pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02705 · v1 · pith:4HI4PWIFnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

A Massive Hot-Jupiter Companion that Disfavors Giant Planet Formation Beyond the Water-Ice Line

Eritas Yang , Tiger Lu , Daniel A. Yahalomi , Joshua N. Winn This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 12:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords brown-dwarf companionhot JupiterKELT-20formation locationwater-ice linedynamical stabilitytransit timing variationsastrometric acceleration
0
0 comments X

The pith

A brown-dwarf companion limits the KELT-20 hot Jupiter to formation inside the water-ice line.

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

The paper reports a brown-dwarf companion of roughly 34 Jupiter masses in the KELT-20 system, detected through combined astrometric accelerations and transit timing variations. Its present orbit has a pericenter of only a few au, while the water-ice line around the A2 host star lies at 8-15 au. Any planet formed at or beyond that ice line would experience orbit crossing or long-term instability with the companion. The authors therefore conclude that the ultra-hot Jupiter must have formed within about 3.7 au and later migrated inward.

Core claim

We report evidence for a brown-dwarf companion with mass 34 Jupiter masses whose pericenter distance of a few au would lead to orbit crossing or long-term instability for any planet formed at or beyond the water-ice line at 8-15 au. If the companion formed early and remained near its current orbit, the proto-hot Jupiter must have formed within 3.7 au to avoid orbit crossing and within 1.5 au to remain dynamically stable, disfavoring formation beyond the ice line.

What carries the argument

The brown-dwarf companion's pericenter distance, derived from joint astrometric and transit-timing analysis, which sets upper bounds on the hot Jupiter's formation semimajor axis.

If this is right

  • The hot Jupiter formed inside roughly 3.7 au rather than at or beyond the ice line.
  • Inward migration after formation is required to reach the observed close orbit.
  • Long-term dynamical stability requires formation inside about 1.5 au under the stated assumptions.
  • Giant-planet formation models that rely on core accretion beyond the ice line are disfavored for this system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar brown-dwarf companions around other hot-Jupiter hosts could provide independent tests of in-situ versus migrated formation.
  • If many such companions exist, the fraction of hot Jupiters that formed inside the ice line may be higher than current population synthesis models predict.
  • Precise measurement of the companion's eccentricity and mutual inclination with the hot Jupiter would tighten the formation-distance limits.

Load-bearing premise

The brown-dwarf companion formed early and has remained near its current orbit over the system's lifetime.

What would settle it

Direct imaging or radial-velocity follow-up that shows the companion formed after the hot Jupiter or has migrated substantially inward since formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02705 by Daniel A. Yahalomi, Eritas Yang, Joshua N. Winn, Tiger Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Possible sky-projected orbit of KELT-20 induced by a companion, shown for the best-fit solution (Section 2.3). Left: Motion of the host star between the Hipparcos and Gaia epochs (1991–2016), color-coded by time. The axes show right ascension (RA; α∗ ≡ α cos δ) and declination (Dec; δ), with the origin at the center of mass. Right: Il￾lustration of proper-motion vectors from Hipparcos (blue), Gaia (orange)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Individual detrended transit light curves of KELT-20 b observed by TESS. Each row shows a representa￾tive detrended light curve from one sector. The blue points are TESS data and the black curves are best-fit models. 4 https://github.com/lightkurve/lightkurve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Transit timing variations of KELT-20 b relative to a constant-period ephemeris. The period and mid-transit time at the zero epoch are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error bars show the observed Hipparcos (blue) and Gaia (orange) proper motions relative to the HG proper motion (chosen to be the origin because it has the highest precision). Best-fit model predictions are shown as hollow diamonds. Even at the upper end of this range, the region of long￾term stability lies well interior to the expected location of the ice line. This indicates that any long-lived planet in… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions of the companion’s mass, semimajor axis, eccentricity, mutual inclination relative to the transiting planet, astrometric acceleration measure, and pericenter distance, as inferred from the joint astrometric and TTV analysis. Filled contours indicate 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2-σ confidence levels. Colored histograms correspond to independent sampling runs. Values quoted above each diagonal p… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated Gaia astrometric data of the KELT-20 host star for best-fit brown-dwarf and stellar-companion solutions. Blue and black points are mock DR4 and DR5 measurements. Gray curves indicate the underlying model reflex motion. The origin is the center of mass. Left: Expected DR4 and DR5 orbital coverage of the host star under the perturbation of a brown-dwarf companion (m1 = 56 MJ, a1 = 6.3 au, e1 = 0.82… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report evidence for a brown-dwarf companion with mass $34^{+30}_{-11}~M_{\rm J}$ in the KELT-20 system, in which an ultra-hot Jupiter transits an A2-type star. The companion's properties are inferred from a joint analysis of astrometric accelerations and transit timing variations, and its present-day orbit imposes dynamical limits on where the hot Jupiter could have formed. Given the star's current luminosity, the water-ice line is expected at $\sim$8-15 au, but the companion's inferred pericenter distance of a few au would lead to orbit crossing or long-term instability for any planet formed at such distances. If the companion formed early and remained near its current orbit over the system's lifetime, the proto-hot Jupiter must have formed within $\sim$3.7 au to avoid orbit crossing, and within $\sim$1.5 au to remain dynamically stable over the system's lifetime. These results disfavor formation beyond the ice line and point instead to formation at smaller orbital distances followed by inward migration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a joint astrometric-TTV detection of a brown-dwarf companion (mass 34^{+30}_{-11} M_J) to the KELT-20 ultra-hot Jupiter system. The companion's inferred pericenter (a few au) is used to place dynamical limits on the hot Jupiter's formation location: if the companion formed early and remained near its present orbit, the proto-hot Jupiter must have formed within ~3.7 au to avoid orbit crossing and within ~1.5 au for long-term stability, thereby disfavoring formation beyond the water-ice line at 8-15 au.

Significance. If the orbital-history assumption holds and the mass/pericenter constraints are robust, the result supplies a concrete dynamical argument against ice-line formation for at least one hot Jupiter, complementing migration and disk-chemistry studies. The joint astrometric-TTV method itself is a useful technical contribution for companion detection around bright stars.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and § (formation-limits paragraph): the central disfavoring claim is explicitly conditioned on the untested premise that the companion 'formed early and remained near its current orbit.' No stability maps, migration timescale calculations, or dynamical simulations are referenced to justify this over the alternative that the companion formed farther out and migrated inward after the hot Jupiter's formation epoch. Because the pericenter is only loosely constrained to 'a few au' and the ice line spans 8-15 au, relaxing this assumption removes the formation-radius limit; this is load-bearing for the title and abstract conclusion.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no error analysis, covariance information, or data tables are provided for the joint astrometric-TTV fit that yields the mass 34^{+30}_{-11} M_J and pericenter. The soundness assessment cannot be completed without these quantities and the associated model assumptions (e.g., whether the TTV signal is attributed solely to the companion or includes other effects).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The ice-line location (8-15 au) is stated without reference to the specific stellar luminosity or disk model used; a brief citation or calculation would clarify the range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline planned revisions to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and § (formation-limits paragraph): the central disfavoring claim is explicitly conditioned on the untested premise that the companion 'formed early and remained near its current orbit.' No stability maps, migration timescale calculations, or dynamical simulations are referenced to justify this over the alternative that the companion formed farther out and migrated inward after the hot Jupiter's formation epoch. Because the pericenter is only loosely constrained to 'a few au' and the ice line spans 8-15 au, relaxing this assumption removes the formation-radius limit; this is load-bearing for the title and abstract conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the formation-radius limits are conditional on the companion having formed early and remained near its present orbit, as the manuscript already states explicitly with the clause 'If the companion formed early and remained near its current orbit'. The paper does not include new stability maps or migration simulations because its focus is the observational detection and the direct dynamical implications of the measured pericenter; basic orbit-crossing and Hill-radius stability criteria suffice for the quoted limits. To address the concern that the assumption is load-bearing, we will revise the abstract to foreground the conditional phrasing and expand the formation-limits discussion with references to existing dynamical studies on companion migration and multi-body stability. We maintain that the result provides a useful constraint under this assumption but acknowledge that alternative orbital histories for the companion cannot be excluded by the current data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no error analysis, covariance information, or data tables are provided for the joint astrometric-TTV fit that yields the mass 34^{+30}_{-11} M_J and pericenter. The soundness assessment cannot be completed without these quantities and the associated model assumptions (e.g., whether the TTV signal is attributed solely to the companion or includes other effects).

    Authors: The joint astrometric-TTV fit details, including error analysis, covariance information, and model assumptions about the TTV signal origin, are described in the Methods section. To allow full soundness assessment from the abstract alone, we will add a supplementary table in the revised manuscript that summarizes the best-fit parameters, uncertainties, covariance matrix, and explicit model assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; limits derived from explicit dynamical assumption applied to observed pericenter

full rationale

The paper states its formation-radius limits (~3.7 au, ~1.5 au) as direct consequences of applying orbit-crossing and long-term stability criteria to the companion's inferred pericenter distance under the explicitly conditioned premise that the companion 'formed early and remained near its current orbit.' No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked that reduce these limits to definitions or prior results by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained against the reported astrometric and TTV data plus standard dynamical criteria; the conditional nature of the conclusion is acknowledged rather than smuggled in.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; free parameters and axioms inferred from stated quantities and conditional phrasing.

free parameters (1)
  • companion mass = 34 M_J
    Reported as inferred from joint analysis, therefore fitted to the astrometric and TTV data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The brown-dwarf companion formed early and has remained near its present-day orbit throughout the system's lifetime.
    Explicitly conditioned in the abstract as the premise required to translate the current pericenter into a formation-radius limit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5731 in / 1288 out tokens · 30492 ms · 2026-06-28T12:20:47.316604+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Armitage, P. J. 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation

    2010

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Armitage, P. J., & Bonnell, I. A. 2002, MNRAS, 330, L11, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05213.x Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05213.x 2002

  3. [3]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Baruteau, C., Crida, A., Paardekooper, S.-J., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 667–689, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch029

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  4. [4]

    H., & Laughlin, G

    Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ, 829, 114, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/114 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/114 2016

  5. [5]

    Bodenheimer, P., Hubickyj, O., & Lissauer, J. J. 2000, Icarus, 143, 2, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1999.6246

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6246 2000

  6. [6]

    C., Granados Contreras, A

    Boley, A. C., Granados Contreras, A. P., & Gladman, B. 2016, ApJL, 817, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L17

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/l17 2016

  7. [7]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    work page doi:10.1126/science.276.5320.1836 1997

  8. [8]

    Brandt, T. D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c 2021

  9. [9]

    Detection of CaII, FeII, NaI, and the Balmer series of H (H , H , and H ) with high-dispersion transit spectroscopy

    Casasayas-Barris, N., Pall´ e, E., Yan, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935623

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935623 2019

  10. [10]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 170, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adfbeb

    Chachan, Y., Lothringer, J., Inglis, J., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 170, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adfbeb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adfbeb 2025

  11. [11]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 , eprint =

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 2018

  12. [12]

    W., et al

    Distler, A., Soares-Furtado, M., Mann, A. W., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c48 2026

  13. [13]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    work page doi:10.1086/521702 2007

  14. [14]

    W., et al

    Finnerty, L., Xin, Y., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 333, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adce02

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adce02 2025

  15. [15]

    K., Lothringer, J

    Fu, G., Sing, D. K., Lothringer, J. D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 925, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4968 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4968 2022

  16. [16]

    Guerriero, F., Penoyre, Z., & Brown, A. G. A. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag654

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag654 2026

  17. [17]

    2024, exoplanet-dev/jaxoplanet: Astronomical time series analysis with JAX, v0.0.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10736936

    Hattori, S., Garcia, L., Murray, C., et al. 2024, exoplanet-dev/jaxoplanet: Astronomical time series analysis with JAX, v0.0.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10736936

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10736936 2024

  18. [18]

    2019, A&A, 628, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833486

    Heller, R. 2019, A&A, 628, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833486

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833486 2019

  19. [19]

    2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    Higson, E., Handley, W., Hobson, M., & Lasenby, A. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0 2019

  20. [20]

    J., & Wiegert, P

    Holman, M. J., & Wiegert, P. A. 1999, AJ, 117, 621, doi: 10.1086/300695

    work page doi:10.1086/300695 1999

  21. [21]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 616, 567, doi: 10.1086/424830 —. 2005, ApJ, 626, 1045, doi: 10.1086/429953 —. 2008, ApJ, 673, 487, doi: 10.1086/523754

    work page doi:10.1086/424830 2004

  22. [22]

    S., & Winn, J

    Ivshina, E. S., & Winn, J. N. 2022, ApJS, 259, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac545b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac545b 2022

  23. [23]

    F., Pani´ c, O., & Liu, B

    Johnston, H. F., Pani´ c, O., & Liu, B. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3254

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3254 2024

  24. [24]

    M., & Kenyon, S

    Kennedy, G. M., & Kenyon, S. J. 2008, ApJ, 673, 502, doi: 10.1086/524130 10

    work page doi:10.1086/524130 2008

  25. [25]

    2025, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 58, 243, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2025.58.2.243

    Kim, Y.-J., Lee, J.-E., Baek, G., & Lee, S. 2025, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 58, 243, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2025.58.2.243

    work page doi:10.5303/jkas.2025.58.2.243 2025

  26. [26]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 817, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/90

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/90 2016

  27. [27]

    C., Wang, J., et al

    Lenhart, C., Johnson, M. C., Wang, J., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae2252

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae2252 2026

  28. [28]

    2023, AstroJacobLi/smplotlib: v0.0.9, v0.0.9, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8126529 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Li, J. 2023, AstroJacobLi/smplotlib: v0.0.9, v0.0.9, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8126529 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1812.013

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8126529 2023

  29. [29]

    Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606, doi: 10.1038/380606a0

    work page doi:10.1038/380606a0 1996

  30. [30]

    J., & Lai, D

    Liu, B., Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2396

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2396 2015

  31. [31]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79

    Lu, T., An, Q., Li, G., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79 2025

  32. [32]

    B., Rodriguez, J

    Lund, M. B., Rodriguez, J. E., Zhou, G., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8f95

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8f95 2017

  33. [33]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    work page doi:10.1086/345520 2002

  34. [34]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 498, doi: 10.1086/529369

    Nagasawa, M., Ida, S., & Bessho, T. 2008, ApJ, 678, 498, doi: 10.1086/529369

    work page doi:10.1086/529369 2008

  35. [35]

    Perri, F., & Cameron, A. G. W. 1974, Icarus, 22, 416, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(74)90074-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(74)90074-8 1974

  36. [36]

    Perryman, M. A. C., Lindegren, L., Kovalevsky, J., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L49

    1997

  37. [37]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    Petrovich, C. 2015, ApJ, 805, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/75 2015

  38. [38]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0190 1996

  39. [39]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab64fa

    Quarles, B., Li, G., Kostov, V., & Haghighipour, N. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab64fa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab64fa 2020

  40. [40]

    Rafikov, R. R. 2005, ApJL, 621, L69, doi: 10.1086/428899

    work page doi:10.1086/428899 2005

  41. [41]

    Rice, W. K. M., Armitage, P. J., Bonnell, I. A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, L36, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07317.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07317.x 2003

  42. [42]

    Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , year = 2015, month = jan, volume = 1, number = 1, eid =

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  43. [43]

    Singh, V., Scandariato, G., Smith, A. M. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347533

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347533 2024

  44. [44]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 2019

  46. [46]

    Talens, G. J. J., Justesen, A. B., Albrecht, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731512

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731512 2018

  47. [47]

    , year = 1964, month = may, volume =

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861 van ’t Hoff, M. L. R., Harsono, D., van Gelder, M. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3080

    work page doi:10.1086/147861 1964

  48. [48]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    Wu, Y., & Lithwick, Y. 2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/109 2011

  49. [49]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    Wu, Y., & Murray, N. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    work page doi:10.1086/374598 2003

  50. [50]

    A., Lu, T., Armitage, P

    Yahalomi, D. A., Lu, T., Armitage, P. J., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 999, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae42cd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae42cd 2026

  51. [51]

    2026, AJ, 171, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae2309

    Zhang, J., Huber, D., Bottom, M., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae2309

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae2309 2026