Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

An 11 Earth-Mass, Long-Period Sub-Neptune Orbiting a Sun-like Star

T0 review · 2 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 Kepler-538b is an 11-Earth-mass sub-Neptune on an 82-day orbit.

desk verdict A careful single-object RV mass measurement for a long-period sub-Neptune that deserves review, with one real caveat about the activity model's handling of a FWHM trend. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08585 v2 pith:QF5O3XLT submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.EP

Andrew W. Mayo , Vinesh M. Rajpaul , Lars A. Buchhave , Courtney D. Dressing , Annelies Mortier , Li Zeng , Charles D. Fortenbach , Suzanne Aigrain
show 22 more authors
Aldo S. Bonomo Andrew Collier Cameron David Charbonneau Adrien Coffinet Rosario Cosentino Mario Damasso Xavier Dumusque A. F. Martinez Fiorenzano Raphaëlle D. Haywood David W. Latham Mercedes López-Morales Luca Malavolta Giusi Micela Emilio Molinari Logan Pearce Francesco Pepe David Phillips Giampaolo Piotto Ennio Poretti Ken Rice Alessandro Sozzetti Stephane Udry
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetssub-NeptuneradialvelocitiesGaussianprocessstellaractivityplanetmassdensitylong-periodplanets
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

Kepler-538b, a 2.2-Earth-radius sub-Neptune on an 81.74-day orbit around a Sun-like star, is one of the few long-period planets whose mass has actually been measured rather than guessed. Combining Kepler transit photometry with 109 radial-velocity spectra and a Gaussian-process model of stellar activity, the paper measures a velocity semi-amplitude of $K = 1.68 \pm 0.39$ m/s and a mass of $M_p = 10.6 \pm 2.5$ Earth masses. This makes Kepler-538b the smallest transiting planet beyond a 50-day period with a radial-velocity mass. The derived density, $\rho_p = 0.98 \pm 0.23$ Earth densities, places it on mass-radius curves consistent with a substantial water-ice fraction, a small gas envelope, and rock or metal. The result matters because long-period, low-mass planets are heavily undersampled, so each precise mass helps map the rocky-to-gaseous transition and the radius gap at insolation levels where photoevaporation acts differently.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a quasi-periodic Gaussian process (GP) that treats stellar activity as one latent function $G(t)$, with radial velocities modeled as $\Delta\mathrm{RV} = V_c G(t) + V_r \dot{G}(t)$ and line-broadening FWHM as $\mathrm{FWHM} = F_c G(t)$. A single covariance kernel with a rotation-period hyperparameter is shared across the RV and FWHM time series, so the activity indicators absorb stellar noise while a five-parameter Keplerian model absorbs the planetary reflex motion. The GP is run jointly with a transit-photometry fit, and its assumptions are probed by removing the GP, removing transit priors, and injecting synthetic signals at 60, 70, 90, and 100 days.

What would settle it

Take additional radial-velocity measurements over several stellar rotation cycles and check whether the 1.68 m/s signal remains coherent at exactly the transit-determined period and phase; if the 82-day signal changes amplitude or phase with the activity cycle, or if a flexible long-term drift term removes it, the planetary interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 81.74-day signal seen in the radial velocities is a real planet, not residual stellar activity, and that it has $M_p = 10.6^{+2.5}_{-2.4}\,M_\oplus$ and $R_p = 2.215^{+0.040}_{-0.034}\,R_\oplus$, yielding a density of $0.98 \pm 0.23$ Earth densities. The orbital eccentricity is consistent with zero, with a 95% upper limit of 0.11. The authors argue that this density places the planet on the water-ice-rich side of the mass-radius diagram, likely a mixture of ices, rocks and metals, and a modest amount of gas. They support the detection with three robustness tests: repeating the fit without photometric priors, injecting synthetic planet signals and recovering them, and dropping the Gaussian-process activity model entirely, which returns a consistent semi-amplitude of $K = 2.06^{+0.49}_{-0.46}$ m/s.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mass measurement rests on the assumption that the Gaussian-process activity model, together with the FWHM data, absorbs every non-planetary velocity signal, so the residual 81.74-day wobble is entirely caused by the planet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Kepler-538b becomes the smallest known transiting planet with a period beyond 50 days and a measured radial-velocity mass, setting a new anchor for the long-period, low-mass end of the mass-radius diagram.
  • Its near-Earth density combined with a sub-Neptune radius implies a volatile-rich interior dominated by water ice, with only a small gas envelope on top of a rocky or metallic core.
  • The low eccentricity, less than 0.11 at 95% confidence, is consistent with disk migration or eccentricity damping, and the wide possible companion at roughly 2700 au would not disturb the planet's orbit.
  • Each additional mass measurement like this one extends the rocky-to-gaseous transition and the radius-occurrence gap to lower insolation, where photoevaporation is weaker and should reshape planet compositions less aggressively.
  • The system's single confirmed planet and the negligible RV signal at the 117.76-day candidate period support the conclusion that the second candidate is likely not real.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A broader implication, not drawn by the paper: if this object is representative, long-period sub-Neptunes around Sun-like stars may commonly be ice-rich worlds with modest gas envelopes, a population that microlensing surveys could independently probe at these separations.
  • The unexplained long-term FWHM trend the paper reports is the main avenue by which the 1.68 m/s signal could be contaminated; a longer baseline with independent activity indicators would test whether the 82-day signal stays coherent in amplitude and phase.
  • Future ultra-stable spectrographs should reduce the semi-amplitude uncertainty below roughly 0.2 m/s; if the signal persists at exactly the transit-determined period and phase, the planetary interpretation would be confirmed at much higher significance.
  • A testable extension would be a search for similar ice-rich compositions among other single-transit Kepler planets with periods of 60 to 120 days, checking whether density rises systematically as insolation drops.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. Kepler-538b is a transiting sub-Neptune with P = 81.73778 ± 0.00013 d and radius 2.215 ± 0.040 R_Earth around a Sun-like star. This paper adds 26 HIRES and 83 HARPS-N radial-velocity measurements, together with HARPS-N FWHM activity indicators, and models them jointly with Kepler photometry using a quasi-periodic Gaussian process for stellar activity. The fit yields a semi-amplitude K = 1.68 ± 0.39 m/s and a planet mass of 10.6 ± 2.5 M_Earth, giving a mean density of 0.98 ± 0.23 Earth densities. The authors argue that Kepler-538b is the smallest transiting planet beyond 50 days with an RV mass measurement, and that its density implies a water-ice-rich composition with a small gas fraction. Three internal checks are presented: a fit without transit priors, injection-recovery tests at several periods, and a fit without the GP; all give K values consistent with the main result.

Significance. If correct, the measurement fills a genuine gap: very few planets in the 2-3 R_Earth, P > 50 d regime have both a precise radius and a dynamical mass. The radius is constrained to ~2% thanks to Gaia parallax, and the mass measurement at ~24% precision makes Kepler-538b a useful anchor for the long-period radius gap and for composition studies at moderate insolation. The paper's transparency is a strength: the full RV/FWHM tables are published, the priors are stated in Table 2, and the authors voluntarily report multiple robustness checks. The main reservation concerns the activity model, which is the one place where the central value could be biased; the paper acknowledges the issue but does not fully close it.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (3)-(4), Table 2] The central claim (K = 1.68 ± 0.39 m/s) depends on the assumption that a single latent GP process G(t) drives both FWHM and RV through Eqs. (3) and (4). Section 4.2 reports a clear long-term FWHM trend whose stellar or instrumental origin could not be determined, and notes there is no similar trend in the RVs. Because the GP evolution timescale λ_e = 370^{+200}_{-140} d (Table 2) is comparable to the ~500-d HARPS-N baseline, the quasi-periodic kernel can absorb a slow instrumental FWHM drift into G(t), and the linear link of Eq. (3) would project that drift into the RV channel through V_c, biasing K. The no-GP fit (Section 4.4.3, K = 2.06^{+0.49}_{-0.46} m/s) shifts K by 0.38 m/s relative to the adopted value, essentially the same size as the quoted uncertainty, so the potential bias is not negligible. I request a targeted test: add a linear or quadratic trend term to the FWHM (and/or RV) model, or detrend FWHM using an independent instrumental model, and report the posterior on K and M_p. This would directly quantify the acknowledged unknown-origin trend and determine whether the result is robust.
  2. [Section 4.4.2] The injection-recovery tests are performed on the real observed RVs using the same GP model family as the main fit, so they demonstrate that the pipeline can recover an injected signal on top of the existing data, but they do not test the key failure mode: leakage of an instrumental FWHM trend (or activity power at the planetary period) into the RV channel. In addition, the 60-day injection - the test closest to the planetary period - recovered a semi-amplitude 1.1σ below the injected 1.7 m/s, while all longer-period tests recovered 1.7 m/s within 1σ; this behavior is not explained. A stronger validation would inject signals into synthetic data generated from the fitted GP (including a variety of FWHM trends) and verify that the posterior on K remains unbiased, or explicitly include the FWHM trend term in the injection-recovery analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Table 1, Abstract] The summary in Section 6 states that the host star is 0.924 M_sun, inconsistent with the abstract and Table 1, which give the combined value M_* = 0.892^{+0.051}_{-0.035} M_sun; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Section 4.4.1] The prior is written as 'BJD-2453833 = Unif(172,252)', but the rest of the paper uses BJD-2454833 as the Kepler time offset; this appears to be a typo.
  3. [Eq. (2), Eqs. (3)-(4)] The kernel amplitude h in Eq. (2) is not related to the amplitude parameters V_c, V_r, and F_c introduced in Eqs. (3)-(4); please state explicitly how h is normalized (e.g., fixed to unity or absorbed) so the GP parametrization is unambiguous.
  4. [Section 4.4.2] The text first says the injected semi-amplitude was recovered 'to within 1σ' and then immediately excepts the 60-day test, which was 1.1σ below the injected value; please rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planet mass is measured from radial velocities and does not reduce to fitted inputs or to self-authored predictions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing result, K = 1.68 +/- 0.39 m/s and M_p = 10.6 +/- 2.5 M_Earth, is obtained by fitting a Keplerian signal to HIRES and HARPS-N radial velocities, jointly with Kepler photometry and FWHM activity indicators. Nothing in this chain defines the target quantity in terms of itself: the semi-amplitude K has a broad modified Jeffreys prior with a knee at 2.1 m/s, so the posterior at 1.68 m/s is not forced by the prior; the orbital period and ephemeris come from Kepler photometry, and the RV-only test (Section 4.4.1) independently recovers P = 82.25 +/- 0.74 days, confirming that the photometric constraint is not doing the work; the no-GP fit (Section 4.4.3) gives K = 2.06 +/- 0.49 m/s, within 1 sigma of the main result, showing the GP activity model is not constructing the signal; and the injection tests (Section 4.4.2) demonstrate that a synthetic 1.7 m/s signal is recovered at several periods, validating the error budget and recovery procedure. The Gaussian-process framework of Eqs. (2)-(4) is adopted from Rajpaul et al. (2015), which is prior published work with overlapping authorship, but it is used as a statistical activity model rather than as an external 'uniqueness theorem' that forbids alternatives; indeed, the paper explicitly tests a model without the GP. Likewise, the Zeng et al. (2016, 2018) mass-radius and composition curves are external empirical/theoretical relations used only to interpret the measured mass and radius, and the water-ice-rich conclusion is not fed back into the measurement. The acknowledged long-term FWHM trend of undetermined origin (Section 4.2) is a legitimate model-risk concern about activity contamination, but it is a question of possible bias or mis-modeling, not circularity: the paper does not define the planet signal in terms of the FWHM trend or fit a parameter that is then reported as an independent prediction. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass rests on the fitted semi-amplitude K and the stellar mass, with the activity correction depending on six GP hyperparameters. The composition conclusion additionally assumes published mass-radius curves. No new physical entities are introduced; the latent function G(t) in the GP model is a mathematical construct, not a proposed object.

free parameters (13)
  • RV semi-amplitude K = 1.68 +/- 0.39 m/s
    Central fitted parameter; the planet mass is computed directly from it.
  • Orbital eccentricity e = 0.041 +/- 0.034
    Fitted with a Beta prior from Kipping (2013b); affects transit duration and the Keplerian mass.
  • GP stellar rotation period P* = 25.2 +6.5 / -1.2 d
    Sets the quasi-periodic activity timescale; the posterior is bimodal between 25 d and 31 d.
  • GP inverse harmonic complexity lambda_p = 5.2 +2.8 / -2.5
    Sets the smoothness of the activity Gaussian process.
  • GP evolution timescale lambda_e = 370 +200 / -140 d
    Sets the decay timescale of stellar activity and absorbs long-term trends.
  • GP RV convective blueshift amplitude Vc = 0.86 +0.75 / -0.54 m/s
    Amplitude in Eq. (3) linking the latent activity process to the RV time series.
  • GP RV rotation modulation amplitude Vr = 4.0 +5.7 / -3.0 m/s
    Amplitude in Eq. (3); weakly constrained by the data.
  • GP FWHM amplitude Fc = 13.3 +5.9 / -4.9 m/s
    Amplitude in Eq. (4) linking the latent activity process to the FWHM time series.
  • Stellar mass M* = 0.892 +0.051 / -0.035 Msun
    Derived from isochrones; the planet mass scales roughly as M*^(2/3).
  • Stellar radius R* = 0.8717 +0.0064 / -0.0061 Rsun
    Derived from isochrones; converts the fitted radius ratio into a physical planet radius.
  • Planet radius ratio Rp/R* = 0.02329 +0.00039 / -0.00033
    Fitted from the Kepler transit light curve; combined with R* gives R_p.
  • White noise amplitudes = HIRES RV 3.25, HARPS-N RV 2.24, FWHM 6.71 m/s; photometry 112.2 ppm
    Added in quadrature to measurement uncertainties; jitter levels affect the K uncertainty.
  • Instrumental offsets = HIRES RV, HARPS-N RV, and HARPS-N FWHM offsets
    Nuisance parameters for zero-point differences between instruments and data types.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Bayesian posterior sampling with MultiNest gives valid parameter estimates and uncertainties.
    Used throughout Section 4.3; the quoted uncertainties are posterior percentiles.
  • domain assumption The quasi-periodic GP kernel in Eq. (2) adequately describes stellar activity in the RVs and FWHM.
    Adopted from Rajpaul et al. (2015); the no-GP fit supports but does not prove this assumption.
  • domain assumption The linear relations in Eqs. (3) and (4) connect the latent activity process G(t) to the observed RV and FWHM series.
    This is the R15 framework; if the relation is mis-specified, the activity subtraction could be biased.
  • domain assumption The Kepler photometry and the BATMAN/Mandel-Agol transit model give an unbiased radius ratio and transit ephemeris.
    Standard transit modeling; residual photometric systematics are assumed to be white noise.
  • domain assumption MESA/MIST and Dartmouth stellar isochrones, used through the isochrones package, give unbiased stellar mass and radius.
    Used in Section 3; the results are cross-checked against Gaia DR2 and Berger et al. (2018).
  • domain assumption The 81.74-day RV signal is a Keplerian planet rather than a second stellar activity timescale.
    Required for K to be a planet mass; supported by the periodogram, the no-GP fit, and the known transit ephemeris, but not proven.
  • domain assumption The NASA Exoplanet Archive query correctly identifies all transiting planets with P > 50 d and RV mass measurements.
    Basis for the 'smallest long-period planet with RV mass' claim in Sections 5 and 6.
  • domain assumption The mass-radius composition curves of Zeng and Sasselov (2013) and Zeng et al. (2016, 2018) correctly map density to water, rock, and iron fractions.
    Underlies the water-ice-rich interpretation in Section 5 and Figure 6; a coauthor is involved, but the curves are used as an external grid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An 11 Earth-Mass, Long-Period Sub-Neptune Orbiting a Sun-like Star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QF5O3XLT

@misc{pith2026190808585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An 11 Earth-Mass, Long-Period Sub-Neptune Orbiting a Sun-like Star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QF5O3XLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08585}
}
read the original abstract

Although several thousands of exoplanets have now been detected and characterized, observational biases have led to a paucity of long-period, low-mass exoplanets with measured masses and a corresponding lag in our understanding of such planets. In this paper we report the mass estimation and characterization of the long-period exoplanet Kepler-538b. This planet orbits a Sun-like star (V = 11.27) with M_* = 0.892 +/- (0.051, 0.035) M_sun and R_* = 0.8717 +/- (0.0064, 0.0061) R_sun. Kepler-538b is a 2.215 +/- (0.040, 0.034) R_earth sub-Neptune with a period of P = 81.73778 +/- 0.00013 d. It is the only known planet in the system. We collected radial velocity (RV) observations with HIRES on Keck I and HARPS-N on the TNG. We characterized stellar activity by a Gaussian process with a quasi-periodic kernel applied to our RV and cross correlation function full width at half maximum (FWHM) observations. By simultaneously modeling Kepler photometry, RV, and FWHM observations, we found a semi-amplitude of K = 1.68 +/- (0.39, 0.38) m s^-1 and a planet mass of M_p = 10.6 +/- (2.5, 2.4) M_earth. Kepler-538b is the smallest planet beyond P = 50 d with an RV mass measurement. The planet likely consists of a significant fraction of ices (dominated by water ice), in addition to rocks/metals, and a small amount of gas. Sophisticated modeling techniques such as those used in this paper, combined with future spectrographs with ultra high-precision and stability will be vital for yielding more mass measurements in this poorly understood exoplanet regime. This in turn will improve our understanding of the relationship between planet composition and insolation flux and how the rocky to gaseous transition depends on planetary equilibrium temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transit plot of Kepler-538b. The top subplot is the pre-search data conditioning (PDC) Kepler photometry. The top panel of the bottom subplot shows the phase-folded photometry in and near the transit of Kepler-538b, with the best-fit transit model in orange and binned data in blue. The bottom panel of the bottom subplot shows the photometric residuals after subtracting the best-fit transit model. 0.1169±0.0075M by a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellar activity and corresponding Gaussian process regression of Kepler-538 (with planetary signal removed). The top subplot shows the HIRES (orange) and HARPS-N (blue) mean-subtracted RV observations and corresponding model fit in the top panel, with residuals in the bottom panel. The black line is the model fit and the gray region is the 1σ confidence interval (drawn from the full posterior distribution). The dat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Periodograms of the window function (computed from observation times), RV, log R0 HK, CCF FWHM, and CCF BIS the Kepler-538 system. Subplots in blue are based on HARPS-N observations, subplots in orange are based on HIRES observations, and subplots in pink are based on both HARPS-N and HIRES. The gray region is the 1σ confidence interval of the rotation period of Kepler￾538 (a stellar activity parameter we estimated … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kepler-538 RVs (with stellar activity subtracted) as a function of the orbital phase of Kepler-538b. Observations from HARPS-N and HIRES are plotted in blue and orange respectively, and binned data points are plotted in black. Data in the gray regions on each side of t…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scatter plots of RV vs. log R0 HK, BIS, and FWHM for Kepler-538. The RVs have been mean-subtracted and plotted against the other three data types. Blue data points correspond to HARPS-N observations, orange data points to HIRES. In the top left corner of each panel is …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mass-radius diagram of transiting planets with frac￾tional mass and radius uncertainties less than 50%. Planet col￾ors correspond to orbital period, with short periods in red and long periods (such as Kepler-538b) in blue. Further, except for Kepler-538b, planets with …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Orbital period versus planet radius for all transiting exoplanets with P > 50 days and RV or transit timing variation (TTV) mass measurements. Data for all planets besides Kepler￾538b were retrieved from the NASA Exoplanet Archive (accessed 2019 February 16). Kepler-53…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A simulated transmission spectrum of Kepler-538b with five transits observed with JWST. The model spectrum, with low metallicity (five times solar) and no clouds, is shown as a gray line. The black data points are the simulated instrument spectra, using NIRISS SOSS-Or1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dynamical formation of long-period exoplanets systems in evolving binary stars

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    MESA+REBOUND simulations show that stellar mass loss in a wide binary destabilizes S-type multi-planet systems and pushes surviving giants to long-period orbits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  3. [3]

    2018, , 615, A175

    Barbato , D., Sozzetti , A., Desidera , S., et al. 2018, , 615, A175

    2018

  4. [4]

    2019, KeplerGO/lightkurve: Lightkurve v1.0b29, doi:10.5281/zenodo.2565212

    Barentsen, G., Hedges, C., Vinícius, Z., et al. 2019, KeplerGO/lightkurve: Lightkurve v1.0b29, doi:10.5281/zenodo.2565212

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2565212 2019

  5. [5]

    Barnes , S. A. 2010, , 722, 222

    2010

  6. [6]

    A., & Kim , Y.-C

    Barnes , S. A., & Kim , Y.-C. 2010, , 721, 675

    2010

  7. [7]

    E., & Line , M

    Batalha , N. E., & Line , M. R. 2017, , 153, 151

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    E., Mandell , A., Pontoppidan , K., et al

    Batalha , N. E., Mandell , A., Pontoppidan , K., et al. 2017, , 129, 064501

    work page 2017

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    2017, , 599, A90

    Benatti , S., Desidera , S., Damasso , M., et al. 2017, , 599, A90

    2017

  2. [10]

    A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J

    Berger , T. A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J. L. 2018, , 866, 99

    2018

  3. [11]

    2008, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Borucki , W., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2008, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 249, Exoplanets: Detection, Formation and Dynamics, ed. Y.-S. Sun , S. Ferraz-Mello , & J.-L. Zhou , 17--24

    2008

  4. [12]

    T., Abdul-Masih , M., Batalha , N., et al

    Bryson , S. T., Abdul-Masih , M., Batalha , N., et al. 2017, The Kepler Certified False Positive Table , Tech. rep

    2017

  5. [13]

    A., Latham , D

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

    2012

  6. [14]

    2018, , 865, 30

    Chambers , J. 2018, , 865, 30

    2018

  7. [15]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Cosentino , R., Lovis , C., Pepe , F., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, 84461V

    2012

  8. [16]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Cosentino , R., Lovis , C., Pepe , F., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 91478C

    2014

  9. [17]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246

    2003

  10. [18]

    2009, , 121, 952

    Deming , D., Seager , S., Winn , J., et al. 2009, , 121, 952

    2009

  11. [19]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601

    2009

  12. [20]

    P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A. N. 2013, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2144

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2008, PhD thesis, University of Szeged, Hungary

    F u r \'e sz , G. 2008, PhD thesis, University of Szeged, Hungary

    2008

  14. [22]

    J., & Petigura , E

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

    2018

  15. [23]

    J., Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., Petigura , E. A., Howard , A. W., et al. 2017, , 154, 109

    2017

  16. [24]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  18. [26]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Clampin , M., et al. 2006, , 123, 485

    2006

  19. [27]

    R., Howard , A

    Gibson , S. R., Howard , A. W., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2016, in , Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, 990870

    2016

  20. [28]

    R., Howard , A

    Gibson , S. R., Howard , A. W., Roy , A., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, 107025X

    2018

  21. [29]

    Gregory , P. C. 2007, , 381, 1607

    2007

  22. [30]

    Haywood , R. D. 2015, PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, doi:10.5281/zenodo.35161

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al

    Haywood , R. D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al. 2014, , 443, 2517

    2014

  24. [32]

    W., Johnson , J

    Howard , A. W., Johnson , J. A., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2010, , 721, 1467

    2010

  25. [33]

    N., Morbidelli , A., Hersant , F., & Pierens , A

    Izidoro , A., Raymond , S. N., Morbidelli , A., Hersant , F., & Pierens , A. 2015, , 800, L22

    2015

  26. [34]

    2012, in , Vol

    Johns , M., McCarthy , P., Raybould , K., et al. 2012, in , Vol. 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, 84441H

    2012

  27. [35]

    2016, in , Vol

    Jurgenson , C., Fischer , D., McCracken , T., et al. 2016, in , Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, 99086T

    2016

  28. [36]

    2018, Contemporary Physics, 59, 251

    Kalirai , J. 2018, Contemporary Physics, 59, 251

    2018

  29. [37]

    M.-R., Lupu , R., Owusu-Asare , A., Slough , P., & Cale , B

    Kempton , E. M.-R., Lupu , R., Owusu-Asare , A., Slough , P., & Cale , B. 2017, , 129, 044402

    2017

  30. [38]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013 a , , 435, 2152

    2013

  31. [39]

    2013 b , , 434, L51

    ---. 2013 b , , 434, L51

    2013

  32. [40]

    2015, , 127, 1161

    Kreidberg , L. 2015, , 127, 1161

    2015

  33. [41]

    1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid

    Kurucz , R. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993., 13

    1993

  34. [42]

    Kurucz , R. L. 1992, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 149, The Stellar Populations of Galaxies, ed. B. Barbuy & A. Renzini , 225

    1992

  35. [43]

    2018, , 616, A2

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2

    2018

  36. [44]

    2012, , 761, 122

    Lithwick , Y., Xie , J., & Wu , Y. 2012, , 761, 122

    2012

  37. [45]

    D., & Rice , K

    Lopez , E. D., & Rice , K. 2018, , 479, 5303

    2018

  38. [46]

    2010, in , Vol

    Mahadevan , S., Ramsey , L., Wright , J., et al. 2010, in , Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, 77356X

    2010

  39. [47]

    W., Terrien , R., et al

    Mahadevan , S., Ramsey , L. W., Terrien , R., et al. 2014, in , Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 91471G

    2014

  40. [48]

    2017, , 153, 224

    Malavolta , L., Borsato , L., Granata , V., et al. 2017, , 153, 224

    2017

  41. [49]

    W., Louden , T., et al

    Malavolta , L., Mayo , A. W., Louden , T., et al. 2018, , 155, 107

    2018

  42. [50]

    2002, , 580, L171

    Mandel , K., & Agol , E. 2002, , 580, L171

    2002

  43. [51]

    W., Dupuy , T., Kraus , A

    Mann , A. W., Dupuy , T., Kraus , A. L., et al. 2019, , 871, 63

    2019

  44. [52]

    2010, in , Vol

    M \'e gevand , D., Herreros , J.-M., Zerbi , F., et al. 2010, in , Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, 77354Y

    2010

  45. [53]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1803.06708

    Morbidelli , A. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1803.06708

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    G., Adibekyan , V

    Mortier , A., Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V. Z., Brand \ a o , I. M., & Santos , N. C. 2014, , 572, A95

    2014

  47. [55]

    Morton , T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package , Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1503.010

    2015

  48. [56]

    D., Bryson , S

    Morton , T. D., Bryson , S. T., Coughlin , J. L., et al. 2016, , 822, 86

    2016

  49. [57]

    L., Thompson , S

    Mullally , F., Coughlin , J. L., Thompson , S. E., et al. 2015, , 217, 31

    2015

  50. [58]

    W., Hartmann , L

    Noyes , R. W., Hartmann , L. W., Baliunas , S. L., Duncan , D. K., & Vaughan , A. H. 1984, , 279, 763

    1984

  51. [59]

    E., & Wu , Y

    Owen , J. E., & Wu , Y. 2017, , 847, 29

    2017

  52. [60]

    T., Gaudi , B

    Penny , M. T., Gaudi , B. S., Kerins , E., et al. 2019, , 241, 3

    2019

  53. [61]

    \'A ., & Lindegren , L

    Perryman , M., Hartman , J., Bakos , G. \'A ., & Lindegren , L. 2014, , 797, 14

    2014

  54. [62]

    A., Marcy , G

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

    2018

  55. [63]

    W., Sivan , J

    Queloz , D., Henry , G. W., Sivan , J. P., et al. 2001, , 379, 279

    2001

  56. [64]

    A., Reece , S., & Roberts , S

    Rajpaul , V., Aigrain , S., Osborne , M. A., Reece , S., & Roberts , S. 2015, , 452, 2269

    2015

  57. [65]

    E., & Williams , C

    Rasmussen , C. E., & Williams , C. K. I. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning

    2006

  58. [66]

    N., Barnes , R., Veras , D., et al

    Raymond , S. N., Barnes , R., Veras , D., et al. 2009, , 696, L98

    2009

  59. [67]

    Sanders , G. H. 2013, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 34, 81

    2013

  60. [68]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835

    1982

  61. [69]

    2016, in , Vol

    Schwab , C., Rakich , A., Gong , Q., et al. 2016, in , Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, 99087H

    2016

  62. [70]

    2003, , 585, 1038

    Seager , S., & Mall \'e n-Ornelas , G. 2003, , 585, 1038

    2003

  63. [71]

    Sneden , C. A. 1973, PhD thesis, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

    1973

  64. [72]

    Sousa , S. G. 2014, ARES + MOOG: A Practical Overview of an Equivalent Width (EW) Method to Derive Stellar Parameters , ed. E. Niemczura , B. Smalley , & W. Pych , 297--310

    2014

  65. [73]

    G., Santos , N

    Sousa , S. G., Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., et al. 2011, , 526, A99+

    2011

  66. [74]

    G., Santos , N

    Sousa , S. G., Santos , N. C., Mortier , A., et al. 2015, , 576, A94

    2015

  67. [75]

    2007, , 664, 1190

    Sozzetti , A., Torres , G., Charbonneau , D., et al. 2007, , 664, 1190

    2007

  68. [76]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.09668

    The LUVOIR Team . 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.09668

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    E., Coughlin , J

    Thompson , S. E., Coughlin , J. L., Hoffman , K., et al. 2018, , 235, 38

    2018

  70. [78]

    2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.1048

    Udry , S., Lovis , C., Bouchy , F., et al. 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.1048

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S., et al

    Van Eylen , V., Agentoft , C., Lundkvist , M. S., et al. 2018, , 479, 4786

    2018

  72. [80]

    S., Allen , S

    Vogt , S. S., Allen , S. L., Bigelow , B. C., et al. 1994, in , Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine , 362

    1994

  73. [81]

    2009, , 496, 577

    Zechmeister , M., & K \"u rster , M. 2009, , 496, 577

    2009

  74. [82]

    B., & Sasselov , D

    Zeng , L., Jacobsen , S. B., & Sasselov , D. D. 2017, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 1, 32

    2017

  75. [83]

    B., Sasselov , D

    Zeng , L., Jacobsen , S. B., Sasselov , D. D., & Vand erburg , A. 2018, , 479, 5567

    2018

  76. [84]

    2013, , 125, 227

    Zeng , L., & Sasselov , D. 2013, , 125, 227

    2013

  77. [85]

    D., & Jacobsen , S

    Zeng , L., Sasselov , D. D., & Jacobsen , S. B. 2016, , 819, 127

    2016

Pith tools

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