Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Multi-band, Multi-epoch Photometry of the Spot-crossing System TOI-3884: Refined System Geometry and Spot Properties

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Multi-epoch, multi-band transit photometry of TOI-3884 measures the host star's 11.043-day rotation and shows its persistent spot sits about 13 degrees from the stellar pole, yielding stellar inclination $i_\star = 139.9$ deg and…

desk verdict Solid new rotation period and off-pole spot evidence for TOI-3884, with geometry that is plausible but model-limited. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06445 v2 pith:57EY3AEW submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Mayuko Mori , Akihiko Fukui , Teruyuki Hirano , Norio Narita , John H. Livingston , Khalid Barkaoui , Karen A. Collins , Jerome P. de Leon
show 5 more authors
Kai Ikuta Yugo Kawai Richard P. Schwarz Avi Shporer Gregor Srdoc
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords StellarrotationExoplanetsystemsMdwarfstarsPlanethostingStarspotsMulti-colorphotometryTransitPolarorbit
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

TOI-3884 is a rare exoplanet system where every transit of a super-Neptune shows a spot-crossing bump, because the planet crosses a large spot near the pole of an M dwarf viewed almost pole-on. This paper uses three epochs of simultaneous four-band transit photometry (MuSCAT3/4) plus ground-based photometric monitoring to show that the spot is not exactly on the pole and that the star rotates with a period of 11.043 days. With the rotation period as a prior, the paper fits all twelve transit light curves with a single circular spot that rotates between transits, deriving a stellar inclination of $i_\star = 139.9^{+1.2}_{-2.0}$ deg, a projected obliquity of $\lambda = 41.0^{+3.7}_{-9.0}$ deg, and a spot latitude of about $-77$ deg. These values resolve the earlier disagreement between two previous studies, and they place TOI-3884b among the few known planets on near-polar orbits around low-mass stars. The paper argues that this well-characterized spot geometry matters for interpreting the planet's transmission spectrum, because the unocculted spot contaminates transit depths in a wavelength-dependent way.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by the `fleck` spot-crossing transit model, which places a circular, disk-like spot on the stellar surface with a contrast (temperature), radius, latitude, and longitude, and recomputes the transit light curve as the spot rotates with the stellar period. Its key partner is the rotation period $P_\mathrm{rot} = 11.043^{+0.054}_{-0.053}$ days, measured two independent ways (a generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram and a Gaussian-process quasi-periodic fit) from the Sinistro r-band monitoring light curve. The rotation period is the thread that ties the three epochs together: the spot's phase between transits is set by $P_\mathrm{rot}$ and $i_\star$, so the time-variable spot-crossing bumps constrain $i_\star$ and the projected obliquity $\lambda$, breaking the degeneracy between competing geometric solutions that could not be distinguished before. The spot contrast in each of the four bands is computed from BT-Settl model spectra, so the simultaneous $griz$ photometry also pins down the spot temperature ($\Delta T = 200^{+11}_{-9}$ K).

What would settle it

Observe the next several transits continuously in at least two bands while simultaneously monitoring the star in r-band, and test whether the 11.043-day rotation model with the published spot latitude ($-76.8$ deg) and longitude ($262$ deg) predicts the exact phase and shape of each spot-crossing bump; a drift in the bump's crossing time beyond the rotation-period uncertainty, or a sharp low-flux minimum like the one seen in 2024–2025 that the single-spot model cannot reproduce, would refute the single fixed-circular-spot picture and the geometry derived from it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the persistent spot-crossing signal of TOI-3884b is produced by one large circular spot located at latitude $\theta_\mathrm{spot} = -76.8^{+2.5}_{-4.6}$ deg (about 13 degrees from the south pole), longitude $\phi_\mathrm{spot}=262^{+6}_{-14}$ deg, radius $0.425^{+0.018}_{-0.011}\,R_\star$, and temperature about 200 K cooler than the photosphere, whose longitude advances with the 11.043-day stellar rotation period. The time-variable shape of the spot-crossing bumps, combined with the rotation period measured from the ~5% r-band modulation, breaks the degeneracies that made earlier analyses disagree: it selects the solution with $i_\star = 139.9^{+1.2}_{-2.0}$ deg and $\lambda = 41.0^{+3.7}_{-9.0}$ deg, corresponding to a true obliquity of $\Psi = 61.9^{+2.3}_{-5.6}$ deg. The fit also revises the impact parameter from near zero to $b=0.402^{+0.018}_{-0.019}$, using the spot geometry to break the usual degeneracy between $a/R_\star$ and $b$. The same model explains why TESS light curves from an earlier epoch showed no rotational modulation: re-analysis of the TESS transits yields a spot at latitude about $-88$ deg, nearly exactly on the pole, implying the spot configuration has evolved over several years.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that, over the roughly 40 days spanned by the three transits, the stellar surface is described by one circular spot whose radius, temperature, and latitude/longitude do not change and only its rotation phase advances; if the spot is non-circular, evolves, or coexists with other spots, the derived $i_\star$, $\lambda$, and spot properties could shift, a simplification the paper itself cautions can introduce systematic bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TOI-3884b is placed among the small population of Neptune-sized planets with close-to-polar orbits around M dwarfs, with true obliquity $\Psi = 61.9^{+2.3}_{-5.6}$ deg, giving dynamical models a test case.
  • The spot temperature of $2952\pm36$ K (with $\Delta T = 200^{+11}_{-9}$ K) provides a precise point on the empirical spot-temperature relation for M dwarfs.
  • The measured chromaticity, with the transit depth about 7% deeper in $g$ than in $z$, is consistent with unocculted-spot contamination at a spot covering fraction of about 20%, so transmission spectra of TOI-3884b must be modeled with the spot configuration taken into account.
  • The derived $v\sin i_\star \approx 0.89$ km/s indicates that previously reported values of 1.1 and 3.6 km/s are near the measurement limit and should be treated as upper limits.
  • The TESS-epoch spot appears nearly exactly polar, whereas the 2024–2025 spot is offset by about 13 degrees, indicating spot configuration changes on timescales of several years.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the MuSCAT transit light curves are re-fit with two spots or a spot that evolves between epochs, the recovered $i_\star$ and $\lambda$ could shift; such a test would reveal whether the single-spot simplification is the source of the claimed reconciliation.
  • Beyond the paper: the model's failure to reproduce the sharp minimum in the monitoring light curve hints at an additional lower-latitude spot; a season of simultaneous transits and monitoring would reveal whether such a spot also alters the spot-crossing bumps and biases the obliquity.
  • Beyond the paper: if polar spots are common on slowly rotating field M dwarfs, as this paper hints, then transmission spectra of aligned-orbit planets around these stars are systematically contaminated by unocculted near-polar spots, and only contemporaneous multi-band monitoring can calibrate the effect.
  • Beyond the paper: the 1.74-day phase offset between the transit-epoch spot model and the later monitoring light curve could be spot migration rather than period uncertainty; tracking the offset over several seasons would test for longitude drift from differential rotation.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents new multi-band, multi-epoch transit photometry of TOI-3884b from MuSCAT3/4 and ground-based r-band monitoring from LCO/Sinistro. The authors report a stellar rotation period of 11.043 +0.054/-0.053 days, detected independently with GLS and Gaussian-process modeling, and use it to interpret the time-variable spot-crossing signals seen in three transits. Modeling the spot as a single circular, time-invariant feature with only its longitude evolving, they derive a spot latitude of -76.8 deg, a spot radius of 0.425 R_star, a spot-photosphere temperature difference of 200 K, and a refined system geometry with i_star = 139.9 deg and lambda = 41.0 deg. They also reanalyze TESS and ZTF data to argue that the spot configuration changed on multi-year timescales and that the spot lay closer to the pole during the TESS epoch. The paper reconciles several previously discrepant parameters, including the projected rotation velocity and the impact parameter, and discusses implications for transmission spectroscopy and M-dwarf magnetic activity.

Significance. If the derived geometry is correct, TOI-3884 is an unusually valuable system: a nearly polar-orbit super-Neptune transiting a mid-M dwarf with a large spot offset from the stellar pole. The paper provides the first robust rotation-period measurement for this star, a multi-band spot temperature constraint, and an updated obliquity that reconciles the contradictory A22 and L23 results. The work is also relevant to upcoming JWST transmission spectroscopy by quantifying the transit light source effect for this target. Strengths include the use of two independent period-search methods, simultaneous four-band transit photometry, and transparent public release of the custom spocon code and data products. However, the central geometric claims rest on a deliberately simplified single-spot model, and the manuscript itself acknowledges that this model may introduce systematic biases and that more complex spot configurations cannot be uniquely recovered. The significance is therefore real but conditional on the robustness of the spot model to plausible violations of its assumptions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Table 3] The quoted spot latitude, stellar inclination, and projected obliquity are derived entirely from the evolution of a single circular spot whose radius, temperature, and latitude are held fixed over the ~40-day span between transits. This is the load-bearing assumption of the paper. The authors note that MCMC chains failed to converge when multiple spots were introduced, but non-convergence of a multi-spot model does not by itself validate the single-spot solution. I request a robustness demonstration: for example, fit each of the three transits independently with the spot longitude (and ideally radius and latitude) free, check whether the recovered phases are consistent with a single rotating spot, and run injection-recovery tests with a second spot to quantify how easily the single-spot model could absorb a two-spot configuration. Without such a test, the formal 1-sigma intervals on i_star, lambda, and theta_spot are conditional on the single-spot model and likely underestimate the true model uncertainty.
  2. [Sec. 5.5 and Fig. 7] The forward-modeled rotational modulation requires a 1.74-day phase offset to align with the Sinistro light curve. At P_rot = 11.04 d this is roughly 57 degrees of spot longitude, which is comparable to or larger than the ~1.2-day (1-sigma) uncertainty propagated from the period uncertainty over the 254-day gap. The same figure also shows that the model fails to reproduce the lowest observed flux levels, which the authors attribute to additional spots or more complex spot geometries. This indicates that the spot configuration during the monitoring epoch is not identical to the configuration assumed for the transit epochs, and it weakens the assumption of a time-invariant single spot over the full interval. I ask the authors to quantify how much the derived geometry shifts if spot parameters are allowed to evolve between the three transits, or if the forward-model comparison is restricted to the transit epochs rather than extrapolated across the 254-day gap.
  3. [Appendix C and Table 5] The TESS reanalysis is presented as supporting the idea that the spot was closer to the pole during the TESS epoch, but this analysis is not independent of the MuSCAT-derived geometry. The priors in Table 5 are taken directly from the MuSCAT posterior, including i_star ~ N(139.9, 2.0), lambda ~ N(41.0, 9.0), rho_star, T_phot, and P_rot. The derived TESS spot latitude of -88.1 deg and lambda of 26.2 deg are therefore conditioned on the MuSCAT solution. I recommend rerunning the TESS fit with broad, physically motivated priors, or with priors taken only from A22 and L23, and reporting how the recovered spot latitude changes. The conclusion about a more polar spot during the TESS epoch should be reframed as conditional on the MuSCAT geometry unless the fit is shown to be robust to prior choice.
  4. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 5.6] The posterior from the transit fit is multimodal, and the authors impose U(90, 180) on i_star and U(10.8, 11.3) on P_rot after inspecting the MCMC output. This post-hoc selection may be physically justified, because the -40 deg and 140 deg stellar-inclination solutions correspond to the same axis with the opposite pole visible, and because the lower-likelihood period solutions are clearly disfavored. However, the manuscript should state this equivalence explicitly and should show the marginalized posteriors before and after the prior restriction, so the reader can assess how much of the quoted central values and uncertainties comes from the prior choice. At present, Table 3 reports only the restricted solution, which makes the influence of the post-hoc prior difficult to evaluate.
  5. [Sec. 5.6 and Table 4] The revised transit geometry (b = 0.402 ± 0.019, rho_star = 11.85 ± 0.30) differs substantially from both A22 and L23, which reported near-zero impact parameters and rho_star of 14.3 ± 1.1 and 15.26 ± 2.04. The authors attribute this to the geometric leverage of the spot-crossing features, while also noting that the spot-model simplicity could introduce systematic bias. Because b and a/R_star are strongly degenerate in ordinary transit fitting, and because the spot model is simplified, I request a control analysis: for example, fit the same light curves with the spot-crossing regions masked, or with a different spot model (e.g., two spots or a non-circular spot), and report whether b and rho_star remain consistent. This would clarify whether the geometric revision is a robust consequence of the data or a consequence of the assumed spot parameterization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'poler orbit' in place of 'polar orbit'; please correct it.
  2. [Sec. 5.3] The phrase 'photsphere-spot temperature difference' is missing a letter; it should read 'photosphere-spot temperature difference.'
  3. [Table 3] The table would be clearer if the 'conditioning priors' (rho_star and T_14) were separated explicitly from the sampled parameters; as written, a reader may mistake them for directly fitted quantities.
  4. [Appendix A and Fig. 9] The caption notes that the apparent overlap in the spot-latitude contours is due to smoothing and not actual mixing; this is an important clarification, but the figure would be more informative if the two groups were shown without over-smoothing or with the raw density contours.
  5. [Sec. 5.5] The sentence explaining the 1.74-day offset says it 'can also be explained by error propagation'; given the calculation in the text, it would be clearer to state the propagated uncertainty explicitly (roughly 1.2 days at 1 sigma) so the reader can see that the offset is approximately 1.4 sigma rather than being negligible.
  6. [Table 4 and Sec. 6] The manuscript should check for consistency between the statement in Sec. 5.6 that the absolute stellar inclination is 'approximately 40 deg' and the tabulated i_star of 139.9 deg; the relationship between these two conventions is explained, but it is easy for a reader to misread as a contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rotation period comes from independent monitoring, the transit fit is data-driven, and the cross-checks are genuine predictions rather than re-statements of inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The stellar rotation period is measured from Sinistro r-band monitoring using GLS (11.03 ± 0.03 d) and GP (11.05 +0.05/−0.04 d) in Section 3, independently of the transit data. Section 4 then applies this only as a Gaussian prior on P_rot within the transit fit; crucially, the paper reports that the 11.04-day solution was already favored by log-probability by >30 and >50 relative to the 11.25-day and 11.5-day solutions before the prior was imposed, so the prior does not force the result. The spot properties (radius, temperature, latitude, longitude) and the geometry (i_star, lambda) are free parameters fitted directly to the MuSCAT transit light curves with fleck; none is defined in terms of the claimed outputs. The TESS reanalysis (Appendix C) does take Gaussian priors from the MuSCAT fit for i_star, lambda, and P_rot, so its agreement on those parameters is partly prior-driven; however, the paper only uses TESS to infer the spot latitude at that epoch, which is set by a uniform prior and is data-driven. The forward-model comparison of rotational modulation (Section 5.5) and the TLS chromaticity calculation (Section 5.4) are consistency checks of the fitted model against independent observable quantities, not re-statements of the inputs. The acknowledged limitations (single circular spot, MCMC non-convergence with multiple spots, 1.74-day phase offset, possible systematic biases in Section 5.6) are model-uncertainty caveats rather than instances of a claim being equivalent to its inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on external stellar parameters from L23, on spectral synthesis models (BT-Settl), and on a deliberately simple spot model whose limitations the authors acknowledge. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Spot radius = 0.425 +0.018/-0.011 R_star
    Fitted to the spot-crossing transit light curves.
  • Spot latitude = -76.8 +2.5/-4.6 deg
    Fitted; offset from the pole is a central result.
  • Spot longitude = 262 +6/-14 deg
    Fitted to the three-epoch spot-crossing phases.
  • Spot temperature difference (deltaT) = 200 +11/-9 K
    Fitted from simultaneous multi-band spot contrasts.
  • Photosphere temperature (T_phot) = 3151 +45/-42 K
    Fitted with a Gaussian prior from L23.
  • Stellar inclination (i_star) = 139.9 +1.2/-2.0 deg
    Fitted with a uniform prior over 90-180 deg after discarding the lower-probability branch.
  • Projected obliquity (lambda) = 41.0 +3.7/-9.0 deg
    Fitted from the spot-crossing geometry.
  • Rotation period (P_rot) = 11.043 +0.054/-0.053 days
    Fitted in the transit model with a Gaussian prior from the independent monitoring detection.
  • Stellar density (rho_star) = 11.85 +0.30/-0.29 g/cm3
    Fitted with a Gaussian prior from L23; posterior is about 2 sigma below the prior mean.
  • GP hyperparameters (celerite) = alpha=7.5, logB=-7.3, logC=-5.0, logL=-7.6
    Fitted to the monitoring light curve to measure the rotation period (Table 2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The stellar flux is modeled with BT-Settl spectra with log g = 5 and [Fe/H] = 0 for computing spot contrast.
    Section 4, equation (2); spot contrast depends on adopted spectral models.
  • ad hoc to paper The spot is a single circular disk on a spherical star, with uniform contrast and time-invariant properties over the ~40-day transit span.
    Section 4; MCMC failed to converge with multiple spots; assumptions may bias geometry (Section 5.6).
  • domain assumption Orbital eccentricity is zero.
    Section 4; the authors tested a free eccentricity and found e consistent with zero, so fixing e=0 is justified.
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters (R*, M*, T_eff, [Fe/H]) and their uncertainties from L23 are adopted as priors.
    Table 1 and Section 4; these external measurements feed into the transit fit.
  • domain assumption The empirical convective turnover timescale relation (Wright et al. 2018) is used to estimate the Rossby number.
    Section 5.2; used to argue the star is in the rotation-dominated regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-band, Multi-epoch Photometry of the Spot-crossing System TOI-3884: Refined System Geometry and Spot Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57EY3AEW

@misc{pith2026250606445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-band, Multi-epoch Photometry of the Spot-crossing System TOI-3884: Refined System Geometry and Spot Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57EY3AEW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06445}
}
abstract

Spot-crossing transits offer a unique opportunity to probe spot properties such as temperature, size, and surface distribution. TOI-3884 is a rare system in which spot-crossing features are persistently observed during every transit. This is due to its unusual configuration: a nearly poler orbit super-Neptune transits a pole-on mid-M dwarf, repeatedly crossing a polar spot. However, previous studies have reported discrepant values in key system parameters, such as stellar inclination and obliquity. To address this, we conducted multi-band, multi-epoch transit observations of TOI-3884b using the MuSCAT instrument series, along with photometric monitoring with the LCO 1m telescopes/Sinistro. We detected time-dependent variations in the spot-crossing signals, indicating that the spot is not exactly on the pole. From the monitoring data, we measured a stellar rotation period of $11.043~_{-0.053}^{+0.054}$ days with a modulation amplitude of $\sim$5% in the r-band, consistent with the time variability in the spot-crossing features. Our analysis reconciles previous discrepancies and improves the constraints on the parameters of the system geometry ($i_\star = 139.9~^{+1.2}_{-2.0}$ deg and $\lambda =41.0~^{+3.7}_{-9.0}$ deg) and those of the spot properties (spot radius of $0.425~_{-0.011}^{+0.018}~R_\star$ and spot-photosphere temperature difference of $200~_{-9}^{+11}$ K). These results provide a critical context for interpreting upcoming transmission spectroscopy of TOI-3884b, as well as yielding new insights into the magnetic activity and spin-orbit geometry of M dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06445 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Monitoring light curve of TOI-3884 obtained with Sinistro. The horizontal axis indicates the Modified Julian Date (MJD). Gray points represent the r-band photometric measurements, green points show the binned light curve in 0.5-day inter￾vals, and red crosses mark the data points that were removed as outliers. The yellow points indicate the i-band measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. left. GLS periodogram of the monitoring light curve observed in Sinistro r-band. A strong peak is detected at 11.03 ± 0.03 days. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the false alarm probability (FAP) corresponding to the peak height. right. GP models (blue lines), generated using 100 randomly selected parameter sets from the converged emcee samples, overlaid on the observed light curve (black points). The error bars… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed transit light curves of TOI-3884b (top to bottom: three transits observed with MuSCAT3 or MuSCAT4; left to right: g-, r-, i-, and z-band) and the corresponding best-fit models (black lines). The error bars in the datapoints are scaled to make reduced χ 2 values equal to 1. To the right of each light curve, the spot distribution on the stellar surface at the corresponding epoch is shown, as modeled with flec… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SAP light curves of TOI-3884 from TESS Sec￾tors 46 and 49, overlaid with the forward model (orange lines) of the rotational modulation generated using the best– fit parameters from the transit fitting with MuSCAT3/4 data. The discrepancy between the model and the TESS …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Derived transit depth of TOI-3884 in each band (g, r, i, and z-band from left to right). The dashed line indicates the expected chromatic variation in transit depth due to the TLS effect, assuming a true transit depth of 3.4% and a spot covering fraction of 20%. (A22, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The rotational modulation light curve of TOI-3884 observed with Sinistro, overlaid with the model light curve generated using the best-fit parameters from spot-crossing analyses. The blue dashed line shows the forward model without any adjustment, while the red solid l…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of measured stellar obliquities as a function of stellar effective temperature Teff . Data for systems other than TOI-3884b are taken from TEPCat (J. Southworth 2011). TOI-3884b is highlighted in red. Sys￾tems with similar Teff and obliquity to TOI-3884b, …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot showing the posterior distributions of the fitted parameters from the transit analysis. The plot includes a subset of the posteriors, omitting the 12 additional parameters (k, q1, q2 for each band) that were also sampled. Blue and orange contours represent …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the two best-fit models from group 1 (blue) and group 2 (orange). (a) Model light curves for each group, overlaid on the same observed data as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Light curves of TOI-3884 observed with ZTF in the g-band (blue, upper figure) and r-band (green, lower figure). The gray dashed lines indicate the boundaries between different observing seasons (Year 0 to Year 6). The orange-shaded regions mark the periods of TESS obs…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: GLS periodograms of TOI-3884’s ZTF light curves for each band and each year. The upper panels (blue) correspond to the g-band, while the lower panels (green) correspond to the r-band. The black horizontal dashed lines indicate the FAP = 1% threshold. The red vertical …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Phase-folded ZTF light curves of TOI-3884 with a period of 11.04 days, for each band and each year. The panel arrangement follows the same order as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Light curves of the eight transits observed by TESS, overlaid with the best-fit transit models. The right panel shows the corresponding spot configuration on the stellar surface at the time of the TESS observations, as derived from the best-fit parameters. Since the s…

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. Spot-Crossing Variations Confirm a Misaligned Orbit for a Planet Transiting an M Dwarf

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Photometry and transit-shape modeling of TOI-3884 reveal an 11-day stellar rotation period and a polar starspot, confirming a misaligned orbit (true obliquity about 77 degrees) for the hot Neptune TOI-3884 b.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H., Marcussen, M

    Albrecht, S. H., Marcussen, M. L., Winn, J. N., Dawson, R. I., & Knudstrup, E. 2021, ApJL, 916, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03 2021

  2. [2]

    2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Allard, F. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 299, Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, ed. M. Booth, B. C. Matthews, & J. R. Graham, 271–272, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313008545

    doi:10.1017/s1743921313008545 2014

  3. [3]

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

    Almenara, J. M., Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244791

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244791 2022

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2109 21 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Rajpaul, V. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2109 21 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2109 2018

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  6. [6]

    Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2005-8

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2005-8 2005

  7. [7]

    R., Allart, R., et al

    Bourrier, V., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Allart, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142559

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142559 2022

  8. [8]

    2021,, 1.3.0, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5796924

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021,, 1.3.0, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5796924

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.5796924 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031, doi: 10.1086/673168

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V. 2017, AJ, 153, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    P., et al

    Czesla, S., Schr¨ oter, S., Schneider, C. P., et al. 2019, http://ascl.net/1906.010

    2019

  4. [12]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hebb, L., & Hawley, S. L. 2015, ApJ, 806, 212, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/212

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Winn, J

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

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

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

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2009, A&A, 508, 1313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913327

    Frasca, A., Covino, E., Spezzi, L., et al. 2009, A&A, 508, 1313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913327

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    J., et al

    Fukui, A., Narita, N., Tristram, P. J., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 287, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.287 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A...

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    J., et al

    Gaidos, E., Hirano, T., Wilson, D. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, L119, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa136

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    S., & Atri, D

    Herbst, K., Papaioannou, A., Airapetian, V. S., & Atri, D. 2021, ApJ, 907, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc04

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae998

    Hirano, T., Gaidos, E., Harakawa, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae998

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

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

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd36

    Ikuta, K., Namekata, K., Notsu, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd36

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Kipping, D. M. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2487, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22124.x

    2012

  22. [30]

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

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87 – 90

    2016

  24. [32]

    2021, A&A Rv, 29, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    Kochukhov, O. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accc2f Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1812.013

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Millholland, S

    Louden, E. M., & Millholland, S. C. 2024, ApJ, 974, 304, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74ff

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

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

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

    2012

  29. [37]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461S, doi: 10.1117/12.926102

    doi

  30. [38]

    I., Crockett, C

    Mahmud, N. I., Crockett, C. J., Johns-Krull, C. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/123

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al

    McCully, C., Volgenau, N. H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V, ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen, 107070K, doi: 10.1117/12.2314340

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, AJ, 162, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac111d

    Miyakawa, K., Hirano, T., Fukui, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac111d

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae841

    Mori, M., Ikuta, K., Fukui, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae841

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2103, doi: 10.21105/joss.02103 22

    Morris, B. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2103, doi: 10.21105/joss.02103 22

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Morin, J., et al

    Moutou, C., H´ ebrard, E. M., Morin, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2306

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Narita, N., Fukui, A., Yamamuro, T., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J

    2020

  38. [46]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 114475K, doi: 10.1117/12.2559947

    doi

  39. [47]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857

    Parviainen, H., & Aigrain, S. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    Pepe, F., Cristiani, S., Rebolo, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Kratter, K

    Petrovich, C., Mu˜ noz, D. J., Kratter, K. M., & Malhotra, R. 2020, ApJL, 902, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb952

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 853, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    V., Espinoza, N., Berdyugina, S

    Rackham, B. V., Espinoza, N., Berdyugina, S. V., et al. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 148, doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzad009

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R., & Winn, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 743, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/61

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Hebb, L., Wisniewski, J

    Schutte, M. C., Hebb, L., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace59c

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, in TESS Science Conference III, 27, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12803734

    Shporer, A., Collins, K., Watkins, C., et al. 2024, in TESS Science Conference III, 27, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12803734

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

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

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

    2011

  49. [57]

    2020, AJ, 160, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb13a Stef` ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Petrovich, C., et al

    Stefansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Maney, M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb13a Stef` ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Petrovich, C., et al. 2022, ApJL, 931, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6e3c

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Strassmeier, K. G. 2009, A&A Rv, 17, 251, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0020-6 ter Braak, C. J. F., & Vrugt, J. A. 2008, Statistics and Computing, 18, 435–446, doi: 10.1007/s11222-008-9104-9

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    C., Mann, A

    Thao, P. C., Mann, A. W., Gao, P., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca07a The pandas development Team. 2024,, v2.2.3 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0369

    Thompson, A., Biagini, A., Cracchiolo, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0369

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    C., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Waalkes, W. C., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Newton, E. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bed

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Newton, E

    Wright, N. J., Newton, E. R., Williams, P. K. G., Drake, J. J., & Yadav, R. K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1670

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Gastine, T., Christensen, U

    Yadav, R. K., Gastine, T., Christensen, U. R., & Reiners, A. 2015, A&A, 573, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424589

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296 ZTF Team

    Zechmeister, M., & K¨ urster, M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296 ZTF Team. 2025, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA598

    2009 doi

Pith tools

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