Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A space-based direct imaging survey with 25-30 habitable-zone exoEarths can recover only the strongest albedo step, while weaker trends need 80-90.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

An HWO-like survey needs about 30 Earth-sized planets to recover a strong albedo step at the habitable zone, but 80-90 for weaker trends.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A careful simulation with a useful qualitative answer, but the headline numbers rest on a KDE that the paper itself admits is sensitive—worth refereeing with requests for robustness bounds. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07297 v1 pith:K2WV7VDH submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Bioverse: Assessing the Ability of Direct Imaging Surveys to Empirically Constrain the Habitable Zone via Trends in Albedo

Noah W. Tuchow , Christopher C. Stark , Daniel Apai , Martin Schlecker , Kevin K. Hardegree-Ullman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords direct imaginghabitable zoneexoEarth yieldalbedo trendsBayes factorstatistical powercomparative planetologyHabitable Worlds Observatory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether a future space-based direct imaging mission such as the Habitable Worlds Observatory can test the classical prediction that rocky planets inside the habitable zone have lower albedos than planets outside it. Simulating an 8-meter coronagraphic survey with injected step-function trends in albedo, the authors find that the strongest plausible trend (albedo dropping from 0.7 outside to 0.3 inside the habitable zone) is recoverable with high confidence from about 25-30 exoEarth candidates (Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone). Weaker trends, with a drop of 0.3, require roughly 80-90 exoEarths, far more than the Decadal Survey's 25-exoEarth target. The result matters because it gives mission designers a quantitative science metric - the number of exoEarths needed to empirically constrain the habitable zone - and suggests that population-level albedo science sits on the edge of feasibility for near-term flagship designs.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that statistical power to detect an albedo-instellation trend grows sharply with the strength of the trend, not just with sample size. Using forward-modeled distributions of the directly observable quantity beta = C(L/Lsun)^{-1}/S_eff (a normalized contrast proportional to geometric albedo times squared radius times phase function), the authors draw random samples of N_EEC exoEarths and compute Bayes factors between a step-function trend model and a no-trend null model via kernel density estimates. For a strong trend (Delta A = 0.4), a 95% true-positive rate at Bayes factor K>10 needs about 30-35 exoEarths, close to the Decadal Survey target. For Delta A = 0.3, t

What carries the argument

The central object is beta, a normalized planet-star contrast that is the closest directly observable proxy for albedo when radius, phase, and albedo are degenerate: beta = A_g (R_p/1AU)^2 Phi(alpha). The paper injects a step-function albedo model A_g = A0 - Delta A inside the habitable zone and A0 outside (for rocky planets R_p < 1.4 R_Earth), forward-models detectability with an exposure-time calculator, builds smooth survey distributions with kernel density estimates, and then uses the Bayes factor from Equation 6, the product of per-point KDE likelihoods, to measure how often random N_EEC samples separate trend from null at K=3 and K=10 thresholds.

Load-bearing premise

The entire statistical-power calculation assumes that the simulated survey's forward-modeled distribution, including the injected step-function albedo, the assumed occurrence rates, exozodi level, noise, and KDE likelihood, is the true distribution a real survey would produce; if the real planetary population or measurement behavior differs, the required sample sizes will be larger.

What would settle it

Repeat the sample-size analysis with a different KDE bandwidth or a different occurrence-rate model; if the number of exoEarths needed for 95% power shifts by more than a factor of two, the headline numbers are not robust. Alternatively, apply the same Bayes-factor test to the real normalized-contrast data from the first ~30-exoEarth survey; if the trend is not recovered at K>10 in at least ~90% of repeated realizations, the claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the Decadal Survey's 25-exoEarth requirement is sufficient only for the strongest plausible albedo step; weaker but arguably more realistic trends would demand a larger telescope or a longer survey.
  • Mission trade studies can use 'exoEarths needed to recover a population trend' as a design metric alongside raw EEC yield.
  • Because the survey distribution is insensitive to 6-10 m telescope diameter and coronagraph depth, the key decision for this science case is yield, not the exact shape of the detection bias.
  • Reducing measurement noise (contrast and semi-major axis uncertainty) by 10x improves statistical power only slightly, so chasing precision per target is a poor substitute for sample size.
  • A survey that only characterizes habitable-zone planets would lose the comparison sample of rocky planets outside the HZ, which is essential for trend detection.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported sample sizes are likely optimistic: they treat the synthetic forward model as the true data-generating process, and Appendix B shows the true-positive rate is sensitive to KDE bandwidth; a real survey with different occurrence rates, exozodi, or phase-function behavior would probably need more exoEarths.
  • The same Bayes-factor machinery could be applied to other HZ tests the authors list (water-vapor fraction, CO2 dependence on instellation), turning each into a sample-size requirement before the mission is built.
  • If high-resolution spectroscopy becomes cheap enough, direct albedo estimates from retrievals would break the beta degeneracy; the paper leaves open whether the reduced sample size of well-characterized planets would outweigh the gain, which a follow-up simulation could settle.
  • The false-positive rate increases with sample size and trend strength in a way the authors do not fully explain; if that variance growth is real, future significance thresholds may need to be calibrated per N_EEC rather than fixed at K=10.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper adapts the Bioverse statistical framework to simulate direct-imaging surveys for HWO-like architectures, injecting a toy step-function albedo trend (lower albedo inside the conservative Kopparapu HZ, A0=0.7 outside, ΔA up to 0.4). It forward-models the survey distribution of normalized contrast β versus instellation S_eff, then draws samples with a specified number of exoEarth candidates (EECs) and computes Bayes factors from KDE likelihoods (Eq. 6) to estimate true and false positive rates. The main findings are that a strong ΔA=0.4 trend requires roughly 30-35 EECs for 95% power at K>10, weaker trends (ΔA=0.3) require 80-90 EECs, and the Decadal Survey's 25-EEC target suffices only for the strongest trend. Appendices examine sensitivity to telescope design, KDE bandwidth, and simulation count.

Significance. If the quantitative estimates were robust, the paper would provide a useful, falsifiable framework for HWO trade studies and a caution that the 25-EEC target is marginal for population-level albedo trends. Strengths include the explicit and publicly available code fork, the Monte Carlo power-calculation approach, the convergence analysis in Appendix C, and the unusually honest sensitivity tests in Appendices A and B that expose where the numbers are fragile. The qualitative conclusion that weaker trends require much larger samples is likely robust; however, the headline sample-size numbers are not yet established because the central statistic depends on KDE bandwidth choices that are not fully quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.6, Eq. (6); Appendix B] The Bayes factor is computed as a product of KDE densities, with no marginalization over the KDE bandwidth or over the trend parameters (A0, ΔA, HZ boundaries). The statement 'there is no parameter to marginalize over' is therefore misleading. Appendix B and Figure 10 show that a 50% reduction in bandwidth noticeably lowers the true positive rate and may asymptote below 100% power, directly affecting the required N_EEC values in §3.2–§3.3. Please quantify this sensitivity: report required N_EEC for each bandwidth in Figure 10, validate the KDE with held-out samples or cross-validation, and give confidence intervals on the headline sample sizes.
  2. [§3.3, Figure 6] The false positive rate is reported to increase with trend strength and sample size in parts of the parameter space, and the authors state that 'the exact reason for the increase in the variance of the Bayes factor distribution remains unclear.' A hypothesis test whose false positive rate grows with sample size is not well calibrated; since the FPR is used to argue that the survey is power-limited rather than false-positive-limited, this behavior must be explained. Please diagnose the cause (e.g., heavy tails of the log-Bayes-factor distribution, KDE edge effects) and report numerical FPR values with uncertainties, or restrict the conclusions to the calibrated regime.
  3. [Title/Abstract; §2.2; §3.3] The simulations inject a step-function albedo dip at the known Kopparapu HZ boundaries with fixed A0 and ΔA. The analysis measures the power to detect that known-shape dip, not the ability to infer the HZ boundary location or the trend shape. Claims of 'empirically constrain the Habitable Zone' therefore overstate what is computed. Please clarify this distinction in the abstract and discussion, or add a version of the test in which the HZ boundaries (and ideally ΔA) are free parameters and are marginalized over.
  4. [§2.5; §4] The reported power is computed under the assumption that the Bioverse forward model is the true data-generating process. Any mismatch between the assumed planet distribution function, exozodi level, noise model, and reality will degrade the real-world detection power. The paper acknowledges this qualitatively in §4 but does not quantify it. At least for the headline number (30–35 EECs for ΔA=0.4), please state explicitly that this is an upper bound under the adopted model and provide a sensitivity test on the most uncertain inputs (e.g., exozodi level, η⊕, PDF shape).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] Typo: 'T rends' should be 'Trends'.
  2. [§4.3] Duplicate word: 'would would' should be 'would'.
  3. [§3.1 vs §3.3] The text uses 10,000 simulations for the N_EEC grid and 1,000 for the ΔA–N_EEC grid. Please state this clearly in both sections, since the FPR contours in Figure 6 may be noisy at 1,000 simulations.
  4. [Figure 6] The description of the bottom-left corner is confusing; it is unclear whether high FPR occurs at low ΔA/low N or low ΔA/high N. Annotate the figure or revise the text to make the behavior unambiguous.
  5. [Appendix A] The 'insensitivity' claim is tested only for telescope diameter and minimum contrast. Exozodi level, which is a known major determinant of yield and detectability, is not varied in the survey-distribution comparison; please note this limitation explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a self-contained forward-model power study, not a prediction derived from its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an injection-recovery simulation. It specifies a toy albedo step function (Eq. 4), forward-models a direct imaging survey through Bioverse, builds survey distributions by simulating 1000 universes, and then measures how often a Bayes-factor test (Eq. 6) classifies random samples correctly. The test data and the KDE likelihoods are both generated from the same forward model, but that is the correct design for a power calculation: it calibrates the best-case statistical separability of the two hypotheses under the model assumptions. The sample-size numbers (e.g., ~30–35 EECs for 95% power at ΔA=0.4) are computed outputs of this Monte Carlo exercise, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The paper's external inputs (SAG 13 occurrence rates, Kopparapu HZ boundaries, HOSTS exozodi, ExEP uncertainties) are all cited to independent sources; self-citations to Bioverse and the HPIC provide the framework and target list but are not the load-bearing justification for the recovery rates. Appendix B is an explicit robustness check showing that the true-positive rate depends on KDE bandwidth; this is a statistical modeling caveat, and the paper flags it, but it does not reduce the central claim to its own inputs by definition. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an assumed step-function albedo model, a forward-modeled survey distribution built from literature occurrence rates and noise assumptions, and a nonparametric likelihood. Each of these is an input from prior literature or a hand choice rather than derived from first principles. The paper tests sensitivity to some of them, but the headline numbers are conditional on all of them.

free parameters (6)
  • A0 (albedo outside HZ) = 0.7
    Chosen from solar system analogies such as Earth and Venus albedos, not fitted here. The whole recoverability result is conditional on this assumed baseline.
  • DeltaA (albedo step strength in HZ) = 0.4 strong; 0.3 and smaller explored
    Injected trend strength. Headline result of 25-30 exoEarths applies only to DeltaA=0.4; required sample sizes rise rapidly for weaker steps.
  • KDE bandwidth = 0.05 on preprocessed axes
    Selected by visual inspection to balance smoothness versus noise (Appendix B). Changing it by 50% changes true positive rates, so results are sensitive to this hand-set parameter.
  • Exozodiacal dust level = 3 zodi
    Assumed median from HOSTS survey; affects signal-to-noise and survey yield, and is poorly constrained for most target stars.
  • Detection SNR threshold = SNR = 7
    Sets contrast uncertainty to 14% and defines a detection. Different SNR choices would change the noise budget and detection criterion.
  • Semi-major-axis uncertainty = 5%
    Adopted to meet the stated Seff characterization requirement. Actual multi-epoch orbit constraints could be better or worse.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Lambertian phase function for all planets.
    Used to compute planet-star contrast in Eq. 1 and to build the survey distributions. Paper acknowledges real phase functions deviate from Lambertian spheres (Section 2.1.2).
  • domain assumption Kopparapu et al. (2013/2014) habitable zone boundaries and the step-function albedo model (Eq. 4) capture the true albedo-instellation relation.
    The injected trend is the hypothesis under test. If the true relation is smoother or weaker, required sample sizes change. Section 2.2 uses this toy model.
  • domain assumption SAG 13 planet occurrence rates with eta_earth = 0.24 and spectral-type dependence describe the real planet population.
    Used to generate synthetic planets and survey distributions (Section 2.1). Paper notes the shape matters more than normalization.
  • domain assumption The survey distribution built from 1000 forward simulations is a sufficient and unbiased model of the observable planet population.
    Section 2.5 and Appendix B. The KDE is trained on this distribution and used as truth for the Bayes factor. Monte Carlo noise is acknowledged but not fully propagated.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bayes factor can be computed as a product of KDE densities without marginalizing over population parameters or model complexity.
    Section 2.6 states "there is no parameter to marginalize over." This is a non-parametric proxy for model comparison and ignores prior uncertainty in the forward model, potentially inflating detection power.
  • domain assumption Measurement noise levels: 3% luminosity, 14% contrast, 5% semi-major axis, 3 zodi exozodiacal light.
    Section 2.3 and 2.1.3. These noise levels set the scatter in beta and Seff, directly affecting the required sample sizes.
  • domain assumption Equal prior probabilities for the Trend and Null models.
    Section 2.6. The Bayes factor interpretation assumes P(Trend) = P(Null), a conventional but subjective choice.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bioverse: Assessing the Ability of Direct Imaging Surveys to Empirically Constrain the Habitable Zone via Trends in Albedo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2WV7VDH

@misc{pith2026250907297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bioverse: Assessing the Ability of Direct Imaging Surveys to Empirically Constrain the Habitable Zone via Trends in Albedo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2WV7VDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07297}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Will future direct imaging missions such as NASA's upcoming Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) be able to understand Earth-sized planets as a population? In this study, we simulate the ability of space-based coronagraphy missions to uncover trends in planetary albedo as a function of instellation, and potentially constrain the boundaries of the habitable zone. We adapt the Bioverse statistical comparative planetology framework to simulate the scientific output of possible designs for HWO. With this tool, we generate a synthetic planetary population with injected population-level trends in albedo and simulate the observability of planets. We then determine the statistical power to which these trends can be recovered as a function of the strength of the injected trend and the sample size of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone (exoEarths). The strongest trends in albedo require a sample size of roughly 25-30 exoEarths to recover with high confidence. However, for weaker albedo trends, the required number of planets increases rapidly. If a mission is designed to meet the Decadal Survey's requirement of 25 exoEarths, it would be able to recover very strong trends in albedo associated with the habitable zone, but would struggle to confidently detect weaker trends. We explore multiple strategies to increase one's ability to recover weak trends, such as reducing the uncertainties in observables, incorporating additional observables such as planet colors, and obtaining direct constraints on planetary albedo from full spectral retrievals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07297 by Christopher C. Stark, Daniel Apai, Kevin K. Hardegree-Ullman, Martin Schlecker, Noah W. Tuchow.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example Bioverse simulation of a survey to characterize Earth-sized planets in the HZ. This simulation used an 8m diameter telescope observing at λ= 550nm. This figure shows all rocky planets detected with Rp < 1.4R⊕. Left panel shows the measured quantity of β = AgR 2Φ(α) as a function of instellation. Individual components of albedo, radius, and phase angle drawn from the Bioverse planet generation proce… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Survey distribution of rocky planets that would be detectable for a space-based direct imaging survey with an 8m diameter telescope. Left panel shows the distribution of planets if there is no injected trend in albedo, while the right panel shows the case where there is a strong trend in albedo (∆A = 0.4). This distribution was generated by simulating the output of exoEarth surveys (analogous to [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Histogram of Bayes factors for random samples with 25 exoEarth candidates (EECs). Blue histogram represents points drawn from a distribution with a strong injected trend in albedo (∆A = 0.4). Orange histogram represents points drawn from a distribution without any trend in albedo. The dashed vertical line represents the threshold for strong detection of a trend at a Bayes factor of K=10. The region of the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample size of exoEarths required to detect an injected trend in albedo. Top panels represent the true positive rate or statistical power as a function of the sample size of exoEarths, NEEC , for two threshold values of the Bayes factor, K. Bottom subplots show the false positive rate as a function of sample size. For each point in these subplots an analysis similar to that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: True positive rate as a function of trend strength, ∆A, and sample size, NEEC . Left and right subplots show results for two different threshold values for the Bayes factor required to detect an injected trend in albedo. Contours are shown for 90% and 95% statistical power. One can observe that the sample size required to detect a trend increases rapidly as the strength of the trend is reduced [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: False positive rate as a function of trend strength and sample size. Left and right subplots show results for two different threshold values for the Bayes factor required to detect an injected trend in albedo. Contours are shown for a 1% and 5% false positive rate. Weaker trends and smaller samples of exoEarths have higher false positive rates. sample of around 30 EECs to achieve a statistical power of 95%… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Insensitivity of the survey distribution on telescope and coronagraph parameters. Each of these scenarios take the baseline case of the survey distribution shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of kernel density estimates of the survey distribution. Left panels show a survey distribution with no injected trend while right panels show a distribution with a strong injected trend (∆A = 0.4). These kernel density estimates used a Gaussian kernel, changing the bandwidth parameter in each row. parameter of 0.05. We selected this value for kernel bandwidth as we found that it captured the mos… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sensitivity of the results of our analysis to the choice of kernel for the kernel density estimate. Simulations are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Required number of simulations to constrain the true positive rates (top panels) and false positive rates (bottom panels). Sub-samples of size Nsim are drawn from a sample of 100,000 simulations, and true and false positive rates are calculated for each sub-sample. One can observe high variability for sub-samples with low Nsim, but as Nsim increases the calculated quantities converge to a given value. The… view at source ↗

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. Not Earth-like Yet Temperate? More Generic Climate Feedback Configurations Still Allow Temperate Climates in Habitable Zone Exo-Earth Candidates

    astro-ph.EP 2026-02 reject novelty 4.0

    An idealized model with an extra generalized feedback produces chaotic and runaway climates and predicts that strong positive fourth feedbacks reduce long-term temperate habitability of Earth-like exoplanets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, AJ, 169, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada384

    Affholder, A., Mazevet, S., Sauterey, B., Apai, D., & Ferri` ere, R. 2025, AJ, 169, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada384

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada384 2025

  2. [2]

    Exploring Other Worlds: Science Questions for Future Direct Imaging Missions (EXOPAG SAG15 Report)

    Apai, D., Cowan, N., Kopparapu, R., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.02821, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1708.02821

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.02821 2017

  3. [3]

    P., et al

    Apai, D., Banzatti, A., Ballering, N. P., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 475

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    L., Abbot, D

    Bean, J. L., Abbot, D. S., & Kempton, E. M.-R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 841, L24

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 3 —

    Bixel, A., & Apai, D. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 3 —. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 228

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    K., et al

    Bryson, S., Kunimoto, M., Kopparapu, R. K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc418

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc418 2021

  7. [7]

    L., Marley, M

    Cahoy, K. L., Marley, M. S., & Fortney, J. J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 189

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    A Statistical Comparative Planetology Approach to Maximize the Scientific Return of Future Exoplanet Characterization Efforts

    Checlair, J. H., Abbot, D. S., Webber, R. J., et al. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.05211

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    A., McFadden, L., Robinson, T., et al

    Crow, C. A., McFadden, L., Robinson, T., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 130

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    2022, AJ, 163, 299, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6b97

    Damiano, M., & Hu, R. 2022, AJ, 163, 299, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6b97

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6b97 2022

  11. [11]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 177

    Ertel, S., Defr` ere, D., Hinz, P., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 177

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.06683

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    2023, AJ, 165, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd1ec

    Pascucci, I., & L´ opez-Morales, M. 2023, AJ, 165, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd1ec

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd1ec 2023

  14. [14]

    K., Apai, D., Haffert, S

    Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Apai, D., Haffert, S. Y., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 171

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    1998, The theory of probability (OuP Oxford)

    Jeffreys, H. 1998, The theory of probability (OuP Oxford)

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108

    1993

  17. [17]

    Kopparapu, R. K. 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, 58

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJL, 787, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/l29 2014

  19. [19]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 131

    2013

  20. [20]

    K., H´ ebrard, E., Belikov, R., et al

    Kopparapu, R. K., H´ ebrard, E., Belikov, R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 122

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 25

    Madhusudhan, N., & Burrows, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 25

    2012

  22. [22]

    2017, Icarus, 282, 19

    Mallama, A., Krobusek, B., & Pavlov, H. 2017, Icarus, 282, 19

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Mamajek, E., & Stapelfeldt, K. 2023, NASA ExEP Mission Star List for the Habitable Worlds Observatory: Most Accessible Targets to Survey for Potentially Habitable Exoplanets, https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/internal resources/2645 NASA ExEP Target List HWO Documentation 2023.pdf

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    2019, in Techniques and instrumentation for detection of exoplanets IX, Vol

    Morgan, R., Savransky, D., Turmon, M., et al. 2019, in Techniques and instrumentation for detection of exoplanets IX, Vol. 11117, SPIE, 1111701

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D

    Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D. 2015a, ApJ, 798, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/112 —. 2015b, ApJ, 814, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/130 National Academies of Sciences, E., & Medicine. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), doi: 10.17226/26141

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/2/112 2021

  26. [26]

    R., & Rogers, L

    Neil, A. R., & Rogers, L. A. 2020, ApJ, 891, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a92

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a92 2020

  27. [27]

    D., & Lopez, E

    Pascucci, I., Mulders, G. D., & Lopez, E. 2019, ApJL, 883, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3dac

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3dac 2019

  28. [28]

    Rizzo, M. L. 2019, Statistical computing with R (Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    J., Lincowski, A

    Roberge, A., Rizzo, M. J., Lincowski, A. P., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 124401 23

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Robinson, T. D. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22258

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    D., Fortney, J

    Salvador, A., Robinson, T. D., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2024, ApJL, 969, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54c5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad54c5 2024

  32. [32]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 24

    Schlecker, M., Apai, D., Affholder, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 24

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    2024, PSJ, 5, 3, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acf57f

    Schlecker, M., Apai, D., Lichtenberg, T., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 3, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acf57f

    doi:10.3847/psj/acf57f 2024

  34. [34]

    L., Meadows, V

    Shields, A. L., Meadows, V. S., Bitz, C. M., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 715

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., et al

    Stark, C. C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 149

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., & Robinson, T

    Stark, C. C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., & Robinson, T. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 122

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    C., Belikov, R., Bolcar, M

    Stark, C. C., Belikov, R., Bolcar, M. R., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 024009

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 31 The LUVOIR Team. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06219

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Traub, W. A. 2003, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 539, Earths: DAR WIN/TPF and the Search for Extrasolar Terrestrial Planets, ed. M. Fridlund, T. Henning, & H. Lacoste, 231–239

    work page 2003

  40. [40]

    A., & Oppenheimer, B

    Traub, W. A., & Oppenheimer, B. R. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager, 111–156

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    W., Stark, C

    Tuchow, N. W., Stark, C. C., & Mamajek, E. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 139

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Two examples of how to use observations of terrestrial planets orbiting in temperate orbits around low mass stars to test key concepts of planetary habitability

    Turbet, M. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.06512, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.06512

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.06512 2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.