Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Exoplanet Ephemerides Change Observations (ExoEcho). II. Transit timing variation analysis of Brown Dwarfs around Solar-type Stars

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 No statistically significant orbital decay is found among ten transiting brown dwarfs.

desk verdict A careful null-result TTV study of transiting brown dwarfs with a useful follow-up strategy, but the forward-looking target ranking leans on hand-set tidal parameters and Eq. (5) has a coefficient typo. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21270 v1 pith:U2APB6ZM submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Wenqin Wang , Xinyue Ma , Zhangliang Chen , Cong Yu , Shangfei Liu , Bo Ma This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords transittimingvariationbrowndwarfsorbitaldecaytidalqualityfactorTESSdwarfdesertephemerides
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 asks whether close-in brown dwarfs around Sun-like stars are slowly spiraling into their hosts, by timing their transits with TESS and archival data. It assembles 319 TESS mid-transit times plus literature epochs for ten short-period transiting brown dwarfs and fits each system with a linear ephemeris and a quadratic ephemeris that allows a constant rate of period change. The central result is a null result: no system meets both significance criteria, so there is no statistically significant evidence of orbital decay or expansion in the current data. The paper judges that this could be due to sparse observations or genuinely weak tidal dissipation, and it simulates future observing strategies to separate the two. If the simulations are right, the most efficient path is to space a few high-quality transit observations over many years rather than to add many closely spaced points.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the quadratic ephemeris recursion $T_N = T_{N-1} + P_{N-1}$ with $P_N = P_{N-1} + \dot P (P_{N-1}+P_N)/2$, implemented in the PdotQuest code, which turns a list of mid-transit times into an estimate of the period-change rate $\dot P$. Significance is adjudicated by two criteria — $\dot P$ at least $3\sigma$ from zero and $\Delta\mathrm{BIC}>10$ — with leave-one-out cross-validation checking that no single timing point drives the signal. Measured $\dot P$ values are converted into a modified tidal quality factor $Q'_{\ast}$ through the Goldreich-Soter relation, and theoretical decay rates are computed from the equilibrium-tide formula of Nordhaus & Spiegel with $k_{2,\ast}=f=1$; the same machinery, fed with simulated future observations, produces the recommended 'grouping and extending' strategy.

What would settle it

Take one TESS-quality transit of NGTS-7A b after 2025 and compare the measured mid-transit time with the linear ephemeris. The paper's equilibrium-tide prediction (with $k_{2,\ast}=f=1$ and $\dot P > 200$ ms/yr) implies an O-C delay of order tens of minutes, whereas a delay consistent with zero would falsify that prediction and invalidate the target ranking built on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an upper-limit measurement: five of the ten brown-dwarf systems have enough timing data for a quadratic fit, and all five yield period-change rates consistent with no significant trend, after applying the 3-$\sigma$ and $\Delta\mathrm{BIC}>10$ criteria and leave-one-out cross-validation. KELT-1 b shows the strongest decay-like signal ($\dot P = -6.62 \pm 2.03$ ms/yr, implying a 3-$\sigma$ inspiral-timescale lower limit of 8.3 Myr) but fails the model-selection and cross-validation tests; LP 261-75 b shows a positive trend ($35.75 \pm 7.95$ ms/yr) that also fails cross-validation; AD 3116 b, WASP-30 b, and WASP-128 b are consistent with zero. The paper concludes that current TESS plus archival data cannot yet constrain tidal decay for individual transiting brown dwarfs, and it identifies NGTS-7A b, TOI-263 b, and LP 261-75 b as the most promising systems for future detection.

Load-bearing premise

The forward-looking target list assumes the theoretical decay rates computed with $k_{2,\ast}=1$ and $f=1$ are roughly right, while the null result assumes the assembled transit timings and the quadratic model would have revealed a real period change if one were present.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Among the five systems with enough data for a quadratic fit, none passes both the 3-$\sigma$ and $\Delta\mathrm{BIC}>10$ criteria, so no orbital decay or expansion is claimed.
  • KELT-1 b's measured $\dot P = -6.62 \pm 2.03$ ms/yr is 3-$\sigma$ from zero but fails the model-selection and cross-validation checks, so it is treated as a non-detection.
  • The derived lower limits on inspiral timescales (e.g., a 3-$\sigma$ limit of 8.3 Myr for KELT-1 b) are the main quantitative legacy of the current data.
  • Simulations show that extending the time baseline and grouping consecutive transits ('grouping and extending') reduces the $\dot P$ uncertainty faster than simply adding more points, and that 8 evenly spaced transits over 15 years would make 9 of the 10 systems accessible at the WASP-12 decay level.
  • NGTS-7A b, TOI-263 b, and LP 261-75 b are the most promising targets for detecting period change within the next few years, with a single transit of NGTS-7A b about five years after 2020 predicted to suffice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The recommended 'grouping and extending' strategy should apply to hot-Jupiter decay surveys as well, since those campaigns face the same trade-off between baseline length and number of points; this is an implication the paper does not develop.
  • If LP 261-75 b's positive $\dot P = 35.75 \pm 7.95$ ms/yr is confirmed, it would argue for tidal expansion or an additional dynamical effect rather than simple inspiral, complicating the brown-dwarf-desert picture.
  • A re-analysis after the next TESS extended-mission sectors could turn several of the five currently underconstrained systems into testable cases without new dedicated observations.
  • The null result should not be read as ruling out tidal decay; the predicted signals for NGTS-7A b and TOI-263 b are large enough that a single well-timed transit in the next few years can discriminate between the equilibrium-tide prediction and the null hypothesis.
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. This paper presents a transit-timing study of ten short-period transiting brown dwarfs around solar-type stars. The authors reduce TESS light curves to 319 individual transit times, combine them with archival timings, and fit linear and quadratic ephemerides with the PdotQuest code. Applying two selection criteria (|Pdot| > 3 sigma and DeltaBIC > 10) together with leave-one-out cross-validation, they find that none of the five systems with sufficient data shows statistically significant period decay or expansion: KELT-1 b fails DeltaBIC and LOOCV, LP 261-75 b fails LOOCV, and Pdot for AD 3116 b, WASP-30 b, and WASP-128 b is consistent with zero. The paper converts the fitted Pdot into effective Q'_* values and inspiral timescales, compares them with theoretical equilibrium-tide predictions, and runs simulations of future observing strategies to identify NGTS-7A b, TOI-263 b, and LP 261-75 b as the most promising targets for detecting decay.

Significance. The null result is useful and honestly stated: TTV studies of brown dwarfs are sparse, and the paper provides a homogeneous set of 319 TESS transit times plus a machine-readable data table and an updated public fitting code. The use of multiple criteria (3 sigma, DeltaBIC > 10, LOOCV) is appropriate, and the conclusions for KELT-1 b and LP 261-75 b are conservative rather than overclaimed. The observing-strategy simulation with the 'grouping and extending' recommendation is practical. The forward-looking target ranking is the main contribution that goes beyond the null result, and its robustness is currently limited by the arbitrary tidal parameters used in the theoretical period-change rates.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.1, Eq. (5), Table 2] Equation (5) is printed with coefficient 27/(2 pi), but the Q'_* values in Table 2 and the values derived in Table 4 are numerically consistent with the coefficient 27 pi/2. For KELT-1 b, using Eq. (5) as printed with the Table 3 parameters and Pdot = -6.62 ms/yr gives Q'_* ~ 6.2 x 10^5, about a factor pi^2 below the tabulated 6.1 x 10^6. Please correct Equation (5) and recheck all Q'_* values, Table 4, and their use in Figure 7, since an uncorrected factor changes every derived tidal-quality number by nearly an order of magnitude.
  2. [5.1-5.2, Eq. (6), Figure 8] The target prioritization of NGTS-7A b and TOI-263 b as the most promising decay candidates is driven by theoretical Pdot from Eq. (6) evaluated with k2,* = 1 and f = 1. These values are assigned by hand and are not calibrated to the sample; for low-mass convective stars k2,* is typically about 0.1-0.3 and f is an uncertain efficiency, so a combined factor of about 10 reduction is plausible. For TOI-263 b this would bring the predicted decay from >200 ms/yr down to tens of ms/yr, below the 3 sigma sensitivity of several strategies in Figure 8, and the ranking relative to KELT-1 b or WASP-30 b would change. Please add a sensitivity analysis over k2,* and f (or present the ranking only as conditional on these assumptions) before the forward-looking claim is used.
  3. [5.2, Figure 8] The simulations inject Pdot = 0 and then use 3 sigma_Pdot as the minimum detectable decay rate. This gives a sensitivity baseline, but it does not demonstrate that a nonzero injected value at the predicted rate is recovered without bias; for the claim that one additional transit of NGTS-7A b in five years can 'verify' decay, please add injection-recovery tests at the predicted Pdot values or state explicitly that the statement is only a sensitivity estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [4.6] The sentence beginning 'also lack sufficient coverage' has no subject; it should be rephrased to identify which systems are meant.
  2. [Table 1] The first row of the machine-readable table is labeled 'AD 2116 b' and the second row 'AD3116b'; use the consistent notation 'AD 3116 b' throughout.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The phrase 'theoretical Pdot values for HJs, calculated from the corresponding Pdot using Equation (5)' is garbled; the quantities shown are Q'_* values, and the sentence should be rewritten.
  4. [5.1] For LP 261-75 b, WASP-30 b, and WASP-128 b, 'dropping the negative sign' in Equation (5) should be described as taking an absolute value for an order-of-magnitude comparison, since a positive Pdot is not directly interpretable as tidal decay.
Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The timing fits themselves only require the standard linear or quadratic ephemeris with Pdot as a free parameter per system. The derived Q* constraints and the target ranking additionally require the Goldreich-Soter and Nordhaus-Spiegel tidal formulas, with k2,* and f set to unity by hand and stellar masses, radii, and convective-envelope fractions taken from literature or SSE grids. No new physical entities are introduced; the destruction timescale is just P/Pdot, not an independent observable.

free parameters (7)
  • Pdot_AD_3116_b = -10.75 +/- 13.36 ms/yr
    Quadratic fit to archival and TESS timings; central input for Q* and inspiral timescale lower limit. Not statistically significant.
  • Pdot_KELT-1_b = -6.62 +/- 2.03 ms/yr
    3-sigma from zero but DeltaBIC=6.54 and LOOCV instability; not treated as a detection. Still used to derive Q* lower limit.
  • Pdot_LP_261-75_b = 35.75 +/- 7.95 ms/yr
    Positive rate driven partly by one archival epoch; fails LOOCV. Used for Q* and future-target discussion.
  • Pdot_WASP-30_b = 18.16 +/- 24.14 ms/yr
    Not statistically significant; used to estimate Q* with the sign dropped.
  • Pdot_WASP-128_b = 5.49 +/- 25.22 ms/yr
    Not statistically significant; reported Q* is preliminary.
  • k2_star in Eq. (6) = 1 (chosen by hand)
    Tidal Love number set to unity with no empirical calibration for these hosts. Directly scales the theoretical Pdot and target ranking.
  • f in Eq. (6) = 1 (chosen by hand)
    Dimensionless tidal parameter set to unity. Directly scales the theoretical Pdot and target ranking.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A constant period derivative (quadratic ephemeris) is a valid approximation over the observational baseline.
    Section 3 assumes Pdot is constant, following Patra et al. 2017; tidal decay is nonlinear over long timescales but acceptable for decades of observations.
  • domain assumption Equation (5) from Goldreich and Soter describes the observed period change as equilibrium-tide dissipation, with circular orbit, slow stellar spin, and negligible BD dissipation.
    Section 5.1 lists these conditions; if non-tidal effects such as the Applegate effect, a third body, or Romer delay contribute, the derived Q* values are not true tidal values.
  • domain assumption Archival and TESS transit timings are on a consistent clock with realistic uncertainties.
    Fits combine single discovery epochs with TESS mid-transit times; the LP 261-75 b LOOCV shows sensitivity to one archival anchor.
  • ad hoc to paper Equation (6) from Nordhaus and Spiegel, evaluated with k2,*=1, f=1, and SSE convective-envelope masses, predicts the tidal period-change rate.
    The unity choices for k2,* and f are made by hand in Section 5.1 and directly scale the theoretical Pdot used for target prioritization.
  • standard math Mandel and Agol (2002) analytic transit model and PyTransit produce unbiased transit times.
    Section 2.2; the model is standard, but fixed transit-shape parameters can introduce small timing systematics.
  • standard math BIC and leave-one-out cross-validation are appropriate for comparing linear and quadratic ephemeris models.
    Section 3 uses these standard tools to decide whether the extra Pdot parameter is justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exoplanet Ephemerides Change Observations (ExoEcho). II. Transit timing variation analysis of Brown Dwarfs around Solar-type Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U2APB6ZM

@misc{pith2026250521270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exoplanet Ephemerides Change Observations (ExoEcho). II. Transit timing variation analysis of Brown Dwarfs around Solar-type Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U2APB6ZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21270}
}
read the original abstract

Transit timing variation (TTV) is a useful tool for studying the orbital properties of transiting objects. However, few TTV studies have been done on transiting brown dwarfs (BDs) around solar-type stars. Here we study the long-term TTV of a population of close BD companions around solar-type stars using TESS data. We use the measured orbital period change rate to constrain the tidal interaction strength between the host star and the BD companion and put limits on the destruction timescale of these transiting BDs. However, we find no statistically significant evidence of orbital decay or expansion in our sample based on the current data. This may be due to either poor observational data or inherently weak tidal dissipation. We then perform simulations to investigate future observation strategies for detecting orbital decay of transiting BDs, which show NGTS-7A b, TOI-263~b and LP 261-75 b are the most promising targets in the next few years. Our study demonstrates the potential of TTV technique to probe the formation and evolution of close BD companions around solar-type stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase-folded TESS transit light curves for all 10 BDs in our sample. Each light curve corresponding to data from a single TESS sector. The best-fit transit light curve model from Mandel & Agol (2002) is shown in black solid line. In the linear model, the transit time for each epoch TN is calculated as a constant period P from the reference epoch T0(the time of the first transit). The quadratic model accounts for a p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Timing residuals of AD 3116 b.The blue curve indicates the best-fit quadratic model. The orange points represent literature data, and the green points represent TESS data. We also over-plot zoom-in areas for some of the crowded TESS data points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Timing residuals and LOOCV analysis of KELT-1 b. Top panel: Timing residuals from the TTV fitting. The blue curve indicates the best-fit quadratic model. The orange points represent literature data, and the green points represent TESS data. We also over-plot zoom-in areas for some of the crowded TESS data points. Middle panel: LOOCV analysis showing the period change rate P˙ after the removal of each single transit … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Timing residuals and LOOCV analysis of LP 261-75 b. The lines and symbols are similar to those used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Timing residuals of WASP-30 b. The lines and symbols are similar to those used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Timing residuals of WASP-128 b. The lines and symbols are similar to those used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of theoretical and observed values for Q ′ ∗ and P˙ for for HJs and BDs. The upper panel shows the comparison of Q ′ ∗ob and Q ′ ∗th for HJs and BDs. Blue downward triangles represent the theoretical values of Q ′ ∗ values for HJs from Weinberg et al. (2024)…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Strategy assessment plot. In the top panel, we show the σP˙ values that can be detected by using various observation strategy. The Q ′ ∗ values corresponding the 3σP˙ are shown in the bottom panel. Solid points in the bottom panel indicate Q ′ ∗ values exceeding the th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2005, MNRAS, 359, 567, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08922.x

    Agol, E., Steffen, J., Sari, R., & Clarkson, W. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 567, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08922.x

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    R., Collier Cameron, A., Hellier, C., et al

    Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., Hellier, C., et al. 2011, ApJL, 726, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/726/2/L19 Ba¸ st¨ urk,¨O., Southworth, J., Yal¸ cınkaya, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad248

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/726/2/l19 2011

  3. [3]

    2000, ARA&A, 38, 485, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.485

    Basri, G. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 485, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.485

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.485 2000

  4. [4]

    G., Collins, K

    Beatty, T. G., Collins, K. A., Fortney, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/112 2014

  5. [5]

    G., Winn, J

    Bouma, L. G., Winn, J. N., Baxter, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab189f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab189f 2019

  6. [6]

    P., Blunt, S

    Bowler, B. P., Blunt, S. C., & Nielsen, E. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11 2020

  7. [7]

    B., Lunine, J

    Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.719 2001

  8. [8]

    Carmichael, T. W. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3720 11 T able 3.Physical parameters used to deriveQ′ ∗ for HJs and BDs in this study. System P(d)M ∗(MJ)M p (MJ )R ∗(RJ)a/R ∗ Age(Gyr) Ref AD 3116 b 1.98279 0.28 54.20 0.29 16.00<1 (1)(2) KELT-1 b 1.21751 1.39 27.93 1.49 3.63 1.75±0.25 (1)(3) LP 261-75 b 1.88172 0.30 68.08 0.31 13.84 0.15±0...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3720 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    W., Latham, D

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

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 687, A256, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348870

    Chen, Z., Chen, Y., Chen, C., Ge, H., & Ma, B. 2024, A&A, 687, A256, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348870

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Eastman, J., Siverd, R., & Gaudi, B. S. 2010, PASP, 122, 935, doi: 10.1086/655938

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    E., & Zuckerman, B

    Farihi, J., Becklin, E. E., & Zuckerman, B. 2005, ApJS, 161, 394, doi: 10.1086/444362

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Vogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e57

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    A., David, T

    Gillen, E., Hillenbrand, L. A., David, T. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b3

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    1966 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    2000, A&A, 355, 581 Hodˇ zi´ c, V., Triaud, A

    Queloz, D. 2000, A&A, 355, 581 Hodˇ zi´ c, V., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2512

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    J., & Murray, N

    Holman, M. J., & Murray, N. W. 2005, Science, 307, 1288, doi: 10.1126/science.1107822

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    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, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e 12 T able 4.Tidal quality factor estimation for HJs System ˙P(ms/yr)Q ′ ∗ τinspiral (Myr) CoRoT-2 b -21.65±2.96>1.5×10 4 7.0 HD18973...

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Charbonneau, D., Esquerdo, G

    Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D., Esquerdo, G. A., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad9a3

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Winn, J

    Ivshina, E. S., & Winn, J. N. 2022, ApJS, 259, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac545b

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Jackman, J. A. G., Wheatley, P. J., Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2496

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  16. [24]

    2021, A&A, 645, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039168

    Kiefer, F., H´ ebrard, G., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039168

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 2781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu134

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

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, AJ, 169, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada95d

    Ma, X., Wang, W., Zhang, Z., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada95d

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, A&A, 588, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628312

    Maciejewski, G., Dimitrov, D., Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628312

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2002, ApJL, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

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

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    W., & Butler, R

    Marcy, G. W., & Butler, R. P. 2000, PASP, 112, 137, doi: 10.1086/316516

    2000 doi

  22. [30]

    Nordhaus, J., & Spiegel, D. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt569

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    R., et al

    Palle, E., Luque, R., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039937

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2015a, MNRAS, 450, 3233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv894 —

    Parviainen, H. 2015a, MNRAS, 450, 3233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv894 —. 2015b, MNRAS, 450, 3233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv894

    doi

  25. [33]

    C., Winn, J

    Patra, K. C., Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d75

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Csizmadia, S., Mustill, A

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

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    N., & Walkowicz, L

    Reid, I. N., & Walkowicz, L. M. 2006, PASP, 118, 671, doi: 10.1086/503446

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    W., et al

    Riley, J., Agrawal, P., Barrett, J. W., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    1978, The annals of statistics, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The annals of statistics, 461

    1978

  31. [39]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1517

    Shahaf, S., & Mazeh, T. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1517

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Beatty, T

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

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    Smith, A. M. S., Eigm¨ uller, P., Oshagh, M., & Southworth, J. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 23, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ab7343 13

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    T., Haswell, C

    Stevenson, A. T., Haswell, C. A., Barnes, J. R., & Barstow, J. K. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3041 STScI. 2018, TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    W., et al

    List, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/FWDT-2X66 ˇSubjak, J., Sharma, R., Carmichael, T. W., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7245

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847

    Wang, W., Zhang, Z., Chen, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    N., Davachi, N., Essick, R., et al

    Weinberg, N. N., Davachi, N., Essick, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05c9

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2022, PASP, 134, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a

    Yang, F., & Wei, X. 2022, PASP, 134, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c16

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03101

    Zhang, Z., Wang, W., Ma, X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03101

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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