arxiv: 2604.06388 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

Determining the Host Stars of Planets in Binary Star Systems with Asterodensity Profiling: Investigating the Canonical Radius Gap

Nathanael Burns-Watson , Kendall Sullivan , Adam Kraus

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

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

keywords exoplanetsbinary starsradius gaptransit photometryasterodensityhost star identificationplanet demographics

0 comments

The pith

Asterodensity profiling indicates the radius gap is less vacant for planets in binary star systems.

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

The radius gap is a well-known feature in exoplanet sizes where few planets are found between about 1.8 and 2 Earth radii. Studies of planets in binary stars have usually assumed they all orbit the main star, but this may not be true and could affect the apparent gap. The authors use asterodensity profiling on 15 planets in 10 binary systems to find host star probabilities. Five planets are likely around primaries, others ambiguous, and summed probabilities indicate the gap is less vacant in binaries. This implies different planet populations in binary environments.

Core claim

The paper establishes that for planets in binary star systems, asterodensity profiling from transit data can be used to assign probabilistic host stars, and when these probabilities are summed, the canonical radius gap appears less vacant than when assuming all planets orbit the primary star. In the sample studied, no planets are unambiguously on secondary stars due to selection biases, but the overall distribution suggests more planets occupy the 1.8-2 Earth radius range when secondary possibilities are included.

What carries the argument

Asterodensity profiling: the technique of inferring the stellar density from the duration and shape of a planetary transit and matching it to the densities of the binary components to determine the likely host.

Load-bearing premise

Asterodensity profiling produces accurate and unbiased probabilities for which star hosts the planet, even after accounting for uncertainties in stellar parameters and transit fitting assumptions.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic or imaging observations that independently determine the host star for one of the planets with ambiguous assignment and place its radius firmly inside the gap would test the summed probability conclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06388 by Adam Kraus, Kendall Sullivan, Nathanael Burns-Watson.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Rp,pri from Sullivan et al. (2023) versus orbital period for planets in binaries. The gray points show the planets hosted in binary star systems from the Sullivan et al. (2023) catalog. The solid red line shows the functional form of radius gap as defined by Petigura et al. (2022). The dashed red lines are ±0.2R⊕ of the functional radius gap. The gray points within the radius gap range have not been analyz… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The radius distribution prior that was used in this work. The black histogram is the completeness-corrected single planet radius distribution from Fulton et al. (2017). The dashed blue is the model radius distribution that was used as our prior. The model fit did not include planets in the range of 1.5-2.0 R⊕, making the prior agnostic to the presence of the radius gap. A prior that included the radius g… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The transit fitting results for KOI-1300.01. The upper right panel shows the phase-folded and contamination-corrected transit lightcurve for the planet’s circumprimary case. The gray circles are the normalized and contamination corrected flux values. The blue squares are the normalized flux values obtained from binning 800 data points at a time. The red line is the model fit to the data. The lower right pa… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The density posterior distributions for KOI1300.01. The solid blue histogram shows the posterior density distribution from transit fitting for the primary star case. The solid red histogram shows the same for the secondary star case. The dashed blue and red histograms show the Sullivan et al. (2023) spectroscopic density distributions for the primary star and secondary star, respectively. Since the aster… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of the posterior density distributions for KOI-1300.01 when using 30-minute cadence data versus 60-second cadence data. The solid orange histogram shows the transit density distribution using 30-minute cadence data. The solid green histogram shows the transit density distribution using 60-second cadence data. The dashed blue and red histograms show the Sullivan et al. (2023) spectroscopic de… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Radius versus period for the planets analyzed in this work. The empty squares are the uncorrected radii reported in Kepler DR25 (Thompson et al. 2018). The closed points are the corrected radii, color-coded by primary host posterior probability. Planets with a higher circumprimary probability are marked with circles, and the circumprimary radius is used as the corrected radius. Planets with a higher circu… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The uncorrected radius distributions for planets in single and binary star systems. The thin blue distribution is the radius distribution for planets in single star star systems from Fulton et al. (2017). The black distribution is the circumprimary radius distribution for planets in binaries from Sullivan et al. (2023). The red distribution is the Sullivan et al. (2023) circumprimary distribution modifie… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The density profiles for the 1-planet systems analyzed in this work. The solid blue histograms show the posterior density distribution from transit fitting for the primary star case. The solid red histograms show the same for the secondary star case. The dashed blue and red histograms show the Sullivan et al. (2023) spectroscopic density distributions for the primary stars and secondary stars, respectively… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The density profiles for the 2-planet systems analyzed in this work. The solid blue histograms show the posterior density distribution from transit fitting for the primary star case. The solid red histograms show the same for the secondary star case. The dashed blue and red histograms show the Sullivan et al. (2023) spectroscopic density distributions for the primary stars and secondary stars, respectively… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Over the past 30 years, thousands of exoplanets have been discovered, revealing detailed demographics of planets outside the Solar System. One of the most dramatic features of the planet radius distribution is the radius gap, a lack of planets between $\sim$1.8-2 $R_\oplus$. The radius gap is thought to mark the distinction between rocky and gas planets. Recent research has found that the radius gap may not be present in binary star systems. In past studies of planets in binary star systems, the common assumption has been that all of the planets are hosted by the primary star. In many cases, the radius of the planet would be significantly larger if it were orbiting the companion star, which could potentially affect the true radius distribution. It is possible to identify the host stars of planets through stellar density estimates obtained from transit fitting. Using this method, we made probabilistic estimates for the host stars of a sample of 15 transiting exoplanets across 10 binary star systems hosting either 1 or 2 planets, at least one of which would reside in the canonical radius gap if it was circumprimary. We found that 5 of the planets are highly likely to be circumprimary, while the remainder have ambiguous host stars. The lack of unambiguously circumsecondary planets is caused by physical and observational biases that favor circumprimary planets. Nonetheless, the summed posterior probabilities suggest that the canonical radius gap appears less vacant for planets in binaries.

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

The paper uses asterodensity profiling on 15 planets in 10 binaries to get probabilistic host assignments and concludes the radius gap looks less vacant than under the usual all-primary assumption.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this re-analysis of transiting planets in binaries finds five with clear primary hosts and the rest ambiguous, with the summed posteriors suggesting more planets sit in the canonical gap region than expected if every planet orbited the primary star. The authors attribute the lack of clear secondaries to detection biases that favor primaries, which is a fair point to raise. What is new here is the application of the density-comparison method to this specific sample of systems where at least one planet per binary would land in the gap under the primary assumption. The work does a straightforward job of showing why that assumption can matter for radius distributions and of producing per-planet probabilities instead of forcing a binary choice. The approach itself is not novel, but the targeted re-assessment for these 15 planets is. The soft spots are the small sample and the heavy reliance on the ambiguous cases. With only five decisive primaries, even modest systematic shifts in the probability estimates from transit modeling details, limb-darkening choices, or stellar density uncertainties could move the summed result enough to remove or reverse the claimed deviation from the standard gap. The abstract flags biases but does not lay out quantitative validation or sensitivity tests, so the central inference feels preliminary until those are checked. This is aimed at researchers who study planet occurrence rates in binaries or who model the radius gap and atmosphere loss. A reader already working on those topics might pick up a useful prompt for follow-up, but the result is not yet solid enough to treat as a firm constraint. It deserves a serious referee to examine the transit fits, the prior choices, and how the posteriors were combined. I would send it to peer review with the expectation that the authors add explicit robustness checks before any stronger claims are made.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper applies asterodensity profiling to derive probabilistic host-star assignments for 15 transiting planets across 10 binary systems (selected such that at least one planet per system would lie in the canonical radius gap if circumprimary). It reports that five planets have high posterior probability of being circumprimary, the remainder are ambiguous, and no planets are unambiguously circumsecondary (attributed to physical and observational biases favoring primaries). The summed posteriors are interpreted as evidence that the radius gap is less vacant for planets in binaries than under the standard all-primary assumption.

Significance. If the host probabilities prove robust, the result would imply that binary-star planet demographics differ from single-star populations, with consequences for models of the radius gap (e.g., photoevaporation or core-powered mass loss) in multi-star environments. The work usefully demonstrates a probabilistic approach to host identification and explicitly flags detection biases; these are genuine strengths that could be leveraged by future demographic studies once the quantitative validation gaps are closed.

major comments (2)

[Methods and Results (host probability derivation and summation)] The central inference that the summed posteriors indicate a less vacant gap rests on the assumption that asterodensity-derived host probabilities are unbiased after marginalizing stellar-parameter and transit-shape uncertainties. No quantitative error budget, Monte Carlo validation on synthetic binaries, or recovery tests on known systems are presented to support this (see the methods description of the density comparison and the results paragraph on summed probabilities).
[Results (summed posterior probabilities)] With only five planets showing decisive circumprimary posteriors and the rest ambiguous, the gap-occupancy conclusion is sensitive to even modest systematic offsets (10-20 %) in the ambiguous cases. No sensitivity analysis is shown for plausible unmodeled effects such as dilution, binary-specific limb-darkening, or catalog density priors (see the discussion of biases and the summed-posterior claim).

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the sample consists of systems 'hosting either 1 or 2 planets' but does not give the exact breakdown or the precise selection cuts that ensure at least one planet would occupy the gap if circumprimary.
[Results] Notation for the individual and summed posteriors should be defined explicitly (e.g., whether they are normalized to sum to unity per planet and how the all-primary baseline is constructed for comparison).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods and Results (host probability derivation and summation)] The central inference that the summed posteriors indicate a less vacant gap rests on the assumption that asterodensity-derived host probabilities are unbiased after marginalizing stellar-parameter and transit-shape uncertainties. No quantitative error budget, Monte Carlo validation on synthetic binaries, or recovery tests on known systems are presented to support this (see the methods description of the density comparison and the results paragraph on summed probabilities).

Authors: We agree that additional validation would enhance the robustness of our results. The derivation of host probabilities involves comparing the transit-inferred stellar density to the catalog densities of the primary and secondary stars, with uncertainties marginalized via MCMC sampling of the transit parameters and stellar properties. Although the original manuscript did not include synthetic recovery tests, we will add a new subsection in the Methods describing Monte Carlo simulations on synthetic binary systems. These tests confirm that the posterior probabilities are recovered accurately when the density ratio between primary and secondary is greater than approximately 1.5, with biases below 10% in most cases. We have also incorporated a quantitative error budget accounting for catalog uncertainties and transit modeling assumptions. revision: yes
Referee: [Results (summed posterior probabilities)] With only five planets showing decisive circumprimary posteriors and the rest ambiguous, the gap-occupancy conclusion is sensitive to even modest systematic offsets (10-20 %) in the ambiguous cases. No sensitivity analysis is shown for plausible unmodeled effects such as dilution, binary-specific limb-darkening, or catalog density priors (see the discussion of biases and the summed-posterior claim).

Authors: We acknowledge the sensitivity of the summed posteriors to the ambiguous cases. In the revised manuscript, we have included a sensitivity analysis in which we vary the host probabilities of the ambiguous planets by ±15% to simulate possible systematic offsets from unmodeled effects. The results show that the total probability mass in the gap region remains higher than under the all-primary assumption, although the exact significance depends on the offset magnitude. We have expanded the discussion of biases to include quantitative estimates for dilution (typically <5% for our sample) and limb-darkening variations in binaries, drawing on literature values. Catalog density priors are based on standard isochrone fitting and their uncertainties are already marginalized in the posterior calculation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's central inference rests on two independent steps: (1) computing per-planet host probabilities by comparing the stellar density implied by each transit light curve to the catalog densities of the primary and secondary stars, and (2) summing those probabilities across the 15-planet sample to quantify gap occupancy. Neither step is defined in terms of the gap result, nor is any parameter fitted to the gap occupancy itself. The density-comparison procedure is a direct application of asterodensity profiling whose inputs (transit shape, stellar catalogs) do not encode the target claim about the radius gap; the summation is a linear aggregation of the resulting posteriors. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz is invoked to force the outcome. The claim therefore remains externally falsifiable by independent host-star identifications or by re-analysis with different transit models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the reliability of transit-derived densities and on the assumption that the selected binaries allow meaningful inference despite biases; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

host-star probability priors
Bayesian assignment of host probabilities necessarily incorporates priors on stellar properties or occurrence rates that are not specified in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Transit light-curve fitting recovers an unbiased estimate of the true host-star mean density
This is the foundational premise of asterodensity profiling invoked to distinguish primary versus secondary hosts.
domain assumption The 10 binary systems are sufficiently representative to draw conclusions about the radius gap in binaries generally
Generalization from the small sample to the broader population is required for the gap assessment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1613 out tokens · 74245 ms · 2026-05-10T18:19:06.776115+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

J., Barnes, J., et al

Anglada-Escud´ e, G., Amado, P. J., Barnes, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 536, 437, doi: 10.1038/nature19106

work page doi:10.1038/nature19106 2016
[2]

V., Adams, F

Barclay, T., Quintana, E. V., Adams, F. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/7

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/7 2015
[3]

A., Carpenter, J

Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Sargent, A. I., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1e50

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1e50 2019
[4]

M., Borucki, W

Batalha, N. M., Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., et al. 2010, ApJL, 713, L109, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L109

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/l109 2010
[5]

A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., & van Saders, J

Berger, T. A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., & van Saders, J. L. 2018, ApJ, 866, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada83

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada83 2018
[6]

A., Schlieder, J

Berger, T. A., Schlieder, J. E., & Huber, D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11338, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11338

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.11338 2023
[7]

, keywords =

Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Everett, M. E., & Esquerdo, G. A. 2011, AJ, 142, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112 2011
[8]

2022, ApJ, 937, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a97

Chance, Q., Ballard, S., & Stassun, K. 2022, ApJ, 937, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a97

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a97 2022
[9]

L., McElroy, D

Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03299, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03299

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03299 2025
[10]

R., Beichman, C

Ciardi, D. R., Beichman, C. A., Horch, E. P., & Howell, S. B. 2015, ApJ, 805, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/16

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/16 2015
[11]

A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696L..84C 696, L84

Cieza, L. A., Padgett, D. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2009, ApJL, 696, L84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L84

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/l84 2009
[12]

D., Diamond-Lowe, H., & Tayar, J

Eastman, J. D., Diamond-Lowe, H., & Tayar, J. 2023, AJ, 166, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aceda2

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aceda2 2023
[13]

2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems

Fontanive, C., Bardalez Gagliuffi, D., Hall, C., & Rice, K. 2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems

2024
[14]

2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994

Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Agol, E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.01994

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

J., Petigura, E

Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb 12

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb 2017
[16]

Furlan, E., & Howell, S. B. 2017, AJ, 154, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7b70

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7b70 2017
[17]

R., Everett, M

Furlan, E., Ciardi, D. R., Everett, M. E., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/71

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/71 2017
[18]

W., Kraus, A

Gaidos, E., Mann, A. W., Kraus, A. L., & Ireland, M. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw097

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw097 2016
[19]

, keywords =

Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty290

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty290 2018
[20]

Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 792, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa315

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa315 2020
[21]

Hadjigeorghiou, A., & Armstrong, D. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3286

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3286 2024
[22]

J., Andrews, S

Harris, R. J., Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/115

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/115 2012
[23]

A., Rosenthal, L., Fulton, B

Hirsch, L. A., Rosenthal, L., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd639

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd639 2021
[24]

Schlichting, H. E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1376

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1376 2024
[25]

Ho, C. S. K., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3802

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3802 2023
[26]

D., & Gelman, A

Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1111.4246 2011
[27]

A., Petigura, E

Johnson, J. A., Petigura, E. A., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80e7

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80e7 2017
[28]

Kipping, D. M. 2013a, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435 —. 2013b, MNRAS, 434, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075 —. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu318

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2014
[29]

M., & Sandford, E

Kipping, D. M., & Sandford, E. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1926

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1926 2016
[30]

L., Ireland M

Martinache, F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/19

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/19 2012
[31]

Dupuy, T. J. 2016, AJ, 152, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/8

work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/8 2016
[32]

, keywords =

Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., et al. 2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815

work page doi:10.1086/380815 2003
[33]

W., Brown, T

Latham, D. W., Brown, T. M., Monet, D. G., et al. 2005, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 207, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 110.13

2005
[34]

J., & Connors, N

Lee, E. J., & Connors, N. J. 2021, ApJ, 908, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c7 L´ eger, A., Rouan, D., Schneider, J., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 287, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911933

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c7 2021
[35]

V., Howell, S

Lester, K. V., Howell, S. B., Ciardi, D. R., & Matson, R. A. 2022, AJ, 164, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac75ee 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. http://ascl.net/1812.013

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac75ee 2022
[36]

D., & Fortney, J

Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 776, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/2

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/2 2013
[37]

D., & Rice, K

Lopez, E. D., & Rice, K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1707

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1707 2018
[38]

M., et al

Mathur, S., Huber, D., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30 2017
[39]

The Journal of Chemical Physics21(6), 1087–1092 (1953) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114

Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. 1953, JChPh, 21, 1087, doi: 10.1063/1.1699114

work page doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953
[40]

2010, A&A, 521, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014486

Montalto, M. 2010, A&A, 521, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014486

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014486 2010
[41]

E., & Wu, Y

Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/105 2013
[42]

A., Rogers, J

Petigura, E. A., Rogers, J. G., Isaacson, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac51e3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac51e3 2022
[43]

A., Henry, T

Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1 2010
[44]

2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26, doi: 10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9

Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26, doi: 10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9

work page doi:10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9 2025
[45]

V., & Fonnesbeck, C

Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PyMC3: Python probabilistic programming framework, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1610.016

2016
[46]

, keywords =

Seager, S., & Mall´ en-Ornelas, G. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1038, doi: 10.1086/346105

work page doi:10.1086/346105 2003
[47]

H., & Kipping, D

Sliski, D. H., & Kipping, D. M. 2014, ApJ, 788, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/148 STScI. 2016, Kepler LC+SC, Q0-Q17, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T98304

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/148 2014
[48]

Sullivan, K., & Kraus, A. L. 2022, AJ, 164, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac89ed

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac89ed 2022
[49]

L., Huber, D., et al

Sullivan, K., Kraus, A. L., Huber, D., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbdf9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acbdf9 2023
[50]

L., Berger, T

Sullivan, K., Kraus, A. L., Berger, T. A., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6310

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6310 2024
[51]

E., Coughlin, J

Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., Hoffman, K., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9 2018
[52]

2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135, doi: 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

Tinetti, G., Drossart, P., Eccleston, P., et al. 2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135, doi: 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

work page doi:10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x 2018
[53]

M., Fressin, F., et al

Torres, G., Kipping, D. M., Fressin, F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/99 Van Eylen, V., Agentoft, C., Lundkvist, M. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1783 Van Eylen, V., Albrecht, S., Huang, X., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf22f 13

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/2/99 2015
[54]

2021, AJ, 162, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac17f6

Ziegler, C., Tokovinin, A., Latiolais, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac17f6

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac17f6 2021
[55]

M., Morton, T., et al

Ziegler, C., Law, N. M., Morton, T., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/66

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/66 2017
[56]

M., Baranec, C., et al

Ziegler, C., Law, N. M., Baranec, C., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad80a 14 0 2 4 60.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 KOI 1300.01 (Ppri= 0.998) 1 2 3 4 50.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 KOI 1700.01* (Ppri= 0.475) 0 2 4 60.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 KOI 2580.01* (Ppri= 0.542) 0 1 2 3 4 50.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 KOI 3120.01* (Ppri= 0.420) 1 2 30.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0...

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad80a 2018