Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

The peculiar composition of the Sun is not related to giant planets

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Sun's refractory deficit tracks galactic chemistry, not giant planets.

desk verdict Solid abundance analysis and a real Tcond–[Fe/H] correlation, but the weak host/non-host comparison (1.5 sigma) and an uncharacterized 'no-planet' sample cannot support the title's strong claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22615 v1 pith:FDIYZ7LS submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

M. Carlos , A. M. Amarsi , P. E. Nissen , G. Canocchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords solarabundancesrefractoryelementscondensationtemperaturegiantplanetsgalacticchemicalevolutionnon-LTEcorrectionstwinsstellar
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 sets out to decide why the Sun looks chemically odd: it is depleted in refractory elements compared with most solar twins. The authors test the popular idea that this depletion records the formation of giant planets by comparing 50 F- and G-type stars, 29 of which host detected giant planets. They find that the star-by-star strength of the refractory-depletion pattern, measured as a slope of abundance versus condensation temperature, is governed mainly by stellar iron content, a tracer of Galactic chemical evolution. The difference between planet hosts and non-hosts is only marginally significant, so the paper concludes that giant planets are not the primary cause of the Sun's peculiar composition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the condensation-temperature slope, the linear fit of elemental abundances $[X/{\rm H}]$ against $T_{\rm cond}$ for elements condensing above 900 K; it quantifies how refractory-poor or refractory-rich a star is. The argument runs through the behavior of that slope: it anti-correlates with $[{\rm Fe/H}]$, the galaxy's chemical-evolution tracer, while the planet-host/non-host split produces no such strong separation. The analysis is carried by a differential abundance pipeline (1D LTE line measurements corrected to 3D or non-LTE for 14 elements) and by maximum-likelihood/MCMC fits that attach uncertainties to each slope.

What would settle it

A well-characterized sample of solar twins with uniform radial-velocity monitoring, split into confirmed giant-planet hosts and stars with firm non-detection limits, in which the $T_{\rm cond}$-slope versus $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ relation separates by more than $3\sigma$ between the two groups at fixed $[{\rm Fe/H}]$, would overturn the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the peculiar composition of the Sun is primarily a product of Galactic chemical evolution rather than the presence of giant planets. Analyzing high-resolution spectra of 50 stars, it derives abundances of 19 elements and applies 3D and non-LTE corrections to 14 of them. For each star the authors fit a linear slope of $[X/{\rm H}]$ against condensation temperature $T_{\rm cond}$ for refractory elements, and this slope anti-correlates strongly with $[{\rm Fe/H}]$: more metal-rich stars show flatter or more negative slopes. Stars with and without detected giant planets differ in this relation only at the $1.5\sigma$ level after corrections, so any planetary imprint is second order. The Sun sits $1.7\sigma$ below stars of similar metallicity, consistent with earlier solar-twin work, but the paper argues this offset does not require a planet-formation explanation.

Load-bearing premise

The planet conclusions rest on dividing the 50 stars into 29 hosts and 21 non-hosts, but the paper never states the detection limits or completeness of the planet surveys, so some 'non-host' stars may actually harbor undetected giant planets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Sun's refractory-poor pattern should not be used as evidence that terrestrial planets scavenged the missing material.
  • Volatile-to-refractory abundance studies must control for $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ and stellar age before attributing trends to planets.
  • Any giant-planet chemical fingerprint in host stars is at most a second-order effect, requiring larger samples and higher precision to detect.
  • The $T_{\rm cond}$-slope versus $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ correlation provides a baseline against which future planet-formation signatures could be measured.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because detection limits for the non-host group are not specified, the null result is underdetermined; with truly planet-free comparison stars the host/non-host separation could be larger than the reported $1.5\sigma$.
  • Editorial inference: extending the same differential analysis to roughly a hundred stars with uniform radial-velocity completeness would test whether the residual Sun offset at fixed metallicity is intrinsic or an artifact of sample selection.
  • Editorial inference: pushing the paper's split of the slope into alpha-process elements (O, Mg, Si, S, Ca, Ti) and non-alpha elements further could separate nucleosynthetic production-site trends from any genuine planet signal.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a differential abundance analysis of 19 elements in 50 F- and G-type stars observed with HARPS, of which 29 are known giant-planet hosts and 21 have no detected giant planets. Using condensation temperature (Tcond) slopes, the authors find a strong anti-correlation between the Tcond slope and [Fe/H], which they attribute to Galactic chemical evolution. They also report a marginally significant (1.5 sigma) difference in the Tcond-[Fe/H] relation between stars with and without detected giant planets, and find that the Sun is 1.7 sigma below the mean of stars within -0.05<=[Fe/H]<=+0.05. The paper concludes that the Sun's refractory-poor composition is primarily a Galactic chemical evolution effect rather than a signature of giant planets.

Significance. If the result holds, it would be a valuable negative result for the interpretation of Sun-like refractory-depletion patterns as planet-formation fingerprints. The paper's strengths include a careful differential line-by-line analysis, explicit error propagation including stellar-parameter uncertainties, tests against both MARCS and ATLAS model atmospheres, application of 3D/non-LTE corrections for 14 elements, and MCMC-based fitting of Tcond slopes. However, the central claim is supported by a marginal statistical difference and rests on the assumption that the 'no-giant-planet' classification is complete, which is not quantitatively established. The significance of the paper as a definitive statement about planet-related composition effects is therefore limited unless these issues are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Tables 1-3] The division of the sample into 29 stars with and 21 without detected giant planets is the load-bearing classification for the paper's central claim, but the manuscript never states the detection threshold, orbital baseline, cadence, or completeness of the exoplanet surveys that produced the 'without' group, nor the selection criteria of the parent Nissen et al. (2014) and Amarsi et al. (2019) samples. If a substantial fraction of the 21 non-hosts actually harbor undetected giants, the two fitted populations are mixed and any real giant-planet signature would be diluted, making the observed 1.5 sigma separation uninformative as evidence of absence. The authors should provide completeness information or, at a minimum, discuss the likely detection thresholds for this sample and how they affect the non-host classification.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 4 (bottom right)] The abstract and title assert that the Sun's peculiar composition is 'not related to giant planets,' but the evidence is a 1.5 sigma difference in the Tcond-[Fe/H] slope between the two populations, which the authors themselves describe as 'marginally-significant.' Given that many elements and correction schemes are tested, a 1.5 sigma effect is not a strong basis for a definitive negative claim. The conclusions should be rephrased as a failure to detect a significant planet-related effect, rather than as a demonstration that giant planets are unrelated to the Sun's composition.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 4 (bottom right)] Because the Tcond slope is strongly anti-correlated with [Fe/H], the comparison of the two populations must control for the [Fe/H] distribution. Giant-planet hosts are generally more metal-rich, so the with-planet sample may preferentially occupy higher [Fe/H], and the difference in the fitted slopes could be driven by this coverage mismatch rather than by the presence of planets. The authors should test whether the slope difference persists when restricting to a common [Fe/H] interval, or by comparing residuals after subtracting the global Tcond-[Fe/H] relation, analogous to the delta Tcond slopes shown in Figure 6.
  4. [Section 3.3, Figure 4] The claim that the Sun is 'peculiar' rests on it being 1.7 sigma below the mean of the nine stars within -0.05<=[Fe/H]<=+0.05. This is a marginal offset, and the perturbation test only varies Teff, logg, and xi_turb. Other systematic effects, such as continuum placement, line-list choices, or the selection of which elements enter the Tcond fit, could shift the Sun's slope. The manuscript should state how many stars in the full sample have lower Tcond slopes than the Sun and discuss whether the Sun's offset is robust to plausible alternative analysis choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract states planet masses '>0.01 M_Jup' while Section 2 quotes '0.016<=M sin i<=16.6 Mjup'; these thresholds should be made consistent and clearly defined.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption reads 'The blue and black dashed area represents the 1.5 sigma interval for each linear fit'; this should be corrected to 'shaded area' and should specify how the 1.5 sigma intervals were computed (e.g., from the MCMC posterior).
  3. [Section 2] The phrase 'Twenty nine stars in our sample host at least one exoplanet' is followed by a range of M sin i; it should be clarified whether all 29 stars have M sin i above the stated lower limit and whether the limit is inclusive.
  4. [Figure 6] The y-axis labels in the lower panels are truncated ('Tc'); they should read 'Tcond slope' and 'Delta Tcond slope' for clarity.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'suggests' instead of 'suggest' in the abstract and 'stars which host planets' instead of 'stars that host planets' in the abstract and Section 2.
  6. [Section 3.2] The comparison of star-to-star scatter with Bedell et al. (2018) is described only in text; a small table or figure would improve reproducibility and clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Tcond slopes and their [Fe/H] correlation are measured outputs, and the same-group non-LTE corrections are external model-grid calculations not fitted to the giant-planet conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: measure 1D LTE abundances from HARPS spectra, apply published 3D/non-LTE corrections for several elements, fit Tcond slopes via maximum-likelihood and MCMC, regress those slopes against [Fe/H], and compare the regressions for stars with and without detected giant planets. The central Tcond-slope values are derived from the abundance data, and the strong anti-correlation with [Fe/H] (Fig. 4, bottom right) is an observed output rather than an input. The planet-host split is taken from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, not from the abundances, and the paper does not fit any parameter to the target conclusion that the Sun's composition is primarily set by Galactic chemical evolution. Citations to Amarsi et al. (2019), Matsuno et al. (2024), and Canocchi et al. (in prep.) supply 3D/non-LTE abundance corrections; these are independent model-grid calculations with stated assumptions that do not include the giant-planet conclusion, and they are benchmarked on the Sun and other stars, so they do not constitute load-bearing self-citation. The paper's own statement that 'increasing the sample... would help us make stronger statement regarding the differences between the two linear fits' acknowledges a statistical limitation, and the absence of stated detection completeness for the non-host sample is a sampling caveat rather than a circular reduction. No equation or fitted parameter can be shown to be equivalent, by definition or by construction, to the paper's claim about giant planets.

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

The paper does not fit any ad hoc numerical parameters: the Tcond slopes are the measured signal, not inputs. The accounting of assumptions is dominated by standard atmosphere-model and condensation-temperature calibrations, plus the implicit sample assumption about non-detections.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 1D LTE and 3D/non-LTE stellar atmosphere models (MARCS, ATLAS, Balder) describe FGK line formation well enough that differential corrections do not introduce a metallicity-dependent bias.
    Section 2: abundances and corrections are taken from these grids. If the models are biased with [Fe/H], the Tcond slope versus [Fe/H] trend could be an artifact.
  • domain assumption The condensation temperatures of Lodders (2003) correctly order elements from volatile to refractory.
    Section 3.3: the x-axis of the Tcond slope fits relies entirely on this scale.
  • domain assumption Stars without detected giant planets can be used as a comparison group.
    Section 2 and Figure 4: no detection limits or completeness analysis is provided; the group split assumes non-detection approximates absence.
  • domain assumption The atmospheric parameters (Teff, logg, [Fe/H], microturbulence) taken from Nissen et al. (2014), Amarsi et al. (2019), and GAIA DR3 isochrones are accurate within quoted errors.
    Section 2: systematic errors are estimated at 65 K in Teff and 0.10 dex in logg; perturbation tests cover these, but unmodeled covariances could remain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The peculiar composition of the Sun is not related to giant planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FDIYZ7LS

@misc{pith2026250522615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The peculiar composition of the Sun is not related to giant planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FDIYZ7LS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22615}
}
read the original abstract

Highly-differential spectroscopic studies have revealed that the Sun is deficient in refractory elements relative to solar twins. To investigate the role of giant planets on this signature, we present a high precision abundance analysis of HARPS spectra for 50 F- and G-type stars spanning -0.4<[Fe/H]<+0.5. There are 29 stars in the sample which host planets of masses > 0.01 MJup. We derive abundances for 19 elements, and apply corrections to 14 of them for systematic errors associated with one dimensional (1D) model atmospheres, or the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), or both. We find that, among the solar twins in our sample, the Sun is Li poor in comparison to other stars at similar age, in agreement to previous studies. The sample shows a variety of trends in elemental abundances as a function of condensation temperature. We find a strong correlation in these trends with [Fe/H], with a marginally-significant difference in the gradients for stars with and without giants planets detected, that increases after applying 3D and non-LTE corrections. Our overall results suggests that the peculiar composition of the Sun is primarily related to Galactic chemical evolution rather than the presence of giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Absolute Li abundance versus Teff. Stars with giant planets are shown in blue circles and stars without giant planets detected are pre￾sented by black squares, the Sun is shown by its usual symbol in purple. The data is colour-coded by age. least for the present sample of stars and for the weak subordi￾nate S lines used in this work. A full description of the model and benchmarking on the Sun will be presented in a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [X/Fe] versus [Fe/H] for stars in our sample with (blue circles) and without (black squares) giant planets detected, in comparison with thin disk solar twins (pink stars) from Bedell et al. (2018). Article number, page 4 of 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [X/H] as a function of elemental condensation temperatures for the stars HD 196761 (without detected giant planets, left panel) and HD 82943 (with two giants planets detected, right panel). Black circles represent elemental abundances in 1D LTE while red circles show 1D non-LTE, 3D LTE or 3D non-LTE (when available). The best fit including only the refractory elements with Tcond ≥ 900 K are represented by the solid … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Condensation temperature slopes versus the stellar parameters Teff (top left panel), log g (top right panel), ξturb. (bottom left panel) and [Fe/H] (bottom right panel). Stars with giant planets are shown in blue and stars without giant planets detected are presented b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tcond slopes only considering α−elements (dashed line) or non α−elements (dot-dashed line) as a function of [Fe/H] for stars with (dark and light blue circles) and without (grey and black squares) gi￾ant planets. fits, for hosting giant planets stars (blue dashed line)…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panels: Tcond slopes versus planetary system mass (top left) and planet distance (top right). Lower panels: ∆Tcond slopes versus planetary system mass (bottom left) and planet distance (bottom right). The Sun is shown by its usual symbol (left panels) or a dashed l…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Something new under the Sun: A magnetically driven CH/CN anti-correlation

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The solar magnetic cycle produces a CH/CN anti-correlation in the integrated solar spectrum, which the authors scale up to argue that surface magnetism could mimic globular cluster multi-population signatures.

  2. Is the composition of the Solar atmosphere unusual, and if so, why? Possible interpretations

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review of the 10-20% solar volatile-to-refractory excess relative to solar twins, weighing galactic, protoplanetary, and planetary-ingestion explanations and finding no decisive answer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2016, A&A, 592, A87

    Adibekyan, V ., Delgado-Mena, E., Figueira, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A87

    2016

  2. [2]

    Z., González Hernández, J

    Adibekyan, V . Z., González Hernández, J. I., Delgado Mena, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, L15

    2014

  3. [3]

    Z., Sousa, S

    Adibekyan, V . Z., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A32

    2012

  4. [4]

    Amarsi, A. M. & Asplund, M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 264

    2017

  5. [5]

    M., Liljegren, S., & Nissen, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Liljegren, S., & Nissen, P. E. 2022, A&A, 668, A68

    2022

  6. [6]

    M., Lind, K., Osorio, Y ., et al

    Amarsi, A. M., Lind, K., Osorio, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A62

    2020

  7. [7]

    M., Nissen, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Nissen, P. E., & Skúladóttir, Á. 2019, A&A, 630, A104

    2019

  8. [8]

    M., Nordlander, T., Barklem, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Nordlander, T., Barklem, P. S., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A139

    2018

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    2021

  2. [10]

    2023, A&A, 674, A32

    Babusiaux, C., Fabricius, C., Khanna, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A32

    2023

  3. [11]

    L., Meléndez, J., et al

    Bedell, M., Bean, J. L., Meléndez, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 68

    2018

  4. [12]

    L., et al

    Bedell, M., Meléndez, J., Bean, J. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 23

    2014

  5. [13]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 2184

    Bergemann, M. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2184

    2011

  6. [14]

    & Cescutti, G

    Bergemann, M. & Cescutti, G. 2010, A&A, 522, A9 Article number, page 8 of 9 M. Carlos et al.: The peculiar composition of the Sun is not related to giant planets

    2010

  7. [15]

    & Gehren, T

    Bergemann, M. & Gehren, T. 2008, A&A, 492, 823

    2008

  8. [16]

    C., & Gehren, T

    Bergemann, M., Pickering, J. C., & Gehren, T. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1334

    2010

  9. [17]

    Booth, R. A. & Owen, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5079

    2020

  10. [18]

    X., et al

    Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, E. X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, accepted for publica- tion in PASA, arXiv:2409.19858

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 692, A43

    Canocchi, G., Morello, G., Lind, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A43

    2024

  12. [20]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4052

    Carlos, M., Meléndez, J., Spina, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4052

    2019

  13. [21]

    E., & Meléndez, J

    Carlos, M., Nissen, P. E., & Meléndez, J. 2016, A&A, 587, A100

    2016

  14. [22]

    2010, A&A, 512, A54

    Casagrande, L., Ramírez, I., Meléndez, J., Bessell, M., & Asplund, M. 2010, A&A, 512, A54

    2010

  15. [23]

    & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F. Gray, V ol. 210, A20 Civiš, S., Kramida, A., Zanozina, E. M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 32 Delgado Mena, E., Adibekyan, V ., Santos, N. C., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A99 De...

    2003

  16. [24]

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

    2005

  17. [25]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2013

  18. [26]

    V ., & de la Reza, R

    Ghezzi, L., Cunha, K., Smith, V . V ., & de la Reza, R. 2010, ApJ, 724, 154 González Hernández, J. I., Delgado-Mena, E., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A6 González Hernández, J. I., Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1592

    2010

  19. [27]

    2018, A&A, 620, A53

    Gustafsson, B. 2018, A&A, 620, A53

    2018

  20. [28]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

    2008

  21. [29]

    2009, ApJ, 698, L1 Hühn, L

    Haywood, M. 2009, ApJ, 698, L1 Hühn, L. A. & Bitsch, B. 2023, A&A, 676, A87

    2009

  22. [30]

    C., et al

    Israelian, G., Delgado Mena, E., Santos, N. C., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 189

    2009

  23. [31]

    K., & Alexander, D

    Kim, Y .-C., Demarque, P., Yi, S. K., & Alexander, D. R. 2002, ApJS, 143, 499

    2002

  24. [32]

    M., Lavail, A., et al

    Kochukhov, O., Amarsi, A. M., Lavail, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A36

    2024

  25. [33]

    2018, NLTE MPIA web server, [Online]

    Kovalev, M., Brinkmann, S., Bergemann, M., & MPIA IT-department. 2018, NLTE MPIA web server, [Online]. Available: http://nlte.mpia.de Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg

    2018

  26. [34]

    M., Rodríguez Díaz, L

    Lagae, C., Amarsi, A. M., Rodríguez Díaz, L. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A90

    2023

  27. [35]

    Lambert, D. L. 1993, Physica Scripta V olume T, 47, 186

    1993

  28. [36]

    & Carlsson, M

    Leenaarts, J. & Carlsson, M. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 415, The Second Hinode Science Meeting: Be- yond Discovery-Toward Understanding, ed. B. Lites, M. Cheung, T. Magara, J. Mariska, & K. Reeves, 87

    2009

  29. [37]

    Liu, B., Zhang, X., & Lin, D. N. C. 2016, ApJ, 823, 162

    2016

  30. [38]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 1227

    Liu, F., Bitsch, B., Asplund, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1227

    2021

  31. [39]

    2024, Nature, 627, 501 Llorente de Andrés, F., de la Reza, R., Cruz, P., et al

    Liu, F., Ting, Y .-S., Yong, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 501 Llorente de Andrés, F., de la Reza, R., Cruz, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A28

    2024

  32. [40]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    2003

  33. [41]

    Mallinson, J. W. E., Lind, K., Amarsi, A. M., & Youakim, K. 2024, A&A, 687, A5

    2024

  34. [42]

    M., Carlos, M., & Nissen, P

    Matsuno, T., Amarsi, A. M., Carlos, M., & Nissen, P. E. 2024, A&A accepted

    2024

  35. [43]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  36. [44]

    & Queloz, D

    Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355 Meléndez, J., Asplund, M., Gustafsson, B., & Yong, D. 2009, ApJ, 704, L66

    1995

  37. [45]

    Nagar, T., Spina, L., & Karakas, A. I. 2020, ApJ, 888, L9

    2020

  38. [46]

    J., Jain, B., et al

    Nibauer, J., Baxter, E. J., Jain, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 116

    2021

  39. [47]

    Nissen, P. E. 2015, A&A, 579, A52

    2015

  40. [48]

    E., Amarsi, A

    Nissen, P. E., Amarsi, A. M., Skúladóttir, Á., & Schuster, W. J. 2024, A&A, 682, A116

    2024

  41. [49]

    E., Chen, Y

    Nissen, P. E., Chen, Y . Q., Carigi, L., Schuster, W. J., & Zhao, G. 2014, A&A, 568, A25

    2014

  42. [50]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    2013

  43. [51]

    & Lind, K

    Nordlander, T. & Lind, K. 2017, A&A, 607, A75

    2017

  44. [52]

    M., Brewer, J

    Oh, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Brewer, J. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 138 Ramírez, I., Allende Prieto, C., & Lambert, D. L. 2013, ApJ, 764, 78 Ramírez, I., Meléndez, J., Bean, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A48

    2018

  45. [53]

    K., Edwards, G

    Rampalli, R., Ness, M. K., Edwards, G. H., Newton, E. R., & Bedell, M. 2024, ApJ, 965, 176

    2024

  46. [54]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4642

    Rathsam, A., Meléndez, J., & Carvalho Silva, G. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4642

    2023

  47. [55]

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

    Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2000, A&A, 363, 228

    2000

  48. [56]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3354

    Sevilla, J., Behmard, A., & Fuller, J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3354

    2022

  49. [57]

    R., Gehren, T., Zeng, J

    Shi, J. R., Gehren, T., Zeng, J. L., Mashonkina, L., & Zhao, G. 2014, ApJ, 782, 80

    2014

  50. [58]

    Sneden, C. A. 1973, PhD thesis, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

    1973

  51. [59]

    C., Boyajian, T

    Spada, F., Demarque, P., Kim, Y . C., Boyajian, T. S., & Brewer, J. M. 2017, ApJ, 838, 161

    2017

  52. [60]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1163

    Spina, L., Sharma, P., Meléndez, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1163

    2021

  53. [61]

    & Holweger, H

    Steenbock, W. & Holweger, H. 1984, A&A, 130, 319

    1984

  54. [62]

    Summers, H. P. & O’Mullane, M. G. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1344, 7th International Conference on Atomic and Molecular Data and Their Applications - ICAMDATA-2010, ed. A. Bernotas, R. Karazija, & Z. Rudzikas (AIP), 179–187

    2011

  55. [63]

    X., Gan, T., et al

    Sun, Q., Wang, S. X., Gan, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 179

    2025

  56. [64]

    K., Narang, M., et al

    Swastik, C., Banyal, R. K., Narang, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 60

    2022

  57. [65]

    2022, Sol

    Takeda, Y . 2022, Sol. Phys., 297, 4 Tautvaišien˙e, G., Mikolaitis, Š., Drazdauskas, A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 45

    2022

  58. [66]

    2015, A&A, 580, A30

    Thiabaud, A., Marboeuf, U., Alibert, Y ., Leya, I., & Mezger, K. 2015, A&A, 580, A30

    2015

  59. [67]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  60. [68]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  61. [69]

    & Santos, N

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

    2007

  62. [70]

    X., Nordlander, T., Asplund, M., et al

    Wang, E. X., Nordlander, T., Asplund, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2159

    2021

  63. [71]

    & Frail, D

    Wolszczan, A. & Frail, D. A. 1992, Nature, 355, 145

    1992

  64. [72]

    2001, ApJS, 136, 417

    Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y .-C., et al. 2001, ApJS, 136, 417

    2001

  65. [73]

    S., Kim, Y

    Yun, S., Lee, Y . S., Kim, Y . K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 35 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.