Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

The ExoTETHyS package: Tools for Exoplanetary Transits around Host Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 ExoTETHyS fits stellar limb darkening so precisely that its model transit light curves reproduce exact reference calculations to better than 10 parts per million at every wavelength.

desk verdict Solid software paper with a credible few-ppm limb-darkening fitting method; the headline precision claim is broadly right but needs a caveat about the numerical reference and a single test case. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09599 v2 pith:LXEAKK4F submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Giuseppe Morello , Antonio Claret , Marine Martin-Lagarde , Christophe Cossou , Angelos Tsiaras , Pierre-Olivier Lagage This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanettransitslimbdarkeningstellaratmospheremodelstransitlightcurvesspectrophotometryopen-sourcesoftwareJWSTARIEL
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

The paper introduces ExoTETHyS, an open-source Python package for modeling exoplanet transits, and argues that its limb-darkening coefficient calculator, SAIL, removes a major source of systematic error in transit light-curve models. The key claim is that fitting the four-coefficient claret-4 limb-darkening law with a weighted fit in radial coordinate and a quasi-spherical cutoff yields model light curves accurate to better than 10 parts per million (ppm) at all wavelengths, an order of magnitude better than most previous algorithms for spherical stellar models. In a noiseless simulation of the HD 209458b transit in the TESS passband, peak-to-peak residuals are 2 ppm with rms below 1 ppm, and across 0.25–10 µm the residuals stay below 8 ppm. The paper also provides TRIP, an exact light-curve generator that integrates the full stellar intensity profile without any limb-darkening law, and a formula for predicting light-curve model precision from the goodness of the intensity fit. This matters because upcoming missions such as JWST and ARIEL will reach roughly 10 ppm photometric precision, where these systematic errors would otherwise dominate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the weighted-r quasi-spherical (QS) fit: a weighted least-squares fit of an analytic limb-darkening law to a passband-integrated stellar intensity profile, with weights proportional to the radial sampling interval in $r = \sqrt{1-\mu^2}$ and a cutoff discarding intensities at $r > 0.99623$. The cutoff removes the steep limb drop-off characteristic of spherical model atmospheres, which has negligible effect on the numerically integrated light curve but distorts the coefficient fit; the weights ensure the fit prioritizes the radial intervals that actually contribute to the flux integral. The procedure also rescales spherical intensity profiles to the photometric radius defined by the inflection point of the intensity gradient, so the cutoff applies uniformly across models. This fitting method, implemented in the SAIL subpackage, is what carries the sub-10 ppm precision claim; the companion TRIP subpackage generates reference light curves by direct numerical integration of the occulted flux without any limb-darkening approximation.

What would settle it

Generate a noiseless reference transit light curve with TRIP using an intensity profile from an independent stellar atmosphere code not in ExoTETHyS's grids (e.g., a 3D or MESA model) for a star like HD 209458; if claret-4 coefficients from the weighted-r QS fit reproduce that curve with residuals above about 10 ppm, the claimed precision is specific to the grid rather than general.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the choice of fitting algorithm for limb-darkening coefficients, not just the choice of limb-darkening law or stellar atmosphere model, controls the accuracy of transit light-curve models at the tens-of-ppm level, and that a weighted least-squares fit with weights proportional to the sampling interval in the radial coordinate $r$, combined with a cut at $r \leq 0.99623$ to discard the steep intensity drop-off of spherical models, is the optimal procedure. With the claret-4 law, this weighted-r QS method reproduces noiseless reference light curves generated by direct numerical integration (TRIP) with peak-to-peak residuals of 2 ppm and rms below 1 ppm in the TESS passband, and below 8 ppm across 0.25–10 µm. The same coefficients retrieve the correct transit depth within 5 ppm, impact parameter within $6 \times 10^{-4}$, and transit duration within 1 s at all wavelengths. The paper concludes that claret-4 coefficients obtained through this algorithm ensure a precision of less than or about 10 ppm in relevant transit light curves at all wavelengths, exceeding by one order of magnitude the precision of most previously proposed algorithms for spherical stellar models.

Load-bearing premise

The validation is an internal consistency check: reference light curves are produced by TRIP from the same model-atmosphere intensity profiles to which the limb-darkening laws are fitted, so the claimed precision holds only if those atmosphere models (ATLAS, PHOENIX) represent real stellar surfaces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any transit modeled with claret-4 coefficients from SAIL, the systematic error contributed by limb-darkening parameterization is below about 10 ppm at all wavelengths, so it will sit under the expected photon noise of TESS, JWST, and ARIEL observations for typical targets.
  • Two-coefficient laws (quadratic, power-2, square-root) are shown to be unreliable below 1 µm for exoplanet spectroscopy, introducing biases of tens to hundreds of ppm, so the claret-4 law must be preferred at optical and ultraviolet wavelengths.
  • The proposed formula $(\text{peak-to-peak})_{\mathrm{ppm}} = (k \times 10^6) \times p^2 \times (\text{weighted-r QS rms})$ lets users estimate the systematic noise floor of their light-curve model from the intensity-fit residuals alone, allowing a quick check that limb-darkening systematics stay below the photon-noise limit.
  • Because the algorithm eliminates the degeneracy among previous fitting methods (unweighted, weighted-μ, interpolated-μ/r, and their QS variants), different analyses of the same star and passband will obtain identical limb-darkening coefficients and hence mutually consistent transit parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper validates precision against internally generated light curves; a natural extension is to test the same weighted-r QS coefficients against real ultra-precise space photometry (e.g., TESS or JWST) for stars with well-determined parameters, where residuals below about 10 ppm would corroborate the accuracy claim.
  • Because the QS cutoff at $r \leq 0.99623$ is defined on the rescaled photometric radius, the method may be more robust than the original $\mu \geq 0.1$ cutoff for giant and supergiant stars whose intensity drop-off occurs at larger $\mu$; one could quantify the coefficient bias for low-gravity PHOENIX models to test this.
  • Equation (20) suggests a cheap, instrument-independent quality metric: a user comparing any two limb-darkening laws or algorithms can predict the resulting light-curve bias without running full transit fits, and this could be extended to choose the minimal polynomial degree needed to reach a target precision for a given passband and star.
  • The TRIP exact integrator, being free of limb-darkening approximations, is the natural tool to assess biases in other transit parameters beyond depth; the paper's parameter-recovery tests for HD 209458b hint that these biases are sub-ppm in the QS case, but the same check could be run for grazing transits or small planets where the limb contribution is relatively larger.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ExoTETHyS, an open-source Python package with two subpackages. SAIL computes stellar limb-darkening coefficients by fitting parametric limb-darkening laws to passband-integrated model-atmosphere intensity profiles, using a weighted-r least-squares fit with a quasi-spherical cutoff (weighted-r QS). TRIP generates transit light curves by direct numerical integration of the full stellar intensity profile rather than through limb-darkening coefficients. The authors validate SAIL by generating noiseless reference light curves with TRIP from PHOENIX and ATLAS intensity profiles for an HD209458b-like system, then fitting those light curves with models that use coefficient sets obtained by different fitting methods and limb-darkening laws. They report that claret-4 coefficients from the weighted-r QS method reproduce the reference TESS light curve to 2 ppm peak-to-peak and the spectral light curves (20 nm bins over 0.25-10 micron) to below 8 ppm peak-to-peak, and they propose Eq. (20) to predict light-curve residuals from the intensity-profile fit residual. The central claim is that this algorithm outperforms most previously proposed fitting algorithms by about an order of magnitude for spherical stellar models.

Significance. If the headline precision claim is sustained, ExoTETHyS is a genuinely useful tool for high-precision transit spectroscopy, particularly for JWST and ARIEL simulations and data analysis. The paper's strengths include the release of reproducible, documented code; a direct-integration transit generator (TRIP) that sidesteps limb-darkening parameterizations entirely; and a validation strategy that correctly isolates the limb-darkening parameterization error: reference light curves and fitted coefficients both derive from the same model intensity profile, so the residuals measure how well a given parametric law reproduces the exact integral. This internal-consistency test is not circular for the paper's stated purpose, and the paper explicitly disclaims empirical validation against real stellar surfaces. The comparison of fitting methods is also useful and will help practitioners choose among algorithms. However, the generality of the <10 ppm claim rests on a single test geometry and a single stellar model, and the numerical accuracy of the TRIP reference is not demonstrated, so the strongest headline statements are not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2.3 and Section 3.1] The central precision claim is measured against reference light curves generated by TRIP, but the numerical accuracy of TRIP itself is not established. Equations (16) and (17) are evaluated with the midpoint rule on a uniform partition in r, yet the paper gives no default annulus count, no convergence study, and no independent check against an analytic or high-accuracy reference. If TRIP's own discretization error is comparable to 1-10 ppm, then the reported 2 ppm TESS residual and <8 ppm spectral residuals are not a clean measurement of the limb-darkening approximation error. The authors should state the default number of annuli, demonstrate convergence with respect to that parameter, and, ideally, validate TRIP against an independent integrator or an analytic solution.
  2. [Section 3.1, Section 3.3, and Table 1] The headline '<10 ppm at all wavelengths' is established from one HD209458-like PHOENIX 2012 stellar model and one transit geometry. Equation (20) explicitly introduces a p^2 dependence, and the residual magnitude should also depend on impact parameter and the stellar intensity profile, but no tests are shown over the Teff, log g, [M/H], p, or b ranges covered by the package grids in Table 1. The cutoff r <= 0.99623 is also a free choice, and no sensitivity to that cutoff is reported. The validation should be extended, or the claims should be explicitly restricted to the tested regime, before stating that the algorithm ensures <10 ppm precision for relevant transit light curves generally.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The statement that the algorithm outperforms 'most of the algorithms proposed in the previous literature' by one order of magnitude is not uniformly supported by the paper's own Figures 2 and 3. For the TESS simulation, weighted-mu QS and unweighted QS give peak-to-peak residuals of 3 ppm, only marginally worse than the 2 ppm of weighted-r QS, and the spectral residuals of the other QS methods remain below 13 ppm rather than a factor of ten larger. The order-of-magnitude improvement is persuasive relative to unweighted spherical fits, but the sweeping wording should be tightened to specify the comparison class and to acknowledge that the advantage over other quasi-spherical fits is modest in the tested case.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1.3, Eq. (6)] In Eq. (6), the summation index is k but the coefficient is written as a_n; this should be a_k (or the index should be n).
  2. [Section 2.1.1] The text contains a typo: 'whic includes' should be 'which includes'.
  3. [Section 3.1, bottom of page 8] The sentence describing interp-r residuals says 'about 1.5 and 2 times larger residual amplitudes, respectively'; the pairing of the two interpolation grids with the two factors is ambiguous and should be clarified.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Figure 5 caption] Section 3.3 refers to 'HD20458 b' while the rest of the paper uses HD209458 b; the Figure 5 caption contains a similar typo ('HD20458 b').
  5. [Section 2.1.4] The value r_cut = 0.99623 is stated without explanation of where it comes from; a sentence explaining the origin of the numerical value and its precision would help users judge the robustness of the quasi-spherical cutoff.
  6. [Section 3.3, Eq. (20)] Equation (20) introduces a free factor k with k approximately 1, but the paper does not give the fitted values of k obtained in the 'different transit parameters' tests or specify the range of geometries over which the proportionality was checked; providing this information would make the formula more actionable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the <10 ppm claim is a forward-model approximation test, not a fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central precision claim is established by comparing transit light curves computed from fitted limb-darkening coefficients against reference light curves generated by direct numerical integration of the same model intensity profiles. This is an internal consistency test of how well the claret-4 parametric law approximates the exact integral; it is not a reduction to the fitted inputs. The coefficients are fitted to the intensity profiles via the weighted-r QS algorithm (Equations 9-10), while the reference light curves are produced independently by TRIP from the same intensity profiles (Equations 16-19). No coefficient is fitted to the reference light curves, and no transit parameter is predicted from a fitted value. The weighted-r QS method is one of several discrete fitting algorithms compared, not a parameter fitted to the validation light curves, so the reported ranking is not forced by construction. The paper explicitly limits its claim to model precision and acknowledges the lack of empirical validation: 'the lack of empirical validation for stellar limb-darkening prevents the final choice of the most reliable model(s)', and Equation 20 'does not account for uncertainties in the stellar parameters, discrepancies between real and model intensity profiles, and other contaminating signals'. Self-citations, such as the TRIP algorithm being identical to the 'tlc' of Morello et al. (2017), are references to fully specified numerical methods, not load-bearing circular premises. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on the stellar atmosphere model grids, the spherical geometry assumptions, the photometric radius definition, and the choice of fitting weights. These are domain assumptions, not hidden fitted parameters, though the r_cut and k values are tuned or hand-selected constants rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (2)
  • r_cut = 0.99623
    Radial cutoff for quasi-spherical fits, chosen by hand as a generalization of Claret et al. (2012) and not optimized on the simulated data. The claimed accuracy depends on this threshold.
  • k = order unity (~1)
    Proportionality factor in Equation 20 relating intensity-profile fit RMS to transit light-curve peak-to-peak error. Estimated from a small set of simulated light curves with different transit parameters; the paper calls the study preliminary.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ATLAS and PHOENIX model atmosphere intensity profiles are treated as ground truth for the accuracy tests.
    Section 2.1.2 and Table 1. The tests measure the error in approximating these profiles with limb-darkening laws, not the error in the profiles relative to real stars.
  • domain assumption The star is spherically symmetric and unspotted, and the planet is a dark sphere.
    Section 2.2 states the TRIP assumption: 'a dark spherical planet transiting in front of a spherically-symmetric (unspotted) star'. Spots, oblateness, gravity darkening, and tidal deformation are ignored.
  • domain assumption The photometric radius is defined as the inflection point of the intensity profile, with radial coordinates rescaled so this radius is r=1.
    Section 2.1.2. Transit model precision claims refer to this definition of stellar radius; a different definition would change the coefficients and residuals.
  • domain assumption The TRIP numerical integration of the model intensity profile is exact enough that residuals isolate the limb-darkening law approximation error.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3.1. The reference light curves are computed by direct integration, so the residuals are attributed to the parametric limb-darkening approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ExoTETHyS package: Tools for Exoplanetary Transits around Host Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXEAKK4F

@misc{pith2026190809599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ExoTETHyS package: Tools for Exoplanetary Transits around Host Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXEAKK4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09599}
}
read the original abstract

We present here the first release of the open-source python package ExoTETHyS, which aims to provide a stand-alone set of tools for modeling spectro-photometric observations of the transiting exoplanets. In particular, we describe: (1) a new calculator of stellar limb-darkening coefficients that outperforms the existing software by one order of magnitude in terms of light-curve model accuracy, i.e., down to <10 parts per million (ppm); (2) an exact transit light-curve generator based on the entire stellar intensity profile rather than limb-darkening coefficients. New tools will be added in later releases to model various effects in exoplanetary transits and eclipsing binaries. ExoTETHyS is a reference package for high-precision exoplanet atmospheric spectroscopy with the upcoming JWST and ARIEL missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example with a model intensity distribution for a star similar to HD209458 (Teff = 6100 K, log g = 4.5), integrated over the 7.59–7.61 µm wavelength range, by using the PHOENIX 2012 13 database (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Peak-to-peak of residuals between the reference spectral light curves for the transit of HD209458 b and the best-fit models with claret-4 limb-darkening coefficients obtained with different fitting methods (see Section 3.1). Left panel: results obtained with the spherical methods, i.e., taking into account the whole spherical intensity profiles. Right panel: results obtained with the quasi-spherical methods, i.e., w… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Best-fit transit parameters to the reference spectral light curves for the transit of HD209458 b assuming claret-4 limb-darkening coefficients obtained with different fitting methods (see Section 3.1). The true parameter values are reported in black. Left panels: results obtained with the spherical methods, i.e., taking into account the whole spherical intensity profiles. Right panels: Results obtained with the quas… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top, left panel: peak-to-peak of residuals between the reference spectral light curves for the transit of HD209458 b and the best-fit models using the limb-darkening coefficients calculated for the different laws (see Section 2.1.3). Top, right panel: weighted-r QS rms…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best-fit transit parameters to the reference spectral light curves for the transit of HD209458 b using the limb￾darkening coefficients calculated for the different laws (see Section 2.1.3). The true parameter values are reported in black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Weighted-r QS rms of residuals to the model intensity profiles vs. peak-to-peak of the transit light curve residuals for the spectral templates of HD20458 b adopting different limb-darkening laws. The black line is the global linear fit. darkening parameterization, whi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Analytic Planetary Transit Light Curves and Derivatives for Stars with Polynomial Limb Darkening

    Agol, E., Luger, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.03222. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03222

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Akinsanmi, B., Barros, S. C. C., Santos, N. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834215

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834215 2019

  3. [3]

    F., & Pagano, I

    Ballerini, P., Micela, G., Lanza, A. F., & Pagano, I. 2012, A&A, 539, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117102

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117102 2012

  4. [4]

    W., Linscott, E., & Shporer, A

    Barnes, J. W., Linscott, E., & Shporer, A. 2011, ApJS, 197, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/10 2011

  5. [5]

    2014, PASP, 126, 1134, doi: 10.1086/679566

    Beichman, C., Benneke, B., Knutson, H., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 1134, doi: 10.1086/679566

    doi:10.1086/679566 2014

  6. [6]

    2017, A&A, 597, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528018

    Chiavassa, A., Caldas, A., Selsis, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528018

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528018 2017

  7. [7]

    L., Jenkins, J

    Christiansen, J. L., Jenkins, J. M., Caldwell, D. A., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1279, doi: 10.1086/668847

    doi:10.1086/668847 2012

  8. [8]

    2000, A&A, 363, 1081 —

    Claret, A. 2000, A&A, 363, 1081 —. 2003, A&A, 401, 657, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030142 —. 2004, A&A, 428, 1001, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041673 —. 2008, A&A, 482, 259, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809370 —. 2017, A&A, 600, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705 —. 2018, A&A, 618, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833060

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030142 2000

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2011, A&A, 529, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

    Claret, A., & Bloemen, S. 2011, A&A, 529, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.07129

    Claret, A., Cukanovaite, E., Burdge, K., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.07129. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07129

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Claret, A., Dragomir, D., & Matthews, J. M. 2014, A&A, 567, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423515

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    H., & Witte, S

    Claret, A., Hauschildt, P. H., & Witte, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219849 —. 2013, A&A, 552, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220942

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2013, A&A, 549, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219888

    Csizmadia, S., Pasternacki, T., Dreyer, C., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219888

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    1992, A&A, 259, 227

    Diaz-Cordoves, J., & Gimenez, A. 1992, A&A, 259, 227

    1992

  7. [15]

    S., & Agol, E

    Eastman, J., Gaudi, B. S., & Agol, E. 2013, PASP, 125, 83, doi: 10.1086/669497

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv744 —

    Espinoza, N., & Jord´ an, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv744 —. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3573, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw224

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Z., Johnson, J

    Gazak, J. Z., Johnson, J. A., Tonry, J., et al. 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 697967, doi: 10.1155/2012/697967 Gim´ enez, A. 2006, A&A, 450, 1231, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054445

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2048 Hestroffer, D

    Hellard, H., Csizmadia, S., Padovan, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2048 Hestroffer, D. 1997, A&A, 327, 199 Heyrovsk´ y, D. 2007, ApJ, 656, 483, doi: 10.1086/509566

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Howarth, I. D. 2011a, MNRAS, 413, 1515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18122.x —. 2011b, MNRAS, 418, 1165, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19568.x

    2011

  12. [20]

    D., & Morello, G

    Howarth, I. D., & Morello, G. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 932, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1260

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    G., & Benz, W

    Isaak, K. G., & Benz, W. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0886-9 Sample article 15

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Swain, M

    Iyer, A. R., Swain, M. R., Zellem, R. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 109, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/109

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    M., & Tinetti, G

    Kipping, D. M., & Tinetti, G. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2589, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17094.x

    2010

  16. [24]

    1950, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 454, 1

    Kopal, Z. 1950, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 454, 1

    1950

  17. [25]

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

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

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    2015, A&A, 573, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423804

    Magic, Z., Chiavassa, A., Collet, R., & Asplund, M. 2015, A&A, 573, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423804

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2002, ApJL, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, ApJL, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/28

    Masuda, K. 2015, ApJ, 805, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/28

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Maxted, P. F. L. 2018, A&A, 616, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832944

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2010, A&A, 521, L59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015550

    Mazeh, T., & Faigler, S. 2010, A&A, 521, L59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015550

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    2012, A&A, 541, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117908

    Mazeh, T., Nachmani, G., Sokol, G., Faigler, S., & Zucker, S. 2012, A&A, 541, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117908

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, AJ, 156, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aadda4

    Morello, G. 2018, AJ, 156, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aadda4

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Lagage, P. O. 2019, AJ, 157, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14e2

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    D., & Homeier, D

    Morello, G., Tsiaras, A., Howarth, I. D., & Homeier, D. 2017, AJ, 154, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8405

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    R., & Lester, J

    Neilson, H. R., & Lester, J. B. 2013a, A&A, 554, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321502 —. 2013b, A&A, 556, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321888

    doi

  28. [36]

    B., Gizon, L., Cameron, R

    Nielsen, M. B., Gizon, L., Cameron, R. H., & Miesch, M. 2019, A&A, 622, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834373

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 3233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv894

    Parviainen, H. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv894

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

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

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

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Pascale, E., Bezawada, N., Barstow, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10698, Proc. SPIE, 106980H

    2018

  32. [40]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    C., & Howarth, I

    Reeve, D. C., & Howarth, I. D. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2631

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    H., & Gizon, L

    Reinhold, T., Cameron, R. H., & Gizon, L. 2017, A&A, 603, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730599

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Proc. SPIE, 914320

    2014

  36. [44]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sarkar, S., Papageorgiou, A., & Pascale, E. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9904, Proc. SPIE, 99043R

    2016

  37. [45]

    1906, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 195, 43

    Schwarzschild, K. 1906, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 195, 43

    1906

  38. [46]

    2003, ApJ, 585, 1038, doi: 10.1086/346105

    Seager, S., & Mall´ en-Ornelas, G. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1038, doi: 10.1086/346105

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    2017, PASP, 129, 072001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7112

    Shporer, A. 2017, PASP, 129, 072001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7112

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Sing, D. K. 2010, A&A, 510, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913675

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    K., Fortney, J

    Sing, D. K., Fortney, J. J., Nikolov, N., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 59, doi: 10.1038/nature16068

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, 1644, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13145.x

    Southworth, J. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1644, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13145.x

    2008

  43. [51]

    Southworth, J., Maxted, P. F. L., & Smalley, B. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1277, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07871.x

    2004

  44. [52]

    P., Rocchetto, M., et al

    Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I. P., Rocchetto, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 202, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/202

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Zingales, T., et al

    Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I. P., Zingales, T., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf75

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    P., & Kervella, P

    Wittkowski, M., Aufdenberg, J. P., & Kervella, P. 2004, A&A, 413, 711, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034149

    2004 doi

  47. [55]

    T., Swain, M

    Zellem, R. T., Swain, M. R., Roudier, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79f5

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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