Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 47 references

Bayesian Doppler Imaging: Simultaneous Inference of Surface Maps and Geometric Parameters

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-12 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian pixel-based framework simultaneously infers surface brightness maps and geometric parameters such as inclination and equatorial rotation velocity from high-resolution spectral time series.

desk verdict The paper's main contribution is a Bayesian framework that jointly infers surface maps and geometric parameters in Doppler imaging via GP priors and HMC, with synthetic recovery of longitudes and a Luhman 16B application that adds uncertainties to prior results. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.08544 v1 submitted 2026-05-08 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Yamato Ureshino , Hajime Kawahara , Hibiki Yama , Kento Masuda This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords BayesianDopplerimagingsurfacemappinggeometricparametersbrowndwarfLuhman16BGaussianprocessspectraltimeseriesHamiltonianMonteCarlo
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationcostAlphaLog_high_calibrated_iff
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper develops a fully Bayesian Doppler imaging method that models the surface as a pixel grid with a Gaussian process prior on intensities. Geometric parameters including inclination and rotation speed are treated as nonlinear variables sampled by Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, while linear map coefficients are marginalized analytically. Validation on synthetic data shows the approach recovers longitudes of large-scale features and constrains the geometry parameters, and the method is then applied to VLT/CRIRES observations of the brown dwarf Luhman 16B. A reader would care because the joint inference supplies uncertainty estimates on both the map and the geometry without relying on fixed literature values for rotation or inclination.

What carries the argument

Gaussian Process prior over pixel intensities in a Bayesian linear inverse problem, which permits analytical marginalization of map coefficients and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling of nonlinear geometric parameters.

What would settle it

Independent measurements of Luhman 16B's inclination or equatorial rotation velocity falling outside the reported ranges of 48.7 to 75.3 degrees and 28.1 to 36.5 km/s would challenge the joint inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present a fully Bayesian, pixel-based Doppler imaging framework that enables the simultaneous inference of surface brightness maps and geometric parameters, including the inclination i and equatorial rotation velocity v_rot, from high-resolution spectral time series. We treat the inference as a Bayesian linear inverse problem conditioned on nonlinear geometric parameters. The surface map is modeled as a Gaussian Process prior over pixel intensities, introducing a characteristic spatial scale that sets the map resolution. This allows analytical marginalization of the linear coefficients and efficient sampling of the nonlinear parameters with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Validation with synetht

Load-bearing premise

The surface map is modeled as a Gaussian Process prior over pixel intensities that introduces a characteristic spatial scale setting the map resolution, and the method recovers features under the adopted model assumptions including the limited latitudinal sensitivity intrinsic to Doppler imaging.

Editorial extensions

Reading between the lines

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

  • The joint-inference approach could be applied to other rapidly rotating objects to reduce biases that arise when geometry is fixed in advance.
  • The noted limited latitudinal sensitivity implies that Doppler imaging alone may always require supplementary data types to resolve features near the poles.
  • Public release of the code allows direct tests on new spectral datasets to check whether recovered dark regions persist under varied GP length scales.
  • If the derived radius from v_rot and i is combined with evolutionary models for other brown dwarfs, it could tighten constraints on their internal structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fully Bayesian pixel-based Doppler imaging framework for jointly inferring surface brightness maps (via Gaussian Process priors over pixels) and nonlinear geometric parameters (inclination i and equatorial rotation velocity v_rot) from high-resolution spectral time series. Linear map coefficients are analytically marginalized for fixed geometry, with the nonlinear parameters sampled via Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Synthetic data validation recovers longitudes of inhomogeneities and constrains geometry under the adopted model assumptions (including a single characteristic GP spatial scale and limited latitudinal sensitivity), while the application to VLT/CRIRES observations of Luhman 16B yields a mid-latitude dark region with spatially resolved uncertainties plus i = 61.0_{-12.3}^{+14.3} deg and v_rot = 31.2_{-3.1}^{+5.3} km s^{-1}. The code is made publicly available.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work provides a meaningful advance in Doppler imaging by enabling simultaneous posterior inference of maps and geometry without fixing v sin i or i a priori, along with spatially resolved uncertainty estimates. The synthetic validation and public code are strengths that support reproducibility and falsifiability. The Luhman 16B application demonstrates consistency with prior studies while adding quantitative uncertainties, with potential impact for atmospheric studies of brown dwarfs and directly imaged exoplanets.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Synthetic Validation): Recovery of v_rot and i is shown only for surface maps generated with the same fixed GP characteristic spatial scale used in the inference; no mismatch tests (e.g., injected maps with different correlation lengths or non-GP structure) are presented. This is load-bearing for the claim that geometry is robustly constrained independently of the prior scale choice, as the forward operator and marginalized likelihood could shift under realistic model mismatch.
  2. [§5.3] §5.3 (Luhman 16B results): The reported posterior for i (with ~13° uncertainties) is presented as a data-driven constraint, but the manuscript notes intrinsic latitudinal insensitivity of Doppler imaging. Without a prior-only comparison, information-gain metric, or explicit sensitivity test to the GP scale, it remains unclear whether the i posterior is meaningfully informed by the data or largely prior-dominated.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The abstract and §3 should more explicitly state whether the GP characteristic spatial scale is fixed a priori or optimized/marginalized, and how its value was chosen for the Luhman 16B analysis.
  2. [Figure 4] Figure 4 or equivalent (posterior maps): The uncertainty visualization would be clearer with an additional panel or colorbar showing the ratio of posterior standard deviation to prior standard deviation to highlight data-informed regions.
  3. [§2] Notation in the forward model (likely Eq. 5-7): The projection and line-of-sight velocity operators could be defined with explicit symbols for the pixel grid and Doppler shift to improve readability for readers outside the subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below with proposed changes to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (Synthetic Validation): Recovery of v_rot and i is shown only for surface maps generated with the same fixed GP characteristic spatial scale used in the inference; no mismatch tests (e.g., injected maps with different correlation lengths or non-GP structure) are presented. This is load-bearing for the claim that geometry is robustly constrained independently of the prior scale choice, as the forward operator and marginalized likelihood could shift under realistic model mismatch.

    Authors: We agree that mismatch tests would strengthen the validation. However, the manuscript already qualifies all synthetic results as holding 'under the adopted model assumptions,' which explicitly includes the single fixed GP spatial scale. We do not claim that geometry is constrained independently of the prior scale. Performing full mismatch tests with non-GP structures or varied correlation lengths would require substantial additional modeling and computation beyond the scope of this paper. In revision we will expand §4 with a discussion of how the marginalized likelihood depends on the GP hyperparameter and note that exploring model mismatch is an important direction for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §5.3 (Luhman 16B results): The reported posterior for i (with ~13° uncertainties) is presented as a data-driven constraint, but the manuscript notes intrinsic latitudinal insensitivity of Doppler imaging. Without a prior-only comparison, information-gain metric, or explicit sensitivity test to the GP scale, it remains unclear whether the i posterior is meaningfully informed by the data or largely prior-dominated.

    Authors: The broad uncertainties on i (~13°) already signal the limited latitudinal sensitivity of Doppler imaging, as stated in the text. To clarify the data contribution, we will add to the revised §5.3 a direct overlay of the prior and posterior distributions for both i and v_rot, providing a visual information-gain assessment. We will also include a short sensitivity test showing how the geometric posteriors for Luhman 16B change when the GP characteristic scale is varied around the adopted value. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The framework models the surface map via a GP prior with a fixed characteristic spatial scale (a hyperparameter) to enable analytical marginalization of linear pixel coefficients for fixed nonlinear geometry (i, v_rot), followed by HMC sampling. Synthetic validation recovers injected features only under the stated model assumptions, which is the expected behavior for a correctly specified forward model rather than a tautology. Real-data posteriors on i and v_rot are presented as independent outputs from the marginalized likelihood applied to VLT/CRIRES spectra, without any reduction of the target quantities to quantities defined solely in terms of the fitted parameters or prior self-citations. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation steps appear in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Gaussian Process prior for pixel intensities and the standard Doppler imaging forward model; the main free parameter is the GP spatial scale, with no new physical entities postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • characteristic spatial scale
    Sets the map resolution in the Gaussian Process prior over pixel intensities
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The surface map can be modeled as a Gaussian Process prior over pixel intensities
    This prior introduces the spatial scale and enables analytical marginalization of linear coefficients

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Doppler Imaging: Simultaneous Inference of Surface Maps and Geometric Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2605.08544

@misc{pith2026260508544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Doppler Imaging: Simultaneous Inference of Surface Maps and Geometric Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2605.08544}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.08544}
}
abstract

We present a fully Bayesian, pixel-based Doppler imaging framework that enables the simultaneous inference of surface brightness maps and geometric parameters, including the inclination $i$ and equatorial rotation velocity $v_{\mathrm{rot}}$, from high-resolution spectral time series. We treat the inference as a Bayesian linear inverse problem conditioned on nonlinear geometric parameters. The surface map is modeled as a Gaussian Process prior over pixel intensities, introducing a characteristic spatial scale that sets the map resolution. This allows analytical marginalization of the linear coefficients and efficient sampling of the nonlinear parameters with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. {Validation with synthetic data demonstrates that our method recovers the longitudes of large-scale surface inhomogeneities and constrains $v_{\mathrm{rot}}$ and $i$ under the adopted model assumptions, while also revealing the limited latitudinal sensitivity intrinsic to Doppler imaging.} We applied this framework to high-resolution VLT/CRIRES observations of the brown dwarf Luhman 16B. Our analysis reveals a large-scale dark region at mid-latitudes, consistent with previous studies but now with spatially resolved uncertainty estimates. Furthermore, we successfully constrained the geometric parameters without fixing \(v_{\mathrm{rot}}\sin i\) or $i$ to literature values, deriving an inclination of $i = 61.0_{-12.3}^{+14.3}$ degrees and an equatorial rotation velocity of $v_{\mathrm{rot}} = 31.2_{-3.1}^{+5.3}~\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. These results indicate a radius broadly consistent with evolutionary models and suggest a possible spin-axis misalignment under the assumption of comparable equatorial rotation velocities for the two components. Our code is publicly available under the MIT license.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometry of the coordinate transformation when the rotational phase is φk = 0. The radial velocity of the j-th component at the k-th phase is given by (see Appendix A) vlos = vrot cos α sin θ ∗ j sin ϕ ∗ jk. (4) The corresponding Doppler factor affecting the wave￾length is Djk = 1 + β p 1 − β 2 , (5) where β is the line-of-sight velocity in units of the speed of light: β = vlos(θ ∗ j , ϕ∗ jk) c . (6) The spectrum ob… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Joint posterior distributions of (i, vrot) inferred from synthetic spectra for each of the true inclinations i = 10◦ , 20◦ , . . . , 80◦ using Map 1. Blue dashed lines indicate the injected (true) values, red points show the posterior medians, and thin gray curves denote the locus vrot sin i = 10 km s−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Joint posterior distributions of (i, vrot) inferred from synthetic spectra at a fixed inclination of i = 40◦ for Maps 1, 2, and 3. Blue dashed lines indicate the injected (true) values, red points show the posterior medians, and thin gray curves denote the locus vrot sin i = 10 km s−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior mean (top) and uncertainty (bottom) surface maps inferred from synthetic spectra. The rows show the results for Map 1, Map 2, and Map 3, respectively. The first column presents the ground truth, while the remaining columns display the reconstructions at incli…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the joint posterior distribution of vrot and i, which exhibits the strongest correlation among the geometric parameters. Despite the conservative prior adopted for the real-data application, both pa￾rameters are well constrained by the time-resolved spec￾ [PITH_…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstructed limb-darkening profiles derived from the posterior samples of the quadratic coefficients (q1, q2). The red line represents the median, while the thin gray lines show 1000 individual profiles drawn from the pos￾terior distribution, illustrating the uncerta…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot showing the one- and two-dimensional posterior distributions for all nonlinear parameters, excluding the regularization weight wk. The diagonal panels display the marginalized probability density for each parameter, while the off-diagonal panels show the jo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior mean (top) and uncertainty (bottom) maps for Luhman 16B. Doppler imaging model for describing the spectral vari￾ability of Luhman 16B. 5. DISCUSSION 5.1. Surface Inhomogeneity and Comparison with Previous Work Our Bayesian Doppler imaging analysis has reveale…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectral fit and residuals for Luhman 16B. Top panel: Comparison between the observed spectral time series (black) and the model reconstruction based on the posterior median parameters (red). The spectra are vertically offset for clarity. Bottom panel: Two-dimensional …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of surface maps. (Top) Our pos￾terior mean surface map inferred from Luhman 16B data, shifted by 180◦ in longitude relative to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A representative sample of the surface intensity map drawn from the posterior distribution. While the dark region observed in the posterior mean map is also visible here, the map exhibits high-frequency granular noise. This pixel-scale fluctuation is partly attributab…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior probability distribution of the radius of Luhman 16B. The radius is derived from the joint poste￾rior samples of the equatorial rotation velocity vrot and the rotation period P using the relation R = vrotP/(2π). Regarding the limb darkening, our inferred qua…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example of linear interpolation for Nwav = 6 and D = 3/4. The (l, l′ ) element of C (jk) , denoted c (jk) ll′ , is constructed as follows. For each wavelength grid point λl (l = 1, 2, . . . , Nwav) with spacing ∆λ, define ℓ (jk) l = λl/Djk − λ1 ∆λ + 1. (B11) The index…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean (J-cost uniqueness, Aczél classification) washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The surface map is modeled as a Gaussian Process prior over pixel intensities, introducing a characteristic spatial scale that sets the map resolution. This allows analytical marginalization of the linear coefficients and efficient sampling of the nonlinear parameters with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean (higher-derivative calibration of CostAlphaLog) costAlphaLog_high_calibrated_iff unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Σ_a[j,j′] = σ_a² exp(−d_jj′²/(2ℓ²))

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

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Knutson, H

    Agol, E., Cowan, N. B., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1861, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1861

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1861 2010

  2. [2]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 1361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1549

    Aizawa, M., Muto, T., & Momose, M. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1549

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1549 2024

  3. [3]

    Apai, D., Nardiello, D., & Bedin, L. R. 2021, ApJ, 906, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb97 Artigau, ´E. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte (Springer International Publishing AG), 94, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 94 Asensio Ramos, A., D´ ıaz Baso, C. J., & Kochukhov, O. 2022, A&A, 658, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142027

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcb97 2021

  4. [4]

    Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  5. [5]

    Development of Children's Moralistic Judgments: Age, Sex, IQ, and Certain Personal-Experiential Variables

    Betancourt, M. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1701.02434. https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02434

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    2017, The Astronomical Review, 13, 1, doi: 10.1080/21672857.2017.1303105

    Biller, B. 2017, The Astronomical Review, 13, 1, doi: 10.1080/21672857.2017.1303105

    work page doi:10.1080/21672857.2017.1303105 2017

  7. [7]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.2.5

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.2.5. http://github.com/google/jax

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    C., Weiner Mansfield, M., Cubillos, P

    Challener, R. C., Weiner Mansfield, M., Cubillos, P. E., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1821, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02666-9 22Ureshino et al

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02666-9 2025

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    A., Vos, J

    Chen, X., Biller, B. A., Vos, J. M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 3114–3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1995

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Collin, G. H. 2024, healjax: Port of healpix routines to JAX, 0.2.2. https://github.com/ghcollin/healjax

    2024

  3. [11]

    B., & Agol, E

    Cowan, N. B., & Agol, E. 2008, ApJL, 678, L129, doi: 10.1086/588553

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

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

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Biller, B., Schlieder, J. E., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 654, doi: 10.1038/nature12955 de Wit, J., Gillon, M., Demory, B.-O., & Seager, S. 2012, A&A, 548, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219060

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Deutsch, A. J. 1958, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 6, Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, ed. B. Lehnert, 209

    1958

  7. [15]

    D., Pendleton, B

    Duane, S., Kennedy, A. D., Pendleton, B. J., & Roweth, D. 1987, Physics Letters B, 195, 216, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-X

    1987 doi

  8. [16]

    E., & Wehlau, W

    Falk, A. E., & Wehlau, W. H. 1974, ApJ, 192, 409, doi: 10.1086/153072

    1974 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, AJ, 156, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad775

    Robinson, T. 2018, AJ, 156, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad775

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, ApJ, 755, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/101

    Fujii, Y., & Kawahara, H. 2012, ApJ, 755, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/101

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

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

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Yagola, A. G. 1982, Soviet Ast., 26, 690

    1982

  14. [22]

    Yagola, A. G. 1977, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 3, 147 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    1977 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Challener, R

    Hammond, M., Bell, T. J., Challener, R. C., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad434d

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246. https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4246

    2011

  17. [25]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 1333, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1333 —

    Kawahara, H., & Fujii, Y. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1333, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1333 —. 2011, ApJL, 739, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L62

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3b4d

    Kawahara, H., Kawashima, Y., Masuda, K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3b4d

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba95e

    Kawahara, H., & Masuda, K. 2020, ApJ, 900, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba95e

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcba2

    Kawahara, H., Kawashima, Y., Tada, S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcba2

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddbd

    Kawashima, Y., Kawahara, H., Kasagi, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddbd

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Khokhlova, V. L. 1976, Astronomische Nachrichten, 297, 203, doi: 10.1002/asna.19762970408

    1976 doi

  23. [31]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L

    Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature05782

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Parmentier, V., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Line, M. R., Parmentier, V., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac3df

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.06271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2110.06271

    Luger, R., Bedell, M., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.06271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2110.06271

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Majeau, C., Agol, E., & Cowan, N. B. 2012, ApJL, 747, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L20 Pall´ e, E., Biazzo, K., Bolmont, E., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 29, doi: 10.1007/s10686-025-10000-4

    2012 doi

  28. [37]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    2019

  29. [38]

    E., Tuominen, I., & Vilhu, O

    Piskunov, N. E., Tuominen, I., & Vilhu, O. 1990, A&A, 230, 363

    1990

  30. [39]

    K., & Wang, J

    Plummer, M. K., & Wang, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75b9 —. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accd5d

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    Snellen, I. A. G., Brandl, B. R., de Kok, R. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature13253

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

    S., et al

    Tan, X., Zhang, X., Marley, M. S., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adv3324

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    2005, Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation (the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics)

    Tarantola, A. 2005, Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation (the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics)

    2005

  34. [43]

    2026, BayesianDI, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20024778

    Ureshino, Y. 2026, BayesianDI, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20024778

    2026 doi

  35. [44]

    S., & Penrod, G

    Vogt, S. S., & Penrod, G. D. 1983, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 95, 565, doi: 10.1086/131208

    1983 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Penrod, G

    Vogt, S. S., Penrod, G. D., & Hatzes, A. P. 1987, ApJ, 321, 496, doi: 10.1086/165647

    1987 doi

  37. [46]

    W., M´ erand, A., Thompson, W., et al

    Xuan, J. W., M´ erand, A., Thompson, W., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 1070, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.23018, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.23018 Bayesian Doppler Imaging23

    Yama, H., Masuda, K., Kawashima, Y., & Kawahara, H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.23018, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.23018 Bayesian Doppler Imaging23

    2025 doi

  39. [48]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.