Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Estimation of singly-transiting K2 planet periods with Gaia parallaxes

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using Gaia parallaxes to anchor stellar densities cuts single-transit planet period uncertainty threefold.

desk verdict Useful methods paper with a real validation framework; the headline 15% period precision is conditional on circular orbits and does not hold for a large fraction of the sample. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08548 v1 pith:W6ARIT62 submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.EP

Emily Sandford , Néstor Espinoza , Rafael Brahm , Andrés Jordán This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP PACS 97.82.-k
keywords single-transitplanetsstellardensityGaiaparallaxK2orbitalperiodestimationtransitfittingeccentricitylong-periodexoplanets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

A planet seen transiting only once cannot have its orbital period measured directly, but its period can be constrained from the transit shape if the host star's density is known. This paper combines Gaia parallaxes with stellar models and broadband photometry to measure the host-star densities of K2 single transiters, and verifies the densities against asteroseismology. When the density is used as a prior in single-transit fits to twelve true single transiters, the fractional period uncertainty is $94^{+87}_{-58}\%$ with eccentricity free and $15^{+30}_{-6}\%$ with eccentricity fixed to zero, roughly a threefold improvement over earlier work. Validation against 27 planets of known period shows the method is accurate when the transit is well sampled during ingress and egress, and that uncertainty in the transit-shape parameter $a/R_*$, not in stellar density, dominates the period error.

What carries the argument

The central identity is Kepler's third law written for transiting planets, $P^2 = \frac{3\pi}{G}\left(\frac{a}{R_*}\right)^3 \rho_*^{-1}$, which converts a transit-shape measurement of the normalized semi-major axis $a/R_*$ and an independent stellar density $\rho_*$ into the orbital period $P$. The paper couples this with a pipeline that measures $\rho_*$ from the Gaia parallax distance, SED fits to APASS/2MASS/WISE photometry using BT-Settl-CIFIST models, and Yonsei-Yale isochrone mass/age estimation; it then fits each single transit with a nested-sampling code that treats eccentricity, limb darkening, and Gaussian-process detrending simultaneously. The analysis shows that the posterior uncertainty in $a/R_*$ --- controlled by how well ingress and egress are sampled --- is the dominant driver of $\sigma_P/P$ in the validation sample, while the input $\rho_*$ uncertainty is not.

What would settle it

Watch for a second transit of any of the twelve targets. If future data place their periods outside the 1$\sigma$ credibility bands given here, the accuracy claim fails; EPIC 211311380f is a sharp test, since the paper's modal period around 600 days sits well above the roughly 360-day period allowed by dynamical simulations from follow-up observations. A more direct check would be to test the four host stars where the Gaia-derived densities disagree with Osborn et al. (2016) using high-resolution spectroscopy and see which stellar density is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a stellar bulk density $\rho_*$ derived from a Gaia parallax, broadband photometry, and isochrone fitting is a reliable and powerful prior for single-transit period inference. Feeding that prior into a transit model and applying it to K2 long-cadence light curves yields period posteriors for true single transiters with fractional uncertainties of $94^{+87}_{-58}\%$ when eccentricity is a free parameter and $15^{+30}_{-6}\%$ when $e=0$ is assumed, compared with typical $\sim 50\%$ uncertainties in previous single-transit catalogues. The accuracy of the density prior is established by comparing densities computed this way to asteroseismic values for a sample of stars; the two agree with no significant bias. On 27 validation planets with known periods, treating each observed transit as a single transit recovers the true period whenever ingress and egress are well sampled in the data, and fails dramatically (as with K2-140b) when an in-transit point is missing. The paper therefore concludes that single-transit period estimation is limited by the precision with which the transit shape gives $a/R_*$, not by the stellar density uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The twelve true single transits are assumed to be well sampled during ingress and egress, with no missing or corrupted in-transit points that would bias the transit shape and therefore the inferred period.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The threefold precision gain under $e=0$ means that any independent eccentricity constraint would make single-transit period estimates dramatically sharper.
  • Because $\sigma_{a/R_*}$ dominates, single-transit surveys with shorter-cadence photometry or sharper limb-darkening priors should yield proportionally better period posteriors.
  • The K2-140b failure mode implies that single-transit catalogs should flag transits with missing or corrupted ingress/egress points, as these can shift the period by more than 3$\sigma$.
  • The same Gaia-based density prior is directly applicable to future TESS single transiters, where it should help realize the predicted gains in long-period planet yield.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the paper shows $\sigma_{a/R_*}$ drives $\sigma_P$, jointly fitting multiple transiting planets of the same star should tighten $a/R_*$ more than any further improvement in stellar density precision; this is a natural next test.
  • An immediate extension would be to repeat the validation on TESS 2-minute cadence data for known multi-transit systems, treating each transit as single; the short-cadence results in this paper suggest fractional period uncertainties could shrink well below 15 percent.
  • The paper's caution about the baseline-informed K18 prior on long-cadence data suggests that such priors may be usable on high-cadence TESS light curves, where the transit model has more information to resist being overwhelmed; this is worth testing.
  • The four Osborn et al. (2016) disagreements indicate that archival catalogs of single-transit periods may be sensitive to stellar model assumptions; a uniform re-derivation of host star densities from Gaia parallaxes would be a worthwhile population-level check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a method for constraining the orbital periods of singly-transiting K2 planets by combining Gaia DR2 parallaxes with broadband photometry and Yonsei-Yale isochrones to estimate stellar densities, then using those density estimates as priors in single-transit light-curve fits. The method is validated by fitting individual transits of 27 planets with known periods as if they were single transits, and is then applied to 12 true single transiters. With eccentricity free, the reported fractional period uncertainty over the true single transiters is 94+87/-58%; with eccentricity fixed to zero, the reported value is 15+30/-6%. The paper also discusses choices of period prior, the Kipping (2018) prior, and the impact of missing or outlier in-transit data points.

Significance. If the headline precision claim held, the method would be a useful contribution to the long-period planet yield of K2 and TESS, where single-transit events are expected in large numbers. The paper has real strengths: it releases a public fitting code ('single'), it validates stellar densities against an independent asteroseismic sample, it is unusually transparent about limitations such as underestimated stellar-density uncertainties and failures of the e=0 model, and it does not use known periods as inputs in the period inference. However, the central quantitative claim that the method yields a roughly threefold improvement over previous work rests on the e=0 assumption, which the paper itself shows fails for a large fraction of the sample; the validation data also show poor period recovery for the longer-period, eccentric systems that are the target population. These issues substantially temper the significance of the claimed improvement.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4] The headline fractional period uncertainty of 15+30/-6% is reported in the abstract and conclusions without stating that it is conditional on fixing eccentricity to zero and that this assumption is rejected for a substantial subset of the sample. In the final paragraph of §4.2 the authors state that four of the targets (EPIC 201892470b, EPIC 204634789b, EPIC 228801451d, EPIC 248045685b) have high modal eccentricity and that good fits cannot be achieved with e=0. The abstract presents the 15% figure as if it applied to the true single transiters generally, while the e-free result for the same sample is 94+87/-58%. The comparison to previous work should either restrict the e=0 claim explicitly to the targets for which circular fits are adequate, or should be dropped from the abstract; otherwise the headline is misleading.
  2. [§2.1 and §2.2] The asteroseismic comparison in §2.1 finds an extra scatter of sigma_extra = 0.0313 g/cm3, roughly equal to the mean quoted density uncertainty, and concludes that the error bars are underestimated by approximately a factor of two. However, §2.2 states that the split-normal prior on rho* is constructed from the uncertainties 'derived from the procedure described in 2.1' and gives no indication that sigma_extra was added in quadrature before the transit fits. If this extra uncertainty is not propagated into the period posteriors, the quoted period uncertainties are understated. The authors should state explicitly whether sigma_extra was included in the prior used for the fits, and if not, rerun or rescale the affected results.
  3. [§3.1 and Table 1] The validation section concludes that the method is robust 'as long as the individual transits we fit are well-sampled during ingress and egress,' but the long-cadence validation results in Table 1 show poor and biased period recovery for several planets in exactly the longer-period regime that motivates the paper. For example, K2-56b (P_known = 41.686 d) gives P_fit = 5.4+50.0/-0.6 d, K2-03c (P_known = 24.649 d) gives P_fit = 4.2+80.0/-0.6 d, and K2-32d (P_known = 31.719 d) gives P_fit = 9.1+60.0/-0.7 d. These posteriors are not centered near the true periods despite the transits being presumably well-sampled; a quantitative accuracy criterion or a dedicated long-period validation subset is needed before the robust claim can be supported.
  4. [§4.1 and §4.2] The paper rejects the Kipping (2018) prior for the true single transiters because validation fits with an arbitrary Pmin converge to P = Pmin, yet this is the prior that formally accounts for the single-transit selection effect. The failure on the validation sample is expected, since those transits are not true singles and the arbitrary Pmin is not physically meaningful. For the true singles, the paper shows in §4.1 that the K18 prior gives posteriors inconsistent with independently known periods for EPIC 246445793b and EPIC 211311380f, which suggests that the 12-parameter model is too flexible to be constrained by the long-cadence data under a strong prior. This undercuts the authors' stated reason for preferring the log-uniform prior, because the log-uniform prior is not the observationally motivated choice for true singles. The choice of period prior needs a stronger justification or an explicit sensitivity analysis.
  5. [§3.1, §4, Table 2] The manuscript contains an internal inconsistency about the number of true single transiters: §3.1 refers to 'the nine true single transits discussed in section 4,' §4 says 'twelve single transits,' Table 2 lists twelve targets, and §4.2 refers to 'four of our nine single transit fits.' Because the 15% e=0 statistic may depend on which targets are included, this mismatch must be resolved and the denominator of the reported fractional uncertainties must be stated unambiguously.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The text refers to 'Equation 2.2' for the definition of Pmin, but the equation is numbered (6) in the manuscript; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 1] The axis labels in Figure 1 appear garbled, with the density axis labels and the residual panel labels partly duplicated or missing ('rho_gaia+YY' and 'rho_aste' are misspelled or truncated). The figure should be regenerated with clean labels.
  3. [§2.2 and Tables 1-2] Posterior distributions are summarized by fitting split-normal distributions, but many posteriors (e.g., those for EPIC 201892470b and EPIC 211311380f) are strongly asymmetric and possibly bimodal; a short discussion of whether split-normal summary statistics are representative, or a plot of representative posteriors in the main text, would improve interpretability.
  4. [§3.1] The claim that 'The nine true single transits discussed in section 4 are well-sampled during ingress and egress' is asserted without a quantitative criterion. In light of the demonstrated sensitivity to missing in-transit points for K2-140b and K2-32b, the authors should specify how many long-cadence data points fall within ingress and egress for each target, or provide a comparable metric.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Gaia-based stellar density priors are independent inputs, and the single-transit period posteriors are genuine model outputs rather than re-statements of fitted constants.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and anchored to external benchmarks. Stellar densities are constructed from Gaia DR2 parallaxes, public broadband photometry, and BT-Settl/Yonsei-Yale stellar models (Section 2.1), then validated against independent asteroseismic densities (Figure 1) with a Bayesian evidence test for residual bias. The single-transit period inference follows Kepler's third law, P^2 = (3pi/G)(a/R*)^3 rho*^-1, with P, e, omega, b, Rp/R*, rho*, q, and t0 as free parameters in a MultiNest fit (Section 2.2). For the 27 validation planets, the known period is used only as a comparison quantity; the paper explicitly states it is 'not used in our inference in any way' (Section 3). The e=0 result is conditional on an explicitly stated model assumption: the paper simultaneously reports the e-free uncertainty of 94%, and flags the four targets for which e=0 fits fail (Section 4.2), so the headline 15% figure is not a hidden fit presented as a prediction. Self-citations (Brahm et al. 2018a,b; Espinoza & Jordan 2015, 2016; Sandford & Kipping 2017) supply methodological context or are re-derived and validated here; none is used as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative models. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and the period posteriors are not statistically forced by the stellar density fit alone; the limiting factor is the transit-shape constraint on a/R*, which is an empirical data product. The paper is therefore not circular in any of the enumerated senses.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central derivation relies on standard Keplerian physics and existing stellar models. The main assumptions are the accuracy of the SED models, isochrones, reddening law, and the transit model, plus the coverage of the transit shape. The most paper-specific choice is the log-uniform period prior, adopted after the K18 prior failed; this is a post hoc selection that should be kept in mind when interpreting the quoted period uncertainties.

free parameters (7)
  • AV (extinction) = not reported, uniform prior [0,1]
    Free reddening parameter in the SED fit to observed photometry.
  • R* (stellar radius) = not reported, uniform prior [0.1,100] R_sun
    Radius determined from SED fitting and the Gaia distance.
  • M* (stellar mass) = not reported, uniform prior [0.4,4.5] M_sun
    Mass derived from Yonsei-Yale isochrones matching R* and Teff.
  • Age* = not reported, uniform prior [0.05,4.5] Gyr
    Isochrone age, which is partially degenerate with mass.
  • Period prior bounds = Pmin from baseline, Pmax=10000 days
    Chosen log-uniform period prior, adopted after the K18 prior failed validation.
  • Eccentricity prior = uniform [0,1] or Beta(0.867,3.03); e=0 in fixed-e fits
    Chosen eccentricity handling; the headline 15% uncertainty is from fixed e=0 fits.
  • GP hyperparameters = not reported
    Exponential-squared kernel amplitude, timescale, and white-noise jitter, fitted per light curve.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Kepler's third law relates orbital period to stellar density and normalized semi-major axis (Eq. 1).
    The fundamental physical relation used to convert transit shape and stellar density into period.
  • domain assumption BT-Settl-CIFIST SED models accurately represent the stellar spectra used in SED fitting.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; systematic errors in the SED models propagate into radius and density.
  • domain assumption Yonsei-Yale isochrones accurately map stellar mass and age to radius and effective temperature.
    Used to derive M* and hence density; model calibration errors are acknowledged as a possible bias.
  • standard math The Cardelli et al. (1989) reddening law applies to the observed sightlines.
    Standard extinction law, not tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption The batman transit model with a linear limb-darkening law and Kipping (2010) resampling accurately describes the observed light curves.
    The paper argues a linear law is adequate for sparse long-cadence transits but does not test other laws on the true singles.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian process detrending removes stellar activity without biasing the transit shape.
    The paper shows that in some validation cases the GP removed activity but produced unphysically shallow transits, leading to exclusions.
  • domain assumption Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) distance estimates from Gaia parallax are reliable.
    Used to convert parallax to distance; the paper does not test sensitivity to this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The log-uniform period prior between Pmin and 10000 days is appropriate for true single transiters.
    The physically motivated K18 prior was tested and abandoned because it produced inconsistent results on validation planets and on two true singles with known periods.
  • domain assumption The single transiters are single planets on Keplerian orbits with no significant blending or contamination.
    Standard assumption in single-transit fitting; not tested in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimation of singly-transiting K2 planet periods with Gaia parallaxes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6ARIT62

@misc{pith2026190808548,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimation of singly-transiting K2 planet periods with Gaia parallaxes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6ARIT62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08548}
}
abstract

When a planet is only observed to transit once, direct measurement of its period is impossible. It is possible, however, to constrain the periods of single transiters, and this is desirable as they are likely to represent the cold and far extremes of the planet population observed by any particular survey. Improving the accuracy with which the period of single transiters can be constrained is therefore critical to enhance the long-period planet yield of surveys. Here, we combine Gaia parallaxes with stellar models and broad-band photometry to estimate the stellar densities of K2 planet host stars, then use that stellar density information to model individual planet transits and infer the posterior period distribution. We show that the densities we infer are reliable by comparing with densities derived through asteroseismology, and apply our method to 27 validation planets of known (directly measured) period, treating each transit as if it were the only one, as well as to 12 true single transiters. When we treat eccentricity as a free parameter, we achieve a fractional period uncertainty over the true single transits of $94^{+87}_{-58}\%$, and when we fix $e=0$, we achieve fractional period uncertainty $15^{+30}_{-6}\%$, a roughly threefold improvement over typical period uncertainties of previous studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08548 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top panel shows a comparison between stellar densities estimated with asteroseismology (x-axis) and those com￾puted using Gaia parallaxes and the Yonsei-Yale isochrones (y￾axis). The black points correspond to the sample of Kepler host stars presented in Silva Aguirre et al. (2015, 2017), while the red points correspond to the two giant stars that have been found to have transiting giant planets using K2 data, K… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative plots of our single-transit fits to known exoplanets HATS-11b (short cadence, left) and K2-96c (long cadence, right) from K2 photometry (black dots with error bars). Solid black lines present our best-fit models; blue bands the 1-sigma credibility band given our posterior parameters. The out-of-transit trend, which we fit by Gaussian process regression, has been subtracted off of the K2 data. However, f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The posterior distributions for the 21 validation plan￾ets observed at long cadence. Planets are arranged in order of increasing period from bottom to top. Each histogram represents the posterior P distribution from the fit to each individual transit of the planet, with the planet’s true period subtracted. The verti￾cal yellow lines represent the lower prior bound on P, equal to 1.0 days. Transits with in-transit ou… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A demonstration of the extreme effect a slightly different transit shape measurement can have on the recovered P posterior, for validation planet K2-140b (Preal = 6.569 days). Eight transits are observed for this planet (left panel: transit data; middle panel: MultiNes…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The posterior uncertainty on P as a function of Preal. Semi-transparent small points represent individual transits of a given planet; larger opaque black points with error bars sum￾marise the results over all individual transits of each planet. The dotted line is the b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An exploration of which terms contribute most signif￾icantly to σP/P. Top: σP/P as a function of the fractional uncer￾tainty on the Gaia-derived ρ∗ measurement input to MultiNest. Second row: σP/P as a function of the fractional posterior uncer￾tainty on normalised sem…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A comparison of the period posteriors derived for single transiter EPIC 246445793b with three different choices of prior: in red, a K18 period prior with α = −2/3 and a uniform eccentricity prior between 0 and 1; in green, a K18 period prior with α = −2/3 and a Beta di…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The results of fits to the twelve true K2 single transits, compiled from sources detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A continuation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180410121B ( @eprint arXiv 1804.10121 )

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  3. [3]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf0a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019AJ....157...19B 157, 19

    Becker J. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf0a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019AJ....157...19B 157, 19

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf0a2 2019

  4. [4]

    Brahm R., et al., 2018a, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180604073B ( @eprint arXiv 1806.04073 )

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [5]

    Brahm R., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty795 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2572B 477, 2572

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty795

  6. [6]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

    Crossfield I. J. M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJS..239....5C 239, 5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae155 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Espinoza N., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018RNAAS...2d.209E 2, 209

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Espinoza N., Jord \'a n A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv744 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1879E 450, 1879

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Espinoza N., Jord \'a n A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw224 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3573E 457, 3573

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    2009

  5. [13]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hoyer S., Bernhard J., Angus R., 2014, George: George (V0.2.0) , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11989

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Hogg D

    Foreman-Mackey D., Morton T. D., Hogg D. W., Agol E., Sch \"o lkopf B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016AJ....152..206F 152, 206

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Babusiaux C., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2018, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018arXiv180409365G p. arXiv:1804.09365 ( @eprint arXiv 1804.09365 )

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Giles H. A. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...615L..13G 615, L13

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/185 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..185G 152, 185

    Grunblatt S. K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/185 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..185G 152, 185

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa932d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..254G 154, 254

    Grunblatt S. K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa932d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..254G 154, 254

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Welch D

    Henden A. A., Welch D. L., Terrell D., Levine S. E., 2009, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#214. p. 669

    2009

  13. [21]

    X., et al., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180711129H ( @eprint arXiv 1807.11129 )

    Huang C. X., et al., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180711129H ( @eprint arXiv 1807.11129 )

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Huber D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013ApJ...767..127H 767, 127

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    I., et al., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170700779J ( @eprint arXiv 1707.00779 )

    Jones M. I., et al., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170700779J ( @eprint arXiv 1707.00779 )

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17242.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1758K 408, 1758

    Kipping D. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17242.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1758K 408, 1758

    2010

  17. [25]

    M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434L..51K 434, L51

    Kipping D. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434L..51K 434, L51

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Kipping D., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf50c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018RNAAS...2d.223K 2, 223

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016ApJ...820..112K 820, 112

    Kipping D. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016ApJ...820..112K 820, 112

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Kreidberg L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/683602 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127.1161K 127, 1161

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Jacobs T

    LaCourse D. M., Jacobs T. L., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aaad61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018RNAAS...2a..28L 2, 28

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Luger R., Agol E., Kruse E., Barnes R., Becker A., Foreman-Mackey D., Deming D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..100L 152, 100

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Mathur S., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJS..229...30M 229, 30

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016MNRAS.457.2273O 457, 2273

    Osborn H. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016MNRAS.457.2273O 457, 2273

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Penoyre Z., in prep., Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society

  26. [34]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    Sandford E., Kipping D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa94bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017AJ....154..228S 154, 228

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Santerne A., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0420-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018NatAs...2..393S 2, 393

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Seager S., Mall \'e n-Ornelas G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...585.1038S 585, 1038

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1388 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2127S 452, 2127

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJ...835..173S 835, 173

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Uehara S., Kawahara H., Masuda K., Yamada S., Aizawa M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016ApJ...822....2U 822, 2

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Vanderburg A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015ApJ...800...59V 800, 59

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    Vanderburg A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827L..10V 827, L10

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Vanderburg A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018AJ....156...46V 156, 46

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    S., 2018, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018arXiv180500956V p

    Villanueva Steven J., Dragomir D., Gaudi B. S., 2018, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018arXiv180500956V p. arXiv:1805.00956 ( @eprint arXiv 1805.00956 )

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Wang J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015ApJ...815..127W 815, 127

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    N., 2010, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1001.2010W ( @eprint arXiv 1001.2010 )

    Winn J. N., 2010, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1001.2010W ( @eprint arXiv 1001.2010 )

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Gaudi B

    Yee J. C., Gaudi B. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2008ApJ...688..616Y 688, 616

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    H., Lejeune T., Barnes S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321795 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJS..136..417Y 136, 417

    Yi S., Demarque P., Kim Y.-C., Lee Y.-W., Ree C. H., Lejeune T., Barnes S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321795 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJS..136..417Y 136, 417

    2001 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.