Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Starspots on eclipsing giant stars I.: The sample and eclipse mapping examples

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Eclipse mapping of starspots on the giant primaries of three TESS binaries recovers spot temperatures, sizes, and longitudes that agree with full-light-curve modeling.

desk verdict A solid pilot study and a genuinely useful catalog, but the 'remarkable agreement' in the abstract is partly built in for two of the three stars; it needs a reframing, not new data. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15389 v1 pith:CZDHS326 submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.SR

K. Oláh , B. Seli , A. Haris , S. Rappaport , M. Tuomi , R. Gagliano , T. L. Jacobs , M. H. Kristiansen
show 7 more authors
H. M. Schwengeler M. Omohundro I. Terentev A. Vanderburg B. Powell V. Kostov Zs. Kővári
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords starspotseclipsingbinarieseclipsemappinggiantstarsstellaractivityTESSdifferentialrotationspotmodeling
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

This paper establishes that the bumps seen in the light curve while a small companion star crosses the face of a giant primary are starspots, and that those bumps can be turned into spot maps. The authors assembled a catalog of 29 eclipsing binaries with active giant components from TESS photometry and analyzed three in detail, comparing the eclipse-derived spot maps with spot models fit to the full out-of-eclipse light curves. The central claim is that the two independent routes agree on spot temperature, size, and longitude, and that every one of the three binaries shows a spot at the point on the giant that faces the companion. If this holds, single-band photometry can locate spots on evolved stars and track their drift, which bears directly on magnetic activity, differential rotation, and tidal interaction in close binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the eclipse-mapping light-curve model: the planetary transit equations modified for two stars, with each spot adding a Gaussian-ramp 'plateau' brightness bump during the eclipse. The timing of a bump inside the eclipse is converted into spot longitude, while the chord of the secondary's path across the stellar disk yields latitude and radius; the number of spots per eclipse is decided by Bayes factors computed from the Bayesian information criterion. Independent time-series spot modeling of the full light curves with analytic circular-spot equations provides the cross-check that anchors the result.

What would settle it

Measure the radial velocities of the three binaries to determine their eccentricities and re-run the eclipse mapping in an eccentric-orbit model; if the recovered spot longitudes move away from the substellar point by more than the reported uncertainties, the substellar-spot claim fails. Doppler imaging of one of these giants in the same epoch would provide an independent check on the spot longitudes and latitudes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the eclipse mapping technique previously applied to planets transiting spotted main-sequence stars is adapted to binaries where a small secondary scans a giant primary, and is demonstrated on TIC 235934420, TIC 271892852, and TIC 326257590. The spot bumps during primary eclipses are modeled as occultation features, and the resulting spot temperatures (about 3500-3700 K), angular radii (a few to roughly 25 degrees), and longitudes agree with the time-series spot modeling of the full TESS light curves. For one system the eclipse-mapping temperature is independently confirmed by two-color ZTF photometry, and for another the eclipse chord crosses latitudes near 40 degrees, giving direct evidence of high-latitude spots. All three giants show spots at or very near the substellar point, and the continuous TESS data reveal slow systematic drifts of spot longitudes over about a year.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping assumes circular orbits with primary and secondary eclipses separated by exactly half the orbital period, so a small eccentricity would change the companion's speed during the eclipse and shift every recovered spot longitude and the inferred scanned latitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same eclipse mapping can be applied to the remaining binaries in the 29-system catalog, yielding spot latitudes, longitudes, and temperatures for a large sample of active giants.
  • Because the two methods agree, spot temperatures taken from eclipse mapping can be fixed in full-light-curve modeling, reducing the degeneracy of one-color photometry.
  • The direct high-latitude spot detection on TIC 271892852 shows that eclipse mapping can anchor spot latitudes that full light-curve modeling alone cannot determine.
  • The slow longitude drifts measured for the three stars are consistent with weak differential rotation and can be followed year by year with TESS continuous-viewing data.
  • The persistent spot at the substellar point suggests that tidal locking in these binaries systematically favors spot emergence on the hemisphere facing the companion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If substellar spots turn out to be a general property of tidally locked giant binaries, spot longitudes could serve as a clock for measuring the rate of tidal synchronization and the offset between orbital and rotational periods.
  • The technique should transfer to subgiant or giant stars with transiting planets, where the same mapping could show whether active regions on evolved planet hosts concentrate at the subplanetary point.
  • Because spots are modeled as circular and centrally occulted, the reported sizes are lower limits; joint inversion of several eclipse chords crossing the same spot could test the circular-spot assumption and recover spot shapes.
  • Separating true differential rotation from spot emergence and decay will require a longer baseline, and the century-scale archival photometry already available for one target offers a direct way to extend the longitude tracking.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a visually selected catalog of 29 eclipsing binaries with active giant primaries from TESS and then studies three systems in the TESS Continuous Viewing Zones (TIC 235934420, TIC 271892852, TIC 326257590). Starspot signatures during primary eclipses are modeled with a plateau-based eclipse-mapping approach, with the number of spots selected via Bayes factors and posterior sampling checked with the Gelman-Rubin statistic. The full out-of-eclipse light curves are independently modeled with time-series spot modeling, and the two sets of spot parameters are compared. The paper claims remarkable agreement between the two methods in spot temperatures, sizes, and longitudes, and that spots are always present at the substellar points of the tidally locked binaries.

Significance. If the eclipse-mapping results are correct, the paper demonstrates a valuable new application: spatially resolved spot information on giant stars in eclipsing binaries, including a direct high-latitude spot detection on TIC 271892852 and long-term spot tracking in the TESS CVZ. The inclusion of the contemporaneous two-color ZTF data for TIC 235934420 is a genuine strength, as are the explicitly stated MCMC convergence criterion (Gelman-Rubin below 1.05) and the Bayes-factor model comparison. However, the headline cross-method agreement is substantially built in for two of the three targets, because the full-light-curve model adopts the eclipse-mapping temperatures and latitudes as fixed inputs. The significance of the paper is therefore higher as a pilot methodology demonstration and catalog paper than as an independent validation of the eclipse-mapping temperatures and sizes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.6 and Sec. 6.2, Table 4] The claim of 'remarkable agreement' between eclipse mapping and full-light-curve solutions is not an independent validation for two of the three stars. In Sec. 4.6 the authors state that 'for the one-color TESS data, we had to suppose constant, typical spot temperatures based on the eclipse mapping results,' and Sec. 6.2 states that 'we used fixed spot temperatures resulting from the eclipse maps for all three giant stars.' Sec. 5.2 also fixes the TIC 271892852 latitude to the eclipse-mapping average of about 40 degrees. Because single-band TESS photometry cannot separately determine spot area and temperature contrast, the agreement in temperatures and in the radii that depend on them is partly built in by construction. The only genuinely independent cross-check in the paper is the contemporaneous ZTF two-color analysis for TIC 235934420 (Sec. 5.1 and Appendix B), which does support that one target. I recommend rewording the abstract and Sec. 6.2 to distinguish this internal consistency from the one independent temperature confirmation.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 6.1; Table 3] The statement that 'spots are always present at the substellar points' overstates what the data support. The claim rests on only three binaries, and the scanned longitude ranges listed in Table 3 span roughly +/-65 to +/-77 degrees centered on the substellar point. The observations therefore demonstrate spots within a broad substellar-facing region, not necessarily at the substellar point itself. Please quantify the longitude uncertainty of individual spot detections and soften the claim accordingly, for example to 'spots are found within the scanned region centered near the substellar point in all three systems.'
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 4.2] The eclipse-mapping longitude solution assumes circular orbits with primary and secondary eclipses separated by exactly P/2 (Sec. 4.1). For a small eccentricity, the secondary's sky-projected velocity during eclipse differs between the two conjunctions, shifting the time-to-longitude mapping and hence the recovered spot longitudes. This directly affects the association of spots with the substellar point. The paper does not quantify the size of this effect or place bounds on the eccentricity from the observed eclipse timing symmetry. Please add a sensitivity test varying e and the argument of periastron over plausible ranges, or give an explicit upper limit on e based on the approximately P/2 separation of the primary and secondary eclipses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 17; Sec. 6.1; Appendix A.2] There are typographical object names: 'TIC 23594420' and 'TIC 32627590' in Sec. 6.1 and Fig. 17 should read TIC 235934420 and TIC 326257590, and 'TIC 23934420' in Appendix A.2 should be TIC 235934420.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The cadence list '200-s, 600s and 1800s' has an inconsistent space and unit format; please make it uniform, e.g., '200-s, 600-s, and 1800-s.'
  3. [Appendix B, Fig. B.1] The caption states that latitudes are fixed, but the latitude panel in Fig. B.1 shows time-varying values with error bars. Please clarify whether the ZTF modeling used fixed or free latitudes.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 6.1] The longitude convention should be stated explicitly, in particular that longitude zero corresponds to the substellar point and the direction of increasing longitude; this would make the 'substellar point' claims in Sec. 6.1 easier to interpret.
  5. [Sec. 4.6 and Sec. 6.2] The use of the local light-curve maxima as the unspotted brightness level is a potential systematic bias for spot sizes; the authors acknowledge this issue in Sec. 4.6, but it should also be restated when the average spot radii and coverage values in Table 4 are interpreted as physical spot sizes.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The claimed 'remarkable agreement' is partly built in: the full light curve models fix spot temperatures and latitudes to the eclipse-mapping values, so the temperature agreement is by construction for two of the three stars.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sect. 6.2 (Spot temperatures/contrasts/sizes); Table 4 note 1]
    "Remarkable agreement is found between the starspot temperatures, sizes, and longitudes from the eclipse mapping results and the corresponding full light curve solutions. ... Based on this finding for the full light curve modeling we used fixed spot temperatures resulting from the eclipse maps for all three giant stars."

    The full light curve modeling is run with spot temperatures fixed to the eclipse-mapping values (Table 4 note 1: “Average values based on eclipse mapping results, which are used in the full light curve modelings”). For TIC 271892852 and TIC 326257590 the subsequent “agreement” in temperature is therefore true by construction, not an independent validation. The size agreement is also conditioned on this input: Sect. 4.6 states that single-color TESS data have no temperature information, so with the temperature fixed, the fitted radii are not free to test the eclipse-mapping contrast; the paper’s statement that the size similarity “suggests that the spot contrasts (temperatures), which are kept constant ... are indeed well chosen” is a circular consistency check.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 4.6; Sect. 5.2; Sect. 6.1]
    "constant latitudes were assumed around the scanned latitudes of the giants by the secondary stars ... The average is ≈40±17◦ (cf. Table 3) which we used as a fixed latitude for modeling the whole light curve ... Modeling the whole light curve using the latitudes that are safely known from eclipse mapping, we find spots near the same positions in the scanned region."

    The time-series spot modeling fixes latitudes to the eclipse-mapping scanned latitudes, and then the paper reports that the two approaches “strengthen each other” and find spots near the same positions in the scanned region. The latitude component of that agreement is forced: the full light curve solutions cannot disagree in latitude because those latitudes were inserted as fixed inputs. Longitudes remain free parameters and their agreement is genuinely independent, so this step is partial rather than complete circularity.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about the coupling: Sections 4.6 and 6.2 explicitly state that the full light curve models adopt eclipse-mapping temperatures and scanned latitudes. Transparency does not remove the circularity, however. The abstract’s headline claim of “remarkable agreement” in spot temperatures reduces, for TIC 271892852 and TIC 326257590, to a comparison of a parameter with itself: the eclipse maps yield the temperatures, those exact values are fixed in the full light curve models, and the two are then reported as agreeing. The spot-size agreement is likewise weakened by the single-band degeneracy between spot area and temperature contrast, since the temperature was pre-assigned from eclipse mapping. The longitude agreement is independent and is the paper’s most solid comparative result, and the ZTF two-color measurement for TIC 235934420 provides a genuinely external temperature check. The “spots always present at the substellar points” claim is not circular by construction, but it is geometrically limited because the eclipse scans cover a broad longitude band (±65–77◦) centered on the substellar point, and only three systems are used. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the methodological citations to Haris et al. (2025) and Tuomi et al. (2024) are accompanied by an in-paper description of the model. Overall, the central validation claim is partially built in, but meaningful independent content remains.

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

The central claims rest mainly on fitted binary geometries and spot parameters, plus the domain assumptions of circular orbits, plateau-shaped spot signals, and the use of observed maxima as unspotted baselines. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Binary geometry parameters (k_f, k_r, i, a/R1, u1, u2) = TIC 235934420: k_f = 29.30, k_r = 5.36, i = 88.68 deg, a/R1 = 5.24 (Table 3)
    Fitted to eclipse light curves; these convert eclipse times into surface longitude and latitude, so all spot positions depend on them.
  • Spot plateau amplitude A = Fitted per spot event; not tabulated globally
    The amplitude of the bump in Eq. (3); combined with the transit depth it sets the spot contrast and thus the derived spot temperature.
  • Spot temperature used in full-light-curve modeling = 3550 K (TIC 235934420), 3700 K (TIC 271892852), 3500 K (TIC 326257590)
    Fixed inputs taken from eclipse mapping (and ZTF for TIC 235934420), so the temperature agreement between methods is partly by construction.
  • Number of spots per eclipse = 0-4, chosen by Bayes factor threshold B>150
    Selected via BIC/Bayes factors (Sec. 4.4); the number of spots sets the number of free parameters and determines the final spot configuration.
  • Spot latitudes in time-series modeling = Fixed to scanned latitudes, e.g., +40 deg (TIC 271892852), +2 deg (TIC 326257590)
    The full-light-curve fits fix latitudes to the values from eclipse mapping (Sec. 4.6), so latitude agreement is enforced, not measured independently.
  • Linear limb-darkening coefficient u = 0.66
    A single value from Claret (2017) is adopted for all stars (Sec. 4.6), introducing a systematic uncertainty in spot radii and contrasts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The binary orbits are circular; primary and secondary eclipses are separated by P/2.
    Sec. 4.1: used to predict mid-times and to convert eclipse time offsets into spot longitudes. A nonzero eccentricity would shift all spot coordinates.
  • domain assumption The spot-induced signal can be described by the plateau model in Eq. (3) with Gaussian ingress/egress.
    Sec. 4.2: this assumes a flat-bottomed spot crossing; when converting to spot sizes the authors further assume circular spots and central occultation, noting sizes are lower limits.
  • domain assumption The out-of-eclipse baseline is the unspotted brightness.
    Sec. 4.6: the unspotted flux is unknown, so the observed maximum brightness is used; the authors state this biases inferred spot coverage.
  • domain assumption The limb-darkening law from Claret (2017) with u=0.66 applies to all three stars in the TESS bandpass.
    Sec. 4.6: temperatures, log g and metallicities are not precisely known, and the authors describe the single coefficient as a compromise.
  • standard math Mandel & Agol (2002) transit equations remain valid when one star eclipses another, with the flux weighting in Eq. (2).
    Sec. 4.2: the paper's two-star model is a modification of the planetary transit model; the geometric occultation mathematics is standard.
  • standard math Jeffreys/Kass-Raftery Bayes-factor scale applies to the BIC-based model probabilities.
    Sec. 4.4: thresholds for decisive evidence (B>150) follow this scale; BIC is a large-sample approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Starspots on eclipsing giant stars I.: The sample and eclipse mapping examples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZDHS326

@misc{pith2026250415389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Starspots on eclipsing giant stars I.: The sample and eclipse mapping examples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZDHS326}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15389}
}
read the original abstract

Spotted stars in eclipsing binary systems allow us to gather significant information about the stellar surface inhomogeneities that is otherwise impossible from only photometric data. Starspots can be scanned using the eclipse (or transit) mapping technique, which takes advantage of the passage of a companion star (or planet) in front of a spotted giant star in a binary system. Based on the characteristics of their ultra-precise space photometric light curves, we compile a list of eclipsing binaries whose primary component is a spotted subgiant or giant star, with the aim of applying the eclipse mapping technique to them. Eclipsing binaries with giant primaries were selected from Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) light curves by visual inspection. Spots showing up as bumps during eclipses are modeled with an eclipse mapping technique specialized for two stars, and the number of spots are found with the help of Bayes factors. The full light curves themselves were analyzed with time series spot modeling, and the results of the two approaches were compared. We present a catalog of 29 eclipsing close binaries with active giant components and analyze TIC 235934420, TIC 271892852 and TIC 326257590 from the Continuous Viewing Zones (CVZ) of TESS. Remarkable agreement is found between the starspot temperatures, sizes, and longitudes from the eclipse mapping results and the corresponding full light curve solutions. Spots are always present at the substellar points of the tidally locked binaries. Data from the TESS CVZ allow us to follow the changes of spot patterns on yearly timescales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TESS light curve of V344 Pup. The red line shows an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed TESS light curve of TIC 326257590. The light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Spot eclipses on the surface of a giant star by its sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Working figures of eclipse mapping on two di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: TESS observations of TIC 235934420 made [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ZTF observations of TIC 235934420. Green, red and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: TESS observations of TIC 271892852 made [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Three continuous sets of TESS observations. Blue points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: changing longitudes of spots of TIC 271892852 in time. Red and blue circles result from time-series photometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left panel: TESS observations of TIC 326257590 made [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: Changing longitudes of spots of TIC 326257590 in time. Red and blue circles result from time-series photometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Examples of fits in a continuous set of eclipses for TIC 326257590 between HJD 2459748-245933. The transit base line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Full light curve of TIC 271892852 (left) and TIC 326257590 (right) folded with the orbital periods of the systems. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Amplitude spectra with spectral windows around the ro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The TESS Ten Thousand Catalog: 10,001 uniformly-vetted and -validated Eclipsing Binary Stars detected in Full-Frame Image data by machine learning and analyzed by citizen scientists

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A uniformly vetted catalog of 10,001 eclipsing binary stars from TESS full-frame images, including 7,936 new systems and 2,065 corrected ephemerides.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    & Valio, A

    Araújo, A. & Valio, A. 2021, ApJ, 907, L5 Araújo, A. & Valio, A. 2023, ApJ, 956, 141

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  3. [3]

    Balona, L. A. 1987, South African Astronomical Observatory Circular, 11, 1

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    1977, Ap&SS, 48, 207

    Budding, E. 1977, Ap&SS, 48, 207

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    1988, Ap&SS, 143, 1

    Budding, E. 1988, Ap&SS, 143, 1

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    2017, A&A, 600, A30 Collier Cameron, A

    Claret, A. 2017, A&A, 600, A30 Collier Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 556 Collier Cameron, A. & Hilditch, R. W. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 567

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    & Kolláth, Z

    Csubry, Z. & Kolláth, Z. 2004, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 559, SOHO 14 Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future, ed. D. Danesy, 396

    2004

  8. [8]

    1998, A&AS, 131, 321

    Cutispoto, G. 1998, A&AS, 131, 321

    work page 1998

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    F., Wolter, U., Schröter, S., & Schmitt, J

    Czesla, S., Huber, K. F., Wolter, U., Schröter, S., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2009, A&A, 505, 1277

    2009

  2. [10]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hebb, L., & Hawley, S. L. 2015, in Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, V ol. 18, 18th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. G. T. van Belle & H. C. Harris, 399–404

    2015

  3. [11]

    G., Mathieu, R

    Dixon, D., Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., Tayar, J., & Cao, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05561

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 5

    Gaulme, P., Jackiewicz, J., Appourchaux, T., & Mosser, B. 2014, ApJ, 785, 5

    2014

  5. [13]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 121

    Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., Jackiewicz, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 121

    2016

  6. [14]

    M., Leiner, E

    Geller, A. M., Leiner, E. M., Bellini, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 66

    2017

  7. [15]

    2001, Bernoulli, 7, 223

    Haario, H., Saksman, E., & Tamminen, J. 2001, Bernoulli, 7, 223

    2001

  8. [16]

    Hall, D. S. 1976, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 60, IAU Col- loq. 29: Multiple Periodic Variable Stars, ed. W. S. Fitch, 287

    1976

  9. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.18129

    Haris, A., Tuomi, M., & Hackman, T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.18129

    2025

  10. [18]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97

    1970

  11. [19]

    S., & Atri, D

    Herbst, K., Papaioannou, A., Airapetian, V . S., & Atri, D. 2021, ApJ, 907, 89

    2021

  12. [20]

    2007, Mem

    Holzwarth, V . 2007, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 78, 271

    2007

  13. [21]

    & Schüssler, M

    Holzwarth, V . & Schüssler, M. 2003, A&A, 405, 303

    2003

  14. [22]

    X., Vanderburg, A., Pál, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., Pál, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the Amer- ican Astronomical Society, 4, 204

    2020

  15. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90 I¸ sık, E., Solanki, S. K., Cameron, R. H., & Shapiro, A. I. 2024, ApJ, 976, 215

    2007

  16. [24]

    1961, Theory of Probability, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press)

    Jeffreys, H. 1961, Theory of Probability, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press)

    1961

  17. [25]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Software and Cyber- infrastructure for Astronomy IV , ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, V ol. 9913, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 99133E

    2016

  18. [26]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Associa- tion, 90, 773 K˝ovári, Zs. & Bartus, J. 1997, A&A, 323, 801 K˝ovári, Zs., Oláh, K., Kriskovics, L., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 903

    1995

  19. [27]

    2020, A&A, 637, A43

    Klutsch, A., Frasca, A., Guillout, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A43

    2020

  20. [28]

    B., Rappaport, S

    Kostov, V . B., Rappaport, S. A., Borkovits, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 25 Kovács, G., Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T. 2002, A&A, 391, 369

    2024

  21. [29]

    2023, A&A, 674, A143

    Kriskovics, L., K˝ovári, Zs., Seli, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A143

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kristiansen, M. H. K., Rappaport, S. A., Vanderburg, A. M., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 074401

    2022

  23. [31]

    M., Geller, A

    Leiner, E. M., Geller, A. M., Gully-Santiago, M. A., Gosnell, N. M., & Tof- flemire, B. M. 2022, ApJ, 927, 222 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...

    2022

  24. [32]

    2019, AJ, 157, 64

    Luger, R., Agol, E., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 64

    2019

  25. [33]

    Luger, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., Hedges, C., & Hogg, D. W. 2021, AJ, 162, 123

    2021

  26. [34]

    & Agol, E

    Mandel, K. & Agol, E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171

    2002

  27. [35]

    C., Berdyugina, S

    Marsden, S. C., Berdyugina, S. V ., Donati, J. F., Eaton, J. A., & Williamson, M. H. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 1047

    2007

  28. [36]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    2019

  29. [37]

    D., van den Berg, M., Torres, G., et al

    Mathieu, R. D., van den Berg, M., Torres, G., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 246

    2003

  30. [38]

    W., Rosenbluth, M

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. 1953, J. Chem. Phys., 21, 1087 Oláh, K., K˝ovári, Zs., Günther, M. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A62 Oláh, K., Moór, A., K˝ovári, Zs., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A94 Oláh, K., Seli, B., K˝ovári, Zs., Kr...

    1953

  31. [39]

    H., An, D., Molenda- ˙Zakowicz, J., et al

    Pinsonneault, M. H., An, D., Molenda- ˙Zakowicz, J., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 30

    2012

  32. [40]

    L., Moutou, C., et al

    Pont, F., Gilliland, R. L., Moutou, C., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 1347

    2007

  33. [41]

    P., Kostov, V

    Powell, B. P., Kostov, V . B., Rappaport, S. A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 162 Prša, A., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 29

    2021

  34. [42]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millime- ter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampin, G...

    2014

  35. [43]

    & Winn, J

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R. & Winn, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 743, 61

    2011

  36. [44]

    N., Holman, M

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 127

    2011

  37. [45]

    Scharlemann, E. T. 1981, ApJ, 246, 292

    1981

  38. [46]

    Scharlemann, E. T. 1982, ApJ, 253, 298

    1982

  39. [47]

    R., Hartman, J

    Schmitt, A. R., Hartman, J. D., & Kipping, D. M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.08034

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2022, A&A, 659, A3

    Seli, B., Oláh, K., Kriskovics, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A3

    2022

  41. [49]

    Z., et al

    Shappee, B., Prieto, J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2014, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 223, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #223, 236.03

    2014

  42. [50]

    Silva, A. V . R. 2003, ApJ, 585, L147

    2003

  43. [51]

    2008, ApJ, 683, L179

    Silva-Valio, A. 2008, ApJ, 683, L179

    2008

  44. [52]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138

    2019

  45. [53]

    Strassmeier, K. G. & Bartus, J. 2000, A&A, 354, 537

    2000

  46. [54]

    G., K ˝ovári, Zs., Weber, M., & Granzer, T

    Strassmeier, K. G., K ˝ovári, Zs., Weber, M., & Granzer, T. 2024, Nature Com- munications, 15, 9986

    2024

  47. [55]

    2024, Submitted Article number, page 15 of 20 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Tuomi, M., Haris, A., & Thomas, H. 2024, Submitted Article number, page 15 of 20 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa53772-25 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22 Van Eylen, V . & Albrecht, S. 2015, ApJ, 808, 126

    2024

  48. [56]

    2024, Universe, 10, 313

    Vida, K., K˝ovári, Zs., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 313

    2024

  49. [57]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  50. [58]

    2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 1075 Wes McKinney

    Weber, M. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 1075 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61

    2007

  51. [59]

    N., Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, L223

    2010

  52. [60]

    Wolter, U., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Huber, K. F., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 561

    2009

  53. [61]

    R., & Cao, D

    Xiang, Y ., Gu, S., Collier Cameron, A., Barnes, J. R., & Cao, D. 2024, ApJ, 976, 217

    2024

  54. [62]

    H., Hua, Z

    Zhao, Z. H., Hua, Z. Q., Cheng, X., Li, Z. Y ., & Ding, M. D. 2024, ApJ, 961, 130 Article number, page 16 of 20 K. Oláh et al.: Starspots on eclipsing giant stars I. Appendix A: Time-series spot modeling - details A.1. Spot latitudes Experiments were made using free latitudes ...

    1997

Pith tools

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