Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Identifying Flare Locations Through Exoplanet Transit Occultations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that when a transiting planet or eclipsing companion passes in front of an ongoing flare, the timing and shape of the resulting light-curve dip can reconstruct the flare's latitude and longitude on an M dwarf, and that 3…

desk verdict The occultation geometry is sound, the 3-22 'detectable' estimate is not noise-calibrated, and the CM Dra candidate is an honest non-confirmation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04866 v1 pith:5FCCNNQP submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Tayt Armitage , David V. Martin , Romy Rodríguez Martínez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords flareoccultationsMdwarfsstellaractivityexoplanetseclipsingbinariesTESSlatitudestransitphotometry
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 proposes a new way to locate flares on M dwarf stars: watch for a transiting planet or eclipsing companion to pass in front of an ongoing flare, blocking part of its light. From the timing and geometry of that occultation—the impact parameter, the sizes of the two bodies, and how deep into the eclipse the dip occurs—the flare's latitude and longitude can be reconstructed. The authors simulate the expected light-curve shapes, compute detection probabilities for known systems, and estimate that 3–22 detectable occultations should already be hiding in TESS primary-mission photometry, most of them in eclipsing binaries. They analyze one candidate in the CM Draconis system, showing that its unusually fast decay is consistent with an occultation but is not yet statistically confirmed. If the technique works, it gives a direct, purely photometric way to map where M dwarfs flare, which matters because equatorial flares are much more threatening to orbiting planets' atmospheres than polar ones.

What carries the argument

The core is a geometric Monte Carlo simulation of a transit across a star with circular flare patches. The occulted area is computed with the circle-circle intersection formula (Eq. 1), which takes the distance between the flare center and the transiting body's center with their radii and returns the overlap area; an event is recorded as detectable when the overlap covers at least 10% of the flare's area, occurs after the flare's peak and within four FWHM durations, and leaves at least one data point with a partially visible flare. Flare light curves are generated with the Tovar Mendoza et al. (2022) template, producing three recognizable morphologies: a dip in decay (A), an abrupt cut-off of decay (B), and a rising-phase occultation that mimics a low-amplitude flare (C). The probabilities run 50,000 transits per parameter set, with $P_{\rm occultation} = N_{\rm success}/N_{\rm runs}$, then $P_{\rm obs} = 1-(1-P_{\rm occultation})^{N_{\rm transit}}$ for multi-transit windows. Flare positions are drawn from a uniform distribution across the stellar sphere—an explicitly stated modeling assumption that does not enter the geometric method itself.

What would settle it

A systematic search of all TESS 20-second and 120-second data for the 55 M-dwarf eclipsing binaries defined in the paper: if the number of confirmed type-B occultations after a complete search is statistically consistent with zero while the model predicts at least three, the uniform-flare assumption or the simulated flare morphology templates would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an occultation event—a transiting body passing in front of an ongoing flare—can be identified in optical photometry and converted into a latitude and longitude measurement for the flare. The geometry is fixed by the known transit parameters: the impact parameter gives the latitude band swept out, and the time of the occultation within the transit gives the longitude. Using this, the authors build a simulation that generates realistic flare light curves, compute single-transit and per-sector occultation probabilities for known M dwarf systems, and find that eclipsing binaries dominate the expected yield. The quantitative headline is that 3–22 detectable occultations should already be present in TESS primary-mission photometry. The CM Draconis candidate is presented as a demonstration of the whole chain—geometry, light-curve morphology, and model comparison—but explicitly not as a confirmed detection.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical predictions assume flares are spread uniformly over the star's surface; if M dwarf flares actually prefer high latitudes, the expected 3–22 events and the equatorial reading of the CM Draconis candidate would both shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Eclipsing binaries are the prime targets: CM Draconis reaches a 99.8% chance of having at least one occultation across its 16 TESS sectors, and GJ 3236 an 87.4% chance across its 4 sectors.
  • For transiting planets, larger radius ratios and shorter periods give the best odds; Neptune-sized planets with 1-day periods could produce up to 3 detectable occultations in current TESS data, while Earth-sized planets are essentially hopeless in a single sector.
  • Cadence matters: 20–120 second data can catch occultations, but 10–30 minute cadence reduces the probability to effectively zero, so searches should prioritize short-cadence observations.
  • The three predicted light-curve morphologies give observers a template: type B (a flare that disappears mid-decay) is the most reliable occultation signature, while type A risks confusion with sympathetic flares and quasi-periodic pulsations, and type C is indistinguishable from a low-amplitude flare.
  • If the CM Draconis candidate is real, it would be a near-equatorial M dwarf flare, a data point set against the polar latitudes inferred from rotation-modulation studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the uniform-flare assumption is wrong, the predicted counts shift: polar-concentrated flares would lower the occultation rate for low-impact-parameter transits, so a carefully defined null result from a TESS search would itself constrain the flare latitude distribution.
  • The same geometric machinery applies to other high-cadence photometric surveys and to stars of other spectral types, since nothing in the geometry depends on spectral type once radii, orbital parameters, and flare rates are known.
  • By stacking occultation chords from multiple transits of the same star, one could build a coarse 'flare latitude histogram' that distinguishes equatorial, intermediate, and polar flare populations without high-resolution stellar imaging.
  • The visual search could be automated by fitting every in-transit flare with an injected-occultation template and comparing Bayesian evidence, which would turn the technique into a systematic population survey rather than a by-eye candidate hunt.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using occultations of flares by transiting planets or eclipsing binaries in optical photometry to constrain flare latitudes. It models transit geometry and flare areas, uses Davenport/Tovar Mendoza flare templates to generate light-curve morphologies, and runs Monte Carlo simulations to compute occultation probabilities as functions of radius ratio, impact parameter, flare rate, orbital period, and cadence. It applies the framework to TRAPPIST-1, AU Mic, CM Draconis, GJ 3236, and selected TOIs, searches TESS short-cadence data of GJ 3236 and CM Draconis for in-eclipse flare occultations, presents one candidate in CM Draconis, and estimates that 3–22 detectable occultations should exist in TESS primary mission data, mostly in eclipsing binaries.

Significance. The geometric idea is timely and potentially valuable: if validated, it would convert existing TESS photometry into direct constraints on M dwarf flare latitudes, complementing rotation-modulation methods. The simulation is clearly described, the use of established flare templates is appropriate, and the paper is candid about limitations, repeatedly labeling the CM Draconis event a candidate and cataloging false-positive morphologies and spin-orbit caveats in Sections 7.1 and 7.5. The probabilistic framework is internally consistent. However, the headline estimate and the demonstration rest on an uncalibrated geometric detectability criterion, ad hoc flare parameter distributions, and a single unconfirmed candidate; the numerical predictions are not yet supported at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, §4.5, §6.2] The “detectability” criterion used to produce the headline 3–22 estimate is purely geometric. In §2.3 an occultation is counted when at least 10% of the flare area is covered, and §4.5 adds the requirement of at least two in-occultation cadence points; no photometric noise, systematics, or detection-significance threshold enters the Monte Carlo. For the low-amplitude flares in the simulation (3% of stellar flux, §2.2), a 10% area occultation corresponds to a 0.3% flux dip, comparable to or below the TESS 2-minute photometric precision for typical faint M-dwarf targets. Consequently, the events counted in Table 2 and the “3–22 detectable occultations” statement in §6.2 are geometric occultations, not detectable events. The central quantitative claim needs either an explicit noise model with an SNR threshold or a clear reframing as geometric occultations whose actual detectability remains to be calibrated.
  2. [§2.2] The flare ensembles are generated from a vaguely described “seeded value from a normal distribution” without quantitative calibration. The amplitude range (3–20%), FWHM thresholds (10–45 min for low-amplitude flares, 2–4 h for high-amplitude flares), and Earth-to-Jupiter flare radii are stated without justification or reference. Since P_occultation and the expected counts in Table 2 depend on the adopted flare area, duration, and amplitude distributions, the 3–22 estimate is sensitive to these unvalidated inputs. The authors should calibrate the distributions to observed flare samples (e.g., Günther et al. 2020b; Howard & MacGregor 2022) or at least provide a sensitivity analysis over plausible parameter ranges.
  3. [§3, §6.1] §3 assumes a spherically uniform flare distribution and §6.1 carries this assumption into the sample predictions. The assumption is stated, but the probabilities for individual systems in Table 1 and the expected-count range in Table 2 are all computed under it. Given that Ilin et al. (2021) infer polar flare latitudes for rapidly rotating M dwarfs, and §7.5 itself questions whether tight binaries have active longitudes, the uniform assumption is not benign. The authors should add sensitivity tests with polar-concentrated, equatorial, and banded latitude distributions and show how P_occultation, Table 1, and Table 2 change; without this, the predicted 3–22 range should be presented as conditional on a uniform latitude prior.
  4. [§5.5, §7.3] The CM Draconis demonstration does not currently validate the method. As the paper states in §5.5 and §7.3, the candidate has at best a 4.8% tail probability relative to the Howard & MacGregor (2022) decay/FWHM distribution and is not a strong outlier among the 125 flares in Fig. 11. Moreover, §7.1 lists sympathetic flares, quasi-periodic pulsations, peak-bump flares, and rapid-decay flares that produce morphologies matching the predicted occultation signals. The text nevertheless says in §5.5 that the candidate “strengthens the case” and later uses it to infer an equatorial flare location. The demonstration would need a full false-alarm analysis calibrated on the non-occulted flare sample, or the equatorial-flare inference should be explicitly labeled as a speculative illustration rather than an empirical result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (4)] Equation (4) defines erfc but the text says “the error function for which we use the Scipy package scipy.special.erf”; this is inconsistent, and the correct function used in Eq. (2) should be stated.
  2. [§7.3] The text says the candidate resembles morphology “Fig. 1c”, but §5.5 and the caption of Fig. 1 describe the candidate as matching morphology (b); the reference should be corrected.
  3. [Table 2] In §6.1 the authors state that for eclipsing binaries “the primary and secondary stars will have the same radii”, but the M4–M6 eclipsing-binary row of Table 2 lists R2 = 0.446 R☉ against R1 = 0.196 R☉; if this is a typo it should be corrected, since it affects the expected count for that bin.
  4. [§4.5] The requirement of at least two data points during the occultation is introduced in §4.5 but is not stated in the detection criteria in §2.3; the criteria should be defined consistently in one place.
  5. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption calls 4.8% a “false positive chance,” but §7.3 describes a percentile within a comparison flare sample; these are not equivalent, and the caption should be reworded.
  6. [Data Availability] The paper states that simulation and observational data “may be provided upon reasonable request”; releasing the simulation code would improve reproducibility and allow readers to check the Monte Carlo calibration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the probability predictions are forward-modeled from external flare rates and geometric assumptions, and the sole demonstration candidate is explicitly left unconfirmed.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Section 3's Monte Carlo occultation probability is a forward model: it takes flare frequencies, stellar and planetary radii, impact parameters, periods, and cadences as inputs and counts geometric overlaps using Eq. (1) and the stated 10%-area and two-cadence thresholds. The 3-22 TESS expectation in Sect. 6 is an extrapolation of this model over external catalogs (Prsa et al. 2022; Howard 2022) and externally reported flare occurrence rates (Gunther et al. 2020b); it is not obtained by fitting any target quantity. The 'detectable occultation' criterion is a stated modeling definition rather than a tautological output. The CM Draconis candidate is presented as a demonstration and the paper repeatedly states that it is not confirmed: the reduced chi-squared of the occultation model is still greater than 1, the 10-minute amplitude is not a strong outlier, and the false-positive rate versus Howard & MacGregor (2022) is 4.8%. The only self-citation, Martin et al. (2023), provides the CM Dra flare list and the candidate, but it is not load-bearing for the central probability estimates or the geometric method, which rest on independent external inputs. Skeptical concerns about the detectability criterion lacking a noise model and about the candidate's statistical significance are correctness risks, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are mostly simulation choices: flare amplitude range, durations, radii, detection thresholds, and the detection window. These are not fitted to data in a way that would hide a circularity, but they are not derived from external benchmarks either, which adds uncertainty to the quantitative probability estimates. The axioms are standard domain assumptions for flare and transit modeling, with the most load-bearing being the uniform flare distribution and spin-orbit alignment. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Flare amplitude distribution = 3% to 20% of stellar flux
    Chosen by hand in Sect. 2.2 as the range of flare amplitudes considered in simulations; no empirical calibration is provided.
  • FWHM duration thresholds = 10 to 45 minutes for low amplitude, 2 to 4 hours for high amplitude
    Randomly generated according to amplitude thresholds set in Sect. 2.2; these values are not derived from a specific flare catalog.
  • Flare radius range = Earth radius to Jupiter radius
    Assumed in Sect. 2.2 based on the idea that higher energy flares have larger area; no direct empirical justification is provided.
  • Occultation detection threshold = 10% area occulted
    Set in Sect. 2.3 to reflect a detectable dip; chosen by hand.
  • Detection window after peak = 4 times the FWHM
    Set in Sect. 2.3 as the window in which an occultation can be detected; chosen by hand.
  • Flare occurrence rates for M dwarf bins = 2 flares/day for M0-M3, 1 flare/day for M4-M6
    Adopted from Günther et al. (2020b) in Sect. 6.1 for the expected count estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The flare morphology can be described by the Tovar Mendoza et al. (2022) template for all simulated events.
    Used throughout Sect. 2.4 and in the CM Draconis fit; real flares may deviate, and the paper itself discusses complex substructures that mimic occultations.
  • domain assumption Flares are circular regions on the stellar surface with uniform intensity.
    Used for occulted area calculation in Sect. 2.2; real flares have complex sub-structure, acknowledged in Sect. 7.1.
  • domain assumption The transiting body and stellar spin axis are aligned, so the transit latitude range corresponds to a fixed latitude band on the star.
    Invoked throughout the paper and explicitly discussed in Sect. 7.5; this is necessary to convert occultation timing into a flare latitude.
  • domain assumption Flare rate is constant over the observing window and is independent of transit phase.
    Used in Sect. 3 to convert flare frequency into a per-transit probability; real flares may be clustered in active regions.
  • domain assumption The stellar and planetary parameters used for the simulated systems are accurate.
    Central to the probability calculations in Sect. 4.6 and Table 1; errors in radii or flare rates directly propagate to the probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying Flare Locations Through Exoplanet Transit Occultations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FCCNNQP

@misc{pith2026250104866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying Flare Locations Through Exoplanet Transit Occultations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FCCNNQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04866}
}
read the original abstract

M dwarfs are the most common stars in the galaxy, with long lifespans, a high occurrence rate of rocky planets, and close-in habitable zones. However, high stellar activity in the form of frequent flaring and any associated coronal mass ejections may drive atmospheric escape with the bombardment of radiation and high-energy particles, drastically impacting the habitability of these systems. The stellar latitude where flares and coronal mass ejections occur determines the space weather that exoplanets are subject to, with high-energy particle events associated with equatorial flares producing significant atmospheric erosion. However, the flaring latitudes for M dwarfs remain largely unconstrained. To aid in the effort to locate these flaring regions we explore the applicability of flare occultations using optical photometry to identify the latitudes of flares. As a planet transits in front of an ongoing flare the timing and geometry of the transit can be used to constrain the latitude and longitude of the flare. We predict the probability of detecting an occultation for known transiting planets and eclipsing binaries. From this, we estimate 3-22 detectable occultations exist within the TESS primary mission photometry, with the majority occurring in eclipsing binary observations. To demonstrate this technique, we analyze a candidate flare occultation event for the eclipsing binary CM Draconis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three examples of possible flare occultation morphologies that have been simulated. In these events, the occultation occurs for part of the decay phase, the entire decay phase, or during the rising phase to produce unique light curves. In Sect. 7.5, we discuss the caveats of how these different morphologies could be produced without occultations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Flare occultation probability during an entire TESS sector as a function of the planet’s orbital period. Again we use base parameters of 𝑅★ = 0.25R⊙, a flare rate of 3 flares per day, 𝑅p = 1𝑅⊕, 1𝑅Neptune, 1𝑅Jupiter. Even though the occultation probability for a given transit does not strongly depend on orbital period ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Single transit flare occultation probability as a function of the planet’s orbital period. Again we use base parameters of 𝑅★ = 0.25R⊙, a flare rate of 3 flares per day, 𝑅p = 1𝑅⊕, 1𝑅Neptune, 1𝑅Jupiter. scale. This was done using Earth-sized, Neptune-sized, and Jupiter￾…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Single transit flare occultation probability as a function of the cadence of measurement. The cadence options are based on the TESS postage stamp (short cadence) and full-frame image (long cadence) data, which have changed throughout the mission lifetime: 20s, 60s, 120…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The photometry data collected for GJ 3236 in Sector 19 of TESS, which was used in our search for flare occultations. Many flares occurred near or during eclipse, with a large amplitude flare being highlighted that lasted for the entire duration of the eclipse. On the l…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two example flares on CM Draconis that occur during an eclipse. The flare on the left, occurring during a primary eclipse, lasts only five minutes. The flare on the right, occurring during a secondary eclipse, lasts 10× longer despite having roughly the same amplitude.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 20-second cadence data for CM Draconis showing the occultation candidate pictured in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top row: 125 flares discovered in CM Draconis, stacked together and aligned to have a peak at 𝑡 = 0. The candidate occulted flare is highlighted in red. Flares occurring during the eclipse but likely not occulted are in blue. All other flares are in grey. The two top …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A depiction of the eclipse geometry for CM Draconis at the time of the candidate flare occultation in Figs. 9 and 10. In gray is the secondary star, which is in the foreground as the flare occurred during a primary eclipse. The primary star, in the background, is show…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Aizawa M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psac056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASJ...74.1069A 74, 1069

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psac056 2022

  3. [3]

    Anglada-Escud \'e G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature19106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.536..437A 536, 437

    doi:10.1038/nature19106 2016

  4. [4]

    S., Regan J., 1994, in Balasubramaniam K

    Balasubramaniam K. S., Regan J., 1994, in Balasubramaniam K. S., Simon G. W., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 68, Solar Active Region Evolution: Comparing Models with Observations. p. 17

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae3e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239....2B 239, 2

    Barclay T., Pepper J., Quintana E. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae3e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239....2B 239, 2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae3e9 2018

  6. [6]

    Q., Wang J

    Chen A. Q., Wang J. X., Li J. W., Feynman J., Zhang J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...534A..47C 534, A47

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116790 2011

  7. [7]

    T., Feinstein A

    Chen H., Zhan Z., Youngblood A., Wolf E. T., Feinstein A. D., Horton D. E., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-01264-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..298C 5, 298

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01264-1 2021

  8. [8]

    C., Martin R

    Childs A. C., Martin R. G., Livio M., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9052 , 937, L41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9052 2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Crossfield I. J. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804...10C 804, 10

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Davenport J. R. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797..122D 797, 122

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Charbonneau D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807...45D 807, 45

    Dressing C. D., Charbonneau D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807...45D 807, 45

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Barnes R., 2015, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2015.1325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AsBio..15..739D 15, 739

    Driscoll P. E., Barnes R., 2015, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2015.1325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AsBio..15..739D 15, 739

    2015

  5. [13]

    D., Montet B

    Feinstein A. D., Montet B. T., Ansdell M., Nord B., Bean J. L., G \"u nther M. N., Gully-Santiago M. A., Schlieder J. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abac0a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..219F 160, 219

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Seligman D

    Feinstein A. D., Seligman D. Z., G \"u nther M. N., Adams F. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4b5e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925L...9F 925, L9

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Barclay T., Bouma L., 2020, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.4.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1998447 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1998447

    Foreman-Mackey D., Luger R., Czekala I., Agol E., Price-Whelan A., Brandt T. D., Barclay T., Bouma L., 2020, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.4.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1998447 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1998447

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    France K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abb465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..237F 160, 237

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aba4b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..116G 160, 116

    Gilbert E. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aba4b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..116G 160, 116

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Gillon M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature21360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.542..456G 542, 456

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Migenes V., Doyle J

    Gunn A. G., Migenes V., Doyle J. G., Spencer R. E., Mathioudakis M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/287.1.199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.287..199G 287, 199

    1997 doi

  12. [21]

    N., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...60G 159, 60

    G \"u nther M. N., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...60G 159, 60

    doi

  13. [22]

    K., Cushing M

    Hardegree-Ullman K. K., Cushing M. C., Muirhead P. S., Christiansen J. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab21d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158...75H 158, 75

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    L., Davenport J

    Hawley S. L., Davenport J. R. A., Kowalski A. F., Wisniewski J. P., Hebb L., Deitrick R., Hilton E. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/121 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797..121H 797, 121

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    J., Mulders G

    Hippke M., David T. J., Mulders G. D., Heller R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..143H 158, 143

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512L..60H 512, L60

    Howard W. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512L..60H 512, L60

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    S., MacGregor M

    Howard W. S., MacGregor M. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac426e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..204H 926, 204

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    W., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..201...15H 201, 15

    Howard A. W., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..201...15H 201, 15

    2012 doi

  19. [28]

    Ilin E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.1723I 507, 1723

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    D., 2022, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.20210111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AN....34310111I 343, e10111

    Ilin E., Poppenh \"a ger K., Alvarado-G \'o mez J. D., 2022, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.20210111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AN....34310111I 343, e10111

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    M., Jehn F

    Ilin E., Angus R., Luger R., Morris B. M., Jehn F. U., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4326I 523, 4326

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    F., Whitmire D

    Kasting J. F., Whitmire D. P., Reynolds R. T., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1993.1010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Icar..101..108K 101, 108

    1993

  23. [32]

    F., Hawley S

    Kowalski A. F., Hawley S. L., Hilton E. J., Becker A. C., West A. A., Bochanski J. J., Sesar B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/633 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138..633K 138, 633

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    Kunovac Hod z i \'c V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1627K 497, 1627

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    Lammer H., et al., 2007, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2006.0128 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AsBio...7..185L 7, 185

    2007

  26. [35]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1812.013 )

    2018

  27. [36]

    V., Sethi R., Armitage T., Gilbert G

    Martin D. V., Sethi R., Armitage T., Gilbert G. J., Rodr \' guez Mart \' nez R., Gilbert E. A., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2301.10858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230110858M p. arXiv:2301.10858

    2023 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    D., Pascucci I., Apai D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814..130M 814, 130

    Mulders G. D., Pascucci I., Apai D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814..130M 814, 130

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    Namekata K., Maehara H., Honda S., Notsu Y., Nogami D., Shibata K., 2022, Hunting for stellar coronal mass ejections ( @eprint arXiv 2211.05506 )

    2022 arXiv

  30. [39]

    National Academies of Sciences , Engineering, and Medicine 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s , @doi 10.17226/26141

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    arXiv:2203.10127

    Neves Ribeiro do Amaral L., Barnes R., Segura A., Luger R., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220310127N p. arXiv:2203.10127

    2022 arXiv

  32. [41]

    J., Mamajek E

    Pecaut M. J., Mamajek E. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....9P 208, 9

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    Prsa A., et al., 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: TESS Eclipsing Binary stars. I. Sectors 1-26 (Prsa+, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/258/16. Originally published in: 2022ApJS..258...16P, @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier.22580016

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

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

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

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2472R 518, 2472

    Ridgway R. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2472R 518, 2472

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Shappee B

    Rodr \' guez Mart \' nez R., Lopez L. A., Shappee B. J., Schmidt S. J., Jayasinghe T., Kochanek C. S., Auchettl K., Holoien T. W. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab793a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892..144R 892, 144

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    Sanz-Forcada J., Favata F., Micela G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...445..673S 445, 673

    2006 doi

  38. [47]

    Sanz-Forcada J., Favata F., Micela G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...466..309S 466, 309

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab148d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..115S 876, 115

    Schmidt S. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab148d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..115S 876, 115

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    Schmitt J. H. M. M., Favata F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1038/43389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.401...44S 401, 44

    1999 doi

  41. [50]

    M., Meadows V., Kasting J., Hawley S., 2010, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2009.0376 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AsBio..10..751S 10, 751

    Segura A., Walkowicz L. M., Meadows V., Kasting J., Hawley S., 2010, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2009.0376 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AsBio..10..751S 10, 751

    2010

  42. [51]

    L., Ballard S., Johnson J

    Shields A. L., Ballard S., Johnson J. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.10.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhR...663....1S 663, 1

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    L., Schiffer F

    Simon T., Linsky J. L., Schiffer F. H. I., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...239..911S 239, 911

    1980 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Segura A., Meadows V., Hawley S., Davenport J., 2019, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2017.1794 , 19, 64

    Tilley M. A., Segura A., Meadows V., Hawley S., Davenport J., 2019, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2017.1794 , 19, 64

    2019

  45. [54]

    Tovar Mendoza G., Davenport J. R. A., Agol E., Jackman J. A. G., Hawley S. L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6fe6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...17M 164, 17

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730993 , 608, A129

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    Van Eylen V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.2154V 507, 2154

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    W., 2003, Circle-circle intersection, https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle-CircleIntersection.html

    Weisstein E. W., 2003, Circle-circle intersection, https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle-CircleIntersection.html

    2003

  49. [58]

    N., Fabrycky D

    Winn J. N., Fabrycky D. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..409W 53, 409

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    L., Zhang L

    Yan Y., He H., Li C., Esamdin A., Tan B. L., Zhang L. Y., Wang H., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab055 , 505, L79

    2021 doi

  51. [60]

    L., Misra P., Yang J., Pi Q., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..15Y 669, A15

    Yang Z., Zhang L., Meng G., Han X. L., Misra P., Yang J., Pi Q., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..15Y 669, A15

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    Youssef M., 2012, @doi [NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics] 10.1016/j.nrjag.2012.12.014 , 1, 172

    2012 doi

  53. [62]

    van den Oord G. H. J., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...205..167V 205, 167

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.