Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Metallicities of M Dwarf Planet Host Stars from Kepler, K2, and TESS observed by APOGEE: Trends with Exoplanetary Radii and Orbital Periods

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Metal-poor M dwarfs never host planets larger than about three Earths, and planets with orbits shorter than 4.3 days orbit metal-rich stars instead.

desk verdict The homogeneous APOGEE metallicity scale and the radius-metallicity trend are solid, but the 4.3-day period threshold is a minimum-p scan artifact and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04066 v3 pith:EITZB4GN submitted 2025-07-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Fábio Wanderley , Katia Cunha , Diogo Souto , Verne Smith , Simone Daflon This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords MdwarfstarsexoplanethostmetallicityAPOGEEspectraspectralsynthesisradiiorbitalperiod-metallicityrelationplanetmultiplicityGalacticchemicalevolution
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 show that the metal content of M dwarf stars shapes the planets they host: planets larger than about three Earth radii appear only around metal-rich M dwarfs, while smaller planets form across the whole metallicity range. It also claims that planets on short orbits tend to orbit metal-rich M dwarfs, with the transition between two distinct host-metallicity populations at an orbital period of roughly 4.3 days. The authors derive metallicities and oxygen abundances for 48 M dwarf planet hosts from high-resolution near-infrared APOGEE spectra using spectral synthesis, and combine them with radii and periods for 246 planets around 188 M dwarfs from Kepler, K2, and TESS. Establishing these trends matters because M dwarfs are the most numerous stars and a prime target for future planet characterization; if the trends are physical, they constrain where and how planets form around low-mass stars.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a metallicity scale for M dwarfs built from LTE spectral synthesis of APOGEE near-infrared spectra using a radiative transfer code and standard cool-star model atmospheres, fitting water and OH molecular features to derive $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, $[\mathrm{M/H}]$, and oxygen abundances. Validation against benchmark M dwarfs in binaries with FGK companions gives a median offset of $+0.01 \pm 0.04$ dex, anchoring the scale. On the planet side, radii come from transit depths and an $M_{K_s}$-based stellar radius relation. The period threshold is located by a period-scanning procedure: for each 0.1-day cutoff, the host-metallicity distributions of shorter- versus longer-period planets are compared with two-sample distribution tests, and the minimum $p$-value ($6.4\times10^{-5}$) selects $P_{\rm orb} = 4.3$ days; kernel regression and median metallicities confirm the step. The dust sublimation radius $R_{\rm sub}$, scaling as the square root of stellar luminosity, is the proposed physical mechanism for why the threshold is shorter than for FGK stars.

What would settle it

Find one well-measured M dwarf with $[\mathrm{M/H}] < 0.0$ hosting a transiting planet with radius above $3\,R_\oplus$ in a sample free of selection bias, and the metallicity threshold for large planets fails. Likewise, a volume-complete or selection-corrected survey of M dwarf hosts that shows the $[\mathrm{M/H}]$ step at 4.3 days disappears -- for example, because metal-poor short-period hosts were missed -- would falsify the period-metallicity transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a set of metallicity-dependent thresholds in M dwarf planetary systems. In the sample, every planet with radius $R_p > 3\,R_\oplus$ orbits an M dwarf with $[\mathrm{M/H}] \geq 0.0$, while planets smaller than $3\,R_\oplus$ are found around hosts spanning $[\mathrm{M/H}]$ from $-0.6$ to $+0.3$. Host metallicity also anti-correlates with orbital period: stars hosting planets with $P_{\rm orb} < 4.3$ days are statistically more metal-rich than stars hosting longer-period planets, the sharpest division found by scanning period thresholds and applying two-sample distribution tests. For the largest planets ($R_p > 4\,R_\oplus$), the orbital-period distribution peaks sharply between 2 and 5 days, which the authors attribute to inward migration. Multi-planet systems stand apart: their hosts are more metal-poor than single-planet hosts, and, with one exception, all their planets have $R_p < 3\,R_\oplus$. These trends mirror those seen around hotter FGK stars but with a shorter period threshold (4.3 days versus 8--10 days), which the paper suggests may reflect the smaller dust sublimation radius around the lower-luminosity M dwarfs.

Load-bearing premise

The sample combines stars from Kepler, K2, TESS, and APOGEE target selections without applying a selection function or completeness correction, so the trends are interpreted as physical only if the observed M dwarf planet hosts represent the full M dwarf planet population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Targeted searches for giant planets around M dwarfs should concentrate on metal-rich stars, since the sample finds no $R_p > 3\,R_\oplus$ planets around $[\mathrm{M/H}] < 0$ hosts.
  • The 4.3-day host-metallicity step predicts that surveys of even later, lower-luminosity M dwarfs should find the transition at shorter periods if dust sublimation sets it.
  • Because multi-planet M dwarf systems are metal-poor and host only small planets, transit statistics that count single versus multiple systems will be skewed by metallicity; interpretations of multiplicity rates need this offset.
  • The 2--5 day pile-up of large planets implies inward migration is efficient around M dwarfs, so wide-orbit giant planets around M dwarfs should be rare relative to hot giants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the trends are physical, the frequency of large planets around M dwarfs should be a steep function of $[\mathrm{M/H}]$; a straightforward test is to compare planet occurrence rates in a metallicity-complete M dwarf sample, split at $[\mathrm{M/H}] = 0$.
  • The single-versus-multi metallicity offset may partly be a detection bias: metal-rich disks are predicted to produce more mutually inclined multi-planet systems, making more of their planets transit-undetectable, so the 'single' population around metal-rich stars could hide unseen companions; the paper raises this but does not resolve it.
  • The dust-sublimation explanation is testable at the population level: if $R_{\rm sub}$ sets the threshold, stars of similar luminosity should show the same period cutoff regardless of other properties, and the cutoff should scale with $L^{1/2}$ across spectral types.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper derives stellar metallicities ([M/H]) and oxygen abundances ([O/H]) for 48 M dwarf planet hosts using LTE spectrum synthesis of APOGEE near-infrared spectra, and analyzes exoplanet radii and orbital periods for a larger sample of 246 planets around 188 M dwarfs from Kepler, K2, and TESS. The main findings are that small planets (<3 R_Earth) orbit stars spanning a wide metallicity range (-0.6<[M/H]<+0.3), while larger planets in the sample are found only around stars with [M/H]>=0.0; that short-period planets (P_orb<4.3 days) orbit more metal-rich stars than long-period planets; that large planets (R_p>4 R_Earth) pile up at orbital periods near 2-5 days; and that multi-planet systems are more metal-poor and host only smaller planets. The paper also places the sample in Galactic context using the [O/M]-[M/H] relation.

Significance. If the trends are robust, the paper offers valuable evidence that planet formation around M dwarfs has metallicity-dependent channels that are analogous to, but quantitatively different from, FGK stars, particularly the shorter period threshold of 4.3 days. The metallicity scale is a strength: it is validated against binary benchmark M dwarfs with FGK companions (median offset +0.01+-0.04 dex) and against external FGK samples, and the radius-metallicity trend is qualitatively visible in Figure 5 and consistent with previous literature. The paper also benefits from explicit comparisons with FGK host populations. However, the statistical treatment of the period threshold currently overstates the significance, and the lack of a selection-function analysis weakens the strong 'only around metal-rich stars' claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 6 (top panel)] The minimum K-S p-value of 6.4e-5 at P_orb=4.3 days is quoted as a 99% confidence detection of a transition period, but this value is the minimum of a scan over thresholds in 0.1-day steps with no multiple-testing correction. Because the threshold tests are highly correlated, the reported p-value is a look-elsewhere effect and the global significance is likely much weaker. The authors should present a permutation or bootstrap calibration over the full threshold grid, or clearly downgrade the claim to an exploratory finding.
  2. [Section 2 and Sections 3.2-3.3] The sample combines Kepler, K2, TESS, and APOGEE targets without applying a selection function or completeness correction. The central claims that planets with R_p>3 R_Earth occur only around stars with [M/H]>=0, and that there is a sharp period threshold at 4.3 days, are vulnerable to selection effects: if metal-poor M dwarfs with large planets or short-period planets are systematically missing from APOGEE or from the transit surveys, the trends would be artifacts. The authors should either quantify the selection function and show that the conclusions survive, or soften the 'only' language in the Conclusions and abstract.
  3. [Section 3.2 (K-S and rank-correlation tests)] The K-S tests and the Kendall tau and Spearman rho correlations treat individual planets as independent data points, but multiple planets from the same host star share a single [M/H] value. With 65 planets around 45 stars, and 13 multi-planet systems, the effective independent sample size is smaller than the number of planets, making the p-values anti-conservative. The analyses should be repeated using one planet per system, or with a bootstrap that resamples by host star, to verify that the reported significances (e.g., p=0.002 for singles vs. multis) remain.
  4. [Section 3.2 (quadratic fit and upper envelope)] The quadratic fit R_p = 2.83 + 4.20 [M/H] + 2.42 [M/H]^2 is derived using only the largest planets of multiple systems (red filled circles), and the statement that 'there is an absence of exoplanets with R_p > 2.5 R_Earth around stars with [M/H]<0' is based on a small and heterogeneous sample. The upper envelope is suggestive, but the phrase 'threshold in the maximum planet size' overstates the evidence, especially without quantifying detection completeness in the metal-poor regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figure 4] The black dashed line in Figure 4 is described in the text as the input abundance pattern of the MARCS model grid and is labeled only as 'schematic relation' in the figure; labeling it directly in the figure as 'MARCS input/schematic' would avoid confusion with an independent Galactic chemical evolution track.
  2. [Section 3.3] There is a typo in the text: 'R oplus' appears where 'R_Earth' or 'R_sun' is intended in the sentence 'most Hot Neptunes (2 R_Earth < R_p < 6 R_oplus)'.
  3. [Conclusions and Abstract] The Conclusion states 'larger exoplanets, with R_p > 3 R_Earth, are found only around the more metal-rich M dwarfs, with [M/H] > +0.0', while the Abstract and Figure 5 use [M/H] >= 0.0; these notations should be reconciled.
  4. [Section 3.3] The statement that conclusions would not change if the sample were split by mission is only qualitative; providing a brief quantitative breakdown (e.g., the period threshold and radius-metallicity slope for each mission subsample) would strengthen this robustness check.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 4.3-day period–metallicity transition is the argmin of a scanned K-S p-value curve reported as a 99%-confidence detection, and the [O/M]–[M/H] thin-disk relation reproduces the MARCS model-grid input abundance pattern.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Figure 6 top panel; Conclusions bullet 3]
    "To compute the p-values, we separated our sample considering different thresholds in orbital periods in a 0.1-day step. For each orbital period threshold, we divided the sample into a 'short-period' sample and 'long-period' sample, and we performed a K-S test between the two corresponding metallicity distributions, computing its p-value. The lowest p-value obtained was 6.4×10−5, corresponding to an orbital period of P_orb=4.3 days ..."

    The transition period P_orb=4.3 days is not a pre-specified hypothesis; it is the argmin of the K-S p-value curve over a 0.1-day grid of thresholds. The reported p-value is therefore the minimum of many correlated tests, and its nominal value is a selected extremum, not the probability under a fixed threshold. Reporting this minimum as a 99%-confidence detection of a transition is statistically forced by the scanning procedure: the threshold and the significance are derived from the same optimization, so the 'prediction' of a transition at 4.3 days is an artifact of choosing the split that best separates the two [M/H] distributions.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.1, Figure 4 and accompanying text]
    "This behavior is illustrated by the black dashed line in Figure 4, which represents a schematic relation between oxygen and metallicity of [O/M]=−0.4×[M/H] down to [M/H]=−1.0, below which the plateau value of [O/M]=+0.4 is reached (we note that this particular chemical abundance pattern is shown as it is in the input abundances for the MARCS stellar model atmosphere grid Gustafsson et al. 2008) used in this study."

    The paper presents the tight [O/M] versus [M/H] sequence in Figure 4 as a Galactic thin-disk trend, but the dashed reference relation it uses to define that trend is literally the input abundance pattern of the MARCS model atmospheres employed in the spectral fits. Since the stellar parameters [M/H] and A(O) are derived by fitting synthetic spectra computed from this same grid, the model grid's assumed [O/M]–[M/H] pattern can imprint itself into the derived abundances. The agreement between the data and this relation is therefore partly guaranteed by construction rather than being an independent measurement of Galactic chemical evolution.

full rationale

The paper's main exoplanet-radius/metallicity trend (larger planets only around metal-rich hosts) is not circular: the metallicity scale is anchored to binary benchmark M dwarfs with literature FGK metallicities, giving a median offset of +0.01±0.04, and the radius–period pile-up is a direct empirical statement. The self-citations to Wanderley et al. (2023, 2025) concern calibration relations and sample construction rather than the load-bearing claim, and they are not the source of the circularity identified here. The 4.3-day transition period, however, is the minimum of a threshold scan over the same data used to evaluate its significance; reporting that minimum p-value as a 99%-confidence detection is a selected-extremum effect that makes the headline transition statistically forced. In addition, the [O/M]–[M/H] thin-disk relation is tied to the MARCS input abundance pattern, which the paper discloses but which still makes that particular Galactic-trend conclusion partly self-consistent with the model grid rather than independently measured. These two issues affect supporting and headline conclusions, so the paper is partially circular rather than fully self-contained. Score 6 reflects that partial circularity; the exoplanet radius–metallicity and multiplicity comparisons retain independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main external inputs are the MARCS abundance pattern, the M_Ks radius relation from the group's prior paper, and the assumption that the APOGEE subsample is representative. The O/M galactic-context result is partly co-determined by the model grid's input abundances, which the paper acknowledges.

free parameters (3)
  • a0, a1, a2 in M_Ks-radius relation = a0=1.7420, a1=-0.2925, a2=0.0123
    Derived in Wanderley et al. (2025) and used in Eq. 1 to compute stellar radii for 24 stars; radii feed directly into exoplanet radii via Eq. 2 and therefore into the radius-metallicity boundary.
  • Quadratic fit coefficients for Rp versus [M/H] = 2.83, 4.20, 2.42 (R_Earth units)
    Fitted to the largest planets of multi-planet systems in Figure 5 and used to characterize the upper envelope of planetary radius with metallicity; no uncertainties or goodness-of-fit are reported.
  • Kernel regression bandwidth = sigma = 0.50
    Chosen by hand in Figure 6 following Wilson et al. (2018); affects the smooth metallicity-period curve but not the K-S threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LTE assumption in spectral synthesis of M dwarf spectra.
    Section 2.1 states synthetic spectra are computed in LTE; non-LTE effects on OH lines and continuum could bias Teff, [M/H], and A(O), and the paper does not assess their magnitude.
  • domain assumption MARCS model grid's input abundance pattern ([O/M] versus [M/H] relation) is appropriate for M dwarfs.
    Section 3.1 notes the schematic thin-disk relation shown is the input abundance pattern of the MARCS grid; if the grid imprints this relation, the observed O/M trend is not fully independent.
  • domain assumption Binary benchmark M dwarfs and their FGK companions are chemically homogeneous in [M/H].
    Section 2.1.1 uses 10 benchmark stars from Souto et al. (2020, 2022) to validate the metallicity scale, assuming the cooler and warmer stars in each binary formed with the same metal content.
  • domain assumption Stellar radii from the M_Ks relation (Eq. 1) and literature transit depths are accurate enough to derive exoplanet radii.
    Section 2.2 uses Eq. 1 from Wanderley et al. (2025) and Eq. 2 to compute Rp; errors in R* propagate directly into Rp and into the radius-metallicity boundary.
  • domain assumption The APOGEE-observed planet-host sample is representative of the underlying M dwarf planet population.
    Section 2 combines Kepler, K2, TESS, and APOGEE targets without a selection function or completeness correction; if metal-poor M dwarfs with large or short-period planets are missing, the central trends would be artifacts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metallicities of M Dwarf Planet Host Stars from Kepler, K2, and TESS observed by APOGEE: Trends with Exoplanetary Radii and Orbital Periods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EITZB4GN

@misc{pith2026250704066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metallicities of M Dwarf Planet Host Stars from Kepler, K2, and TESS observed by APOGEE: Trends with Exoplanetary Radii and Orbital Periods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EITZB4GN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04066}
}
abstract

One important property in studying the exoplanet population is the host star metallicity ([M/H]). In this study, we derived stellar metallicities and oxygen abundances for 48 M dwarf stars using the near-infrared high-resolution spectra from the SDSS APOGEE survey and synthetic spectra computed in LTE. We also derived and investigated the exoplanetary radii distribution for a larger sample of 246 exoplanets orbiting 188 M dwarf stars. The [M/H] versus [O/M] distribution obtained indicates that our sample is composed mainly of thin disk stars, which follow the behavior of the low-alpha sequence in the Milky Way thin disk. Small planets with radii smaller than 3R$_{\oplus}$ were found around stars with a range of metallicities (-0.6$<$[M/H]$<$+0.3), while larger planets of the sample orbit only stars with [M/H]$\geq0.0$. These results indicate that while small planets can form in different environments, larger planets preferentially form in metal-rich protoplanetary disks. Exoplanets with P$_{\rm orb}<$4.3 days orbit on average more metal-rich stars than planets with longer periods. This threshold is smaller than that found for FGK stars (8--10 days) and might be related to M dwarfs having a smaller dust sublimation radius. The distribution of exoplanets with R$_{\rm p}>$4R$_{\oplus}$ shows a concentration at orbital periods between 2 and 5 days, which may result from inward orbital migration. There is also a different behavior between single-detected exoplanets and planets from multiplanetary systems, with the latter being found on average around more metal-poor stars, and with planetary radii roughly up to 3 R$_{\oplus}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04066 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between the APOGEE spectrum of the star Kepler-1308 (in black) and a spectral synthe￾sis produced with the radiative transfer code Turbospec￾trum (in orange) for the derived stellar parameters for the star: Teff=3625 K, log g=4.75, [M/H]=0.13, A(O)=8.75 and vsin i=3.32 km s−1 . Each panel of the figure represents one of the three chips of the APOGEE detector. We also show the residuals between the observe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. provides a visual summary of the stellar pa￾rameters for the APOGEE sample M dwarfs, both in a Kiel diagram, with log g versus Teff (top panel), and in the stellar radius as a function of Teff (bottom panel). In both panels, results are shown as a function of the derived stellar metallicity, according to the color bar on the right side of the figure. The individual ages of the studied M dwarfs are unknown, but for r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel: a comparison between the derived metallicities for the APOGEE sample M dwarfs with results from ASPCAP DR17, as a function of effective tempera￾tures derived from this work. Lower panel: a comparison between the derived metallicities for a sample of M dwarfs with FGK companions and the results for these companions from the literature, as a function of effective temperatures derived from this work. used … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of [O/M] as a function of metallici￾ties. The studied sample of M dwarf planet hosts is shown as black circles, benchmark M dwarfs from Souto et al. (2022) are represented as cyan circles. Results for F and G main￾sequence stars from the high-resolution op…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top Panels: Distribution of the derived planetary radii as a function of the derived host star metallicities (left panel) and [O/H] values (right panel). Single-detected planets are represented by filled blue circles, while systems known to have two or multiple detecte…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top Panel: p-values of the K-S tests calculated for the probability that the metallicity distributions of exoplan￾ets having orbital periods above and below a given threshold in orbital periods are drawn from the same parent distribu￾tion. There is a statistically sign…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the derived planetary radii as a function of planetary orbital periods. Single-detected plan￾ets are the filled blue circles, exoplanets that are the largest planet of multiplanetary systems are represented by filled red circles, and the remaining exopl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

    Adibekyan, V. 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Z., Sousa, S

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

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Z., Figueira, P., Santos, N

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Figueira, P., Santos, N. C., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A51

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    C., & Andreasen, D

    Santos, N. C., & Andreasen, D. T. 2024, A&A, 690, A58

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2013, ApJ, 763, 12

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    K., Casey, A

    Behmard, A., Ness, M. K., Casey, A. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 13 Bello-Garc ´ ıa, A., Passegger, V. M., Ordieres-Mer´ e, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A105

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

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

    2014

  8. [8]

    W., Mann, A

    Birky, J., Hogg, D. W., Mann, A. W., & Burgasser, A. 2020, ApJ, 892, 31

    work page 2020

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    2017

  2. [10]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  3. [11]

    A., Latham, D

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

    2012

  4. [12]

    G., Bragaglia, A., et al

    Carretta, E., Gratton, R. G., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 40

    2013

  5. [13]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102 De Silva, G

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604

    2016

  6. [14]

    2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 266

    Dong, S., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., Zheng, Z., & Luo, A. 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 266

    2018

  7. [15]

    D., Hardegree-Ullman, K., Schlieder, J

    Dressing, C. D., Hardegree-Ullman, K., Schlieder, J. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 87

    2019

  8. [16]

    A., & Valenti, J

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

    2005

  9. [17]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109

    2017

  10. [18]

    L., & Rowe, J

    Gaidos, E., Ali, A., Kraus, A. L., & Rowe, J. F. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3277

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gaidos, E., & Mann, A. W. 2014, ApJ, 791, 54 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144

    2014

  12. [20]

    V., et al

    Ghezzi, L., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1290

    2010

  13. [21]

    F., Wilson, R

    Ghezzi, L., Martinez, C. F., Wilson, R. F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 19

    2021

  14. [22]

    D., et al

    Gore, R., Giacalone, S., Dressing, C. D., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 48

    2024

  15. [23]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 651

    2018

  16. [24]

    Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24

    2019

  17. [25]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

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

    2008

  18. [26]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  19. [27]

    Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I. J. M., Souto, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 31

    2024

  20. [28]

    2018, AJ, 155, 127

    Hirano, T., Dai, F., Gandolfi, D., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 127

    2018

  21. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 41

    Gharib-Nezhad, E. 2023, ApJ, 944, 41

    2023

  23. [31]

    Douglas, S. T. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1125

    2019

  24. [32]

    J., Jeffries, R

    Jackson, R. J., Jeffries, R. D., Randich, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A52

    2016

  25. [33]

    V., Sch¨ ofer, P., Lamert, A., et al

    Jeffers, S. V., Sch¨ ofer, P., Lamert, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A76

    2018

  26. [34]

    A., Aller, K

    Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 905

    2010

  27. [35]

    Y., Muirhead, P

    Kesseli, A. Y., Muirhead, P. S., Mann, A. W., & Mace, G. 2018, AJ, 155, 225

    2018

  28. [36]

    L., & Reddy, B

    Lambert, D. L., & Reddy, B. E. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 757

    2004

  29. [37]

    W., & Bovy, J

    Leung, H. W., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3255

    2019

  30. [38]

    Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606

    1996

  31. [39]

    2017, A&A, 604, A97

    Lindgren, S., & Heiter, U. 2017, A&A, 604, A97

    2017

  32. [40]

    2016, A&A, 586, A100

    Lindgren, S., Heiter, U., & Seifahrt, A. 2016, A&A, 586, A100

    2016

  33. [41]

    D., & Rice, K

    Lopez, E. D., & Rice, K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5303

    2018

  34. [42]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211

    Luque, R., & Pall´ e, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211

    2022

  35. [43]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

    2017

  36. [44]

    2015, A&A, 577, A132

    Maldonado, J., Affer, L., Micela, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A132

    2015

  37. [45]

    M., Montes, D., et al

    Marfil, E., Tabernero, H. M., Montes, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A162

    2021

  38. [46]

    F., Cunha, K., Ghezzi, L., & Smith, V

    Martinez, C. F., Cunha, K., Ghezzi, L., & Smith, V. V. 2019, ApJ, 875, 29

    2019

  39. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00111

    Melo, E., Souto, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00111

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Millan-Gabet, R., & Monnier, J. D. 2002, ApJL, 580, L167

    2002

  41. [49]

    V., Soubiran, C., Bienaym´ e, O., et al

    Mishenina, T. V., Soubiran, C., Bienaym´ e, O., et al. 2008, A&A, 489, 923 14W anderley et al

    2008

  42. [50]

    S., Becker, J., Feiden, G

    Muirhead, P. S., Becker, J., Feiden, G. A., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 5

    2014

  43. [51]

    D., Pascucci, I., Apai, D., Frasca, A., & Molenda- ˙Zakowicz, J

    Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Apai, D., Frasca, A., & Molenda- ˙Zakowicz, J. 2016, AJ, 152, 187

    2016

  44. [52]

    2018, AJ, 156, 221

    Narang, M., Manoj, P., Furlan, E., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 221

    2018

  45. [53]

    C., et al

    Neves, V., Bonfils, X., Santos, N. C., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A36

    2013

  46. [54]

    R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al

    Newton, E. R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 20

    2014

  47. [55]

    R., Heiter, U., et al

    Olander, T., Gent, M. R., Heiter, U., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A62 ¨Onehag, A., Heiter, U., Gustafsson, B., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A33

    2025

  48. [56]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00296

    Pan, M., Liu, B., Jiang, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00296

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M., Bello-Garc ´ ıa, A., Ordieres-Mer´ e, J., et al

    Passegger, V. M., Bello-Garc ´ ıa, A., Ordieres-Mer´ e, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A194

    2022

  50. [58]

    A., Marcy, G

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

    2018

  51. [59]

    2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis

    Plez, B. 2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis

    2012

  52. [60]

    S., Allard, F., Rajpurohit, S., et al

    Rajpurohit, A. S., Allard, F., Rajpurohit, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A180 Ram ´ ırez, I., Allende Prieto, C., & Lambert, D. L. 2007, A&A, 465, 271 Ram ´ ırez, I., Fish, J. R., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2012, ApJ, 756, 46

    2018

  53. [61]

    E., Lambert, D

    Reddy, B. E., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1329

    2006

  54. [62]

    2012, AJ, 143, 93 Rodr ´ ıguez Mart ´ ınez, R., Martin, D

    Reiners, A., Joshi, N., & Goldman, B. 2012, AJ, 143, 93 Rodr ´ ıguez Mart ´ ınez, R., Martin, D. V., Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 137

    2012

  55. [63]

    R., Muirhead, P

    Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 748, 93

    2012

  56. [64]

    E., & Kempton, E

    Romero-Mirza, C. E., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2018, AJ, 155, 134

    2018

  57. [65]

    C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., et al

    Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 1127

    2005

  58. [66]

    2021, A&A, 649, A147

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S. 2021, A&A, 649, A147

    2021

  59. [67]

    C., & Laughlin, G

    Schlaufman, K. C., & Laughlin, G. 2010, A&A, 519, A105

    2010

  60. [68]

    G., Santos, N

    Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 487, 373

    2008

  61. [69]

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

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

    2018

  62. [70]

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., & Smith, V. V. 2021, ApJ, 917, 11

    2021

  63. [71]

    A., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 239

    2017

  64. [72]

    T., Smith, V

    Souto, D., Unterborn, C. T., Smith, V. V., et al. 2018, ApJL, 860, L15

    2018

  65. [73]

    V., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 133 —. 2022, ApJ, 927, 123

    2020

  66. [74]

    C., Mahadevan, S., Deshpande, R., & Bender, C

    Terrien, R. C., Mahadevan, S., Deshpande, R., & Bender, C. F. 2015, ApJS, 220, 16

    2015

  67. [75]

    Teske, J. K. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 333 Van Eylen, V., Agentoft, C., Lundkvist, M. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4786

    2024

  68. [76]

    2025, submitted for publication

    Daflon, S. 2025, submitted for publication

    2025

  69. [77]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 90

    Wanderley, F., Cunha, K., Souto, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 90

    2023

  70. [78]

    S., Quanz, S

    Wang, H. S., Quanz, S. P., Mahadevan, S., & Deal, M. 2024, A&A, 688, A225

    2024

  71. [79]

    M., Isaacson, H

    Weiss, L. M., Isaacson, H. T., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 254

    2018

  72. [80]

    F., Teske, J., Majewski, S

    Wilson, R. F., Teske, J., Majewski, S. R., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 68

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.