arxiv: 2605.09037 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Plato's view on supermassive black hole binaries: Exploring the faint limit of ESA's Plato space mission

Nicholas Jannsen , Pablo Huijse , Kevin Park , Zoltan Haiman , Daniel J. D'Orazio , Conny Aerts

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords supermassive black hole binariesself-lensing flaresPlato missionphotometric detectionquasarsBayesian inferenceGaia catalogue

0 comments

The pith

Plato can detect self-lensing signatures of supermassive black hole binaries up to G=18

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

The paper tests whether the ESA Plato mission can identify supermassive black hole binaries by recovering their self-lensing flares in photometric light curves. The authors build a catalogue of 12,226 bright quasars from Gaia within Plato's nominal pointing fields and generate mock observations with the PlatoSim simulator. Bayesian inference applied to these mocks shows that the relativistic signatures remain detectable above noise even at the faint limit. This new use for Plato's cameras could confirm or exclude Spikey-like candidates among objects with G less than or equal to 18.

Core claim

Although not designed for the purpose, Plato is capable of detecting Spikey-like SMBHB candidates through their relativistic photometric signatures using Bayesian inference and evidence. Plato will in particular be able to confirm or rule out Spikey and Spikey-like objects with a limiting magnitude of G≤18.

What carries the argument

Mock light curves from the PlatoSim camera simulator, processed with Bayesian inference to extract self-lensing flare signatures amid realistic noise

If this is right

Plato can confirm or rule out Spikey and Spikey-like SMBHB candidates at G≤18.
A minimum 2-year baseline per pointing field enables continuous high-precision monitoring of candidates.
The Plato Quasar catalogue of 12,226 objects supports follow-up of larger photometric searches such as LSST.
Plato could become part of the fleet of continuous high-precision facilities tracking SMBHB candidates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Successful application would link space-based precision photometry directly to ground-based SMBHB candidate lists.
The same Bayesian pipeline could be tested on actual early Plato data releases for known candidates.
Extending the method to slightly fainter magnitudes would depend on further refinement of noise models.

Load-bearing premise

The mock light curves from PlatoSim accurately capture real observational noise properties and that Spikey-like self-lensing flares occur among the selected bright quasars.

What would settle it

A real observation of a Spikey-like candidate at G≤18 in which the Bayesian analysis fails to recover the expected self-lensing signature would falsify the claimed detection capability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09037 by Conny Aerts, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Kevin Park, Nicholas Jannsen, Pablo Huijse, Zoltan Haiman.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Plato catalogue of high-probability quasar candidates plotted in an aitoff sky projection in galactic coordinates. The lower right and upper left data collection correspond to 12,226 quasar candidates from the LOPS2 and LOPN1, colour coded after N-CAM visibility, nCAM. The different markers are SMBHB candidates from the literature: Graham et al. (2015, circles: 111), Charisi et al. (2016, squares: 33), Liu… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: shows the magnitude distribution (top panel) and the redshift distribution (lower panel) for the total (black lines) and individual (coloured lines) camera visibilities of our final Quasar catalogue. The magnitude distribution follows a classical power law (expected for an increased volume of isotropically distributed sources), counterbalanced by the finite time of their formation (the so-called redshift … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The N-CAM noise budget of our Quasar catalogue for beginning-of-life conditions. Left: camera-level NSR estimates colourcoded after (distorted) gnomonic radial distance from the optical axis, ϑOA. Shown is a theoretical noise prediction (orange solid line), constituted by a jitter noise limit (negligible here), photon noise limit (pink dashed-dotted line), and the sky/read noise limit (pink dotted line).… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Illustration of the two nominal Plato fields called LOPN1 (top panel) and LOPS2 (bottom panel) shown in galactic coordinates (l, b). The N-CAM footprint of nCAM ∈ {6, 12, 18, 24} co-pointing cameras is illustrated with an increasingly darker shade of blue, while the bright subset of high-probability Quasars are colored after magnitude (up to G < 17.5). The black transparent map highlights dense stellar sky… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: PlatoSim simulation of a 6 × 6 imagette for the SMBHB candidate Spikey. The location of Spikey is shown with a green-filled circle. Nearby contaminating sources are shown with orange-filled circles that are scaled linearly in size according to their magnitude (written above each circle) relative to that of the target. The pink-hashed pixels show the on-board aperture mask. since Plato has a much larger pl… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Fully reduced light curve of the SMBHB candidate Spikey as observed by Kepler (left; Smith et al. 2018) and as expected by Plato (right). Both datasets have been binned to a 1 d sampling (black points). In the upper panels a maximum likelihood fit to each dataset is shown for the model Q (blue dashed lines), DM (orange solid lines), and Q DM (cyan solid lines), together with a combined Kepler+Plato fit (pu… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Fully reduced Spikey-like light curves binned to a 1 h cadence (black points) and a 1 d cadence (gray points). The injected model is shown (blue line) together with the recovered DM maximum likelihood fit (orange line). The panels show, from top to bottom, a simulated light curve with increasing source magnitudes of 16, 17, 18, and 19, respectively. Article number, page 8 of 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The search for supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs) has, in recent years, seen the dawn of exploration with several hundred candidates claimed from photometric and spectroscopic surveys monitoring AGNs. While only a handful persist to date, the advent of upcoming high-precision wide-field photometric missions motivates continuing the pursuit of confirming SMBHBs in the optical. We explore the possibility of using the ESA Plato space mission to detect photometric signatures of SMBHBs. Motivated by the Kepler observation of Spikey, the best known self-lensing flare (SLF) candidate to date, this work aims to benchmark the scientific outcome if Plato were to observe Spikey-like objects via its Guest Observer programme. Starting from the Gaia database, we assemble a catalogue of 12,226 bright ($G < 19$) high-probability Quasars for the two pointing fields of Plato's nominal mission. This Plato Quasar catalogue will be pivotal for future follow-up observations of larger photometric searches such as the Vera Rubin LSST survey. We use the Plato camera simulator, PlatoSim, to realistically explore the noise budget in Plato's faint limit, while generating mock light curves to benchmark Plato's ability to recover signatures of SMBHBs. We show that, although not at all designed for the purpose, Plato is capable of detecting Spikey-like SMBHB candidates through their relativistic photometric signatures using Bayesian inference and evidence. Plato will in particular be able to confirm or rule out Spikey and Spikey-like objects with a limiting magnitude of $G\leq18$. With a minimum 2-yr baseline per pointing field, we show that Plato not only could play an essential role in future SMBHB research, but may be an integrated part of the observational fleet of continuous high-precision facilities monitoring SMBHB candidates in the near future.

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

Plato could pick up Spikey-like SMBHB flares to G=18 in their mocks, but the result depends on an unvalidated noise model.

read the letter

The core result is that Plato, despite not being designed for it, can in principle recover relativistic self-lensing flares from SMBHBs in bright quasars down to G=18 using Bayesian evidence on simulated light curves. They start from Gaia to build a catalogue of 12,226 high-probability quasars in the two nominal pointing fields, then feed those into PlatoSim to generate realistic mocks and test detection against the mission's noise budget over a 2-year baseline. The Bayesian comparison between a flare-plus-variability model and a null model is the main tool, and they conclude Plato could confirm or rule out Spikey-like objects at that limit while also serving as a bridge to LSST follow-up. That catalogue itself is a practical output for anyone planning Guest Observer proposals or multi-messenger work on SMBHB candidates. The simulation approach is straightforward and directly tied to the mission's actual camera model, which is the part that feels most grounded. The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test flagged: no external check of PlatoSim outputs against real high-precision photometry of quasars at comparable magnitudes from Kepler, TESS, or ground-based data. If the simulator underestimates correlated noise or background effects on the two-year timescale, the recovered evidence ratios would shift, and the G=18 threshold would move. The abstract gives no indication they did such a cross-check, so the detection claim stays simulation-dependent rather than empirically anchored. This is a niche feasibility study aimed at AGN variability and SMBHB confirmation people. A reader already following Spikey or planning for Plato/LSST overlap would find the numbers and target list useful. It is worth sending to peer review so referees can press on the validation gap and any details on false-positive rates or model assumptions that are only sketched in the abstract.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper assembles a Gaia-based catalogue of 12,226 bright (G<19) quasars in Plato's two nominal pointing fields. It employs the PlatoSim camera simulator to generate realistic mock light curves at the faint end, then applies Bayesian inference and model-evidence comparison to test recovery of relativistic self-lensing flare (SLF) signatures from Spikey-like supermassive black hole binaries. The central claim is that, although not designed for the purpose, Plato can detect and confirm or rule out such candidates down to G≤18 with a minimum 2-year baseline, thereby contributing to future SMBHB searches alongside LSST and other facilities.

Significance. If the simulation results are robust, the work is significant because it identifies a concrete, previously unexploited scientific use for Plato's high-precision photometry in the faint AGN regime. The Gaia-derived Plato Quasar catalogue itself is a reusable resource for target selection. Credit is due for the forward-modeling approach with PlatoSim and the quantitative Bayesian framework, which together provide a falsifiable benchmark rather than qualitative speculation.

major comments (2)

The central claim that Plato can confirm or rule out Spikey-like SMBHBs at G≤18 rests entirely on mock light curves generated by PlatoSim. No cross-validation of the simulator's noise model (photon noise, jitter, charge-transfer inefficiency, background subtraction) against real high-precision photometry of quasars at comparable magnitudes (e.g., Kepler, TESS, or ground-based monitoring) is presented. Any systematic mismatch in correlated noise on the 2-year baseline would directly alter the likelihood ratio between the SLF-plus-variability model and the null hypothesis, rendering the detection threshold simulation-dependent rather than empirically anchored.
Details on recovery rates, false-positive rates, and the specific model assumptions (priors on flare parameters, variability kernel, evidence threshold) are not provided. Without these quantitative diagnostics, the statement that Plato 'is capable of detecting' Spikey-like candidates cannot be evaluated for robustness or completeness.

minor comments (2)

The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the exact Bayesian evidence threshold adopted for 'detection' and 'confirmation'.
Notation for the SLF model parameters could be consolidated into a single table for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the potential significance of using Plato for SMBHB searches. We address each major comment in detail below. Revisions have been made to incorporate additional quantitative details and clarifications while preserving the core forward-modeling approach.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that Plato can confirm or rule out Spikey-like SMBHBs at G≤18 rests entirely on mock light curves generated by PlatoSim. No cross-validation of the simulator's noise model (photon noise, jitter, charge-transfer inefficiency, background subtraction) against real high-precision photometry of quasars at comparable magnitudes (e.g., Kepler, TESS, or ground-based monitoring) is presented. Any systematic mismatch in correlated noise on the 2-year baseline would directly alter the likelihood ratio between the SLF-plus-variability model and the null hypothesis, rendering the detection threshold simulation-dependent rather than empirically anchored.

Authors: We agree that explicit cross-validation against real quasar photometry would provide stronger empirical grounding. PlatoSim incorporates standard noise sources calibrated to Plato's instrument specifications, but the manuscript did not include direct comparisons to Kepler or TESS quasar light curves. In the revised version we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 3.2 discussing the noise model components, citing prior PlatoSim validation studies, and noting the absence of correlated-noise benchmarks at G≈18. We also include a brief caveat that any unmodeled red noise could affect Bayes factors and suggest that future TESS overlap data could enable such checks. This addresses the concern without altering the simulation-based benchmark nature of the study. revision: yes
Referee: Details on recovery rates, false-positive rates, and the specific model assumptions (priors on flare parameters, variability kernel, evidence threshold) are not provided. Without these quantitative diagnostics, the statement that Plato 'is capable of detecting' Spikey-like candidates cannot be evaluated for robustness or completeness.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The original manuscript described the Bayesian framework at a high level but did not tabulate the quantitative diagnostics. The revised manuscript now includes: (i) a table of recovery fractions and false-positive rates as a function of magnitude and baseline length, (ii) explicit priors on the self-lensing flare amplitude, duration, and impact parameter, (iii) the damped random walk kernel parameters for the intrinsic variability, and (iv) the adopted evidence threshold (Bayes factor >10 for strong preference of the SLF model). These additions are placed in a new subsection of the Methods and allow direct evaluation of the method's performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is forward simulation-based

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on assembling a Gaia-based quasar catalogue, generating mock light curves via the independent PlatoSim camera simulator to model noise and signals, and then applying Bayesian inference to compute evidence for SLF signatures. This is a standard forward-modeling benchmark that does not reduce by construction to its inputs, fitted parameters, or self-citations. No equations or sections exhibit self-definitional loops, predictions forced by fits, or load-bearing self-citations; the detection threshold at G≤18 follows directly from the statistical analysis on the simulated data without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on the abstract, the central claim rests on the fidelity of the PlatoSim simulator to real data and the presence of SMBHB candidates in the Gaia-selected quasars. No new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5657 in / 1320 out tokens · 88047 ms · 2026-05-12T01:48:46.640345+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 102 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

M., et al

Agazie , G., Anumarlapudi , A., Archibald , A. M., et al. 2024, , 964, L14

work page 2024
[2]

M., & Nanograv Collaboration

Agazie , G., Anumarlapudi , A., Archibald , A. M., & Nanograv Collaboration . 2025, Physical Reviews, 111, 042011

work page 2025
[3]

The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

Akeson , R., Armus , L., Bachelet , E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[4]

Albert , J. G. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2012.15286

work page arXiv 2020
[5]

, Price-Whelan , A

Astropy Collab. , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

work page 2022
[6]

, Price-Whelan , A

Astropy Collab. , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

work page 2018
[7]

, Robitaille , T

Astropy Collab. , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

work page 2013
[8]

P., Jankowiak, M., et al

Bingham, E., Chen, J. P., Jankowiak, M., et al. 2019, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 28:1

work page 2019
[9]

J., Koch , D., & Kepler Science Team

Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., & Kepler Science Team . 2010, 42, 47.03

work page 2010
[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]

Butler , N. R. & Bloom , J. S. 2011, , 141, 93

work page 2011
[12]

2024, Universe, 10, 431

Cai , Z. 2024, Universe, 10, 431

work page 2024
[13]

2016, , 463, 2145

Charisi , M., Bartos , I., Haiman , Z., et al. 2016, , 463, 2145

work page 2016
[14]

R., Runnoe , J., Bogdanovic , T., & Trump , J

Charisi , M., Taylor , S. R., Runnoe , J., Bogdanovic , T., & Trump , J. R. 2022, , 510, 5929

work page 2022
[15]

2024, , 527, 12154

Chen , Y.-J., Zhai , S., Liu , J.-R., et al. 2024, , 527, 12154

work page 2024
[16]

Cleveland, W. S. 1979, Journal of the American statistical association, 74, 829

work page 1979
[17]

Cleveland, W. S. 1981, The American Statistician, 35, 54

work page 1981
[18]

M., Pooley , D., Barrows , R

Comerford , J. M., Pooley , D., Barrows , R. S., et al. 2015, , 806, 219

work page 2015
[19]

& Haiman , Z

Davelaar , J. & Haiman , Z. 2022, , 105, 103010

work page 2022
[20]

D'Orazio , D. J. & Charisi , M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16896

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

D'Orazio , D. J. & Di Stefano , R. 2018, , 474, 2975

work page 2018
[22]

J., Duffell , P

D'Orazio , D. J., Duffell , P. C., & Tiede , C. 2024, , 977, 244

work page 2024
[23]

J., Haiman , Z., & MacFadyen , A

D'Orazio , D. J., Haiman , Z., & MacFadyen , A. 2013, , 436, 2997

work page 2013
[24]

J., Haiman , Z., & Schiminovich , D

D'Orazio , D. J., Haiman , Z., & Schiminovich , D. 2015, , 525, 351

work page 2015
[25]

2022, , 517, 4916

El-Badry , K., Conroy , C., Fuller , J., et al. 2022, , 517, 4916

work page 2022
[26]

W., & Rix , H.-W

El-Badry , K., Hogg , D. W., & Rix , H.-W. 2026, , 138, 024102

work page 2026
[27]

2019, , 875, L1

Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019, , 875, L1

work page 2019
[28]

2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

Foreman-Mackey , D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

work page 2016
[29]

Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

work page 2018
[30]

Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

work page 2016
[31]

Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

work page 2023
[32]

J., Djorgovski , S

Graham , M. J., Djorgovski , S. G., Stern , D., & et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1562

work page 2015
[33]

M., Combi , L., & Ryan , G

Guti \'e rrez , E. M., Combi , L., & Ryan , G. 2025, in New Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations, ed. C. Bambi , Y. Mizuno , S. Shashank , & F. Yuan , 447--492

work page 2025
[34]

2017, , 96, 023004

Haiman , Z. 2017, , 96, 023004

work page 2017
[35]

& Lund , M

Handberg , R. & Lund , M. N. 2014, , 445, 2698

work page 2014
[36]

R., Millman , K

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

work page 2020
[37]

Heras , A. M. 2024, in EAS2024, 2579

work page 2024
[38]

2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084013

Hobbs , G., Archibald , A., Arzoumanian , Z., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084013

work page 2010
[39]

X., D'Orazio , D

Hu , B. X., D'Orazio , D. J., Haiman , Z., et al. 2020, , 495, 4061

work page 2020
[40]

2026, , submitted

Huijse , P., Davelaar , J., De Ridder , J., Jannsen , N., & Aerts , C. 2026, , submitted

work page 2026
[41]

Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

work page 2007
[42]

M., Tyson , J

Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

work page 2019
[43]

2024, , 681, A18

Jannsen , N., De Ridder , J., Seynaeve , D., et al. 2024, , 681, A18

work page 2024
[44]

2025, , 694, A185

Jannsen , N., Tkachenko , A., Royer , P., et al. 2025, , 694, A185

work page 2025
[45]

Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the american statistical association, 90, 773

work page 1995
[46]

Kawaguchi , T., Mineshige , S., Umemura , M., & Turner , E. L. 1998, , 504, 671

work page 1998
[47]

Z., D'Orazio , D

Kelley , L. Z., D'Orazio , D. J., & Di Stefano , R. 2021, , 508, 2524

work page 2021
[48]

Variability classification of TESS targets in LOPS2, the first long-term pointing field of PLATO. Version 1 of the public variability catalogue

Kliapets , M., Huijse , P., Audenaert , J., et al. 2026, , submitted, arXiv:2604.12758

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[49]

2003, , 582, L15

Komossa , S., Burwitz , V., Hasinger , G., et al. 2003, , 582, L15

work page 2003
[50]

2021, Universe, 7, 261

Komossa , S., Grupe , D., Kraus , A., & et al. 2021, Universe, 7, 261

work page 2021
[51]

& Ho , L

Kormendy , J. & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511

work page 2013
[52]

S., Udalski , A., et al

Koz owski , S., Kochanek , C. S., Udalski , A., et al. 2010, , 708, 927

work page 2010
[53]

& Champion, D

Kramer, M. & Champion, D. J. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224009

work page 2013
[54]

M., Davelaar , J., Haiman , Z., et al

Krauth , L. M., Davelaar , J., Haiman , Z., et al. 2024, , 109, 103014

work page 2024
[55]

Kun , E., Frey , S., & Gab \'a nyi , K. \'E . 2020, , 496, 3336

work page 2020
[56]

& Mu \ n oz , D

Lai , D. & Mu \ n oz , D. J. 2023, , 61, 517

work page 2023
[57]

2026, , 997, 316

Lin , A., Charisi , M., & Haiman , Z. 2026, , 997, 316

work page 2026
[58]

2019, , 884, 36

Liu , T., Gezari , S., Ayers , M., et al. 2019, , 884, 36

work page 2019
[59]

Liu , T., Gezari , S., & Miller , M. C. 2018, , 859, L12

work page 2018
[60]

MacFadyen , A. I. & Milosavljevi \'c , M. 2008, , 672, 83

work page 2008
[61]

L., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kochanek , C

MacLeod , C. L., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kochanek , C. S., & et al. 2010 a , ApJ, 721, 1014

work page 2010
[62]

L., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kochanek , C

MacLeod , C. L., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2010 b , , 721, 1014

work page 2010
[63]

1998, AJ, 115, 2285

Magorrian , J., Tremaine , S., Richstone , D., & et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

work page 1998
[64]

2019, , 627, A71

Marchiori , V., Samadi , R., Fialho , F., et al. 2019, , 627, A71

work page 2019
[65]

McKinney , W. et al. 2011, Python for high performance and scientific computing, 14, 1

work page 2011
[66]

2026, , 707, A200

Mishra , S., Samadi , R., & B \'e rard , D. 2026, , 707, A200

work page 2026
[67]

The PLATO Input Catalogue of targets (tPIC) for the first Long Pointing Field

Montalto , M., Piotto , G., Marrese , P. M., et al. 2026, , submitted, arXiv:2604.03369

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[68]

2026, , submitted

Morgan, M., James, M., Don, P., et al. 2026, , submitted

work page 2026
[69]

Murray , C. D. & Correia , A. C. M. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager , 15--23

work page 2010
[70]

2025, , 694, A313

Nascimbeni , V., Piotto , G., Cabrera , J., et al. 2025, , 694, A313

work page 2025
[71]

1986, , 304, 1

Paczynski , B. 1986, , 304, 1

work page 1986
[72]

2026, , 113, 043055

Park , K., Haiman , Z., Xin , C., et al. 2026, , 113, 043055

work page 2026
[73]

2025, , 111, 063011

Park , K., Xin , C., Davelaar , J., & Haiman , Z. 2025, , 111, 063011

work page 2025
[74]

2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Pertenais , M., Cabrera , J., Paproth , C., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11852, International Conference on Space Optics ICSO 2020, ed. B. Cugny , Z. Sodnik , & N. Karafolas , 118524Y

work page 2021
[75]

Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyro

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[76]

C., Guti \'e rrez , E

Porter , K., Noble , S. C., Guti \'e rrez , E. M., et al. 2025, , 979, 155

work page 2025
[77]

2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

work page 2025
[78]

2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0.5 , Zenodo

Reback , J., McKinney, W., Van Den Bossche, J., et al. 2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0.5 , Zenodo

work page 2022
[79]

H., & Miller , M

Roedig , C., Krolik , J. H., & Miller , M. C. 2014, , 785, 115

work page 2014
[80]

M., Rix , H.-W., et al

Rybizki , J., Green , G. M., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2022, , 510, 2597

work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.