An Agnostic Biosignature Based on Modeling Panspermia and Terraforming
Extracted source text · arXiv 2403.14195
%% Beginning of file 'sample631.tex'
%%
%% Modified 2022 May
%%
%% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
%% AASTeX v6.31 LaTeX 2e macros.
%%
%% AASTeX is now based on Alexey Vikhlinin's emulateapj.cls
%% (Copyright 2000-2015). See the classfile for details.
%% AASTeX requires revtex4-1.cls and other external packages such as
%% latexsym, graphicx, amssymb, longtable, and epsf. Note that as of
%% Oct 2020, APS now uses revtex4.2e for its journals but remember that
%% AASTeX v6+ still uses v4.1. All of these external packages should
%% already be present in the modern TeX distributions but not always.
%% For example, revtex4.1 seems to be missing in the linux version of
%% TexLive 2020. One should be able to get all packages from www.ctan.org.
%% In particular, revtex v4.1 can be found at
%% https://www.ctan.org/pkg/revtex4-1.
%% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v6.x document is the \documentclass
%% command. LaTeX will ignore any data that comes before this command. The
%% documentclass can take an optional argument to modify the output style.
%% The command below calls the preprint style which will produce a tightly
%% typeset, one-column, single-spaced document. It is the default and thus
%% does not need to be explicitly stated.
%%
%% using aastex version 6.3
\documentclass[twocolumn, twocolappendix]{aastex631}
%% Custom commands
%% Write chemical formula more easily, from: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/145860/97628
\newcommand*\chem[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{#1}}}
%% Uncomment to put large white spaces at the bottom of pages instead of the middle of them
% \raggedbottom
%% Try to make two-columns remain in appendix
% \let\newcolumn=\newpage
% \makeatletter
% \renewcommand{\newpage}{\if@firstcolumn\newcolumn\null\fi \newcolumn}
% \makeatother
%% The default is a single spaced, 10 point font, single spaced article.
%% There are 5 other style options available via an optional argument. They
%% can be invoked like this:
%%
%% \documentclass[arguments]{aastex631}
%%
%% where the layout options are:
%%
%% twocolumn : two text columns, 10 point font, single spaced article.
%% This is the most compact and represent the final published
%% derived PDF copy of the accepted manuscript from the publisher
%% manuscript : one text column, 12 point font, double spaced article.
%% preprint : one text column, 12 point font, single spaced article.
%% preprint2 : two text columns, 12 point font, single spaced article.
%% modern : a stylish, single text column, 12 point font, article with
%% wider left and right margins. This uses the Daniel
%% Foreman-Mackey and David Hogg design.
%% RNAAS : Supresses an abstract. Originally for RNAAS manuscripts
%% but now that abstracts are required this is obsolete for
%% AAS Journals. Authors might need it for other reasons. DO NOT
%% use \begin{abstract} and \end{abstract} with this style.
%%
%% Note that you can submit to the AAS Journals in any of these 6 styles.
%%
%% There are other optional arguments one can invoke to allow other stylistic
%% actions. The available options are:
%%
%% astrosymb : Loads Astrosymb font and define \astrocommands.
%% tighten : Makes baselineskip slightly smaller, only works with
%% the twocolumn substyle.
%% times : uses times font instead of the default
%% linenumbers : turn on lineno package.
%% trackchanges : required to see the revision mark up and print its output
%% longauthor : Do not use the more compressed footnote style (default) for
%% the author/collaboration/affiliations. Instead print all
%% affiliation information after each name. Creates a much
%% longer author list but may be desirable for short
%% author papers.
%% twocolappendix : make 2 column appendix.
%% anonymous : Do not show the authors, affiliations and acknowledgments
%% for dual anonymous review.
%%
%% these can be used in any combination, e.g.
%%
%% \documentclass[twocolumn,linenumbers,trackchanges]{aastex631}
%%
%% AASTeX v6.* now includes \hyperref support. While we have built in specific
%% defaults into the classfile you can manually override them with the
%% \hypersetup command. For example,
%%
%% \hypersetup{linkcolor=red,citecolor=green,filecolor=cyan,urlcolor=magenta}
%%
%% will change the color of the internal links to red, the links to the
%% bibliography to green, the file links to cyan, and the external links to
%% magenta. Additional information on \hyperref options can be found here:
%% https://www.tug.org/applications/hyperref/manual.html#x1-40003
%%
%% Note that in v6.3 "bookmarks" has been changed to "true" in hyperref
%% to improve the accessibility of the compiled pdf file.
%%
%% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
%% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
%% the \begin{document} command.
%%
\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
\newcommand\aastex{AAS\TeX}
\newcommand\latex{La\TeX}
%% Reintroduced the \received and \accepted commands from AASTeX v5.2
%\received{March 1, 2021}
%\revised{April 1, 2021}
%\accepted{\today}
%% Command to document which AAS Journal the manuscript was submitted to.
%% Adds "Submitted to " the argument.
%\submitjournal{PSJ}
%% For manuscript that include authors in collaborations, AASTeX v6.31
%% builds on the \collaboration command to allow greater freedom to
%% keep the traditional author+affiliation information but only show
%% subsets. The \collaboration command now must appear AFTER the group
%% of authors in the collaboration and it takes TWO arguments. The last
%% is still the collaboration identifier. The text given in this
%% argument is what will be shown in the manuscript. The first argument
%% is the number of author above the \collaboration command to show with
%% the collaboration text. If there are authors that are not part of any
%% collaboration the \nocollaboration command is used. This command takes
%% one argument which is also the number of authors above to show. A
%% dashed line is shown to indicate no collaboration. This example manuscript
%% shows how these commands work to display specific set of authors
%% on the front page.
%%
%% For manuscript without any need to use \collaboration the
%% \AuthorCollaborationLimit command from v6.2 can still be used to
%% show a subset of authors.
%
%\AuthorCollaborationLimit=2
%
%% will only show Schwarz & Muench on the front page of the manuscript
%% (assuming the \collaboration and \nocollaboration commands are
%% commented out).
%%
%% Note that all of the author will be shown in the published article.
%% This feature is meant to be used prior to acceptance to make the
%% front end of a long author article more manageable. Please do not use
%% this functionality for manuscripts with less than 20 authors. Conversely,
%% please do use this when the number of authors exceeds 40.
%%
%% Use \allauthors at the manuscript end to show the full author list.
%% This command should only be used with \AuthorCollaborationLimit is used.
%% The following command can be used to set the latex table counters. It
%% is needed in this document because it uses a mix of latex tabular and
%% AASTeX deluxetables. In general it should not be needed.
%\setcounter{table}{1}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%
%% The following section outlines numerous optional output that
%% can be displayed in the front matter or as running meta-data.
%%
%% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
%% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
%\shorttitle{AASTeX v6.3.1 Sample article}
%\shortauthors{Schwarz et al.}
%%
%% You can add a light gray and diagonal water-mark to the first page
%% with this command:
%% \watermark{text}
%% where "text", e.g. DRAFT, is the text to appear. If the text is
%% long you can control the water-mark size with:
%% \setwatermarkfontsize{dimension}
%% where dimension is any recognized LaTeX dimension, e.g. pt, in, etc.
%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\graphicspath{{./}{figures/}}
%% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
%% manuscript itself with \begin{document}.
\begin{document}
\title{An Agnostic Biosignature Based on Modeling Panspermia and Terraforming}
%% An Agnostic Biosignature Based on Modeling Panspermia and Terraforming
%% Distributed Agnostic Biosignatures Could Emerge from Interstellar Life
%% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
%% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
%% you desire. In v6.31 you can include a footnote in the title.
%% A significant change from earlier AASTEX versions is in the structure for
%% calling author and affiliations. The change was necessary to implement
%% auto-indexing of affiliations which prior was a manual process that could
%% easily be tedious in large author manuscripts.
%%
%% The \author command is the same as before except it now takes an optional
%% argument which is the 16 digit ORCID. The syntax is:
%% \author[xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx]{Author Name}
%%
%% This will hyperlink the author name to the author's ORCID page. Note that
%% during compilation, LaTeX will do some limited checking of the format of
%% the ID to make sure it is valid. If the "orcid-ID.png" image file is
%% present or in the LaTeX pathway, the OrcID icon will appear next to
%% the authors name.
%%
%% Use \affiliation for affiliation information. The old \affil is now aliased
%% to \affiliation. AASTeX v6.31 will automatically index these in the header.
%% When a duplicate is found its index will be the same as its previous entry.
%%
%% Note that \altaffilmark and \altaffiltext have been removed and thus
%% can not be used to document secondary affiliations. If they are used latex
%% will issue a specific error message and quit. Please use multiple
%% \affiliation calls for to document more than one affiliation.
%%
%% The new \altaffiliation can be used to indicate some secondary information
%% such as fellowships. This command produces a non-numeric footnote that is
%% set away from the numeric \affiliation footnotes. NOTE that if an
%% \altaffiliation command is used it must come BEFORE the \affiliation call,
%% right after the \author command, in order to place the footnotes in
%% the proper location.
%%
%% Use \email to set provide email addresses. Each \email will appear on its
%% own line so you can put multiple email address in one \email call. A new
%% \correspondingauthor command is available in V6.31 to identify the
%% corresponding author of the manuscript. It is the author's responsibility
%% to make sure this name is also in the author list.
%%
%% While authors can be grouped inside the same \author and \affiliation
%% commands it is better to have a single author for each. This allows for
%% one to exploit all the new benefits and should make book-keeping easier.
%%
%% If done correctly the peer review system will be able to
%% automatically put the author and affiliation information from the manuscript
%% and save the corresponding author the trouble of entering it by hand.
%\correspondingauthor{August Muench}
%\email{greg.schwarz@aas.org, gus.muench@aas.org}
\author[0000-0001-8806-9659]{Harrison B. Smith}
\altaffiliation{hbs@elsi.jp — HBS conceived original project idea, wrote and ran simulation code, wrote and edited the manuscript, and contributed to figure generation and data analysis}
\affiliation{Earth-Life Science Institute \\ Institute of Science Tokyo \\ Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan}
\affiliation{Blue Marble Space Institute of Science \\ Seattle, Washington, USA}
\author[0000-0003-2270-2954]{Lana Sinapayen}
\altaffiliation{lana.sinapayen@gmail.com — LS contributed to the experimental design, analysed the data, produced the figures, and edited the manuscript.
\\
\\
The code necessary to run the simulations and analyses is available at \url{https://github.com/hbsmith/SmithSinapayen2024}.
}
\affiliation{Sony Computer Science Laboratories, Kyoto, Japan}
\affiliation{National Institute for Basic Biology, Okazaki, Japan}
%% Change affiliation style to below if submitting to AAS
% \correspondingauthor{Harrison B. Smith}
% \email{hbs@elsi.jp}
% \correspondingauthor{Lana Sinapayen}
% \email{lana.sinapayen@gmail.comL}
%% Footnote without number, from: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/264157/97628
% \let\thefootnote\relax\footnotetext{The code necessary to run the simulations and analyses is available at \url{https://github.com/hbsmith/SmithSinapayen2024}.}
%% Note that the \and command from previous versions of AASTeX is now
%% depreciated in this version as it is no longer necessary. AASTeX
%% automatically takes care of all commas and "and"s between authors names.
%% AASTeX 6.31 has the new \collaboration and \nocollaboration commands to
%% provide the collaboration status of a group of authors. These commands
%% can be used either before or after the list of corresponding authors. The
%% argument for \collaboration is the collaboration identifier. Authors are
%% encouraged to surround collaboration identifiers with ()s. The
%% \nocollaboration command takes no argument and exists to indicate that
%% the nearby authors are not part of surrounding collaborations.
%% Mark off the abstract in the ``abstract'' environment.
\begin{abstract}
The search for a second instance of life is one of the greatest problems of modern science. Outside of creating an artificial origin of life on Earth, the primary targets for the search for life are planets inside or outside the solar system. Realistically, there are just a few locations to search for alien life within the solar system. Outside the solar system, opportunities are nearly unlimited, but there’s a catch: it is difficult to attribute, with certainty, features of exoplanets to extraterrestrial life. Simple spectral biosignatures are susceptible to false positives; technosignatures reduce this susceptibility at the expense of strong assumptions about potential underlying life and its technologies. We have developed an agnostic approach to exoplanet life detection that overcomes these limitations by using properties that emerge on the scale of groups of planets, without the need for a “smoking-gun” single-planet level biosignature. We use an agent-based model to show that if life can spread between star systems, and affect the observable properties of a planet, then a robust signature of life (with very few false positives) can emerge, defined by correlations between planet characteristics and their locations. By clustering planets based only on their observed characteristics, and retaining clusters localized in space, we demonstrate (and evaluate) a way to prioritize specific planets for further observation, based on their potential for containing life. We consider obstacles that must be overcome to practically implement our approach, including identifying specific ways in which better understanding astrophysical and planetary processes would improve our ability to detect life.
\end{abstract}
%% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command.
%% The AAS Journals now uses Unified Astronomy Thesaurus concepts:
%% https://astrothesaurus.org
%% You will be asked to selected these concepts during the submission process
%% but this old "keyword" functionality is maintained in case authors want
%% to include these concepts in their preprints.
\keywords{Astrobiology --- Life Detection --- Agnostic Biosignatures --- \\ Panspermia --- Terraforming --- Astronomical Simulation}
%% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
%% Sections are demarcated by \section and \subsection, respectively.
%% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label
%% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the
%% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.
%% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of
%% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.
%% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will
%% automatically renumber them.
%%
%% We recommend that authors also use the natbib \citep
%% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
%% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
%% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
It is difficult to attribute, with certainty, observable features of exoplanets to extraterrestrial life \citep{moore_how_2017, tasker_language_2017, green_call_2021, cockell_standards_2022, lenardic_hype_2022, lenardic_communicating_2023, smith_life_2023}. This is exemplified by the insufficient (and often ill-defined) working definitions of life that are used to interpret observational data, and by the growing number of false positives for traditional biosignatures \citep{cleland_defining_2002, benner_defining_2010, cleland_life_2012, mix_defending_2015, schwieterman_identifying_2016, bich_defining_2018, harman_biosignature_2018, schwieterman_exoplanet_2018, mariscal_life_2020, janin_exoplanet_2021, vickers_confidence_2023}.
One way in which the community aims to overcome the problems with defining life is to develop “agnostic” biosignatures\footnote{While the phrase agnostic biosignatures is relatively new, the concept of designing non-Earth centric life detection experiments dates back to at least 1961 \citep{sagan_origin_1961, lovelock_physical_1965}.}—detecting signs of life that are not particular to Earth-life or any other hypothetical instances of life \citep{marshall_identifying_2021, smith_grayness_2021}. Yet, agnostic biosignature proposals are sometimes built on restricted concepts of habitability (e.g., requiring rocky, watery planets), or simple anomaly detection (i.e., without using a working definition of life) \citep{kinney_epistemology_2022, cleaves_robust_2023}.
%% See e.g., p. 793 and neighboring sections in Walker 2018; or Walker 2021 (abstract only)
A proposed remedy for the issues surrounding traditional biosignatures has been to use so-called ``statistical" biosignatures—relying on integrating multiple lines of evidence to increase confidence in a discovery, or generating ensembles of data to better constrain the probability of making specific observations contingent on the presence of life \citep{lin_statistical_2015, catling_exoplanet_2018, walker_exoplanet_2018, affholder_bayesian_2021, bixel_bioverse_2021}. However, such statistical biosignatures often rely on assumptions about the prior probability of abiogenesis, or on the existence of unambiguous biosignatures for single planets. These approaches are often trying to solve more specific issues, like estimating the frequency of Earth-like life, the frequency of planets originating from panspermia compared to abiogenesis, or finding evidence of a specific metabolic process \citep{lin_statistical_2015, walker_exoplanet_2018, affholder_bayesian_2021, checlair_probing_2021, kovacevic_possible_2022}.
%% an assumption used to set up a context of inquiry that cannot itself be tested by that system of inquiry
Here we ask, can we detect the presence of life if we postulate that life is spreading between and terraforming planets?\footnote{Here, ``life spreading" refers to interstellar panspermia, and ``terraforming planets" refers to modifying observable characteristics of planets.} This is an astrobiological ``hinge proposition"\footnote{An assumption that enables a specific method of inquiry but which the method itself cannot verify. As \citet{kinney_epistemology_2022} write, “...it may still be the case that such assumptions are needed in order for us to have any chance of conducting successful inquiry in astrobiology."} of the kind described by Kinney \& Kempes as necessary to make sure ``that the door of astrobiology can turn properly" under conditions of deep uncertainty \citep{kinney_epistemology_2022}. It is also somewhat the converse of a question posed in other panspermia related work: Can the prevalence of panspermia be constrained when assuming we have a way to detect life? \citep{lin_statistical_2015, balbi_quantifying_2020, grimaldi_feasibility_2021, lingam_birthdeathmigration_2021, kovacevic_possible_2022}.
%% Cole: : Another line of evidence in whether or not terraforming is possible is current (techno-optimist) dreams of terraforming Mars. E.g. the market is uncertain about whether its possible but it hasn't said it's not yet -- and as a brain-dead American capitalist I assume the market is all knowing.
In fact, our postulates (of terraforming and panspermia) are less peculiar than they might at first seem: while existing work doesn’t always explicitly refer to terraforming, it must be assumed—in the sense that the mere presence of life stable over geological timescales would create environmental feedback with a planet, and if that life is to be detectable it must modify a planet's observables. Such planetary modification by life is a well-documented phenomena—e.g., the rise of \chem{O_2} during the great oxygenation event \citep{olejarz_great_2021}, or the rise of \chem{CO_2} from human industrial activity \citep{lynas_greater_2021}. Both of these examples represent unintentional terraforming, but intentional terraforming from intelligent life has been an area of active research \citep{beech_terraforming_2021,fogg_terraforming_1998,zubrin_technological_1993}, and would be expected to cause environmental change at a faster timescale.
The feasibility of interstellar lithopanspermia (non-intelligent exchange of material via rocks) has been discussed at length in other work (see e.g. \citealt{carroll-nellenback_fermi_2019, grimaldi_feasibility_2021, gobat_panspermia_2021, totani_solid_2023, cao_implications_2024} and references therein). Crucially, it appears plausible, although likelihoods and rates of material exchange vary considerably depending on assumptions on timing, amount of material ejected, organismal hardiness, and capture rates, among other features (e.g., recent work estimates that lithopanspermia is a plausible life-seeding mechanism for $\approx 10^5 $ planets in our Galaxy, but this estimate includes only Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone, \citealt{cao_implications_2024}). Arguments have likewise been made for the feasibility of directed interstellar panspermia by intelligent life \citep{wright_infrared_2014, newman_galactic_1981, crick_directed_1973}. Ultimately, our postulates of panspermia and terraforming are merely well understood hallmarks of life (proliferation via replication, and adaptation with bi-directional environmental feedback), escalated to the planetary scale, and executed on an interstellar scale.
We use simulations to show that statistical correlations between the spatial distribution of planets around different host stars, and their observable characteristics \textit{could itself} be evidence of life, without the need for a separate biosignature that could reliably detect life on any given planet in isolation. The agnosticism of our biosignature is inseparable from its emergence at the scale of a population of planets—singleton planetary anomalies might be explained away by unknown geochemical processes, or targeted simply because they are anomalous (without a clear hypothesis of why they should be explained by life). Hypothesizing that life spreads via panspermia and terraforming allows us to search for biosignatures while forgoing any strong assumptions about not only the peculiarities of life (e.g., its metabolism) and planetary habitability (e.g., requiring surface liquid water, \citealt{gobat_panspermia_2021}), but even the potential breadth of structure and chemical complexity underpinning living systems \citep{sole_largescale_2004, kim_universal_2019, bartlett_assessing_2022, wong_networkbased_2023}.
%% Leaving out since it references appendix
%% We show that evolving our model ... and discuss how varying the model's parameters impacts the correlation and its significance (Sec. \ref{subsec:paramsweep}).
We first describe our model (Sec. \ref{subsec:model}) and approach for statistically identifying the presence of terraformed planets (Sec. \ref{subsec:biosignature}). We show that evolving our model in time can increase the correlation between planets’ compositions and positions (Sec. \ref{subsec:simplecorr}). To identify specific planets likely to have been terraformed, we cluster planets by observable characteristics, then select clusters which are spatially localized and cause a decrease in correlation when removed (Secs. \ref{subsubsec:cluster}, \ref{subsubsec:selection}). We evaluate these clusters by calculating how well they correctly classify terraformed planets as being terraformed, and non-terraformed planets as being non-terraformed (Sec. \ref{subsec:promising}). Finally, we discuss how our results might change due to theoretical and observational constraints, identify specific ways in which better understanding astrophysical and planetary processes could improve life detection, and speculate on the concept of life at the scale of populations of planets.
% Finally this leads to some interesting outcomes when thinking about replication on the scale of planets. There are also interesting parallels here with biology as a whole, and the manifestation of life not just at the biosphere scale, but as an individual amongst a population of quasi-species at the galactic scale.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% METHODS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Methods} \label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Modeling Panspermia and Terraforming}\label{subsec:model}
\subsubsection{Summary}\label{subsubsec:model_summary}
We created an agent-based model to simulate life\footnote{In this work, we use \textit{life} specifically to refer to an agent (used strictly in the ``entity" sense of the word agent) traveling from a parent terraformed planet to a target non-terraformed planet, and whose arrival at the target planet triggers terraforming.} spreading between planets orbiting different host stars. The model is initialized with 1000 planets (one of which is terraformed/panspermia-capable), fixed in a frame of reference, and uniformly randomly distributed in a continuous 3D volume. All planets are assumed to be in different star systems (i.e., we assume one planet per star). ``Planets" have compositions representing the observable characteristics of the planet, and ``life" agents have compositions representing the observable characteristics of the planet which the life originates from. During simulation, terraformed planets \footnote{We specifically avoid saying living planets, because our methodology cannot distinguish between living planets incapable of panspermia and non-living planets.} emit life towards a target non-terraformed planet at a constant velocity \footnote{This approach is most similar to directed panspermia by intelligent life, but could also be envisioned as undirected lithopanspermia, where we refrain from burdening the simulations with agents that won't ever be able to interact with planets under the rules of our model.}. The target planets are selected based on proximity in position and in composition (see Sec. \ref{subsubsec:target_selection}). When life arrives at a planet, the planet's composition is modified (terraformed) based on both the initial composition of the planet and the composition of the incoming life. Life originating from that terraformed planet will then reflect its new composition. The time that life takes to travel to a planet in our model can be thought of as the sum of the time it takes to travel to and terraform a planet. Terraformed planets emit life at a fixed rate, provided suitable target planets exist (see Sec. \ref{subsubsec:target_selection}). The simulation ends when all planets are terraformed, or no suitable target planets remain (Fig. \ref{fig:concept}B).
%% "we refrain from burdening the simulations with agents that won't ever be able to interact with planets under the rules of our model." -> another way to imagine is that we're saying that if all planets are equally capable of panspermia, then the frequency of planets initialized with life in our model is an assumption about the prevalance of abiogenesis
\begin{figure}[b!]
\plotone{figures/concept_main.pdf}
\caption{
Target planet selection and terraforming. A. The objective function, used for determining the destination of life from a terraformed ``parent" planet. Candidate destinations are first constrained by a maximum positional distance threshold; among these candidates, the planet closest in composition to the parent planet is chosen as the target. B. Simulations are initialized with 1 origin of life, causing the initial distribution of planet compositions (seen in A) to become correlated. C. An example of how we determine target planet composition when retaining 10\% of the pre-terraformed planet composition. Note that while our simulations use a 3D space, the concept figure shows only a 2D space for clarity.
\label{fig:concept}}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Compositions and Terraforming} \label{subsubsec:compositions}
Both ``life" and ``planets" have compositions represented by vectors of 10 real numbers (each element $\in[0,1]$). In our model, these compositions are abstractions, used as a means to compare the compatibility of any given life and planet. While we might in the abstract think of one vector representing the observable characteristics of a planet, this same vector would not represent the \textit{same} observable characteristics of life compatible with that planet. For life, it instead represents the kind of \textit{planetary} observable characteristics which are compatible with that life. For example, perhaps a planet's composition vector $V$ corresponds to an atmosphere composed of 95\% \chem{CO_2} and 5\% \chem{N_2}. The same composition vector $V$ in the context of life is used to refer to a kind of life which could be compatible with a planet with an atmospheric composition of 95\% \chem{CO_2} and 5\% \chem{N_2}. This does not mean that life on such a planet is literally composed of 95\% \chem{CO_2} and 5\% \chem{N_2}. This captures the idea that if a life and a planet have identical composition vectors, then that life will surely be able to terraform the planet\footnote{This is an extreme example where technically life wouldn't even need to terraform the planet, because it implies that the planet's observable characteristics already perfectly match the planet from where the life originated.}. Correspondingly, in our model a life’s composition is identical to the planet from which it is emitted. Initial compositions of each planet are random, with each element in each composition vector drawn from a continuous uniform distribution $\in[0,1]$. This is a loose approximation of the unknowns surrounding the distribution of diversity of planets between planetary systems \citep{tasker_planetary_2020, pacetti_chemical_2022}.
Planet compositions are modified by terraforming, where a mixing function determines how to generate the terraformed composition based on the non-terraformed planet composition and the incoming life's composition. We apply a mixing function inspired by horizontal gene transfer \citep{senaratna_genetic_2005, umbarkar_crossover_2015}, but other mixing functions could also be used. The most important feature we aim to capture is the bi-directional feedback between the terraforming life, and the terraformed planet—such that future life emitted from the terraformed planet will inherit the post-terraforming characteristics of that planet. We keep $n = 1$ randomly chosen element from the planet’s pre-terraformed composition, and the rest of the terraformed composition is inherited from the terraforming life (Fig. \ref{fig:concept}C).
\subsubsection{Model Stepping} \label{subsubsec:model_stepping}
Each step of the model increments the time by $dt = 10$. Time units are arbitrary, and only impact the distance that life travels in a step, $dt*v_{\text{life}}$. Here, $v_{\text{life}} = 0.2$, and $emit\_rate = 0.01$, meaning that for every 10 model steps, a planet can emit 1 new life, and existing life can travel 20 units (for reference, the average distance between planets is $\sim 20$ units).
\subsubsection{Target Planet Selection} \label{subsubsec:target_selection}
The destination selection aims to balance the need of identifying a target planet that is both compositionally similar, and physically near, the parent planet. This is based on the assumption that life directing panspermia would want to minimize travel time and terraforming energy costs. In the context of lithopanspermia, this could be interpreted as an assumption that beyond a certain positional distance capture becomes vanishingly unlikely, and beyond a certain compositional distance compatibility becomes vanishingly unlikely.
%% Cole: Euclidean seems weird for composition -- why not cosine distance for example?
%% We ran simulations for [9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 50, 174], but Lana only used [9, 20, 50, 174]
The algorithm we used for determining a life's target planet has a positional distance threshold, $R_{pos}$. Among all non-terraformed planets, $P$, under that positional distance threshold from the life's origin planet, it selects the planet nearest in compositional space, $min_{comp}(P\leq R_{pos})$. Here, $P \leq R_{pos}$, is shorthand for all non-terraformed planets within $R_{pos}$ of life's origin planet, and $min_{comp}(P)$ is the planet at minimum compositional distance to the life's origin planet (Fig. \ref{fig:concept}A). The distances calculated are Euclidean. A range of positional thresholds, $R_{pos}$, corresponding to $\approx 5\%, 11\%, 29\%,$ and $100\%$ of the maximum distance possible between any two points in space were chosen for $min_{comp}(P\leq R_{pos})$ in order to span the transition between a model where terraforming of every planet is impossible and every planet is possible, based on the average distance between planets.
\subsection{Identifying the Presence of Terraformed Planets}\label{subsec:biosignature}
\subsubsection{Summary}\label{subsubsec:biosig_summary}
We hypothesize that the process of panspermia and terraforming in our model will lead to a population of planets with anomalously high positive correlations between their spatial locations and compositions, compared to random permutations of these planets' compositions. We quantify this using the Mantel test—a statistical test common in ecological science (Sec. \ref{subsubsec:mantel}). By clustering on the planet compositions, we can identify clusters of planets driving these correlations (Sec. \ref{subsubsec:cluster}). From these initial clusters, we select those localized in space (via their interquartile range, IQR), because we hypothesize that life would not only change the distribution of planetary compositions, but would also do so in a relatively compact portion of the galaxy. We further select clusters which, when removed, cause a decrease in the Mantel coefficient of the residual space of planets (Sec. \ref{subsubsec:selection}). Finally, we attempt to evaluate how well our clusters reflect the presence of truly terraformed planets (Sec. \ref{subsubsec:evaluation}).
%% Are we going to try to show that the "interesting" clusters have a much better true positive/false negative rate than the other clusters which didn't stand out in the spatial variance/mantel-removal analyses?
%% Cole: Why not do more permutations? Ans: It's slow and we were originally doing many different parameter sweeps.
%% Removed exact line number of scikit bio code \url{https://github.com/biocore/scikit-bio/blob/0.1.3/skbio/math/stats/distance/_mantel.py#L23}
%% This \clearpage is to prevent this instance of the subsection title falling on the last line of the page
% \clearpage
\subsubsection{Mantel Test}\label{subsubsec:mantel}
The Mantel test\footnote{While originally developed for biostatistics, and often applied to ecological data, we use the Mantel test here because it is a straightforward and established way to measure the correlation between a distance matrix representing space, and one representing an arbitrary attribute. The Mantel test has both critics and advocates \citep{legendre_should_2015, somers_putting_2022}, which we mention simply to make clear that the approach we describe is not wedded to using the Mantel test—we would expect similar results when using other distance-based tests.} is a measure of correlation between two distance matrices. The resulting value is called the Mantel coefficient, and is reported alongside a p-value calculated from an approximate permutation test (indicating the proportion of randomly permuted distance matrices which have correlations greater or equal to the correlation between the non-permuted distance matrices). Simply put, the p-value indicates how unlikely this correlation is compared to random permutations of the data. We wrote the Mantel test in Julia, with the algorithm and code adapted from Python’s scikit-bio \citep{thescikit-biodevelopmentteam_scikitbio_2020, rideout_biocore_2023}. Here we used the Mantel test to measure the Pearson correlation between a distance matrix of all planet positions, and a distance matrix of all planet compositions. For each Mantel coefficient calculation, the p-value was generated using $99$ permutations with a 2-sided alternative hypothesis. This is approximately equal to $2.5\sigma$ confidence. Because the p-value quantifies how anomalous an observed composition/position association is, given the assumptions of the model that correlations should only occur from panspermia and terraforming, we treat the p-value as one measure of confidence in the space containing a biosignature. To get an idea of how sensitive the Mantel coefficient corresponding to a $2.5\sigma$ detection is, we plotted how it varies based on number of planets observed (Fig. \ref{fig:test_power}). We find that the sensitivity of the Mantel coefficient to number of planets observed decreases exponentially, and 1000 planets seems like a reasonable choice to reflect the balance of the challenge of realistically observing planets, with the need for those planets to exhibit potentially small correlations in composition-position space. The exact shape of this plot will vary by model parameters, but is especially dependent on the distribution of planet compositions and positions (e.g., planets being evenly distributed in composition or position space, vs. extremely heterogeneous).
%% We use principle component analysis to qualitatively visualize our 10-dimensional clustering.
\subsubsection{Clustering} \label{subsubsec:cluster}
We clustered planets in each iteration of the simulation based only on their compositions, using the DBSCAN algorithm implemented in R \citep{hahsler_dbscan_2019}. Briefly, compared to other clustering algorithms, DBSCAN does not require the number of clusters to be predefined, can identify clusters of varying shapes and sizes based on the density of data points in the feature space, and separates points as belonging to clusters or noise. Arguments were chosen based on advice in the documentation, with $\texttt{minPts} = 11$ (the dimensionality of the data + 1), and $\texttt{eps}$ was chosen dynamically at each iteration based on the location of the elbow in the k-nearest neighbor distance plot. Because the location of the elbow is not always obvious, we used the R implementation of the Kneedle algorithm~\citep{satopaa_finding_2011}, with $\texttt{sensitivity parameter}=1$, empirically determined based on visual examination of the elbow placement on the nearest neighbor curves (Fig. \ref{fig:elbow}). Note that the sensitivity should be adjusted to the specific data being analyzed, and in our case the data changes at each time step. This results in the Kneedle sensitivity being appropriate for only part of the time steps in our simulation. We chose to focus on the early steps of the simulation (because the early steps of the simulation represent the time when life is not ubiquitous in the galaxy and thus expected to be harder to find), but the sensitivity should be adjusted if finding the curves' elbows in later time steps. DBSCAN classifies each point (planet) as either being part of a particular cluster, or noise (meaning it does not meet the criteria to fall into a cluster based on our chosen arguments).
\subsubsection{Selecting clusters} \label{subsubsec:selection}
We first sought to select clusters for their likelihood of containing terraformed planets, without the aid of ground truth labels (i.e., without using our knowledge of which planets were truly terraformed in the model). We selected them by measuring their spatial spread, and by analyzing how the Mantel coefficient of the residual space of planets changes when removing clusters of planets.
We created a threshold for the spatial spread of the planets in the clusters by taking the average of the interquartile range (IQR, where the middle 50\% of planets fall) of all planets across each of the $x, y, z$ dimensions, $\frac{(\text{IQR}_x + \text{IQR}_y + \text{IQR}_z)}{3}$, within the spatial extent of a cube with sides of length 1/2 the size of the model space (i.e., with a volume = $1/8$ the model space). For the simulation analyzed in this paper, $\text{IQR}= 25.2$. Thus, any cluster with $\text{IQR} \leq 25.2$ meets our threshold for being spatially localized\footnote{Though the extent we chose for an IQR threshold is arbitrary, it reflects the relative size of our model space and the presumption that looking for life that is still relatively spatially localized is of greater interest than looking for life which has already spread over the galaxy (the latter implying there might be other easier ways to look for life). This choice, like others, could be modified depending on other assumptions or objectives. }.
On top of this spatial IQR threshold, we imposed a second condition for selecting clusters: their impact on the full model space's Mantel coefficient when removed. We call the Mantel coefficient of the remaining space the residual mantel coefficient ($M_{residual}$). We quantify the impact of a cluster's removal relative to the original space's mantel coefficient ($M_{original}$), and call this the \textit{Mantel contribution} (MC), where $\text{MC} = \frac{M_{original}-M_{residual}}{M_{original}}$ . Our logic being that if $M_{residual}$ decreases with the exclusion of a subset of planets, those planets are likely a significant driver behind $M_{original}$, and thus would be favorable clusters for containing terraformed planets. We select any cluster with $\text{MC} \geq 0$ as meeting our MC threshold.
%% Estelle says of true/false positive passage: these clarifications should happen earlier in the text
%% H- but i'm not sure what exactly she means
%% Cole: How did you validate? What's a good cluster? How did this perform relative to the ground truth?
\subsubsection{Evaluating clustering} \label{subsubsec:evaluation}
We evaluated selected clusters meeting our criteria ($IQR \leq 25.2 \land \text{MC} \geq 0$) for how well they identified terraformed/non-terraformed planets, based on the true labels of each planet throughout our simulation.
At each iteration, for each selected cluster, we calculated the ratio of planets in the cluster which were terraformed (true positives, TP) and non-terraformed (false positives, FP), as well as the ratio of planets outside the cluster which were non-terraformed (true negatives, TN) and terraformed (false negatives, FN) (Fig. \ref{fig:perf_ratios}). For example, if 100 of 1000 planets are terraformed, and a single selected cluster is identified with 80 planets, only 75 of which are terraformed, then the ratios for each metric in this cluster are: $\text{TP} = 75/80$, $\text{FP} = 5/80$, $\text{TN}=895/920$, $\text{FN}=25/920$.
To simplify how this information is conveyed, we report the summary statistics of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
\begin{itemize}
\item Sensitivity is the proportion of all terraformed planets correctly selected by the cluster, $\text{TP/(TP+FN)}$. This is $75/(75+25)$ in our example.
\item Specificity is the proportion of all non-terraformed planets correctly \textit{not} selected by the cluster, $\text{TN/(TN+FP)}$. This is $895/(895+5)$ in our example.
\item Accuracy is the proportion of all planets correctly classified, $\text{TP+TN/(TP+FP+TN+FN)}$. This is $(75+895)/1000$ in our example.
\end{itemize}
We believe a reliable biosignature must minimize false positives (i.e., must not misclassify non-terraformed planets), even at the expense of producing false negatives (i.e., missing terraformed planets). We thus consider our evaluation to be successful in validating our approach if specificity is high, even if sensitivity is low.
% Sensitivity = TP/AP = TP/(TP+FN) = 75/100 -> proportion of terraformed planets correctly classified. Correctly detect terraform planets as being terraformed.
% Specificity = TN/AN = TN/(TN+FP) = 895/900 -> proportion of non-terraformed planets correctly classified. Correctly reject non-terraformed planets as being non-terraformed.
% Accuracy = (TP+TN)/pop. = 970/1000 -> proportion correctly classified. Correctly classify both terraformed and non-terraformed planets.
\subsection{Software and Availability} \label{subsec:software}
The code necessary to run the simulations and analyses is available on Github at \url{https://github.com/hbsmith/SmithSinapayen2024}. Simulations were built in Julia, and analyses were carried out in Julia, Python, and R.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% RESULTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Results} \label{sec:results}
%% Analyze or discuss results for different assumption on underlying distribution of planet compositions? A: Save for follow up or post-arxiv v1
%% Mention that we do parameter sweeps for more than just e.g. OoL, but then reference appendix
\subsection{Panspermia can increase the correlation between planets’ compositions and positions} \label{subsec:simplecorr}
We find that panspermia causes uncorrelated planets to become positively correlated in position-composition distance space, as quantified by the Mantel test (see Methods. \ref{subsubsec:mantel}).
We initialized a simulation with the intention of making terraforming easy and reliable, in order to check if a positive Mantel correlation coefficient is observable in a “best case” scenario. The simulation begins with a single terraformed planet, targets the most compositionally similar planet within $R_{pos} \leq 20$ ($\approx 11\%$ of the maximum possible distance between planets in our model), and with terraforming keeping 1 of the 10 compositional elements from the pre-terraformed planet. This means that over time, all planets in the simulation acquire similar, but not identical compositions. We found that the Mantel coefficient indeed increased as the ratio of terraformed planets increased, until reaching a peak around a terraformed ratio of $\approx 0.75$, and then decreased (Fig. \ref{fig:mantel_pval}, black). Because the Mantel coefficient measures the correlation between positional and compositional distance matrices of planets, this correlation will decrease if either distance matrix becomes too homogeneous. This is exactly what begins to happen with the compositional distance matrix, with the decline especially pronounced if there is perfect replication (see Appendix Fig. \ref{fig:param_sweep}, and Appendix Sec. \ref{sec:appendix} for a discussion on the effect of varying simulation parameters).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/mantel_pvalue.pdf}
\caption{
Mantel coefficient and p-value as a function of the ratio of planets terraformed. The earliest we observe a p-value $\leq 0.01$ is at a terraformed ratio $\approx 7\%$ (here, 70 planets).
\label{fig:mantel_pval}}
\end{figure}
% Next, we characterized how varying the simulation parameters influenced the Mantel coefficient as a function of the ratio of terraformed planets in the simulation (see Fig. \ref{fig:param_sweep}). We find that these results contain one of a few characteristic shapes–flat, increasing then decreasing, or mostly increasing. For conceptual clarity, in the main text we focus on the results from a single set of parameters, but see Appendix Sec. \ref{subsec:paramsweep} for a discussion on the characteristics of other initializations' Mantel coefficient curves.
While the increase in Mantel correlation coefficient we can observe is striking, what we are really interested in is how anomalous the observed correlations in position/composition space are, and not the absolute value of them. That is, we expect life spreading via panspermia and terraforming to cause not just positive mantel correlation coefficients, but anomalously high ones compared to other possible permutations of the data. As seen in Fig. \ref{fig:mantel_pval} (in red), the p-value of our Mantel test indeed decreases as planets become terraformed, and after $\approx 8\%$ of planets are terraformed, $p \leq 0.01$ (which is the maximal precision we can reach with 99 permutations).
%% of finding the limit of detection with as few terraformed planets as possible, cole and estelle said: This number seems important to determine -- even an order of magnitude across a wide range of parameters is useful
Based on our postulates, this indicates that the Mantel test—and more specifically its p-value (which remains low even after the coefficient decreases)—can identify the presence of panspermia and terraforming, provided there are enough planets in our observed population terraformed. When we investigated how sensitive the Mantel coefficient is to number of planets observed (independent of the number terraformed), we find that the value of the Mantel coefficient corresponding to a similarly confident $2.5\sigma$ detection increases exponentially with fewer planets observed (i.e., to reach the same confidence with fewer observations, we need a higher Mantel coefficient. See Fig. \ref{fig:test_power}).
But even if we live at a point in time where there actually are $\geq 10\%$ of planets terraformed, this does not answer the question of \textit{which} planets observed within our population might host life. Identifying such planets would be important for determining targets for follow up detailed observations, in the event that the methodology adhered to with these model results could be carried out with a simpler set of observational data.
% the run that I chose, but we might do a different one
% needs to save as pdf
\subsection{Likely terraformed planets can be identified from clustering} \label{subsec:promising}
We next attempted to select planets with high potential for having undergone terraforming. Based on the idea that terraformed planets are likely to have similar observable compositions, we start by clustering planets based on only their compositions, at each simulation iteration (see Methods \ref{subsubsec:cluster}). The key question is—of the clusters identified, which ones likely contain terraformed planets? To address this, we selected clusters (without using the ground truth labels of which planets were terraformed) by looking at the effect they have, when removed, on the residual space's Mantel coefficient (Mantel contribution $> 0$; Fig. \ref{fig:mantel_contribution}). We further selected clusters based on their planets' spatial localization (IQR $\leq$ 25.2; Fig. \ref{fig:iqr}).
%% Contribution is negative if when removing the cluster, the mantel goes up. Black points in inset are those with positive contribution, those we zoom in in the big figure.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/mantel_contribution.pdf}
\caption{
Mantel contribution as a cluster selection criterion. Clusters with a Mantel contribution $> 0$ (black) meet this selection criterion, indicating that their removal is a detriment to the residual space's Mantel coefficient (causing it to decrease). Clusters with a negative Mantel contribution shown in grey. The inset shows the full range of negative values in all clusters.
\label{fig:mantel_contribution}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/iqr.pdf}
\caption{
Selection criteria used on clusters of planets. Spatial localization of clusters of planets is shown on the y-axis, as measured by the Interquartile Range (IQR) of each cluster. Horizontal dashed line (at $\text{IQR}=25.2$) denotes the threshold used, below which we selected clusters for being spatially localized. This corresponds to approximately the average IQR of planets in a cube the size of 1/8 the model space. Color bar shows the Mantel Contribution (MC) of clusters, with a high MC indicating a cluster as being important for raising the full space's Mantel coefficient.}
\label{fig:iqr}
\end{figure}
%% How much to discuss how these results for promising clusters might change if we had "real" data from only t=now? (no time series)
With both of these selection criteria applied, we detect a total of 247 clusters across all terraformed ratios—the earliest first appearing at a terraformed ratio of 0.04 (Figs. \ref{fig:detection_example}, \ref{fig:pca}). Selected clusters range in size depending on the terraformed ratio, with 1-3 clusters appearing at most simulation iterations between terraformed ratios of 0.04 to 1. Additionally, we find that the Mantel p-value of detected clusters, measured in isolation, is low (Fig.~\ref{fig:clusters_m}). Changing the parameters used in clustering, or the thresholds used for IQR and MC could identify planet clusters either earlier (by increasing sensitivity) or later (by increasing the IQR threshold).
%% nclusters detected as a function of MC:
% MC>0 -> 247
% MC>0.25 -> 55
% MC>0.5 -> 17
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/detection-example.pdf}
\caption{
The earliest detected cluster in our simulation, at a terraformed ratio of $0.04$. This is a projection of 3D planet locations in the 2D X-Y plane, and the earliest time step where we detect a cluster of planets meeting our selection criteria. True terraformed planets ($n=40$) have blue fill, while planets detected by our selection method ($n=19$) have a red outline.
\label{fig:detection_example}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/pca.pdf}
\caption{
PCA of planetary compositions at a terraformed ratio of $0.04$, the earliest time step where we detect selected clusters (red). PCA is used here only for displaying 10 compositional dimensions on a 2D page, and was not used for clustering.
\label{fig:pca}}
\end{figure}
%% Other things to look at?
%% - Results are best when cluster size chosen closely matches the number of living planets in each independent origin?
%% - We can detect clusters with life even if they’re relatively small?
After selecting clusters, we evaluate if they actually contain terraformed planets (Figs. \ref{fig:perf_m}, \ref{fig:perf_b}). We find that across the full range of terraformed ratios, they have extremely high specificity—close to 1.0—correctly rejecting non-terraformed planets as being non-terraformed. On the other hand, detected cluster sensitivity—a measure of correctly detecting terraformed planets as being terraformed—ranges from 1.0, down to near 0.0. The highest sensitivity clusters appear when fewer planets are terraformed (which is encouraging for the prospects of life detection via our method if we exist at a time when the universe is not yet saturated with life). This could be explained by the fact that throughout the simulation clusters remain small (in terms of number of planets), and the rest of the planets often get classified as noise (this being due to the sensitivity to elbow selection). As a consequence of decreasing sensitivity, accuracy—the proportion of \textit{all} planets correctly classified—also decreases.
When we raise the MC threshold used for cluster selection (to 0.25 or 0.5), we find that each of these summary statistics improves, reflecting the fact that the more the MC threshold is raised, the more data is excluded from higher terraformed ratios, meaning that the bulk of the data remaining is from early clusters with high sensitivity and high accuracy (Figs. \ref{fig:perf_m}, \ref{fig:perf_b}).
% how does the minimum p-value possible change with the number of planets we’re observing?}
% something liike what i already made looking at how mantel threshold correspond to a particular sigma confidence (e.g. p-value) changes based on number of planets in observation? the threshold for p-value is highly dependent on a combination of nplanets observed, and the distribution of those planets?
% this one is meant to be width = 2 columns
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/performance_metrics.pdf}
\caption{
Summary evaluation metrics of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for our selected clusters, as a function of terraformed ratio. Color gradient corresponds to subsets of the data meeting MC selection thresholds of 0, 0.25, and 0.5.
\label{fig:perf_m}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/boxplots.pdf}
\caption{Summary evaluation metrics of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for our selected clusters, grouped by MC threshold. From left to right, boxes within plots correspond to raising the MC threshold used for selection (left: MC= 0, middle: MC=0.25, right: MC=0.5).
\label{fig:perf_b}}
\end{figure*}
% \begin{figure*}[htb!]
% \plotone{figures/perf.pdf}
% \caption{
% The number of true positive (terraformed) and false positive (non-terraformed) planets in each cluster, as well as the number of true negative (non-terraformed) and false negative (terraformed) planets within the noise data\label{fig:perf}}
% \end{figure*}
\section{Summary and Discussion} \label{sec:discussion}
We show how a positive Mantel correlation coefficient with a low p-value can be used to identify when a region of space contains life, under the postulates that life can spread between planetary systems and terraform planets (whether intentionally or not). Going beyond (or below) a population-scale biosignature, we demonstrate how to select, from a population of planets, clusters which have high-likelihood to contain terraformed planets. More importantly, these selected clusters have a\textit{ low-likelihood} to contain \textit{non}-terraformed planets. This is increasingly important as the field of astrobiology reconciles with unavoidable false positives for more traditional biosignatures. In the scenario where our galaxy is already becoming saturated with terraformed life, our detection method becomes less sensitive. Our work has several limitations and space for improvements.
We assumed that the background non-terraformed distribution of planetary compositions is uncorrelated and drawn from a flat random distribution of compositions (a reasonable prior given the high sensitivity of planet formation to initial conditions of the planetary disk, \citealt{tasker_planetary_2020, pacetti_chemical_2022}). In the event that abiotic planets are correlated in position and composition space (perhaps from some undiscovered astrophysical phenomena), then the value of the Mantel correlation coefficient considered to be a statistically significant biosignature would have to increase. It's possible that if the underlying coefficient of non-terraformed planets were too high, the spread of life would actually increase the Mantel p-value, even early in the simulation. If planetary compositions are actually clustered around a few characteristic planet types, we could represent the initial non-terraformed planets as being drawn from a distribution punctuated with narrow Gaussians in composition space, and the results might be different yet. Our results underscore the importance of better understanding the baseline abiotic diversity of planetary populations, including better constraining which features of planet formation best predict planetary characteristics over time. Our model demonstrates that such information could be used to aid life detection in the absence of making progress on a theory of living systems.
Applying our approach to observed astronomical data will also be affected by relative stellar velocities. Naturally this is relevant if we wish to detect potential correlations on the timescale of the evolution of planets. The relative velocity dispersion of stars depends on a variety of factors (such as temperature and age), but in the solar neighborhood generally fall within $20 \leq \sigma_v \leq 40$ km/s \citep{dehnen_local_1998, fatheddin_statistical_2023}. This implies that pairwise distance relationships among stars within a region of scale $L$ become significantly reorganized on a timescale with an upper bound of order $t \sim L/\sigma_v$. Using a value of $L$ corresponding to the solar neighborhood $25 \leq L \leq 100$pc \citep{smart_gaia_2021, golovin_fifth_2023} implies $0.6 \leq t \leq 5$ My. At these timescales, velocity dispersion should dominate the mixing process, when compared to the effects of velocity shear in the Milky Way \citep{binney_galactic_2011}.
Back of the envelope calculations indicate that the potential for panspermia in this time frame may not be so dire with some improvements to spacecraft speed. There are $\sim$ 5200 stars within 25pc of the sun, according to the latest Catalogue of Nearby Stars (CNS5)\citep{golovin_fifth_2023}. This corresponds to a density of $\sim$ 0.08 stars per pc$^3$, or $\approx$ 1 star per 12.5 pc$^3$, and thus an average distance between stars of $\sim$ 3 pc. Assuming as we do in our model that panspermia proceeded exponentially, and in parallel, it would take only $\log_2(40)\sim 5.3$ generations of travel to terraform 40 stars (which is the number we identified in our results as the minimum required for detectability). Six generations corresponds to a minimum of 18 pc (3 pc per generation to the nearest neighboring stars) that have to be traveled sequentially. Benchmarking this against the fastest man made object on trajectory to escape the solar system (the Voyager spacecraft), and the fastest detected interstellar object (comet 3I/ATLAS): terraforming 40 star systems would take $\sim 1$ My years at Voyager speeds ($\sim 15$ km/s or $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$ pc/yr) \citep{voyager_2024}, or $\sim 250,000$ years at 3I/ATLAS speeds ($\sim 60$ km/s or $6 \times 10^{-5}$ pc/yr) \citep{team_where_2026} (assuming, as we do in our model, that this also includes the time it takes to terraform). These are long timescales for humans, but within the 5 My upper bound calculated above. Moreover, there are no physical laws preventing the launch of much faster spacecraft (within the speed of light), only technological and economic ones. For example, the Breakthrough Starshot program had planned to create spacecraft that could be accelerated up to speeds of 1000 km/s. If it were possible to engage in panspermia with such spacecraft, the timescale could be reduced to a mere 18,000 years.
In the absolute worst case scenario, the approach we provide would be applicable for stars in similar phase space \citep{lin_statistical_2015}, and of course for life which spreads on average faster than relative stellar velocities—potentially limiting its applicability to life spread via directed panspermia, or via lithopanspermia on exceptionally abundant and fast moving interstellar objects (however, this might cause other challenges in e.g., gravitational capture and impact survival, \citealt{totani_solid_2023}). Overall, stellar and galactic dynamics paint a complicated picture and understanding their impact on our results in more detail is a subject we aim to examine in future work.
% Applying our approach to observed astronomical data will also be affected by relative stellar velocities. Stars move relative to each other fast enough that, for example, the Sun's current nearest neighbor, Alpha Centauri, will be on the opposite side of the galaxy on time scales on the order of 100 My.
% It's possible that if the underlying coefficient of non-terraformed planets were too high, the spread of life would actually increase the Mantel p-value, even early in the simulation. In this case, the Mantel test would cease to be a useful population-scale life detection method.
Our approach also provides an alternative to specific chemical biosignatures at the level of planets, showing the promise of detecting anomalous features at the population-scale. Critically, these anomalous features can be explained by a model with simple hypotheses about what life does, rather than what life is, and is agnostic to our ignorance of living systems as they might exist outside of Earth.
By developing a life detection approach that does not require us to assume the existence of specific bio or technosignatures, we can overcome potential issues relevant to the Fermi Paradox. Simple percolation models predict that once a civilization begins the process of galactic expansion, it can proceed to rapidly spread throughout the entire galaxy. Recent work demonstrates that this is contingent on other factors like civilization lifetimes, and it's possible to end up in a steady state where not all planets with the potential to support life will actually contain life, even after settlement fronts have spread across all of galactic space \citep{carroll-nellenback_fermi_2019}. We might expect to have already detected life if we were currently living in such scenarios. One reason this might not be the case is if technology that life is using is too advanced for us to recognize. But another intriguing solution is that life eventually becomes so sustainable that it becomes indistinguishable from a natural non-intelligent or non-biotic planet \citep{schroeder_deepening_2011,likavcan_grass_2025}. The method we proposed here could nevertheless be able to detect interstellar life in either of these scenarios.
This discussion is only an introduction to the kinds of questions which could be investigated with this technique. The basic idea of taking key features of life, and understanding how they might manifest on the scale of planets leads us to imagine properties of life that may manifest across scales, like ``planetary phylogenies"—that is, heredities and lineages of planets—and how they could shed light on better understanding living systems generally. Such hypothetical characteristics of planets (and life) could be investigated with our model.
% We also hope to put more concrete bounds on the kinds of observations which need to be made in order to validate our proposed population-scale biosignature.
Perhaps one of the biggest limitations in our model is assuming we can reliably map observable characteristics of a planet to something as comprehensible and malleable as a vector of real numbers. For example, how the chemistry of the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, etc. could be reflected via the atmosphere of a planet, and what the mappings are from observed atmospheric properties (the planet's ``phenotype") to the underlying chemistries that put constraints on the compatibility of planets (the planet's ``genotype"), and the kinds of life which can emerge on or coexist with a planet. This would further strengthen the realism of our agnostic approach with minimal assumptions, and in future work we would like to explore these ideas in detail.
%% Lana: all of that being said, if we took a naive approach and had, say, the O2 % of all 5000 detected exoplanets, and found a low mantel p-value with a low-spread cluster that has a high MC... it would still be suspicious. I guess I mean, those limitations are only limitations once the approach actually fails using naive assumptions
While we only walk through a simulation under a single set of parameters here, our goal is to identify a best possible case scenario for applying a technique where we assume life should be able to drive correlations in planetary position-composition space based on hallmarks of life like proliferation and environmental feedback. Our model results show promise that life could be detected at the scale of a population of planets, using information from only $\approx$ 1000 (perhaps fewer) planetary atmospheres, even in the absence of any information about what kinds of planetary environments are most suitable to life, or without knowing anything about the origins of life, or the peculiarities of life's metabolic outputs. We showed how our distributed biosignature can be further refined to detect specific clusters of terraformed planets in this space, even when they only comprise a few percent of all planets. Again, this approach does not require an independent way to ``detect" life, like a smoking gun biosignature atmospheric gas. Instead this approach depends on two key assumptions about what life can do, and derives observable consequences directly from them, providing a statistical approach which can be refined by astronomical surveys, and therein lies its biggest promise.
\begin{acknowledgments}
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Estelle Janin and Cole Mathis for encouraging and productive conversations, and for feedback on the manuscript.
\end{acknowledgments}
\vspace*{5\baselineskip}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% For this sample we use BibTeX plus aasjournals.bst to generate the
%% the bibliography. The sample631.bib file was populated from ADS. To
%% get the citations to show in the compiled file do the following:
%%
%% pdflatex sample631.tex
%% bibtext sample631
%% pdflatex sample631.tex
%% pdflatex sample631.tex
% \clearpage %% to keep figures from being interspersed with refs
\bibliography{references}{}
\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% APPENDIX %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\appendix
% below commands not necessary once I discovered the \appendix command above
% \clearpage
%% Reset figure counter
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{A\arabic{figure}}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
% %% Reset section counter
% \renewcommand{\thesection}{A\arabic{section}}
% \setcounter{section}{0}
\section{Appendix} \label{sec:appendix}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\plotone{figures/param_sweep.pdf}
\caption{
The impact of model parameter changes on the Mantel coefficient. Examples corresponding to ``flat" (orange), ``increasing than decreasing" (green), and ``mostly increasing" (yellow). A and B show heatmaps for the maximum Mantel coefficient reached when varying the the amount of planetary composition retained by the terraformed planet after terraforming (x-axis), and varying the maximum allowed distance for planet target selection (y-axis), for scenarios with 1 OoL (A), and 10 OoL (B). C. The Mantel coefficient across different scenarios as a function of the terraformed planet ratio (x-axis).
\label{fig:param_sweep}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The mantel coefficient does not strictly increase with the proliferation of life} \label{subsec:paramsweep}
We investigated how changing the parameters of our model influenced the Mantel coefficient as a function of the ratio of terraformed planets. We find a few characteristic shapes of curves observed: flat, increasing then decreasing, and mostly increasing.
\subsubsection{Additional Parameters}
\textbf{Mutation. }Depending on the scenario, we include either a 0\% or 10\% chance of mutation for each element of the planet's new composition, meaning that in the 10\% scenario, with our length 10 composition vector, on average, 1 of the 10 elements is mutated during each terraforming event. Mutated elements are chosen from a continuous uniform random distribution of [0, 1], just like the initial compositions were chosen. Mutation is meant to represent the change in the kind of planetary observable characteristics which are compatible with life as life evolves over time.
\textbf{Number of origins of life (OoL).} Simulations are initialized with either 1 or 10 OoL (Fig.~\ref{fig:concept_appendix}).
\textbf{Compositions inherited from pre-terraformed planet}. We vary the number of elements that the post-terraformed planet inherits from the pre-terraformed planet, $ n \in [0,1,2,5]$, with the rest of the composition inherited from the incoming life.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\plotone{figures/concept_appendix.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Effect of complete terraforming, dependent on number of OoL.} Simulations are initialized with either 1 or 10 origins of life, leading to different dynamics of compositional evolution. }
\label{fig:concept_appendix}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Flat curve}
Because all simulations are initialized with planets of random compositions, the Mantel coefficient is initially~0. A flat curve shape indicates that the spread of life does not cause a significant increase to the mantel coefficient (Fig.~\ref{fig:param_sweep}). In simulations targeting the most compositionally similar planets within a positional distance cutoff, $min_{comp}(P\leq R_{pos})$, flat curves occur when the distance cutoff is low enough that the terraformed planets run out of new target terraforming candidates (Fig.~\ref{fig:param_sweep}A bottom-most row, orange box). Flat shapes also occur in scenarios where terraforming maintains at least half of a target planet’s composition (Fig.~\ref{fig:param_sweep}B, rightmost column, orange box).
\subsubsection{Increasing then decreasing curve}
When simulations are initialized with a single OoL, the progression of planet terraforming over time leads to an increasing then decreasing shaped Mantel coefficient curve, where the Mantel coefficient peaks after some of the planets have been terraformed, and then decreases afterwards (Fig. \ref{fig:param_sweep}, data in green). Because the Mantel coefficient is measuring the correlation between positional and compositional distance matrices of planets, this correlation will decrease if either distance matrix becomes too homogeneous. With a single OoL, this is exactly what begins to happen with the compositional distance matrix, with the decline especially pronounced in the scenario with perfect replication (Fig. \ref{fig:param_sweep}B, green box).
\subsubsection{Mostly increasing curve}
The simulations reaching the highest Mantel coefficient are observed when the Mantel coefficient steadily increases as the ratio of terraformed planets increases, peaking near a ratio of 1 (Fig. \ref{fig:param_sweep} data in yellow). This occurs for simulations when the incoming life overwrites most of the terraformed planet’s original composition (Fig. \ref{fig:param_sweep}A, yellow box), and especially when having 10 OoL. In $min_{comp}(P\leq R_{pos})$ simulations, they occur when the distance cutoff is small enough that the simulation doesn’t end before all planets become terraformed, and enable a maximum Mantel coefficient to occur at the point when all planets have been terraformed (Fig. \ref{fig:param_sweep} B, yellow box). The parameters that lead to this behavior appear to be a “tipping point”, where the distance range for panspermia is just barely large enough to allow the simulation to proceed until all planets become terraformed.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/nplanets_vs_mantel_at_sigma.pdf}
\caption{A sensitivity analysis of the Mantel coefficient corresponding to a $2.5 \sigma$ and $5 \sigma$ anomaly, as a function of the number of planets observed. Positions and compositions of planets are chosen as in our model (See Methods Sec. \ref{sec:methods}) We find that the sensitivity of the Mantel coefficient to number of planets decreases exponentially, and 1000 planets seems like a reasonable choice to reflect the balance of the challenge of realistically observing planets, with the need for those planets to exhibit potentially small correlations in composition-position space. The exact shape of this plot will vary by model parameters, but is especially dependent on the distribution of planet compositions and positions (e.g., planets being evenly distributed in composition or position space, vs. extremely heterogeneous; not shown)}
\label{fig:test_power}
\end{figure}
% all of these figures are meant to be 1 column
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/elbow.pdf}
\caption{Elbow detection using the Kneedle algorithm for t=105 (left) and t = 205 (right) with different values of the sensitivity parameter. The elbow value has a huge influence on the quality of clustering. The curves on the right can be argued to have 3 elbows; 1 steep convex elbow, 1 soft convex elbow, and 1 concave elbow. We are interested in the steepest convex elbow, and therefore choose a sensitivity~=~1 in this paper.
\label{fig:elbow}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/clusters_mantel.pdf}
\caption{Mantel coefficient of each of the clusters as a function of the ratio of terraformed planets in the whole space. In grey are the clusters labeled as ``noise" by the DBSCAN algorithm. The vertical dashed line represents the earliest detection of a cluster of terraformed planets using our proposed approach. The solid curve is the Mantel of the total space.
\label{fig:clusters_m}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/clusters_pvalue.pdf}
\caption{P-value of the Mantel coefficient of each of the clusters as a function of the ratio of terraformed planets in the whole space. In grey are the clusters labeled as ``noise" by the DBSCAN algorithm. The vertical dashed line represents the earliest detection of a cluster of terraformed planets using our proposed approach. The solid curve is the p-value of the Mantel coefficient of the total space.
\label{fig:clusters_p}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/corr-cluster-m.pdf}
\caption{Number of false positives in each cluster as a function of the cluster's own Mantel coefficient. While the curve has a fascinating shape, we can see that there is no easy correlation.
\label{fig:corr_m}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/corr-cluster-p.pdf}
\caption{Number of false positives in each cluster as a function of the cluster's p-value for its Mantel coefficient. We can see that there is no simple correlation.
\label{fig:corr_p}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/corr-iqr.pdf}
\caption{Number of false positives in each cluster as a function of the cluster's IQR.
\label{fig:corr_iqr}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/corr-mc.pdf}
\caption{Number of false positives in each cluster as a function of the MC. There is a clear divide between the negative and positive MC.
\label{fig:corr_mc}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/corr-residual-m.pdf}
\caption{Number of false positives in each cluster as a function of the residual Mantel coefficient. We can see that there is no simple correlation.
\label{fig:corr_rm}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/corr-residual-p.pdf}
\caption{Number of false positives in each cluster as a function of the residual p-value. We can see that there is no simple correlation.
\label{fig:corr_rp}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
% \epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{figures/performance_ratios.pdf}
\caption{Ratios of true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives when changing the MC threshold in our selection critera. These results are for clusters below our IQR threshold of $25.2$.
\label{fig:perf_ratios}}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% PRE-POPULATED DOCUMENT EXAMPLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \section{Manuscript styles} \label{sec:style}
% The default style in \aastex\ v6.31 is a tight single column style, e.g. 10
% point font, single spaced. The single column style is very useful for
% article with wide equations. It is also the easiest to style to work with
% since figures and tables, see Section \ref{sec:floats}, will span the
% entire page, reducing the need for address float sizing.
% To invoke a two column style similar to the what is produced in
% the published PDF copy use \\
% \noindent {\tt\string\documentclass[twocolumn]\{aastex631\}}. \\
% \noindent Note that in the two column style figures and tables will only
% span one column unless specifically ordered across both with the ``*'' flag,
% e.g. \\
% \noindent{\tt\string\begin\{figure*\}} ... {\tt\string\end\{figure*\}}, \\
% \noindent{\tt\string\begin\{table*\}} ... {\tt\string\end\{table*\}}, and \\
% \noindent{\tt\string\begin\{deluxetable*\}} ... {\tt\string\end\{deluxetable*\}}. \\
% \noindent This option is ignored in the onecolumn style.
% Some other style options are outlined in the commented sections of this
% article. Any combination of style options can be used.
% Authors are required to provide line numbering in the manuscript. Line numbering makes it easier for the review to references specific places in the manuscript.
% This functionality has been built into AASTeX since v6.0. The {\tt\string linenumbers} style option invokes the lineno style file to number each article line in the left margin.
% There is also a new {\tt\string modern} option that uses a Daniel
% Foreman-Mackey and David Hogg design to produce stylish, single column
% output that has wider left and right margins. It is designed to have fewer
% words per line to improve reader retention. It also looks better on devices
% with smaller displays such as smart phones.
% The {\tt\string anonymous} option will prevent the author and affiliations
% from being shown in the compiled pdf copy. This option allows the author
% to keep this critical information in the latex file but prevent the reviewer
% from seeing it during peer review if dual anonymous review (DAR) is requested.
% Likewise, acknowledgments can also be hidden if placed in the new
% {\tt\string\begin\{acknowledgments\}} ... {\tt\string\end\{acknowledgments\}}
% environment. The use of this option is highly recommended for PSJ submissions.
% Advice for anonymizing your manuscript for DAR is provided at
% \url{https://journals.aas.org/manuscript-preparation/#dar}.
% \section{Floats} \label{sec:floats}
% Floats are non-text items that generally can not be split over a page.
% They also have captions and can be numbered for reference. Primarily these
% are figures and tables but authors can define their own. \latex\ tries to
% place a float where indicated in the manuscript but will move it later if
% there is not enough room at that location, hence the term ``float''.
% Authors are encouraged to embed their tables and figures within the text as
% they are mentioned. Please do not place the figures and text at the end of
% the article as was the old practice. Editors and the vast majority of
% referees find it much easier to read a manuscript with embedded figures and
% tables.
% Depending on the number of floats and the particular amount of text and
% equations present in a manuscript the ultimate location of any specific
% float can be hard to predict prior to compilation. It is recommended that
% authors textbf{not} spend significant time trying to get float placement
% perfect for peer review. The AAS Journal's publisher has sophisticated
% typesetting software that will produce the optimal layout during
% production.
% Note that authors of Research Notes are only allowed one float, either one
% table or one figure.
% For authors that do want to take the time to optimize the locations of
% their floats there are some techniques that can be used. The simplest
% solution is to placing a float earlier in the text to get the position
% right but this option will break down if the manuscript is altered.
% A better method is to force \latex\ to place a
% float in a general area with the use of the optional {\tt\string [placement
% specifier]} parameter for figures and tables. This parameter goes after
% {\tt\string \begin\{figure\}}, {\tt\string \begin\{table\}}, and
% {\tt\string \begin\{deluxetable\}}. The main arguments the specifier takes
% are ``h'', ``t'', ``b'', and ``!''. These tell \latex\ to place the float
% \underline{h}ere (or as close as possible to this location as possible), at
% the \underline{t}op of the page, and at the \underline{b}ottom of the page.
% The last argument, ``!'', tells \latex\ to override its internal method of
% calculating the float position. A sequence of rules can be created by
% using multiple arguments. For example, {\tt\string \begin\{figure\}[htb!]}
% tells \latex\ to try the current location first, then the top of the page
% and finally the bottom of the page without regard to what it thinks the
% proper position should be. Many of the tables and figures in this article
% use a placement specifier to set their positions.
% Note that the \latex\ {\tt\string tabular} environment is not a float. Only
% when a {\tt\string tabular} is surrounded by {\tt\string\begin\{table\}} ...
% {\tt\string\end\{table\}} is it a true float and the rules and suggestions
% above apply.
% In AASTeX v6.31 all deluxetables are float tables and thus if they are
% longer than a page will spill off the bottom. Long deluxetables should
% begin with the {\tt\string\startlongtable} command. This initiates a
% longtable environment. Authors might have to use {\tt\string\clearpage} to
% isolate a long table or optimally place it within the surrounding text.
% \subsection{Tables} \label{subsec:tables}
% Tables can be constructed with \latex's standard table environment or the
% \aastex's deluxetable environment. The deluxetable construct handles long
% tables better but has a larger overhead due to the greater amount of
% defined mark up used set up and manipulate the table structure. The choice
% of which to use is up to the author.
% Tables longer than 250 data lines and complex tables should only have a
% short example table with the full data set available in the machine
% readable format. The machine readable table will be available in the HTML
% version of the article with just a short example in the PDF. Authors are
% required to indicate in the table comments that the data in machine
% readable format in the full article.
% Authors are encouraged to create their own machine
% readable tables using the online tool at
% \url{http://authortools.aas.org/MRT/upload.html} but the data editors will review and edit all submissions prior to publication.
% Full details on how to create the different types of tables are given in the AASTeX guidelines at \url{http://journals.aas.org/authors/aastex.html}
% \subsubsection{Splitting a table into multiple horizontal components}
% Since the AAS Journals are now all electronic with no print version there is
% no reason why tables can not be as wide as authors need them to be.
% However, there are some artificial limitations based on the width of a
% print page. The old way around this limitation was to rotate into
% landscape mode and use the smallest available table font
% sizes, e.g. {\tt\string\tablewidth}, to get the table to fit.
% Unfortunately, this was not always enough but now there is a new way to break
% a table into two or three components so that it flows down a page by
% invoking a new table type, splittabular or splitdeluxetable. Within these
% tables a new ``B'' column separator is introduced. Much like the vertical
% bar option, ``$\vert$'', that produces a vertical table lines
% the new ``B'' separator indicates where to \underline{B}reak
% a table. Up to two ``B''s may be included.
% Table \ref{tab:deluxesplit}
% shows how to split a wide deluxetable into three parts with
% the {\tt\string\splitdeluxetable} command. The {\tt\string\colnumbers}
% option is on to show how the automatic column numbering carries through the
% second table component.
% \begin{splitdeluxetable*}{lccccBcccccBcccc}
% \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
% \tablewidth{0pt}
% %\tablenum{1}
% \tablecaption{Measurements of Emission Lines: two breaks \label{tab:deluxesplit}}
% \tablehead{
% \colhead{Model} & \colhead{Component}& \colhead{Shift} & \colhead{FWHM} &
% \multicolumn{10}{c}{Flux} \\
% \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{($\rm
% km~s^{-1}$)}& \colhead{($\rm km~s^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{($\rm
% 10^{-17}~erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}$)} \\
% \cline{5-14}
% \colhead{} & \colhead{} &
% \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Ly$\alpha$} & \colhead{N\,{\footnotesize
% V}} & \colhead{Si\,{\footnotesize IV}} & \colhead{C\,{\footnotesize IV}} &
% \colhead{Mg\,{\footnotesize II}} & \colhead{H$\gamma$} & \colhead{H$\beta$}
% & \colhead{H$\alpha$} & \colhead{He\,{\footnotesize I}} &
% \colhead{Pa$\gamma$}
% }
% \colnumbers
% \startdata
% { }& BELs& -97.13 & 9117$\pm 38$& 1033$\pm 33$&$< 35$&$< 166$& 637$\pm 31$& 1951$\pm 26$& 991$\pm 30$& 3502$\pm 42$& 20285$\pm 80$& 2025$\pm 116$& 1289$\pm 107$\\
% {Model 1}& IELs& -4049.123 & 1974$\pm 22$& 2495$\pm 30$&$< 42$&$< 109$& 995$\pm 186$& 83$\pm 30$& 75$\pm 23$& 130$\pm 25$& 357$\pm 94$& 194$\pm 64$& 36$\pm 23$\\
% { }& NELs& \nodata & 641$\pm 4$& 449$\pm 23$&$< 6$&$< 9$& -- & 275$\pm 18$& 150$\pm 11$& 313$\pm 12$& 958$\pm 43$& 318$\pm 34$& 151$\pm 17$\\
% \hline
% { }& BELs& -85 & 8991$\pm 41$& 988$\pm 29$&$< 24$&$< 173$& 623$\pm 28$& 1945$\pm 29$& 989$\pm 27$& 3498$\pm 37$& 20288$\pm 73$& 2047$\pm 143$& 1376$\pm 167$\\
% {Model 2}& IELs& -51000 & 2025$\pm 26$& 2494$\pm 32$&$< 37$&$< 124$& 1005$\pm 190$& 72$\pm 28$& 72$\pm 21$& 113$\pm 18$& 271$\pm 85$& 205$\pm 72$& 34$\pm 21$\\
% { }& NELs& 52 & 637$\pm 10$& 477$\pm 17$&$< 4$&$< 8$& -- & 278$\pm 17$& 153$\pm 10$& 317$\pm 15$& 969$\pm 40$& 325$\pm 37$&
% 147$\pm 22$\\
% \enddata
% \tablecomments{This is an example of how to split a deluxetable. You can
% split any table with this command into two or three parts. The location of
% the split is given by the author based on the placement of the ``B''
% indicators in the column identifier preamble. For more information please
% look at the new \aastex\ instructions.}
% \end{splitdeluxetable*}
% \subsection{Figures\label{subsec:figures}}
% Figure (removed) shows the changes in the author publication charges (APCs) from 1990 to 2020 in the AAS Journals. The primary command for creating figures is the {\tt\string\includegraphics} command. Full details can be found \break
% \url{https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Importing\_Graphics\#Including\_graphics}.
% \subsection{Enhanced graphics}
% Enhanced graphics have an example figure to serve as an example for the
% reader and the full graphical item available in the published HTML article.
% This includes Figure sets, animations, and interactive figures. The
% Astronomy Image Explorer (\url{http://www.astroexplorer.org/}) provides
% access to all the figures published in the AAS Journals since they offered
% an electronic version which was in the mid 1990s. You can filter image
% searches by specific terms, year, journal, or type. The type filter is
% particularly useful for finding all published enhanced graphics. As of
% May 2022 there are over 4500 videos, 1600 figure sets, and 125 interactive
% figures. Authors should review the AASTeX guidebook at \url{http://journals.aas.org/authors/aastex/aasguide.html} to see how to represent these enhanced graphics in their own manuscripts.
% \section{Software and third party data repository citations} \label{sec:cite}
% The AAS Journals would like to encourage authors to change software and
% third party data repository references from the current standard of a
% footnote to a first class citation in the bibliography. As a bibliographic
% citation these important references will be more easily captured and credit
% will be given to the appropriate people.
% The first step to making this happen is to have the data or software in
% a long term repository that has made these items available via a persistent
% identifier like a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). A list of repositories
% that satisfy this criteria plus each one's pros and cons are given at \break
% \url{https://github.com/AASJournals/Tutorials/tree/master/Repositories}.
% In the bibliography the format for data or code follows this format: \\
% \noindent author year, title, version, publisher, prefix:identifier\\
% \citet{2015ApJ...805...23C} provides a example of how the citation in the
% article references the external code at
% \doi{10.5281/zenodo.15991}. Unfortunately, bibtex does
% not have specific bibtex entries for these types of references so the
% ``@misc'' type should be used. The Repository tutorial explains how to
% code the ``@misc'' type correctly. The most recent aasjournal.bst file,
% available with \aastex\ v6, will output bibtex ``@misc'' type properly.
% %% IMPORTANT! The old "\acknowledgment" command has be depreciated. It was
% %% not robust enough to handle our new dual anonymous review requirements and
% %% thus been replaced with the acknowledgment environment. If you try to
% %% compile with \acknowledgment you will get an error print to the screen
% %% and in the compiled pdf.
% %%
% %% Also note that the akcnowlodgment environment does not support long amounts of text. If you have a lot of people and institutions to acknowledge, do not use this command. Instead, create a new \section{Acknowledgments}.
% \begin{acknowledgments}
% We thank all the people that have made this AASTeX what it is today. This
% includes but not limited to Bob Hanisch, Chris Biemesderfer, Lee Brotzman,
% Pierre Landau, Arthur Ogawa, Maxim Markevitch, Alexey Vikhlinin and Amy
% Hendrickson. Also special thanks to David Hogg and Daniel Foreman-Mackey
% for the new "modern" style design. Considerable help was provided via bug
% reports and hacks from numerous people including Patricio Cubillos, Alex
% Drlica-Wagner, Sean Lake, Michele Bannister, Peter Williams, and Jonathan
% Gagne.
% \end{acknowledgments}
% %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
% %% telescopes the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
% %% facilities.
% %
% %% Following the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
% %% \facility{} or \facilities{} macros to list the keywords of facilities used
% %% in the research for the paper. Each keyword is check against the master
% %% list during copy editing. Individual instruments can be provided in
% %% parentheses, after the keyword, but they are not verified.
% \vspace{5mm}
% \facilities{HST(STIS), Swift(XRT and UVOT), AAVSO, CTIO:1.3m,
% CTIO:1.5m,CXO}
% %% Similar to \facility{}, there is the optional \software command to allow
% %% authors a place to specify which programs were used during the creation of
% %% the manuscript. Authors should list each code and include either a
% %% citation or url to the code inside ()s when available.
% \software{astropy \citep{2013A&A...558A..33A,2018AJ....156..123A},
% Cloudy \citep{2013RMxAA..49..137F},
% Source Extractor \citep{1996A&AS..117..393B}
% }
% %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
% %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
% %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
% %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
% %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
% %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc. The
% %% Figure and Table counter will not reset.
% \appendix
% \section{Appendix information}
% Appendices can be broken into separate sections just like in the main text.
% The only difference is that each appendix section is indexed by a letter
% (A, B, C, etc.) instead of a number. Likewise numbered equations have
% the section letter appended. Here is an equation as an example.
% \begin{equation}
% I = \frac{1}{1 + d_{1}^{P (1 + d_{2} )}}
% \end{equation}
% Appendix tables and figures should not be numbered like equations. Instead
% they should continue the sequence from the main article body.
% \section{Gold Open Access}
% As of January 1st, 2022, all of the AAS Journals articles became open access, meaning that all content, past, present and future, is available to anyone to read and download. A page containing frequently asked questions is available at \url{https://journals.aas.org/oa/}.
% \section{Author publication charges} \label{sec:pubcharge}
% In April 2011 the traditional way of calculating author charges based on
% the number of printed pages was changed. The reason for the change
% was due to a recognition of the growing number of article items that could not
% be represented in print. Now author charges are determined by a number of
% digital ``quanta''. A single quantum is 350 words, one figure, one table,
% and one enhanced digital item. For the latter this includes machine readable
% tables, figure sets, animations, and interactive figures. The current cost
% for the different quanta types is available at
% \url{https://journals.aas.org/article-charges-and-copyright/#author_publication_charges}.
% Authors may use the online length calculator to get an estimate of
% the number of word and float quanta in their manuscript. The calculator
% is located at \url{https://authortools.aas.org/Quanta/newlatexwordcount.html}.
% \section{Rotating tables} \label{sec:rotate}
% The process of rotating tables into landscape mode is slightly different in
% \aastex v6.31. Instead of the {\tt\string\rotate} command, a new environment
% has been created to handle this task. To place a single page table in a
% landscape mode start the table portion with
% {\tt\string\begin\{rotatetable\}} and end with
% {\tt\string\end\{rotatetable\}}.
% Tables that exceed a print page take a slightly different environment since
% both rotation and long table printing are required. In these cases start
% with {\tt\string\begin\{longrotatetable\}} and end with
% {\tt\string\end\{longrotatetable\}}. Table \ref{chartable} is an
% example of a multi-page, rotated table. The {\tt\string\movetabledown}
% command can be used to help center extremely wide, landscape tables. The
% command {\tt\string\movetabledown=1in} will move any rotated table down 1
% inch.
% A handy "cheat sheet" that provides the necessary \latex\ to produce 17
% different types of tables is available at \url{http://journals.aas.org/authors/aastex/aasguide.html#table_cheat_sheet}.
% \section{Using Chinese, Japanese, and Korean characters}
% Authors have the option to include names in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean (CJK)
% characters in addition to the English name. The names will be displayed
% in parentheses after the English name. The way to do this in AASTeX is to
% use the CJK package available at \url{https://ctan.org/pkg/cjk?lang=en}.
% Further details on how to implement this and solutions for common problems,
% please go to \url{https://journals.aas.org/nonroman/}.
% %% This command is needed to show the entire author+affiliation list when
% %% the collaboration and author truncation commands are used. It has to
% %% go at the end of the manuscript.
% %\allauthors
% %% Include this line if you are using the \added, \replaced, \deleted
% %% commands to see a summary list of all changes at the end of the article.
% %\listofchanges
\end{document}
% End of file `sample631.tex'.