Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Shaping Galactic Habitability: the impact of stellar migration and gas giants

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stellar migration multiplies outer-Milky-Way habitable-planet hosts by about five.

desk verdict A useful first GHZ map with radial migration, but the factor-of-five claim is bolted to an extreme migration strength that the paper's own comparison does not support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19981 v1 pith:EYJNGBFI submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

E. Spitoni , M. Palla , L. Magrini , F. Matteucci , C. Danielski , M. Tsantaki , A. Sozzetti , M. Molero
show 4 more authors
F. Fontani D. Romano G. Cescutti L. Silva
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords GalactichabitablezonestellarradialmigrationchemicalevolutionmodelsMilkyWaydiscexoplanethabitabilitygasgiantplanetsterrestrialplanetformationmetallicity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the Milky Way's habitable zone is not a static annulus: stars drift outward from the metal-rich inner disk, carrying the chemical ingredients for Earth-like planets into quieter outer regions where supernova sterilization is weaker. Using a chemical evolution model of the Galactic disk with a parametric stellar-migration prescription, it produces the first Galactic habitable zone maps that include radial migration. The maps show that at 18 kpc the number of FGK (Sun-like) stars meeting minimum habitability conditions can be about five times the no-migration value near $t\approx 6.1$ Gyr in the strongest migration case. The paper also tests whether gas giants help or hinder terrestrial planets: if they help, the effect is concentrated in the inner 4 kpc ring, where present-day counts of FGK hosts rise by a factor of roughly 1.4 with migration (1.5 without), and retired A-star hosts by 2.8 (3.3 without). A reader should care because these mechanisms determine where and how many potentially habitable planets the Galaxy actually contains.

What carries the argument

The central object is the migration-weighted habitable-star count, $N_{\star,\rm mHC}(R_f,t)=\sum_{R_i} P_{\rm GHZ}(R_i\rightarrow R_f,t)\, N_\star(R_i\rightarrow R_f,t)$ (Eq. 10). The migration kernel is the Gaussian of Eq. (3), $\ln p(R_f|R_i,\tau)=\ln c_3 - (R_f-R_i)^2/(2\sigma_{\rm RM}\,\tau/10\,{\rm Gyr})$, where $\sigma_{\rm RM}$ is the diffusion strength in kpc; it redistributes each birth-radius population according to stellar age. The habitability probability $P_{\rm GHZ}(R_i\rightarrow R_f,t)$ combines the star formation history at the birth radius, a metallicity-dependent Earth-formation probability $P_E$ evaluated at the birth $[\rm Fe/H]$, and a supernova survival probability $P_{\rm SN}$ evaluated at the final radius. This separation, birth metallicity setting planet-forming capability and current position setting sterilizing environment, is what converts a migration prescription into a habitability map. The two gas-giant scenarios are encoded through $P_E([\rm Fe/H])=0.4\,(1\mp\langle P_{\rm GGP}(M_\star,[\rm Fe/H])\rangle_{\rm IMF})$, where the minus sign is the hazard scenario and the plus sign the catalyst scenario.

What would settle it

A survey of outer-disk (beyond 14 kpc) planet-host stars that measures birth locations through chemical tagging would settle it: the strong-migration models predict roughly a four-to-fivefold excess of metal-rich migrators at 18 kpc compared with in-situ stars, whereas finding a nearly in-situ, metal-poor population would rule out the enhancement. Alternatively, fitting the same diffusion prescription to age-metallicity data beyond 14 kpc and recovering $\sigma_{\rm RM}\approx1$ kpc, as the paper's own Model Weak does for local data, would collapse the factor to near unity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that two neglected processes reshape the Galactic Habitable Zone in opposite radial directions. Radial stellar migration, modeled as diffusion with strength $\sigma_{\rm RM}$, transports stars born in metal-rich inner regions outward; because those stars keep their birth metallicity but are exposed to lower supernova rates at larger radii, the outer disk gains habitable planets. In the extreme $\sigma_{\rm RM}=6$ kpc model, the number of FGK stars with minimum habitability conditions at 18 kpc is about 4.9 times the no-migration prediction around $t=6.1$ Gyr, and the outer boundary of the habitable zone widens. In the inner disk, the assumption that gas giants catalyze terrestrial planet formation raises planet-host numbers at the 4 kpc ring to about 1.4 times the gas-giant-hazard case for FGK stars (1.5 without migration), and about 2.8 times for retired A stars (3.3 without migration). Migration dilutes this inner enhancement by redistributing the affected stars outward. At the solar circle the total number of habitable FGK stars is nearly unchanged, but its birth-radius mix changes substantially.

Load-bearing premise

The outward boost assumes the Gaussian migration diffusion of Eq. (3), calibrated on observed star populations at 5 to 14 kpc, can be extrapolated to 3 to 19 kpc with strength $\sigma_{\rm RM}=3.5$ to 6 kpc; the paper's own metallicity comparison hints the true strength may be closer to $\sigma_{\rm RM}=1$ kpc, in which case the outer enhancement mostly disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The outer Milky Way, previously counted out of the habitable zone because it forms few stars and is metal-poor, becomes a candidate repository of habitable planets if migration is strong; organic molecules detected in outer-disk star-forming regions line up with this picture.
  • At the solar circle, surveys of planet hosts should see a mixed birth-radius population: a substantial share of FGK hosts currently at 8 kpc would have been born at 4, 6, or 10 kpc, so age and metallicity tagging can test the migration hypothesis.
  • If gas giants catalyze terrestrial planet formation, the inner 4 kpc ring is where the signature is strongest; future transit or microlensing surveys of inner-disk fields can look for the predicted excess of Earth-sized planets there.
  • The peak of habitability shifts from 8 kpc to 10 kpc when the supernova sterilization threshold is lowered, so GHZ maps remain strongly sensitive to how destructive supernovae actually are.
  • The paper's own comparison to observed local, inner, and outer planet-host metallicity distributions suggests that reproducing the data may require $\sigma_{\rm RM}\approx1$ kpc; under that calibration the outer-disk factor of five shrinks toward unity, making observational calibration of migration strength the key next step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If radial migration is genuinely strong, then planet-host stars in the outer disk should be systematically older and more metal-rich than the local interstellar medium there; this fossil record is testable with future spectroscopic surveys of outer-disk exoplanet hosts.
  • The catalyst-versus-hazard contrast implies an observational discriminator: terrestrial-planet occurrence among stars with and without cold giant companions should differ more strongly in the inner disk than at the solar circle, because super-solar metallicities dominate there, and migration weakens but does not erase the contrast.
  • The maps are likely sensitive to the assumed $[\rm Fe/H]=-1$ threshold for planet formation; if the true threshold is lower, the outer-disk enhancement would shrink because more in-situ metal-poor stars would already count as habitable.
  • A testable extension would compare the predicted spatial gradients in potentially habitable planet abundance with transit and microlensing demographics once surveys cover enough sky at different Galactocentric radii.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents updated maps of the Milky Way's Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) using a two-infall, multi-zone chemical evolution model, with two extensions over previous work: stellar radial migration is implemented via the Frankel et al. (2018) diffusion kernel with sigma_RM = 3.5 and 6 kpc, and the probability of terrestrial-planet formation is modified to account for gas giants as either hazards ('GG BAD', PE = 0.4 x (1 - <P_GGP>)) or catalysts ('GG GOOD', PE = 0.4 x (1 + <P_GGP>)). The main claims are that migration increases the number of FGK stars with minimum habitability conditions in the outer disc by up to a factor of about 5 at 18 kpc (for sigma_RM = 6), and that the GG GOOD scenario raises this number at 4 kpc by factors of about 1.4 (FGK) and 2.8 (retired A) compared to GG BAD, with slightly larger ratios when migration is absent. The paper also compares predicted metallicity distribution functions with an observed sample of low-mass planet hosts and tests sensitivity to the tmax delay.

Significance. If accepted with appropriate caveats, the migration part of this paper would be a useful first step in quantifying how radial migration reshapes the GHZ in a detailed chemical evolution framework. The implementation is transparent, the equations for migration are internally consistent, the tmax sensitivity test is a positive feature, and the CMDF comparison engages with observational data. However, the two headline quantitative claims need substantial qualification: the factor-of-five outer-Galaxy enhancement comes from an extreme, uncalibrated migration strength, and the gas-giant GOOD/BAD ratios are essentially a re-expression of the adopted PE parametrization rather than an independent test of the catalyst hypothesis. The paper is nevertheless likely to be of interest to the astrobiology and Galactic archaeology communities if reframed accordingly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (6) and (12), Fig. 10, Abstract] The abstract and conclusions highlight the factor of approximately 4.9 increase in N_mHC at 18 kpc, but this value comes exclusively from Model 4, which adopts sigma_RM = 6 kpc. The authors themselves describe this as an 'extreme case' and it is not independently calibrated in Section 2.2. The only calibration test presented in the paper, the CMDF comparison in Fig. 7, shows that sigma_RM = 1 kpc reproduces the observed local/inner/outer planet-host CMDFs nearly perfectly, while even Model 3 (sigma_RM = 3.5 kpc) overpredicts the migrating populations. The paper correctly notes that the observational sample constrains only blurring, not churning, so this comparison is not a complete measurement of sigma_RM; nevertheless, it does not support sigma_RM = 6, and the text itself states that 'a lower migration rate is needed to reproduce the data.' The factor-of-five headline should be presented as an upper-limit scenario, with the ratios for the reference and low-migration cases (e.g., Model 3 and the 'Model Weak' sigma_RM = 1 case) also reported in the abstract and conclusions. As written, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the manuscript's own calibration.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (6) and (12), Fig. 10, Abstract] The GG GOOD/GG BAD ratios in Fig. 10 are mathematically forced by the definitions of PE. The two scenarios differ only by the sign in front of <P_GGP>, and all other ingredients in Eq. (10) (SFR, PSN, migration) are identical when computed with the same sigma_RM. Consequently, the ratio of N_mHC at any given (R,t) is fully determined by the adopted Ghezzi et al. (2018) gas-giant occurrence relation and the model's predicted metallicity distribution; it does not add information beyond the assumed functional form of PE. The headline ratios quoted in the abstract (1.4, 2.8, 1.5, 3.3) are therefore a direct consequence of the ansatz in Eqs. (6) and (12). The authors should present these results explicitly as a sensitivity study of the PE parametrization, not as a new prediction that bears on whether gas giants actually catalyze terrestrial-planet formation. As it stands, the gas-giant section risks overinterpreting a tautology.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'relative to a baseline value of unity at 6 kpc' is unclear; the factor is taken relative to the no-migration model at the same radius and time, and the meaning of the 'baseline value of unity at 6 kpc' should be specified.
  2. [Section 4.2, footnote 5] The sentence 'This predicted ratio is approximately 4.9 for also both M stars and retired A stars' is awkward; please rephrase, for example as 'This predicted ratio is approximately 4.9 for M stars and retired A stars as well.'
  3. [Section 2.2] Please clarify whether the same age cut as in Frankel et al. (2018) is adopted here: the text says migration is not considered for an 'old disc' with age > 8 Gyr in their case, but the present model enables migration only after the second infall at tmax = 3.25 Gyr; the relation between these two time cuts should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Fig. 7] In the legend of the right panel, the 'Model Weak' curve should be labeled with its parameter value (sigma_RM = 1 kpc) so that the reader does not have to infer it from the caption text.
  5. [Fig. 7 caption and Appendix C] The acronym 'A&S' in the Fig. 7 caption is not defined in the caption; please expand it on first use (e.g., Ariel Stellar Catalogue and SWEET-Cat sample) to match the definition in Appendix C.
  6. [Eq. (4)] The asymmetric uncertainties of the Ghezzi et al. (2018) fitting coefficients are not propagated to the predicted GG GOOD/GG BAD ratios; a short discussion of the resulting uncertainty range would help the reader judge the robustness of the quoted factors.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The GG GOOD/GG BAD ratios are built into the definitions of PE; the migration results are independent and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Eq. (6); Section 3.3, Eq. (12); Section 4.3, Fig. 10]
    "Hence, the probability of forming an Earth-like planet, PE, as a function of the host star [Fe/H] abundance, assuming no formation of gas giants, is: PE([Fe/H]) = 0.4 × (1 − <PGGP(M⋆,[Fe/H])>IMF) ... which can be expressed as follows: PE([Fe/H]) = 0.4 × (1 + <PGGP(M⋆,[Fe/H])>IMF)."

    By construction, the two 'scenarios' differ only by the sign of the same IMF-weighted Ghezzi et al. (2018) gas-giant occurrence function <PGGP>. At fixed (R,t), the GG GOOD/GG BAD ratio of N⋆,mHC is therefore (1+x)/(1−x) with x=<PGGP>([Fe/H](R,t)), where the chemical evolution model supplies [Fe/H]. The paper's own statement that 'the two PE probabilities exhibit significant differences only at super-solar metallicities. Consequently, we expect disparities primarily in the innermost regions' shows that the reported spatial pattern is already contained in the assumed metallicity dependence of <PGGP>. The quoted ratios (1.4, 1.5, 2.8, 3.3) are analytic consequences of Eqs.

full rationale

The central migration claim is not circular: Eq. (3) is a Gaussian diffusion kernel taken from Frankel et al. (2018), and the adopted σRM=3.5 and σRM=6 kpc are external parameter choices, not fitted to the paper's own target quantities. The CMDF comparison in Fig. 7 is a genuine external check; the fact that Model 3 overpredicts migrators and 'Model Weak' (σRM=1) does better is a calibration concern about the reference/strong migration cases, not a definitional circularity. The authors' self-citations (Spitoni et al. 2014, 2017; Palla et al. 2022) supply the PE=0.4 baseline and the migration implementation, but these are traceable to external work (Lineweaver et al. 2004; Frankel et al. 2018) and are not used to define the claimed new result. The genuine circularity is confined to the GG GOOD/GG BAD comparison. Because Eq. (6) and Eq. (12) are affine functions of the same <PGGP> relation, the entire spatial and spectral pattern of the ratios in Fig. 10 — largest at 4 kpc, largest for retired A stars, negligible at the solar circle — is the input relation re-expressed through the model metallicity. Calling this a 'finding' or a 'prediction' of the model is therefore a constructed result, not an empirical discovery. This affects one of the two headline claims, but the migration factor-of-five statement does not reduce by construction, so the paper is only partially circular.

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

The central model rests on a small number of fitted or adopted quantities: migration strength, infall delay, baseline planet occurrence, SN threshold, and the Ghezzi et al. gas-giant occurrence law. There are no invented particles or forces. The GG GOOD probability is an invented modeling scenario, not an entity, and is called out as such.

free parameters (6)
  • sigma_RM (radial migration strength) = 3.5 kpc reference; 6 kpc extreme; 1 kpc weak
    Width of the Gaussian migration kernel in Eq. (3), from Frankel et al. (2018) and Palla et al. (2022); the paper's own CMDF test favors 1 kpc.
  • tmax (delay between disc infall episodes) = 3.25 Gyr (also 1 and 5 Gyr)
    Controls the start of the thin disc and of migration; sensitivity at 12 kpc is +6.4% for 1 Gyr and -8.0% for 5 Gyr.
  • PE baseline (Earth-like planet occurrence) = 0.4
    Uniform adopted value from Lineweaver et al. (2004) and Spitoni et al. (2017); not re-derived in this paper.
  • SN survival threshold multiplier = 2x solar-vicinity average for headline models (Case 2); 1x for Model 2
    Step function in Eq. (9); switching Case 2 to Case 1 shifts the GHZ peak from 8 kpc to 10 kpc.
  • P_GGP gas-giant occurrence coefficients = normalization 0.085, mass exponent 1.05, metallicity exponent 1.05
    From Ghezzi et al. (2018); enters linearly into PE via Eqs. (6) and (12), so it determines the GG GOOD/GG BAD ratios.
  • inside-out infall timescale tau_2(R) = 1.033 R - 1.267 Gyr
    Calibrated in earlier papers to abundance gradients; affects the metallicity history and hence PE.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Frankel et al. (2018) migration kernel, fitted to APOGEE stars at 5 to 14 kpc, remains valid when extrapolated to 3 to 19 kpc.
    Section 2.2 extends the relation to 3 to 19 kpc and acknowledges possible underestimation from the innermost regions.
  • domain assumption Supernova sterilization is a step function of the total SN rate relative to the solar-vicinity average.
    Eq. (9) in Section 3.1; the paper notes the precise effects of SN explosions on life are not fully understood.
  • domain assumption Terrestrial planet formation requires [Fe/H] > -1 and has a constant probability of 0.4 above that threshold for all stellar types.
    Section 3.1, based on Johnson & Li (2012) and Lineweaver et al. (2004).
  • domain assumption Stellar metallicity is inherited from the ISM at the birth radius and birth time, while SN damage is evaluated at the final radius.
    Section 3.2, after Eq. (11).
  • domain assumption Stellar migration is a passive tracer and does not change the ISM chemical evolution.
    Section 2.2 states that migration is only a passive tracer of chemical evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas giants can be treated as catalysts for terrestrial planet formation with PE = 0.4 times (1 + <P_GGP>).
    Eq. (12), Section 3.3; explicitly an exploratory extreme scenario, not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shaping Galactic Habitability: the impact of stellar migration and gas giants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYJNGBFI

@misc{pith2026250619981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shaping Galactic Habitability: the impact of stellar migration and gas giants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYJNGBFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19981}
}
read the original abstract

In exoplanet research, the focus is increasingly on identifying Earth analogs, planets similar in density and habitability potential. As the number of rocky exoplanets grows, parallel discussions have emerged on system architectures and Galactic environments that may support life, drawing comparisons to our own Earth. This has brought renewed attention to the concept of the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) as a broader context for interpreting the diversity of planetary environments. This study is the first to use detailed chemical evolution models to investigate the impact of stellar migration, modeled through a parametric approach, on the GHZ. Our findings reveal that stellar migration significantly enhances the number of stars capable of hosting habitable planets in the outer Galactic regions, with an increase of up to a factor of five at 18 kpc relative to a baseline value of unity at 6 kpc. Furthermore, we explore a novel scenario where the presence of gas giant planets increases the probability for the formation of terrestrial ones. We find that this increased probability is higher in the inner Galactic disc, but is also mitigated by stellar migration. In particular, at the present time, the number of FGK stars hosting terrestrial planets with minimum habitability conditions in the ring centered at 4 kpc is approximately 1.4 times higher than in scenarios where gas giants are assumed to hinder the formation and evolution of Earth-like planets. Without stellar migration, this factor increases to 1.5. Even larger ratios are predicted for terrestrial planets orbiting retired A stars, reaching 2.8 in models with stellar migration and 3.3 in models without it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19981 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The probability of forming planets as a function of metallicity and stellar type. Upper Panel: probabilities of forming gas giant planets as a function of [Fe/H] for M, FGK and retired A proposed by Ghezzi et al. (2018) are reported with the black, blue and red lines, respec￾tively. The probabilities have been IMF weighted as described in Sec￾tion 3.1. Fischer & Valenti (2005) relation is also shown with the dashed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Predictions of our multi-zone chemical evolution model presented in Section 2.1 as a function of the evo￾lutionary time t and the Galactocentric distance. Left Panel: evolution of the to￾tal (CC+Type Ia) SN rates. The red and green dashed horizontal lines indicate <RS N, ⊙> (case 1) and 2×<RS N, ⊙> (case 2) values, respectively, representing the minimum SN rate thresholds tested for SN explosion-induced destruction … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the probability PE of forming Earth-like planets and not gas giants (the "GG BAD" case reported in eq. 6 and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total number of different spectral stellar types hosting Earth￾like planets with minimum habitability conditions (N⋆,mHC in eq. 8) as a function of Galactic distance and time predicted by the chemical evo￾lution model without stellar migration (Model 1, see Section 3.1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total number of FGK stars with minimum habitability conditions (N⋆,mHC in eq. 8) as a function of Galactocentric distance and Galactic time predicted by the Model 2, i.e. Case 1 SN damage scenario and no stellar migration (see Section 3.1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the total number of FGK stars hosting minimum conditions for life (N⋆,mHC) in the solar vicinity (black dashed lines). Both panels show the contribution from stars born in situ within the solar annulus (Ri = Rf = 8 kpc, dark blue lines) as well as…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Total number of FGK stars having Earths (N⋆,mHC) as a func￾tion of the Galactocentric distance and time considering the Case 2 SN destruction scenario. Upper Panel: Results from the reference model without including stellar migration (Model 1). Middle Panel: Results fr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ratios of the number of FGK stars hosting Earth-like planets (N⋆,mHC) in models with stellar migration to the reference model without migration, as a function of Galactocentric distance and Galactic time. All considered models adopt Case 2 for SN damage. Upper panel: s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratios between the predicted number of stars having Earths (N⋆,mHC) of the two different prescriptions for PE as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 3 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Probing the origins. III. Exoplanet demographics across Galactic birth radii

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Giant-planet hosts preferentially formed in the metal-rich inner Galaxy and later migrated, while rocky-only systems are less centrally concentrated and show smaller radial excursions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    S., Aguilar , G., et al

    Abolfathi , B., Aguado , D. S., Aguilar , G., et al. 2018, , 235, 42

    2018

  4. [4]

    2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

    Adibekyan , V. 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

    2019

  5. [5]

    D., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Alam , S., Albareti , F. D., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2015, , 219, 12

    2015

  6. [6]

    2022, , 512, 505

    Ambrifi , A., Balbi , A., Lingam , M., Tombesi , F., & Perlman , E. 2022, , 512, 505

    2022

  7. [7]

    Armitage , P. J. 2003, , 582, L47

    2003

  8. [8]

    Baba , J., Tsujimoto , T., & Saitoh , T. R. 2024, , 976, L29

    2024

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    2020, Life, 10, 132

    Balbi , A., Hami , M., & Kova c evi \'c , A. 2020, Life, 10, 132

    2020

  2. [10]

    J., Pascucci , I., Mulders , G

    Bergsten , G. J., Pascucci , I., Mulders , G. D., Fernandes , R. B., & Koskinen , T. T. 2022, , 164, 190

    2022

  3. [11]

    J., Sephus , C

    Bernal , J. J., Sephus , C. D., & Ziurys , L. M. 2021, , 922, 106

    2021

  4. [12]

    2015, , 216, 29

    Bovy , J. 2015, , 216, 29

    2015

  5. [13]

    2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 511

    Brucalassi , A., Tsantaki , M., Magrini , L., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 511

    2022

  6. [14]

    A., Bitsch , B., Johansen , A., et al

    Buchhave , L. A., Bitsch , B., Johansen , A., et al. 2018, , 856, 37

    2018

  7. [15]

    A., Latham , D

    Buchhave , L. A., Latham , D. W., Johansen , A., et al. 2012, , 486, 375

    2012

  8. [16]

    2013, , 49, 253

    Carigi , L., Garc \' a-Rojas , J., & Meneses-Goytia , S. 2013, , 49, 253

    2013

  9. [17]

    1997, , 477, 765

    Chiappini , C., Matteucci , F., & Gratton , R. 1997, , 477, 765

    1997

  10. [18]

    2001, , 554, 1044

    Chiappini , C., Matteucci , F., & Romano , D. 2001, , 554, 1044

    2001

  11. [19]

    2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 473

    Danielski , C., Brucalassi , A., Benatti , S., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 473

    2022

  12. [20]

    C., et al

    de Laverny , P., Recio-Blanco , A., Worley , C. C., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 153, 18

    2013

  13. [21]

    & Schramm , D

    Ellis , J. & Schramm , D. N. 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 92, 235

    1995

  14. [22]

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

    2005

  15. [23]

    2022, , 664, A154

    Fontani , F., Schmiedeke , A., S \'a nchez-Monge , A., et al. 2022, , 664, A154

    2022

  16. [24]

    2024, , 691, A180

    Fontani , F., Vermari \"e n , G., Viti , S., et al. 2024, , 691, A180

    2024

  17. [25]

    2017, International Journal of Astrobiology, 16, 60

    Forgan , D., Dayal , P., Cockell , C., & Libeskind , N. 2017, International Journal of Astrobiology, 16, 60

    2017

  18. [26]

    Frankel , N., Rix , H.-W., Ting , Y.-S., Ness , M., & Hogg , D. W. 2018, , 865, 96

    2018

  19. [27]

    2020, , 896, 15

    Frankel , N., Sanders , J., Ting , Y.-S., & Rix , H.-W. 2020, , 896, 15

    2020

  20. [28]

    M., Jackman , C

    Gehrels , N., Laird , C. M., Jackman , C. H., et al. 2003, , 585, 1169

    2003

  21. [29]

    T., & Johnson , J

    Ghezzi , L., Montet , B. T., & Johnson , J. A. 2018, , 860, 109

    2018

  22. [30]

    & Hong , S

    Gobat , R. & Hong , S. E. 2016, , 592, A96

    2016

  23. [31]

    2001, , 152, 185

    Gonzalez , G., Brownlee , D., & Ward , P. 2001, , 152, 185

    2001

  24. [32]

    2018, , 481, 2570

    Grisoni , V., Spitoni , E., & Matteucci , F. 2018, , 481, 2570

    2018

  25. [33]

    He , M. Y. & Weiss , L. M. 2023, , 166, 36

    2023

  26. [34]

    1999, , 125, 439

    Iwamoto , K., Brachwitz , F., Nomoto , K., et al. 1999, , 125, 439

    1999

  27. [35]

    Johnson , J. L. & Li , H. 2012, , 751, 81

    2012

  28. [36]

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 1998, , 498, 541

    1998

  29. [37]

    2011, , 476, 429

    Kirkby , J., Curtius , J., Almeida , J., et al. 2011, , 476, 429

    2011

  30. [38]

    A., & Gilmore , G

    Kroupa , P., Tout , C. A., & Gilmore , G. 1993, , 262, 545

    1993

  31. [39]

    Krug, A. Z. & Jablonski, D. 2012, Geology, 40, 731

    2012

  32. [40]

    2013, , 436, 1479

    Kubryk , M., Prantzos , N., & Athanassoula , E. 2013, , 436, 1479

    2013

  33. [41]

    2015, , 580, A126

    Kubryk , M., Prantzos , N., & Athanassoula , E. 2015, , 580, A126

    2015

  34. [42]

    & Chieffi , A

    Limongi , M. & Chieffi , A. 2018, , 237, 13

    2018

  35. [43]

    H., Fenner , Y., & Gibson , B

    Lineweaver , C. H., Fenner , Y., & Gibson , B. K. 2004, Science, 303, 59

    2004

  36. [44]

    Lodders , K., Palme , H., & Gail , H. P. 2009, Landolt B \"o rnstein, 4B, 712

    2009

  37. [45]

    & Kalnajs , A

    Lynden-Bell , D. & Kalnajs , A. J. 1972, , 157, 1

    1972

  38. [46]

    W., Reinhard , C

    Lyons , T. W., Reinhard , C. T., & Planavsky , N. J. 2014, , 506, 307

    2014

  39. [47]

    T., Bovy , J., Schiavon , R

    Mackereth , J. T., Bovy , J., Schiavon , R. P., et al. 2017, , 471, 3057

    2017

  40. [48]

    2022, , 663, A161

    Magrini , L., Danielski , C., Bossini , D., et al. 2022, , 663, A161

    2022

  41. [49]

    2013, , 767, 129

    Matsumura , S., Ida , S., & Nagasawa , M. 2013, , 767, 129

    2013

  42. [50]

    2021, , 29, 5

    Matteucci , F. 2021, , 29, 5

    2021

  43. [51]

    & Francois , P

    Matteucci , F. & Francois , P. 1989, , 239, 885

    1989

  44. [52]

    & Recchi , S

    Matteucci , F. & Recchi , S. 2001, , 558, 351

    2001

  45. [53]

    F., Parravano , A., & Hollenbach , D

    McKee , C. F., Parravano , A., & Hollenbach , D. J. 2015, , 814, 13

    2015

  46. [54]

    2013, , 558, A9

    Minchev , I., Chiappini , C., & Martig , M. 2013, , 558, A9

    2013

  47. [55]

    2015, , 804, L9

    Minchev , I., Martig , M., Streich , D., et al. 2015, , 804, L9

    2015

  48. [56]

    & Quillen , A

    Minchev , I. & Quillen , A. C. 2006, , 368, 623

    2006

  49. [57]

    2023, , 523, 2974

    Molero , M., Magrini , L., Matteucci , F., et al. 2023, , 523, 2974

    2023

  50. [58]

    2025, , 694, A274

    Molero , M., Magrini , L., Palla , M., et al. 2025, , 694, A274

    2025

  51. [59]

    Molero , M., Matteucci , F., Spitoni , E., Rojas-Arriagada , A., & Rich , R. M. 2024, , 687, A268

    2024

  52. [60]

    I., O'Brien , D

    Morbidelli , A., Lunine , J. I., O'Brien , D. P., Raymond , S. N., & Walsh , K. J. 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 251

    2012

  53. [61]

    E., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., Mosumgaard , J

    Nissen , P. E., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., Mosumgaard , J. R., et al. 2020, , 640, A81

    2020

  54. [62]

    P., Izidoro , A., Jacobson , S

    O'Brien , D. P., Izidoro , A., Jacobson , S. A., Raymond , S. N., & Rubie , D. C. 2018, , 214, 47

    2018

  55. [63]

    Pagel, B. E. J. 2006, Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    2006

  56. [64]

    2024, , 690, A334

    Palla , M., Magrini , L., Spitoni , E., et al. 2024, , 690, A334

    2024

  57. [65]

    2020, , 498, 1710

    Palla , M., Matteucci , F., Spitoni , E., Vincenzo , F., & Grisoni , V. 2020, , 498, 1710

    2020

  58. [66]

    2022, , 663, A125

    Palla , M., Santos-Peral , P., Recio-Blanco , A., & Matteucci , F. 2022, , 663, A125

    2022

  59. [67]

    A., Marcy , G

    Petigura , E. A., Marcy , G. W., Winn , J. N., et al. 2018, , 155, 89

    2018

  60. [68]

    2008, , 135, 313

    Prantzos , N. 2008, , 135, 313

    2008

  61. [69]

    2018, , 476, 3432

    Prantzos , N., Abia , C., Limongi , M., Chieffi , A., & Cristallo , S. 2018, , 476, 3432

    2018

  62. [70]

    P., Ottiger , M., Fontanet , E., et al

    Quanz , S. P., Ottiger , M., Fontanet , E., et al. 2022, , 664, A21

    2022

  63. [71]

    2023, , 525, 2208

    Ratcliffe , B., Minchev , I., Anders , F., et al. 2023, , 525, 2208

    2023

  64. [72]

    2024, , 528, 3464

    Ratcliffe , B., Minchev , I., Cescutti , G., et al. 2024, , 528, 3464

    2024

  65. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    2019, , 489, 5244

    Rizzuti , F., Cescutti , G., Matteucci , F., et al. 2019, , 489, 5244

    2019

  67. [75]

    I., Tosi , M., & Matteucci , F

    Romano , D., Karakas , A. I., Tosi , M., & Matteucci , F. 2010, , 522, A32

    2010

  68. [76]

    J., & Ventura , P

    Romano , D., Matteucci , F., Zhang , Z.-Y., Ivison , R. J., & Ventura , P. 2019, , 490, 2838

    2019

  69. [77]

    P., Stinson , G

    Ro s kar , R., Debattista , V. P., Stinson , G. S., et al. 2008, , 675, L65

    2008

  70. [78]

    C., Sousa , S

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

    2013

  71. [79]

    2020, , 639, A140

    Santos-Peral , P., Recio-Blanco , A., de Laverny , P., Fern \'a ndez-Alvar , E., & Ordenovic , C. 2020, , 639, A140

    2020

  72. [80]

    2021, , 653, A85

    Santos-Peral , P., Recio-Blanco , A., Kordopatis , G., Fern \'a ndez-Alvar , E., & de Laverny , P. 2021, , 653, A85

    2021

  73. [81]

    Scalo , J. M. 1986, , 11, 1

    1986

  74. [82]

    2024, Astrobiology, 24, e916

    Scherf , M., Lammer , H., & Spross , L. 2024, Astrobiology, 24, e916

    2024

  75. [83]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Carlberg , R. G. 2014, , 785, 137

    2014

  76. [84]

    2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 5419

    Sloan , D., Alves Batista , R., & Loeb , A. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 5419

    2017

  77. [85]

    A., & Sch \"o nrich , R

    Solway , M., Sellwood , J. A., & Sch \"o nrich , R. 2012, , 422, 1363

    2012

  78. [86]

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

    Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V., Delgado-Mena , E., et al. 2021, , 656, A53

    2021

  79. [87]

    2021, , 647, A41

    Spinelli , R., Ghirlanda , G., Haardt , F., Ghisellini , G., & Scuderi , G. 2021, , 647, A41

    2021

  80. [88]

    2022, , 663, A174

    Spitoni , E., Aguirre B rsen-Koch , V., Verma , K., & Stokholm , A. 2022, , 663, A174

    2022

  81. [89]

    2017, , 605, A38

    Spitoni , E., Gioannini , L., & Matteucci , F. 2017, , 605, A38

    2017

  82. [90]

    2024, , 690, A208

    Spitoni , E., Matteucci , F., Gratton , R., et al. 2024, , 690, A208

    2024

  83. [91]

    2009, , 504, 87

    Spitoni , E., Matteucci , F., Recchi , S., Cescutti , G., & Pipino , A. 2009, , 504, 87

    2009

  84. [92]

    2014, , 440, 2588

    Spitoni , E., Matteucci , F., & Sozzetti , A. 2014, , 440, 2588

    2014

  85. [93]

    2019, , 623, A60

    Spitoni , E., Silva Aguirre , V., Matteucci , F., Calura , F., & Grisoni , V. 2019, , 623, A60

    2019

  86. [94]

    2020, , 635, A58

    Spitoni , E., Verma , K., Silva Aguirre , V., & Calura , F. 2020, , 635, A58

    2020

  87. [95]

    2022, , 49, e96376

    Svensmark , H. 2022, , 49, e96376

    2022

  88. [96]

    2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 128, e2022JD037766

    Svensmark , J. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 128, e2022JD037766

    2023

  89. [97]

    2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    Tinetti , G., Drossart , P., Eccleston , P., et al. 2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    2018

  90. [98]

    2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022--1114

    Tinetti , G., Eccleston , P., Lueftinger , T., et al. 2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022--1114

    2022

  91. [99]

    1996, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 108, 1073

    Trimble, V. 1996, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 108, 1073

    1996

  92. [100]

    2025, , 697, A102

    Tsantaki , M., Magrini , L., Danielski , C., et al. 2025, , 697, A102

    2025

  93. [101]

    Tsiganis , K., Gomes , R., Morbidelli , A., & Levison , H. F. 2005, , 435, 459

    2005

  94. [102]

    2013, , 431, 3642

    Ventura , P., Di Criscienzo , M., Carini , R., & D'Antona , F. 2013, , 431, 3642

    2013

  95. [103]

    2016, , 459, 3512

    Vukoti \'c , B., Steinhauser , D., Martinez-Aviles , G., et al. 2016, , 459, 3512

    2016

  96. [104]

    J., Morbidelli , A., Raymond , S

    Walsh , K. J., Morbidelli , A., Raymond , S. N., O'Brien , D. P., & Mandell , A. M. 2011, , 475, 206

    2011

  97. [105]

    2016, , 833, 214

    Zackrisson , E., Calissendorff , P., Gonz \'a lez , J., et al. 2016, , 833, 214

    2016

  98. [106]

    & Wu , Y

    Zhu , W. & Wu , Y. 2018, , 156, 92

    2018

  99. [107]

    K., Hardegree-Ullman , K

    Zink , J. K., Hardegree-Ullman , K. K., Christiansen , J. L., et al. 2023, , 165, 262

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.