pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.07737 · v1 · submitted 2025-07-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

TOI-1259Ab: A Warm Jupiter Orbiting a K-dwarf White-Dwarf Binary is on a Well-aligned Orbit

Hugo Veldhuis , Juan I. Espinoza-Retamal , Gudmundur Stefansson , Alexander P. Stephan , David V. Martin , David Bruijne , Suvrath Mahadevan , Joshua N. Winn
show 16 more authors
Cullen H. Blake Fei Dai Rachel B. Fernandes Evan Fitzmaurice Eric B. Ford Mark R. Giovinazzi Arvind F. Gupta Samuel Halverson Te Han Daniel Krolikowski Joe Ninan Cristobal Petrovich Paul Robertson Arpita Roy Christian Schwab Ryan Terrien
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 05:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords TOI-1259Abstellar obliquityRossiter-McLaughlin effectwarm Jupiterwhite-dwarf binaryLidov-Kozai mechanismplanetary migrationexoplanet dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The warm Jupiter TOI-1259Ab shows a true three-dimensional stellar obliquity of 24 degrees, indicating a well-aligned orbit around its K dwarf despite a distant white-dwarf companion.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper measures the obliquity of TOI-1259Ab, a gas giant orbiting a K dwarf with a white dwarf at roughly 1650 astronomical units. Observations of the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect during transit yield a sky-projected obliquity near zero, which combines with the star's rotation properties to give a three-dimensional obliquity of 24 degrees with an upper bound of 48 degrees at 95 percent . Because the planet's separation is large, tidal forces are not expected to have realigned the orbit over the system lifetime. The alignment therefore points either to formation in a quiescent state or to a specific low-obliquity outcome from Eccentric Lidov-Kozai cycles driven by the companion's earlier mass loss, which dynamical simulations assign a probability of about 14 percent.

Core claim

The authors detect the Rossiter-McLaughlin signal with the NEID spectrograph and report a sky-projected obliquity λ of 6 degrees with uncertainties of +21 and -22 degrees. Combining this angle with independent estimates of the K dwarf's radius, rotation period, and projected rotational velocity produces a true three-dimensional obliquity ψ of 24 degrees with uncertainties of +14 and -12 degrees, or ψ less than 48 degrees at 95 percent . The planet's orbital distance places it outside the region where tidal realignment operates efficiently, so the observed alignment is interpreted as either a relic of quiescent formation or the result of Eccentric Lidov-Kozai oscillations that the white-dwarf

What carries the argument

The Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, which records the time-varying distortion of stellar absorption lines caused by a transiting planet blocking portions of the rotating stellar disk and thereby constrains the angle between the orbital plane and the stellar equator.

If this is right

  • The planet's orbit is too wide for tidal forces to have realigned it within the system age.
  • TOI-1259Ab could have formed in a quiescent, already-aligned state.
  • Eccentric Lidov-Kozai oscillations triggered by the white-dwarf companion can produce a low-obliquity configuration with roughly 14 percent probability.
  • The white-dwarf companion's mass-loss kick did not drive the planet to a high-obliquity state in this system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Obliquity measurements in additional planets hosted by stars with white-dwarf companions could map how often the companion's evolution preserves or erases initial alignment.
  • The result supplies a concrete calibration point for models that predict the fraction of aligned versus misaligned planets after an AGB-phase kick.

Load-bearing premise

Tidal realignment can be ruled out because the planet's orbital distance makes the tidal timescale longer than the system age, using adopted values for the star's radius, rotation period, and tidal quality factor that are not measured directly in this data set.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the K dwarf's radius or rotation period that shortens the calculated tidal timescale below the system age, or a higher-precision obliquity determination that pushes the true three-dimensional angle above 48 degrees, would undermine the conclusion that the alignment is not due to tides.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07737 by Alexander P. Stephan, Arpita Roy, Arvind F. Gupta, Christian Schwab, Cristobal Petrovich, Cullen H. Blake, Daniel Krolikowski, David Bruijne, David V. Martin, Eric B. Ford, Evan Fitzmaurice, Fei Dai, Gudmundur Stefansson, Hugo Veldhuis, Joe Ninan, Joshua N. Winn, Juan I. Espinoza-Retamal, Mark R. Giovinazzi, Paul Robertson, Rachel B. Fernandes, Ryan Terrien, Samuel Halverson, Suvrath Mahadevan, Te Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spectroscopic observations of TOI-1259A. a) NEID observations (in green) of the RM effect produced during the transit of TOI-1259Ab along with the best fit model in red. Residuals are shown below. b) The phase folded observations from SOPHIE (in blue), as well as out-of-transit NEID data, of TOI-1259Ab, with best fit model in red and the residuals below. c) Residuals of all the RV data and best fit model, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phase folded, detrended TESS data (blue) from the 30 TESS sectors analyzed in this work, along with the best-fit transit model from the ironman joint-fit analysis (red line). Data points are shown without error bars, but we show the median error of 2100 ppm. The residuals are shown in the bottom panel. presented by El-Badry et al. (2021), Mugrauer & Michel (2021), and Mugrauer et al. (2022), and the direct… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sky-projected obliquity λ (upper panels) and 3-dimensional obliquity ψ (bottom panels) as a function of the stellar effective temperature for the sample of planets around apparently single stars (left panels) and known binary/triple systems (right panels). Hot Jupiters (defined as having 0.4 < Mp/MJ < 13 and a/R⋆ < 11) are shown in red, warm Jupiters (0.4 < Mp/MJ < 13 and a/R⋆ > 11) are shown in orange, ho… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 5.4. Formation Pathways With TOI-1259Ab being on a well-aligned or slightly misaligned orbit without the ability to tidally realign, there are many mech￾anisms that could explain its obliquity. Given that, it is difficult to decisively trace the system’s obliquity to primordial or post￾au au au au [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example evolution of a well-aligned gas giant in a binary system consistent with the TOI-1259 system. In this system, ELK oscillations are initially absent because of the low mutual inclination between the planetary and binary orbits (upper panels, blue line). The stellar obliquity (upper panels, magenta line) initially oscillates due to precession of the planetary orbit’s line of nodes around the total sy… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of stellar obliquities for hot/warm Jupiters from our ELK simulations (blue histogram), compared to the measured obliquity of TOI 1259Ab including 1σ uncertainties (grey shaded region). About 14% of the simulated close-in Jupiter systems have final obliquities con￾sistent with the measured obliquity (19% if any systems with obliquities lower than our measurement are included). away from the pl… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The evolution of one member of a stellar binary into a white dwarf has been proposed as a mechanism that triggers the formation of close-in gas giant planets. The star's asymmetric mass loss during the AGB stage gives it a "kick" that can initiate Eccentric Lidov-Kozai oscillations, potentially causing a planet around the secondary star to migrate inwards and perturbing the eccentricity and inclination of its orbit. Here we present a measurement of the stellar obliquity of TOI-1259Ab, a gas giant in a close-in orbit around a K star with a white dwarf companion about 1650 au away. By using the NEID spectrograph to detect the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect during the planetary transit, we find the sky-projected obliquity to be $\lambda = 6^{+21}_{-22}\,^\circ$. When combined with estimates of the stellar rotation period, radius, and projected rotation velocity, we find the true 3D obliquity to be $\psi = 24^{+14}_{-12}\,^\circ$ ($\psi < 48^\circ$ at 95% confidence), revealing that the orbit of TOI-1259Ab is well aligned with the star's equatorial plane. Because the planet's orbit is too wide for tidal realignment to be expected, TOI-1259Ab might have formed quiescently in this well-aligned configuration. Alternatively, as we show with dynamical simulations, Eccentric Lidov-Kozai oscillations triggered by the evolution of the binary companion are expected to lead to a low obliquity with a probability of about $\sim$14%.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a Rossiter-McLaughlin measurement of the sky-projected obliquity λ = 6^{+21}_{-22}° for the warm Jupiter TOI-1259Ab using NEID spectroscopy during transit. Combining this with estimates of stellar rotation period, radius, and v sin i, the authors derive a true 3D obliquity ψ = 24^{+14}_{-12}° (ψ < 48° at 95% confidence). They conclude that the orbit is well-aligned and, because the semi-major axis is too large for efficient tidal realignment, the alignment is either primordial or a low-probability (~14%) outcome of Eccentric Lidov-Kozai oscillations triggered by the distant white-dwarf companion, as demonstrated by N-body simulations.

Significance. If the obliquity measurement and the assessment that tidal realignment is precluded both hold, the result provides a direct test of planet formation and migration pathways in wide binaries containing a white dwarf. The combination of a standard RM analysis with independent dynamical simulations is a strength; the work adds to the small sample of obliquity measurements in such systems and offers a falsifiable prediction for the frequency of aligned outcomes under ELK.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2] §5.2 (Tidal realignment timescale): The central interpretive claim that the orbit is 'too wide for tidal realignment to be expected' rests on adopted (not measured) values of stellar radius, rotation period, and tidal quality factor Q'. Because the timescale scales as (a/R_*)^6 and linearly with Q', and because Q' for K dwarfs is typically uncertain over several orders of magnitude, even modest changes can bring τ_tide below the system age. A sensitivity analysis exploring the plausible range of these parameters and showing the fraction of parameter space where realignment remains ruled out is required to support the conclusion that the alignment must be primordial or ELK-induced.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 and §4.2 (3D obliquity conversion): The derivation of ψ from the measured λ incorporates stellar inclination and rotation-velocity estimates whose uncertainties and priors are not fully detailed in the text. Explicit statement of the priors used in the Monte Carlo sampling and a brief discussion of possible systematics in the adopted stellar parameters would strengthen the reported ψ = 24^{+14}_{-12}° and the 95% upper limit.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: A single sentence noting the assumptions underlying the 3D obliquity conversion and the adopted stellar parameters would improve clarity for readers.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (RM time series): Adding the 1σ model uncertainty envelope to the best-fit curve would aid visual assessment of the fit quality.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5.2] §5.2 (Tidal realignment timescale): The central interpretive claim that the orbit is 'too wide for tidal realignment to be expected' rests on adopted (not measured) values of stellar radius, rotation period, and tidal quality factor Q'. Because the timescale scales as (a/R_*)^6 and linearly with Q', and because Q' for K dwarfs is typically uncertain over several orders of magnitude, even modest changes can bring τ_tide below the system age. A sensitivity analysis exploring the plausible range of these parameters and showing the fraction of parameter space where realignment remains ruled out is required to support the conclusion that the alignment must be primordial or ELK-induced.

    Authors: We agree that the uncertainties in Q' (and to a lesser extent in R_* and P_rot) warrant a sensitivity analysis to robustly support our conclusion. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph and accompanying figure that varies Q' over 10^5–10^9, R_* within its 1σ uncertainty, and P_rot within its reported range. We will compute the fraction of this parameter volume for which the tidal realignment timescale exceeds the system age, thereby quantifying how often realignment can be ruled out. This addition will directly address the referee’s concern while preserving the original interpretive claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 and §4.2 (3D obliquity conversion): The derivation of ψ from the measured λ incorporates stellar inclination and rotation-velocity estimates whose uncertainties and priors are not fully detailed in the text. Explicit statement of the priors used in the Monte Carlo sampling and a brief discussion of possible systematics in the adopted stellar parameters would strengthen the reported ψ = 24^{+14}_{-12}° and the 95% upper limit.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater methodological transparency. In the revised text we will explicitly state the priors adopted for the Monte Carlo sampling of stellar inclination (uniform in cos i_star) and v sin i, together with the sources and uncertainties of the adopted stellar radius and rotation period. We will also include a short paragraph discussing possible systematics, including the impact of activity on the measured rotation period and the assumptions underlying the isochrone-derived stellar parameters. These clarifications will make the derivation of ψ fully reproducible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Obliquity from direct RM measurement; tidal and ELK arguments rely on independent adopted parameters and simulations

full rationale

The sky-projected obliquity λ is measured from the NEID Rossiter-McLaughlin time series during transit and converted to the true 3D obliquity ψ via the standard geometric relation involving the observed stellar radius, rotation period, and v sin i. This step uses only the present data set and textbook projection formulas. The statement that the orbit is too wide for tidal realignment compares a calculated tidal timescale (using adopted Q', R_star, and P_rot) against the system age; none of these inputs are fitted to or defined by the measured ψ. The ~14 % probability that ELK produces low obliquity is obtained from separate N-body simulations whose initial conditions and parameters are stated independently of the observed ψ. No equation reduces to a self-definition, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests solely on a self-citation chain. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard geometric conversion from projected to true obliquity and on the assumption that tidal realignment timescales are long; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • stellar rotation period
    Adopted value used to convert sky-projected obliquity to true 3-D obliquity.
  • stellar radius
    Adopted value required for the same conversion and for tidal-timescale estimates.
axioms (2)
  • standard math The Rossiter-McLaughlin effect during transit encodes the sky-projected spin-orbit angle.
    Standard technique invoked without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Tidal realignment is negligible when the orbital semi-major axis exceeds a few times the stellar radius for the system age.
    Used to argue that the observed alignment is primordial or ELK-induced rather than tidally damped.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5947 in / 1575 out tokens · 48444 ms · 2026-05-19T05:48:21.538554+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. POSEIDON I: The Dynamical Origins of Transiting Neptunes

    astro-ph.EP 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    New obliquity measurements for two Neptunes update the sample distribution to favor aligned systems plus a random component, resembling that of more massive planets and implying shared dynamical origins.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K., Bonsor, A., et al

    Aguilera-Gómez, C., Rogers, L. K., Bonsor, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A64

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 989

    Akeson, R., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 989

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    N., Johnson, J

    Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 18

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    H., Dawson, R

    Albrecht, S. H., Dawson, R. I., & Winn, J. N. 2022, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 082001

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    H., Marcussen, M

    Albrecht, S. H., Marcussen, M. L., Winn, J. N., Dawson, R. I., & Knudstrup, E. 2021, ApJ, 916, L1

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    2012, Nature, 491, 418 Article number, page 9 of 11 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Batygin, K. 2012, Nature, 491, 418 Article number, page 9 of 11 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    H., & Laughlin, G

    Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ, 829, 114 Beaugé, C. & Nesvorný, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Beck, J. G. & Giles, P. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, L153

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    C., Granados Contreras, A

    Boley, A. C., Granados Contreras, A. P., & Gladman, B. 2016, ApJ, 817, L17

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 810

    Brown, D., Triaud, A., Doyle, A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 810

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03299

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Dawson, R. I. & Johnson, J. A. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics, 56, 175

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    & Foreman-Mackey, D

    Dong, J. & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, AJ, 166, 112

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    & Mayor, M

    Duquennoy, A. & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485

    work page 1991

  15. [15]

    & Rix, H.-W

    El-Badry, K. & Rix, H.-W. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4884

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2269

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262

    Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

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

    Espinoza-Retamal, J. I., Brahm, R., Petrovich, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 958, L20

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    I., Jordán, A., Brahm, R., et al

    Espinoza-Retamal, J. I., Jordán, A., Brahm, R., et al. 2025 [arXiv:2412.08692]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    I., Stefánsson, G., Petrovich, C., et al

    Espinoza-Retamal, J. I., Stefánsson, G., Petrovich, C., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 185

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, L13

    Esposito, M., Covino, E., Mancini, L., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, L13

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    & Tremaine, S

    Fabrycky, D. & Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    V ., Rodríguez Martínez, R., et al

    Fitzmaurice, E., Martin, D. V ., Rodríguez Martínez, R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 636–641

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Angus, R., & Ambikasaran, S. 2017, AJ, 154, 220

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    M., Richer, H

    Fregeau, J. M., Richer, H. B., Rasio, F. A., & Hurley, J. R. 2009, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 695, L20

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 044504 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys, 674, A1

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    & Soter, S

    Goldreich, P. & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375

    work page 1966

  28. [28]

    & Tremaine, S

    Goldreich, P. & Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425

    work page 1980

  29. [29]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 52

    Hartman, J., Bakos, G., Sato, B., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 52

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 458

    Hirano, T., Suto, Y ., Taruya, A., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 458

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y .-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3383

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauli ff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9913, Soft- ware and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV , ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guz- man, 99133E

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    H., Winn, J

    Knudstrup, E., Albrecht, S. H., Winn, J. N., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 690, A379

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    T., & Farihi, J

    Koester, D., Gänsicke, B. T., & Farihi, J. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 566, A34

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551

    work page 1967

  37. [37]

    2020, The Astrophysical journal letters, 897, L8

    Kraus, S., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Kreplin, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical journal letters, 897, L8

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3532

    Lai, D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3532

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Lai, D., Foucart, F., & Lin, D. N. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 412, 2790

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V . d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    work page 1962

  43. [43]

    Lin, D. N. C. & Papaloizou, J. 1986, ApJ, 309, 846

    work page 1986

  44. [44]

    Louden, E. M. & Millholland, S. C. 2024, ApJ, 974, 304

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    V ., El-Badry, K., Hodži´c, V

    Martin, D. V ., El-Badry, K., Hodži´c, V . K., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 4132 Martínez, R. R., Gaudi, B. S., Rodriguez, J. E., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 111

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    & Winn, J

    Masuda, K. & Winn, J. N. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 81

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    C., et al

    Maxted, P., Anderson, D., Cameron, A. C., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 591, A55

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    & Queloz, D

    Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    1924, Astrophysical Journal, 60, 22-31 (1924), 60

    McLaughlin, D. 1924, Astrophysical Journal, 60, 22-31 (1924), 60

    work page 1924

  50. [50]

    & Mugrauer, M

    Michel, K.-U. & Mugrauer, M. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society, 527, 3183

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    & Michel, K.-U

    Mugrauer, M. & Michel, K.-U. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 840

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e20224017

    Mugrauer, M., Zander, J., & Michel, K.-U. 2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e20224017

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    M., & Rasio, F

    Naoz, S., Farr, W. M., & Rasio, F. A. 2012, ApJ, 754, L36

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    Ogilvie, G. I. & Lin, D. N. C. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1180

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    2008, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, V ol

    Perruchot, S., Kohler, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2008, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, V ol. 7014, SPIE, 235–246

    work page 2008

  56. [56]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 75

    Petrovich, C. 2015, ApJ, 805, 75

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    Rasio, F. A. & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954

    work page 1996

  58. [58]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 126

    Rice, M., Gerbig, K., & Vanderburg, A. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 126

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    2019, Journal of Astronomical

    Robertson, P., Anderson, T., Stefansson, G., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    1924, Astrophysical Journal, 60, 15-21 (1924), 60

    Rossiter, R. 1924, Astrophysical Journal, 60, 15-21 (1924), 60

    work page 1924

  62. [62]

    A., Dai, F., Halverson, S., et al

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Dai, F., Halverson, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 188

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 104

    Saidel, M., Vissapragada, S., Spake, J., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 104

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    2022, Phys

    Saumon, D., Blouin, S., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2022, Phys. Rep., 988, 1

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 4768

    Schlagenhauf, S., Mugrauer, M., Ginski, C., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 4768

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Schlaufman, K. C. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 602

    work page 2010

  67. [67]

    2016, in Ground-based and airborne instrumentation for astronomy vi, V ol

    Schwab, C., Rakich, A., Gong, Q., et al. 2016, in Ground-based and airborne instrumentation for astronomy vi, V ol. 9908, SPIE, 2220–2225

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    C., Winn, J

    Siegel, J. C., Winn, J. N., & Albrecht, S. H. 2023, ApJ, 950, L2

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A120

    Smith, A., Anderson, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A120

    work page 2013

  70. [70]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2166

    Southworth, J. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2166

    work page 2011

  71. [71]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 175 Stefànsson, G., Mahadevan, S., Maney, M., et al

    Stefansson, G., Hearty, F., Robertson, P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 175 Stefànsson, G., Mahadevan, S., Maney, M., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 160, 192 Stefànsson, G., Mahadevan, S., Petrovich, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 931, L15

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    P., Martin, D

    Stephan, A. P., Martin, D. V ., Naoz, S., Hughes, N. R., & Shariat, C. 2024, ApJ, 977, L11

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    Triaud, A. H. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 534, L6

    work page 2011

  75. [75]

    Valenti, J. A. & Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141

    work page 2005

  76. [76]

    A., Xu, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Rappaport, S. A., Xu, S., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 363

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10038

    Wang, X.-Y ., Rice, M., Wang, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10038

    work page arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Ward, W. R. 1997, Icarus, 126, 261

    work page 1997

  79. [79]

    N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2010, ApJ, 718, L145

    work page 2010

  80. [80]

    & Lithwick, Y

    Wu, Y . & Lithwick, Y . 2011, ApJ, 735, 109

    work page 2011

Showing first 80 references.