Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 105 references

The Spin-orbit alignment of two short period eclipsing binary systems

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

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

Pith's one-line read Two tight binaries orbit slightly tilted from their stars' spins

desk verdict Careful two-target obliquity study with a robust qualitative result—both systems are prograde-misaligned—but the specific values are shakier than the abstract implies, because the 'minor' claim rests on an unverified i★=90° assumption and the classical and RRM numbers disagree by ~4σ for one target. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03826 v1 pith:THQEN6GY submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.SR

Tony Wells , B. C. Addison , R.A. Wittenmyer , Duncan J. Wright , Tyler R. Fairnington , Jason Dittmann , Jonathan Horner , Stephen R. Kane
show 3 more authors
John Kielkopf Peter Plavchan Avi Shporer
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords spin-orbitmisalignmenteclipsingbinariesRossiter-McLaughlineffectsky-projectedobliquitytidalevolutionlow-massstellarcompanionscircularorbitsrotation
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 claims that two short-period, nearly circular eclipsing binaries—one with a 2.9-day orbit and one with a 2.4-day orbit—have primary stars whose spin axes are slightly, but detectably, misaligned with their orbital planes. The authors derive sky-projected obliquities two independent ways, from the classical radial-velocity perturbation and from the Reloaded Rossiter-McLaughlin technique, and both methods agree that the tilts are small but nonzero: roughly -18 and -15 degrees from the classical analysis, and -9.5 and -8.2 degrees from the RRM analysis. Because tidal theory normally expects alignment to be completed before an orbit becomes this circular, a circular yet still-tilted binary is a meaningful anomaly. If correct, these systems become the shortest-period cool-primary binaries with measured obliquities, and they suggest that current models of binary formation and orbital evolution are missing something—possibly an unseen third body keeping the tilt stirred up.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing effect is the Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) effect: during an eclipse, the companion blocks a patch of the rotating stellar disk, and the resulting distortion of the averaged spectral line carries information about which limb of the star is hidden. The paper decodes this in two ways: the classical method fits the anomaly in the radial-velocity curve, while the Reloaded RM (RRM) method subtracts the out-of-eclipse line profile from in-eclipse profiles, isolates the local radial velocity of the occulted region, and reconstructs the Doppler shadow's path across the stellar disk. That path directly constrains the sky-projected obliquity lambda_A. The second element is the tidal-times

What would settle it

Measure each primary star's true spin-axis inclination directly—for example, by detecting rotational spot-modulation and combining it with v sin i, or through asteroseismic inclination constraints—then convert the reported sky-projected obliquities to true three-dimensional obliquities. If both true obliquities are consistent with zero, the claimed misalignment is a projection effect rather than a physical tilt; if they are not, the challenge to tidal evolution models stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that two close single-lined binaries—an F3V star with a late-K companion at 2.896 days and an F6V star with an M-dwarf companion at 2.438 days, both with eccentricities near 0.001—host primaries whose spin axes are not perfectly aligned with their orbits. The classical Rossiter-McLaughlin analysis gives sky-projected obliquities of lambda_A = -17.8 (+1.9/-2.0) degrees and -14.7 (+5.4/-5.9) degrees, while the Reloaded RM analysis, which reconstructs the local radial velocity of the occulted stellar surface under an assumed rigidly rotating star, gives -9.5 ± 0.2 and -8.2 ± 0.2 degrees. The two methods disagree in magnitude but agree in sign and in th

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that these stars are genuinely misaligned assumes the primary star's spin axis lies close to the plane of the sky; if the star is viewed closer to pole-on, the true tilt could be much larger or smaller than the reported values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, TIC 48227288 and TIC 339607421 become the shortest-period binaries with cool primaries of known obliquity, pushing the sample below three-day periods.
  • A circular orbit carrying a nonzero lambda implies that whatever caused the misalignment either is still active or acted after most of the orbital energy was already dissipated; a wide tertiary companion is the natural, directly testable suspect.
  • The offset between the classical and RRM values (-18 vs -10 and -15 vs -8 degrees) means that comparisons of obliquity across populations should treat the measurement method as a systematic uncertainty, not just a statistical one.
  • The measured companion masses and radii (0.635 solar masses and 0.605 solar radii; 0.294 solar masses and 0.291 solar radii) agree with theoretical low-mass evolutionary tracks, adding two benchmarks for low-mass stellar models that in other systems often show radius inflation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the smaller RRM obliquities are closer to the truth, the classical method may be systematically overestimating misalignment by roughly six to eight degrees in these SB1 systems; a broader comparison of the two methods across the existing single-lined binary sample could quantify that bias.
  • My inference: because only the sky-projected lambda is measured and the RRM model fixes the stellar inclination at 90 degrees, the true three-dimensional obliquities could be close to zero or much larger than reported; directly measuring each primary's spin-axis inclination—for example, from rotation-modulated photometry combined with v sin i, or from asteroseismic inclination constraints—would se
  • My inference: the paper's own differential-rotation model, though dismissed as unreliable, returned true obliquities of roughly 29 and 14 degrees; if future observations find the stellar inclination is not edge-on, these systems could actually be more strongly misaligned than the projected values suggest, which would deepen the challenge to tidal evolution models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a joint analysis of TESS photometry and Minerva-Australis radial velocities for two short-period, single-lined eclipsing binaries, TIC 48227288 and TIC 339607421. The authors derive stellar and companion parameters with the Allesfitter package, including sky-projected obliquities from the classical Rossiter-McLaughlin RV perturbation, and then apply the Reloaded Rossiter-McLaughlin (RRM) technique to residual CCFs from eclipse observations. They find near-circular orbits (e ~ 0.001) and sky-projected obliquities of about -18° and -15° from the classical analysis and about -9.5° and -8.2° from the rigid-body RRM analysis. The paper concludes that both systems show minor spin-orbit misalignment, and discusses the implications for tidal alignment and binary formation/evolution models, especially the presence of misaligned circular orbits.

Significance. If the reported obliquities are taken at face value, the paper adds two short-period, cool-primary binaries to the small sample of stellar binaries with measured obliquities, and the circular-but-misaligned configuration is a useful test of tidal realignment models. The analysis is careful in several respects: the Allesfitter joint fit is cross-checked against flattened light curves, the RV baseline for TIC 48227288 is treated with a Gaussian process, the RRM residual traces are shown, and the data and fit parameters are reported in detail. The main weakness is interpretive: the headline claim of 'minor' misalignment rests on sky-projected angles, while the paper's own differential-rotation model admits a true obliquity of about 29° for TIC 48227288, which is not minor. The classical and RRM λ values are also discrepant at the ~4σ level for that system, so the 'confirmation' narrative is not as robust as the text suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Table 8, Eq. (1)] The central claim of 'minor spin-orbit misalignment' is not uniquely established. The rigid RRM model fixes i★ = 90°, and the text explicitly states that the true obliquity ψ cannot be determined. The differential-rotation model, which relaxes i★, yields ψ_A = 28.9 ± 3.8° for TIC 48227288 and ψ_A = 14.0° for TIC 339607421. The authors dismiss this solution because its v sin i values disagree with iSpec/Allesfitter, but that comparison assumes rigid rotation, which is precisely the assumption being relaxed. No independent constraint on i★ is given. The data are therefore compatible with true obliquities that are not 'minor' (ψ ≈ 29°), and the abstract's 'minor misalignment' and Section 5's 'slight misalignment' overstate what is established. Please either reframe the conclusions in terms of sky-projected obliquity only, or supply an external constraint on i★ and discuss its effect on ψ.
  2. [§3.2.1, Table 5; §3.3.1, Table 8] For TIC 48227288 the classical Allesfitter value λ = -17.8+1.9/-2.0° and the rigid RRM value λ = -9.5 ± 0.2° differ by about 8°, or roughly 4σ. The text says the RRM analysis 'confirms' the classical inference, but this systematic offset is never quantified or explained. Potential sources include different data subsets (only a few eclipse nights enter the RRM fit), limb-darkening priors inherited from Allesfitter, the GP treatment of out-of-eclipse RVs, or residual CCF contamination. A quantitative consistency check or a combined estimate is needed before the two methods can be presented as mutually confirming. For TIC 339607421 the values are more consistent, but the same discussion should still be included.
  3. [§3.3 opening paragraph; Table 8 priors] The RRM analysis is described as an 'independent verification' of the Allesfitter obliquity, but it is not fully independent: the Gaussian priors on a/R_A, R_B, i_orb, and the limb-darkening coefficients are taken from the Allesfitter posteriors, which were derived from the same TESS photometry and Minerva RVs. The obliquity itself is a free parameter, so the central claim is not circular, but the independence of the cross-check is overstated. This matters because the two methods disagree at the ~4σ level for TIC 48227288; a partially shared prior cannot resolve that discrepancy. Please describe the degree of non-independence explicitly and discuss how it affects the interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is written as 'ψ = cos(...)^{-1}'; it should be the arccosine, ψ = arccos(...). Please fix the typesetting.
  2. [Section 5] The conclusions state λ_A = -8.8 ± 0.2° for TIC 339607421 from the RRM analysis, but the preferred rigid-body RRM result in Table 8 and the abstract is -8.2 ± 0.2°. The value -8.8° is from the differential-rotation model that the authors say they disregard. This internal inconsistency should be corrected.
  3. [Table 8] The differential-rotation posterior for i★ in TIC 48227288 is reported as 66.0+62.6/2.3°, a highly asymmetric interval that likely presses against the prior boundary. Please report the full posterior or a sensitivity test to the prior range; otherwise the DR ψ values are difficult to interpret.
  4. [§3.3.1] The RRM uncertainties of ±0.2° are very small. Since the fit adopts priors from the Allesfitter fit, which itself has systematic modeling choices (e.g., limb darkening, GP baseline), an additional systematic error term or a robustness test with alternative priors would be helpful before quoting such precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the obliquity measurements are data-driven fits with broad priors; the RRM method shares geometric priors with Allesfitter but does not adopt its λ value.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain for both obliquity analyses. In the Allesfitter joint analysis, the sky-projected obliquity λ is a fitted parameter with a wide uniform prior U(−180,180), so it is not equated to any input by construction (Tables 5 and 6). In the RRM analysis, λ and v_A are assigned broad uniform priors, while the Gaussian priors on (a/R_A, R_B, i_orb) and limb-darkening coefficients are taken from the Allesfitter posteriors (Section 3.3: 'Gaussian priors for (a/R_A, R_B, i_orb) as well as the quadratic limb darkening coefficients, U1 and U2 were informed by the Allesfitter posteriors derived in Section 3.2 while broad uniform priors were assigned to λ and v_A'). This means the RRM 'confirmation' is not fully independent of the classical analysis, but it is not circular in the forbidden sense: the RRM λ is not inherited from the Allesfitter λ, and the shared geometric parameters are tightly constrained by the eclipse photometry rather than by the obliquity signal. The paper's admitted limitation that i★ is fixed at 90° in the rigid RRM model ('the stellar inclination, i★, is fixed at 90° and as such we are unable to determine the true obliquity, ψ_A') affects the physical interpretation of the sky-projected values but is an assumption, not a circular reduction. The rejection of the differential-rotation model is based on consistency comparisons with iSpec/Allesfitter v sin i and on the poorly constrained α; this is a methodological judgment, not a self-referential derivation. Self-citations to Minerva-Australis facility papers and to Shporer (2017) are instrumental or contextual, not load-bearing for the obliquity result. No equation in the paper reduces λ to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Overall the paper is self-contained as a measurement study; the mild shared-prior dependency between the two analyses is a limitation of the 'independent verification' claim, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard analysis tools (RM effect, RRM formalism) and accepted stellar models rather than on new physical postulates. The main load-bearing assumptions are the rigid-rotation model with i_star fixed at 90 degrees in the preferred RRM solution, the visually checked but not quantitatively bounded absence of secondary-light contamination in the CCFs, and the reliability of the iSpec/Ariadne stellar parameters. One speculative explanation, an unseen tertiary companion, is invoked in the discussion without direct evidence.

free parameters (7)
  • Sky-projected obliquity lambda_A, TIC 48227288 = -17.8+1.9/-2.0 deg (Allesfitter), -9.5 +/- 0.2 deg (RRM rigid)
    Central measured quantity; fitted from the RM perturbation and local RVs.
  • Sky-projected obliquity lambda_A, TIC 339607421 = -14.7+5.4/-5.9 deg (Allesfitter), -8.2 +/- 0.2 deg (RRM rigid; also quoted as -8.8 +/- 0.2 in Sections 4-5)
    Central measured quantity for the second system; note internal inconsistency in the reported value.
  • Stellar inclination i_star = 90 deg (fixed in the RRM rigid-body model)
    Set by hand rather than measured; it determines the projection that converts the Doppler shadow path into lambda and sets v_A = v_A sin i.
  • Projected rotational velocity v sin i = 17.9 +/- 0.2 (TIC 48227288), 24.9 +/- 0.2 (TIC 339607421) km/s from RRM; ~19-26 km/s from other methods
    Fitted with Gaussian priors from iSpec; controls the amplitude of the RM and local RV signals.
  • Limb darkening coefficients U1, U2 (RRM) = e.g., TIC 48227288: U1=0.06+0.08/-0.04, U2=0.16+0.17/-0.11; TIC 339607421: U1=0.35 +/- 0.10, U2=0.11+0.10/-0.08
    Free parameters in the RRM model with priors from the Allesfitter posterior; affect the weighting of local RVs.
  • Differential rotation shear alpha = -0.99+0.02/-0.01 (TIC 48227288) and -0.93+0.11/-0.06 (TIC 339607421) in the disregarded model
    Sampled in the differential-rotation RRM variant, driven to the lower prior bound and poorly constrained; the authors disregard this model.
  • RV baseline GP amplitude/timescale (TIC 48227288) = ln a, ln c fitted per telescope (Table B1)
    Nuisance red-noise model for the RV residuals; affects uncertainties rather than the central geometry.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Reloaded RM formalism of Cegla et al. (2016) correctly maps local RVs to the path of the occulting body under rigid rotation.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to interpret residual CCFs; the method is accepted in the exoplanet literature but its application to binaries is relatively unexplored, as the authors note.
  • domain assumption The primary stars rotate approximately as rigid bodies.
    Preferred RRM model assumes rigid rotation; the tested differential-rotation variant gave inconsistent v sin i and was disregarded (Section 3.3.1), so the conclusion rests on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Light from the secondary does not significantly contaminate the CCFs.
    Checked only by visual inspection of out-of-transit CCFs (Section 3.3); no quantitative limit is given, and the authors cite Kunovac Hodzic's warning that such contamination can create spurious misalignment.
  • domain assumption The stellar parameters from iSpec/Ariadne (T_eff, log g, [Fe/H], v sin i) are accurate enough to anchor the RM modeling.
    Section 3.1 uses spectral synthesis and SED fitting; the resulting priors feed the joint analysis and the obliquity.
  • domain assumption The tidal alignment timescale equations (2) and (3) from Albrecht et al. (2012b) apply to these systems.
    Used in Section 4 to argue that the systems are old enough for tidal alignment to have acted.
invented entities (1)
  • Unseen tertiary companion
    purpose: To explain why the orbits are circular yet misaligned, against tidal damping expectations
    Proposed as one explanation in Section 4; no direct evidence, mass, or period is derived. It is a hypothesis, not an inferred component.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Spin-orbit alignment of two short period eclipsing binary systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THQEN6GY

@misc{pith2026250903826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Spin-orbit alignment of two short period eclipsing binary systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THQEN6GY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03826}
}
abstract

We present a joint analysis of TESS photometry and radial velocity measurements obtained from the Minerva-Australis facility for two short-period eclipsing binaries, TIC 48227288 and TIC 339607421. TIC 339607421 hosts an M-dwarf companion ($M_B = 0.294 \pm 0.013 \: M_{\odot}$, $R_B = 0.291 \pm 0.006 \: R_{\odot}$) orbiting an F6V star ($M_A=1.09 \pm 0.04 \: M_{\odot}$, $R_A=1.21^{+0.03}_{-0.02} \: R_{\odot}$). While TIC 48227288 contains a late K class companion ($M_B=0.635 \pm 0.037 \: M_{\odot}$, $R_B = 0.605 \pm 0.011 \: R_{\odot}$) orbiting an F3V star ($M_A = 1.36^{+0.06}_{-0.08} \: M_{\odot}$, $R_A = 1.61 \pm 0.03 \: R_{\odot}$). Both companions follow short period, near-circular orbits ($P_B = 2.4-3.0$ d, $e \approx 0.001$). Sky-projected obliquities for each system were derived using a classical analysis of the RV perturbation and the Reloaded Rossiter-McLaughlin (RRM) technique. The classical method indicates minor spin-orbit misalignment for both systems ($\lambda_A = -14.7^{+5.4}_{-5.9}$ deg and $-17.8^{+1.9}_{-2.0}$ deg for TIC 339607421 and TIC 48227288, respectively). The RRM analysis yields smaller obliquities ($\lambda_A = -8.2 \pm 0.2$ deg and $-9.5 \pm 0.2$ deg respectively), but confirms the minor misalignment inferred from the classical analysis. The findings of misaligned, circular orbits are notable even though the misalignments are not large, and suggest potential gaps in current models of binary formation and orbital evolution. As such, further investigation of these and similar systems appears warranted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TIC 48227288 TESS PDCSAP light curves. Data shown in black were used in the joint Allesfitter analysis. Red data were excluded due to quality issues. The data shown in this figure are available online in machine readable format. out previously at Minerva-Australis. Sections of the spectra likely to be affected by telluric contamination were then removed using the iSpec telluric filter with margins set to the default… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TIC 339607421 TESS PDCSAP light curves. Data shown in black were used in the joint Allesfitter analysis. Red data were excluded due to quality issues. The data shown in this figure are available online in machine readable format [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of the fit between the optimum iSpec spectrum and a TIC 48227288A spectrum observed by Minerva-Australis. The bold red line is the best fit model spectra. 20 model spectra drawn from random sampling of the model parameter distributions are shown as fainter red lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: TIC 48227288A best fit SED obtained from the Ariadne analysis. Black line is the best model fit. Blue squares show photometry data used in determining the SED profile while yellow squares show data excluded from the fitting process due to possible quality issues. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: TIC 339607421A best fit SED obtained from the Ariadne analysis. Black line is the best model fit. Blue squares show photometry data used in determining the SED profile. Horizontal bars correspond to the filter band-pass width while vertical error bars reflect magn…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Phase folded radial velocity model for TIC 48227288 obtained from the Allesfitter analysis. Observations from each of the Minerva telescopes are shown including observations made during the primary eclipse. The red line shown represents the best fit model. Residual vel…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Phase folded TIC 48227288 TESS PDCSAP data showing the model fit to the flux baseline modulation (top), primary eclipse (bottom left) and secondary eclipse (bottom right). The positions of the primary and secondary eclipses in the top panel are marked by ’P’ and ’S’. T…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase folded radial velocity model of the Rossiter-McLaughlin ef￾fect for TIC 48227288 formed after subtraction of the orbital radial velocities. Observations from the two Minerva telescopes used during eclipse events are shown as well as binned data to guide the eye. …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase folded TIC 339607421 TESS PDCSAP data showing the variability in the baseline behavior between eclipses. The positions of the primary and secondary eclipses in the top panel are marked by ’P’ and ’S’. TESS observations are shown as smaller points color coded wit…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Allesfitter model fit to phase folded TIC 339607421 TESS PDCSAP data that has been filtered to remove baseline modulation. Left: Model fit to the primary eclipse. Right: Model fit to the secondary eclipse. TESS observations are shown as gray points. Cyan circles are T…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Phase folded radial velocity model for TIC 339607421 obtained from the Allesfitter analysis. Observations from each of the Minerva telescopes are shown including observations made during the primary eclipse. The red line shown represents the best fit model. Residual v…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Phase folded radial velocity model of the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect for TIC 339607421 formed after subtraction of the orbital radial veloc￾ities. Observations from the three Minerva telescopes used during eclipse events are shown as well as binned data to guide the e…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Reloaded RM fit to local radial velocities extracted for TIC 48227288 (left) and TIC 339607421 (right) assuming a rigidly rotating primary. Upper panels show the local RV as a function of phase for multiple eclipse observations accompanied by 50 randomly chosen Reload…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Log-log plot of the companion mass-mass ratio parameter space for published obliquity studies. In this and remaining obliquity graphs, exo￾planetary obliquity studies are shown in gray, while brown dwarfs and binary star studies are colored. Sky projected obliquities,…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Absolute values of the projected, 𝜆, and true obliquities, 𝜓, of exoplanetary, brown dwarf and binary star systems reported in the literature as a function of the scaled distance, a/𝑅A. Only primary star obliquities are shown for binary star systems. The two target sy…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Absolute values of the projected, 𝜆, and true obliquities, 𝜓, of exoplanetary and binary star systems reported in the literature as a function of the companion to host mass ratio, 𝑞. Only primary star obliquities are shown for binary star systems. The two target syste…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Absolute values of the projected, 𝜆, and true obliquities, 𝜓, of exoplanetary and binary star systems as a function of their relative alignment timescale. The two target systems that are the focus of this study and their corresponding RRM obliquities are shown as yell…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Absolute values of the projected, 𝜆, and true obliquities, 𝜓, of binary star systems as a function of their orbital eccentricities. The two target systems that are the focus of this study and their corresponding RRM obliquities are shown as yellow stars [PITH_FULL_IM…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    C., Tinney C

    Addison B. C., Tinney C. G., Wright D. J., Bayliss D., Zhou G., Hartman J. D., Bakos G. \'A ., Schmidt B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/774/1/L9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774L...9A 774, L9

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/774/1/l9 2013

  3. [3]

    C., Tinney C

    Addison B. C., Tinney C. G., Wright D. J., Bayliss D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...29A 823, 29

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/29 2016

  4. [4]

    Addison B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab03aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131k5003A 131, 115003

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab03aa 2019

  5. [5]

    P., Seubert S

    Ahlers J. P., Seubert S. A., Barnes J. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..131A 786, 131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/131 2014

  6. [6]

    S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...474..565A 474, 565

    Albrecht S., Reffert S., Snellen I., Quirrenbach A., Mitchell D. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...474..565A 474, 565

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077953 2007

  7. [7]

    Albrecht S., Reffert S., Snellen I. A. G., Winn J. N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.461..373A 461, 373

    doi:10.1038/nature08408 2009

  8. [8]

    N., Carter J

    Albrecht S., Winn J. N., Carter J. A., Snellen I. A. G., de Mooij E. J. W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...68A 726, 68

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/68 2011

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    N., Fabrycky D

    Albrecht S., Winn J. N., Fabrycky D. C., Torres G., Setiawan J., 2012a, in Richards M. T., Hubeny I., eds, Vol. 282, From Interacting Binaries to Exoplanets: Essential Modeling Tools. pp 397--398, @doi 10.1017/S1743921311027906

    doi

  2. [10]

    Albrecht S., et al., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...18A 757, 18

    doi

  3. [11]

    C., Winn J

    Albrecht S., Setiawan J., Torres G., Fabrycky D. C., Winn J. N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...32A 767, 32

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Albrecht S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...83A 785, 83

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Allart R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A.155A 644, A155

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Gimenez A., Nordstrom B., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&A...174..107A 174, 107

    Andersen J., Garcia J. M., Gimenez A., Nordstrom B., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&A...174..107A 174, 107

    1987

  7. [15]

    R., Lai D., Storch N

    Anderson K. R., Lai D., Storch N. I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3066A 467, 3066

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Clarke C

    Armitage P. J., Clarke C. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/285.3.540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..540A 285, 540

    1997 doi

  9. [17]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...577A..42B 577, A42

    2015 doi

  12. [21]

    R., Lodato G., Pringle J

    Bate M. R., Lodato G., Pringle J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15773.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1505B 401, 1505

    2010

  13. [22]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2075B 486, 2075

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    pp 85--91 ( @eprint arXiv 1312.4545 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1312.4545

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., Soubiran C., Jofr \'e P., Heiter U., 2014, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series. pp 85--91 ( @eprint arXiv 1312.4545 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1312.4545

    2014 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    M., Lovis C., Wyttenbach A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..33B 599, A33

    Bourrier V., Cegla H. M., Lovis C., Wyttenbach A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..33B 599, A33

    2017 doi

  16. [25]

    Bourrier V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.205B 635, A205

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    Bourrier V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A.152B 654, A152

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Bourrier V., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663A.160B 663, A160

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Cabot S. H. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1ba3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..218C 162, 218

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    J., Pickering E

    Cannon A. J., Pickering E. C., 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Henry Draper Catalogue and Extension (Cannon+ 1918-1924; ADC 1989) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/135A. Originally published in: Harv. Ann. 91-100 (1918-1924)

    1993

  21. [30]

    L., 2003, in Piskunov N., Weiss W

    Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2003, in Piskunov N., Weiss W. W., Gray D. F., eds, Vol. 210, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres. p. A20 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0405087 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    2003 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    M., Lovis C., Bourrier V., Beeck B., Watson C

    Cegla H. M., Lovis C., Bourrier V., Beeck B., Watson C. A., Pepe F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A.127C 588, A127

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acc3a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..207C 165, 207

    Clark J. T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acc3a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..207C 165, 207

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    F., Garrido H

    Cruz P., Aguilar J. F., Garrido H. E., Diaz M. P., Solano E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.1416C 515, 1416

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    M., et al., 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: 2003yCat.2246....0C

    2003

  26. [35]

    M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Dorval P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..60D 635, A60

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    Doyle L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4499D 522, 4499

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    Duch \^e ne G., Kraus A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..269D 51, 269

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    S., Agol E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/669497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125...83E 125, 83

    Eastman J., Gaudi B. S., Agol E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/669497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125...83E 125, 83

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    Espinoza N., Jord \'a n A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1879E 450, 1879

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    J., Petigura E

    Fulton B. J., Petigura E. A., Blunt S., Sinukoff E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130d4504F 130, 044504

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    E., Cruz P., Diaz M

    Garrido H. E., Cruz P., Diaz M. P., Aguilar J. F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.5379G 482, 5379

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    M., McCarthy D

    Ghez A. M., McCarthy D. W., Patience J. L., Beck T. L., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...481..378G 481, 378

    1997 doi

  37. [46]

    Goodricke J., 1783, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1783RSPT...73..474G 73, 474

  38. [47]

    Goodricke J., 1784, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1784RSPT...74..287G 74, 287

  39. [48]

    N., Daylan T., 2019, allesfitter: Flexible star and exoplanet inference from photometry and radial velocity , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1903.003

    G \"u nther M. N., Daylan T., 2019, allesfitter: Flexible star and exoplanet inference from photometry and radial velocity , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1903.003

    2019

  40. [49]

    N., Daylan T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe70e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...13G 254, 13

    G \"u nther M. N., Daylan T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe70e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...13G 254, 13

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    Hale A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AJ....107..306H 107, 306

    1994 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Levine S., Terrell D., Welch D

    Henden A. A., Levine S., Terrell D., Welch D. L., 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#225. p. 336.16

    2015

  43. [52]

    Herschel W., 1785, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1785RSPT...75...40H 75, 40

  44. [53]

    Herschel W., 1802, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1802RSPT...92..477H 92, 477

  45. [54]

    Herschel M., Watson D., 1782, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1782RSPT...72..112H 72, 112

  46. [55]

    H g E., et al., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...355L..27H 355, L27

    2000

  47. [56]

    E., Hill G., Fisher W., Scarfe C

    Holmgren D. E., Hill G., Fisher W., Scarfe C. D., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...231...89H 231, 89

    1990

  48. [57]

    P., Couch J

    Hube D. P., Couch J. S., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00676160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Ap&SS..81..357H 81, 357

    1982 doi

  49. [58]

    D., 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  50. [59]

    O., Wende-von Berg S., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P

    Husser T. O., Wende-von Berg S., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...553A...6H 553, A6

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    B., Albrecht S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.212J 642, A212

    Justesen A. B., Albrecht S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.212J 642, A212

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    B., Albrecht S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abefcd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912..123J 912, 123

    Justesen A. B., Albrecht S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abefcd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912..123J 912, 123

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    V., 2001, Kinematika i Fizika Nebesnykh Tel, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001KFNT...17..409K 17, 409

    Kharchenko N. V., 2001, Kinematika i Fizika Nebesnykh Tel, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001KFNT...17..409K 17, 409

    2001

  54. [63]

    Kozai Y., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1086/108790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AJ.....67..591K 67, 591

    1962 doi

  55. [64]

    Kunovac Hod z i \'c V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1627K 497, 1627

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    Kunovac Hod z i \'c V., Triaud A. H. M. J., Cegla H. M., Chaplin W. J., Davies G. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.2893K 502, 2893

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    Kurucz R., 1993, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993KurCD..13.....K 13

    1993

  58. [67]

    L., Haugb lle T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.196K 674, A196

    Kuruwita R. L., Haugb lle T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.196K 674, A196

    2023 doi

  59. [68]

    Lai D., Foucart F., Lin D. N. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18127.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.2790L 412, 2790

    2011

  60. [69]

    J., Antonopoulou E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10174.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..959L 368, 959

    L \'a zaro C., Ar \'e valo M. J., Antonopoulou E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10174.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..959L 368, 959

    2006

  61. [70]

    N., Albrecht S

    Liang Y., Winn J. N., Albrecht S. H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..114L 927, 114

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  63. [72]

    I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1387L 468, 1387

    Lin Y., Ogilvie G. I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1387L 468, 1387

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    L., Albrecht S

    Marcussen M. L., Albrecht S. H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..227M 933, 227

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    L., Albrecht S

    Marcussen M. L., Albrecht S. H., Winn J. N., Su Y., Lundkvist M. S., Schlaufman K. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..149M 975, 149

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    D., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.002341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ARA&A..32..465M 32, 465

    Mathieu R. D., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.002341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ARA&A..32..465M 32, 465

    1994

  67. [76]

    Mazeh T., Shaham J., 1979, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A&A....77..145M 77, 145

    1979

  68. [77]

    B., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...22M 60, 22

    McLaughlin D. B., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...22M 60, 22

    1924 doi

  69. [78]

    Michell J., 1767, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1767RSPT...57..234M 57, 234

  70. [79]

    A., Rafikov R

    Philippov A. A., Rafikov R. R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..112P 768, 112

    2013 doi

  71. [80]

    M., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...254..203P 254, 203

    Popper D. M., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...254..203P 254, 203

    1982 doi

  72. [81]

    Priyatikanto R., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Arifyanto M. I., Wulandari H. R. T., Siregar S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.1339P 457, 1339

    2016 doi

  73. [82]

    A., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...15R 60, 15

    Rossiter R. A., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...15R 60, 15

    1924 doi

  74. [83]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  75. [84]

    Shporer A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129g2001S 129, 072001

    2017 doi

  76. [85]

    Simon M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00989152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.223...45S 223, 45

    1995 doi

  77. [86]

    L., Moe M., Kratter K

    Smith C. L., Moe M., Kratter K. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dd2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..153S 975, 153

    2024 doi

  78. [87]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  79. [88]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    Stassun K. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    2019 doi

  80. [89]

    T., 1931, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/91.6.663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1931MNRAS..91..663S 91, 663

    Struve O., Elvey C. T., 1931, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/91.6.663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1931MNRAS..91..663S 91, 663

    1931 doi

  81. [90]

    K., Sybilska A., Konacki M., He miniak K

    Sybilski P., Paw aszek R. K., Sybilska A., Konacki M., He miniak K. G., Koz owski S. K., Ratajczak M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1942S 478, 1942

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA&A..40..349T 40, 349

    Tohline J. E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA&A..40..349T 40, 349

    2002

  83. [92]

    Tokovinin A., Moe M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5158T 491, 5158

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., 2018, in Deeg H. J., Belmonte J. A., eds, , Handbook of Exoplanets. p. 2, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_2

    2018 doi

  85. [94]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A..18T 549, A18

    2013 doi

  86. [95]

    W., 1979, Thesis, University of Florida, Gainsville

    Twigg L. W., 1979, Thesis, University of Florida, Gainsville

    1979

  87. [96]

    I., Jenkins J

    Vines J. I., Jenkins J. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2719V 513, 2719

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741L...1W 741, L1

    Winn J. N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741L...1W 741, L1

    2011 doi

  89. [98]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..216W 157, 216

    Winters J. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..216W 157, 216

    2019 doi

  90. [99]

    A., Horner J., Carter B

    Wittenmyer R. A., Horner J., Carter B. D., Kane S. R., Plavchan P., Ciardi D., MINERVA-Australis consortium t., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1806.09282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180609282W p. arXiv:1806.09282

    2018 doi arXiv

  91. [100]

    F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASP..108..962W 108, 962

    Worek T. F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASP..108..962W 108, 962

    1996 doi

  92. [101]

    F., Zizka E

    Worek T. F., Zizka E. R., King M. W., Kiewiet de Jonge J. H., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/132179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988PASP..100..371W 100, 371

    1988 doi

  93. [102]

    P., 1977, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....57..383Z 57, 383

    Zahn J. P., 1977, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....57..383Z 57, 383

    1977

  94. [103]

    X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776L..35Z 776, L35

    Zhou G., Huang C. X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776L..35Z 776, L35

    2013 doi

  95. [104]

    Zhou G., et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..136Z 152, 136

    doi

  96. [105]

    W., Bieryla A., Beatty T

    Zhou G., Latham D. W., Bieryla A., Beatty T. G., Buchhave L. A., Esquerdo G. A., Berlind P., Calkins M. L., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.3376Z 460, 3376

    doi

  97. [106]

    Zhou G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa674a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153..211Z 153, 211

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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