Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

The First Spin-Orbit Obliquity of an M dwarf/brown dwarf System: An eccentric and aligned TOI-2119 b

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Brown dwarf around an M dwarf is aligned with its star

desk verdict First M dwarf/brown dwarf obliquity, plausibly aligned, but the alignment claim leans on a BIC model choice the paper itself calls tentative. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18567 v3 pith:ZJO3KVEF submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Lauren Doyle , Caleb I. Cañas , Jessica E. Libby-Roberts , Heather M. Cegla , Gu{ḥmundur K. Stefánsson , David Anderson , David J. Armstrong , Chad Bender
show 10 more authors
Daniel Bayliss Theron W. Carmichael Sarah Casewell Shubham Kanodia Marina Lafarga Andrea S.J. Lin Suvrath Mahadevan Andy Monson Paul Robertson Dimitri Veras
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords browndwarfMspin-orbitobliquityRossiter-McLaughlineffectReloadedRMTOI-2119eccentricorbitcentre-to-limbconvection
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

TOI-2119 b is a transiting brown dwarf orbiting a young, active M dwarf at 64.4 Jupiter masses in a 7.2-day eccentric orbit. This paper reports the first spin-orbit obliquity measurement for an M dwarf/brown dwarf system, using the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect on NEID transit spectroscopy. Both the classical Rossiter-McLaughlin analysis and the Reloaded RM technique find the system is aligned: the sky-projected obliquity is $\lambda=-0.8\pm1.1^\circ$ from the classical method and $\lambda=1.26\pm1.3^\circ$ from the Reloaded RM, with a three-dimensional obliquity of $\psi=15.7\pm5.5^\circ$. An aligned companion on an eccentric orbit is significant because high-eccentricity migration channels that produce misalignment seem unnecessary for this system. The result adds TOI-2119 b to a small, emerging group of aligned brown dwarfs and constrains formation scenarios for M dwarf/sub-stellar companions.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, the distortion of disk-integrated stellar radial velocities during transit as the companion blocks rotating starlight; its amplitude and shape encode the sky-projected obliquity $\lambda$. The Reloaded RM technique (Cegla et al. 2016a) goes further by subtracting the scaled out-of-transit spectral cross-correlation function from each in-transit CCF to isolate the local CCF of the starlight hidden behind the brown dwarf. Gaussian fits to these local CCFs give the local radial velocities of the occulted regions, which are then modelled as the combination of a solid-body rotation field and a centre-to-limb convective velocity term, with the best-fit model selected by BIC comparison. The classical RM fit uses the analytic model of Hirano et al. (2011) for a Gaussian line profile, with the three-dimensional obliquity $\psi$ obtained by combining $\lambda$ with the stellar inclination inferred from the adopted rotation period.

What would settle it

Take new, higher-SNR NEID transit observations of TOI-2119 with denser sampling near ingress and egress. If the BIC improvement of the quadratic CLV model over the linear model exceeds 6 and the fitted $c_2$ is nonzero with high significance, the RRM obliquity shifts to $\sim 20^\circ$, which would falsify the aligned conclusion. Independently, measuring the stellar rotation period and inclination through long-baseline photometry would test the $\psi = 15.7^\circ$ value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that TOI-2119 b, a $64.4\,M_{\rm J}$ brown dwarf transiting the early M dwarf TOI-2119 on a $P=7.2$ d, $e=0.336$ orbit, is spin-orbit aligned with its host star. The classical Rossiter-McLaughlin fit to the NEID radial velocities yields a projected obliquity $\lambda = -0.8\pm 1.1^\circ$ and, using the stellar rotation period of 13.2 d as a prior, a three-dimensional obliquity $\psi = 15.7^{+5.4}_{-5.6}$ degrees. The Reloaded RM technique, which spatially resolves the starlight occulted by the brown dwarf, gives $\lambda = 1.26 \pm 1.3^\circ$ under the preferred model of solid-body rotation plus a linear centre-to-limb convective (CLV) term. The two independent measurements agree within $2\sigma$, and the authors adopt the Reloaded RM value as the final result because it accounts for CLV, concluding that TOI-2119 b joins the six previously known brown dwarf systems with measured obliquities, all of which are aligned ($\lambda \le 40^\circ$).

Load-bearing premise

The alignment result rests on the assumption that the stellar surface velocity field is solid-body rotation plus a linear centre-to-limb convective term; if the quadratic CLV model is the correct description, the Reloaded RM obliquity is about 20 degrees, not aligned.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TOI-2119 b becomes the seventh brown dwarf with a measured obliquity and the first around an M dwarf, extending obliquity statistics to host stars cooler than 4000 K.
  • An aligned, eccentric orbit is difficult to produce via planet-planet scattering, von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai oscillations, or secular chaos, which typically misalign orbits; this favours formation by disk migration or star-like collapse without a violent dynamical history.
  • The tentative trend that brown dwarfs with eccentricities between 0.1 and 0.35 are aligned gains a datapoint, echoing a similar pattern seen in gas giants.
  • The RRM analysis yields tentative evidence for centre-to-limb convective variations on an M dwarf, with a linear coefficient $c_1 = 1.09\pm0.2$ km/s, and no detectable differential rotation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The alignment conclusion is model-dependent: the quadratic CLV model, which has a lower BIC (by 5.4) than the linear model but is rejected on the 'difference < 6' threshold, yields $\lambda = 20.4^{+5.8}_{-6.4}$ degrees. If future data support the quadratic term, the system would no longer be classified as aligned.
  • The linear CLV coefficient of ~1.1 km/s is large compared to theoretical expectations for M dwarfs, which predict convective blueshift near zero below ~4000 K; a higher-SNR measurement sampling the limb could reveal whether this is genuine convection or an artifact of differential rotation.
  • The Gaia RUWE of 1.93 suggests a possible stellar or substellar companion; if such a companion is confirmed, the Coplanar High-eccentricity Migration scenario becomes testable, and the interpretation of the system's dynamical history would need revision.
  • Applying the same joint classical + Reloaded RM analysis to other M dwarf/brown dwarf systems could quickly double the sample of brown dwarf obliquities, given the ~10 known such systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports the first spin-orbit obliquity measurement for an M dwarf/brown dwarf system. TOI-2119 b is a 64.4 M_Jup transiting brown dwarf on a 7.2-day eccentric orbit (e ≈ 0.336) around a young, active early M dwarf. The authors jointly fit new NEID transit spectroscopy, archival RVs, and TESS/ARC/TMMT/LCRO photometry to refine the system parameters and ephemeris, then apply two obliquity techniques. The classical Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) analysis yields λ = -0.8 ± 1.1° and, adopting priors on the rotation period and stellar radius, a three-dimensional obliquity ψ = 15.7 ± 5.5°. The Reloaded RM (RRM) analysis of the occulted starlight adopts a solid-body rotation plus linear centre-to-limb convective velocity (CLV) model and yields λ = 1.26 ± 1.3° and v_eq sin i* = 1.61 ± 0.1 km/s. The authors conclude the system is aligned, making it the most eccentric brown dwarf with a measured obliquity, and report tentative CLV and no differential rotation. The alignment claim is, however, sensitive to the CLV model choice: the quadratic CLV fit preferred by the reported BIC values gives λ = 20.4°, a misaligned system.

Significance. If the alignment conclusion holds, this is a valuable new data point: the first M dwarf/brown dwarf obliquity and the most eccentric brown dwarf with a measured obliquity, with direct bearing on high-eccentricity migration and the formation dichotomy between giant planets and brown dwarfs. The paper has real strengths: two obliquity techniques applied to the same NEID data give mutually consistent projected λ values; the joint photometric+RV fit updates the ephemeris and system parameters; errors and model comparisons are reported honestly, including the tentative nature of the CLV detection and the CLV/DR degeneracy; and the population trend discussed in §5 is appropriately flagged as tentative at only seven systems. The projected obliquity is a directly fitted parameter rather than an output forced by the conclusion, so there is no circularity. Nevertheless, the headline conclusion is less secure than the abstract's 'confirm' suggests: on the paper's own BIC numbers, the model that is preferred is an alternative CLV form that yields a misaligned obliquity. The result is important, but the load-bearing model-selection step needs to be strengthened.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.1, Table 4; Abstract, §5] The central claim that TOI-2119 b is aligned rests on selecting the SB+CLV1 model over SB+CLV2 and SB+CLV3. On the BIC values reported in Table 4, the quadratic model is preferred over the adopted linear model by ΔBIC = -5.4 and the cubic by ΔBIC = -2.2. The paper's stated threshold of ~6 corresponds to 'strong' evidence on the Raftery (1995) scale, but a ΔBIC of 5.4 is positive evidence, so the reported statistics favor the model the authors do not adopt. This is load-bearing because SB+CLV2 gives λ = 20.4 (+5.8/-6.4)°, i.e., a misaligned system at about 3σ from zero, while SB+CLV3 gives λ = 16.1°. The classical RM (λ = -0.8 ± 1.1°) cannot arbitrate: as stated in §4.1.1, it does not model CLV, and unmodeled CLV of the amplitude fitted here can bias the classical RM λ. A threshold change of less than one BIC unit, or inclusion of the four discarded limb points, could therefore reverse the headline result; the stress-test concern lands. I recommend reporting the model-dependent range of λ, adopting a physically motivated CLV prior (e.g., from the 3D simulations of Beeck et al. 2013, which the paper cites), or using cross-validation to select between the linear and quadratic CLV forms.
  2. [§4.1.3, Fig. 6; Abstract] The adopted model's key ingredient, a linear CLV with c1 = 1.09 ± 0.2 km/s, is in tension with the paper's own assessment of M-dwarf convection. Section 4.1.3 cites Beeck et al. (2013) and Liebing et al. (2021) to argue that CLV should be weak or near zero in early M dwarfs, and the abstract labels the CLV detection 'tentative'; a centre-to-limb shift of order 1 km/s would be surprisingly large for Teff = 3553 K. The higher-order coefficients are barely constrained (e.g., c3 = 34.5 ± 62.3 km/s in Table 4), yet the distinction between the linear and quadratic models is precisely what changes λ from 1.3° to 20.4°. The leverage is also fragile: with only roughly 20 usable local RVs (inferred from the χ² and χ²_ν values in Table 4), four limb points already removed (μ < 0.40), and the statement in §4.1.3 that the curvature is 'largely driven by the points which are at ingress', the linear-versus-quadratic choice is decided by a small number of measurements. The CLV model choice should be treated as a systematic uncertainty on the obliquity rather than as the settled basis for an aligned-system claim.
  3. [§3, §4.1.2, Table 4] The two techniques give inconsistent stellar rotation parameters, and the paper does not address the discrepancy. The classical RM yields v_eq sin i* = 1.92 ± 0.06 km/s and i* = 72.9 (+5.7/-5.4)°, while the adopted RRM model yields v_eq sin i* = 1.61 ± 0.1 km/s; these differ by about 2.7σ. Combining the RRM value with Prot = 13.2 d, as the paper does in §4.1.2, gives i* ≈ 55.4°, and for the same λ ≈ 1° that inclination implies ψ ≈ 33°, not the ψ = 15.7 ± 5.5° quoted in the abstract from the classical RM. The three-dimensional obliquity reported in the abstract is therefore tied to one of two mutually inconsistent analyses, with no discussion of the conflict. Either the tension should be resolved (e.g., by a joint model of the disk-integrated and local RVs), or ψ should be presented with the full range implied by both analyses.
  4. [§4.1.2, Table 4] The ΔBIC ≈ 6 criterion is applied asymmetrically. In §4.1.1, the quadratic CLV model, which is better than the adopted SB+CLV1 model by ΔBIC = 5.4, is set aside because the difference is 'not at the threshold for being significant'. In §4.1.2, the DR+CLV1 (towards) model, which is worse than SB+CLV1 by ΔBIC = 5.6, is rejected because 'this BIC is still approximately greater than six'. A 5.4-point preference for a model is thus treated as insignificant while a 5.6-point preference against a model is treated as decisive, even though the two margins are nearly identical. Under a consistent application of the criterion, either the quadratic CLV model remains a serious competitor for λ (≈20°, misaligned), or the DR+CLV1 model cannot be excluded and with it the possibility that part of the apparent CLV is differential rotation. The model comparison in Table 4 does not, in its current form, supply a stable basis for the aligned-λ and no-DR conclusions together.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1] In the Introduction, 'missaligned' should read 'misaligned'.
  2. [§5] In §5, 'the 3.5 m WYNN' should read 'WIYN'.
  3. [§5] The sentence 'Additionally, RV constraints on additional companions were considered in the initial discovery paper of Cañas et al. (2022) where the presence of any additional low-inclination (sin i ~ 1) brown dwarfs (M_BD < 11 M_J) within 7.4 AU of TOI-2119.' is incomplete and should end with a predicate such as '...were ruled out.'
  4. [§4.1.1, Table 4] The text of §4.1.1 should state explicitly that the SB models fix i* = 90° and α = 0; this information currently appears only in the Table 4 footnote, and it is important for interpreting the fitted v_eq sin i*.
  5. [§4.1.1] The sentence 'This is the first measurement of v_eq sin i* and the projected obliquity for this system' should specify 'from the RRM technique', since the classical RM analysis of the same paper (Table 3) also measures both quantities.
  6. [Abstract] Given the model-selection sensitivity documented in Table 4 and the paper's own characterization of the CLV detection as tentative, the statement that the two results 'confirm the system is aligned' overstates the certainty; 'are consistent with an aligned system' would be more accurate.
  7. [Data Availability] The reduced ARC and LCRO photometry and the local CCFs used in the RRM analysis are available only on request; depositing them alongside the NEID RV tables would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected obliquity is a directly fitted parameter in both the classical and Reloaded RM analyses, and the alignment claim does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The central obliquity values are free parameters in two independent fitting procedures: the classical RM fit uses the Hirano et al. (2011) model with λ sampled under a uniform prior, and the RRM fit solves for λ from local RVs. No equation in the paper defines λ in terms of the aligned conclusion, nor is any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The stellar rotation period and radius from Cañas et al. (2022) are adopted only for converting projected quantities to the 3D obliquity ψ; changing those priors would not force the projected λ values, so the alignment claim is not built from them. The selection of the solid-body plus linear CLV model over quadratic and cubic CLV alternatives is a statistical model-choice issue disclosed in Table 4, and the paper explicitly reports that the higher-order models give different, less-aligned λ values; this is a robustness concern, not a circular reduction. The tentative CLV detection is a fitted coefficient with stated uncertainty, not an input assumed to produce the result. Self-citations to the RRM method and discovery paper are references to external techniques and measurements rather than a load-bearing chain that defines the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The obliquity measurement is model-dependent but not circular. The main auxiliary inputs are the stellar parameters from the discovery papers, the assumed line profile and limb-darkening laws, and the chosen CLV polynomial order. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • NEID RM limb-darkening coefficients u1,u2 (classical RM) = u1=0.77(+0.27/-0.28), u2=-0.12(+0.31/-0.26)
    Fitted in the classical RM fit with Kipping (2013) priors; control the transit and RM shape and hence lambda.
  • Gaussian line dispersion beta (classical RM) = 2.7 +/- 0.3 km/s
    Prior set from NEID resolution element; enters the RM amplitude.
  • Projected stellar rotation v_eq sin i* (classical RM) = 1.92 +/- 0.06 km/s
    Fitted; used with the adopted rotation period prior to estimate stellar inclination and psi.
  • Stellar inclination cos i* (classical RM) = 0.29(+0.09/-0.10), i* = 72.9 deg
    Fitted with a uniform prior; central to the 3D obliquity psi.
  • RRM CLV coefficients (c1, c2, c3) = Preferred model c1=1.09 +/- 0.2 km/s; quadratic and cubic coefficients in alternative models
    The polynomial order and coefficients are fitted; the choice between them changes lambda by about 19 degrees.
  • RRM projected equatorial velocity v_eq sin i* = 1.61 +/- 0.1 km/s
    Fitted in the RRM; used with the rotation period to estimate stellar inclination.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The RM effect for a Gaussian line profile model (Hirano et al. 2011) describes the observed anomaly.
    Used in Section 3 for the classical RM fit.
  • domain assumption The occulted local CCFs are well described by a single Gaussian so that the local velocities can be extracted.
    Gaussian fits to the local CCFs in Section 4; low-SNR limb points with mu < 0.40 are removed.
  • domain assumption Differential rotation, when modeled, follows the solar-like law of Equation 8 of Cegla et al. (2016a).
    Used in Section 4.1.2 for the DR models.
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters from Canas et al. (2022) and Carmichael et al. (2022), including Prot = 13.2 +/- 0.2 d and R* = 0.51 +/- 0.01 Rsun, are adopted.
    Priors used in the classical RM for psi and in the RRM for converting v_eq sin i* to i*; see Sections 3 and 4.1.2.
  • domain assumption A quadratic limb-darkening law with ExoCTK coefficients in the NEID passband applies to the RRM.
    Listed in Table 3 and used in the RRM fits in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The First Spin-Orbit Obliquity of an M dwarf/brown dwarf System: An eccentric and aligned TOI-2119 b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJO3KVEF

@misc{pith2026241118567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The First Spin-Orbit Obliquity of an M dwarf/brown dwarf System: An eccentric and aligned TOI-2119 b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJO3KVEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18567}
}
abstract

We report the first instance of an M dwarf/brown dwarf obliquity measurement for the TOI-2119 system using the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect. TOI-2119 b is a transiting brown dwarf orbiting a young, active early M dwarf ($T_{\rm{eff}}$ = 3553 K). It has a mass of 64.4 M$_{\rm{J}}$ and radius of 1.08 R$_{\rm{J}}$, with an eccentric orbit ($e$ = 0.3) at a period of 7.2 days. For this analysis, we utilise NEID spectroscopic transit observations and ground based simultaneous transit photometry from the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) and the Las Campanas Remote Observatory (LCRO). We fit all available data of TOI-2119 b to refine the brown dwarf parameters and update the ephemeris. The classical Rossiter-McLaughlin technique yields a projected star-planet obliquity of $\lambda=-0.8\pm1.1^\circ$ and a three-dimensional obliquity of $\psi=15.7\pm5.5^\circ$. Additionally, we spatially resolve the stellar surface of TOI-2119 utilising the Reloaded Rossiter-McLaughlin technique to determine the projected star-planet obliquity as $\lambda=1.26 \pm 1.3^{\circ}$. Both of these results agree within $2\sigma$ and confirm the system is aligned, where TOI-2119 b joins an emerging group of aligned brown dwarf obliquities. We also probe stellar surface activity on the surface of TOI-2119 in the form of centre-to-limb variations as well as the potential for differential rotation. Overall, we find tentative evidence for centre-to-limb variations on the star but do not detect evidence of differential rotation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18567 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The transit photometry for observations simultaneous to NEID for Run A (10 May 2023) only. Top: The phase-folded photometry for each instrument along with the best-fit model (solid red line). Bottom: The residuals to the best-fitting model. transit of TOI-2119 b, we obtained a sequence of 22 observations to reach a signal-to-noise (SNR) per pixel near 27 at 750 nm and achieve a maximum number of in-transit points du… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The classical RM effect for TOI-2119 b. Top: The phase-folded NEID RVs, after subtracting the RV offsets and Keplerian orbit, along with the best-fit model (solid red line) and the 1 − 3𝜎 range of our models (gray shaded regions). Bottom: The residuals to the best-fitting model. 446 − 896 nm) described in §2 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The top panel shows the local RVs determined from the local CCFs of the regions occulted by the brown dwarf as a function of phase. The data points are colour coded by the stellar disk position behind the brown dwarf in units of brightness weighted ⟨𝜇⟩ (where 𝜇 = cos 𝜃). The model for Solid Body (SB: navy dashed line) is shown, along with SB plus centre-to-limb linear (gold solid line) model. The bottom panel shows … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The solid black line represents the linear CLV contribution from the SB plus linear CLV model fit, where the grey shaded region represents the errors. The dashed blue line is the SB model subtracted from the DR model, the errors are large and extend out of the plotted …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The net convective shifts determined by subtracting the solid body model fit (which changes slightly when adding in CLV) from the local RVs of the in-transit local CCFs, plotted as a function of stellar disk position behind the brown dwarf (brightness weighted ⟨𝜇⟩). Mo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: All known brown dwarf systems with measured obliquities as a function of the stellar temperature. The background grey sample are all gas giant planets (0.3 MJ ≤ 𝑀p ≤ 13 𝑀J) from TEPCat7 . The measured obliquity from the RRM method is shown for TOI-2119 b as the star ma…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The sky-projected obliquity known for all brown dwarf systems as a function of eccentricity (Top) and scaled semi-major axis, 𝑎/𝑅★ (Bottom). Each point is colour coded according to the stellar host effective temperature. The star marker represents TOI-2119 b which has …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Spin-spin coupling in stellar binaries

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A spin-spin resonance in binaries can pump the secondary's obliquity to high values as the primary's magnetic braking sweeps the precession frequencies through commensurability.

  2. From Misaligned Sub-Saturns to Aligned Brown Dwarfs: The Highest $M_{\rm p}/M{_*}$ Systems Exhibit Low Obliquities, Even around Hot Stars

    astro-ph.EP 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Single-star exoplanet systems with planet-to-star mass ratios above roughly 2e-3 are preferentially spin-orbit aligned, even for hot stars, suggesting a primordial formation boundary.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S., et al., 2021, , 505, 2741

    Acton J. S., et al., 2021, , 505, 2741

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    H., Dawson R

    Albrecht S. H., Dawson R. I., Winn J. N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134h2001A 134, 082001

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 2022

  3. [3]

    Artigau \'E ., et al., 2021, , 162, 144

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Bayliss D., et al., 2018, , 475, 4467

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Beaug \'e C., Nesvorn \`y D., 2012, , 751, 119

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    H., Reiners A., Sch \"u ssler M., 2013, , 558, A49

    Beeck B., Cameron R. H., Reiners A., Sch \"u ssler M., 2013, , 558, A49

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2020, , 496, 1922

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Bessell M., 1990, , 102, 1181

    work page 1990

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Bourque M., et al., 2021, @doi [] 10.5281/zenodo.4556063

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Bourrier V., Cegla H., Lovis C., Wyttenbach A., 2017, , 599, A33

    2017

  3. [11]

    Bourrier V., et al., 2018, , 553, 477

    2018

  4. [12]

    P., Blunt S

    Bowler B. P., Blunt S. C., Nielsen E. L., 2020, , 159, 63

    2020

  5. [13]

    Brady M., et al., 2023, , 165, 129

    2023

  6. [14]

    I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...50C 164, 50

    Ca \ n as C. I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...50C 164, 50

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    I., et al., 2022, , 163, 89

    Ca \ n as C. I., et al., 2022, , 163, 89

    2022

  8. [16]

    W., et al., 2022, , 514, 4944

    Carmichael T. W., et al., 2022, , 514, 4944

    2022

  9. [17]

    Cegla H., Lovis C., Bourrier V., Beeck B., Watson C., Pepe F., 2016a, , 588, A127

  10. [18]

    C., Shelyag S., 2016b, , 819, 67

    Cegla H., Oshagh M., Watson C., Figueira P., Santos N. C., Shelyag S., 2016b, , 819, 67

  11. [19]

    Ciceri S., et al., 2013, , 557, A30

    2013

  12. [20]

    A., Kielkopf J

    Collins K. A., Kielkopf J. F., Stassun K. G., Hessman F. V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...77C 153, 77

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Czesla S., Klocov \'a T., Khalafinejad S., Wolter U., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...582A..51C 582, A51

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    I., Johnson J

    Dawson R. I., Johnson J. A., 2018, , 56, 175

    2018

  15. [23]

    Donati J.-F., et al., 2008, , 390, 545

    2008

  16. [24]

    Doyle L., et al., 2022, , 516, 298

    2022

  17. [25]

    Doyle L., et al., 2023, , 522, 4499

    2023

  18. [26]

    Dravins D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.20.090182.000425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ARA&A..20...61D 20, 61

    1982

  19. [27]

    I., et al., 2023, , 958, L20

    Espinoza-Retamal J. I., et al., 2023, , 958, L20

    2023

  20. [28]

    Espinoza N., Kossakowski D., Brahm R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.2262E 490, 2262

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Fabrycky D., Tremaine S., 2007, , 669, 1298

    2007

  22. [30]

    Foreman-Mackey D., Agol E., Ambikasaran S., Angus R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..220F 154, 220

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Petigura E

    Fulton B. J., Petigura E. A., Blunt S., Sinukoff E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130d4504F 130, 044504

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Giacalone S., et al., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21235

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H \'e brard G., et al., 2010, , 516, A95

    2010

  26. [34]

    H \'e brard G., et al., 2011, , 533, A130

    2011

  27. [35]

    A., et al., 2024a, , p

    Henderson B. A., et al., 2024a, , p. stae508

  28. [36]

    A., et al., 2024b, , 533, 2823

    Henderson B. A., et al., 2024b, , 533, 2823

  29. [37]

    N., Taruya A., Narita N., Albrecht S., Sato B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...69H 742, 69

    Hirano T., Suto Y., Winn J. N., Taruya A., Narita N., Albrecht S., Sato B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...69H 742, 69

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    pp 1630--1641

    Huehnerhoff J., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI. pp 1630--1641

    2016

  31. [39]

    Hut P., 1981, , 99, 126

    1981

  32. [40]

    Irwin J., et al., 2010, , 718, 1353

    2010

  33. [41]

    A., et al., 2019, , 489, 5146

    Jackman J. A., et al., 2019, , 489, 5146

    2019

  34. [42]

    M., et al., 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV

    Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV. p. 99133E, @doi 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    A., et al., 2011, , 730, 79

    Johnson J. A., et al., 2011, , 730, 79

    2011

  36. [44]

    pp 2057--2074

    Kanodia S., et al., 2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII. pp 2057--2074

    2018

  37. [45]

    Kanodia S., et al., 2023, , 166, 105

    2023

  38. [46]

    Kanodia S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad27cb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..161K 167, 161

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.2152K 435, 2152

    Kipping D. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.2152K 435, 2152

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Kreidberg L., 2015, batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1510.002 )

    2015

  41. [49]

    V., Reiners A., Zechmeister M., 2021, , 654, A168

    Liebing F., Jeffers S. V., Reiners A., Zechmeister M., 2021, , 654, A168

    2021

  42. [50]

    Lorah J., Womack A., 2019, Behavior research methods, 51, 440

    2019

  43. [51]

    McLaughlin D., 1924, , 60

    1924

  44. [52]

    J., et al., 2017, , 153, 96

    Monson A. J., et al., 2017, , 153, 96

    2017

  45. [53]

    Palle E., et al., 2021, , 650, A55

    2021

  46. [54]

    Petrovich C., 2015, , 805, 75

    2015

  47. [55]

    E., 1995, Sociological methodology, pp 111--163

    Raftery A. E., 1995, Sociological methodology, pp 111--163

    1995

  48. [56]

    Rice M., Wang S., Laughlin G., 2022, , 926, L17

    2022

  49. [57]

    R., et al., 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 914320 ( @eprint arXiv 1406.0151 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2063489

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Robertson P., et al., 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015003

    2019

  51. [59]

    Rossiter R., 1924, , 60

    1924

  52. [60]

    Santerne A., et al., 2014, , 571, A37

    2014

  53. [61]

    pp 2220--2225

    Schwab C., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI. pp 2220--2225

    2016

  54. [62]

    J., Howell S

    Scott N. J., Howell S. B., Horch E. P., Everett M. E., 2018, , 130, 054502

    2018

  55. [63]

    J., et al., 2012, , 761, 123

    Siverd R. J., et al., 2012, , 761, 123

    2012

  56. [64]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Stefansson G., et al., 2016, , 833, 175

    2016

  58. [66]

    Stefansson G., et al., 2017, , 848, 9

    2017

  59. [67]

    Stefansson G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abb13a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..192S 160, 192

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    Stef \`a nsson G., et al., 2022, , 931, L15

    2022

  61. [69]

    M., 2018, Technical report, TESS Science Data Products Description Document: EXP-TESS-ARC-ICD-0014 Rev D

    Tenenbaum P., Jenkins J. M., 2018, Technical report, TESS Science Data Products Description Document: EXP-TESS-ARC-ICD-0014 Rev D. NASA

    2018

  62. [70]

    Thompson M., et al., 1996, , 272, 1300

    1996

  63. [71]

    H., 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, pp 1375--1401

    Triaud A. H., 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, pp 1375--1401

    2018

  64. [72]

    H., et al., 2009, , 506, 377

    Triaud A. H., et al., 2009, , 506, 377

    2009

  65. [73]

    H., et al., 2013, , 549, A18

    Triaud A. H., et al., 2013, , 549, A18

    2013

  66. [74]

    Vallenari A., et al., 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  67. [75]

    N., Fabrycky D., Albrecht S., Johnson J

    Winn J. N., Fabrycky D., Albrecht S., Johnson J. A., 2010, , 718, L145

    2010

  68. [76]

    Wu Y., Lithwick Y., 2011, , 735, 109

    2011

  69. [77]

    Zaleski S., Valio A., Carter B., Marsden S., 2020, , 492, 5141

    2020

  70. [78]

    Zechmeister M., et al., 2018, , 609, A12

    2018

  71. [79]

    Zhou G., et al., 2019, , 157, 31

    2019

  72. [80]

    F., Rice M., Wang X.-Y., Wang S., 2024, , 168, 145

    dos Santos T. F., Rice M., Wang X.-Y., Wang S., 2024, , 168, 145

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.