609, 1170, doi: 10.1086/421257 Sch¨ ottler, M., & Redmer, R. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 115703, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.115703

    2004 doi

  58. [66]

    K., Archinal, B

    Seidelmann, P. K., Archinal, B. A., A’hearn, M. F., et al. 2007, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 98, 155, doi: 10.1007/s10569-007-9072-y

    2007 doi

  59. [67]

    M., & Basu, S

    Serenelli, A. M., & Basu, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 865, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/865

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    M., & Burrows, A

    Sharp, C. M., & Burrows, A. 2007, ApJS, 168, 140, doi: 10.1086/508708

    2007 doi

  61. [69]

    2019, Science, 364, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.aat3760

    Spilker, L. 2019, Science, 364, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.aat3760

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    D., & Davis, P

    Stacey, F. D., & Davis, P. M. 2004, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 142, 137, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2004.02.003

    2004 doi

  63. [71]

    J., & Salpeter, E

    Stevenson, D. J., & Salpeter, E. E. 1977, ApJS, 35, 221, doi: 10.1086/190478

    1977 doi

  64. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14483, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14483 Tejada Arevalo, R., Su, Y., Sur, A., & Burrows, A

    Burrows, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14483, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14483 Tejada Arevalo, R., Su, Y., Sur, A., & Burrows, A. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.04172, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.04172 Tejada Arevalo, R., Sur, A., Su, Y., & Burrows, A. 2024b, arXiv e-print...

    2024 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    Lopez, E. D. 2016, ApJ, 831, 64, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/64

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    Tulekeyev, A., Garaud, P., Idini, B., & Fortney, J. J. 2024, PSJ, 5, 190, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad6571

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2018, A&A, 610, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732522

    Vazan, A., Helled, R., & Guillot, T. 2018, A&A, 610, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732522

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/32

    Vazan, A., Helled, R., Kovetz, A., & Podolak, M. 2015, ApJ, 803, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/32

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/118 von Zahn, U., Hunten, D

    Vazan, A., Helled, R., Podolak, M., & Kovetz, A. 2016, ApJ, 829, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/118 von Zahn, U., Hunten, D. M., & Lehmacher, G. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 22815, doi: 10.1029/98JE00695

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    M., Hubbard, W

    Wahl, S. M., Hubbard, W. B., Militzer, B., et al. 2017, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 4649, doi: 10.1002/2017GL073160

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    F., & Militzer, B

    Wilson, H. F., & Militzer, B. 2012b, ApJ, 745, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/54

    doi

  72. [80]

    S., Garaud, P., & Stellmach, S

    Wood, T. S., Garaud, P., & Stellmach, S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/157

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    J., & Russell, C

    Yu, Z. J., & Russell, C. T. 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20202, doi: 10.1029/2009GL040094 Simultaneous Fits to Jupiter and Saturn 13

    2009 doi

  74. [82]

    Zaghoo, M., & Silvera, I. F. 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114, 11873, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707918114

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    Zhang, J., & Rogers, L. A. 2022, ApJ, 938, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e65

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.