Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ten Aligned Orbits: Planet Migration in the Era of JWST and Ariel

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By fitting the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect in archival HARPS and HARPS-N spectra, this paper derives the first projected spin-orbit angles for nine gas giants and one brown dwarf, finding all ten orbits aligned with their host stars.

desk verdict Ten new R-M measurements, but 'aligned' is claimed too strongly for the four least-constrained systems. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20516 v1 pith:LYDSZBL6 submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

J. Zak , H. M. J. Boffin , A. Bocchieri , E. Sedaghati , Z. Balkoova , P. Kabath This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR PACS 97.82.-k
keywords ExoplanetsExoplanetdynamicsHotJupitersRadialvelocitymigrationBrowndwarfsSpin-orbitangleRossiter-McLaughlineffect
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 analyzes archival HARPS and HARPS-N transit spectra of nine short-period gas giants and one brown dwarf, and derives the first projected spin-orbit angle for each system: the sky-projected angle $\lambda$ between the host star's spin axis and the planet's orbital axis, read from the Rossiter-McLaughlin anomaly during transit. All ten systems come back consistent with alignment, with $\lambda$ between about $-18^\circ$ and $+16^\circ$ and typical uncertainties of 10–30 degrees, so every orbit is prograde and roughly coplanar with its star's equator. For the brown dwarf EPIC 219388192b the paper goes further, combining its $\lambda$ with a 12.29-day stellar rotation period to derive the true spin-orbit angle $\psi = 25^{+11}_{-14}$ degrees. The authors argue that these quiet geometries are what gentle disc migration produces, and that violent histories such as high-eccentricity migration or Kozai-Lidov excitation are not required to explain the ten systems. They also find that the planets scheduled for atmospheric characterization with HST, JWST, and Ariel show no selection bias toward aligned or misaligned orbits, but most of them still lack spin-orbit measurements, so the dynamical context needed to interpret the coming atmospheric surveys is largely missing.

What carries the argument

The analysis runs on the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect: as a planet transits, it obscures a moving chord of the rotating stellar disc, creating an anomalous radial-velocity signal whose amplitude and shape carry the projected spin-orbit angle $\lambda$. Each target's in-transit radial velocities are fitted with a composite model, a Keplerian orbit plus the R-M anomaly as formulated in the ARoME code and implemented in the ARoMEpy package, with ATLAS9 quadratic limb-darkening coefficients, Gaussian priors on transit parameters from the discovery literature, and three MCMC ensembles checked for convergence via the Gelman-Rubin statistic. The priors carry the argument for three systems: uniform-prior fits put WASP-44b, WASP-99b, and WASP-162b into broad or degenerate $\lambda$ posteriors, so Gaussian priors on the projected stellar rotation speed $v\sin i_*$ are adopted, for WASP-44b from a new stacked-spectrum iSpec measurement of $1.5 \pm 0.5$ km/s. For the true spin-orbit angle of EPIC 219388192b the central identity is the spherical law of cosines, $\cos\psi = \sin i_* \sin i \cos|\lambda| + \cos i_* \cos i$, evaluated with the Masuda & Winn (2020) approach that tracks the dependence between the equatorial rotation speed and $v \sin i_*$.

What would settle it

Take the same archival spectra and refit WASP-44b, WASP-99b, and WASP-162b with uniform priors on the stellar rotation speed, or measure that speed independently from high signal-to-noise spectra; for WASP-44b in particular, replacing the adopted $1.5 \pm 0.5$ km/s prior with the literature value of $3.2 \pm 0.9$ km/s should widen the $\lambda$ posterior substantially, and if the resulting angle falls outside the aligned regime near zero, the headline claim of ten aligned orbits would shrink to seven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports ten first-time projected spin-orbit angles, all consistent with prograde, aligned orbits: $\lambda = -5 \pm 11^\circ$ for WASP-35b, $-18^{+20}_{-26}$ degrees for WASP-44b, $13^{+15}_{-10}$ degrees for WASP-45Ab, $12 \pm 10^\circ$ for WASP-54Ab, $-11 \pm 20^\circ$ for WASP-91b, $-1^{+16}_{-18}$ degrees for WASP-99b, $9 \pm 6^\circ$ for WASP-129Ab, $1^{+31}_{-32}$ degrees for WASP-162b, $-9 \pm 11^\circ$ for Qatar-7b, and $16^{+16}_{-15}$ degrees for EPIC 219388192b. For the brown dwarf EPIC 219388192b, a stellar rotation period of $12.29 \pm 0.20$ days detected in ASAS-SN photometry, matching the previously reported $12.6 \pm 2.1$ days, lets the authors compute the true spin-orbit angle $\psi = 25^{+11}_{-14}$ degrees using the spherical law of cosines: a prograde orbit with a slight but not significant misalignment. The authors interpret the aligned, mostly circular configurations as the signature of quiet disc migration, noting that tidal alignment timescales for these systems exceed their ages, so the low angles are probably primordial rather than tidally reset; the eccentric warm Jupiter WASP-162b ($e = 0.434$) on an aligned orbit is singled out as a case where coplanar high-eccentricity migration or disc-driven eccentricity growth, rather than Kozai-Lidov excitation, remains plausible. Finally, the paper's census of atmospheric targets finds the HST/JWST and Ariel samples statistically unbiased in spin-orbit angle, yet dynamically incomplete: only 41% of HST/JWST atmospheric targets and 29% of the full Ariel candidate list have published spin-orbit measurements, with 70% coverage for the high-priority Ariel Tier 3 subset.

Load-bearing premise

Section 3.1 concedes that for WASP-44b, WASP-99b, and WASP-162b the 'aligned' verdict rests on an assumed stellar rotation speed rather than one the data determine alone; for WASP-44b the adopted speed of $1.5 \pm 0.5$ km/s contradicts both the published $3.2 \pm 0.9$ km/s and the paper's own unconstrained fit of $0.8 \pm 0.5$ km/s, and if that assumption is wrong then the quoted uncertainties are too small, so those three systems may not be aligned at all.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ten alignments hold, these systems join the population of aligned, prograde short-period giants, and their numbers indicate that quiet disc migration, rather than violent scattering, built these particular orbits.
  • EPIC 219388192b adds a rare brown-dwarf datapoint with both $\lambda$ and $\psi$ measured, reinforcing the trend that high mass-ratio companions orbit nearly aligned even around stars where tidal realignment is too slow to have erased a misalignment.
  • WASP-162b, an eccentric ($e = 0.434$) warm Jupiter on an aligned orbit, becomes a test case where coplanar high-eccentricity migration or disc-driven eccentricity excitation, rather than the Kozai-Lidov mechanism, must be considered for the system's history.
  • The completeness analysis shows that 70% of Ariel Tier 3 candidates already have spin-orbit measurements while the broader HST/JWST and Ariel samples lag at 41% and 29%, identifying where follow-up effort is most needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension: if the ten alignments hold up, the fraction of aligned short-period giants may be higher than the roughly 62% seen in the general literature sample, because the archival HARPS dataset was not selected for known misalignment; a bias-accounted census of archival HARPS transits could test this without new observations.
  • The three Gaussian-prior systems are the weak links in the 'ten aligned orbits' claim, so a campaign of one additional well-sampled transit per system on a larger telescope would either rescue or overturn the headline, a cheap and decisive follow-up.
  • The paper's completeness argument implies a recommendation it does not quite make: atmospheric surveys should plan dynamical follow-up for their target lists, since the 130 HST/JWST targets lacking spin-orbit angles will otherwise be interpreted with half the information needed to separate formation channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival HARPS and HARPS-N transit time series for nine gas giant exoplanets and one brown dwarf (EPIC 219388192b). Using the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, the authors derive sky-projected spin-orbit angles λ for all ten systems, report that all are aligned (prograde), and additionally derive a true spin-orbit angle ψ = 25 (+11/−14) deg for the brown dwarf. The paper also compares the spin-orbit angle distribution of planets with HST/JWST atmospheric observations and Ariel Mission Candidate Sample targets, concluding that there is no statistically significant bias in spin-orbit alignment among current atmospheric targets, while noting the low completeness of dynamical measurements. The central quantitative claims are the ten first-time (claimed) aligned λ measurements and the secondary atmospheric-target completeness analysis.

Significance. If the measurements are robust, this paper adds ten first-time projected spin-orbit angles, including an important brown-dwarf datum with a true obliquity, and provides a useful catalog-level assessment of the overlap between spin-orbit measurements and current/future atmospheric characterization targets. The use of archival data, a published fitting pipeline (ARoMEpy), explicit MCMC convergence checks, and the public release of posterior figures are strengths. However, the headline claim 'aligned projected orbits for all nine gas giants as well as the brown dwarf' is not uniformly supported by the quoted 1σ posteriors, and for several systems the classification depends on Gaussian v sin i* priors that are not consistently justified. The atmospheric survey completeness analysis is a useful planning resource, but the claimed absence of bias would benefit from a formal statistical test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Table 3, with Section 5 threshold] The abstract and Section 6 state that all nine gas giants and the brown dwarf have aligned projected orbits, but using the paper's own Section 5 definition (aligned for |λ| < 20°, misaligned for |λ| > 30°), at least WASP-44b and WASP-162b are not robustly aligned even in the adopted Gaussian-prior solutions: WASP-44b has λ = −18 (+20/−26) deg, so its 1σ interval extends to −44°, and WASP-162b has λ = 1 (+32/−33) deg, extending to 33°. WASP-91b (λ = −11 ± 20 deg) is marginal. The claim 'aligned projected orbits for all nine gas giants' is therefore an overstatement; the authors should either report the posterior probability that |λ| < 20° for each target or reclassify these systems as 'consistent with alignment' rather than 'aligned'.
  2. [Section 3.1, WASP-44b, WASP-99b, WASP-162b paragraphs] The adopted Gaussian priors on v sin i* for these three targets are not consistently derived from the Table 2 literature values. For WASP-44b, Table 2 gives v sin i* = 3.2 ± 0.9 km/s, the uniform-prior fit gives 0.8 ± 0.5 km/s, and the adopted prior is N(1.5, 0.5) km/s from an iSpec stack that is described but not tabulated. For WASP-99b, Table 2 gives 6.8 ± 0.5 km/s while the adopted prior is N(5.9, 0.4) km/s; for WASP-162b, the prior N(1.0, 0.5) km/s narrows the Table 2 uncertainty of 1.0 ± 0.8 km/s. Because these priors were chosen after inspecting the uniform-prior posteriors, the quoted λ uncertainties do not reflect the systematic error from the prior choice, and the aligned classification for these systems is dependent on a data-informed prior that has no independent published basis. The authors should justify these prior centers or re-run the fits with the literature priors and report both sets of results.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (2) and the subsequent τCE values] The numerical values reported for the tidal alignment timescale do not follow from Eq. (2) as written. For example, for WASP-35b, using Table 3 values (Mp/M* = 0.72/1.10, a/R* = 8.39) gives (Mp/M*)^2 (a/R* /40)^6 ≈ 0.429 × (0.2098)^6 ≈ 3.7 × 10^−5, so Eq. (2) yields τCE ≈ 3.7 × 10^5 yr, not the stated 2 × 10^12 yr. Similar discrepancies of several orders of magnitude appear for most of the listed targets. This error directly affects the conclusion in Section 4.2 that 'the current spin-orbit angles were likely not significantly changed from their initial values through tidal forces.' Please re-check the formula, the normalization, or the arithmetic, and revise the interpretation accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, 'no statistically significant bias'] The statement that the difference between 39% misaligned among atmospheric targets with measured λ and 30% in the general sample 'is not statistically significant' is made without a test statistic; please provide a p-value or a confidence interval for the difference in proportions (e.g., a two-proportion or Fisher's exact test).
  2. [Section 3.1, WASP-44b] The stacked-spectrum iSpec measurement of v sin i* = 1.5 ± 0.5 km/s is mentioned in the text but not displayed in a table or figure; please report the stacked spectrum, the S/N, and the analysis steps so that the prior can be assessed.
  3. [Table 3, header] The table header states that N denotes normal and U denotes uniform priors, but it is not immediately clear that in rows such as WASP-44b, WASP-99b, and WASP-162b the Gaussian priors apply only to v sin i* while λ retains a uniform prior; please make the prior association per parameter explicit.
  4. [Section 3.1, WASP-162b heading] There is an extra space in the target name ('W ASP-162 b') in the section heading; please correct it to 'WASP-162b'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected and true spin-orbit angles are free MCMC fits to independent observables, not restatements of the adopted priors or of any self-cited result.

full rationale

The central result, λ for ten targets, is obtained by fitting the Rossiter-McLaughlin anomaly to archival HARPS/HARPS-N radial velocities with uniform priors on λ (Sect. 2.1, Table 3). No derived quantity is fed back into the model in a way that makes λ equal to its input by construction. The true spin-orbit angle ψ for EPIC 219388192b is computed from the spherical-law-of-cosines relation using the fitted λ, the transit inclination, and an independent stellar rotation period (12.29 ± 0.20 d from ASAS-SN photometry, consistent with the literature 12.6 ± 2.1 d), following the external Masuda & Winn (2020) method; this is a genuine combination of independent constraints, not a renamed prior. The only self-citations (Zak et al. 2024 methodology; Sedaghati et al. 2023 ARoMEpy) supply the fitting pipeline and are not load-bearing for the scientific conclusion. The migration interpretation is explicitly hedged in Sect. 4.3 and 4.4. The data-dependent adoption of Gaussian v sin i* priors for WASP-44b, WASP-99b, and WASP-162b is a robustness concern—the quoted λ posteriors for these systems still allow |λ| > 30° at 1σ despite the paper's own |λ| < 20° aligned threshold—but this is an accuracy/statistical-robustness issue, not circularity, because the alignment is not forced by the priors or by any equation identified in the paper. No specific reduction equating a prediction to an input was found, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim depends on standard R-M modeling with literature system parameters. The main hand-adjusted inputs are the v sin i* Gaussian priors for WASP-44b, WASP-99b, and WASP-162b (adopted after uniform-prior fits gave broad posteriors), the photometric rotation period for EPIC 219388192 A, and the assumed tidal quality factor Q'_P = 10^6 used in the dynamical interpretation. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • v sin i* Gaussian prior center for WASP-44b = 1.5 km/s (adopted from iSpec stacking; literature 3.2 +/- 0.9 km/s)
    Used to replace the uniform-prior fit that gave v sin i* = 0.8 +/- 0.5 km/s; the adopted lambda = -18 +20 -26 deg depends on this choice.
  • v sin i* Gaussian prior center for WASP-99b = 5.9 km/s (Hellier et al. 2014)
    Adopted to constrain the R-M fit because the transit egress was not observed and uniform priors gave a broad posterior (lambda = 2 +27 -36 deg).
  • v sin i* Gaussian prior center for WASP-162b = 1.0 km/s (Hellier et al. 2019)
    Adopted because uniform prior caused v sin i* to wander to values inconsistent with spectroscopy; adopted lambda = 1 +31 -32 deg.
  • Stellar rotation period of EPIC 219388192 A = 12.29 +/- 0.20 d (ASAS-SN, Lomb-Scargle)
    Combined with v sin i* to derive stellar inclination and the true spin-orbit angle psi = 25 +11 -14 deg.
  • Tidal quality factor Q'_P = 10^6 (assumed)
    Used in the circularization timescale estimates to argue eccentric orbits have not circularized; affects the dynamical interpretation, not the lambda measurements.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The CCF-based Rossiter-McLaughlin model of Boue et al. (2013) as implemented in ARoMEpy accurately describes the RV anomaly for these targets.
    Section 2.1: the analysis fits the RVs with 'the R-M effect function defined for RVs determined through the cross-correlation technique'.
  • domain assumption The literature orbital ephemerides and stellar parameters (period, Rp/Rs, eccentricity, transit time, inclination, a/R*) used as fixed values or Gaussian priors are correct.
    Section 2.1: P, Rp/Rs, e are fixed to literature values; Gaussian priors on Tc, i, a/R* are set from transit modeling (Table 2).
  • domain assumption The stellar rotation period of EPIC 219388192 A derived from ASAS-SN photometry (12.29 d) is the true rotation period, and the Masuda and Winn (2020) framework correctly propagates the v sin i* - Prot dependence.
    Section 4.1: used to compute stellar inclination and psi.
  • domain assumption The tidal timescale formulas of Adams and Laughlin (2006) and Albrecht et al. (2012) apply with Q'_P = 10^6.
    Section 4.2: used to argue that tidal effects have not realigned the orbits.
  • domain assumption The limb-darkening coefficients computed with ExoCTK/ATLAS9 in the 380-690 nm band are appropriate.
    Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometry (34 months) is sufficient to derive the orbit-orbit angles gamma for WASP-45, WASP-54, WASP-129.
    Section 4.5: the authors note the astrometry is based on 34 months and caution about degeneracies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ten Aligned Orbits: Planet Migration in the Era of JWST and Ariel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYDSZBL6

@misc{pith2026250520516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ten Aligned Orbits: Planet Migration in the Era of JWST and Ariel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYDSZBL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20516}
}
abstract

Understanding the diverse formation and migration pathways that shape exoplanetary systems requires characterizing both their atmospheric properties and their orbital dynamics. A key dynamical diagnostic is the projected spin-orbit angle - the alignment between the stellar spin and the planetary orbit-which provides crucial tests for theoretical models. This angle can be determined using the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect. Although measurements exist for over 200 planets, the overall distribution of these angles is not fully understood, motivating further observations across the full parameter space. We analyze archival HARPS and HARPS-N spectroscopic transit time series of nine gas giant exoplanets on short orbits and one brown dwarf. We derive their projected spin-orbit angle $\lambda$. We find aligned projected orbits for all nine gas giants as well as the brown dwarf. Furthermore, we are able to derive the true spin-orbit angle for the brown dwarf EPIC 219388192b, $\psi = $25$^{+11}_{-14}$ deg. These projected prograde orbits are consistent with quiet disc migration disfavoring violent events exciting the orbits in the history of these systems. Finally, we investigate the current overlap between spin-orbit angle measurements and atmospheric characterization targets. While we find no strong observational biases due to the spin-orbit angle, we note that the majority of planets with atmospheric data still lack spin-orbit measurements. This incompleteness of the dynamical information may limit the interpretation of upcoming atmospheric surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20516 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Rossiter-McLaughlin effect of WASP-35b, WASP-44b, WASP-45 Ab, WASP-54 Ab, WASP-91b, and WASP-99b. The observed data points (black) are shown with their error bars. The systemic and Keplerian orbit velocities were removed. The blue line shows the best fitting model to the data, together with 1-σ (dark grey) and 3-σ (light grey) confidence intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Statistics of the planets with spin-orbit angle and atmospheric measurements; see the text for more details. (Top) We show how many planets with JWST and HST measurements have their spin-orbit angle measured. We show the same for Ariel Mission Candidate Sample (MCS) and Ariel Tier 3 candidates. While only 41% of HST/JWST atmospheric targets and 29% of the full Ariel sample have measured spin-orbit angles, the Ariel … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase curve of Qatar-7b using TESS data cen￾tered around the primary transit. Observed data are shown in black, binned data in blue and the obtained transit model in orange color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. PLATOSpec's first results: planets WASP-35b and TOI-622b are on aligned orbits, and K2-237b is on a polar orbit

    astro-ph.EP 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New Rossiter-McLaughlin measurements show WASP-35b and TOI-622b are aligned and K2-237b is on a polar orbit, with the latter two measured for the first time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    cq IS^ lm

    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]

    C., & Laughlin , G

    Adams , F. C., & Laughlin , G. 2006, , 649, 1004, 10.1086/506145

    doi:10.1086/506145 2006

  5. [5]

    N., Johnson , J

    Albrecht , S., Winn , J. N., Johnson , J. A., & et al. 2012, , 757, 18, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/18 2012

  6. [6]

    H., Dawson , R

    Albrecht , S. H., Dawson , R. I., & Winn , J. N. 2022, , 134, 082001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 2022

  7. [7]

    H., Marcussen , M

    Albrecht , S. H., Marcussen , M. L., Winn , J. N., & et al. 2021, , 916, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03 2021

  8. [8]

    I., Latham , D

    Alsubai , K., Tsvetanov , Z. I., Latham , D. W., & et al. 2019, , 157, 74, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf80a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf80a 2019

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    R., Collier Cameron , A., Delrez , L., & et al

    Anderson , D. R., Collier Cameron , A., Delrez , L., & et al. 2017, , 604, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730439

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Collier Cameron , A., Gillon , M., & et al

    Anderson , D. R., Collier Cameron , A., Gillon , M., & et al. 2012, , 422, 1988, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20635.x

    2012

  3. [11]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    B., & et al

    Attia , O., Bourrier , V., Delisle , J. B., & et al. 2023, , 674, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245237

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, , 163, 208, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5b6a

    Bai , L., Gu , S., Wang , X., et al. 2022, , 163, 208, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5b6a

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Mann , A

    Barber , M. G., Mann , A. W., Vanderburg , A., et al. 2024, , 635, 574, 10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & et al

    Baruteau , C., Crida , A., Paardekooper , S. J., & et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & et al., 667--689, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch029

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Sairam , L., Triaud , A

    Baycroft , T. A., Sairam , L., Triaud , A. H. M. J., & Correia , A. C. M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12209. 2504.12209

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20069, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20069

    Bieryla , A., Dong , J., Zhou , G., & et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20069, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20069

    2025 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    S., & Lega , E

    Bitsch , B., Crida , A., Libert , A. S., & Lega , E. 2013, , 555, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220310

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, , 486, 2075, 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    Blanco-Cuaresma , S. 2019, , 486, 2075, 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2014, , 569, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    Blanco-Cuaresma , S., Soubiran , C., Heiter , U., & et al. 2014, , 569, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, , 550, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220146

    Bou \'e , G., Montalto , M., Boisse , I., & et al. 2013, , 550, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220146

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, , 654, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527

    Bourrier , V., Lovis , C., Cretignier , M., & et al. 2021, , 654, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Stef \'a nsson , G., & et al

    Brady , M., Bean , J. L., Stef \'a nsson , G., & et al. 2025, , 169, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9c66

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Brown , D. J. A., Triaud , A. H. M. J., Doyle , A. P., et al. 2017, , 464, 810, 10.1093/mnras/stw2316

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    W., Latham , D

    Carmichael , T. W., Latham , D. W., & Vanderburg , A. M. 2019, , 158, 38, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab245e

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Castelli , F., & Kurucz , R. L. 2003, in Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov , W. W. Weiss , & D. F. Gray , Vol. 210, A20, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    2003 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10379, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10379

    Christian , S., Vanderburg , A., Becker , J., & et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10379, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10379

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13062, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13062

    Cloutier , R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13062, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13062

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    Cosentino , R., Lovis , C., Pepe , F., & 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. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 84461V, 10.1117/12.925738

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    2016, in 19th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun (CS19), Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 95, 10.5281/zenodo.58758

    Curtis , J., Vanderburg , A., Montet , B., & et al. 2016, in 19th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun (CS19), Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 95, 10.5281/zenodo.58758

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    I., & Johnson , J

    Dawson , R. I., & Johnson , J. A. 2018, , 56, 175, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, , 500, 1621, 10.1093/mnras/staa3397

    Debras , F., Baruteau , C., & Donati , J.-F. 2021, , 500, 1621, 10.1093/mnras/staa3397

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, , 166, 112, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    Dong , J., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2023, , 166, 112, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    I., Libby-Roberts , J

    Doyle , L., Ca \ n as , C. I., Libby-Roberts , J. E., & et al. 2025, , 536, 3745, 10.1093/mnras/stae2819

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, , 164, 15, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6bf9

    Edwards , B., & Tinetti , G. 2022, , 164, 15, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6bf9

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Barros , S

    Enoch , B., Anderson , D. R., Barros , S. C. C., & et al. 2011, , 142, 86, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/86

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    I., Brahm , R., Petrovich , C., & et al

    Espinoza-Retamal , J. I., Brahm , R., Petrovich , C., & et al. 2023, , 958, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad096d

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    I., Jord \'a n , A., Brahm , R., et al

    Espinoza-Retamal , J. I., Jord \'a n , A., Brahm , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08692, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08692

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2014, , 564, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423735

    Esposito , M., Covino , E., Mancini , L., et al. 2014, , 564, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423735

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky , D., & Tremaine , S. 2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    C., & Winn , J

    Fabrycky , D. C., & Winn , J. N. 2009, , 696, 1230, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1230

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    Faedi , F., Pollacco , D., Barros , S. C. C., & et al. 2013, , 551, A73, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220520

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, , 168, 145, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b7f

    Ferreira dos Santos , T., Rice , M., Wang , X.-Y., & et al. 2024, , 168, 145, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b7f

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    Foreman-Mackey , D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, , 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Agol , E., Ambikasaran , S., & Angus , R. 2017, , 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3285, 10.21105/joss.03285

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Luger , R., Agol , E., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3285, 10.21105/joss.03285

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Visscher , C., Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Visscher , C., Marley , M. S., & et al. 2020, , 160, 288, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc5bd

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., Petigura , E. A., Blunt , S., & et al. 2018, , 130, 044504, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., & et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Gelman , A., & Rubin , D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  44. [52]

    J., & et al

    Giacalone , S., Dai , F., Zanazzi , J. J., & et al. 2024, , 168, 189, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad785a

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Grether , D., & Lineweaver , C. H. 2006, , 640, 1051, 10.1086/500161

    2006 doi

  46. [54]

    F., Millholland , S

    Gupta , A. F., Millholland , S. C., Im , H., & et al. 2024, , 632, 50, 10.1038/s41586-024-07688-3

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    P., & Rauer , H

    Hatzes , A. P., & Rauer , H. 2015, , 810, L25, 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L25

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Bouchy , F., & et al

    Hellier , C., Anderson , D. R., Bouchy , F., & et al. 2019, , 482, 1379, 10.1093/mnras/sty2741

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Collier Cameron , A., & et al

    Hellier , C., Anderson , D. R., Collier Cameron , A., & et al. 2014, , 440, 1982, 10.1093/mnras/stu410

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    2017, , 465, 3693, 10.1093/mnras/stw3005

    ---. 2017, , 465, 3693, 10.1093/mnras/stw3005

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2017418118, 10.1073/pnas.2017418118

    Hjorth , M., Albrecht , S., Hirano , T., & et al. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2017418118, 10.1073/pnas.2017418118

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Huang , C., Wu , Y., & Triaud , A. H. M. J. 2016, , 825, 98, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/98

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    2012, Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 7, 1, 10.1186/1751-0473-7-1

    Hunter, A., Macgregor, A., Szabo, T., & others . 2012, Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 7, 1, 10.1186/1751-0473-7-1

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  56. [64]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04090, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04090

    Ikoma , M., & Kobayashi , H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04090, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04090

    2025 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    K., Kuruwita , R

    J rgensen , J. K., Kuruwita , R. L., Harsono , D., et al. 2022, , 606, 272, 10.1038/s41586-022-04659-4

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    2021, , 656, A90, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141548

    Kawashima , Y., & Min , M. 2021, , 656, A90, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141548

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 435, 2152, 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    Kirk , J., Ahrer , E.-M., Penzlin , A. B. T., & et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03198, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03198

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    H., Winn , J

    Knudstrup , E., Albrecht , S. H., Winn , J. N., & et al. 2024, , 690, A379, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450627

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    S., Shappee , B

    Kochanek , C. S., Shappee , B. J., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2017, , 129, 104502, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    Kraft , R. P. 1967, , 150, 551, 10.1086/149359

    1967 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, , 956, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced89

    Li , J., & Lai , D. 2023, , 956, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced89

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  66. [74]

    2014, , 439, 2781, 10.1093/mnras/stu134

    Ma , B., & Ge , J. 2014, , 439, 2781, 10.1093/mnras/stu134

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    2022, , 72, 1, 10.32023/0001-5237/72.1.1

    Maciejewski , G. 2022, , 72, 1, 10.32023/0001-5237/72.1.1

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    Masuda , K., & Winn , J. N. 2020, , 159, 81, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65be

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    Maxted , P. F. L., Anderson , D. R., Collier Cameron , A., & et al. 2016, , 591, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628250

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor , M., Pepe , F., Queloz , D., & et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  71. [79]

    2024, , 527, 3183, 10.1093/mnras/stad3196

    Michel , K.-U., & Mugrauer , M. 2024, , 527, 3183, 10.1093/mnras/stad3196

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 840, 10.1002/asna.202113972

    Mugrauer , M., & Michel , K.-U. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 840, 10.1002/asna.202113972

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    2016, , 54, 441, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz , S. 2016, , 54, 441, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    L., Aly , H., et al

    Nealon , R., Smallwood , J. L., Aly , H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07182, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07182

    2025 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    K., Kovacs , A., & Martlin , C

    Nikolov , N. K., Kovacs , A., & Martlin , C. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 272, 10.3847/2515-5172/acabc7

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    2017, , 153, 131, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5cb6

    Nowak , G., Palle , E., Gandolfi , D., & et al. 2017, , 153, 131, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5cb6

    2017 doi

  77. [85]

    I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E

    \"O berg , K. I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E. A. 2011, , 743, L16, 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    2011 doi

  78. [86]

    Penzlin , A. B. T., Booth , R. A., Kirk , J., & et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03199, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03199

    2024 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    M., Csizmadia , S., Mustill , A

    Persson , C. M., Csizmadia , S., Mustill , A. J., & et al. 2019, , 628, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935505

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    2015, , 805, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    Petrovich , C. 2015, , 805, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    2000, , 359, L13, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006213

    Queloz , D., Eggenberger , A., Mayor , M., & et al. 2000, , 359, L13, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006213

    2000 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    2024, , 167, 126, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1bed

    Rice , M., Gerbig , K., & Vanderburg , A. 2024, , 167, 126, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1bed

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., & et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  84. [92]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04438, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04438

    Rusznak , J., Wang , X.-Y., Rice , M., & et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04438, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04438

    2024 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2024, , 274, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6a60

    Saha , S. 2024, , 274, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6a60

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835, 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  87. [95]

    2023, , 166, 130, 10.3847/1538-3881/acea84

    Sedaghati , E., Jord \'a n , A., Brahm , R., & et al. 2023, , 166, 130, 10.3847/1538-3881/acea84

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    C., Winn , J

    Siegel , J. C., Winn , J. N., & Albrecht , S. H. 2023, , 950, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd62f

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    J., Beatty , T

    Siverd , R. J., Beatty , T. G., Pepper , J., & et al. 2012, , 761, 123, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/123

    2012 doi

  90. [98]

    2022, , 666, A142, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244037

    Skarka , M., Z \'a k , J., Fedurco , M., et al. 2022, , 666, A142, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244037

    2022 doi

  91. [99]

    2011, , 417, 2166, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19399.x

    Southworth , J. 2011, , 417, 2166, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19399.x

    2011

  92. [100]

    Spalding , C., & Winn , J. N. 2022, , 927, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4993

    2022 doi

  93. [101]

    2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135, 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

    Tinetti , G., Drossart , P., Eccleston , P., & et al. 2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135, 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

    2018 doi

  94. [102]

    Triaud , A. H. M. J., Hebb , L., Anderson , D. R., & et al. 2013, , 549, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219643

    2013 doi

  95. [103]

    Triaud , A. H. M. J., Queloz , D., Bouchy , F., & et al. 2009, , 506, 377, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911897

    2009 doi

  96. [104]

    Tsai , S.-M., Lee , E. K. H., Powell , D., & et al. 2023, , 617, 483, 10.1038/s41586-023-05902-2

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    2021, , 909, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    Turrini , D., Schisano , E., Fonte , S., & et al. 2021, , 909, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    2021 doi

  98. [106]

    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

  99. [107]

    W., & et al

    S ubjak , J., Sharma , R., Carmichael , T. W., & et al. 2020, , 159, 151, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7245

    2020 doi

  100. [108]

    2024, , 973, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7469

    Wang , X.-Y., Rice , M., Wang , S., et al. 2024, , 973, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7469

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    2025, , 536, 2046, 10.1093/mnras/stae2655

    Yu , H., Garai , Z., Cretignier , M., & et al. 2025, , 536, 2046, 10.1093/mnras/stae2655

    2025 doi

  102. [110]

    2024, , 686, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349084

    Zak , J., Bocchieri , A., Sedaghati , E., & et al. 2024, , 686, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349084

    2024 doi

  103. [111]

    Zak , J., Boffin , H. M. J., Sedaghati , E., et al. 2025, , 694, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452171

    2025 doi

  104. [112]

    Y., Carmichael , T

    Zhang , E. Y., Carmichael , T. W., Huber , D., & et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05115, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05115

    2025 doi arXiv

  105. [113]

    M., & et al

    Zhang , J., Huber , D., Weiss , L. M., & et al. 2024, , 168, 295, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad86c4

    2024 doi

  106. [114]

    \'A ., Bayliss , D., & et al

    Zhou , G., Bakos , G. \'A ., Bayliss , D., & et al. 2019, , 157, 31, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf1bb

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.