Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Gaia spectroscopic catalogue of exoplanets and host stars

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that giant exoplanets split into dense planets that form around metal-rich stars and inflated planets that form around metal-poor stars, so that a planet's type encodes its Galactic birthplace.

desk verdict A genuinely useful homogeneous host-star catalogue with sharper radii, but the headline dense/inflated giant-planet dichotomy is a tentative result resting on an unpublished mass calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22205 v2 pith:WR7SGE2P submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Patrick de Laverny , Roxanne Ligi , Aurélien Crida , Alejandra Recio-Blanco , Pedro A. Palicio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR PACS 97.82.-k
keywords exoplanethoststarsGaiaDR3GSP-SpecspectroscopystellarfundamentalparametersradiusvalleygiantplanetinflationGalacticpopulationshomogeneouscatalogue
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

The paper builds a homogeneous catalogue of 2573 exoplanet host stars and 3556 exoplanets, re-deriving stellar temperatures, luminosities, radii, and masses directly from Gaia astrometry, photometry, and the GSP-Spec spectroscopic parameterisation (the Gaia pipeline that turns RVS spectra into temperatures, gravities, and metallicities), with no input from stellar evolution models, and rescaling every planetary radius and mass consistently with those stars. The resulting data make the known evaporation valley near $1.8\,R_\oplus$ visibly sharper and cut typical stellar-radius uncertainties to under 3%. The central claim is a dichotomy among giant planets: dense planets ($R_p \lesssim 1.1\,R_{\rm Jup}$) are pushed to higher mass by metal-rich hosts, while inflated planets reach higher mass around metal-poor hosts. If confirmed, that split means the diversity of giant exoplanets is imprinted by the host star's birthplace in the Milky Way, with dense giants outnumbering inflated ones wherever the metallicity exceeds about 1.5 times Solar, as in the central Galaxy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machine is a chain of model-free relations. Stellar radius comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, $L_\star = 4\pi R_\star^2 \sigma T_{\rm eff}^4$, fed by parallax-based luminosities; stellar mass comes from the surface-gravity identity $M_\star = (R_\star/R_\odot)^2\,(g/g_\odot)$; and each planet inherits its host star through the ratio rules $R_p^{\rm Gaia} = R_p^{\rm lit}\,(R_\star^{\rm Gaia}/R_\star^{\rm lit})$ and $M_p^{\rm Gaia} = M_p^{\rm lit}\,(M_\star^{\rm Gaia}/M_\star^{\rm lit})^{2/3}$, with semi-major axes rescaled by the one-third power. Keeping every entry on one homogeneous scale with no isochrone prior is what exposes the dense/inflated giant-planet dichotomy and sharpens the radius valley. A secondary active quantity is the evaporation-effectiveness parameter $C \equiv (R_p/R_\oplus)/(L_{\rm inc}/L_\oplus)^{1/8}$, which re-expresses the radius valley as a threshold for thermally evaporating the primary H$_2$–He atmosphere ($C \propto v_{\rm esc}/u_m$ at fixed density and mean molecular weight).

What would settle it

Recompute host-star masses from asteroseismology or from interferometric densities for a sample spanning the full metallicity range of the catalogue and compare them with $M_\star^{\rm Gaia}$; if the residuals correlate with $[M/H]$ beyond the quoted uncertainties, the metallicity-dependent rescaling of planetary masses is biased and the giant-planet dichotomy must be rederived. A complementary check is to rebuild the $M_p$–$[M/H]$ relation using only planets whose masses come from transit-timing variations, a rescaling path independent of the radial-velocity assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single, internally consistent set of stellar parameters makes a metallicity bimodality appear in the giant-planet population. Using surface gravities and temperatures from the calibrated GSP-Spec pipeline, luminosities from Gaia parallaxes and bolometric corrections, radii from $L_\star = 4\pi R_\star^2 \sigma T_{\rm eff}^4$, and masses from $M_\star = (R_\star/R_\odot)^2\,(g/g_\odot)$, the authors rescale each planet's radius by the stellar-radius ratio and its mass by $(M_\star^{\rm Gaia}/M_\star^{\rm lit})^{2/3}$. In this rescaled sample, planets with $\log(M_p/M_{\rm Jup}) \lesssim -0.6$ show average radii that grow with host metallicity, while giant planets split cleanly at $R_p \approx 1.1\,R_{\rm Jup}$: the dense group is more massive around metal-rich stars and the inflated group around metal-poor stars. The same split reappears in the host stars' vertical velocity dispersion, orbital eccentricity, and pericentre distance, which is why the authors read it as a dependence of giant-planet diversity on the Galactic birth locus rather than on present-day position.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the computed stellar masses, which are built from measured surface gravities; if those gravity values carry a hidden error that varies with metallicity, the dense-versus-inflated split, and with it the Galactic birth-locus conclusion, could be an artifact of the mass rescaling rather than a real property of planets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar radii at ~3% uncertainty translate into sharper planetary radii: the depth metric $V_A$ of the evaporation valley improves from 0.83 (literature) to 0.67 in the high-quality sample, so the valley near $1.8\,R_\oplus$ stands out more clearly.
  • On average, small-planet radii grow with host metallicity, and the radius valley shifts toward larger radii for more metal-rich hosts, tying planet sizes to the chemistry of the birth environment.
  • Among giants, dense planets dominate above roughly 1.5 times Solar metallicity ($[M/H] \gtrsim 0.2$ dex), the regime of the inner Milky Way, while inflated giants cluster around less metallic, dynamically colder hosts.
  • Because the dense/inflated split also shows up in the hosts' vertical velocity dispersion, orbital eccentricity, and pericentre distance, giant-planet type becomes a probe of the Galactic environment in which the star formed.
  • Literature stellar masses and the new spectroscopic masses disagree by far more than their quoted errors, implying that exoplanet densities and inferred compositions carry an external error that single-dataset studies routinely underestimate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the GSP-Spec $\log g$ calibration that enters $M_\star$ carries a residual metallicity-dependent bias, the dense/inflated dichotomy could partly be that bias projected onto planets; a decisive check is to rebuild the $M_p$–$[M/H]$ relation using only asteroseismic host masses.
  • My inference: the birth-locus reading predicts a radial gradient, in the sense that wide-field surveys aimed at the inner disc should find a rising fraction of dense giants at fixed planet mass.
  • My inference: the $C < 1$ criterion for losing the primary atmosphere is testable with atmospheric-transmission measurements of sub-Neptunes near the valley, which should show H$_2$–He-depleted spectra on the $C < 1$ side.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a homogeneous catalogue of physical, chemical, and Galactic properties for 2573 exoplanet host stars and 3556 exoplanets, built from Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry combined with GSP-Spec spectroscopy, complemented by APOGEE, GALAH, and GES parameters. Stellar luminosities, radii, and masses are computed directly from atmospheric parameters and Gaia parallaxes, avoiding isochrone priors; planetary radii and masses are then rescaled consistently from literature values using the new stellar parameters. The catalogue is validated against literature values and against asteroseismic data in Appendix A. Using the catalogue, the authors recover and sharpen the radius valley near 1.8 R_Earth and examine planetary properties as a function of host-star metallicity. The headline interpretation is that dense and inflated giant planets show opposite host-metallicity trends, implying a dependence of giant-planet diversity on the Galactic birth locus of the host star.

Significance. The catalogue itself is a valuable community resource: it is homogeneous, quality-flagged, and provides stellar radii with typically less than 3% uncertainty, which genuinely improves the precision of transiting-planet radii. The recovery of a sharper radius valley with the new radii is a useful result, and the explicit quality-flag system together with the asteroseismic validation in Appendix A are strengths. If the dense/inflated giant-planet dichotomy and its Galactic birth-locus interpretation are confirmed, they would be an important connection between exoplanet populations and Milky Way chemical evolution. However, the headline claim currently rests on a mass calibration that is unpublished and not validated against metallicity, and on statistical evidence that the paper itself describes as below 1 sigma in one key bin. The central astrophysical interpretation is therefore not yet established to the standard claimed in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 3.1, Eq. (2), Sect. 6.1, Appendix A] The headline bimodality in Fig. 21 depends on planetary masses rescaled via (M*_Gaia/M*_Lit)^(2/3) (Sect. 6.1), where M*_Gaia comes from Eq. (2) using log(g) values that include a second-order calibration 'considering gravity and metallicity effects' from de Laverny et al. (in prep.) (Sect. 3.1). The validation in Appendix A reports a mean offset of 4% and 17% scatter for 15 asteroseismic stars, but it does not test for a metallicity-dependent slope. Since the proposed dichotomy is precisely a correlation between planet mass (through M*) and host-star [M/H], a residual [M/H] slope in the unpublished log(g) calibration would translate directly into the effect claimed in Fig. 21. Please provide the calibration coefficients or add a validation of M*_Gaia against asteroseismic/interferometric masses binned in [M/H] (and ideally in Teff and log(g)) to demonstrate that no such slope remains.
  2. [Sect. 6.5, Figs. 20 and 21] The statistical support for the dense/inflated dichotomy is not quantified. The text itself states that the 0.38–1.3 R_Jup radius bin stands out from the others by only ~0.16 dex, 'within less than 1 sigma'. Figure 21(right) shows two median tracks but does not report uncertainties on the medians, sample sizes per bin, or a significance test for the divergence of the two branches. Given that the abstract states that a dichotomy 'is found', please add a formal test (e.g., bootstrap or two-sample test) for the divergence of the dense and inflated branches as a function of planet mass, with the number of planets in each bin stated.
  3. [Sect. 6.1] The removal of 70 planetary masses because 65 of them 'clearly do not follow the general trend' in the mass-radius diagram is a circular step for a paper that then interprets the mass-radius diagram as a function of metallicity. The selection rule is not defined quantitatively, and no test is shown that this removal does not preferentially suppress one branch of the dense/inflated dichotomy. Please state the exact criterion and re-examine Figs. 21–23 with the removed masses included, or justify their exclusion using a criterion that is independent of the mass-radius trend.
  4. [Sect. 4.2.2 and Sect. 6.5] The comparison in Sect. 4.2.2 shows that the Gaia and literature stellar masses are mutually inconsistent at a very high normalized level (standard deviation of order 13 with Gaia uncertainties and 7 with literature uncertainties). The paper recommends the Gaia masses, but because the headline trend in Fig. 21 is obtained after rescaling literature planetary masses with the Gaia stellar masses, the external mass error is not represented in the propagated uncertainties. A robustness check of Fig. 21 using the literature stellar masses without rescaling would clarify whether the dense/inflated dichotomy survives the choice of stellar mass scale.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 21 caption] The caption of the right panel says the error bars show the 33%-67% interval 'for each bin in planetary radius', but the panel is a function of planetary mass; this should be corrected.
  2. [Table 1] The label for the effective-temperature uncertainty reads 'TeffGaia uncertainty' while the column is named Teff; for consistency it should read 'Teff_err' or 'TeffGaia_err'.
  3. [Sect. 3.1] The sentence beginning 'Since most of these EHS have spectroscopic data provided by the GSP-Spec catalogue...' is ambiguous about whether the homogenization is applied to the GSP-Spec values only or also to the ground-based survey values; please clarify the exact sequence of calibrations applied to each source survey.
  4. [Sect. 6.3, footnote 14] The definition of VA in the footnote uses radius intervals in R_Earth, while the text later refers to them as equal-width intervals in log scale; please make the definition precise and consistent.
  5. [Sect. 2] The phrase 'versions of July, 8, 2024' should be 'versions of July 8, 2024'.
  6. [Sect. 5.2] The percentages of thin-disc, thick-disc, and halo memberships (56%, 31%, and 3%) sum to 90%; the text should explicitly state that the remaining 10% lack Z_max values rather than leaving the reader to infer this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Gaia-rescaled exoplanet parameters and the dense/inflated dichotomy are derived by explicit, externally benchmarked steps; the unpublished log(g) calibration is a reproducibility concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The claimed exoplanet parameters are rescaled from literature values by explicit stellar ratios (R_p^Gaia = R_p^Lit * R_star^Gaia/R_star^Lit; M_p^Gaia = M_p^Lit * (M_star^Gaia/M_star^Lit)^(2/3)), and the paper itself states that the distribution of these ratios follows the stellar ratios. This is a transparent reprocessing of inputs, not a prediction that reduces to its own inputs by construction. Stellar masses come from M_star^Gaia = (R_star^Gaia)^2 * (g/g_sun), with log(g) and [M/H] taken from GSP-Spec after calibrations by Recio-Blanco et al. (2024) and de Laverny et al. (in prep.); those calibrations were benchmarked against APOGEE/GALAH and asteroseismic data, and Appendix A provides an external asteroseismic comparison of the derived radii and masses. The dense/inflated dichotomy of Fig. 21 is a binned median-metallicity pattern over the rescaled masses and radii; no equation in the paper defines that dichotomy into existence, and a metallicity-dependent mass rescaling would shift both radius classes in the same direction rather than manufacture the opposite metallicity trends. The C parameter of Eq. (3) is linked to vesc/(6 um) in Eq. (4) through the definitions of escape velocity, fixed-density radius scaling, and irradiation temperature; this is a derived identity, not an assumed conclusion. The main caveat, namely the unpublished second-order log(g) calibration considering gravity and metallicity effects, is a reproducibility and potential-bias concern, but it is not a circular step: it is an external stellar calibration applied before the exoplanet analysis, and the paper does not fit the exoplanet trend to that calibration. No central claim reduces to a fitted value or to a self-citation chain, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The catalogue adds real value, but several load-bearing inputs are empirical calibrations from the authors' own prior work, including one unpublished companion paper. The astrophysical bimodality depends on analysis thresholds such as Rp = 1.1 RJup, Zmax cuts, and KDE widths, and on masses derived from log(g), so the ledger is not empty.

free parameters (6)
  • GSP-Spec log(g) and [M/H] calibration coefficients (Recio-Blanco et al. 2024, Table A.1) = not quoted in this paper
    Empirical corrections derived from comparisons with APOGEE and GALAH; applied to put all stars on the GSP-Spec scale (Sect. 3.1). They set log(g) and metallicity used for L*, R*, M*.
  • Second-order log(g) calibration from de Laverny et al. (in prep.) = not provided
    Unpublished correction depending on gravity and metallicity; directly enters M* through Eq. 2, and planet masses are rescaled as (M*/M*_lit)^(2/3).
  • [alpha/Fe] third-order polynomial calibration from Recio-Blanco et al. 2023 = not quoted
    Empirical polynomial in Teff used to calibrate [alpha/Fe], which enters the bolometric correction and luminosity calculation (Sect. 3.2).
  • Radius cut for dense/inflated giant planets = Rp = 1.1 RJup
    Chosen threshold splitting giant planets into two regimes in Fig. 21. The bimodality result depends on this boundary, and sensitivity to the threshold is not fully quantified.
  • Kernel widths for radius-valley KDEs = 0.2 Rearth and 0.05 dex
    Epanechnikov half-width 0.2 Rearth and cos2 kernel width 0.05 dex; the authors note that valley shape and VA depend on kernel choices (Sect. 6.3).
  • Galactic population Zmax thresholds = 300 pc and 1 kpc
    Thresholds from Bland-Hawthorn and Gerhard 2016 used to classify thin disc, thick disc, and halo. Population fractions and the inferred old-host conclusions change if these cuts change.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption GSP-Spec atmospheric parameters (Teff, log(g), [M/H], [alpha/Fe]) are accurate after calibration.
    Core inputs come from Gaia consortium products whose authors overlap with the present paper; validated in Recio-Blanco et al. 2023 and 2024, but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The extinction A_G obtained by comparing observed (Bp-Rp) colours to Casagrande et al. (2021) theoretical colours is reliable.
    Used to compute absolute magnitudes and luminosities (Sect. 3.3); errors in A_G propagate into L*, R*, M*.
  • domain assumption Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) geometric distances are appropriate for all sample stars.
    Distances underpin absolute magnitudes, luminosities, radii, masses, and Galactic kinematics (Sect. 3.3 and 3.4). Nine percent of stars lack distances and are excluded from Galactic properties.
  • standard math Bolometric corrections of Casagrande and VandenBerg (2018) and Solar M_bol = 4.74 are correct for all sample stars.
    Standard empirical scale; luminosity is directly proportional to the adopted bolometric correction.
  • domain assumption Literature exoplanet radius and mass ratios (Rp/Rstar and Mp sin i/Mstar) are accurate enough to rescale.
    The paper keeps published planet-to-star ratios and does not re-derive them; rescaling inherits any errors in those ratios (Sect. 6.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Zmax thresholds classify thin disc, thick disc, and halo membership.
    The authors acknowledge other criteria give different statistics. The dichotomy interpretation uses host metallicity and, in part, this population classification.
  • ad hoc to paper The evaporation parameter C approximates the escape-to-thermal-velocity ratio with constant density and mu = 2.35.
    The authors call this interpretation 'a bit simplistic' because density decreases with planet radius; it is used to reinterpret the valley, not to fit it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Gaia spectroscopic catalogue of exoplanets and host stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WR7SGE2P

@misc{pith2026250522205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Gaia spectroscopic catalogue of exoplanets and host stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WR7SGE2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22205}
}
read the original abstract

Complete, accurate, and precise catalogues of exoplanet host star (EHS) properties are essential to deriving high-quality exoplanet parameters. This paper aims at homogeneously parameterising EHS and their exoplanets, using Gaia and GSP-spec data. For 2573 EHS, we computed their L*, R*, and M*, with no prior assumption from stellar evolution models. Their Galactic positions, kinematic and orbital properties were derived. We re-scaled Mp and Rp of 3556 exoplanets, fully consistently with the stellar data. These new stellar Teff, L*, and R* are in rather good agreement with literature values but are more precise. In particular, R* are derived with typically less than 3% uncertainty; this reduces the uncertainty on Rp significantly and allows for a finer analysis of the decrease in the number of planets around the evaporation valley. Larger differences, however, were found for M*. We note that the EHS population is rather diverse in terms of the chemical and Galactic properties, although they are all found in the Solar vicinity, close to the Local spiral arm. Most EHS belong to the thin disc, but some older thick disc and halo members have also been identified. For the less massive planets, the average Rp increases with the metallicity of the host star. For giant planets, a dichotomy between dense and inflated planets is found. Denser planets tend to be more massive as the metallicity of the host star increases, while inflated planets are more massive for less metallic hosts. If confirmed, this bimodality implies that the diversity of giant exoplanets depends on their Galactic birth locus, with dense giant planets being more numerous than inflated ones when [M/H]>~1.5 times Solar, as in the central Milky Way regions. The Gaia spectroscopic catalogue of exoplanets and their host stars is large, homogeneous, and precise. It would be a useful added-value for planetary studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22205 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between the database EHS masses with recomputed values adopting the database stellar radii and surface gravities (see text for details). The grey dotted line is the (1:1)-relation. If the database were fully consistent, all points would lie on this diagonal line. The most massive EHS are not shown for clarity reasons. spheric parameters (Teff, log(g), [M/H], and [α/Fe]) from the analysed spectra (Sect. 3.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of the parameters ratio. Blue: R Lit. ⋆ /R Gaia ⋆ . Orange: T Lit. eff /T Gaia eff . Green: L Lit. ⋆ /L Gaia ⋆ . Black: MLit. ∗ /MGaia ⋆ . 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 (R Gaia R Lit) / R Lit 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 full sample HQ Normal distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of (R Gaia ⋆ − R Lit. ⋆ )/σR Lit. ⋆ . points beyond ±3, the standard deviation decreases to 1.18. In other words, the stellar radii provided by our Gaia spectroscopic EHS catalogue are very much compatible with the online table, although the adopted methodology can differ strongly. Conversely, if now we plot (R Lit. ⋆ −R Gaia ⋆ )/σGaia R⋆ (i.e. we swap the roles of the two datasets), we find a much wide… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of (T Gaia eff − T Lit. eff )/σLit. Teff . Effective temperature Concerning the stellar temperature, the ratio of the values in our catalogue and in the online tables dis￾plays a median of 0.995 and a mean of 0.994 for 2286 EHSs which have a Teff in both d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar mass estimated from our Gaia catalogue (y-axis) versus the one given in the exoplanet online tables (x-axis). The black dots correspond to the full sample, while the HQ sample is colour-coded by T Gaia eff . The grey dotted lines show ratios of 2 and 1/2 as vis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar luminosity versus effective temperature for the EHS sam￾ple. The different spectroscopic surveys that provided the atmospheric parameters are represented by specific symbols. Dotted lines represent the iso-radius relations. 5.1. EHS atmospheric properties We il…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Metallicity versus α-elements over iron abundance ratio for the HQ EHS sub-sample with high-quality chemical parametrisation (see text for details), colour-coded with their derived mass. The EHSs with￾out published mass are plotted in grey. The Solar location is shown …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Location of the EHSs in the Milky Way: Galactic distance above and below the Plane versus the Galactic centre distance. The Solar position is indicated by the intersection of the dotted lines. The colour-codes represent the stellar density, metallicity, and Galactic o…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbital properties of the EHSs: largest distance above the Galactic plane during their orbit versus their pericentre Galactic dis￾tance, colour-coded with the metallicity. Some EHSs with eccentric or￾bits can reach high distances from the plane, where the halo and thi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mp vs Rp in log scale, with the corresponding distributions for exoplanets found in the literature (green) and those of the HQ sam￾ple (orange) for which the exoplanets properties were recomputed from MGaia ⋆ and R Gaia ⋆ . -1.5 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 log (Rp/RJu…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of exoplanets radius for four different bins in [M/H] of their host stars. The probability density is obtained using a Kernel Density Estimate with a cos2 kernel of width 0.05 dex. 6.3. The radius valley The division between giant planets and non-giants i…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Histogram of the non-giant exoplanets radii, with bins of 0.2 R⊕ and Kernel Density Estimation using an Epanechnikov (parabolic) ker￾nel of width 0.2 R⊕. Orange: Literature. Blue: Our Gaia HQ sample. The so-called radius valley around ∼ 1.8 R⊕ is more prominent in our…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: KDE of the radius distribution of exoplanets of Rp < 5R⊕ for different sub-samples, zoomed around the radius valley. Top panel: Our whole catalogue (orange), the HQ sample (blue, same line as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Top: Planet radius as a function of stellar light intensity. A sep￾aration within the group of the smaller planets appears at a radius that increases with incoming light intensity (dashed grey line). The green dashed line corresponds to the radius gap at Rp= 1.8R⊕, as…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Variation of the position of the exoplanets in the Rp-Mp diagram caused by the different sets of stellar parameters adopted to compute them. The arrows connect the literature parameters to the Gaia ones. The grey points correspond to the exoplanets for which the Gaia …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Mp - Rp for the Gaia HQ sample. The colour bar illustrates the metallicity of the corresponding host star. The two top grey dashed lines show the planetary radii where the average host star metallicity seems to change; the lowest one shows the radius gap. The mean met…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Left panel: Median metallicity as a function of planet radius (black points). The shaded areas represent the dispersion between the 16% and the 84% (blue), and the dispersion between the 33% and the 67% (purple). Only EHSs with an error in metallicity lower than 0.025…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Vertical Galactic velocity dispersion as a function of planet radius (left panel) and planet mass (right panel). As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Left panel: Median Galactic pericentre of host star as a function of planet mass. Right panel: Median eccentricity of the host star’s Galactic orbit as a function of planet mass. Error bars show the 33%-67% interval of the Rperi and eccentricity distributions for each…

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

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

    Adibekyan, V . 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105

    work page 2019

  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]

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

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  6. [6]

    2024, AJ, 168, 7

    Banerjee, B., Narang, M., Manoj, P., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 7

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 693, A3

    Barbillon, M., Recio-Blanco, A., Poggio, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A3

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    A., Schlieder, J

    Berger, T. A., Schlieder, J. E., & Huber, D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11338

    arXiv 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    & Gerhard, O

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    2016

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 692, A150

    Boettner, C., Viswanathan, A., & Dayal, P. 2024, A&A, 692, A150

    2024

  3. [11]

    A., Bizzarro, M., Latham, D

    Buchhave, L. A., Bizzarro, M., Latham, D. W., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 593

    2014

  4. [12]

    A., Latham, D

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

    2012

  5. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 150

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150

    2021

  6. [14]

    D., et al

    Casagrande, L., Lin, J., Rains, A. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2684

    2021

  7. [15]

    & VandenBerg, D

    Casagrande, L. & VandenBerg, D. A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L102

    2018

  8. [16]

    2018b, ApJ, 860, 122 de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., Aerts, C., & Palicio, P

    Crida, A., Ligi, R., Dorn, C., & Lebreton, Y . 2018b, ApJ, 860, 122 de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., Aerts, C., & Palicio, P. A. 2024, A&A, 691, A182 de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., Worley, C. C., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 153, 18

    2024

  9. [17]

    G., Boyajian, T., von Braun, K., et al

    Ellis, T. G., Boyajian, T., von Braun, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 118

    2021

  10. [18]

    Fulton, B. J. & Petigura, E. A. 2018, AJ, 156, 264

    2018

  11. [19]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A34 Gaia Collaboration, Recio-Blanco, A., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A38 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G....

    2017

  12. [20]

    Georgelin, Y . M. & Georgelin, Y . P. 1976, A&A, 49, 57

    1976

  13. [21]

    C., et al

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Worley, C. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A120 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, L5

    2022

  14. [22]

    C., Pont, F., et al

    Guillot, T., Santos, N. C., Pont, F., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, L21

    2006

  15. [23]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  16. [24]

    R., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Sharma, S., et al

    Hayden, M. R., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Sharma, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2952 Article number, page 19 of 22 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2020

  17. [25]

    R., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al

    Hayden, M. R., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A79

    2018

  18. [26]

    R., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Mikolaitis, S., & Worley, C

    Hayden, M. R., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Mikolaitis, S., & Worley, C. C. 2017, A&A, 608, L1

    2017

  19. [27]

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

    2007

  20. [28]

    A., Aller, K

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

    2010

  21. [29]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5

    2023

  22. [30]

    2019, A&A, 631, A92

    Ligi, R., Dorn, C., Crida, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A92

    2019

  23. [31]

    Lopez, E. D. & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 776, 2

    2013

  24. [32]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Mourard, D., Berio, P., Pannetier, C., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12183, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VIII, ed. A. Mérand, S. Sallum, & J. Sanchez-Bermudez, 1218308

    2022

  25. [33]

    2013, Icarus, 226, 1625

    Moutou, C., Deleuil, M., Guillot, T., et al. 2013, Icarus, 226, 1625

    2013

  26. [34]

    Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y . 2013, ApJ, 775, 105

    2013

  27. [35]

    2022, A&A, 663, A101 Pérez, F

    Panahi, A., Zucker, S., Clementini, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A101 Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21

    2022

  28. [36]

    A., Marcy, G

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

    2018

  29. [37]

    2021, A&A, 651, A104 Prša, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Cantat-Gaudin, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A104 Prša, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41

    2021

  30. [38]

    2022, A&A, 666, A121

    Randich, S., Gilmore, G., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A121

    2022

  31. [39]

    2014, A&A, 567, A5

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A5

    2014

  32. [40]

    A., et al

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Palicio, P. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A235

    2024

  33. [41]

    A., et al

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Palicio, P. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A29

    2023

  34. [42]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131

    2019

  35. [43]

    C., Adibekyan, V ., Figueira, P., et al

    Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V ., Figueira, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A30

    2017

  36. [44]

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

    Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2001, A&A, 373, 1019

    2001

  37. [45]

    C., Sousa, S

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

    2013

  38. [46]

    2021, A&A, 653, A85 Schönrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W

    Laverny, P. 2021, A&A, 653, A85 Schönrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829 Silva Aguirre, V ., Davies, G. R., Basu, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2127

    2021

  39. [47]

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

    Sousa, S. G., Adibekyan, V ., Delgado-Mena, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A53

    2024

  40. [48]

    K., Narang, M., et al

    Swastik, C., Banyal, R. K., Narang, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 114

    2021

  41. [49]

    K., Narang, M., et al

    Swastik, C., Banyal, R. K., Narang, M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 91

    2023

  42. [50]

    Taylor, J. H. & Cordes, J. M. 1993, ApJ, 411, 674

    1993

  43. [51]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  44. [52]

    K., Thorngren, D., Fortney, J

    Teske, J. K., Thorngren, D., Fortney, J. J., Hinkel, N., & Brewer, J. M. 2019, AJ, 158, 239

    2019

  45. [53]

    2022, AJ, 164, 181 Van der Swaelmen, M., Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Magrini, L., et al

    Unni, A., Narang, M., Sivarani, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 181 Van der Swaelmen, M., Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Magrini, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A276

    2022

  46. [54]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9

    2000

  47. [55]

    1975, in La Dynamique des galaxies spirales, ed

    Wielen, R. 1975, in La Dynamique des galaxies spirales, ed. L. Weliachew, V ol. 241, 357

    1975

  48. [56]

    & Rix, H.-W

    Xiang, M. & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599 Article number, page 20 of 22 Patrick de Laverny et al.: The Gaia spectroscopic catalogue of exoplanets and host stars Appendix A: Additional validation of the derived radii and masses To complement the radius and mass validations ...

    2015

Pith tools

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