Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 116 references

TrES-1 b: A Case Study in Detecting Secular Evolution of Exoplanet Orbits

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TrES-1 b's orbit is changing now, and the trend is dynamical, not an observing artifact.

desk verdict A credible, self-aware case study of secular variations in TrES-1 b, but the 'dynamical origin' claim hinges on timing systematics that the abstract does not demonstrate. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15075 v1 pith:5PLIPZOL submitted 2025-08-20 astro-ph.EP

Simone R. Hagey , Billy Edwards , Angelos Tsiaras , Aaron C. Boley , Anastasia Kokori , Norio Narita , Pedro V. Sada , Filip Walter
show 38 more authors
Robert T. Zellem Napaporn A-thano Kevin B. Alton Miguel Ángel Álava Amat Paul Benni Emmanuel Besson Patrick Brandebourg Marc Bretton Mauro Caló Martin Valentine Crow Jean-Christophe Dalouzy Marc Deldem Tõnis Eenmäe Stephane Ferratfiat Pere Guerra Gary Vander Haagen Ken Hose Adrian Jones Yves Jongen Didier Laloum Stefano Lora Alessandro Marchini Jacques Michelet Matej Mihelčič Johannes Mieglitz Eric Miny David Molina Mario Morales Aimar Raphael Nicollerat Ivo Peretto Manfred Raetz François Regembal Robert Roth Lionel Rousselot Mark Salisbury Darryl Sergison Anaël Wünsche Jaroslav Trnka
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TrES-1bhotJupiterorbitaldecayapsidalprecessiontransittimingvariationseclipsetidaldissipationexoplanetevolution
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 argues that the hot Jupiter TrES-1 b does not have a static orbit. Combining transit, eclipse, and radial-velocity timings, the authors find a secular trend in the orbit that they say cannot be blamed on Earth's motion or light-travel delays. Joint modeling favors apsidal precession at roughly 4 degrees per year, but that fast precession would require an unseen close-in companion planet, which the data do not show. The alternative is slow orbital decay at about minus 7 milliseconds per year, plausibly powered by tides if the planet's spin axis is tilted more than 30 degrees. If the paper is right, TrES-1 b becomes a rare system where astronomers can watch a hot Jupiter's orbit evolve over decades, with two competing physical mechanisms that future observations can separate.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the timing residual analysis across transits, secondary eclipses, and radial velocities, compared against two rival physical models. Apsidal precession is the rotation of the orbit's long axis, which causes transit and eclipse timings to drift in opposite directions over a long cycle. Orbital decay is a monotonic, roughly quadratic drift in the timing residuals. The decay model is tied to tidal theory through a modified tidal quality factor and the planet's obliquity, which determines how efficiently tides remove orbital energy.

What would settle it

Continued eclipse and transit timing over the next few years would settle the mechanism: apsidal precession makes transit and eclipse timings drift in opposite directions on a roughly 90-year cycle, while orbital decay makes both drift quadratically at about -7 milliseconds per year. A separate test is to refit the existing data with per-telescope timing offsets as free parameters; if the secular trend disappears, it was an artifact of the heterogeneous data set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the transit, eclipse, and radial-velocity measurements of TrES-1 b, taken together, confirm orbital variations on secular timescales. The authors model and rule out apparent variations from systemic motion and light travel time effects, leaving a dynamical origin. A joint fit favors apsidal precession with a rate near 4 degrees per year, but no close-in companion massive enough to drive such fast precession is detected in the data, and the paper notes this tension. Instead, the authors show that an orbital decay model with a rate of -7.1 +1.5/-1.6 milliseconds per year is viable if tidal dissipation is enhanced by a planetary obliquity greater than 30 degree

Load-bearing premise

The secular trend is real only if the many telescopes and instruments that collected timings have no unmodeled per-instrument offsets or correlated systematic errors; separately, the orbital-decay explanation additionally requires that TrES-1 b's spin axis be tilted more than 30 degrees, which has not been measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If apsidal precession is real, an unseen close-in companion must exist near TrES-1 b, and continued radial-velocity or high-precision photometric monitoring should eventually reveal it.
  • If tidal decay is real, TrES-1 b is one of the few hot Jupiters observed to be spiraling inward on human timescales, shrinking its orbit by about 7 milliseconds per year.
  • The newly identified wide, eccentric companion candidate changes the known architecture of the system but is not the driver of the fast secular trend; confirming it will require more radial-velocity epochs.
  • The joint transit-eclipse-RV framework used here gives a practical template for measuring secular orbital evolution in other hot Jupiters with long timing baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the decay branch is confirmed, TrES-1 b's implied tidal dissipation would be much stronger than commonly assumed for gas giants, suggesting that high planetary obliquity significantly enhances tidal energy loss.
  • My inference: the fast apsidal-precession rate, if genuine, would put the unseen perturber close enough that it should also produce detectable transit-timing oscillations over the next decade; a clean null result would effectively rule out the precession model.
  • My inference: because the timing data come from many heterogeneous instruments and an observing network, a re-analysis that assigns each telescope its own free timing offset would directly test whether the secular trend survives instrumental systematics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes transit, eclipse, and radial velocity data of the hot Jupiter TrES-1 b and claims to confirm secular orbital variations. It rules out apparent variations from systemic motion and light travel time effects, concluding the changes are dynamical. Joint modeling favors apsidal precession at ~4 deg/yr, but this requires an unseen close-in companion; an alternative tidal orbital decay model at -7.1(+1.5/-1.6) ms/yr is proposed, requiring an unmeasured planetary obliquity eps_p > 30 deg. The paper also reports a wide-orbit RV companion candidate and presents a framework for studying secular variations.

Significance. If the empirical trend is robust, the paper identifies a rare hot-Jupiter system evolving on human timescales and provides a reusable modeling framework. The authors are transparent about the underdetermined physical interpretation: both the precession and decay branches require additional unseen or unmeasured ingredients. This honesty is a strength, as is the attempt to combine transit, eclipse, and RV data from many sources. However, the central claim of a dynamical origin rests on the statistical robustness of a small (~1 s over ~20 yr) timing signal against heterogeneous multi-instrument systematics, a point that is not established in the abstract and could not be verified in the provided text.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The claim that the observed changes are 'dynamical in origin' is load-bearing. The abstract states that systemic motion and light travel time effects are ruled out, but does not mention modeling of per-instrument timing zero-points, detector/camera changes, or temporal correlations in the heterogeneous dataset. The cumulative signal of -7.1 ms/yr corresponds to only ~1.4 s of curvature over 20 years, comparable to typical inter-instrument offsets. The manuscript must either explicitly include and test such offsets (e.g., with per-instrument constant offsets or jitter terms) or soften the conclusion to an observed trend whose dynamical status is not yet established.
  2. [Section 4 (apsidal precession model)] The favored precession branch requires a close-in companion that remains unseen. Because the companion's properties are inferred from the required precession rate, this is circular: the model is parameterized to match the observed trend and then invoked as an explanation. The 'favors' language is therefore overstated. The paper should present this branch as a hypothesis requiring independent detection, quantify the companion mass/orbit sensitivity, and explicitly state the non-detection limits (e.g., from RVs and transit timing).
  3. [Section 5 (orbital decay model)] The tidal decay alternative is conditional on eps_p > 30 deg, which the abstract admits is unmeasured. The stated agreement with theoretical predictions is therefore not a prediction but a constraint on a free parameter. Moreover, the decay signal is small; the paper should provide a significance/evidence comparison between a constant-period model, a precession model, and a decay model that includes realistic timing jitter and systematics. Without this, the decay branch cannot be considered 'aligned with theory'.
  4. [Full text (all sections)] The version of the manuscript provided for review is severely garbled and unreadable due to encoding corruption. Equations, tables, and most narrative text cannot be evaluated. This prevents verification of the joint fitting procedure, the error analysis, and the treatment of timing systematics. A readable manuscript is essential before the technical claims can be assessed. If this is a rendering artifact, the authors should submit a clean version; otherwise the manuscript is not reviewable in its current form.
minor comments (3)
  1. [General] The abstract would benefit from explicitly stating the number of transit/eclipse epochs and instruments, and from noting whether per-instrument offsets were included in the model. This would help readers gauge the systematics risk immediately.
  2. [Tables/Figures] The timing-data tables should include instrument identifiers and baseline coverage per instrument, and the O-C plots should show per-instrument residuals. In the garbled text, this information could not be located or verified.
  3. [References] The discussion of tidal quality factors and obliquity tides should cite recent benchmark studies (e.g., for other hot Jupiters with measured decay or precession). I could not check the reference list in the corrupted text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the secular-timing trend is an empirical fit, and the theoretical comparisons are explicitly conditional, not definitional inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical result: transit, eclipse, and RV data are jointly modeled with competing timing models (constant ephemeris, apsidal precession, orbital decay, systemic/LTT terms), and the secular models are favored by fit comparison. The reported decay rate (-7.1 ms/yr) and precession rate (4 deg/yr) are fitted parameters, not quantities derived from the theory they are later compared with. The statement that the decay rate is 'aligned with theoretical predictions for modified tidal quality factors of hot Jupiters if TrES-1 b has a planetary obliquity eps_p > 30°' is explicitly conditional on an unmeasured quantity and is presented as a plausible consistency check, not as a derivation of the trend from that theory. Similarly, the unseen close-in companion required to explain 4 deg/yr precession is a physical inference from the fitted rate, not an input to the timing fit; the paper openly acknowledges the companion 'remains unseen in the data.' The caveats about per-instrument timing offsets, unmeasured obliquity, and the undetected companion are robustness/validity concerns, not circular steps: no equation or parameter is defined in terms of the result it is used to predict, and no load-bearing conclusion rests on a self-citation chain. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, even though its empirical security may be questioned.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the data premise (heterogeneous timing data are systematics-free), while both physical branches import unmeasured or unseen inputs: the precession branch needs a close-in companion constrained only by the rate it must produce, and the decay branch needs an obliquity threshold that reconciles the measured rate with tidal theory. No new physics constants beyond standard Q' scalings and no formalized math are invoked; the ledger is dominated by fitted rates and conditional constraints.

free parameters (5)
  • Apsidal precession rate (dot omega) = 4 deg/yr
    Best-fit precession rate from joint transit and eclipse timing model; the abstract notes this rate cannot be produced by the known system without an unseen companion.
  • Orbital decay rate (dP/dt) = -7.1 (+1.5/-1.6) ms/yr
    Best-fit linear period change from the joint timing model; presented as the decay-model alternative.
  • Planetary obliquity threshold (eps_p) = > 30 deg
    Not measured; the abstract requires this condition for the measured decay rate to align with modified-tidal-quality-factor predictions.
  • Undetected close-in companion mass/orbit = not stated
    Properties implied by the precession branch are not stated in the abstract and the companion is unseen in the data.
  • Wide-orbit RV companion orbital elements = not stated
    Abstract reports a previously undetected wide eccentric companion candidate from RV; elements are fitted to RV data and are not quoted in the abstract.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The multi-observatory transit and eclipse timing set is free of per-instrument systematics that could mimic a secular trend.
    The abstract rules out systemic motion and light travel time, but data homogeneity is the unstated premise under which the residual trend is interpreted as dynamical.
  • domain assumption Standard modified tidal quality factor (Q') theory applies to TrES-1 b.
    The decay-rate comparison ('aligned with theoretical predictions') imports the hot Jupiter tidal Q' framework from the literature.
  • domain assumption The RV companion candidate is a real bound companion.
    The abstract calls it a candidate and says it cannot drive the observed evolution; its existence and orbit are premises of the companion-architecture discussion.
invented entities (2)
  • Undetected close-in planetary companion
    purpose: To generate the 4 deg/yr apsidal precession in the favored model
    Abstract: 'remains unseen in the data.' No detection, so no falsifiable handle outside the timing signal it was invoked to explain.
  • Wide eccentric RV companion candidate
    purpose: Accounts for a long-term radial velocity trend; the abstract argues it does not drive the orbital evolution
    Candidate status only; follow-up RV is requested, so confirmation is pending. It is derived from the paper's own data rather than pulled from a hat, but it has no independent corroboration yet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TrES-1 b: A Case Study in Detecting Secular Evolution of Exoplanet Orbits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5PLIPZOL

@misc{pith2026250815075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TrES-1 b: A Case Study in Detecting Secular Evolution of Exoplanet Orbits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5PLIPZOL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15075}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of transit, eclipse, and radial velocity data of the hot Jupiter TrES-1 b and confirm evidence of orbital variations on secular timescales. Apparent variations due to systemic motion and light travel time effects have been ruled out, indicating that the observed changes are dynamical in origin. Joint modeling of the TrES-1 b data favors an apsidal precession model, but the rapid precession rate of $4^\circ$ yr$^{-1}$ cannot be explained without invoking an undetected close-in planetary companion, which remains unseen in the data. While radial velocity measurements reveal a previously undetected companion candidate on a wide, eccentric orbit, it is unlikely to drive the observed evolution of TrES-1 b. However, an orbital decay model provides a plausible alternative if the loss of orbital energy is driven by planetary obliquity tides. We find that the best-fit orbital decay rate of $-7.1^{ +1.5}_{-1.6}$ ms yr$^{-1}$ is aligned with theoretical predictions for modified tidal quality factors of hot Jupiters if TrES-1 b has a planetary obliquity $\varepsilon_p > 30^\circ$. We encourage follow-up observations of this system, particularly of eclipse timing and radial velocities, to further constrain the nature of the observed evolution. This paper provides a practical framework for studying secular variations and aims to accelerate future research on similar systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 23 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]

    0eʔtj UVIUZ'_ mK/mRv`Vc &LHvZ

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    R., Dupree , A

    Adams , E. R., Dupree , A. K., Kulesa , C., & McCarthy , D. 2013, , 146, 9, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/9 2013

  5. [5]

    R., Jackson , B., Sickafoose , A

    Adams , E. R., Jackson , B., Sickafoose , A. A., et al. 2024, , 5, 163, 10.3847/PSJ/ad3e80

    doi:10.3847/psj/ad3e80 2024

  6. [6]

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

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

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    M., Torres , G., et al

    Alonso , R., Brown , T. M., Torres , G., et al. 2004, , 613, L153, 10.1086/425256

    doi:10.1086/425256 2004

  8. [8]

    B., Patra , K

    Alvarado , E., Bostow , K. B., Patra , K. C., et al. 2024, , 534, 800, 10.1093/mnras/stae2062

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2062 2024

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    Applegate , J. H. 1992, , 385, 621, 10.1086/170967

    1992 doi

  2. [10]

    H., & Patterson , J

    Applegate , J. H., & Patterson , J. 1987, , 322, L99, 10.1086/185044

    1987 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Lim , P

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

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, , 482, 1872, 10.1093/mnras/sty2805

    Bailey , A., & Goodman , J. 2019, , 482, 1872, 10.1093/mnras/sty2805

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    V., Sokov , E

    Baluev , R. V., Sokov , E. N., Shaidulin , V. S., et al. 2015, , 450, 3101, 10.1093/mnras/stv788

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, nestle: Nested sampling algorithms for evaluating Bayesian evidence , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.022

    Barbary , K. 2021, nestle: Nested sampling algorithms for evaluating Bayesian evidence , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.022

    2021

  9. [17]

    J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V

    Barker , A. J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V. V., & Veras , D. 2024, , 527, 5131, 10.1093/mnras/stad3530

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Desidera , S., Benatti , S., et al

    Bonomo , A. S., Desidera , S., Benatti , S., et al. 2017, , 602, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Winn , J

    Bouma , L. G., Winn , J. N., Howard , A. W., et al. 2020, , 893, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8563

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, PyMultiNest: Python interface for MultiNest , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.005

    Buchner , J. 2016, PyMultiNest: Python interface for MultiNest , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.005. 1606.005

    2016

  13. [21]

    E., Megeath , S

    Charbonneau , D., Allen , L. E., Megeath , S. T., et al. 2005, , 626, 523, 10.1086/429991

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 186, 10.3847/PSJ/ade3c2

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    H., & Witte , S

    Claret , A., Hauschildt , P. H., & Witte , S. 2013, , 552, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220942

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Correia , A. C. M., & Laskar , J. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager (University of Arizona Press), 239--266, 10.48550/arXiv.1009.1352

    2010 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2014, , 797, 42, 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/42

    Cubillos , P., Harrington , J., Madhusudhan , N., et al. 2014, , 797, 42, 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/42

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Darwin, G. H. 1908, Scientific papers, Vol. 2 (University press)

    1908

  19. [27]

    A., Close , L

    Dittmann , J. A., Close , L. M., Green , E. M., & Fenwick , M. 2009, , 701, 756, 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/756

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

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

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    H., et al

    Edwards , B., Changeat , Q., Yip , K. H., et al. 2021, , 504, 5671, 10.1093/mnras/staa1245

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2013, , 433, 2097, 10.1093/mnras/stt885

    Faedi , F., Staley , T., G \'o mez Maqueo Chew , Y., et al. 2013, , 433, 2097, 10.1093/mnras/stt885

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Hora , J

    Fazio , G. G., Hora , J. L., Allen , L. E., et al. 2004, , 154, 10, 10.1086/422843

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    K., Wright , J

    Feng , Y. K., Wright , J. T., Nelson , B., et al. 2015, , 800, 22, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/22

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  26. [35]

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

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

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

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

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

    2013 doi

  28. [37]

    1995, , 226, 99, 10.1007/BF00626903

    Gim \'e nez , A., & Bastero , M. 1995, , 226, 99, 10.1007/BF00626903

    1995 doi

  29. [38]

    1966, Icarus (New York, N.Y

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus (New York, N.Y. 1962), 5, 375, 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    1966 doi

  30. [39]

    R., & Boley, A

    Hagey, S. R., & Boley, A. 2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 8550, 10.21105/joss.08550

    2025 doi

  31. [40]

    R., Edwards , B., & Boley , A

    Hagey , S. R., Edwards , B., & Boley , A. C. 2022, , 164, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac959a

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    S., & Gladman , B

    Heyl , J. S., & Gladman , B. J. 2007, , 377, 1511, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11697.x

    2007

  34. [43]

    R., Roellig , T

    Houck , J. R., Roellig , T. L., van Cleve , J., et al. 2004, , 154, 18, 10.1086/423134

    2004 doi

  35. [44]

    Transiting Planets

    Hrudkov \'a , M., Skillen , I., Benn , C., et al. 2009, in Proceedings of the 253rd IAU Symposium: "Transiting Planets", Vol. 253, Transiting Planets, ed. F. Pont , D. Sasselov , & M. J. Holman , 446--449, 10.1017/S1743921308026896

    2009 doi

  36. [45]

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

    2007 doi

  37. [46]

    2012, , 422, 3151, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20839.x

    Husnoo , N., Pont , F., Mazeh , T., et al. 2012, , 422, 3151, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20839.x

    2012

  38. [47]

    1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126

    Hut , P. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126

    1981

  39. [48]

    2024-2025, Variable Star and Exoplanet Section of Czech Astronomical Society (VarAstro), https://var.astro.cz/en/

    Hykel, J., Brát, L., Přibík, V., et al. 2024-2025, Variable Star and Exoplanet Section of Czech Astronomical Society (VarAstro), https://var.astro.cz/en/

    2024

  40. [49]

    F., & Schmitt , J

    Ioannidis , P., Huber , K. F., & Schmitt , J. H. M. M. 2016, , 585, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527184

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    S., & Winn , J

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

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    2008, , 678, 1396, 10.1086/529187

    Jackson , B., Greenberg , R., & Barnes , R. 2008, , 678, 1396, 10.1086/529187

    2008 doi

  43. [52]

    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, , 99133E, 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2291091

    1995

  45. [54]

    Kloppenborg, B. K. 2025, Observations from the AAVSO International Database, https://www.aavso.org

    2025

  46. [55]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 10.1007/s10686-020-09696-3

    Kokori , A., Tsiaras , A., Edwards , B., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 10.1007/s10686-020-09696-3

    2021 doi

  47. [56]

    2022, , 258, 40, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10

    ---. 2022, , 258, 40, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    2023, , 265, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    ---. 2023, , 265, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    2009, , 459, 957, 10.1038/nature08108

    Lainey , V., Arlot , J.-E., Karatekin , \"O ., & van Hoolst , T. 2009, , 459, 957, 10.1038/nature08108

    2009 doi

  50. [59]

    2005, , 621, 1072, 10.1086/427689

    Laughlin , G., Wolf , A., Vanmunster , T., et al. 2005, , 621, 1072, 10.1086/427689

    2005 doi

  51. [60]

    2010, , 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    Leconte , J., Chabrier , G., Baraffe , I., & Levrard , B. 2010, , 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    2010 doi

  52. [61]

    Levrard , B., Correia , A. C. M., Chabrier , G., et al. 2007, , 462, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066487

    2007 doi

  53. [62]

    J., & de Pater, I

    Lissauer, J. J., & de Pater, I. 2019, Fundamental Planetary Science : Physics , Chemistry and Habitability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 10.1017/9781108304061

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    M., Penev , K

    Mahmud , M. M., Penev , K. M., & Schussler , J. A. 2023, , 525, 876, 10.1093/mnras/stad2298

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    2019, , 622, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834194

    Mallonn , M., von Essen , C., Herrero , E., et al. 2019, , 622, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834194

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    Meibom , S., & Mathieu , R. D. 2005, , 620, 970, 10.1086/427082

    2005 doi

  57. [66]

    F., Sasselov , D., et al

    Miller-Ricci , E., Rowe , J. F., Sasselov , D., et al. 2008, , 682, 593, 10.1086/587634

    2008 doi

  58. [67]

    2018, , 869, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb1

    Millholland , S., & Laughlin , G. 2018, , 869, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb1

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    C., & Spalding , C

    Millholland , S. C., & Spalding , C. 2020, , 905, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc4e5

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    E., Mathieu , R

    Milliman , K. E., Mathieu , R. D., Geller , A. M., et al. 2014, , 148, 38, 10.1088/0004-6256/148/2/38

    2014 doi

  61. [70]

    W., Thorne, K

    Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. 1973, Gravitation (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company)

    1973

  62. [71]

    2020, , 159, 75, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab63dc

    Morello , G., Claret , A., Martin-Lagarde , M., et al. 2020, , 159, 75, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab63dc

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    2007, , 59, 763, 10.1093/pasj/59.4.763

    Narita , N., Enya , K., Sato , B., et al. 2007, , 59, 763, 10.1093/pasj/59.4.763

    2007 doi

  64. [73]

    A., Hinkley , S., et al

    Ngo , H., Knutson , H. A., Hinkley , S., et al. 2016, , 827, 8, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/8

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, CDS, Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, 10.26093/CDS/VIZIER

    Ochsenbein, F. 1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, CDS, Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, 10.26093/CDS/VIZIER

    1996 doi

  66. [75]

    2000, , 143, 23, 10.1051/aas:2000169

    Ochsenbein , F., Bauer , P., & Marcout , J. 2000, , 143, 23, 10.1051/aas:2000169

    2000 doi

  67. [76]

    2016, , 590, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628479

    Ol \'a h , K., K o v \'a ri , Z., Petrovay , K., et al. 2016, , 590, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628479

    2016 doi

  68. [77]

    C., Boisse , I., et al

    Oshagh , M., Santos , N. C., Boisse , I., et al. 2013, , 556, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321309

    2013 doi

  69. [78]

    C., Winn , J

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

    2017 doi

  70. [79]

    2020, , 159, 150, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7374

    ---. 2020, , 159, 150, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7374

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    A., Beichman , C., Fulton , B

    Pearson , K. A., Beichman , C., Fulton , B. J., et al. 2022, , 164, 178, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8dee

    2022 doi

  72. [81]

    G., Winn , J

    Penev , K., Bouma , L. G., Winn , J. N., & Hartman , J. D. 2018, , 155, 165, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf71

    2018 doi

  73. [82]

    2012, , 751, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/96

    Penev , K., Jackson , B., Spada , F., & Thom , N. 2012, , 751, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/96

    2012 doi

  74. [83]

    2010, , 15, 297, 10.1016/j.newast.2009.09.001

    Poddan \'y , S., Br \'a t , L., & Pejcha , O. 2010, , 15, 297, 10.1016/j.newast.2009.09.001

    2010 doi

  75. [84]

    2011, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol

    Poddan \'y , S., Br \'a t , L., & Pejcha , O. 2011, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 11, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 06008, 10.1051/epjconf/20101106008

    2011

  76. [85]

    J., et al

    Rabus , M., Alonso , R., Deeg , H. J., et al. 2009 a , in IAU Symposium, Vol. 253, Transiting Planets, ed. F. Pont , D. Sasselov , & M. J. Holman , 432--435, 10.1017/S1743921308026859

    2009 doi

  77. [86]

    J., Alonso , R., Belmonte , J

    Rabus , M., Deeg , H. J., Alonso , R., Belmonte , J. A., & Almenara , J. M. 2009 b , , 508, 1011, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912252

    2009 doi

  78. [87]

    A., et al

    Rabus , M., Alonso , R., Belmonte , J. A., et al. 2009 c , , 494, 391, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811110

    2009 doi

  79. [88]

    Raetz , S., Mugrauer , M., Schmidt , T. O. B., et al. 2009, Astronomische Nachrichten, 330, 475, 10.1002/asna.200811200

    2009 doi

  80. [89]

    Rafikov , R. R. 2009, , 700, 965, 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/965

    2009 doi

  81. [90]

    Ragozzine , D., & Wolf , A. S. 2009, , 698, 1778, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1778

    2009 doi

  82. [91]

    A., Tout , C

    Rasio , F. A., Tout , C. A., Lubow , S. H., & Livio , M. 1996, , 470, 1187, 10.1086/177941

    1996 doi

  83. [92]

    R., Winn , J

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

    2015 doi

  84. [93]

    V., Deming , D., Jennings , D

    Sada , P. V., Deming , D., Jennings , D. E., et al. 2012, , 124, 212, 10.1086/665043

    2012 doi

  85. [94]

    Shklovskii , I. S. 1970, , 13, 562

    1970

  86. [95]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833, 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833, 10.1214/06-BA127

    2006 doi

  87. [96]

    C., Stumpe , M

    Smith , J. C., Stumpe , M. C., Van Cleve , J. E., et al. 2012, , 124, 1000, 10.1086/667697

    2012 doi

  88. [97]

    W., et al

    Sozzetti , A., Yong , D., Carney , B. W., et al. 2006, , 131, 2274, 10.1086/500639

    2006 doi

  89. [98]

    H., & Agol , E

    Steffen , J. H., & Agol , E. 2005, , 364, L96, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00113.x

    2005

  90. [99]

    C., Smith , J

    Stumpe , M. C., Smith , J. C., Catanzarite , J. H., et al. 2014, , 126, 100, 10.1086/674989

    2014 doi

  91. [100]

    C., Smith , J

    Stumpe , M. C., Smith , J. C., Van Cleve , J. E., et al. 2012, , 124, 985, 10.1086/667698

    2012 doi

  92. [101]

    1999, , 111, 169, 10.1086/316313

    Torres , G. 1999, , 111, 169, 10.1086/316313

    1999 doi

  93. [102]

    N., & Holman , M

    Torres , G., Winn , J. N., & Holman , M. J. 2008, , 677, 1324, 10.1086/529429

    2008 doi

  94. [103]

    2016, pylightcurve: Exoplanet lightcurve model

    Tsiaras , A., Waldmann , I., Rocchetto , M., et al. 2016, pylightcurve: Exoplanet lightcurve model . 1612.018

    2016

  95. [104]

    P., Zingales , T., et al

    Tsiaras , A., Waldmann , I. P., Zingales , T., et al. 2018, , 155, 156, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf75

    2018 doi

  96. [105]

    D., Ridden-Harper , A., & Jayawardhana , R

    Turner , J. D., Ridden-Harper , A., & Jayawardhana , R. 2021, , 161, 72, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd178

    2021 doi

  97. [106]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  98. [107]

    2024, , 270, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847

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

    2024 doi

  99. [108]

    2021, , 255, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0835

    Wang , X.-Y., Wang , Y.-H., Wang , S., et al. 2021, , 255, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0835

    2021 doi

  100. [109]

    A., & Marsh , T

    Watson , C. A., & Marsh , T. R. 2010, , 405, 2037, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16602.x

    2010

  101. [110]

    2025, , 979, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada954

    Wazny , M., & Menou , K. 2025, , 979, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada954

    2025 doi

  102. [111]

    N., Holman , M

    Winn , J. N., Holman , M. J., & Roussanova , A. 2007, , 657, 1098, 10.1086/510834

    2007 doi

  103. [112]

    2022, , 163, 175, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5680

    Wong , I., Shporer , A., Vissapragada , S., et al. 2022, , 163, 175, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5680

    2022 doi

  104. [113]

    u rk , \

    Yal c nkaya , S., Esmer , E. M., Ba s t \"u rk , \"O ., et al. 2024, , 530, 2475, 10.1093/mnras/stae854

    2024 doi

  105. [114]

    W., Winn , J

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

    2020 doi

  106. [115]

    2024, , 106, 102130, 10.1016/j.newast.2023.102130

    Yeh , L.-C., Jiang , I.-G., & A-thano , N. 2024, , 106, 102130, 10.1016/j.newast.2023.102130

    2024

  107. [116]

    2022, Journal of The Korean Astronomical Society, 55, 10.5303/JKAS.2022.55.4.111

    Yeung, P., Perian, Q., Robertson, P., et al. 2022, Journal of The Korean Astronomical Society, 55, 10.5303/JKAS.2022.55.4.111

    2022 doi

  108. [117]

    T., Pearson , K

    Zellem , R. T., Pearson , K. A., Blaser , E., et al. 2020, , 132, 054401, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab7ee7

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.