Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Carving the Edges of the Rocky Planet Population

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photoevaporation, tidal decay, and magnetic drag carve the observed edges of the short-period rocky planet population.

desk verdict A coherent, parameter-light theory for the three edges in short-period rocky planets, with magnetic drag as the genuinely new piece, but the tidal edge rests on an extrapolated Q'(P) and the data comparison is visual, so it is strongly suggestive rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17241 v1 pith:BERHUN3P submitted 2025-01-28 astro-ph.EP

Eve J. Lee , James E. Owen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords rockyplanetsultra-short-periodphotoevaporationtidaldecaymagneticdragradius-periodspacestellarfieldplanetoccurrenceedges
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 sharp edges seen in the short-period rocky planet population are not observational artifacts but physical destruction boundaries. Over 0.2–20 day orbits around stars of 0.09–1.42 solar masses, no rocky planet exceeds about 10 Earth masses, and there is a deficit of sub-Earth-sized planets inside about one day. The authors show analytically and with numerical simulations that photoevaporation sets which cores lose their gas envelopes, stellar tides remove the more massive cores at the shortest periods, and magnetic drag from the star's field sweeps away sub-Earth planets inside about a day. If correct, the observed edges directly trace the strengths of star-planet interactions and can be used to calibrate them.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three analytic scaling relations, each tied to one physical mechanism: the energy-limited photoevaporation mass-loss formula with an efficiency $\eta \sim 0.1 (M_p/10 M_\oplus)^{-1}$; the tidal decay timescale with a period-dependent stellar tidal quality factor $Q'_\star = 10^6 (P/2\,\mathrm{days})^{-3.1}$, which yields the maximum surviving mass in Equation (16); and the magnetic drag power from a closed star–planet circuit with a dipolar stellar field decaying as $t^{-0.6}$, which yields the minimum surviving radius in Equation (32). These relations define the allowable region of mass–period and radius–period space for surviving rocky planets, and the paper verifies them with numerical simulations that evolve planet interiors and orbits together.

What would settle it

Measure the rotation period and surface magnetic field of the host star of GJ 367 b (0.32-day period, 0.7 Earth radii): the magnetic drag model requires that this star be a slow rotator with a weak large-scale field, otherwise the planet's survival would contradict Equation (32); likewise, a single rocky planet above the mass-period curve of Equation (16) would falsify the tidal edge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the upper edge of the rocky planet mass-period distribution, near 10 Earth masses, and the inner edge of the sub-Earth radius-period distribution, around 1 Earth radius inside roughly one day, are carved by three distinct physical mechanisms. Photoevaporation by stellar XUV radiation strips the gaseous envelopes of cores up to about 15 Earth masses, with a weak period dependence. Tidal decay, using a period-dependent stellar tidal quality factor $Q'_\star = 10^6 (P/2\,\mathrm{days})^{-3.1}$ inferred from hot Jupiters, imposes a maximum surviving mass that drops steeply at periods below about 1.34 days. Magnetic drag, the closed-circuit Joule dissipation of the planet's orbital motion through the stellar field, imposes a minimum surviving radius $R_{p,\mathrm{mag}} \sim 0.6 R_\oplus (P_p/1\,\mathrm{day})^{-1.34}$. Numerical simulations that co-evolve planetary interiors and orbits with all three processes reproduce the observed edges, showing the demographic limits are physical destruction boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction hinges on assuming that the tidal dissipation strength measured for hot Jupiters and the assumed magnetic field of the star also hold for rocky planets around very different stars, so a change in either would move the predicted edges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the ~10 Earth-mass cap on rocky planet masses marks the point where tidal decay destroys the planet, not the critical core mass for runaway gas accretion.
  • The sub-Earth desert inside about one day is a destruction signature of magnetic drag, meaning the missing planets were removed by star-planet magnetic interaction rather than never formed or missed by surveys.
  • The predicted mass-period and radius-period edges provide a demographic probe of stellar tidal quality factors and magnetic field strengths, including their dependence on stellar mass and age.
  • Catastrophically evaporating planets such as Kepler-1520 b are interpreted as planets of roughly 0.1–0.3 Earth masses that began their inward spiral near one day under magnetic drag and were destroyed by Joule heating before reaching the Roche limit.
  • Around fully convective stars below 0.35 solar masses, the same physics predicts a lower maximum rocky planet mass, consistent with the observed ~4 Earth-mass maximum, linking destruction edges to the formation-limited core mass distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A completeness-corrected occurrence-rate survey of ultra-short-period planets would test the magnetic drag boundary more sharply than the current sparse sample, since the model predicts a sharp downturn in occurrence toward small radii inside one day.
  • The magnetic drag model implies that the survival of the three known sub-Earth ultra-short-period planets (TOI-6255 b, KOI-4777.01, GJ 367 b) requires their host stars to be slow rotators with weak large-scale fields; measuring their spin periods would directly test the model.
  • The same combination of mechanisms, applied to higher-mass planets, may unify the sub-Jovian desert and radius cliff with the rocky planet edges; the paper sketches this connection, but a population synthesis with realistic initial conditions would be needed to show one model spans all the demographic boundaries.
  • Around mid-late M dwarfs, stronger magnetic fields and potentially lower tidal quality factors would shift both destruction boundaries inward in period, predicting that ultra-short-period rocky planets are even rarer around fully convective stars; future surveys over a wide stellar-mass range can test this.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Lee and Owen present an analytic and numerical study of the short-period rocky planet population, arguing that the observed edge near ~10 Earth masses in mass-period space and the deficit of sub-Earth planets inside ~1 day are produced by three physical processes: photoevaporation, stellar tidal decay, and magnetic drag. They derive (Eq. 6) the maximum core mass that can be stripped by photoevaporation (~15 Earth masses, weakly dependent on period), (Eq. 16) the maximum mass that survives tidal decay when the stellar tidal quality factor is taken from the hot-Jupiter fit Q'_star = 10^6 (P/2d)^-3.1, and (Eq. 32) a minimum survival radius against magnetic drag for a time-dependent dipole field. They compare these boundaries by eye to NASA Exoplanet Archive data in Figures 1 and 2, and show in Section 3 that numerical evolution of a synthetic population with photoevaporation, tides, and magnetic drag reproduces the analytic edges. The paper closes by discussing implications for disintegrating planets and by listing caveats on XUV evolution, Q'_star stellar-type dependence, and magnetic field/wind assumptions.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a coherent physical explanation for demographic edges that have sometimes been attributed to observational artifacts or to formation limits. The analytic derivations are internally consistent, the simulations use updated tabulated photoevaporation efficiencies, and the resulting scalings (e.g., M_p,tide ∝ P^1.23 and R_p,mag ∝ P^-1.34) are falsifiable with future mass and radius measurements around M and A stars. The authors are transparent about their assumptions and propose concrete observational tests, which strengthens the paper. However, because the data comparison is visual and the tidal boundary relies on an empirical hot-Jupiter relation, the strength of the central demographic claim is currently limited and needs a quantitative comparison to alternatives.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.2, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The tidal edge is not an independent prediction: Eq. (16) is obtained by substituting Eq. (15), an empirical fit to hot Jupiters, into Eq. (13). The paper itself concedes (Sec. 2.1.2, p. 5) that a constant Q'_star can also fit the current data within the age scatter, and Sec. 4.2 notes that the stellar-type dependence of Q'_star is uncertain. Because the comparison in Figure 1 is by eye, the data do not discriminate between the period-dependent model and a constant-Q' model. I request a quantitative comparison: for example, compute the likelihood of the observed maximum mass as a function of period under both Q' prescriptions with the same age distribution, or fit Q'_star(P) directly to the rocky-planet sample. Without such a test, the mild mass decline inside ~1 day cannot be uniquely attributed to tides over a constant-Q' scenario that would predict a much steeper P^{13/3} cliff.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3] The simulations adopt Eq. (15) as an input when the orbital evolution is solved with dynamic tides (text preceding Fig. 3 refers to equations 12 and 15). They therefore verify internal consistency between the analytic and numerical treatments, but they cannot validate the extrapolation of the hot-Jupiter Q'_star relation to the rocky-planet regime. To test the hypothesis, the simulations should be rerun with a constant Q'_star, or with Q'_star varying with stellar type, and the resulting edges compared to the data. The statement that the simulations produce 'demographic features similar to the observed population' is currently a consistency check, not independent confirmation.
  3. [Sec. 2.2.1, Eqs. (29)-(32), Fig. 2] The magnetic drag boundary depends sensitively on adopted values of B_star,i = 100 G, Mdot_w = 10^-12 M_sun/yr, v_w = 100 km/s, a dipolar field, and B_star ∝ t^-0.6; none of these are fit to the target population. The agreement in Figure 2 is qualitative, and the three outlier planets (TOI-6255 b, KOI-4777.01, GJ 367 b) are discussed individually through slow-rotation and low-stellar-mass arguments, but no statistical test is presented. Since the sub-Earth desert is a small-number feature, the paper as written does not yet demonstrate that magnetic drag carves the observed desert. I recommend quantifying the expected number of sub-Earth ultra-short-period planets under the magnetic-drag model, convolving over stellar mass, age, and magnetic field distributions, and comparing with occurrence rates including completeness corrections.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'evaporation time spanning 9-14, 4-14, 2-14, and 2-7 Gyr'; this presumably means the system age used for the boundaries, not an evaporation timescale, and the wording should be clarified.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4 caption] There is a typo: 'evpaoration' should be 'evaporation'.
  3. [Sec. 2.2.1, Eq. (18)] The symbol P is used for both the dissipated power and the orbital period; renaming the power (e.g., dot{E}) would avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, p. 2] The main text states the sub-Earth desert is 'unlikely to be a detection bias', while footnote 1 concedes that ultra-short-period planets can be hard to detect due to finite Kepler cadence; these statements should be reconciled or the bias quantified.
  5. [Sec. 4 throughout] The phrase 'remarkable agreement' is used although the comparisons are visual; given the acknowledged parameter uncertainties, a more quantitative phrasing such as 'consistent with the data within the assumed parameter ranges' would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predicted edges rest on external empirical inputs, not on fits to the target population.

full rationale

The central claim—photoevaporation, tidal decay, and magnetic drag carve the observed edges—is not circular. The photoevaporative maximum mass (Eq. 6) follows from an energy-limited mass-loss formula with η from Owen & Wu (2017), LXUV(t) from Wright et al. (2011) and King & Wheatley (2021); none of these are fit to the target mass-period edge. The tidal boundary (Eq. 16) is obtained by inserting the period-dependent stellar tidal quality factor Q'_star = 1e6 (P/2d)^-3.1 (Eq. 15), which is an empirical fit to hot Jupiters from Penev et al. (2018), into the constant-Q' survival mass (Eq. 13). While this makes Eq. (16) derivative of an external empirical input rather than a parameter-free prediction, the input is independent of the rocky-planet masses used for comparison; the comparison in Figure 1 is visual, but the paper explicitly flags the degeneracy with a constant Q' within age scatter (Section 2.1.2) and the uncertain stellar-type dependence (Section 4.2). The magnetic-drag boundary uses B_star,i = 100 G, wind mass-loss and velocity from Johnstone et al. (2015a,b) and Vidotto et al. (2014), again external. The power-law fit in Eq. (32) is fit to the authors' own numerical integration of Eq. (31), not to the observed sub-Earth desert, so it is a presentation choice, not a fit to the target. The simulations in Section 3 use the same analytic tidal and magnetic drag equations as inputs, so they corroborate internal consistency rather than independently verifying the analytic boundaries; this is a limitation but not circularity. No load-bearing step is justified solely by a self-citation; cited prior work by the authors (Owen & Wu 2017; Lee & Chiang 2017; Lee et al. 2022) supplies standard physical ingredients that are also independently adopted in the literature.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. Magnetic drag, tides, and photoevaporation are established mechanisms. The free parameters are empirical inputs from prior literature, not fitted to the target rocky planet population.

free parameters (9)
  • Mass-loss efficiency normalization eta0 = 0.1
    Used in Eq. (2) to set photoevaporation efficiency; taken from Owen and Wu (2017), uncertain by a factor of a few.
  • Saturation XUV luminosity fraction L_XUV,0/L_star = 1e-3.6
    Normalization of stellar XUV evolution in Eq. (3), from solar and stellar activity studies (Wright et al. 2011).
  • Tidal quality factor normalization Q'_star,0 = 1e6
    Empirical normalization of Q'_star(P) in Eq. (15), fit to hot Jupiters by Penev et al. (2018); assumed to apply to rocky planets.
  • Tidal quality factor period exponent = -3.1
    Slope of Q'_star(P) from the same hot Jupiter fit; drives the weak P^1.23 dependence of the mass edge.
  • Initial stellar magnetic field B_star,i = 100 G
    Fiducial field at 100 Myr; the paper also shows 30 and 10 G. Sets the normalization of the magnetic drag edge in Eq. (32).
  • Stellar wind mass-loss rate Mdot_w = 1e-12 solar masses per year
    Fiducial wind mass loss used in Eq. (28); from Johnstone et al. (2015a,b).
  • Stellar wind speed v_w = 100 km per second
    Fiducial wind speed used in Eq. (28); same source as the wind mass-loss rate.
  • Initial H/He mass fraction M_gas(0)/M_p = 0.03
    Adopted initial envelope fraction in Eq. (6); the paper argues results are insensitive in the 1 to 100 percent range.
  • System age for fiducial boundaries = 5 Gyr
    Used to draw the red and blue lines and in Eq. (32); age ranges 2 to 14 Gyr are adopted from visual inspection of Petigura et al. (2022).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Energy-limited photoevaporation formula (Eq. 1) with eta = 0.1 (M_p/10 Earth masses)^-1.
    Assumes envelope loss is energy-limited and that the efficiency varies inversely with core mass, following Owen and Wu (2017).
  • domain assumption Stellar XUV luminosity decays as a power law with alpha = 0.86 after 100 Myr (Eq. 3).
    Based on King and Wheatley (2021) EUV and X-ray decomposition; not verified for individual systems.
  • domain assumption Q'_star(P) calibrated on hot Jupiters applies to rocky planets.
    The paper assumes the stellar tidal quality factor is a property of the star, independent of planet type; explicitly acknowledged as uncertain in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption Closed magnetospheric circuit with sub-Alfvenic flow; power P given by Eq. (25).
    The magnetic drag calculation assumes a quasi-static closed circuit between planet and star and ignores field line twisting beyond v_k/v_A less than 1.
  • domain assumption Dipole stellar magnetic field B(a_p) = B_star(R_star/a_p)^3 and B_star(t) proportional to t^-0.6 after 100 Myr.
    Simplified field geometry and temporal evolution from Vidotto et al. (2014); multipolar fields or saturated dynamo could change the edge.
  • standard math Main-sequence mass-radius relation M_star proportional to R_star and rocky composition R_p proportional to M_p^(1/4).
    Standard stellar structure and terrestrial composition relations used to convert between mass and radius.
  • domain assumption Wind mass-loss rate and velocity are constant in time.
    Stated explicitly in Section 2.2.1: models report Mdot_w varying as t^-0.62 to t^-1.23; this is ignored due to degeneracy with wind velocity.
  • domain assumption Energy removed by Joule heating equals orbital energy loss, with the planet treated as a negligible resistor for orbital decay and later as a small resistor for internal heating.
    The total power in Eq. (18) is assumed to be drawn from the orbit; the planet resistance is first neglected, then set to 4e-3 of the star's resistance in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Carving the Edges of the Rocky Planet Population." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BERHUN3P

@misc{pith2026250117241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Carving the Edges of the Rocky Planet Population},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BERHUN3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17241}
}
abstract

Short-period planets provide ideal laboratories for testing star-planet interaction. Planets that are smaller than $\sim$2$R_\oplus$ are considered to be largely rocky either having been stripped of or never having acquired the gaseous envelope. Zooming in on these short-period rocky planet population, clear edges appear in the mass-period and radius-period space. Over $\sim$0.2--20 days and 0.09--1.42$M_\odot$, the maximum mass of the rocky planets stay below $\sim$10$M_\oplus$ with a hint of decrease towards $\lesssim$1 day, $\gtrsim$4 day, and $\lesssim 0.45 M_\odot$. In radius-period space, there is a relative deficit of $\lesssim$2$R_\oplus$ planets inside $\sim$1 day. We demonstrate how the edges in the mass-period space can be explained by a combination of tidal decay and photoevaporation whereas the rocky planet desert in the radius-period space is a signature of magnetic drag on the planet as it orbits within the stellar magnetic field. Currently observed catastrophically evaporating planets may have started their death spiral from $\sim$1 day with planets of mass up to $\sim$0.3$M_\oplus$ under the magnetic drag. More discoveries and characterization of small planets around mid-late M and A stars would be welcome to better constrain the stellar parameters critical in shaping the edges of rocky planet population including their UV radiation history, tidal and magnetic properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Planet mass vs. orbital period for different host star mass, drawn from NASA Exoplanet Archive (NASA Exoplanet Archive 2024a) using their default value. We only plot planets with radii ≤ 2R⊕, period <20 days, and ≤ 25% error in mass measurement. Blue region: maximum mass for complete photoevaporation with evaporation time spanning 9–14, 4–14, 2–14, and 2–7 Gyr for each stellar mass bin from lightest to heaviest (the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radius vs. period drawn from NASA Exoplanet Archive (NASA Exoplanet Archive 2024b) using their de￾fault value. We only plot planets with ≤8% error in radius measurement. Top: the blue lines draw the minimum sur￾vival radius for time-varying B⋆ with B⋆,i = (100, 30, 10) G for dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines, respectively. All other parameters are set to fiducial values. The red dashed and dot-dashed lines show t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of planetary radii after 5 Gyrs of evolution from our numerical simulations for a solar mass star. The left panel includes the influence of photoevaporation only, demonstrating photoevaporation can create super-Earths with masses > 10 M⊕ at periods ≲ 1 day. The combination of photoevaporation and tidal decay (middle panel) limits the maximum super-Earth mass to ∼ 10 M⊕. Finally, the combination of p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A grand summary highlighting all the physical processes that sculpt the small planet population in the radius-period space. Plotted in contour is the Gaussian Kernel density estimation of Kepler candidates from Data Release 25 (Thompson et al. 2018). We do not correct …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: orbital evolution of rocky planets under magnetic drag. Each curves terminate when the Roche ra￾dius is reached. Marked in squares are the point beyond which the Joule heating exceeds the planet’s gravitational binding energy (see text for detail). The black circl…

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. Full citation record

  1. Statistical Reevaluation of the USP Classification Boundary: Smaller Planets Within 1 Day, Larger Period Ratios Below 2 Days

    astro-ph.EP 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A blind statistical search of Kepler, K2, and TESS multi-planet systems finds that the USP size anomaly ends at about 0.97 days and the period-ratio anomaly at about 2.09 days.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Barros, S. C. C., Demangeon, O. D. S., Alibert, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244293

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244293 2022

  2. [2]

    Weiss, L. M. 2020, AJ, 160, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba18a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba18a 2020

  3. [3]

    S., Zeng, L., Damasso, M., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Zeng, L., Damasso, M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 416, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0684-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0684-9 2019

  4. [4]

    S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346211

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346211 2023

  5. [5]

    A., Owen, J

    Booth, R. A., Owen, J. E., & Schulik, M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3121

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3121 2023

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 5746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad932 Ca˜ nas, C

    Bromley, J., & Chiang, E. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad932 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Mahadevan, S., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3088

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad932 2023

  7. [7]

    2022, A&A, 663, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142763

    Caldiroli, A., Haardt, F., Gallo, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142763

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142763 2022

  8. [8]

    R., Pope, B

    Callingham, J. R., Pope, B. J. S., Kavanagh, R. D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1359, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02405-6 Campos Estrada, B., Owen, J. E., Jankovic, M. R., Wilson, A., & Helling, C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae095

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02405-6 2024

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    1997, A&A, 327, 1039, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9704118

    Chabrier, G., & Baraffe, I. 1997, A&A, 327, 1039, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9704118

    1997 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chachan, Y., & Lee, E. J. 2023, ApJL, 952, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace257

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Zink, J

    Christiansen, J. L., Zink, J. K., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf9f9

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al

    Claire, M. W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/95

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    E., & Mohanty, S

    Curry, A., Booth, R., Owen, J. E., & Mohanty, S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae191

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Halverson, S., et al

    Dai, F., Howard, A. W., Halverson, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5a7d

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Dattilo, A., & Batalha, N. M. 2024, AJ, 167, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad434c

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    M., & Bryson, S

    Dattilo, A., Batalha, N. M., & Bryson, S. 2023, AJ, 166, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acebc8

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 775, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01381-5

    Delrez, L., Ehrenreich, D., Alibert, Y., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 775, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01381-5

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Foley, H

    Drell, S. D., Foley, H. M., & Ruderman, M. A. 1965, J. Geophys. Res., 70, 3131, doi: 10.1029/JZ070i013p03131

    1965 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Petit, P., Bouvier, J., et al

    Folsom, C. P., Petit, P., Bouvier, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 580, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2924

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    Fressin, F., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302

    Gallet, F., & Bouvier, J. 2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Dotter, A., et al

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., Dotter, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aace5d

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Giacalone, S., & Dressing, C. D. 2025, AJ, 169, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9587

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    A., et al

    Goffo, E., Gandolfi, D., Egger, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c7

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    1963, MNRAS, 126, 257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/126.3.257

    Goldreich, P. 1963, MNRAS, 126, 257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/126.3.257

    1963 doi

  21. [29]

    1969, ApJ, 156, 59, doi: 10.1086/149947

    Goldreich, P., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, ApJ, 156, 59, doi: 10.1086/149947

    1969 doi

  22. [30]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    1966 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1230

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Hallatt, T., & Lee, E. J. 2022, ApJ, 924, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32c9

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Herath, M., Boukar´ e, C.-´E., & Cowan, N. B. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2431

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Ford, E

    Hsu, D. C., Ford, E. B., Ragozzine, D., & Ashby, K. 2019, AJ, 158, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31ab 16 E. J. Lee & J. E. Owen

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    2000, ApJ, 537, 1013, doi: 10.1086/309050

    Ikoma, M., Nakazawa, K., & Emori, H. 2000, ApJ, 537, 1013, doi: 10.1086/309050

    2000 doi

  31. [40]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f1e

    Jin, S., & Mordasini, C. 2018, ApJ, 853, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f1e

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    P., G¨ udel, M., Brott, I., & L¨ uftinger, T

    Johnstone, C. P., G¨ udel, M., Brott, I., & L¨ uftinger, T. 2015a, A&A, 577, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425301

    doi

  33. [42]

    2015b, A&A, 577, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425300

    Brott, I. 2015b, A&A, 577, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425300

    doi

  34. [43]

    J., & Thorngren, D

    Karalis, A., Lee, E. J., & Thorngren, D. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16793, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16793

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    W., & Wheatley, P

    King, G. W., & Wheatley, P. J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa186

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3702

    Klein, B., Donati, J.-F., Moutou, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3702

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    2021, A&A Rv, 29, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    Kochukhov, O. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    V., et al

    Kubyshkina, D., Fossati, L., Erkaev, N. V., et al. 2018, ApJL, 866, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae586

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    E., Fossati, L., et al

    Kubyshkina, D., Cubillos, P. E., Fossati, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1e42

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    Kunimoto, M., & Matthews, J. M. 2020, AJ, 159, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b0

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    2012, ApJL, 757, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3

    Lai, D. 2012, ApJL, 757, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3

    2012 doi

  42. [51]

    O., & Lin, D

    Laine, R. O., & Lin, D. N. C. 2012, ApJ, 745, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/2

    2012 doi

  43. [52]

    Lanza, A. F. 2020, in Stars and their Variability Observed from Space, ed. C. Neiner, W. W. Weiss, D. Baade, R. E

    2020

  44. [53]

    Lee, E. J. 2019, ApJ, 878, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b40

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2017, ApJ, 842, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fb3

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    J., Chiang, E., & Ormel, C

    Lee, E. J., Chiang, E., & Ormel, C. W. 2014, ApJ, 797, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/95

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    J., & Connors, N

    Lee, E. J., & Connors, N. J. 2021, ApJ, 908, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c7

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Karalis, A., & Thorngren, D

    Lee, E. J., Karalis, A., & Thorngren, D. P. 2022, ApJ, 941, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c66

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1

    2014 doi

  50. [59]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac088e

    Ma, L., & Fuller, J. 2021, ApJ, 918, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac088e

    2021 doi

  51. [60]

    2016, ApJL, 820, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L8

    Matsakos, T., & K¨ onigl, A. 2016, ApJL, 820, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L8

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    D., Kreidberg, L., & Lopez, E

    McDonald, G. D., Kreidberg, L., & Lopez, E. 2019, ApJ, 876, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1095

    2019 doi

  53. [62]

    S., van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Basu, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f19

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544, doi: 10.1143/PTP.64.544

    Mizuno, H. 1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544, doi: 10.1143/PTP.64.544

    1980 doi

  55. [64]

    2020, A&A, 638, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935541

    Mordasini, C. 2020, A&A, 638, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935541

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    D., Bryson, S

    Morton, T. D., Bryson, S. T., Coughlin, J. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 86, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/86

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D

    Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D. 2015, ApJ, 814, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/130

    2015 doi

  58. [67]

    A., Chiang, E

    Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/23 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2024a, Planetary Systems, Version: 2024-10-07 07:57, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA12 —. 2024b, Planetary Systems, Version: 2024-10-07 11:49, NEx...

    2009 doi

  59. [68]

    Ogilvie, G. I. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 171, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035941

    2014 doi

  60. [69]

    Owen, J. E. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    E., & Alvarez, M

    Owen, J. E., & Alvarez, M. A. 2016, ApJ, 816, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/34

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    E., & Jackson, A

    Owen, J. E., & Jackson, A. P. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21481.x

    2012

  63. [72]

    E., & Lai, D

    Owen, J. E., & Lai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1760

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    E., & Morton, T

    Owen, J. E., & Morton, T. D. 2016, ApJL, 819, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L10

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 —. 2017, ApJ, 847, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a

    2013 doi

  66. [75]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz721

    Panichi, F., Migaszewski, C., & Go´ zdziewski, K. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz721

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04311, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04311

    Parc, L., Bouchy, F., Venturini, J., Dorn, C., & Helled, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04311, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04311

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [77]

    J., Cassen, P., & Reynolds, R

    Peale, S. J., Cassen, P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1979, Science, 203, 892, doi: 10.1126/science.203.4383.892

    1979 doi

  69. [78]

    G., Winn, J

    Penev, K., Bouma, L. G., Winn, J. N., & Hartman, J. D. 2018, AJ, 155, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf71

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 2294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt895 Carving the Edges of Rocky Planet Population 17

    Perez-Becker, D., & Chiang, E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt895 Carving the Edges of Rocky Planet Population 17

    2013 doi

  71. [80]

    A., Marcy, G

    Petigura, E. A., Marcy, G. W., Winn, J. N., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa54c

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    A., Rogers, J

    Petigura, E. A., Rogers, J. G., Isaacson, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac51e3

    2022 doi

  73. [82]

    2019, AJ, 157, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0e0a

    Petrovich, C., Deibert, E., & Wu, Y. 2019, AJ, 157, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0e0a

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    A., Youdin, A

    Piso, A.-M. A., Youdin, A. N., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2015, ApJ, 800, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/82

    2015 doi

  75. [84]

    2003, A&A, 397, 147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560

    Ventura, P. 2003, A&A, 397, 147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560

    2003 doi

  76. [85]

    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

    1996

  77. [86]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1817

    Pu, B., & Lai, D. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1817

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    Rafikov, R. R. 2006, ApJ, 648, 666, doi: 10.1086/505695

    2006 doi

  79. [88]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/40

    Rappaport, S., Barclay, T., DeVore, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/40

    2014 doi

  80. [89]

    A., Levine, A., & Winn, J

    Rappaport, S., Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rogers, L. A., Levine, A., & Winn, J. N. 2013, ApJL, 773, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/L15

    2013 doi

  81. [90]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/1

    Rappaport, S., Levine, A., Chiang, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/1

    2012 doi

  82. [91]

    A., Spencer, J

    Rathbun, J. A., Spencer, J. R., Tamppari, L. K., et al. 2004, Icarus, 169, 127, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2003.12.021

    2004 doi

  83. [92]

    F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M

    Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 680, doi: 10.1086/427977

    2005 doi

  84. [93]

    G., Gupta, A., Owen, J

    Rogers, J. G., Gupta, A., Owen, J. E., & Schlichting, H. E. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2897

    2021 doi

  85. [94]

    G., Jan´ o Mu˜ noz, C., Owen, J

    Rogers, J. G., Jan´ o Mu˜ noz, C., Owen, J. E., & Makinen, T. L. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad089

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    G., Schlichting, H

    Rogers, J. G., Schlichting, H. E., & Young, E. D. 2024, ApJ, 970, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5287

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    Rogers, L. A. 2015, ApJ, 801, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/41 Sadeghi Ardestani, L., Guillot, T., & Morel, P. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2039

    2015 doi

  88. [97]

    N., et al

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rappaport, S., Winn, J. N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/47

    2014 doi

  89. [98]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/112

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rappaport, S., Pall` e, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/112

    2015 doi

  90. [99]

    Savignac, V., & Lee, E. J. 2024, ApJ, 973, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6317

    2024 doi

  91. [100]

    P., Schlaufman, K

    Schmidt, S. P., Schlaufman, K. C., & Hamer, J. H. 2024, AJ, 168, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5d76

    2024 doi

  92. [101]

    A., et al

    See, V., Jardine, M., Vidotto, A. A., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424323

    2014 doi

  93. [102]

    Z., Feinstein, A

    Seligman, D. Z., Feinstein, A. D., Lai, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b82

    2024 doi

  94. [103]

    Shkolnik, E., Walker, G. A. H., & Bohlender, D. A. 2003, ApJ, 597, 1092, doi: 10.1086/378583

    2003 doi

  95. [104]

    Shkolnik, E. L. 2013, ApJ, 766, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/9

    2013 doi

  96. [105]

    2019, A&A, 626, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935315

    Shulyak, D., Reiners, A., Nagel, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935315

    2019 doi

  97. [106]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  98. [107]

    G., Oelkers, R

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

    2019 doi

  99. [108]

    Stevenson, D. J. 1982, Planet. Space Sci., 30, 755, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(82)90108-8

    1982 doi

  100. [109]

    2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed

    Strugarek, A. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte, 25, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 25

    2018 doi

  101. [110]

    S., Matt, S

    Strugarek, A., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., & R´ eville, V. 2014, ApJ, 795, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/86

    2014 doi

  102. [111]

    K., Imada, S., Kataoka, R., et al

    Suzuki, T. K., Imada, S., Kataoka, R., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 98, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.5.98

    2013 doi

  103. [112]

    E., Coughlin, J

    Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., Hoffman, K., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

    2018 doi

  104. [113]

    Treumann, R. A. 2006, A&A Rv, 13, 229, doi: 10.1007/s00159-006-0001-y

    2006 doi

  105. [114]

    2010, A&A, 516, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912839

    Valencia, D., Ikoma, M., Guillot, T., & Nettelmann, N. 2010, A&A, 516, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912839

    2010 doi

  106. [115]

    J., & Sasselov, D

    Valencia, D., O’Connell, R. J., & Sasselov, D. 2006, Icarus, 181, 545, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.11.021 Van Eylen, V., Agentoft, C., Lundkvist, M. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1783

    2006 doi

  107. [116]

    J., Matson, D

    Veeder, G. J., Matson, D. L., Johnson, T. V., Blaney, D. L., & Goguen, J. D. 1994, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 17095, doi: 10.1029/94JE00637

    1994 doi

  108. [117]

    A., Gregory, S

    Vidotto, A. A., Gregory, S. G., Jardine, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu728

    2014 doi

  109. [118]

    Vilhu, O., & Walter, F. M. 1987, ApJ, 321, 958, doi: 10.1086/165689

    1987 doi

  110. [119]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2020 doi

  111. [120]

    F., Ca˜ nas, C

    Wilson, R. F., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Majewski, S. R., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3a06

    2022 doi

  112. [121]

    N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2010, ApJL, 718, L145, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L145

    2010 doi

  113. [122]

    J., Drake, J

    Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48 18 E. J. Lee & J. E. Owen

    2011 doi

  114. [123]

    J., Newton, E

    Wright, N. J., Newton, E. R., Williams, P. K. G., Drake, J. J., & Yadav, R. K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1670

    2018 doi

  115. [124]

    C., Dewberry, J

    Wu, S. C., Dewberry, J. W., & Fuller, J. 2024, ApJ, 963, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e54

    2024 doi

  116. [125]

    2020, AJ, 159, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7373

    Yang, J.-Y., Xie, J.-W., & Zhou, J.-L. 2020, AJ, 159, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7373

    2020 doi

  117. [126]

    A., Ryabov, B

    Zarka, P., Treumann, R. A., Ryabov, B. P., & Ryabov, V. B. 2001, Ap&SS, 277, 293, doi: 10.1023/A:1012221527425

    2001 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.