Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

The Age and High Energy Environment of the Very Young Transiting Exoplanet TOI 1227b

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 TOI 1227b, an ~8 Myr old transiting sub-Neptune, is losing its atmosphere at roughly $10^{12}$ grams per second.

desk verdict Solid Chandra detection and age reassessment; the mass-loss rates need an explicit XUV conversion before they can be called robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04440 v1 pith:64ZJRGZB submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Attila Varga , Joel H. Kastner , Alexander S. Binks , Hans Moritz Guenther , Simon J. Murphy This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords TOI12271227byoungexoplanetsMdwarfX-rayphotoevaporationatmosphericmasslossstellaragedatingtransitingsub-Neptune
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 seeks to pin down the age of the star TOI 1227 and to determine how its high-energy radiation affects its transiting planet TOI 1227b. Using new X-ray imaging, optical spectroscopy, astrometry, and spectral-energy-distribution fitting, the authors argue that the star is 5-12 million years old, with a best estimate near 8 million years---younger than the previously quoted 11 million years. If correct, TOI 1227b becomes one of the very youngest transiting planets known, caught in the act of losing its atmosphere. The paper models that loss and predicts mass-loss rates around $10^{12}$ g s$^{-1}$, with the planet's future shrinking depending strongly on whether its core is 5 or 10 Earth masses.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two main tools: the X-ray luminosity measurement and the energy-limited hydrodynamic escape model. The first, drawn from new X-ray imaging, fixes the star's present high-energy output; combined with lithium and H$\alpha$ line measurements, astrometric group membership, and SED/isochrone fits, it constrains the star's age. The second converts the assumed XUV flux at the planet into an atmospheric mass-loss rate and a radius-evolution track. The 5 versus 10 Earth-mass core cases bracket the planet's uncertain mass and drive the divergence in predicted futures.

What would settle it

Measure a dynamical mass for TOI 1227b and detect its escaping atmosphere in, for example, the helium 10830 A line or Lyman-$\alpha$ with space- or ground-based high-resolution spectroscopy; a mass-loss rate far below or above the predicted ~$10^{12}$ g s$^{-1}$, or a radius evolution that does not shrink as predicted, would show that the assumed XUV flux, saturation track, or escape efficiency is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that TOI 1227 is a very young mid-M dwarf and that its transiting planet is currently evaporating. The paper reports a definitive X-ray detection at $58 \pm 9$ counts, giving an X-ray luminosity of $L_X = (5.7 \pm 0.8) \times 10^{28}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $\log(L_X/L_{\rm bol}) = -3.2 \pm 0.1$, plus a lithium 6708 Angstrom equivalent width of $700 \pm 80$ mAngstrom and strong H-$\alpha$ emission. Together these place the star in the 5-12 Myr range, likely around 8 Myr. Using the energy-limited hydrodynamic escape model, the paper finds current mass-loss rates between roughly $9 \times 10^{11}$ and $3 \times 10^{12}$ g s$^{-1}$ for six age/core-mass scenarios, and predicts that a 5 Earth-mass core planet will shrink to a Neptune-sized planet while a 10 Earth-mass core retains most of its envelope.

Load-bearing premise

The modeled mass-loss rate scales with the XUV flux at the planet, which is not measured; the paper assumes TOI 1227 follows a saturated M-dwarf activity track normalized to its X-ray luminosity and adopts an escape efficiency of $\epsilon = 0.1$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TOI 1227's age is revised downward to 5-12 Myr, with ~8 Myr favored, making it one of the youngest known transiting planet hosts.
  • TOI 1227b is currently losing mass at roughly $10^{12}$ g s$^{-1}$, fast enough to strip its H/He envelope if its core is near 5 Earth masses.
  • If the core is ~10 Earth masses, the planet loses only about 10% of its mass over ~1 Gyr and stays a slightly inflated Neptune-mass planet.
  • The predicted radius shrinkage over hundreds of Myr connects this system to photoevaporation explanations of the exoplanet radius valley.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 5-8 Myr age is right, TOI 1227b joins a very small set of transiting planets observed within the first contraction phase, offering a rare direct view of atmosphere loss during the earliest stages of planetary evolution.
  • A helium transit observation during the 27-day orbit could give an independent, direct measurement of the escape rate and test the energy-limited assumption.
  • The transit timing variations already reported hint at additional planets in the system; those planets, if confirmed, would alter the irradiation and dynamical context and could help weigh TOI 1227b.
  • Because the paper's mass-loss rates scale only weakly with the 0.1 dex X-ray uncertainty, the largest unknowns are the unmeasured EUV flux and the escape efficiency, so future broad-band XUV spectra of the host star would tighten the prediction more than additional X-ray imaging.
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 reports a new Chandra/HRC-I detection of the mid-M dwarf TOI 1227 and new WiFeS optical spectroscopy, then combines these with Gaia astrometry, color-magnitude diagrams, SED fitting, and lithium/H-alpha diagnostics to reassess the age of the star. The authors conclude that TOI 1227 is 5–12 Myr old, with a preferred age of ~8 Myr, younger than the previous 11 Myr estimate. Using the measured X-ray luminosity as input to the PLATYPOS photoevaporation code, they estimate that the transiting planet TOI 1227b is losing mass at rates of roughly 10^12 g/s and predict that its future radius and mass evolution depend strongly on the assumed core mass (5 vs. 10 M_earth).

Significance. If the age and mass-loss claims hold, TOI 1227b would be one of the youngest transiting exoplanets yet found and one of the few systems observed during the early phase of atmospheric photoevaporation. The Chandra detection appears clean and provides a valuable X-ray luminosity anchor for a very young M-dwarf planet host, and the paper usefully catalogs the sparse population of <50 Myr transiting systems. The authors also state several limitations candidly, including the energy-limited model's tendency to overestimate mass loss and the lack of a measured planet mass. However, the central mass-loss numbers are not directly supported by the X-ray data as presented, because the energy-limited formula requires an XUV flux rather than an X-ray luminosity, and the conversion between the two is never stated. This is a fixable but load-bearing gap, so the paper needs major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Eq. (1), Table 2] The reported mass-loss rates are not justified by the measurements as written. Equation (1) depends on F_XUV, the stellar XUV flux at the planet, but the only high-energy measurement presented is L_X = (5.7±0.8)×10^28 erg/s, and no conversion from L_X to L_XUV or adopted ratio R_XUV/R_pl is given. With the natural assumption R_XUV = R_pl and F_XUV = L_X/(4πa^2) ≈ 2.6×10^3 erg cm^-2 s^-1 at a = 0.0886 AU, Eq. (1) for the 8 Myr, 5 M_earth row of Table 2 yields a mass-loss rate near 10^11 g/s, an order of magnitude below the tabulated 3.26×10^12 g/s. Reproducing the tabulated value requires F_XUV ≈ 10^5 erg cm^-2 s^-1, corresponding to an implied L_XUV ≈ 2×10^30 erg/s, roughly 35 times the measured L_X. Unless PLATYPOS's internal X-ray-to-XUV conversion and the adopted R_XUV/R_pl are stated explicitly and defended, the mass-loss rates in Table 2 and the phrase "robust constraints" in Section 6 are unsupported. Please report the conversion used, justify any large EUV-to-X-ray ratio or extended XUV radius, and recalculate the rates accordingly.
  2. [§4, Figs. 3–5] The preferred age of ~8 Myr is presented without a quantitative derivation. The text states that TOI 1227's positions and velocities are consistent with both the ECA and the LCC A0 subgroup, that its CMD position lies within the scatter of both populations, that the lithium EW is consistent with ECA membership but only provides an upper limit of ~24 Myr, and that the BT-Settl and SPOTS fits give ~6 Myr and ~12 Myr. This evidence supports a broad 5–12 Myr range but does not establish a statistically preferred value of 8 Myr. Either add formal membership probabilities and isochrone fit likelihoods, or present the result as a broad range without a preferred value and soften the conclusions accordingly, particularly the statement that the star is "likely younger" than the 11 Myr estimate of M+22.
  3. [§5.1, Figs. 7–8] The future-evolution predictions are conditional on a construction that forces agreement with the current observed radius. For each assumed core mass and starting age, the initial envelope mass fraction is chosen (via PLATYPOS) so that the model reproduces the measured radius R_p = 9.57 R_earth at the present epoch. The divergence between the 5 and 10 M_earth tracks therefore does not independently test the core-mass hypothesis; it shows the behavior of the chosen parameterization. The abstract's wording that the modeling "demonstrates" a sensitive dependence on core mass is too strong. Please state explicitly that the envelope fractions are fitted to the observed radius and reframe the evolution predictions as conditional scenarios rather than robust forecasts.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1 vs. Table 2, Figs. 7–8] The text in §5.1 reports three starting ages of 5, 8, and 10 Myr, but Table 2 and the figure legends use 5, 8, and 11 Myr; the manuscript should be internally consistent about which age grid was actually run.
  2. [§3.3 vs. §4] Section 3.3 states that the BT-Settl SED fit yields an age of 6 Myr, while Section 4 summarizes the same result as ~5 Myr; these values should be reconciled.
  3. [Table 3] The reference labels in the table header appear mismatched with the footnote list: TIDYE-1b is labeled (2) but the footnote assigns (2) to Mann et al. (2016), and K2-33b is labeled (1) while (1) is assigned to Barber et al. (2024a). Please correct the indexing.
  4. [Fig. 9] The caption says the grey hatched region is set by the measured X-ray luminosity and revised age range, but the plot legend labels only the dashed high-activity track; a reader cannot easily see the normalization constraint in the figure, so please make the hatched region and its relation to the track explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central mass-loss and age claims rest on independent measurements and external models, with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's two central claims are (1) TOI 1227 is ~5-12 Myr old, best ~8 Myr, and (2) TOI 1227b is losing mass at ~10^12 g/s. The age claim is derived from Gaia DR3 kinematics, Li 6708 EW, H-alpha, CMD position, and SED fits (BT-Settl vs SPOTS); the V+24 and DV+21 self-citations provide membership/kinematic context but are externally falsifiable Gaia-based analyses and are not fitted to TOI 1227's age. The mass-loss claim is a forward model output: Eq. (1) is the standard energy-limited formula, with inputs L_X from Chandra (Section 2.2), radius and orbital distance from M+22, core masses (5,10 M_Earth) from M+22's parameter space, and structure/evolution tables from Lopez & Fortney (2014) via PLATYPOS. The model is calibrated to the observed present-day radius, but the paper does not present that calibration as a prediction; the mass-loss rates and future radius/mass tracks are outputs, not fitted to the same observable. The self-citations are therefore not load-bearing reductions. The omission of an explicit L_X-to-F_XUV conversion in Eq. (1) is a support/correctness gap, not a circular step, because the X-ray luminosity is measured independently and the mass-loss rate is not an input to that measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The photoevaporation modeling depends on several unmeasured inputs: planet core mass, escape efficiency, and the XUV luminosity track. The X-ray luminosity and planet radius are measured, but the planet mass is not, so the mass-loss rate is conditional on these model choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Planet core mass = 5 and 10 Mearth
    Chosen as plausible from Mann et al. 2022's probability space; the planet mass is not measured, and the resulting envelope fractions are tuned to reproduce the observed radius.
  • Atmospheric escape efficiency epsilon = 0.1
    Assumed based on TOI 1227b's large radius; affects the mass-loss rate linearly.
  • Model starting age = 5, 8, and 11 Myr
    Varied across the age range from Section 4; results depend on age through the cooling models.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The energy-limited hydrodynamic escape model (Eq. 1) applies to TOI 1227b
    Invoked in Section 5.1 as the basis for the mass-loss rate; assumes a spherically symmetric, energy-limited outflow.
  • domain assumption TOI 1227's XUV luminosity follows the saturated high-activity track of Tu et al. 2015, normalized to the measured Lx, with M dwarfs staying X-ray saturated for roughly 1 Gyr
    Used in Section 5.1 and Figure 9; the XUV flux that drives evaporation is not measured, only inferred from X-rays.
  • domain assumption The planet is young, cooling, and dynamically shrinking per Lopez & Fortney 2014, with initial envelope fractions set by core mass and age to match the current radius
    Section 5.1 relies on these cooling models to determine the total planet mass that enters the escape model.
  • domain assumption TOI 1227 has Av = 0.21 and solar metallicity
    Adopted from Mann et al. 2022 in Sections 2.2 and 3.3; affects the X-ray flux conversion and SED fitting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Age and High Energy Environment of the Very Young Transiting Exoplanet TOI 1227b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64ZJRGZB

@misc{pith2026250604440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Age and High Energy Environment of the Very Young Transiting Exoplanet TOI 1227b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64ZJRGZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04440}
}
abstract

The mid-M star TOI~1227 hosts among the youngest known transiting exoplanets. We have conducted new X-ray imaging and optical spectroscopic observations of TOI 1227 aimed at ascertaining its age and the influence of its high-energy radiation on the exoplanet, TOI 1227b. We obtained a definitive X-ray detection of TOI 1227 with Chandra/HRC-I, and measured its Li and H$\alpha$ lines using ANU SSO 2.3 m telescope (WiFeS) spectroscopy. Through spatiokinematic, isochronal, and SED-based modeling, we have constrained the age of TOI 1227 as lying between 5 Myr and 12 Myr, with a best estimate of $\sim$8 Myr. In the context of this age, we model the evolution of the transiting exoplanet TOI 1227b, using the X-ray luminosity derived from Chandra HRC-I imaging. Our modeling suggests that TOI 1227b is currently undergoing rapid atmospheric mass loss at rates on the order of $\sim 10^{12}$ g s$^{-1}$. The modeling demonstrates that the exoplanet's predicted future evolution depends sensitively on assumptions for total and core planet mass, highlighting the importance of follow-up observations of the TOI 1227 star-exoplanet system to enable measurements of both planetary mass and mass-loss rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Chandra HRC-I image of TOI 1227. The red circle shows the 3” diameter aperture used for source X-ray flux measurement. Right: 2MASS J band image of TOI 1227, overlaid with the 3” diameter aperture centered on the X-ray source position in the Chandra/HRC-I X-ray image (again shown as a red circle). highlighted the significant overlap of the LCC and ECA in the region of the new candidates, supporting the idea th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: the spectrum of TOI 1227 compared to two reference M4V stars. Bottom left: section of the spectrum highlighting the 6562 ˚A Hα emission line. Bottom right: section of the spectrum highlighting the 6708 ˚A Li absorption line. Neither standard star shows a Li feature; GJ 54.1 shows weak Hα emission, while GJ 1005 shows Hα absorption. LCC A0 group based on its color-magnitude diagram position. 3.3. SED Model… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: the proper motion vectors on the RA and DEC position for members stars in the ECA and the LCC A0 subgroup, and TOI 1227. Right: tangential velocity values in RA and DEC for members stars in the ECA and the LCC A0 subgroup, and TOI 1227. With the benefit of our new optical spectroscopy (§ 2.3) and spatiokinematic analysis (§ 3.1), we can re￾consider the age of this very young transiting exoplanet system. As it … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Heliocentric positions for members stars in the ECA and the LCC A0 subgroup, and TOI 1227. Bottom: Heliocentric velocities for members stars in the ECA and the LCC A0 subgroup, and TOI 1227. chromospherically active M dwarfs (Zuckerman & Song 2004), Hα emission li…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color-magnitude diagram for stars in the ECA, LCC A0 subgroup, and TOI 1227’s position. Left: ECA members stars and a 5–8 Myr empirical isochrone from DV+21. TOI 1227 is shown to sit among low-mass members and along the isochrone. Right: LCC A0 member stars plotted wit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TOI 1227 spectral energy distribution overlaid with the best-fit (3100 K) BT-SETTL atmosphere model (black). Archival photometry from GAIA, 2MASS, and WISE (red points) are fit with synthetic photometry (blue points) created using the BT-SETTL model. The WISE W4 measur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PLATYPOS output for the mass evolution for two input core masses across three different starting ages. We have also analyzed its Gaia DR3 astrometric and color-magnitude data in the context of recent spatiokine￾matic analysis of stars in its vicinity that span the rang…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PLATYPOS output for the radius evolution for two input core masses across three different starting ages. The gray tracks show radius evolution assuming only thermal contraction and no mass loss; note that these tracks lie close to the 10 Earth mass core models. 6. SUMM…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: High activity track used for PLATYPOS models of the radius evolution of TOI 1227b (dashed line segments). The initial activity level (grey hatched region) is set by our measured present-day X-ray luminosity and revised age range for TOI 1227. Circles indicate the media…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    X-ray flares on zero-age- and pre-main sequence stars in Taurus-Auriga-Perseus

    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...

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0002354 2016

  4. [4]

    M., Bonfils, X., Guillot, T., et al

    Almenara, J. M., Bonfils, X., Guillot, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348492

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348492 2024

  5. [5]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  6. [6]

    G., Mann, A

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3 2024

  7. [7]

    G., Thao, P

    Barber, M. G., Thao, P. C., Mann, A. W., et al. 2024 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad77d9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad77d9 2024

  8. [8]

    2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 492, 277, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascués, D., et al. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 492, 277, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810395 2008

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    J., Kenworthy, M

    Bohn, A. J., Kenworthy, M. A., Ginski, C., et al. 2020 a , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba27e

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2020 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 431, 10.1093/mnras/stz3462

    ---. 2020 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 431, 10.1093/mnras/stz3462

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Trümper, J., et al

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Trümper, J., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Liu, M

    Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Shkolnik, E. L., & Tamura, M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 7, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/7

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Price-Whelan, A

    Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Price-Whelan, A

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

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    L., White, R

    Davison, C. L., White, R. J., Henry, T. J., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 149, 106, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/106

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Wilson, E

    Dickson-Vandervelde, D. A., Wilson, E. C., & Kastner, J. H. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 87, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd0fd

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Broos, P., Iii, J

    Feigelson, E. D., Broos, P., Iii, J. A. G., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 258, 10.1086/340936

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 1960, 10.1093/mnras/stx3246

    Fouqué, P., Moutou, C., Malo, L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 1960, 10.1093/mnras/stx3246

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 109, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 063001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad4e6a

    Gagné, J. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 063001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad4e6a

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Mamajek, E

    Gagné, J., Faherty, J. K., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 228, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/18

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    2023 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    ---. 2023 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    V., Feigelson, E

    Getman, K. V., Feigelson, E. D., & Garmire, G. P. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd690

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    C., & Henning, T

    Goldman, B., Röser, S., Schilbach, E., Moór, A. C., & Henning, T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae64c

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 2050, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    Güver, T., & Özel, F. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 2050, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    2009

  19. [28]

    J., Walkowicz, L

    Henry, T. J., Walkowicz, L. M., Barto, T. C., & Golimowski, D. A. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 123, 2002, 10.1086/339315

    2002 doi

  20. [29]

    Ilin, E., Poppenhäger, K., Chebly, J., Ilić, N., & Alvarado-Gómez, J. D. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 3395, 10.1093/mnras/stad3398

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    J., White, R

    Jao, W.-C., Henry, T. J., White, R. J., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 63, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace2bb

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Verbunt, F., & Hasinger, G

    Johnston, H. M., Verbunt, F., & Hasinger, G. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 309, 116. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...309..116J

    1996

  23. [32]

    P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    P., & Güdel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., & Güdel, M. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 578, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425283

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    H., Principe, D

    Kastner, J. H., Principe, D. A., Punzi, K., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 3, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/3

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 625, A118, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    Keppler, M., Teague, R., Bae, J., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 625, A118, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A178, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244916

    Kubyshkina, D., & Fossati, L. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A178, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244916

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    V., et al

    Kubyshkina, D., Fossati, L., Erkaev, N. V., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 866, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae586

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    D., Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., Fortney, J. J., & Miller, N. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 59, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/59

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A383, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451582

    Maggio, A., Pillitteri, I., Argiroffi, C., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A383, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451582

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    W., Newton, E

    Mann, A. W., Newton, E. R., Rizzuto, A. C., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 61, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/61

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    W., Wood, M

    Mann, A. W., Wood, M. L., Schmidt, S. P., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 156, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac511d

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5004

    Melo, E., Souto, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5004

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    J., Lawson, W

    Murphy, S. J., Lawson, W. A., & Bessell, M. S. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 1325, 10.1093/mnras/stt1375

    2013 doi

  37. [46]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 10.33232/001c.123873

    Nagananda, N., Vican, L., Zuckerman, B., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 10.33232/001c.123873

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    R., Mann, A

    Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., Tofflemire, B. M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 880, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2988

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    E., & Jackson, A

    Owen, J. E., & Jackson, A. P. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2931, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21481.x

    2012

  40. [49]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A198, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244268

    Pillitteri, I., Argiroffi, C., Maggio, A., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A198, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244268

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 4560, 10.1093/mnras/staa1462

    Poppenhaeger, K., Ketzer, L., & Mallonn, M. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 4560, 10.1093/mnras/staa1462

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A175, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451312

    Posch, L., Alves, J., Miret-Roig, N., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A175, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451312

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    L., Schneider, A

    Richey-Yowell, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd2dc

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    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

  45. [54]

    C., Newton, E

    Rizzuto, A. C., Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 33, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b7

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  47. [56]

    A., & Barret, D

    Servillat, M., Webb, N. A., & Barret, D. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 480, 397, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078327

    2008 doi

  48. [57]

    L., Allers, K

    Shkolnik, E. L., Allers, K. N., Kraus, A. L., Liu, M. C., & Flagg, L. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 69, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa77fa

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    L., & Barman, T

    Shkolnik, E. L., & Barman, T. S. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 64, 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/64

    2014 doi

  50. [59]

    K., Brickhouse, N

    Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, L91, 10.1086/322992

    2001 doi

  51. [60]

    Somers, G., Cao, L., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab722e

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 200, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc336

    Spinelli, R., Gallo, E., Haardt, F., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 200, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc336

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    Stelzer, B., Damasso, M., Scholz, A., & Matt, S. P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 1844, 10.1093/mnras/stw1936

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 2063, 10.1093/mnras/stt225

    Stelzer, B., Marino, A., Micela, G., López-Santiago, J., & Liefke, C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 2063, 10.1093/mnras/stt225

    2013 doi

  55. [64]

    M., Shan, Y., Caballero, J

    Tabernero, H. M., Shan, Y., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A223, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450054

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A380, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450761

    Teinturier, L., Ducrot, E., & Charnay, B. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A380, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450761

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    P., Güdel, M., & Lammer, H

    Tu, L., Johnstone, C. P., Güdel, M., & Lammer, H. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526146

    2015 doi

  58. [67]

    H., Dickson-Vandervelde, D

    Varga, A., Kastner, J. H., Dickson-Vandervelde, D. A., & Binks, A. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 251, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7deb

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 291, 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    Zhu, W., & Dong, S. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 291, 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    2021 doi

  60. [69]

    2004, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 42, 685, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134111

    Zuckerman, B., & Song, I. 2004, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 42, 685, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134111

    2004

Pith tools

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