pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05068 · v2 · pith:6ZY4U7GGnew · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

The NUV transit of XO-3 b

Raven Cilley , Lia Corrales , George W. King , Jiayin Dong , Robert Frazier , Kohei Miyakawa , Akihiko Fukui , Teruyuki Hirano
show 3 more authors
Juliette Becker James T. Sikora Lisa Dang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 06:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet transitnear-UVXO-3 batmospheric escapehot JupiterXMM-Newtonbow shock
0
0 comments X

The pith

NUV transit of XO-3 b is 30-70% deeper than optical and 22 minutes late

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

The paper reports a joint fit to a 2024 XMM-Newton NUV observation of XO-3 b together with concurrent optical photometry and the full TESS transit series. The NUV data yield a radius ratio 30-70% larger than the optical value and place the transit midpoint 22 minutes later than the optical ephemeris. The authors also extract the first X-ray luminosity for the host star and derive a mass-loss rate of order 10^4 g/s, too low to account for the NUV features through hydrodynamic escape. Analytic estimates of a magnetic bow shock can produce timing shifts of the observed size but predict an early rather than late transit.

Core claim

We find a NUV transit depth of Rp,NUV/R* = 0.1371+0.016−0.019, which is 30-70% deeper than the optical transit. The transit center in the NUV is 22+13−11 minutes late compared to the optical ephemeris. The estimated mass-loss rate is ~10^4 g/s. While such a mechanism is capable of producing NUV transit offsets on the order of tens of minutes, our analytic approximations predict an early rather than late transit, indicating a need for further magnetohydrodynamic simulations.

What carries the argument

The measured offset in transit depth and mid-transit time between NUV and optical bands for the single XO-3 b event

If this is right

  • The NUV-absorbing region extends 30-70% farther from the planet than the optical photosphere.
  • Atmospheric escape cannot produce the observed NUV transit because the derived mass-loss rate is only ~10^4 g/s.
  • Analytic bow-shock models are ruled out by the sign of the timing offset and require full MHD treatment.
  • Joint optical-NUV analysis can isolate extended atmospheric structures invisible in single-band data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the delay persists in future NUV transits, the absorber is likely fixed relative to the planet rather than variable.
  • The low mass-loss rate implies the NUV material is not being continuously replenished by escape and may instead trace a static cloud or magnetic structure.
  • Similar late NUV offsets in other eccentric hot Jupiters would strengthen the case for magnetic interactions over escape.

Load-bearing premise

The optical ephemeris from TESS and ground-based transits is accurate enough that a 22-minute offset in one NUV observation must be astrophysical rather than an ephemeris or timing error.

What would settle it

A second NUV transit observation that either recovers the same 22-minute delay or measures a mass-loss rate at least 100 times higher than 10^4 g/s

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05068 by Akihiko Fukui, George W. King, James T. Sikora, Jiayin Dong, Juliette Becker, Kohei Miyakawa, Lia Corrales, Lisa Dang, Raven Cilley, Robert Frazier, Teruyuki Hirano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Detrended (GP removed) TESS light curves, with the best-fit models and mid-transit times fitted individually to each transit overplotted. 2.2. Results The best-fit transit models along with detrended TESS data are shown in view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Transit timing analysis results. (Left) The best-fit mid-transit time for each of the TESS transits compared to the transit number are overlaid with the best-fit line (gray), where the slope gives the orbital period. (Right) The difference between the observed mid-transit time and the expected mid-transit time calculated from the best-fit orbital period from the TESS dataset. Overlaid are the Spitzer resul… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Results of our analysis of XMM-Newton OM data. The top panel shows the normalized data and expected duration of the NUV transit, using our ephemeris fitted to optical TESS data. The bottom panel shows the detrended data, which is equal to the normalized data divided by the GP model. The bottom panel additionally provides a comparison between a forward-propagated optical transit model and the NUV transit model view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Posterior distribution for the optical transit fit parameters, including both the ground-based ISAS data and TESS data. The optical limb darkening coefficients were also a free parameter in this fit, but are not shown (see view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Second panel of view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Near-UV (NUV) measurements of exoplanet transits offer a means to probe atmospheric escape, cloud formation, and planetary magnetic fields. We examine a 2024 XMM-Newton Optical Monitor NUV observation of the transit of XO-3~b, a massive hot Jupiter on an eccentric orbit with a previously observed abnormally large NUV-absorbing atmosphere. We analyze this NUV data jointly with a concurrent ground-based optical observation and all TESS transit observations, and find a NUV transit depth of $R_{p,NUV}/R_{\star} = 0.1371^{+0.016}_{-0.019}$, which is 30-70% deeper than the optical transit. Although the optical transits do not show signs of transit timing variations, the transit center in the NUV is $22^{+13}_{-11}$ minutes late compared to the optical ephemeris. We investigate atmospheric escape as a potential explanation of the properties of this NUV transit by examining X-ray data from XMM-Newton, characterizing the X-ray luminosity of XO-3 for the first time and estimating an extremely small mass-loss rate of $\sim10^4$ g/s ($\sim10^{-19}$ M$_{\text{jup}}$/yr). Finally, we investigate the likelihood of an NUV-absorbent bow-shock by estimating the magnetic field of the planet. While such a mechanism is capable of producing NUV transit offsets on the order of tens of minutes, our analytic approximations predict an early rather than late transit, indicating a need for further magnetohydrodynamic simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a joint analysis of a single 2024 XMM-Newton Optical Monitor NUV light curve of the eccentric hot Jupiter XO-3 b together with concurrent ground-based optical photometry and the full TESS transit dataset. It measures an NUV radius ratio Rp,NUV/R* = 0.1371+0.016−0.019 (30–70 % deeper than the optical value), a transit midpoint 22+13−11 min later than the optical ephemeris, an X-ray luminosity that yields a mass-loss rate ∼10^4 g s−1, and analytic estimates suggesting that a planetary bow shock could produce timing offsets of tens of minutes (though the sign is opposite to the observed lag).

Significance. A robust detection of enhanced NUV absorption and a statistically significant timing offset would add a useful data point on atmospheric escape and possible magnetic interactions for an eccentric giant planet. The joint multi-wavelength fit and first X-ray characterization of the host are concrete strengths that allow quantitative comparison with escape models.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / joint fit] Abstract and joint-analysis section: the 22+13−11 min NUV timing offset is presented as astrophysical and used to motivate bow-shock and escape scenarios, yet no propagated uncertainty on the linear optical ephemeris at the 2024 epoch is quoted. With a multi-year TESS baseline, even a period uncertainty of a few seconds can accumulate to tens of minutes; without this calculation the offset cannot be distinguished from ephemeris error.
  2. [X-ray / mass-loss section] Mass-loss paragraph: the conversion from measured X-ray luminosity to Ṁ ∼ 10^4 g s−1 relies on an adopted scaling factor whose uncertainty is not propagated into the final rate; the quoted value therefore cannot be treated as a firm upper limit without the explicit functional form and its error budget.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that optical transits show no TTVs, but the joint fit should explicitly report the period and epoch uncertainties derived from the combined TESS + ground data so readers can assess the timing baseline themselves.
  2. Notation: Rp,NUV/R* is given with asymmetric errors; ensure the same convention is used consistently in all tables and figures for the optical comparison value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested calculations and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / joint fit] Abstract and joint-analysis section: the 22+13−11 min NUV timing offset is presented as astrophysical and used to motivate bow-shock and escape scenarios, yet no propagated uncertainty on the linear optical ephemeris at the 2024 epoch is quoted. With a multi-year TESS baseline, even a period uncertainty of a few seconds can accumulate to tens of minutes; without this calculation the offset cannot be distinguished from ephemeris error.

    Authors: We agree this calculation is required. In the revised manuscript we will propagate the full covariance from the joint TESS + ground-based optical ephemeris fit to the 2024 XMM-Newton epoch and quote the resulting uncertainty on the predicted optical transit midpoint. We will then reassess the significance of the NUV offset and update the discussion of bow-shock and escape scenarios accordingly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [X-ray / mass-loss section] Mass-loss paragraph: the conversion from measured X-ray luminosity to Ṁ ∼ 10^4 g s−1 relies on an adopted scaling factor whose uncertainty is not propagated into the final rate; the quoted value therefore cannot be treated as a firm upper limit without the explicit functional form and its error budget.

    Authors: We accept the point. The revised text will state the explicit scaling relation (including the adopted factor and its literature reference), propagate its uncertainty together with the X-ray luminosity error, and present the mass-loss rate as an order-of-magnitude estimate with the full error budget rather than a single approximate value. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational measurements with independent estimates

full rationale

The paper reports direct fits to NUV, TESS, and optical light curves yielding Rp,NUV/R* and a timing offset, followed by an X-ray luminosity characterization used to estimate mass-loss rate via standard escape formulas and an analytic bow-shock magnetic field estimate. No equation defines a quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on self-citation. All central results are tied to external data (light curves, X-ray counts) rather than internal redefinitions, making the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard transit photometry assumptions (limb darkening, no unocculted spots) and the conversion of X-ray flux to mass-loss rate via an energy-limited escape formula; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • NUV transit depth and center time
    Fitted parameters from the joint light-curve model; central to the depth and offset claims.
  • X-ray luminosity to mass-loss conversion factor
    Used to arrive at the ~10^4 g/s rate; typical for the method but not independently verified here.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Optical ephemeris from TESS and ground data accurately predicts the true mid-transit time to better than ~10 minutes
    Invoked when claiming the 22-minute NUV offset is astrophysical.
  • domain assumption Energy-limited hydrodynamic escape formula applies to XO-3b at the measured X-ray flux
    Used to convert X-ray luminosity into the quoted mass-loss rate.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5858 in / 1554 out tokens · 22114 ms · 2026-05-25T06:37:12.852348+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516

    Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V., Carroll, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1516 2023

  2. [2]

    2020, AJ, 159, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 15

    Agol, E., Luger, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2020, AJ, 159, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 2020

  3. [3]

    N., Johnson, J

    Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/18 2012

  4. [4]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  6. [6]

    T., Stevens, M

    Badman, S. T., Stevens, M. L., Bale, S. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.17149. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17149 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/119 2025

  7. [7]

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

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6246 2000

  8. [8]

    S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629882 2017

  9. [9]

    2021, A&A, 655, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141497 —

    Caldiroli, A., Haardt, F., Gallo, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141497 —. 2022, A&A, 663, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142763

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141497 2021

  10. [10]

    1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    work page doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  11. [11]

    R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A

    Christensen, U. R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A. 2009, Nature, 457, 167, doi: 10.1038/nature07626

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07626 2009

  12. [12]

    2017, A&A, 600, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705

    Claret, A. 2017, A&A, 600, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629705 2017

  13. [13]

    W., et al

    Corrales, L., Ravi, S., King, G. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 287, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c67 2021

  14. [14]

    J., Cowan, N

    Dang, L., Bell, T. J., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac365f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac365f 2022

  15. [15]

    I., & Johnson, J

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

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

  16. [16]

    2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    Dong, J., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace105 2023

  17. [17]

    J., et al

    Duann, Y., Lai, S.-H., Hoeijmakers, H. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556404

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556404 2025

  18. [18]

    J., et al

    Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature14501

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14501 2015

  19. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2688 2019

  20. [20]

    M., Sing, D

    Evans-Soma, T. M., Sing, D. K., Barstow, J. K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 845, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02513-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02513-x 2025

  21. [21]

    B., Havlickova, M., & Rasio, F

    Ford, E. B., Havlickova, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2001, Icarus, 150, 303, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6588

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6588 2001

  22. [22]

    B., & Rasio, F

    Ford, E. B., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 621, doi: 10.1086/590926

    work page doi:10.1086/590926 2008

  23. [23]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c 2018

  24. [24]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 19

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 2017

  25. [25]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Agol, E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.01994

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    2021, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1998447 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Savel, A., Luger, R., et al. 2021, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1998447 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447 2021

  27. [27]

    M., Barstow, J

    Gapp, C., Evans-Soma, T. M., Barstow, J. K., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 341, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9c6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9c6e 2025

  28. [28]

    1980, ApJ, 241, 425, doi: 10.1086/158356

    Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425, doi: 10.1086/158356 H´ ebrard, G., Bouchy, F., Pont, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 763, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810056

    work page doi:10.1086/158356 1980

  29. [29]

    S., & Winn, J

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

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

  30. [30]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016

  31. [31]

    M., McCullough, P

    Johns-Krull, C. M., McCullough, P. R., Burke, C. J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 657, doi: 10.1086/528950

    work page doi:10.1086/528950 2008

  32. [32]

    P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 2021

  33. [33]

    W., Corrales, L

    King, G. W., Corrales, L. R., Fern´ andez Fern´ andez, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1054

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1054 2024

  34. [34]

    W., Wheatley, P

    King, G. W., Wheatley, P. J., Salz, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1110

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1110 2018

  35. [35]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013

  36. [36]

    A., Fulton, B

    Knutson, H. A., Fulton, B. J., Montet, B. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/126 2014

  37. [37]

    2022, ApJS, 258, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10 —

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10 —. 2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10 2022

  38. [38]

    P., Burrows, D

    Kraft, R. P., Burrows, D. N., & Nousek, J. A. 1991, ApJ, 374, 344, doi: 10.1086/170124 16

    work page doi:10.1086/170124 1991

  39. [39]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/683602 2015

  40. [40]

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. A. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01143 2019

  41. [41]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815 Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Vidal-Madjar, A., McConnell, J

    Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., et al. 2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815 Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Vidal-Madjar, A., McConnell, J. C., & H´ ebrard, G. 2004, A&A, 418, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040106 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913347 Lightkurve Collabor...

    work page doi:10.1086/380815 2003

  42. [42]

    D., Fu, G., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Fu, G., Sing, D. K., & Barman, T. S. 2020, ApJL, 898, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba265

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba265 2020

  43. [43]

    D., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Sing, D. K., Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2022, Nature, 604, 49, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04453-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04453-2 2022

  44. [44]

    D., Bennett, K

    Lothringer, J. D., Bennett, K. A., Sing, D. K., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 274, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc117

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc117 2025

  45. [45]

    2019, AJ, 157, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

    Luger, R., Agol, E., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5 2019

  46. [46]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 283, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/283

    Marin, F., & Grosso, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 283, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/283

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/283 2017

  47. [47]

    O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al

    Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000044

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000044 2001

  48. [48]

    R., & Rosner, R

    Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Kashyap, V., Harnden, Jr., F. R., & Rosner, R. 1996, ApJS, 102, 75, doi: 10.1086/192252

    work page doi:10.1086/192252 1996

  49. [49]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857

    Parviainen, H., & Aigrain, S. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1857 2015

  50. [50]

    A., & Espinoza, N

    Patel, J. A., & Espinoza, N. 2022, AJ, 163, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55 2022

  51. [51]

    2019, A&A, 628, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731674

    Pizzocaro, D., Stelzer, B., Poretti, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731674

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731674 2019

  52. [52]

    R., Winn , J

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

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

  53. [53]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc129

    Rusznak, J., Wang, X.-Y., Rice, M., & Wang, S. 2025, ApJL, 983, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc129

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc129 2025

  54. [54]

    C., Fossati, L., et al

    Salz, M., Schneider, P. C., Fossati, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732419

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732419 2019

  55. [55]

    M., Marsden, S

    Seach, J. M., Marsden, S. C., Carter, B. D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1107

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1107 2020

  56. [56]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca65f

    Shan, S.-S., Yang, F., Lu, Y.-J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca65f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca65f 2023

  57. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18677

    Shimura, T., Mitsuishi, I., Kunitomo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18677

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.18677 2025

  58. [58]

    K., Lavvas, P., Ballester, G

    Sing, D. K., Lavvas, P., Ballester, G. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2986

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2986 2019

  59. [59]

    Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91, doi: 10.1086/322992

    work page doi:10.1086/322992 2001

  60. [60]

    J., Reeves J

    Southworth, J. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1689, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17231.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17231.x 2010

  61. [61]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  62. [62]

    S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J

    Spiegel, D. S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J. A. 2011, ApJ, 727, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/1/57 2011

  63. [63]

    G., Collins, K

    Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, AJ, 153, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3 2017

  64. [64]

    1982, ApJ, 259, 677, doi: 10.1086/160204

    Topka, K., Golub, L., Gorenstein, P., et al. 1982, ApJ, 259, 677, doi: 10.1086/160204

    work page doi:10.1086/160204 1982

  65. [65]

    G., Santos, N

    Tsantaki, M., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424257

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424257 2014

  66. [66]

    D., Leiter, R

    Turner, J. D., Leiter, R. M., Biddle, L. I., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 3871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2221

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2221 2017

  67. [67]

    Vidotto, A. A. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 299, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021225-030604

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-021225-030604 2025

  68. [68]

    A., Jardine, M., & Helling, C

    Vidotto, A. A., Jardine, M., & Helling, C. 2010, ApJL, 722, L168, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L168 —. 2011a, MNRAS, 411, L46, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00991.x —. 2011b, MNRAS, 414, 1573, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18491.x

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/l168 2010

  69. [69]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847

    Wang, W., Zhang, Z., Chen, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847 2024

  70. [70]

    Williams, D. M. 2003, American Journal of Physics, 71, 1198, doi: 10.1119/1.1578073

    work page doi:10.1119/1.1578073 2003

  71. [71]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  72. [72]

    N., Holman, M

    Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., Torres, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 1076, doi: 10.1086/589737

    work page doi:10.1086/589737 2008

  73. [73]

    N., Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., Fabrycky, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 302, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/302

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/302 2009

  74. [74]

    A., Cowan, N

    Wong, I., Knutson, H. A., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/134 2014

  75. [75]

    2022, AJ, 163, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4e1a

    Worku, K., Wang, S., Burt, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4e1a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4e1a 2022

  76. [76]

    T., Marcy, G

    Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/160

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/160 2012

  77. [77]

    2003, ApJ, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    Wu, Y., & Murray, N. 2003, ApJ, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    work page doi:10.1086/374598 2003

  78. [78]

    K., & Thorngren, D

    Yadav, R. K., & Thorngren, D. P. 2017, ApJL, 849, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa93fd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa93fd 2017

  79. [79]

    2022, PASP, 134, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a 17

    Yang, F., & Wei, X. 2022, PASP, 134, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a 17

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a 2022

  80. [80]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aded0d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aded0d 2025

Showing first 80 references.