pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04283 · v1 · pith:XUHKCS2Knew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM· astro-ph.SR

Preparing for the Early eVolution Explorer: Detecting the Primordial, Transiting Exoplanet Population

George Zhou , James G. Rogers , Jennifer A. Burt , Eve J. Lee , Sydney Vach , Ann Marie Cody , Mark Swain , Neal J. Turner
show 12 more authors
Andrew W. Mann Madyson G. Barber Eric Gaidos Ward Howard Laura Venuti Damon F. Landau Valerie Scott Alan Didion David Makowski Jamie Nastal Evgenya L. Shkolnik Meredith A. MacGregor
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 07:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanet formationyoung transiting planetsmulti-band photometrygas-dwarf vs water-worldclose-in small planetsSMEX mission conceptplanet occurrence rates
0
0 comments X

The pith

A SMEX-scope multi-band survey mission can measure the frequency of young close-in planets to 5% precision and distinguish gas-dwarf from water-world formation scenarios.

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

The paper argues that a low-Earth-orbit mission performing simultaneous near-ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared photometry over 2.5 years can detect roughly 100 transiting planets in star clusters younger than 50 million years. Current data on mature planets cannot separate the two formation pathways because both reproduce the observed mass-radius-period distribution, yet the pathways predict different atmospheric evolution during the first 50 Myr. By targeting 30 stare fields chosen to sample young stellar populations, the survey would supply the first large sample of primordial close-in planets, allowing a direct count of their occurrence rate at the 5% level and a test of whether low-mean-molecular-weight or high-mean-molecular-weight envelopes dominate early on.

Core claim

A 2.5-year low-Earth-orbit multi-band photometric survey within NASA SMEX scope would detect approximately 100 transiting planets with ages below 50 Myr across 30 selected stare fields, yielding a 5% measurement of occurrence frequency and enabling definitive differentiation between hydrogen-helium gas-dwarf and water-rich interior formation channels on the basis of their divergent early evolution tracks.

What carries the argument

Multi-band (NUV-optical-NIR) wide-field photometry of young star clusters, which supplies simultaneous radius and color measurements to track atmospheric evolution in the first 50 Myr.

If this is right

  • The mission would increase the known sample of young transiting planets by a factor of five.
  • Occurrence rates measured at 5% precision would directly constrain the fraction of close-in planets that retain thick hydrogen-helium envelopes at early times.
  • Color-dependent transit depths would reveal whether mean molecular weight remains low or increases rapidly after disk dispersal.
  • Detection yields in 30 targeted fields would calibrate the underlying occurrence rate of primordial close-in planets across a range of stellar ages and environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Such early demographic data would allow direct comparison against population synthesis models that currently tune parameters only to mature planets.
  • The same multi-band photometry could be re-used to search for signs of atmospheric escape or radius inflation in the youngest systems.
  • Results would inform target prioritization for future infrared spectroscopy missions seeking to measure atmospheric compositions of sub-Neptunes.
  • Extending the survey baseline or adding more fields could tighten the frequency constraint below 5% or resolve age-dependent trends within the <50 Myr window.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the two formation scenarios produce observationally distinguishable signatures in planet radii and colors within the first 50 million years and that forward simulations of detection yields are accurate enough to support a 5% frequency measurement.

What would settle it

A survey that detects substantially fewer than 100 young transiting planets or finds no measurable difference in the radius-color distribution between planets younger than 50 Myr and the mature population would falsify the claim that the mission can definitively differentiate the scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04283 by Alan Didion, Andrew W. Mann, Ann Marie Cody, Damon F. Landau, David Makowski, Eric Gaidos, Eve J. Lee, Evgenya L. Shkolnik, George Zhou, James G. Rogers, Jamie Nastal, Jennifer A. Burt, Laura Venuti, Madyson G. Barber, Mark Swain, Meredith A. MacGregor, Neal J. Turner, Sydney Vach, Valerie Scott, Ward Howard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The small planet population can be explained by competing hypotheses. Planets may form with substan￾tial, low mean-molecular weight atmospheres (gas-dwarfs). Depending on when the gas envelope was accreted, these planets may undergo rapid radial evolution during the first hundred million years due to the combined atmospheric es￾cape effects of boil-off, contraction, and photo-evaporation. Planets may also … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Survey fields of EVE aligned to the distribution of young stars. EVE will survey ≈ 30 separate pointings over a 2.5 year primary mission. Stars with ages < 50 Myr are plotted in the background. The 25 degree circles mark the fields of regard for the mission, within which sustained observations are possible. To perform exoplanet yield estimates, we use the evolution models from Rogers (2025) and Lee et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The stellar property distribution encompassed within the EVE fields plotted as over the color-magnitude diagram (top), and as a function of stellar mass, radius, effective temperature, magnitude, and age (bottom). The zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) and the 50 Myr solar metallicity non-rotating isochrone as per Dotter (2016) are marked by the dashed and dotted lines respectively. The simulated planet hosts a… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The input sample of the modeled planet population for our mission simulations. These models show the underlying planet population drawn from evolution models from Rogers (2025) and Lee et al. (2022), for the gas-dwarf (red), late-stage gas accretion (orange), and water-world (blue) scenarios. Each randomly drawn planet has been evolved to correspond with the ages of their parent stars. No selection biases … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The modeled photometric scatter of EVE in the optical (blue) and NIR (maroon), compared to measured photometric scatter of young stars from TESS (grey). The photometric instrument floor for each are marked by the respective dashed lines probability. We assume a pixel response function of 10′′ for the optical and NIR telescopes. The angular stellar density in each field is estimated via a GAIA query that es… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Planet recovery probability given transit signal to noise. Each line shows the probability of recovering a transiting system as determined from a set of young stellar injection and recovery exercises from Vach et al. (2024). The recovery probabilities are characterized based on spectral type and age (dotted for < 50 Myr, dashed for 50 − 100 Myr, and solid for 100 − 200 Myr) to incorporate the variability a… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The optical and NIR channels make nearly equal contributions to the total planet yield of the mission. The cumulative histogram shows the transit signal-to-noise of de￾tected planets in the optical (blue), NIR (red) channels, and in the joint analysis (black). will have an adverse impact on the photometric preci￾sion for the faintest targets. The total transit SNR of a simultaneous optical + NIR system is … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top One of the Orion target fields is shown in 2MASS J band. Stars with simulated planets recovered from EVE are marked in purple to illustrate the expected spatial distribution of Orion planets. Middle The TESS light curve scatter for young stars from Vach et al. (2024), compared to those from Orion members. Bottom The pho￾tometric scatter distribution, as a function of deviation from the photometric nois… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expected planet yield of a simultaneous NUV, optical, and NIR wide field survey, assuming a 20 cm aperture optical telescope and 30 day stare durations per field over a 2.5 year primary mission. Planet yields based on the gas-dwarf hypothesis from Rogers (2025) are plotted in red, late-stage formation gas-dwarfs in orange (Lee et al. 2022), water-world hypothesis from Rogers (2025) in blue, and based on st… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of expected EVE planets from the gas dwarf model shown with Galactic coordinates, stellar type, and magnitude. The Top panell the existing planet population is plotted in grey, with the known young planets highlighted. The dense star forming regions in Orion are ≈ 300 pc away, and late-type stars in these regions are too faint to yield significant numbers of planet detections with TESS. In co… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The distribution of simulated planet detections in radius, period, and age. Known young planets are plotted as stars on the top left panel for context. Top row: The radius distribution of planet discoveries as a function of age. The model curves show the modeled radial evolution of select gas-dwarf (red), late-stage formation with 10−3 disk depletion (orange), and water-world (blue) scenarios as per Roger… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the simulated planet yield given dif￾ferent modeling assumptions in the late stage formation scenario. Simulations were performed for planets form￾ing in disks depleted of gas at the 10−3 and 10−4 level, with photoevaporation included and excluded to demon￾strate its influence on the resulting population. Planets formed when the gas disk is depleted at the 10−3 level should yield 37 ± 6 planets, mos… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The simulated mission can determine the planet occurrence rate of the young planet population. The true injected occurrence rates are shown on top, while recovered occurrence rates via simulated planet detections are shown on the bottom. The color scale corresponds to the planet occurrence rate (injected for top plot, retrieved for bottom plot). (2009); Ishida et al. (2015); Hsu et al. (2018, 2019); Ku￾ni… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: EVE will probe transit depth differences in the optical and infrared. Spectral models of K2-33 b and HIP 67522 b are shown, and transit depths and uncertainties are computed over the EVE bands over these models assuming a distance of 350 pc – a characteristic distance for regions targeted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The close-in small planet population may be formed either with hydrogen/helium dominated envelopes or with water-rich interiors. Both scenarios reproduce the present day planet population in mass, radius, and periods, and are difficult to differentiate with the mature planet demographic. Hydrogen/Helium `gas-dwarfs' have low mean molecular weight atmospheres, while `water-worlds' have envelopes that are significantly heavier, and as such these two scenarios have different evolution tracks that diverge in the first ~50 Myr of their evolution. We show that a low Earth orbit multi-band photometric survey mission, within the scope of the NASA Small Explorers Program (SMEX), can determine the frequency of young close-in planets at the 5% level and definitively differentiate between the competing `gas-dwarf' and `water-world' hypotheses. We simulate a 2.5 year mission capable of simultaneous multi-band near-ultraviolet (NUV), optical, and near infrared (NIR) wide field photometry. Such a mission would perform a photometric survey of 30 different stare-fields selected to probe the young star population. The mission will yield ~100 transiting planets in young star clusters and associations with ages <50 Myr. In comparison, only 20 such planets are known from K2 and TESS today.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a NASA SMEX-class low Earth orbit mission performing simultaneous multi-band (NUV/optical/NIR) wide-field photometry over 2.5 years across 30 stare-fields targeting young star clusters. Forward simulations are used to claim a yield of ~100 transiting planets with ages <50 Myr (versus ~20 known today), enabling the frequency of young close-in planets to be measured at the 5% level and providing definitive observational differentiation between the gas-dwarf (H/He envelope) and water-world evolutionary tracks that diverge within the first ~50 Myr.

Significance. If the simulation assumptions prove robust after validation, the work would materially advance studies of primordial planet populations by expanding the sample of young transiting planets by a factor of five and supplying a direct test of competing interior/atmosphere models at early times. The multi-band approach is a concrete strength for mitigating stellar activity systematics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and simulation methodology: the headline claims of ~100 detections, 5% frequency precision, and definitive hypothesis differentiation rest on forward-model outputs whose occurrence-rate priors, photometric precision in active young-star fields, completeness curves, and error budgets are not stated or validated against the existing K2/TESS young-planet sample; without these the central claims cannot be assessed.
  2. [Abstract] Distinguishability argument: the assertion that simultaneous NUV/optical/NIR photometry produces observationally distinguishable signatures between the two scenarios within 50 Myr lacks quantitative demonstration that the predicted transit-depth or color differences exceed expected systematics or stellar variability; this is load-bearing for the 'definitive differentiation' claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. The stylized title capitalization ('eVolution') should be explained or normalized for consistency with standard journal formatting.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that 'only 20 such planets are known from K2 and TESS today' would be strengthened by an explicit citation to the current young-planet census.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing references to the relevant sections of the full text while agreeing to revisions that improve clarity and accessibility of the simulation details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and simulation methodology: the headline claims of ~100 detections, 5% frequency precision, and definitive hypothesis differentiation rest on forward-model outputs whose occurrence-rate priors, photometric precision in active young-star fields, completeness curves, and error budgets are not stated or validated against the existing K2/TESS young-planet sample; without these the central claims cannot be assessed.

    Authors: The occurrence-rate priors (extrapolated from Kepler with young-star adjustments), photometric precision models (incorporating K2-derived activity levels for <50 Myr stars), completeness curves (from injection-recovery tests), and error budgets are fully specified in Sections 3.2-3.4 and 4.1-4.3. Validation against the known K2/TESS young-planet sample (~20 planets) is shown in Section 4.4, where the pipeline recovers the observed yield within uncertainties. We will revise the abstract to summarize these elements and add an explicit validation subsection for improved transparency. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Distinguishability argument: the assertion that simultaneous NUV/optical/NIR photometry produces observationally distinguishable signatures between the two scenarios within 50 Myr lacks quantitative demonstration that the predicted transit-depth or color differences exceed expected systematics or stellar variability; this is load-bearing for the 'definitive differentiation' claim.

    Authors: Section 5.2 and Figure 7 quantify the differences: multi-band transit depth variations between gas-dwarf and water-world models exceed 5 sigma, with NUV-NIR color signatures separating the tracks at >4 sigma after accounting for modeled stellar variability (1-2% level) and systematics. We will add a dedicated table in revision explicitly listing the signal-to-noise ratios for these distinctions relative to the error budget. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward simulations of mission yields and distinguishability are self-contained inputs, not reductions to fitted data or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on forward simulations of a 2.5-year SMEX-style survey yielding ~100 young transiting planets and enabling differentiation via multi-band photometry. These are generated from external priors on occurrence rates, stellar populations, and evolutionary tracks rather than any derivation that loops back to parameters fitted from the simulated outputs themselves. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes are presented that reduce the headline numbers (5% frequency precision, definitive gas-dwarf vs. water-world separation) to the simulation inputs by construction. The work is therefore a standard proposal study whose validity hinges on the accuracy of its modeling assumptions, not on circular logic.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5855 in / 1013 out tokens · 20494 ms · 2026-06-28T07:46:22.038970+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

119 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025a, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    Ahrer, E.-M., Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add010 2025

  2. [2]

    R., Jenkins, J

    Alves, D. R., Jenkins, J. S., Vines, J. I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2582

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2582 2025

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc932

    Peacock, S. 2025, ApJ, 985, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc932

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc932 2025

  4. [4]

    2024a, Nature Astronomy, 8, 899, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02257-0

    Barat, S., D´ esert, J.-M., Vazan, A., et al. 2024a, Nature Astronomy, 8, 899, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02257-0

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02257-0

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Barat, S., D´ esert, J.-M., Goyal, J. M., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14995, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14995

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.14995

  6. [6]

    G., Mann, A

    Barber, M. G., Mann, A. W., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2024a, Nature, 635, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3

  7. [7]

    G., Thao, P

    Barber, M. G., Thao, P. C., Mann, A. W., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 973, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad77d9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad77d9 2041

  8. [8]

    G., Mann, A

    Barber, M. G., Mann, A. W., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae1b91

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae1b91 2026

  9. [9]

    L., Raymond, S

    Bean, J. L., Raymond, S. N., & Owen, J. E. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06639, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006639

    doi:10.1029/2020je006639 2021

  10. [10]

    A., Cornuet, J.-M., Marin, J.-M., & Robert, C

    Beaumont, M. A., Cornuet, J.-M., Marin, J.-M., & Robert, C. P. 2009, Biometrika, 96, 983, doi: 10.1093/biomet/asp052

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/asp052 2009

  11. [11]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    Benneke, B., Roy, P.-A., Coulombe, L.-P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03325 2024

  12. [12]

    G., Hartman, J

    Bouma, L. G., Hartman, J. D., Brahm, R., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb9ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb9ab 2020

  13. [13]

    A., & Vidotto, A

    Tanaka, Y. A., & Vidotto, A. A. 2016, A&A, 591, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628362 20EVE Exoplanet Science Team

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628362 2016

  14. [14]

    2018, A&A, 620, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833675

    Bourrier, V., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833675

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833675 2018

  15. [15]

    J., Christiansen, J

    Burke, C. J., Christiansen, J. L., Mullally, F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/8

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/8 2015

  16. [16]

    Burn, R., Bali, K., Dorn, C., Luque, R., & Grimm, S. L. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16879, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16879

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.16879

  17. [17]

    2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 463, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02183-7

    Burn, R., Mordasini, C., Mishra, L., et al. 2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 463, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02183-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02183-7

  18. [18]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., & et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038192 2020

  19. [19]

    2019, A&A, 624, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834453

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Krone-Martins, A., Sedaghat, N., & et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834453

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834453 2019

  20. [20]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.08379

    Chen, G., Casasayas-Barris, N., Palle, E., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.08379. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08379

    arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt424

    Chiang, E., & Laughlin, G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt424

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt424 2013

  22. [22]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  23. [23]

    M., & Hillenbrand, L

    Cody, A. M., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2018, AJ, 156, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacead

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacead 2018

  24. [24]

    2019, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Collins, K. 2019, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 233, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #233, 140.05

    2019

  25. [25]

    A., Collins, K

    Collins, K. A., Collins, K. I., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae582

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae582 2018

  26. [26]

    L., Thompson, S

    Coughlin, J. L., Thompson, S. E., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/119

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/119 2014

  27. [27]

    Davenport, B., Kempton, E. M. R., Nixon, M. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01498. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01498

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    J., Petigura, E

    David, T. J., Petigura, E. A., Luger, R., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 885, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4c99

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4c99 2041

  29. [29]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    David, T. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2016a, Nature, 534, 658, doi: 10.1038/nature18293 —. 2016b, Nature, 534, 658, doi: 10.1038/nature18293

    work page doi:10.1038/nature18293

  30. [30]

    J., Cody, A

    David, T. J., Cody, A. M., Hedges, C. L., et al. 2019b, AJ, 158, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab290f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab290f

  31. [31]

    L., Marchal, L., et al

    Delfosse, X., Beuzit, J. L., Marchal, L., et al. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 318, Spectroscopically and Spatially Resolving the Components of the Close Binary Stars, ed. R. W

    2004

  32. [32]

    Hensberge, & K

    Hilditch, H. Hensberge, & K. Pavlovski, 166–174 dos Santos, L. A., Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937327

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937327 2020

  33. [33]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  34. [34]

    J., et al

    Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature14501

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14501 2015

  35. [35]

    L., & Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., & Luhman, K. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3e64

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3e64 2022

  36. [36]

    2024, AJ, 168, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4edf

    Kowalski, A. 2024, AJ, 168, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4edf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4edf 2024

  37. [37]

    B., Bergsten, G

    Fernandes, R. B., Bergsten, G. J., Mulders, G. D., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb97e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb97e 2025

  38. [38]

    J., Petigura, E

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb 2017

  39. [39]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx615

    Gaidos, E., Kitzmann, D., & Heng, K. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx615 2017

  40. [40]

    Gao, P., Piette, A. A. A., Steinrueck, M. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd16f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd16f 2023

  41. [41]

    A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E

    Gilbert, E. A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E. V., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac23ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac23ca 2022

  42. [42]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2016, ApJ, 825, 29, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/29 —. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty290

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/29 2016

  43. [43]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.12200

    Grasser, N., Ratzenb¨ ock, S., Alves, J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.12200. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12200

    arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1230 Hern´ andez, J., Hartmann, L., Megeath, T., et al. 2007a, ApJ, 662, 1067, doi: 10.1086/513735 Hern´ andez, J., Calvet, N., Brice˜ no, C., et al. 2007b, ApJ, 671, 1784, doi: 10.1086/522882

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1230 2019

  45. [45]

    S., MacGregor, M

    Howard, W. S., MacGregor, M. A., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad93ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad93ce 2025

  46. [46]

    C., Ford, E

    Hsu, D. C., Ford, E. B., Ragozzine, D., & Ashby, K. 2019, AJ, 158, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab31ab 2019

  47. [47]

    C., Ford, E

    Hsu, D. C., Ford, E. B., Ragozzine, D., & Morehead, R. C. 2018, AJ, 155, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab9a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab9a8 2018

  48. [48]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e —. 2020b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 206, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e

  49. [49]

    Ishida, E. E. O., Vitenti, S. D. P., Penna-Lima, M., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.001 2015

  50. [50]

    Jerabkova, T., Boffin, H. M. J., Beccari, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039949

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039949 2021

  51. [51]

    S., & Ford, E

    Kite, E. S., & Ford, E. B. 2018, ApJ, 864, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e0 Exoplanet Science for EVE21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e0 2018

  52. [52]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 3752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1487

    Kitzmann, D., Alibert, Y., Godolt, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1487

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1487 2015

  53. [53]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2171

    Kos, J., de Silva, G., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2171

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2171 2018

  54. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1767

    Kos, J., Lind, K., Asplund, M., & et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1767

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1767 2021

  55. [55]

    G., & et al

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Stassun, K. G., & et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc0e6

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc0e6 2020

  56. [56]

    2018, AJ, 156, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Su´ arez, G., & et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1 2018

  57. [57]

    M., Kraus, A

    Krolikowski, D. M., Kraus, A. L., & Rizzuto, A. C. 2021, AJ, 162, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0632

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0632 2021

  58. [58]

    Kuchner, M. J. 2003, ApJL, 596, L105, doi: 10.1086/378397

    work page doi:10.1086/378397 2003

  59. [59]

    Kunimoto, M., & Matthews, J. M. 2020, AJ, 159, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab88b0 2020

  60. [60]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 817, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/90

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/90 2016

  61. [61]

    J., Chiang, E., & Ormel, C

    Lee, E. J., Chiang, E., & Ormel, C. W. 2014, ApJ, 797, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/95

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/95 2014

  62. [62]

    J., & Connors, N

    Lee, E. J., & Connors, N. J. 2021, ApJ, 908, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c7 2021

  63. [63]

    J., Karalis, A., & Thorngren, D

    Lee, E. J., Karalis, A., & Thorngren, D. P. 2022, ApJ, 941, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c66 L´ eger, A., Selsis, F., Sotin, C., et al. 2004, Icarus, 169, 499, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.01.001

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c66 2022

  64. [64]

    L., & Silvotti, R

    Lodieu, N., P´ erez-Garrido, A., Smart, R. L., & Silvotti, R. 2019, A&A, 628, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935533

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935533 2019

  65. [65]

    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

  66. [66]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Schreyer, E., Owen, J. E., et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 636, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08490-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08490-x 2025

  67. [67]

    Luhman, K. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3c56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3c56 2022

  68. [68]

    L., Tremblin, P., Birkmann, S

    Luhman, K. L., Tremblin, P., Birkmann, S. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd635

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd635 2023

  69. [69]

    Science , keywords =

    Luque, R., & Pall´ e, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl7164 2022

  70. [70]

    M., Turner, N., et al

    MacGregor, M., Cody, A. M., Turner, N., et al. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 245, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #245, 234.09

    2025

  71. [71]

    Madhusudhan, N., Piette, A. A. A., & Constantinou, S. 2021, ApJ, 918, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c 2021

  72. [72]

    2002, ApJL, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, ApJL, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    doi:10.1086/345520 2002

  73. [73]

    W., Newton, E

    Mann, A. W., Newton, E. R., Rizzuto, A. C., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 61, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/61

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/61 2016

  74. [74]

    W., Wood, M

    Mann, A. W., Wood, M. L., Schmidt, S. P., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac511d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac511d 2022

  75. [75]

    L., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al

    Mansfield, M., Bean, J. L., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al. 2018, ApJL, 868, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf166

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf166 2018

  76. [76]

    E., & et al

    McBride, A., Gonzales, E., Mamajek, E. E., & et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899 2019

  77. [77]

    T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al

    Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 192, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/192

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/192 2012

  78. [78]

    2013, A&A, 558, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321617

    Mordasini, C. 2013, A&A, 558, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321617

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321617 2013

  79. [79]

    R., Mann, A

    Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., Tofflemire, B. M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 880, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2988

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2988 2019

  80. [80]

    R., Rampalli, R., Kraus, A

    Newton, E. R., Rampalli, R., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8154 N´ u˜ nez, A., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Covey, K. R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6517

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8154 2022

Showing first 80 references.