Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Discovery and Dynamics of the Nontransiting Planet Kepler-139f

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Kepler-139 system contains a hidden nontransiting planet, Kepler-139f, with a period of 355 days and a mass of 36 Earth masses, inferred from the gravitational tugs it imprints on the transits and radial velocities of its neighbors.

desk verdict Plausible but not secure: the TTVs strongly demand a fifth planet in Kepler-139, but the claimed 355-day, 36-M⊕ companion rests on a marginal RV signal and a questionable model comparison; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13160 v1 pith:6Y7VYQQS submitted 2025-04-17 astro-ph.EP

Caleb Lammers , Joshua N. Winn This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetstransit-timingvariationsnontransitingplanetKepler-139radialvelocitiesseculardynamicscompactmultiplanetsystemsoutergiantplanets
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 reports a new planet, Kepler-139f, that never crosses the face of its star, yet is inferred to exist from the tiny changes it causes in the transit times of a neighboring planet and from a decade-long series of radial-velocity measurements. If the detection holds, Kepler-139f would be the first nontransiting planet found through transit-timing variations in a system that also hosts an outer giant planet. The paper argues that the outer giant tilts the inner planets' orbits on long timescales, making it genuinely less likely that such a planet transits, and uses simulations to show the conditional transit probability drops from 58% to 15% as the giant's inclination grows to 10 degrees. A fair reading of the central claim is that a planet with period $355\pm2$ days and mass $36\pm10$ Earth masses sits just outside the three transiting planets and inside the giant.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a joint N-body model of transit times and radial velocities, using the TTVFast integrator for the transit-timing predictions and parallel-tempered MCMC to explore a multimodal posterior with three possible periods for the unknown planet (354, 384, and 685 days). The 354-day solution wins decisively, with a Bayes factor $\gtrsim 10^8$ relative to the others. For the dynamics, the paper uses Laplace-Lagrange secular theory, implemented through celmech, to evolve the system's inclinations over $10^5$-$10^6$ years and Monte Carlo sampling of viewing directions to compute conditional transit probabilities. The key identity is that the outer giant's inclination drives a 180-degree-out-of-phase oscillation of the c/f pair's inclination, which can suppress transits of planet f while planets d, b, and c still all transit.

What would settle it

Continue RV monitoring for several more years: the 355-day signal should maintain phase and amplitude if it is a planet, while a signal from stellar activity would drift or correlate with line-profile changes. Independently, a re-reduction of the Kepler photometry with a different transit-timing pipeline should reproduce the same 30-minute timing variations of planet c.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Kepler-139 system contains a fifth planet, Kepler-139f, on a nontransiting orbit with period $355 \pm 2$ days and mass $36 \pm 10$ Earth masses, inferred from a joint fit to transit-timing variations of Kepler-139c and radial velocities from a twelve-year campaign. A model with only the four previously known planets fails to reproduce the roughly 30-minute timing variations of planet c; adding planet f improves the transit-timing fit by $\Delta\chi^2 = 60$ and the radial-velocity fit by $\Delta\chi^2 = 77$, with $\Delta\mathrm{BIC} = 109$. The authors also show through secular simulations that an outer giant inclined by even a few degrees lowers the probability that an observer sees all four inner planets transit, from 58% to 15% as the giant's inclination grows from 0 to 10 degrees. They conclude that the outer giant is a plausible cause of planet f's nontransiting orientation and that systems like this illustrate how outer giants can truncate apparent compact multiplanet systems.

Load-bearing premise

The detection rests on the assumption that the nine transit-timing measurements of planet c and the residual ~3 m/s radial-velocity wiggle are caused by a real planet rather than by stellar activity, instrument drifts, or an additional planet; the paper does not check this with activity indicators.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Kepler-139f becomes the first TTV-discovered nontransiting planet in a system known to host an outer giant planet.
  • The outer giant planet's inclination is a plausible mechanism for hiding the outermost inner planet, supporting the idea that outer giants truncate compact systems.
  • The masses of the three transiting planets are revised to typical sub-Neptune densities, removing the unusually dense planet c that appeared in an RV-only fit.
  • The joint TTV+RV approach can determine the period of a nontransiting planet even when RV data alone are ambiguous.
  • Systems with outer giants may host more nontransiting planets than transit surveys reveal, affecting multiplicity statistics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate test is to search for similar 355-day-period companions in other Kepler systems that host outer giants, using the same joint TTV+RV machinery; the paper's logic predicts such companions occur at rates comparable to the apparent truncation fraction.
  • The secular argument implies a testable correlation: the outermost transiting planet in compact systems should more often have a detectable outer giant than deeper planets do.
  • If the inclination-excitation mechanism is general, systems with high mutual-inclination outer giants should show lower multi-transit yields; population-level analysis of Kepler's multiplicity function could confirm this.
  • Future photometry might catch a rare transit of Kepler-139f during an epoch when the c/f inclination oscillation favors alignment, directly confirming the planet.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of Kepler-139f, a nontransiting planet with orbital period 355 ± 2 days and mass 36 ± 10 Earth masses, inferred from a joint fit of Kepler transit-timing variations (TTVs) and Keck/HIRES radial velocities (RVs) to a five-planet N-body model of the Kepler-139 system. The authors re-measure transit times for the three transiting planets, show that a four-planet model fails to reproduce the ~30-minute TTVs of Kepler-139c, and find that adding a fifth planet improves the fit by Δχ²_TTV=60 and Δχ²_RV=77, with ΔBIC=109. They then use Laplace-Lagrange secular simulations to argue that the outer giant planet Kepler-139e, if inclined by a few degrees relative to the inner system, can reduce the probability that Kepler-139f transits concurrently with planets d, b, and c, thereby explaining why the new planet is not seen in transit. The paper frames the result as the first TTV-discovered nontransiting planet in a system that also hosts an outer giant planet, with implications for the apparent truncation of compact multiplanet systems.

Significance. If the detection is secure, the paper reports a valuable and unusual object: a nontransiting, sub-Neptune-mass planet discovered through TTVs in a system with an outer giant planet, and it provides a concrete dynamical mechanism by which an outer giant can suppress the transit probability of an inner planet. The authors use public KGPS RV data and reanalyze Kepler photometry with standard tools, and they explicitly test the Laplace-Lagrange approximation against N-body integrations. The claimed Δχ² improvements are large and the TTV signal of planet c is visible by eye, which are genuine strengths. However, the headline period and mass rest on a weak RV signal whose interpretation is not yet demonstrated to be robust against stellar activity and annual window aliases, and the model comparison used to select among TTV-compatible period families relies on an invalid Gaussian approximation to a multimodal posterior. Because the RV data are the only discriminating evidence among the three period families, these issues are load-bearing for the central discovery claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2] The claim that the 354-day period family is 'decisive' rests on a Bayes factor computed by approximating the posterior as a multivariate Gaussian, but the posterior is explicitly described as multimodal. A Gaussian approximation around one mode ignores the other two period families and the prior volume, and exp(Δχ²/2) is a likelihood ratio, not a marginal likelihood ratio. The period degeneracy among Pf≈354, 384, and 685 days is therefore not resolved as strongly as claimed. I recommend computing model evidence with nested sampling or thermodynamic integration, or at least reporting a cross-validated predictive comparison that treats the three period families symmetrically.
  2. [§4.2 and footnote 5] The selection of the 354-day solution and the mass of Kepler-139f rely on an RV signal with K≈3 m/s at P≈355 days, which is comparable to the adopted jitter σjit,RV=2.9 m/s and only about 1.5 times the ~2 m/s formal uncertainties. The paper does not present stellar activity indicators, a window-function analysis, or an independent RV reduction for the 38 Keck RVs, and footnote 5 reports that a previous periodogram search found the ~350-day peak not statistically significant, with seven taller peaks. Given the annual sampling window, the 355-day signal could be a systematic or activity artifact. To support the headline period and mass, the authors should add an activity-diagnostic and window-function analysis, and ideally fit the RVs alone to show that the 355-day signal persists without the TTV constraints.
  3. [§4.2] The reported detection significance is based on a pipeline that excluded 7 transit times as >4σ outliers and added four jitter terms to force χ²/dof≈1, while the quoted Δχ²_TTV=60, Δχ²_RV=77, and ΔBIC=109 come from fits made before those adjustments. The footnote that 'inflating uncertainties during model comparison does not affect conclusions' addresses only Δχ², not a penalized model comparison; post hoc outlier rejection and jitter fitting can inflate the apparent significance. The authors should report model comparison with a consistent likelihood applied to the full dataset, or justify the outlier cuts a priori, and show how Pf and mf change under alternative jitter and outlier treatments.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1] In the introduction, 'The transiting plants' should be 'The transiting planets'.
  2. [Table 1 and §4.2] The median mass for planet f (36 M⊕) differs from the maximum-likelihood value (45 M⊕) by about 1σ; the text should identify which value is used for the dynamical simulations and explain the skewness of the posterior.
  3. [§5] The right panel of Figure 5 shows the conditional transit probability for planet f as a function of the outer giant's initial inclination, but the text does not define precisely whether this inclination is measured relative to the inner system's reference plane or relative to the line of sight; please state the definition explicitly.
  4. [§5] The transit-probability calculations are predictions under the fitted model and do not use the observed nontransit of planet f as a constraint on the giant's inclination; the text acknowledges this in §6, but the abstract and conclusion could state more explicitly that the dynamical mechanism is a plausibility argument rather than a measurement of the giant's inclination.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the TTV+RV fit and the subsequent secular transit-probability calculation are forward-model derivations from independent data.

full rationale

The paper's claimed detection of Kepler-139f is derived by fitting a five-planet N-body model (TTVFast) to two independent data sets: transit times re-measured from public Kepler photometry and 38 Keck RVs from the KGPS survey (Weiss et al. 2024). The planet's existence, period, and mass are not assumed in the data; the four-planet model is shown to fail (chi2 = 1057 vs. 920 for the five-planet model), and the parameters reported in Table 1 are marginalized posteriors from a joint fit. The non-transiting nature of planet f is not used as a fitting constraint; instead, the absence of transits is checked post hoc (Figure 4) against the fitted ephemeris. The dynamical argument in Section 5 takes the fitted masses and periods as inputs and integrates Laplace-Lagrange equations to compute conditional transit probabilities as a function of the outer giant's inclination, which is scanned over a grid rather than fitted; the observed non-transit of f is not an input to this calculation, so the computed reduction in transit probability is a genuine forward-model result. The paper's own caveats—the non-significant ~350-day RV periodogram peak (footnote 5) and the Gaussian approximation for a multimodal posterior (Section 4.2)—are statistical robustness concerns rather than cases where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The self-citations (Winn & Petigura 2024; Masuda et al. 2020) are contextual literature references and are not load-bearing for the detection or the dynamics.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central detection rests on many fitted parameters in a 26-parameter joint TTV+RV model, plus post hoc jitter and outlier rejection. The dynamical interpretation adds an unmeasured initial inclination for the outer giant and an assumed secular theory. No new fundamental entities are introduced beyond the claimed planet Kepler-139f.

free parameters (11)
  • Planet f mass m_f = 36 ± 10 M⊕ (median posterior; best fit 45 M⊕)
    Fitted to joint TTV+RV data; the central detection parameter.
  • Planet f orbital period P_f = 355 ± 2 d
    Fitted to joint TTV+RV data; one of three period families (354, 384, 685 d) with the 354-d family best.
  • Planet f eccentricity vector (k_f, h_f) = (-0.01 ± 0.05, 0.08 ± 0.05)
    Fitted to TTV+RV; small eccentricity assumed for stability.
  • Planet f mean longitude λ_f = 286 ± 11 deg
    Fitted; necessary for TTV phase.
  • Planet c mass m_c = 13 ± 8 M⊕
    Fitted; the TTV source planet adjacent to f.
  • Planet b mass m_b = 7 ± 3 M⊕
    Fitted.
  • Planet d mass m_d = 2 ± 2 M⊕
    Fitted.
  • Planet e mass m_e = 378 ± 48 M⊕
    Fitted to RV; already known but re-fit here.
  • RV offset = not quoted; fitted
    Arbitrary zero-point of RV data.
  • Jitter terms (TTV d, b, c, RV) = 6.3, 3.4, 0.0 min; 2.9 m/s
    Added post hoc to inflate uncertainties and bring χ2/dof to unity.
  • Eccentricity upper limits e_d < 0.35, e_b < 0.30, e_c < 0.65 = 0.35/0.30/0.65
    Chosen from stability simulations to set priors.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption TTVFast and WHFast integrations accurately model transit times for this system.
    Used for all TTV fits and stability checks; validated in prior literature but not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption Mandel & Agol (2002) transit model with fixed transit parameters from Thompson et al. (2018) is valid for Kepler-139 light curves.
    Used to extract transit times; assumes limb-darkening coefficients from Claret & Bloemen (2011).
  • domain assumption The transiting planets are coplanar (i = 90°) for TTV modeling.
    Authors confirmed mutual inclinations of a few degrees do not change TTVs within uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Laplace-Lagrange secular theory approximates the long-term (10^6 yr) inclination dynamics to ~10%.
    Tested against N-body for this system; assumption used in transit probability simulations.
  • ad hoc to paper The inner planets were initially coplanar in the secular simulations, with the outer giant's inclination set to a grid of values.
    An assumed initial condition; the actual inclination of the outer giant is unmeasured.
  • ad hoc to paper The 7 rejected transit times are outliers caused by data artifacts, not real transit-timing signals.
    Rejection is post hoc and changes the inferred mass of planet f from 45 to 36 M⊕.
  • ad hoc to paper Unmodeled noise is absorbed by four fitted jitter terms.
    Added to achieve χ2/dof ≈ 1; their magnitudes are fitted, not measured independently.
  • domain assumption The Chen & Kipping (2017) probabilistic mass-radius relation applies to Kepler-139f.
    Used to estimate the expected transit depth and argue non-detection of transits is consistent with non-transiting geometry.
  • standard math Random observers are isotropically distributed on the sky.
    Standard Copernican assumption for computing transit probabilities.
invented entities (1)
  • Kepler-139f
    purpose: A non-transiting planet of ~36 M⊕ at 355 days, invoked to explain the TTVs of planet c and residual RV signal.
    Inferred from the same TTV+RV data; no independent confirmation yet. A falsifiable handle: future RV observations at the predicted period/phase could confirm it, and deeper photometry might detect a transit if the inclination is favorable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery and Dynamics of the Nontransiting Planet Kepler-139f." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6Y7VYQQS

@misc{pith2026250413160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery and Dynamics of the Nontransiting Planet Kepler-139f},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6Y7VYQQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13160}
}
abstract

Among the ways that an outer giant planet can alter the architecture of an inner planetary system is by tilting the orbits of the inner planets and reducing their mutual transit probabilities. Here, we report on an example of this phenomenon: we show that the Kepler-139 system contains a nontransiting planet just exterior to three transiting planets, and interior to a giant planet. This newly discovered planet, Kepler-139f, has an orbital period of $355 \pm 2$ days and a mass of $36 \pm 10 M_\oplus$ based on transit-timing and radial-velocity data. Through dynamical simulations, we show that gravitational perturbations on planet f's orbit from the outer giant planet reduce the probability for a randomly located observer to see transits of all four inner planets. Thus, Kepler-139 illustrates the role that outer giant planets can play in the apparent truncation of compact systems of multiple transiting planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transit light curves of Kepler-139c from Kepler (black) along with the best-fit models (red). Fits were per￾formed using the short cadence (one-minute) light curves when available, but the data are shown here in 30-minute bins for ease of visualization. The gray dashed line marks the expected transit midpoint if the planet’s period were ex￾actly constant. The data reveal transit-timing variations of up to ∼ 0.5 hour… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TTVs measured for Kepler-139d (red), Kepler-139b (blue), and Kepler-139c (green). In the top row, the black curves are based on a model fitted to the TTVs and RVs that includes only the four previously known planets. The four-planet model fails to reproduce the 30-minute TTVs of planet c. In the bottom row, the black curves are based on a five-planet model, including a 45-M⊕ nontransiting planet with a period of 354… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RV data for Kepler-139 (black) from Weiss et al. (2024). The blue curve is the four-planet model that best fits the RV and TTV data (residual root-mean-square of 4.4 m s−1 ). The red curve is the best-fit five-planet model (3.6 m s−1 residual root-mean-square). The middle panel shows the deviations between the data and the best-fit four-planet model, and the bottom panel shows the same for the five-planet model. The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Kepler observations of Kepler-139 over time ranges when transits of planet f would be expected. Each panel spans the 90%-confidence range of transit times pre￾dicted by the five-planet model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: schematic diagram of the Kepler-139 system. The circles representing the planets are spaced logarithmically according to the planets’ semi-major axes, with radii proportional to p Rp (with Rp estimated for planets f and e based on the mass-radius relation of Chen …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior probability densities for the parameters of the five-planet model for Kepler-139, fitted to the TTVs and RVs. Black contours denote the 0.5σ, 1.0σ, 1.5σ, and 2.0σ joint confidence levels, and 1D histograms show the marginalized distributions. To make this fig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    YU>o \ & pV +@p |ڴ[U5 L j wr^ciz

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2011, , 743, 200, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/200

    Ballard , S., Fabrycky , D., Fressin , F., et al. 2011, , 743, 200, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/200

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/200 2011

  5. [5]

    C., & Adams , F

    Becker , J. C., & Adams , F. C. 2017, , 468, 549, 10.1093/mnras/stx461

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx461 2017

  6. [6]

    J., Angelo , I., et al

    Blunt , S., Wang , J. J., Angelo , I., et al. 2020, , 159, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6663

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6663 2020

  7. [7]

    S., Dumusque , X., Massa , A., et al

    Bonomo , A. S., Dumusque , X., Massa , A., et al. 2023, , 677, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346211

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346211 2023

  8. [8]

    J., Koch , D

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D. G., Basri , G., et al. 2011, , 736, 19, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/19

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/19 2011

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Bou \'e , G., & Fabrycky , D. C. 2014, , 789, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/110

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    Bou \'e , G., Oshagh , M., Montalto , M., & Santos , N. C. 2012, , 422, L57, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01236.x

    2012

  3. [11]

    2016, , 821, 47, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/47

    Brakensiek , J., & Ragozzine , D. 2016, , 821, 47, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/47

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Michalik , D., Brandt , T

    Brandt , G. M., Michalik , D., Brandt , T. D., et al. 2021, , 162, 230, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac12d0

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Knutson , H

    Bryan , M. L., Knutson , H. A., Lee , E. J., et al. 2019, , 157, 52, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf57f

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    L., & Lee , E

    Bryan , M. L., & Lee , E. J. 2024, , 968, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5013

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Vel \'a zquez , H., & G \'o mez Maqueo Chew , Y

    Canul , E. F., Vel \'a zquez , H., & G \'o mez Maqueo Chew , Y. 2021, , 162, 262, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2744

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, , 834, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    Chen , J., & Kipping , D. 2017, , 834, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2011, , 529, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

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

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Agol , E., Holman , M

    Deck , K. M., Agol , E., Holman , M. J., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2014, , 787, 132, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/132

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    J., & Deem , M

    Earl , D. J., & Deem , M. W. 2005, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (Incorporating Faraday Transactions), 7, 3910, 10.1039/B509983H

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    S., & Agol , E

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

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Lissauer , J

    Fabrycky , D. C., Lissauer , J. J., Ragozzine , D., et al. 2014, , 790, 146, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/146

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, , 761, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/92

    Fang , J., & Margot , J.-L. 2012, , 761, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/92

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, , 766, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    Fressin , F., Torres , G., Charbonneau , D., et al. 2013, , 766, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, , 628, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935879

    Freudenthal , J., von Essen , C., Ofir , A., et al. 2019, , 628, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935879

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    J., & Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., & Petigura , E. A. 2018, , 156, 264, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae828

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    J., & Fabrycky , D

    Gilbert , G. J., & Fabrycky , D. C. 2020, , 159, 281, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8e3c

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    Gladman , B. 1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    1993

  21. [29]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman , J., & Weare , J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, , 828, 44, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/44

    Hadden , S., & Lithwick , Y. 2016, , 828, 44, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/44

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, , 154, 5, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa71ef

    ---. 2017, , 154, 5, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa71ef

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, , 164, 179, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8d01

    Hadden , S., & Tamayo , D. 2022, , 164, 179, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8d01

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Y., & Weiss , L

    He , M. Y., & Weiss , L. M. 2023, , 166, 36, 10.3847/1538-3881/acdd56

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    K., Zhu , W., & Wu , Y

    Herman , M. K., Zhu , W., & Wu , Y. 2019, , 157, 248, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1f70

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, , 225, 9, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    Holczer , T., Mazeh , T., Nachmani , G., et al. 2016, , 225, 9, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    X., Petrovich , C., & Deibert , E

    Huang , C. X., Petrovich , C., & Deibert , E. 2017, , 153, 210, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa67fb

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, , 153, 42, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/42

    Lai , D., & Pu , B. 2017, , 153, 42, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/42

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  31. [39]

    J., Ragozzine , D., Fabrycky , D

    Lissauer , J. J., Ragozzine , D., Fabrycky , D. C., et al. 2011 a , , 197, 8, 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/8

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Fabrycky , D

    Lissauer , J. J., Fabrycky , D. C., Ford , E. B., et al. 2011 b , , 470, 53, 10.1038/nature09760

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Becker , J

    Livesey , J. R., & Becker , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.18661, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.18661

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    2022, , 163, 101, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3d38

    Lubin , J., Van Zandt , J., Holcomb , R., et al. 2022, , 163, 101, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3d38

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2017, , 153, 224, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6897

    Malavolta , L., Borsato , L., Granata , V., et al. 2017, , 153, 224, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6897

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2002, , 580, L171, 10.1086/345520

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

    2002 doi

  37. [45]

    N., & Kawahara , H

    Masuda , K., Winn , J. N., & Kawahara , H. 2020, , 159, 38, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5c1d

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, , 849, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    Millholland , S., Wang , S., & Laughlin , G. 2017, , 849, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    C., He , M

    Millholland , S. C., He , M. Y., & Zink , J. K. 2022, , 164, 72, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7c67

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Bryson , S

    Morton , T. D., Bryson , S. T., Coughlin , J. L., et al. 2016, , 822, 86, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/86

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    D., & Dermott , S

    Murray , C. D., & Dermott , S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics

    1999

  42. [50]

    2014, , 790, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/31

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Kipping , D., Terrell , D., & Feroz , F. 2014, , 790, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/31

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Buchhave , L

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Kipping , D. M., Buchhave , L. A., et al. 2012, Science, 336, 1133, 10.1126/science.1221141

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    F., Helled , R., & Bouchy , F

    Otegi , J. F., Helled , R., & Bouchy , F. 2022, , 658, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142110

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Pepper , J., Gould , A., & Depoy , D. L. 2003, , 53, 213, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0208042

    2003 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    M., et al

    Piaulet , C., Benneke , B., Almenara , J. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 206, 10.1038/s41550-022-01835-4

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Ragozzine , D., & Holman , M. J. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1006.3727, 10.48550/arXiv.1006.3727

    2010 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    J., Wyatt , M

    Read , M. J., Wyatt , M. C., & Triaud , A. H. M. J. 2017, , 469, 171, 10.1093/mnras/stx798

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    2015, , 452, 376, 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    Rein , H., & Tamayo , D. 2015, , 452, 376, 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Knutson , H

    Rosenthal , L. J., Knutson , H. A., Chachan , Y., et al. 2022, , 262, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7230

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz , G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  52. [60]

    Sobski , N., & Millholland , S. C. 2023, , 954, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace966

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, , 624, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834275

    Sun , L., Ioannidis , P., Gu , S., et al. 2019, , 624, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834275

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    H., & Wang , J.-S

    Swendsen , R. H., & Wang , J.-S. 1986, , 57, 2607, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2607

    1986 doi

  55. [63]

    E., Coughlin , J

    Thompson , S. E., Coughlin , J. L., Hoffman , K., et al. 2018, , 235, 38, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    2015, , 808, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/126

    Van Eylen , V., & Albrecht , S. 2015, , 808, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/126

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    D., Farr , W

    Vousden , W. D., Farr , W. M., & Mandel , I. 2016, , 455, 1919, 10.1093/mnras/stv2422

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Marcy , G

    Weiss , L. M., Marcy , G. W., Petigura , E. A., et al. 2018, , 155, 48, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9ff6

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Isaacson , H., Howard , A

    Weiss , L. M., Isaacson , H., Howard , A. W., et al. 2024, , 270, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0cab

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    N., & Petigura , E

    Winn , J. N., & Petigura , E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.16451, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.16451

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    1991, , 102, 1528, 10.1086/115978

    Wisdom , J., & Holman , M. 1991, , 102, 1528, 10.1086/115978

    1991 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Huber , D., et al

    Zhang , J., Weiss , L. M., Huber , D., et al. 2021, , 162, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0634

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    2018, , 860, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6d5

    Zhu , W., Petrovich , C., Wu , Y., Dong , S., & Xie , J. 2018, , 860, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6d5

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    2018, , 156, 92, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad22a

    Zhu , W., & Wu , Y. 2018, , 156, 92, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad22a

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.