pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02216 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Recognition: 2 theorem links

A Search for Variability of Ultracool Dwarfs with the Zwicky Transient Facility

Haomiao Huang , Shu Wang , Xiaodian Chen , Zhijun Tu , Jifeng Liu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 19:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords ultracool dwarfsrotation periodsZwicky Transient Facilityphotometric variabilityM dwarfsbrown dwarfsLomb-Scargle periodogramage-period relation
0
0 comments X

The pith

ZTF light curves yield 226 periodic ultracool dwarfs with shorter periods at later M types.

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

This paper applies period-search methods to Zwicky Transient Facility light curves to find rotation periods in ultracool dwarfs. The search recovers 226 variables, 32 classified as robust after checking against literature and noise criteria. A sympathetic reader would care because these periods trace how atmospheric clouds and temperature differences change with rotation rate, mass, and age in the lowest-mass stars and brown dwarfs. The data show that in dwarfs older than 100 million years, periods get shorter as spectral type moves from mid-M to late-M, pointing to faster spin in cooler objects. This pattern matches expectations from angular-momentum conservation during the contraction phase for objects near the stellar-substellar boundary.

Core claim

By propagating coordinates to the ZTF epoch and performing Lomb-Scargle analysis on the optical light curves, we identified 226 periodic variables among ultracool dwarfs, with 32 robust detections. Twelve of these robust cases lack prior published periods. Most robust detections are M dwarfs. We observe a trend of decreasing periods toward later spectral types in relatively old dwarfs older than 100 Myr, which suggests faster rotation for late-M types compared to mid-M types. The age-period relation in our sample is broadly consistent with angular-momentum-conservation models in the higher-mass regime of brown dwarfs.

What carries the argument

Lomb-Scargle periodogram analysis on time-series photometry from the Zwicky Transient Facility after coordinate matching, used to detect and measure rotation periods from surface-induced brightness changes.

If this is right

  • 12 robust detections add new periods to the literature for ultracool dwarfs.
  • The decreasing period trend with later spectral type supports angular momentum conservation during contraction.
  • The sample is limited to M dwarfs because of ZTF optical sensitivity, so later L and T types are underrepresented.
  • 194 tentative cases need higher-cadence or multi-band data for confirmation.
  • Future surveys will extend these measurements to connect rotation directly with cloud physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This trend may allow better age estimates for field ultracool dwarfs using rotation.
  • Cross-matching with infrared surveys could test if optical periods match those from cloud features at other wavelengths.
  • The approach could be applied to other large photometric datasets to increase sample sizes across the M to L transition.
  • If the signals are indeed rotational, they provide a way to probe temperature contrasts in atmospheres without direct imaging.

Load-bearing premise

The periodic photometric variations are caused by rotational modulation from heterogeneous surface features such as clouds or spots, and the selection criteria reliably distinguish true periods from aliases or noise.

What would settle it

High-precision radial velocity measurements or simultaneous multi-wavelength light curves that fail to recover the same period or show amplitude changes inconsistent with expected cloud contrasts would falsify the rotational origin of the signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02216 by Haomiao Huang, Jifeng Liu, Shu Wang, Xiaodian Chen, Zhijun Tu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PS1 g, r and i magnitudes of ultracool dwarfs plotted against distance, with points colored by spectral type (see color bar). Red and green vertical lines mark distances of 10 pc and 100 pc, respectively. The black dashed lines indicate the PS1 magnitudes corresponding to the ZTF detection limits, estimated from the mean magnitude offsets between PS1 and ZTF photometric systems together with the ZTF limiti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of light-curve verification. Top (Field 448) and middle (Field 1495) panels illustrate the coordinate–source coincidence check for the brown dwarf PSO J012.7+007.0 (M7-type), with light-curve coordinates of different internal product ID marked by yellow star symbols overlaid on ZTF g-, r-, and i-band Deep Reference Images (DRI) from left to right. The increasing brightness from g- to i-bands confir… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example light-curve analysis of the brown dwarf PSO J012.7+007.0 in the r (top) and i (bottom) bands. The left panels present the periodograms. The blue lines are the periodograms derived from the ZTF light curves, the orange curves indicate the window functions, and the red dashed lines mark the locations of the peaks. The period values labeled in the panels are followed by remark codes in parentheses, in… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the literature periods and the ZTF-derived periods for our reliable results. Lef t panel: all sources with published periods. Filled blue circles indicate sources for which the periods are consistent or whose corresponding frequencies differ by 0.5, 1, or 3 day−1 , while red open squares denote sources whose discrepancies cannot be explained by these simple frequency offsets. The gray so… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the ZTF-derived periods and the periods reported by Gao et al. (in prep.) from TESS photometry for the matched reliable sources. The gray solid line marks equal periods, while the dashed and dash-dotted lines indicate frequency differences of 1 and 3 day−1 , respec￾tively. discrepancies for 2MASS J08352366+1029318 and LSR J0510+2713 do not by themselves imply that our ZTF periods are inc… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relation between rotation period and spectral type for the reliable sources obtained in this work. Colored circles show the ZTF reliable sample, with colors indicating ages adopted from the UltracoolSheet. Gray squares show literature rotation periods for ultracool dwarfs in the wider M5–L5 range, plotted for comparison. The red dashed line shows a linear fit to the ZTF reliable sample in log P versus spec… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Peak-to-peak amplitude as a function of ro￾tation period (top) and spectral type (bottom) for sources with reliable period measurements. Different colors indi￾cate the bandpasses from which the parameters were de￾rived. In the top panel, the black dash-dotted line shows log10(A) = 0.167 log10(P) − 1.314 for the full reliable sam￾ple (Pearson r = 0.336), the light blue dashed line shows log10(A) = 0.171 log… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relation between age and rotation period for the reliable sources in this work. Ages and their uncertainties are adopted from the UltracoolSheet. Blue open circles denote ZTF non-field sources, while the red filled circle represents the ZTF field population, plotted using the median period and the full period range of objects classified as “Field” in the UltracoolSheet. Literature ultracool dwarfs are over… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Rotationally modulated photometric variability of ultracool dwarfs encodes key information about cloud structure and temperature contrasts. Large homogeneous optical datasets are crucial for linking atmospheric heterogeneity to fundamental parameters such as rotation, mass, and age. We present a search for rotation periods in ultracool dwarfs using Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) optical light curves. By propagating the coordinates to the ZTF epoch and applying Lomb-Scargle analysis, we identified 226 periodic variables, including 32 robust detections and 194 tentative cases. Among the robust detections, 12 have no previously published periods, while 20 have literature counterparts, most of which are consistent with the published values. Most robust detections are M dwarfs, reflecting the optical sensitivity limits of ZTF. We find a trend of decreasing periods toward later spectral types in relatively old dwarfs (> 100 Myr), suggesting faster rotation for late-M types than for mid-M types. The age-period relation of our sample is broadly consistent with angular-momentum-conservation models at higher-mass regime of brown dwarfs, consistent with the M-dwarf bias of our catalog. Many additional candidates remain to be confirmed due to sparse sampling or low S/N. Future high-cadence, multi-wavelength monitoring and systematic mining of ZTF and upcoming surveys will be crucial for validating these periods, extend sensitivity to later (L/T) types, and better connect rotation with cloud physics across the stellar-substellar boundary.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a search for photometric variability and rotation periods in ultracool dwarfs using public ZTF light curves. Applying Lomb-Scargle periodograms to propagated coordinates, the authors identify 226 periodic variables, of which 32 are classified as robust detections (12 new) and 194 tentative. They report a trend of shorter periods at later spectral types among objects older than 100 Myr and discuss consistency with angular-momentum models.

Significance. If the period detections and the reported trend are reliable, the work adds a substantial number of rotation measurements for M dwarfs and provides observational constraints on the age-rotation relation across the stellar-substellar boundary. The use of a large public survey dataset is a strength, and the identification of new periods is valuable for follow-up studies of cloud physics and rotation.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract: The distinction between the 32 'robust' and 194 'tentative' detections is not defined quantitatively; no false-alarm probability threshold, S/N cut, or bootstrap procedure is stated, which is essential to evaluate whether the claimed trend could be affected by aliases or noise.
  2. Abstract: The trend of decreasing periods toward later spectral types in >100 Myr dwarfs is stated without error bars, a fitted slope, or a statistical test of significance, and potential biases from ZTF's optical sensitivity limit and irregular sampling are not quantified.
  3. Abstract: No mention is made of injection-recovery tests or explicit comparison of periodogram peaks to the spectral window function, despite ZTF's known daily aliases and sparse cadence, which directly impacts the reliability of the 32 robust detections.
minor comments (2)
  1. The phrase 'relatively old dwarfs (> 100 Myr)' should be clarified with the method used to assign ages in the main text.
  2. Consider adding a table summarizing the robust detections with periods, spectral types, and literature comparisons.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We have revised the paper to address all three major points by adding quantitative definitions, statistical measures, and validation details. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The distinction between the 32 'robust' and 194 'tentative' detections is not defined quantitatively; no false-alarm probability threshold, S/N cut, or bootstrap procedure is stated, which is essential to evaluate whether the claimed trend could be affected by aliases or noise.

    Authors: We agree that the distinction requires a quantitative basis. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit definition in Section 3: robust detections satisfy FAP < 10^{-3} from the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, peak S/N > 5, and period agreement to within 5% across at least two ZTF filters or independent epochs when available. Tentative detections meet a relaxed FAP < 0.01 but fail at least one of the other criteria. We have also incorporated a 10,000-iteration bootstrap test to quantify the false-positive rate for each peak. These additions are now summarized briefly in the abstract as well. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract: The trend of decreasing periods toward later spectral types in >100 Myr dwarfs is stated without error bars, a fitted slope, or a statistical test of significance, and potential biases from ZTF's optical sensitivity limit and irregular sampling are not quantified.

    Authors: We have expanded the analysis in Section 4. Periods are now reported with uncertainties obtained from the periodogram peak width. A linear fit to the >100 Myr subsample yields a slope of -0.75 ± 0.28 h per spectral subtype. A Spearman rank test gives ρ = -0.62 with p = 0.01, confirming the trend at >2σ significance. We have added a dedicated paragraph quantifying selection biases: ZTF optical sensitivity restricts the sample to M dwarfs, and Monte Carlo simulations with the actual ZTF cadence show that periods <2 h are recovered at ~70% efficiency while longer periods are recovered at >90%. The reported trend remains statistically significant after these corrections. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Abstract: No mention is made of injection-recovery tests or explicit comparison of periodogram peaks to the spectral window function, despite ZTF's known daily aliases and sparse cadence, which directly impacts the reliability of the 32 robust detections.

    Authors: Although these tests were performed and described in the methods section, they were not highlighted in the abstract. We injected 1,000 synthetic sinusoids (periods 0.5–20 h, amplitudes 0.2–3%) into real ZTF light curves and recovered 82% of signals meeting the robust criteria. All 32 robust periods were cross-checked against the spectral window function; none coincide with the 1-day alias or its harmonics. We have added a concise statement to the abstract summarizing the injection-recovery success rate and alias rejection, and we have expanded the methods discussion with a new figure showing the window function comparison. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational data extraction from external survey

full rationale

The paper conducts a search for periodic variability in ultracool dwarfs by applying standard Lomb-Scargle analysis to ZTF light curves obtained from an external public survey. No derivation chain exists; results (226 variables, 32 robust detections, period-spectral type trend) are direct outputs of periodogram peak identification and classification on observed data. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions reduce to inputs by construction. Self-citations, if present, are limited to method references and do not bear the central claims. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks (ZTF photometry) with no self-definitional loops or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a purely observational catalog paper. No free parameters are fitted to produce the central claims, no new physical entities are postulated, and the analysis rests only on standard astronomical data-reduction practices and the domain assumption that detected periodicity traces rotation.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle periodogram reliably identifies periodic signals in unevenly sampled photometric time series
    Invoked when applying the period search to ZTF light curves.
  • domain assumption Observed photometric variability in ultracool dwarfs is dominated by rotational modulation from surface inhomogeneities
    Used to interpret detected periods as rotation periods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1326 out tokens · 94537 ms · 2026-05-08T19:32:14.566994+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Lintott, C

    Andersson, A., Fender, R. P., Lintott, C. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1002

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1002 2022

  2. [2]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121 17

    Apai, D., Radigan, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121 17

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/121 2013

  3. [3]

    Zones, spots, and planetary-scale waves beating in brown dwarf atmospheres

    Apai, D., Karalidi, T., Marley, M. S., et al. 2017, Science, 357, 683, doi: 10.1126/science.aam9848 Artigau, ´E., Bouchard, S., Doyon, R., & Lafreni` ere, D. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1534, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1534

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aam9848 2017

  4. [4]

    R., Jeffers, S

    Barnes, J. R., Jeffers, S. V., Haswell, C. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1482

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1482 2017

  5. [5]

    and Kulkarni, Shrinivas R

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Barlow, T., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 068003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a 2019

  6. [6]

    Best, W. M. J., Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., et al. 2025, The UltracoolSheet: Photometry, Astrometry, Spectroscopy, and Multiplicity for 4000+ Ultracool Dwarfs and Imaged Exoplanets, 2.1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15802304

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15802304 2025

  7. [7]

    V., et al

    Buenzli, E., Apai, D., Morley, C. V., et al. 2012, ApJL, 760, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/L31

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/l31 2012

  8. [8]

    Reviews of Modern Physics , keywords =

    Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.719 2001

  9. [9]

    New determination of the hydrogen burning limit

    Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Phillips, M., & Debras, F. 2023, A&A, 671, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243832

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243832 2023

  10. [10]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae 2020

  12. [12]

    J., Leggett, S

    Robertson, J., & Haubois, X. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13135.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13135.x 2008

  13. [13]

    Crossfield, I. J. M. 2014, A&A, 566, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423750

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423750 2014

  14. [14]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Biller, B., Schlieder, J. E., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 654, doi: 10.1038/nature12955

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12955 2014

  15. [15]

    G., & Wu, K

    Doyle, L., Ramsay, G., Doyle, J. G., & Wu, K. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2205 2019

  16. [16]

    2024, A&A, 690, A320, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449916

    Golden, A. 2024, A&A, 690, A320, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449916

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449916 2024

  17. [17]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2017, ApJS, 231, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c 2017

  18. [18]

    O., de Lima, P

    Fontinele, D. O., de Lima, P. D. S., Messias, Y. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d6 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d6 2024

  19. [19]

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Jehin, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321620

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321620 2013

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c G¨ unther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c 2019

  21. [21]

    G., et al

    Hallinan, G., Antonova, A., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 644, doi: 10.1086/590360

    work page doi:10.1086/590360 2008

  22. [22]

    K., Hallinan, G., Boyle, R

    Harding, L. K., Hallinan, G., Boyle, R. P., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 779, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/101

  23. [23]

    K., Hallinan, G., Konopacky, Q

    Harding, L. K., Hallinan, G., Konopacky, Q. M., et al. 2013b, A&A, 554, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220865

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220865

  24. [24]

    K., Burke, C

    Irwin, J., Berta, Z. K., Burke, C. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/56

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/1/56 2011

  25. [25]

    The ASAS-SN catalogue of variable stars – II. Uniform classification of 412 000 known variables

    Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K. Z., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz844

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz844 2019

  26. [26]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac2d5

    Burgasser, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac2d5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aac2d5 2018

  27. [27]

    R., Nelemans, G., & Steeghs, D

    Koen, C. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 378, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08192.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08192.x 2004

  28. [28]

    Kumar, S. S. 1963, ApJ, 137, 1121, doi: 10.1086/147589

    work page doi:10.1086/147589 1963

  29. [29]

    2025, AJ, 170, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf195

    Lambier, S., Metchev, S., Miles-P´ aez, P., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf195

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adf195 2025

  30. [30]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  31. [31]

    A., et al

    Magaudda, E., Stelzer, B., Osten, R. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449403

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449403 2024

  32. [32]

    L., Zapatero Osorio, M

    Martin, E. L., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., & Rebolo, R. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 109, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. R. Pallavicini & A. K. Dupree, 615

    1996

  33. [33]

    Y., Solano, E., & Mart´ ın, E

    Mas-Buitrago, P., Zhang, J. Y., Solano, E., & Mart´ ın, E. L. 2025, A&A, 695, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452387

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452387 2025

  34. [34]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  35. [35]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/27

    McLean, M., Berger, E., Irwin, J., Forbrich, J., & Reiners, A. 2011, ApJ, 741, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/27 2011

  36. [36]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt536 , keywords =

    McQuillan, A., Aigrain, S., & Mazeh, T. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt536

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt536 2013

  37. [37]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24 2014

  38. [38]

    2023, AJ, 165, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd175

    Ment, K., & Charbonneau, D. 2023, AJ, 165, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd175

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd175 2023

  39. [39]

    A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al

    Metchev, S. A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/154 Miles-P´ aez, P. A. 2021, A&A, 651, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141203 Miles-P´ aez, P. A., Metchev, S., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., & Mart´ ın-Carrero, D. 2025, A&A, 697, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555074 18 Miles-P´ aez, P. A., Metchev, S. A., & George, ...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/154 2015

  40. [40]

    2003, ApJ, 583, 451, doi: 10.1086/345097

    Mohanty, S., & Basri, G. 2003, ApJ, 583, 451, doi: 10.1086/345097

    work page doi:10.1086/345097 2003

  41. [41]

    A., Queloz, D., Gillon, M., et al

    Murray, C. A., Queloz, D., Gillon, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1078

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1078 2022

  42. [42]

    R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/93

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/93 2016

  43. [43]

    2018, AJ, 156, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b

    Charbonneau, D. 2018, AJ, 156, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b 2018

  44. [44]

    R., Gizis, J

    Paudel, R. R., Gizis, J. E., Mullan, D. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab8fe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab8fe 2018

  45. [45]

    Segura, A., & Ferrero, L. V. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3720

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3720 2024

  46. [46]

    K., Kiman, R., et al

    Popinchalk, M., Faherty, J. K., Kiman, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0444

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0444 2021

  47. [47]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/120

    Radigan, J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/120 2014

  48. [48]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    Radigan, J., Jayawardhana, R., Lafreni` ere, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/105 2012

  49. [49]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/75

    Radigan, J., Lafreni` ere, D., Jayawardhana, R., & Artigau, E. 2014, ApJ, 793, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/75 2014

  50. [50]

    M., Stauffer, J

    Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Cody, A. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab605

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab605 2018

  51. [51]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 1390, doi: 10.1086/590073

    Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1390, doi: 10.1086/590073

    work page doi:10.1086/590073 2008

  52. [52]

    2013, A&A, 560, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321970

    Reinhold, T., Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2013, A&A, 560, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321970

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321970 2013

  53. [53]

    Ibrahimov, M. A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 407, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09961.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09961.x 2006

  54. [54]

    C., Best, W

    Sanghi, A., Liu, M. C., Best, W. M. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff66 2023

  55. [55]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    work page doi:10.1086/160554 1982

  56. [56]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040098 , keywords =

    Seli, B., Vida, K., Mo´ or, A., P´ al, A., & Ol´ ah, K. 2021, A&A, 650, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040098

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040098 2021

  57. [57]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    work page doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  58. [58]

    G., Mathieu, R

    Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., & Valenti, J. A. 2006, Nature, 440, 311, doi: 10.1038/nature04570

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04570 2006

  59. [59]

    E., Metchev, S., Heinze, A., et al

    Tannock, M. E., Metchev, S., Heinze, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abeb67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abeb67 2021

  60. [60]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J., Burgasser, A. J., Burdanov, A., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 650, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1018-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1018-2 2020

  61. [61]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 2018

  62. [62]

    M., Allers, K

    Vos, J. M., Allers, K. N., & Biller, B. A. 2017, ApJ, 842, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa73cf 2017

  63. [63]

    M., Faherty, J

    Vos, J. M., Faherty, J. K., Gagn´ e, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4502

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4502 2022

  64. [64]

    Williams, P. K. G., Berger, E., Irwin, J., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 799, 192, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/192

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/192 2015

  65. [65]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  66. [66]

    S., et al

    Yang, H., Apai, D., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L13 Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Mart´ ın, E. L., Bouy, H., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1405, doi: 10.1086/505484

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/l13 2015