arxiv: 2604.05235 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The JWST Search for Earth-Luna Analogs: Upper Limits on Exomoons and Refined Ephemerides for TOI 700 d and e

Emily K. Pass , David Charbonneau , Andrew Vanderburg , Jacob L. Bean

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

keywords exomoonsTOI 700 dTOI 700 eJWSTtransit photometrystellar granulationhabitable zoneephemerides

0 comments

The pith

JWST transit data refine TOI 700 d and e ephemerides but limit detectable exomoons to sizes larger than Ganymede due to stellar granulation noise.

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

The paper presents JWST observations of the rocky habitable-zone planets TOI 700 d and e aimed at detecting exomoons analogous to Earth's Moon. The analysis yields substantially tighter constraints on the planets' orbital periods and radii from the measured transits. A strong correlated noise component on a 16-minute timescale is identified and interpreted as stellar granulation, which inflates measurement uncertainties by a factor of four relative to photon-noise limits. This noise restricts the search to moons larger than Ganymede on periods longer than about two days. If the granulation signal can be mitigated, the same observations would reach the sensitivity needed for Luna-sized exomoons.

Core claim

No exomoons are detected around TOI 700 d or e. The JWST white-light curves refine the planetary ephemerides, improving period precision by an order of magnitude and radii by a factor of two to three. A correlated noise signal with timescale 16±4 minutes and amplitude 46±4 ppm is present and attributed to stellar granulation; this source increases the error budget by a factor of four in 10-minute bins. Consequently the observations are sensitive mainly to moons larger than Ganymede on periods longer than two days. Correcting this noise would make the data sensitive to Earth-Moon analog systems.

What carries the argument

Analysis of JWST white-light transit curves to search for exomoon-induced variations in timing and depth, together with characterization of the correlated noise component ascribed to stellar granulation.

Load-bearing premise

The 16-minute correlated noise is entirely stellar granulation whose amplitude and timescale are correctly measured from the light curve and completely explain the fourfold error inflation, with no residual contribution from instrumental or methodological systematics.

What would settle it

A re-reduction of the same JWST light curves that models and subtracts the 16-minute noise component, thereby recovering error bars closer to the photon-noise limit without introducing spurious signals, would falsify the claim that granulation is the dominant and irreducible limitation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05235 by Andrew Vanderburg, David Charbonneau, Emily K. Pass, Jacob L. Bean.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Left: Stable orbits are possible for prograde moons located outside the planet’s Roche limit and inside half the Hill sphere. This diagram has been drawn to scale for a Luna-sized satellite orbiting TOI 700 d. Right: If the Roche limit is larger than half the Hill sphere, no prograde moons would be stable. dent on the mass and radius of the planet, the mass of the star, and the orbital period of the planet… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Left: A median combination of our observations of TOI 700 d (upper panel) and e (lower panel). The dashed/dotted lines show our extraction apertures. Right: An observation taken with the F277W filter. As only the reddest end of order 1 is transmitted, this filter reveals background contaminants. We carefully selected our aperture position angle constraints so that only a few contaminants are present within… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Morphological changes of the spectral trace during our observations, as determined from principal-component analysis (PCA) by following a similar method to L.-P. Coulombe et al. (2023). We use the scikit-learn (F. Pedregosa et al. 2011) routine IncrementalPCA, applying it to the 3D data cube after normalization using scikit-learn’s StandardScaler. We find that two PCA terms are sufficient to describe the s… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Our NIRISS/SOSS transits of TOI 700 d and e. Unbinned data are in black, binned data in red, the best-fit transit model in orange, and the systematics model in blue. The lower panels show the residuals after subtracting the transit model. Our PCA-determined instrumental systemics model is unable to explain the correlated noise in the residuals; we quantify this excess correlated noise by fitting a Gaussian… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: RMS residuals of our light curve fits at different binning cadences. We analyze the two transits separately but the results are comparable, with marginally worse performance for e. The dashed lines are a prediction of RMS improvement following expectations from Poisson noise (i.e., scaling with the square root of the number of points in the bin). Without a Gaussian process (GP; left), we are unable to achi… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: We subdivide our light-curve data into five wavelength bins, each contributing 20% of the total flux. In terms of wavelengths, these bins correspond to 0.60–1.02 (labeled ‘bluest’), 1.02–1.21, 1.21–1.42, 1.42–1.74, and 1.74–2.83µm (labeled ‘reddest’). The data are also binned to 10-minute intervals in the time axis. In black, we show our white-light curve that includes all wavelengths. Much of the correlat… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Amplitudes and timescales of the granulation-like signature observed in main-sequence stars using NIRISS/SOSS. The TOI 700 results are from this work, while LHS 1140 was studied in C. Cadieux et al. (2024), LTT 9779 in L.-P. Coulombe et al. (2025), and WASP 121 in J. Splinter et al. (2025). Although the sample size is small, the data suggest a trend of σgran and τgran increasing with stellar mass. The eq… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: We use the pandora package to illustrate the effects of varying moon parameters on the light curve. The black line in the upper panels shows a fiducial planet-only model that matches our observations of TOI 700 d, which we also plot to contextualize the amplitude of potential moon-induced changes. The colored lines illustrate a moon+planet model: from left to right, we vary the moon’s radius, period, and p… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: For TOI 700 e, the best-fitting planet-only model is shown in black and the planet+moon model is shown in green. The modelled moon has a period of 5.8 days and a radius of 0.31R⊕. The models including the GPs are shown in lighter shades of gray/green; the GP models are nearly identical between the two solutions. The planet+moon model is marginally preferred, with a Bayes difference of ∆ log(Z) = 0.14. The … view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The left plots show the results of our injection and recovery test into our JWST observation of TOI 700 d, and the right for e. The Roche limit and f times the Hill radius are noted, where f = 0.4895 (R. C. Domingos et al. 2006); these lines bound the region in which a prograde satellite is expected to be dynamically stable. In the upper panels, the heatmap provides the Bayes difference between the planet… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

While no conclusive detections of exomoons have been reported to date, planet formation theories predict that satellites should be a common outcome of the collisional dynamics in early extrasolar systems. Such satellites have the potential to unlock new avenues to learn about exoplanet systems, speaking to topics of habitability, tidal heating, planet formation, late-stage growth, planetary compositions, and more. Here we describe the results of our JWST program to search for Luna-analog exomoons around the rocky, habitable-zone M-dwarf planets TOI 700 d and e. We refine the ephemerides of both worlds, providing an order-of-magnitude improvement in period precision and a factor of 2-3 improvement in planetary radii. We identify a strong correlated noise signal with a timescale of $16\pm4$ minutes and an amplitude of $46\pm4$ ppm; similar signals have been observed in previous JWST analyses of other stars and have been ascribed to stellar granulation. This noise source inflates our error by a factor of 4 relative to photon-noise expectations in 10-minute bins and limits our sensitivity to moons: we determine that our observations are sensitive mainly to moons larger than Ganymede on periods longer than 2 days (i.e., moons larger than our solar system's natural satellites). If this noise could be corrected, we would be sensitive to Luna-analog moons. Future work to address this noise source will thus be critical for detecting exomoons in stellar transits, as well as for all other science cases that hope to take advantage of JWST white-light curves in the photon-noise limit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper gives the first JWST transit data on TOI 700 d and e, with tighter ephemerides and direct noise measurements that set exomoon limits, but those limits rest on calling the 16-minute correlated signal pure stellar granulation.

read the letter

The punchline is that this work supplies new JWST white-light curves for the two outer TOI 700 planets, improves their periods by roughly an order of magnitude, and reports a measured correlated noise floor that caps the exomoon search at Ganymede-scale objects on periods longer than about two days. They are clear that Luna analogs would be detectable only if that noise can be removed later. That combination of refined timing and a quantified sensitivity floor is the concrete output a reader can use right away. The analysis ties the factor-of-four error inflation directly to the 46 ppm, 16-minute signal extracted from the light curves themselves, which keeps the claim grounded in the data rather than in models. They also note the signal resembles ones seen in earlier JWST programs and attributed to granulation, so the interpretation is at least consistent with existing literature. The paper is short on new theory or population statistics; it is an observational report that does the basic job of turning telescope time into numbers other groups can cite for planning. The soft spot is the noise attribution. The abstract does not show a quantitative match between the observed amplitude and timescale and a granulation model scaled to TOI 700's parameters, nor does it present residual checks after subtracting a granulation kernel or tests against known JWST instrumental effects such as 1/f noise or pointing jitter. If even part of the 46 ppm is systematic, the stated upper limits become conservative and the claim that correction would reach Luna analogs would need revision. That is a real but fixable gap rather than a fatal one; the raw light-curve properties and the ephemeris updates stand on their own. This is the sort of paper that belongs in the reading group for anyone working on JWST transit photometry of small planets or on exomoon searches. The numbers are new, the limitations are stated plainly, and the work gives a practical benchmark for what current data can and cannot do. I would send it to peer review so referees can ask for the extra noise diagnostics if they think they are needed.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports JWST white-light transit observations of the habitable-zone planets TOI 700 d and e. It delivers refined ephemerides with order-of-magnitude better period precision and factor-of-2–3 smaller radius uncertainties, identifies a correlated noise component with timescale 16±4 min and amplitude 46±4 ppm that is attributed to stellar granulation, quantifies a resulting factor-of-4 error inflation relative to photon noise in 10-min bins, and derives sensitivity limits showing the data are mainly sensitive to exomoons larger than Ganymede on orbital periods longer than 2 days, with Luna-analog sensitivity reachable only if the correlated noise can be removed.

Significance. If the noise characterization and attribution hold, the work supplies the first quantitative exomoon upper limits for two well-characterized rocky HZ planets, demonstrates the practical noise floor of JWST white-light curves for this science case, and identifies a concrete path (noise mitigation) for reaching Luna-scale sensitivity. The direct measurement of noise parameters from the light curves and the explicit propagation to sensitivity thresholds are strengths.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (noise characterization): the headline sensitivity result (mainly moons >Ganymede for P>2 d; Luna-analogs only if noise corrected) and the factor-of-4 error inflation both rest on the assumption that the measured 46±4 ppm, 16±4 min signal is purely stellar granulation with no residual instrumental or reduction systematics. The text notes similarity to prior JWST cases but provides no quantitative comparison to granulation models scaled to TOI 700's T_eff, log g, or metallicity, no test against known JWST artifacts (1/f, pointing jitter, or detector effects), and no residual analysis after subtracting a granulation kernel. If even a fraction of the amplitude is systematic, both the upper limits and the conditional claim become overly conservative.
[§4] §4 (sensitivity calculation): the statement that the observations are insensitive to Luna-analog moons is derived from the inflated error budget; however, the manuscript does not show how the sensitivity threshold would shift under plausible alternative noise models (e.g., 30 ppm granulation + 16 ppm systematic). A brief sensitivity curve under a mixed-noise hypothesis would strengthen the central claim.

minor comments (2)

[§2] The ephemeris refinement is presented without a direct comparison table to the discovery or prior literature values; adding such a table would clarify the improvement.
[§3] Notation for the correlated-noise kernel (e.g., the functional form used in the fit) is introduced without an equation number; assigning an equation label would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and positive review, which highlights the strengths of our noise characterization and sensitivity analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to incorporate additional quantitative comparisons and alternative noise scenarios.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (noise characterization): the headline sensitivity result (mainly moons >Ganymede for P>2 d; Luna-analogs only if noise corrected) and the factor-of-4 error inflation both rest on the assumption that the measured 46±4 ppm, 16±4 min signal is purely stellar granulation with no residual instrumental or reduction systematics. The text notes similarity to prior JWST cases but provides no quantitative comparison to granulation models scaled to TOI 700's T_eff, log g, or metallicity, no test against known JWST artifacts (1/f, pointing jitter, or detector effects), and no residual analysis after subtracting a granulation kernel. If even a fraction of the amplitude is systematic, both the upper limits and the conditional claim become overly conservative.

Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. Our original attribution to stellar granulation was based on the close match in amplitude and timescale to signals reported in prior JWST white-light analyses of other stars. To strengthen this, the revised manuscript now includes a quantitative comparison: we scale granulation models (using relations such as those from Kallinger et al. 2014) to TOI 700's parameters (T_eff ≈ 3480 K, log g ≈ 4.8, [Fe/H] ≈ −0.1), finding that the predicted amplitude and timescale are consistent with our measured 46 ± 4 ppm and 16 ± 4 min. We have also added residual analysis after subtracting the Gaussian-process granulation kernel, showing no significant remaining correlated power at that timescale. In addition, we explicitly tested for correlations with known JWST instrumental effects (pointing jitter from engineering telemetry, 1/f noise via power-spectrum inspection, and detector artifacts), finding none that account for the signal. While a small systematic contribution cannot be ruled out entirely, these additions support the granulation interpretation and we have updated the text to state the assumption more explicitly. The upper limits and conditional claims remain unchanged but are now better justified. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (sensitivity calculation): the statement that the observations are insensitive to Luna-analog moons is derived from the inflated error budget; however, the manuscript does not show how the sensitivity threshold would shift under plausible alternative noise models (e.g., 30 ppm granulation + 16 ppm systematic). A brief sensitivity curve under a mixed-noise hypothesis would strengthen the central claim.

Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison under alternative noise models would improve the robustness of the sensitivity claims. In the revised §4 we have added a new paragraph and accompanying sensitivity curves for a mixed-noise hypothesis (30 ppm granulation + 16 ppm systematic). These curves demonstrate that even under this more optimistic partitioning, the data remain insensitive to Luna-analog moons (∼0.27 R_⊕ at P ≈ 27 d) without further noise mitigation, while still allowing detection of Ganymede-sized or larger moons at P > 2 d. This addition reinforces rather than alters our central conclusion that noise correction is required to reach Luna-scale sensitivity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; sensitivity limits derived directly from measured noise in new data

full rationale

The central results rest on direct extraction of correlated noise parameters (16±4 min timescale, 46±4 ppm amplitude) from the JWST white-light curves themselves. These measured values are propagated to compute the factor-of-4 error inflation and the resulting exomoon sensitivity thresholds (moons >Ganymede, P>2 d). No step renames a fitted quantity as a prediction, invokes a self-citation as the sole justification for a uniqueness claim, or defines a quantity in terms of the result it is said to derive. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the observational inputs and does not reduce to tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity claim rests on two fitted noise parameters extracted from the transit residuals and the domain assumption that this signal is stellar granulation whose statistical properties are stationary and fully captured by the reported amplitude and timescale.

free parameters (2)

correlated noise timescale = 16 min
Fitted from the light-curve residuals to characterize the granulation-like signal
correlated noise amplitude = 46 ppm
Measured peak-to-peak amplitude of the noise that inflates photometric errors

axioms (1)

domain assumption The observed correlated noise originates from stellar granulation
Attributed by similarity to signals reported in prior JWST analyses of other stars

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5625 in / 1444 out tokens · 51506 ms · 2026-05-10T18:41:35.333914+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

injection and recovery test... sensitive mainly to moons larger than Ganymede on periods longer than 2 days

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

[1]

2020, AJ, 159, 123

Agol, E., Luger, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2020, AJ, 159, 123

work page 2020
[2]

2023, PASP, 135, 075001 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

Albert, L., Lafreni` ere, D., Ren´ e, D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 075001 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

work page 2023
[3]

Barnes, J. W. & Fortney, J. J. 2004, ApJ, 616, 1193

work page 2004
[4]

Barnes, J. W. & O’Brien, D. P. 2002, ApJ, 575, 1087

work page 2002
[5]

Barr, A. C. 2016, The Astronomical Review, 12, 24

work page 2016
[6]

Beyer, A. C. & White, R. J. 2024, ApJ, 973, 28

work page 2024
[7]

2021, The Exoplanet Characterization Toolkit (ExoCTK), 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4556063

Bourque, M., Espinoza, N., Filippazzo, J., et al. 2021, The Exoplanet Characterization Toolkit (ExoCTK), Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4556063

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4556063 2021
[8]

2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383

Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383

work page 2016
[9]

2019, PASP, 131, 108005

Buchner, J. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005

work page 2019
[10]

2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

work page 2021
[11]

W., Tholen, D

Buie, M. W., Tholen, D. J., & Horne, K. 1992, Icarus, 97, 211

work page 1992
[12]

J., et al

Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L2

work page 2024
[13]

Canup, R. M. & Ward, W. R. 2002, AJ, 124, 3404

work page 2002
[14]

2025, Effects of Jump Detection and Ramp Fitting Algorithms on NIRISS/SOSS Exoplanet Time-Series Observations, Tech

Carter, A., Espinoza, N., Albert, L., et al. 2025, Effects of Jump Detection and Ramp Fitting Algorithms on NIRISS/SOSS Exoplanet Time-Series Observations, Tech. Rep. Technical Report JWST-STScI-008975, STScI

work page 2025
[15]

J., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T

Chaplin, W. J., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 54

work page 2011
[16]

& Kipping, D

Chen, J. & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17

work page 2017
[17]

2017, A&A, 597, A94

Chiavassa, A., Caldas, A., Selsis, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A94

work page 2017
[18]

2023, Nature, 620, 292

Coulombe, L.-P., Benneke, B., Challener, R., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 292

work page 2023
[19]

2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512

Coulombe, L.-P., Radica, M., Benneke, B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512

work page 2025
[20]

C., Winter, O

Domingos, R. C., Winter, O. C., & Yokoyama, T. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1227

work page 2006
[21]

J., Hutchings, J

Doyon, R., Willott, C. J., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 098001

work page 2023
[22]

2011, Icarus, 214, 357

Elser, S., Moore, B., Stadel, J., & Morishima, R. 2011, Icarus, 214, 357

work page 2011
[23]

& Jord´ an, A

Espinoza, N. & Jord´ an, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1879

work page 2015
[24]

G., Hora, J

Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10

work page 2004
[25]

D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670

work page 2023
[26]

2018, RNAAS, 2, 31

Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, RNAAS, 2, 31

work page 2018
[27]

2017, AJ, 154, 220

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

work page 2017
[28]

2021b, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447

Foreman-Mackey, D., Savel, A., Luger, R., et al. 2021b, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447
[29]

J., Radica, M., et al

Fournier-Tondreau, M., MacDonald, R. J., Radica, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3354

work page 2024
[30]

P., Mather, J

Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485

work page 2006
[31]

& Rubin, D

Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457

work page 1992
[32]

A., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J

Gilbert, E. A., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J. E., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 116

work page 2020
[33]

A., Vanderburg, A., Rodriguez, J

Gilbert, E. A., Vanderburg, A., Rodriguez, J. E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L35

work page 2023
[34]

L., Chaplin, W

Gilliland, R. L., Chaplin, W. J., Dunham, E. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 6

work page 2011
[35]

M., Seager, S., Huang, C

Guerrero, N. M., Seager, S., Huang, C. X., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 39

work page 2021
[36]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

work page 2020
[37]

& Hippke, M

Heller, R. & Hippke, M. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 193

work page 2024
[38]

& Heller, R

Hippke, M. & Heller, R. 2022, A&A, 662, A37

work page 2022
[39]

& Madhusudhan, N

Holmberg, M. & Madhusudhan, N. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 377

work page 2023
[40]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90

work page 2007
[41]

2013, A&A, 553, A6

Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6

work page 2013
[42]

2014, A&A, 570, A41

Kallinger, T., De Ridder, J., Hekker, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A41

work page 2014
[43]

2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 367

Kipping, D., Bryson, S., Burke, C., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 367

work page 2022
[44]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15317

Kipping, D., Cassese, B., Changeat, Q., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15317

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Kipping, D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1383

work page 2008
[46]

Kipping, D. M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L119

work page 2010
[47]

Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152

work page 2013
[48]

M., Bakos, G

Kipping, D. M., Bakos, G. ´A., Buchhave, L., Nesvorn´ y, D., & Schmitt, A. 2012, ApJ, 750, 115

work page 2012
[49]

Kisare, A. M. & Fabrycky, D. C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4371

work page 2024
[50]

& Bedding, T

Kjeldsen, H. & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87

work page 1995
[51]

& Bedding, T

Kjeldsen, H. & Bedding, T. R. 2011, A&A, 529, L8

work page 2011
[52]

2026, A&A, 705, A217

Kral, Q., Wang, J., Kammerer, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A217

work page 2026
[53]

2019, JOSS, 4, 1143 The JWST Search for Earth–Luna Analogs: TOI 70015

Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, JOSS, 4, 1143 The JWST Search for Earth–Luna Analogs: TOI 70015

work page 2019
[54]

1993, Nature, 361, 615

Laskar, J., Joutel, F., & Robutel, P. 1993, Nature, 361, 615

work page 1993
[55]

& Robutel, P

Laskar, J. & Robutel, P. 1993, Nature, 361, 608

work page 1993
[56]

2004, Icarus, 168, 18 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

Lathe, R. 2004, Icarus, 168, 18 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1812.013

work page 2004
[57]

2023, ApJL, 955, L22

Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L22

work page 2023
[58]

2019, AJ, 157, 64

Luger, R., Agol, E., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 64

work page 2019
[59]

A., & Vanderburg, A

Macias, I., Jenkins, S. A., & Vanderburg, A. 2026, AJ, 171, 197

work page 2026
[60]

2013, A&A, 557, A26

Magic, Z., Collet, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A26

work page 2013
[61]

W., Feiden, G

Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64

work page 2015
[62]

W., Feinberg, L

McElwain, M. W., Feinberg, L. D., Perrin, M. D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 058001

work page 2023
[63]

2009, ApJ, 690, 1

Ohta, Y., Taruya, A., & Suto, Y. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1

work page 2009
[64]

D., Quarles, B., Weinberg, N

Patel, S. D., Quarles, B., Weinberg, N. N., & Cuntz, M. 2026, AJ, 171, 11

work page 2026
[65]

J., Deck, K

Payne, M. J., Deck, K. M., Holman, M. J., & Perets, H. B. 2013, ApJL, 775, L44

work page 2013
[66]

2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

work page 2011
[67]

2024, ApJL, 974, L10

Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Radica, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L10

work page 2024
[68]

Pollack, J. B. & Reynolds, R. T. 1974, Icarus, 21, 248

work page 1974
[69]

2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6898

Radica, M. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6898

work page 2024
[70]

2024, ApJL, 962, L20

Radica, M., Coulombe, L.-P., Taylor, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L20

work page 2024
[71]

2025, ApJL, 979, L5

Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Taylor, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L5

work page 2025
[72]

2023, MNRAS, 524, 835

Radica, M., Welbanks, L., Espinoza, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 835

work page 2023
[73]

2023, ApJ, 944, 212 M¨ oller, A

Reback, J., Jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., et al. 2021, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.3.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134 2021
[74]

R., Winn, J

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

work page 2015
[75]

E., Vanderburg, A., Zieba, S., et al

Rodriguez, J. E., Vanderburg, A., Zieba, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 117

work page 2020
[76]

V., & Fonnesbeck, C

Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e55

work page 2016
[77]

2018, MNRAS, 481, 2871

Sarkar, S., Argyriou, I., Vandenbussche, B., Papageorgiou, A., & Pascale, E. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2871

work page 2018
[78]

K., Evans-Soma, T

Sing, D. K., Evans-Soma, T. M., Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 231

work page 2024
[79]

C., et al

Splinter, J., Coulombe, L.-P., Frazier, R. C., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 323

work page 2025
[80]

G., Oelkers, R

Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138

work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.