Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Searching for GEMS: Confirmation of TOI-5573b, a Cool, Saturn-like Planet Orbiting An M-dwarf

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Astronomers confirm TOI-5573b, a Saturn-sized planet in an 8.79-day orbit around an M-dwarf star, with a mass pinned at 5-sigma precision.

desk verdict A careful, by-the-book confirmation of one new Saturn-like GEMS; no load-bearing flaws, worth refereeing despite missing code and a minor date label inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08947 v1 pith:QYJO56UD submitted 2025-05-13 astro-ph.EP

Rachel B Fernandes , Shubham Kanodia , Megan Delamer , Andrew Hotnisky , Te Han , Caleb I Canas , Jessica Libby-Roberts , Varghese Reji
show 30 more authors
Arvind F Gupta Jaime A Alvarado-Montes Chad F Bender Cullen H Blake William D Cochran Zoe L de Beurs Scott A Diddams Jiayin Dong Mark E Everett Eric B Ford Samuel Halverson Jesus Higuera Henry A Kobulnicky Daniel M Krolikowski Alexander Larsen Andrea SJ Lin Suvrath Mahadevan Michael W McElwain Andrew Monson Joe P Ninan Leonardo A Paredes Yatrik G Patel Paul Robertson Gabrielle Ross Arpita Roy Christian Schwab Gudmundur Stefansson Daniel J Stevens Andrew M Vanderburg Jason Wright
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsM-dwarfstarsSaturn-likeplanetsradialvelocitytransitsgiantplanetformationTESSstellarmetallicity
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 reports the confirmation of TOI-5573 b, a Saturn-sized exoplanet orbiting an early M-dwarf star once every 8.79 days. Combining 11 transits from four TESS sectors with ground-based photometry and radial velocities from two high-precision spectrographs, the team fixes the planet's mass at $112^{+18}_{-19}$ Earth masses and its radius at $9.75\pm0.47$ Earth radii, yielding a Saturn-like density of $0.66^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ g cm$^{-3}$. The discovery matters because such giant planets around M-dwarfs are rare, and this one is among the coolest known, with an equilibrium temperature near 528 K, making it a promising target for atmospheric characterization. The paper also argues that TOI-5573 b fits a pattern in which giant planets around M-dwarfs preferentially form around metal-rich host stars, and that its Saturn-like mass is consistent with core accretion slowed by high disk opacity.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a joint Bayesian fit of the transit light curves and radial velocities using the exoplanet framework with Mandel & Agol transit models and a Keplerian RV model with free eccentricity. Transit depths from four TESS sectors (11 transits) and a ground-based Red Buttes Observatory transit set the planet radius; HPF and NEID radial velocities set the semi-amplitude $K = 47.9$ m s$^{-1}$, which yields the mass once combined with the stellar mass. Stellar parameters come from an EXOFASTv2 SED and isochrone fit using MIST grids, with spectroscopic priors from HPF-SpecMatch; speckle imaging rules out blended companions that could mimic the signal.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the host star's radius and mass—for example, long-baseline interferometry for the radius and a dynamical mass from Gaia astrometry—should agree with the fitted values; if they disagree by more than the quoted uncertainties, the planet's mass, radius, and density would shift accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TOI-5573 b is a real, transiting, Saturn-like planet: mass $112^{+18}_{-19}$ Earth masses, radius $9.75\pm0.47$ Earth radii, density $0.66^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ g cm$^{-3}$, on an 8.7976-day orbit around a 0.619-solar-mass M-dwarf at 3790 K. The planet's equilibrium temperature is $528\pm10$ K, placing it among the coolest giant exoplanets found around M-dwarfs. The host star's super-solar metallicity, [Fe/H] $=0.42\pm0.16$, supports the idea that these rare giants form via core accretion in metal-rich disks, where increased dust opacity slows runaway gas accretion and leaves the planet at Saturn rather than Jupiter mass.

Load-bearing premise

The stellar mass of $0.619\pm0.023$ solar masses and radius of $0.594\pm0.011$ solar radii from the EXOFASTv2 MIST isochrone fit are accurate, because the planet's mass and radius are derived from the RV semi-amplitude and transit depth combined with those stellar values; any systematic error in the star shifts the reported planet properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TOI-5573b is confirmed as a bona fide Saturn analog, with a 5-sigma mass measurement distinguishing it from brown dwarfs or astrophysical false positives.
  • Its equilibrium temperature of about 528 K makes it one of the coolest giant exoplanets around an M-dwarf, and therefore a high-value target for transmission spectroscopy.
  • The low density and Saturn-like mass support the 'failed giant' picture: core accretion halted by high disk opacity rather than a fundamentally different formation channel.
  • The host star's super-solar metallicity adds another data point to the pattern that giant planets around M-dwarfs preferentially form around metal-rich stars.
  • The planet's low eccentricity, combined with the long circularization timescale, suggests inward migration through the protoplanetary disk rather than gravitational scattering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the super-solar metallicity claim survives a line-by-line abundance analysis, TOI-5573b would lend statistical weight to the hypothesis that M-dwarf giants preferentially form in metal-rich disks, and occurrence surveys could use metallicity as a predictor.
  • The 528 K equilibrium temperature puts TOI-5573b in a regime where atmospheric transmission spectroscopy could detect molecular features; such observations could test whether its envelope is metal-enriched, as the 'failed giant' scenario predicts.
  • The near-zero radial-velocity trend leaves room for additional outer companions, so continued RV monitoring could reveal them and directly test the inward-migration picture.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery and confirmation of TOI-5573 b, a transiting Saturn-like exoplanet around an early M dwarf. The analysis combines 11 TESS transits from four sectors, one ground-based RBO transit, NESSI speckle imaging, and radial velocities from HPF and NEID. A joint Bayesian fit yields an 8.7976-day orbit, M_p = 112^{+18}_{-19} M_Earth, R_p = 9.75 ± 0.47 R_Earth, and ρ_p ≈ 0.66 g/cm³. The authors place the planet in the context of the GEMS population and discuss formation via core accretion with opacity-limited gas accretion, while cautioning about M-dwarf metallicity uncertainties.

Significance. The central detection is well supported by independent data sets: 11 TESS transits over four sectors, an RBO transit consistent with the same ephemeris (with cloud-related caveats acknowledged), speckle imaging excluding nearby companions, and RV signals from two independent spectrographs. The planet is a valuable addition to the small GEMS sample and is one of the cooler Saturn analogs, making it a useful target for future atmospheric observations. The paper is careful: stellar parameters come from a standard SED/isochrone fit, the joint fit includes jitter and dilution terms, and convergence is checked with the Gelman-Rubin statistic. The main caveats—[Fe/H] near the SpecMatch library edge, high RV jitter, and cloud-affected RBO photometry—are acknowledged and do not undermine the central confirmation.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.1 / Table 3] The text says the RBO transit was observed on 2023 May 1, but Table 3 labels the RBO photometric jitter as 'RBO20221009'; please reconcile the date and the label, and specify which date was actually used in the joint fit.
  2. [Section 3.1] Given that [Fe/H] = 0.42 ± 0.16 sits at the edge of the HPF-SpecMatch library, please state explicitly whether the EXOFASTv2 stellar mass and radius posteriors are robust to replacing this prior with the METaMorPHosis value of 0.37 ± 0.21; the current text discusses the caveat but does not quantify the sensitivity.
  3. [Section 4 / Table 3] The RV jitter values (HPF 34 m/s, NEID 19 m/s) are large relative to K ≈ 48 m/s; a sentence discussing whether the adopted jitter is dominated by stellar activity or instrument systematics would improve transparency.
  4. [Figure 1] The residual panels report 'Median = ... ppm' but the text never defines this quantity; please state whether these are median absolute residuals or another statistic.
  5. [Sections 1, 4, and Table 3 caption] Several typographical errors should be corrected: '=This' at the end of Section 1, 'M⊕. and' in Section 4, 'The reported value refer' in the Table 3 caption, and inconsistent usage of 'TOI-5573b' versus 'TOI-5573 b' in the title and abstract.
  6. [Section 5.2] The sentence about the circularization timescale is easy to misread: if the timescale far exceeds the age of the universe, then tides cannot explain the low eccentricity; please rephrase to clarify the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the planet confirmation is derived from independent photometric and RV data with stellar parameters from standard SED/isochrone fitting.

full rationale

The central claim, that TOI-5573 b is a real Saturn-like planet, is derived from independent datasets: 11 TESS transits across four sectors, a ground-based RBO transit, speckle imaging excluding companions, and RVs from HPF and NEID. The planet mass follows from the measured RV semi-amplitude (K = 47.9 +7.8/-8.1 m/s) combined with the stellar mass from an EXOFASTv2 MIST SED/isochrone fit, while the planet radius follows from the transit depth (Rp/R* = 0.150 +/- 0.005) combined with the fitted stellar radius. Neither planetary parameter is an input to the stellar fit, and no equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted constant used to define that same quantity. The metallicity discussion is explicitly interpretive and caveated, with the paper noting that "we should be cautious in drawing conclusions" and that "the metallicity is not well constrained." Self-citations, such as the Searching for GEMS survey paper (Kanodia et al. 2024) and instrument pipeline references, are contextual and not load-bearing for the confirmation. The apparent discrepancy between the RBO transit date in Section 2.2.1 and the Table 3 label appears to be a typographical inconsistency and does not affect the derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external data and standard modeling tools, with no circular step identified.

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

The central measurement rests on standard transit and RV models plus the stellar parameters from an SED/isochrone fit. The stellar parameters are the largest external input and are independently constrained by photometry and parallax. No new physical entities are introduced. The metallicity used in the formation discussion is a derived quantity with acknowledged large uncertainties.

free parameters (2)
  • Stellar mass M* = 0.619 +/- 0.023 solar masses
    Assumed from the EXOFASTv2 MIST isochrone fit to the SED (Section 3.2). The planet mass scales with stellar mass through the RV semi-amplitude, so this is load-bearing.
  • Stellar radius R* = 0.594 +/- 0.011 solar radii
    Adopted from the same SED fit (Section 3.2). The planet radius equals the transit depth times this radius, so it directly sets the reported radius.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Mandel and Agol (2002) transit model and a Keplerian RV model describe the observations.
    Used in the joint fit in Section 4. These are standard models, not tuned to the target.
  • domain assumption MIST isochrones fitted by EXOFASTv2 give reliable stellar mass and radius.
    Section 3.2. The planetary mass and radius inherit these values, so errors propagate directly.
  • domain assumption The RV signal is caused by the planet, not by activity or unresolved companions.
    Speckle imaging (Section 2.3) and lack of rotational modulation support this, but the adjusted HPF jitter of 34 m/s leaves room for activity.
  • standard math The quadratic limb-darkening law with Kipping (2013) priors is adequate for the transits.
    Section 4. A standard modeling choice with minimal effect on the central claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for GEMS: Confirmation of TOI-5573b, a Cool, Saturn-like Planet Orbiting An M-dwarf." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYJO56UD

@misc{pith2026250508947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for GEMS: Confirmation of TOI-5573b, a Cool, Saturn-like Planet Orbiting An M-dwarf},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYJO56UD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08947}
}
abstract

We present the confirmation of TOI-5573b, a Saturn-sized exoplanet on an 8.79-day orbit around an early M-dwarf (3790 K, 0.59 R$\odot$, 0.61 M$\odot$, 12.30 J mag). TOI-5573b has a mass of $112^{+18}_{-19}$ M$\oplus$ (0.35$\pm$0.06 M$\mathrm{Jup}$) and a radius of $9.75\pm0.47$ R$\oplus$ (0.87$\pm$0.04 R$\mathrm{Jup}$), resulting in a density of $0.66^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ g cm$^{-3}$, akin to that of Saturn. The planet was initially discovered by TESS and confirmed using a combination of 11 transits from four TESS sectors (20, 21, 47 and 74), ground-based photometry from the Red Buttes Observatory, and high-precision radial velocity data from the Habitable-zone Planet Finder (HPF) and NEID spectrographs, achieving a 5$\sigma$ precision on the planet's mass. TOI-5573b is one of the coolest Saturn-like exoplanets discovered around an M-dwarf, with an equilibrium temperature of $528\pm10$ K, making it a valuable target for atmospheric characterization. Saturn-like exoplanets around M-dwarfs likely form through core accretion, with increased disk opacity slowing gas accretion and limiting their mass. The host star's super-solar metallicity supports core accretion, but uncertainties in M-dwarf metallicity estimates complicate definitive conclusions. Compared to other GEMS (Giant Exoplanets around M-dwarf Stars) orbiting metal-rich stars, TOI-5573b aligns with the observed pattern that giant planets preferentially form around M-dwarfs with super-solar metallicity. Further high-resolution spectroscopic observations are needed to explore the role of stellar metallicity in shaping the formation and properties of giant exoplanets like TOI-5573b.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The raw (gray) phase-folded light curves of RBO and TGLC TESS sectors 20, 21, 47, and 74 photometry for TOI-5573. The best joint fit model is shown in red, and the 1σ confidence intervals are shown in yellow. 100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 RV [m/s] Model HPF NEID 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 BJD-2459000 (days) 100 0 100 Residuals -0.50 -0.33 -0.17 0.00 0.17 0.33 0.50 Phase 100 50 0 50 100 RV [m/s] Median Fit - Planet b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The binned HPF (blue) and NEID (orange) RV measurements of TOI-5573. Left: time series binned by each night. Right: phase-folded RV (black). The best fit model is shown in black, and the 1σ confidence intervals are shown in gray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NESSI Speckle Imaging in r’ and z’ bands in the inset 2.4′′ across. The curve shows the 5-σ contrast curve for TOI-5573 in both z and r bands. The contrast curves indicate that there are no bright companions within 1.2′′ from the host star. HxRGproc algorithms (Ninan et al. 2018) and follow the method described in Stef´ansson et al. (2020) for deriv￾ing an interpolated wavelength solution to avoid cross￾contaminatio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The HPF-SpecMatch spectra fit results for order index 5. Top: two plots showing the five best-fit stars (red) selected to compose the spectra. The size and transparency of these five stars and the other library stars (black) are inversely proportional to the calculated…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Planet Radius vs. Mass for TOI-5573 b (high￾lighted by a green circle) alongside other GEMS with masses between 95–850 M⊕. The stellar effective temperature is color-coded for each planet, and for comparison, planets around FGK-type stars are displayed in gray with den…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Equilibrium Temperature vs. Planet Density TOI-5573 b (highlighted by a green circle) alongside other GEMS, with data points color-coded by planet radius, with planets around FGK-type stars are displayed in gray. There are notably no inflated hot Jupiters around M-dwar…

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. Searching for GEMS: TOI-7149~b an Inflated Giant Planet causing a 12% Transit of a Fully Convective M-dwarf

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

    TOI-7149 b is a confirmed, inflated 0.7 Jupiter-mass planet with a 12% deep transit around one of the lowest-mass M-dwarfs known to host a transiting giant planet.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2020, AJ, 159, 123

    Agol, E., Luger, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2020, AJ, 159, 123

    2020

  2. [2]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al...

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  5. [5]

    ´A., Bayliss, D., Bento, J., et al

    Bakos, G. ´A., Bayliss, D., Bento, J., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 267

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    J., Lissauer, J

    Bodenheimer, P., Stevenson, D. J., Lissauer, J. J., & D’Angelo, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17227

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Boss, A. P. 2006, ApJ, 643, 501

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    P., & Kanodia, S

    Boss, A. P., & Kanodia, S. 2023, ApJ, 956, 4

    2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3663

    2023

  3. [11]

    2021, A&A, 656, A72 Ca˜ nas, C

    Burn, R., Schlecker, M., Mordasini, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A72 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Kanodia, S., Libby-Roberts, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 30 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06966

    2021

  4. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    2016

  5. [13]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V. 2017, AJ, 153, 77

    2017

  6. [14]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: 2003yCat.2246....0C

    2003

  7. [15]

    M., et al

    Duque-Arribas, C., Montes, D., Tabernero, H. M., et al. 2022, METaMorPHosis: METallicity for M dwarfs using PHotometry, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7428860

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Rodriguez, J

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480 —. 2019b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480

    1907 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D., K¨ urster, M., et al

    Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., K¨ urster, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 436

    2006

  10. [18]

    Ford, E. B. 2006, ApJ, 642, 505

    2006

  11. [19]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

    2016

  12. [20]

    2017, ArXiv

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Angus, R., & Ambikasaran, S. 2017, ArXiv

    2017

  13. [21]

    2019, dfm/exoplanet: exoplanet v0.1.5, doi:10.5281/zenodo.2587222 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Barentsen, G., & Barclay, T. 2019, dfm/exoplanet: exoplanet v0.1.5, doi:10.5281/zenodo.2587222 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    X., Wang, S., et al

    Gan, T., Wang, S. X., Wang, S., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 17

    2023

  15. [23]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98

    2019

  16. [24]

    2016, Proc

    Halverson, S., Terrien, R., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9908, 99086P

    2016

  17. [25]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, AJ, 165, 71

    2023

  18. [26]

    2024, AJ, 167, 4

    Han, T., Robertson, P., Kanodia, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 4

    2024

  19. [27]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  20. [28]

    D., Bayliss, D., Brahm, R., et al

    Hartman, J. D., Bayliss, D., Brahm, R., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 202

    2024

  21. [29]

    A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., et al

    Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., et al. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 232, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #232, 223.06

    2018

  22. [30]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298

    2021

  23. [31]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke, M., David, T. J., Mulders, G. D., & Heller, R. 2019, AJ, 158, 143

    2019

  24. [32]

    J., Jord´ an, A., Bryant, E

    Hobson, M. J., Jord´ an, A., Bryant, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L4

    2023

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08159

    Hotnisky, A., Kanodia, S., Libby-Roberts, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08159

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ciardi, D. R. 2011, AJ, 142, 19

    2011

  27. [35]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204

    2020

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  29. [37]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 1045

    2005

  30. [38]

    2000, ApJ, 537, 1013

    Ikoma, M., Nakazawa, K., & Emori, H. 2000, ApJ, 537, 1013

    2000

  31. [39]

    A., Gazak, J

    Johnson, J. A., Gazak, J. Z., Apps, K., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 111

    2012

  32. [40]

    2023, shbhuk/pyastrotools: v0.3, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7685628 —

    Kanodia, S. 2023, shbhuk/pyastrotools: v0.3, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7685628 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03416

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 4 TOI-5573b 15

    Kanodia, S., & Wright, J. 2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 4 TOI-5573b 15

    2018

  34. [42]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4

    Kanodia, S., & Wright, J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4

    2018

  35. [43]

    W., et al

    Kanodia, S., Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  36. [44]

    I., Mahadevan, S., et al

    Kanodia, S., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 161

    2024

  37. [45]

    H., Ellis, T

    Kasper, D. H., Ellis, T. G., Yeigh, R. R., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 105005, arXiv: 1605.06148

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152 Kov´ acs, G., Hodgkin, S., Sip˝ ocz, B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 889

    2013

  39. [47]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143

    2019

  40. [48]

    Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Adams, F. C. 2004, ApJL, 612, L73 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, ascl:1812.013

    2004

  41. [49]

    2019, AJ, 157, 64

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

    2019

  42. [50]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L., Bender, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  43. [51]

    W., Terrien, R., et al

    Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., Terrien, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K

    2014

  44. [52]

    2002, ApJL, 580, L171

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, ApJL, 580, L171

    2002

  45. [53]

    J., Laher, R

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

    2019

  46. [54]

    J., Beaton, R

    Monson, A. J., Beaton, R. L., Scowcroft, V., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 96

    2017

  47. [55]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., Benz, W., & Naef, D. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 398, Extreme Solar Systems, ed. D. Fischer, F. A

    2008

  48. [56]

    Movshovitz, N., Bodenheimer, P., Podolak, M., & Lissauer, J. J. 2010, Icarus, 209, 616 M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16197

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    P., Bender, C

    Ninan, J. P., Bender, C. F., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10709, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VIII, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 107092U

    2018

  50. [58]

    2024, A&A, 682, A89 pandas development team, T

    Pan, M., Liu, B., Johansen, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A89 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2022, A&A, 664, A65

    Pinamonti, M., Sozzetti, A., Maldonado, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A65

    2022

  52. [60]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

    1996

  53. [61]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., Barnes, T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, 34–42

    1998

  54. [62]

    Rauscher, B. J. 2015, PASP, 127, 1144

    2015

  55. [63]

    P., et al

    Reji, V., Kanodia, S., Ninan, J. P., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 187

    2025

  56. [64]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  57. [65]

    2018, ztfquery, a python tool to access ZTF data, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1345222

    Rigault, M. 2018, ztfquery, a python tool to access ZTF data, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1345222

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    L., et al

    Ross, G., Vanderburg, A., de Beurs, Z. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5160

    2024

  59. [67]

    2021, A&A, 653, A114

    Sabotta, S., Schlecker, M., Chaturvedi, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A114

    2021

  60. [68]

    V., & Fonnesbeck, C

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e55

    2016

  61. [69]

    2016, Proc

    Schwab, C., Rakich, A., Gong, Q., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9908, 99087H

    2016

  62. [70]

    J., Howell, S

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

    2018

  63. [71]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 102 Stef´ ansson, G., Ca˜ nas, C., Wisniewski, J., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 100 Stef´ ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Petrovich, C., et al. 2022, ApJL, 931, L15 Stef´ ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Miguel, Y., et al. 2023, ...

    2018

  64. [72]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  65. [73]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  66. [74]

    T., & Eastman, J

    Wright, J. T., & Eastman, J. D. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 838 16 Fernandes et al. 2025b

    2014

  67. [75]

    W., Petigura, E

    Yee, S. W., Petigura, E. A., & von Braun, K. 2017, ApJ, 836, 77

    2017

  68. [76]

    J., et al

    Zechmeister, M., Reiners, A., Amado, P. J., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 609, A12

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.