text:   planet formation assumptions",6,"['Hi all! Here a thread on my new paper (<LINK>). This project was born when we derived atmospheric C/Os of directly imaged planets with GRAVITY. What does that tell us about formation? Can we constrain formation locations, or modes?', ""One of our conclusions is that planet formation is so complex that it may be difficult to invert the process for a given planet, based on its composition. E.g., The plot below shows HR 8799e's inferred formation location when adding chemical evolution to the Öberg+11 disk model. https://t.co/uD7tAnorqs"", ""What is more, quite a lot of different planet formation assumptions lead to basically identical compositional outcomes. As an example, we study the Öberg disk, adding chemical evolution, or adding pebbles. They all do a good job at fitting the planets' C/O and [Fe/H], mostly. https://t.co/9TLDqndAl8"", 'What does this mean for the future? The power of atmospheric compositions lies in the trends that may emerge when analyzing the atmospheres of a large planet population. High-res spectra, JWST, and Ariel in the future will certainly help. Look at the wealth of visible species: https://t.co/pAcGXBPQVL', 'If many planets have a very high metallicity, this could be difficult to reproduce with pebbles. But high C/O and intermediate enrichment may point toward pebbles being important. The refractory content of an atmosphere could distinguish between planetesimals and pebbles, etc...', 'In summary: the more absorber species we probe for the planet population (carrying carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, refractory species), the more we will be able to say about the broad strokes of planet formation. Truly inverting formation for a single planet may stay a challenge!']",22,04,1642