Pith. sign in

REVIEW 87 references

A multi-cadence TESS pipeline recovers 72% of known northern-CVZ TOIs and delivers 10 new planet candidates, including two statistically validated sub-Neptunes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A multi-cadence TESS pipeline recovers 72% of known northern-CVZ TOIs and delivers 10 new planet candidates, including two statistically validated sub-Neptunes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

arxiv 2606.13789 v2 pith:UTSHVEEU submitted 2026-06-11 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

COUNTESS I: A Uniformly Vetted Catalog of Known and New Transiting Exoplanets in the TESS Northern Continuous Viewing Zone

Andrew Hotnisky , Rachel B. Fernandes , Kevin K. Hardegree-Ullman , Steven Giacalone , Kiersten M. Boley , Kristo Ment , Michelle Kunimoto , Galen J. Bergsten
show 4 more authors
Sakhee Bhure Jessie L. Christiansen Brandon Radzom Suvrath Mahadevan
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords tessdayscountessoplusplanetsstarstexttransiting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 TESS satellite stares at most of the sky for only about 27 days at a time, so standard searches mostly find planets with orbits shorter than ~10 days. But near the north and south ecliptic poles — the Continuous Viewing Zones — overlapping observations give stretches of months to years of coverage. COUNTESS combines those long light curves, even though the data arrive at two different cadences (30-minute images in the primary mission, 10-minute in the first extended mission), by binning the faster data down to 30 minutes.

The pipeline detrends the stitched light curves with a 'biweight' filter, searches for repeating transit dips with a fast-folding Box Least Squares code called GERBLS, fits transit shapes with EXOTIC, removes false alarms with the LEOVetter suite, and finally runs surviving signals through triceratops, which computes the probability that a signal is a false positive versus a real planet.

On 26,114 stars with TESS-SPOC light curves, COUNTESS recovered 115 of 159 previously known planet signals (72%) and found 38 new transit signals, 10 of which survived all vetting. Two — TIC 219893931b and TIC 237254473b — have false-positive probabilities below 1.5% and are designated statistically validated sub-Neptunes. Caveats: one of those two was already reported as a community candidate in 2023, the pipeline's planet radii come out systematically smaller than published values, and the 'likely planet' list uses a looser nearby false-positive threshold (10^-1) than the one stated in the methods (10^-3).

Core claim

The central load-bearing assertion is that COUNTESS 'recovers 115 out of 159 known TESS Objects of Interest' and that its blind search produced '10 new exoplanet candidates... including two new statistically validated sub-Neptunes, TIC 219893931b and TIC 237254473b' (Abstract; §4.2–4.4). If the paper is correct, the pipeline genuinely stitches heterogeneous-cadence CVZ light curves into a sensitive long-baseline search, the 72% recovery rate reflects real performance, and the two 'b' designations are statistically validated planets (with the caveat that TIC 219893931b was previously reported by Montalto 2023).

Load-bearing premise

The step-function detrending window w(P) = 0.5 days for P ≤ 100 days and 1.75 days for P > 100 days (§3.2, 'our window length w as a function of period P is...'). Every transit depth — and hence every recovered planet radius and the sub-Neptune classifications — passes through this filter, and the 100-day boundary was chosen by hand to maximize recovery of the known TOI sample (the same sample later used to report the 72% recovery). The paper itself demonstrates that the 0.5-day window removes part of the transit depth for long-duration transits (Figure 10). The re-processing at 1.75 days only triggers after the first-pass search has returned P > 100 days, so any long-duration signal that the short window over-detrends in the first pass is lost before the longer window is applied. If the window function is wrong for some period/duration range, the candidate list — and the completeness the pipeline needs for its stated demographic goal — is biased in a way the paper does not quantify (n

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced (no new particles, forces, or dimensions); COUNTESS is a software pipeline. The central claims rest on 5 tuned processing parameters and 5 domain assumptions, mostly inherited from the Kepler/K2/TESS toolchain rather than independently validated here. The most consequential choices are the detrending window function and the NFPP threshold inconsistency.

free parameters (5)
  • Detrending window function w(P) = 0.5 d for P ≤ 100 d; 1.75 d for P > 100 d
    Chosen in §3.2 by maximizing known-TOI recovery; the 100-day breakpoint is a hand-set boundary, and the paper shows the 0.5-d window over-detrends long transits (Figure 10).
  • Minimum transit count = 3 transits
    COUNTESS requires ≥3 transits for candidate status (§4.1); this hard cut excludes part of the long-period regime the pipeline is designed to explore and caused misses like TOI-4600.02 (P=482.8 d, only two clear transits).
  • GERBLS BLS SNR threshold = S/N ≥ 6 (MES ≥ 6.2)
    Adopted from prior TESS surveys (§3.3); sets which TCEs proceed to fitting; 29 of 46 missed TOIs failed at this stage.
  • triceratops NFPP threshold = 10^-3 stated (§3.5, §5 bullet); 10^-1 applied for 8 candidates (§4.3)
    Inconsistent application: the two 'b' planets meet 10^-3, but the '10 likely planet candidates' list uses NFPP < 10^-1.
  • EM1 cadence binning = 10-min → 30-min
    Choice to homogenize cadence (§3.1); removes sensitivity to short-duration transits, acknowledged in the text.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption TESS-SPOC PDC-SAP FFI light curves are adequately corrected for instrumental systematics
    Used as input without independent verification (§3.1); the Skye excess metric (§3.1.1) shows residual systematics in sectors 14, 16-19, 22 that required masking.
  • domain assumption Stellar radius/mass derivation (color-Teff relation, random-forest [Fe/H]/log g on LAMOST, MIST isochrones, Mann/Torres relations) is accurate
    Planet radii scale linearly with R_star; the method is borrowed from Hardegree-Ullman et al. 2025 (§2.2) and its errors propagate directly into the candidate sizes.
  • domain assumption triceratops FPP/NFPP correctly represent the false-positive probability given the modeled scenarios
    Validation rests on this external tool (§3.5); its scenario list is assumed complete, and the paper uses the median of 20 runs without independent checks.
  • domain assumption RUWE < 1.4 plus Gaia non-single-star flag = 0 isolates single stars
    Used to build the target sample (§2.1); unresolved multiples can mimic or dilute transits, and the cut is imperfect.
  • standard math Standard transit-search statistical machinery (BLS significance, MES thresholds, Kepler vetting thresholds) is valid without recalibration for CVZ data
    LEOVetter thresholds in Table 3 are adopted wholesale from Kepler/K2 literature (§3.5) and applied to multi-sector stitched TESS light curves.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COUNTESS I: A Uniformly Vetted Catalog of Known and New Transiting Exoplanets in the TESS Northern Continuous Viewing Zone." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UTSHVEEU

@misc{pith2026260613789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COUNTESS I: A Uniformly Vetted Catalog of Known and New Transiting Exoplanets in the TESS Northern Continuous Viewing Zone},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UTSHVEEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.13789}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) has transformed the study of nearby exoplanetary systems; however, its nominal observing strategy limits sensitivity to planets with orbital periods shorter than $\sim$10 days for most parts of the sky. The two TESS Continuous Viewing Zones (CVZs) provide extended temporal baselines that help overcome this limitation, enabling the detection of longer-period ($>$10 days) transiting planets around nearby stars. Here, we present COUNTESS, a transit-search pipeline optimized for long-baseline TESS observations that combines multi-sector light curves with heterogeneous cadences, and implements fast-folding BLS period detection, vetting, and statistical validation. As a first application of the pipeline, we conducted a search on the primary and first extended mission photometry in the TESS northern CVZ. For this analysis, we used Gaia DR3 and 2MASS photometry to homogeneously derive a stellar catalog of FGKM stars for the TESS northern CVZ, resulting in a sample of 391,059 stars. We used COUNTESS to search for transiting planets around 26,114 of these stars with TESS-SPOC light curves and assessed its performance, recovering 115 out of 159 known TESS Objects of Interest (TOIs; $0.85\ \text{days} < P <124.72\ \text{days}$; $1.03\ R_\oplus < R_p < 16.35\ R_\oplus$). Additionally, we identified 10 new exoplanet candidates ($1.20\ \text{days} < P <34.62\ \text{days}$; $1.73\ R_\oplus < R_p < 4.19\ R_\oplus$) that passed vetting tests, including two new statistically validated sub-Neptunes, TIC 219893931b and TIC 237254473b. COUNTESS enables extended-baseline TESS analyses and identification of longer-period planets, establishing a foundation for future exoplanet demographic studies, including comparisons with Kepler and K2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13789 by Andrew Hotnisky, Brandon Radzom, Galen J. Bergsten, Jessie L. Christiansen, Kevin K. Hardegree-Ullman, Kiersten M. Boley, Kristo Ment, Michelle Kunimoto, Rachel B. Fernandes, Sakhee Bhure, Steven Giacalone, Suvrath Mahadevan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: H-R diagram of the TESS northern CVZ stellar sample. The colors on the diagram indicate the number den￾sity of stars in our sample. 3. COUNTESS We focused on the TESS northern CVZ, combining PM and EM1 FFI data, which provide longer baselines but heterogeneous cadences (PM: 30-minute; EM1: 10- minute) and differing noise properties. To address these challenges, we developed COUNTESS a unified end-to￾end wo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The schematic flow chart of how a target is processed through COUNTESS. derived planetary radius for long-period signals while maintaining recovery of shorter-period signals. 3.3. GERBLS Period Search We searched the detrended light curves for periodic, transit-like signals using the Greatly Expedited Ro￾bust Box Least Squares (GERBLS; Ment et al. submit￾ted)6 code. Like a traditional Box-Least Squares (BL… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A sector-by-sector detrending of TIC 441765914 (TOI-2088). The top panel of each sector shows the raw flux (black) from the TESS-SPOC FFIs with a detrending curve (orange). The bottom panel shows the detrended light curve. The transits computed from the ExoFOP epoch and from the period recovered by COUNTESS are displayed as vertical bars in green (ExoFOP) and blue (COUNTESS) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper panel shows a phase-folded light curve of TOI-2088 b, with the best-fit model in red from EXOTIC. The lower panel shows the residuals in %. ter estimates consistent with those obtained from the other fitting methods. We passed the phase, flux, period, transit duration, and Rp/R⋆ measurements from GERBLS as priors for the EXOTIC fit. We fit for Rp/R⋆, a/R⋆, i, and limb darken￾ing coefficients u0 a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The comparison plots of recovered TOIs for the ExoFOP measured orbital periods compared to the COUNTESS discovered periods. FOP10 (J. L. Christiansen et al. 2025), to train and test the planet recovery, vetting, and statistical validation modules of COUNTESS. Of these 191 TOIs, 115 have the TFOP disposition of planet candidates (PC), 44 con￾firmed or known planets (CP/KP), 9 FAs, and 23 FPs. We list the TO… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The comparison plot of recovered TOIs for the ExoFOP measured planet radii compared to the COUNTESS discovered planet radii. Note that the planetary parameters from ExoFOP are not homogeneously determined, resulting in expected scatter in the radius fit. but also identifying FPs with large radii which had pre￾viously seemed like PCs due to the detrending removing part of the transit depth. COUNTESS success… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of planetary radius and orbital period of TOIs and new false positives and planet candidates. COUNTESS discovered 38 new planetary signals, with 28 of them being FPs through triceratops validation and LEOVetter pixel-vetting. Note that the square symbols indicate TOI FPs that were successfully recovered as FPs through COUNTESS. erties and therefore, robust exoplanet demograph￾ics across su… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the Skye Excess Metric (SEM) for all flagged sectors in our blind search, which we outlined in Section 3.1.1. All timestamps above the corresponding sector’s 3σ threshold were removed from the overall search. 1685 1690 1695 1700 1705 1710 TJD (days) 100 200 300 # of TCEs 3 Sector 14 1740 1745 1750 1755 1760 TJD (days) 50 100 150 # of TCEs 3 Sector 16 1765 1770 1775 1780 1785 TJD (days) 50 100 150 # o… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the comparison between using a short window length (w = 0.5 days) versus a longer window length (w = 1.75 days) to detrend a light curve with a transit that has a long duration. If we use a window length where w ∼ tdur, the detrending will remove a portion of the tranist depth and duration. Therefore we use a longer window length to preserve the full depth and duration of a long duration transit [P… view at source ↗

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

87 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    I., Pyrzas, S., et al

    Alsubai, K., Tsvetanov, Z. I., Pyrzas, S., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab19bc Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab19bc 2019

  2. [2]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  3. [3]

    A., Hartman, J

    Bakos, G. A., Hartman, J. D., Bhatti, W., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf637

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf637 2021

  4. [4]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346838 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D

    Barkaoui, K., Timmermans, M., Soubkiou, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346838 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/12

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346838 2023

  5. [5]

    M., Wang, J., Zinn, J

    Boley, K. M., Wang, J., Zinn, J. C., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0e2d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0e2d 2021

  6. [6]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  7. [7]

    L., Seifahrt, A., et al

    Brady, M., Bean, J. L., Seifahrt, A., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad500a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad500a 2024

  8. [8]

    T., Jenkins, J

    Bryson, S. T., Jenkins, J. M., Gilliland, R. L., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 889, doi: 10.1086/671767

    work page doi:10.1086/671767 2013

  9. [9]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    doi:10.21105/joss.03001 2021

  10. [10]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7cea

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., Plotnykov, M., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7cea

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7cea 2022

  11. [11]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 2016

  12. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 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

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  13. [13]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 186, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ade3c2

    doi:10.3847/psj/ade3c2 2025

  14. [14]

    Coughlin, J. L. 2017,, Tech. Rep. KSCI-19105-002, Kepler Science Document

    2017

  15. [15]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Polanski, A. S., Robertson, P., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9aa6

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9aa6 2025

  16. [16]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  17. [17]

    V., Harada, C

    Desai, A., Turtelboom, E. V., Harada, C. K., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad29ee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad29ee 2024

  18. [18]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd93d

    Dong, J., Wang, S., Rice, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd93d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd93d 2023

  19. [19]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 692, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451404

    Ehrhardt, J., Thomas, L., Kellermann, H., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 692, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451404

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451404 2024

  20. [20]

    Eschen, Y. N. E., Bayliss, D., Wilson, T. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1778, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2427

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2427 2024

  21. [21]

    Eschen, Y. N. E., & Kunimoto, M. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 5053, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1496

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1496 2024

  22. [22]

    L., Plavchan, P., Bianco, S

    Feliz, D. L., Plavchan, P., Bianco, S. N., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abedb3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abedb3 2021

  23. [23]

    B., Mulders, G

    Fernandes, R. B., Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7b29

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7b29 2022

  24. [24]

    B., Hardegree-Ullman, K

    Fernandes, R. B., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Pascucci, I., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf4f0

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf4f0 2023

  25. [25]

    2021a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3285, doi: 10.21105/joss.03285

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Agol, E., et al. 2021a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3285, doi: 10.21105/joss.03285

    doi:10.21105/joss.03285

  26. [26]

    2021b, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1998447

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Savel, A., Luger, R., et al. 2021b, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1998447

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447

  27. [27]

    H., et al

    Fukui, A., Korth, J., Livingston, J. H., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac13a5

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac13a5 2021

  28. [28]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb 2017

  29. [29]

    X., Wang, S., et al

    Gan, T., Wang, S. X., Wang, S., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b12

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b12 2022

  30. [30]

    D., et al

    Ghachoui, M., Soubkiou, A., Wells, R. D., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347040

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347040 2023

  31. [31]

    Giacalone, S., & Dressing, C. D. 2020, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2002.004. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ascl.soft02004G

    2020

  32. [32]

    D., Jensen, E

    Giacalone, S., Dressing, C. D., Jensen, E. L. N., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc6af

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc6af 2021

  33. [33]

    D., Hedges, C., et al

    Giacalone, S., Dressing, C. D., Hedges, C., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4334 28 Hotnisky et al. 2026 Gomez Barrientos, J., Greklek-McKeon, M., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 170, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ade68b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4334 2022

  34. [34]

    Green, G. M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    doi:10.21105/joss.00695 2018

  35. [35]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  36. [36]

    J., Cui, K., et al

    Hadjigeorghiou, A., Armstrong, D. J., Cui, K., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.17645

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.17645 2025

  37. [37]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7 2023

  38. [38]

    C., Unger, N., Delisle, J.-B., D ´ ıaz, R

    Hara, N. C., Unger, N., Delisle, J.-B., D ´ ıaz, R. F., & S´ egransan, D. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140543

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140543 2022

  39. [39]

    Bioverse: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Capabilities of Extremely Large Telescopes to Probe Earth-like O$_\mathrm{2}$ Levels in Nearby Transiting Habitable Zone Exoplanets

    Pascucci, I., & L´ opez-Morales, M. 2023, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.12490

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.12490 2023

  40. [40]

    K., Cushing, M

    Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Cushing, M. C., Muirhead, P. S., & Christiansen, J. L. 2019, AJ, 158, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab21d2

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab21d2 2019

  41. [42]

    K., Zink, J

    Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Zink, J. K., Christiansen, J. L., et al. 2020b, ApJS, 247, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7230

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7230

  42. [43]

    K., Bergsten, G

    Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Bergsten, G. J., Christiansen, J. L., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf633

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adf633 2025

  43. [44]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  44. [45]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke, M., David, T. J., Mulders, G. D., & Heller, R. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984 2019

  45. [46]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    doi:10.1086/676406 2014

  46. [47]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e 2020

  47. [48]

    T., Haas, M

    Huber, D., Bryson, S. T., Haas, M. R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 2, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/2

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/2 2016

  48. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca

    Huber, D., Zinn, J., Bojsen-Hansen, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca 2017

  49. [50]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  50. [51]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016

  51. [52]

    M.-R., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Bean, J. L., Louie, D. R., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 114401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f 2018

  52. [53]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    doi:10.1086/683602 2015

  53. [54]

    F., Lendl, M., Sulis, S., et al

    Krenn, A. F., Lendl, M., Sulis, S., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 692, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450681

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450681 2024

  54. [55]

    R., & Vanderspek, R

    Kunimoto, M., Winn, J., Ricker, G. R., & Vanderspek, R. K. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 290, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac68e3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac68e3 2022

  55. [56]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.10619

    Kunimoto, M., Bryson, S., Jaffee, D., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.10619

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.10619 2025

  56. [57]

    J., Cui, K., et al

    Lafarga, M., Armstrong, D. J., Cui, K., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag512 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013 http://ascl.net/1812.013

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag512 2026

  57. [58]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018

  58. [59]

    G., Petigura, E

    MacDougall, M. G., Petigura, E. A., Angelo, I., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac295e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac295e 2021

  59. [60]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/64 2015

  60. [61]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc 2019

  61. [62]

    P., et al

    Mireles, I., Dragomir, D., Osborn, H. P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceb69

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aceb69 2023

  62. [63]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, L31, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac131

    Montalto, M. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, L31, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac131

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac131 2023

  63. [64]

    2023, A&A, 674, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243880

    Montegriffo, P., De Angeli, F., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243880

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243880 2023

  64. [65]

    Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. 1977, Data analysis and regression. A second course in statistics (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company)

    1977

  65. [66]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346692

    Murgas, F., Castro-Gonz´ alez, A., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346692

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346692 2023

  66. [67]

    2022, A&A, 658, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142256 29

    Nascimbeni, V., Piotto, G., B¨ orner, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142256 29

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142256 2022

  67. [68]

    2025, A&A, 694, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452325 NExScI

    Nascimbeni, V., Piotto, G., Cabrera, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452325 NExScI. 2022, IPAC, doi: 10.26134/ExoFOP5

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452325 2025

  68. [69]

    G., Collins, K

    Paegert, M., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.04778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.04778

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.04778 2021

  69. [70]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9 2013

  70. [71]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490 Pel´ aez-Torres, A., Pozuelos, F

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490 Pel´ aez-Torres, A., Pozuelos, F. J., Morello, G., et al. 2026, arXiv. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260415816P P´ erez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCS...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 2011

  71. [72]

    M., Knudstrup, E., Carleo, I., et al

    Persson, C. M., Knudstrup, E., Carleo, I., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 702, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555318

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555318 2025

  72. [73]

    A., Kane, S

    Pidhorodetska, D., Gilbert, E. A., Kane, S. R., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6901

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6901 2024

  73. [74]

    S., Lubin, J., Beard, C., et al

    Polanski, A. S., Lubin, J., Beard, C., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 272, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4484

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad4484 2024

  74. [75]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 914320, doi: 10.1117/12.2063489

    doi:10.1117/12.2063489 2014

  75. [76]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  76. [77]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae474

    Rodel, T., Bayliss, D., Gill, S., & Hawthorn, F. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae474

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae474 2024

  77. [78]

    A., Dai, F., Howard, A

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Dai, F., Howard, A. W., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad28bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad28bb 2024

  78. [79]

    V., & Fonnesbeck, C

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e55

    2016

  79. [80]

    F., Cutri, R

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

    doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  80. [81]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452969

    Stalport, M., Mortier, A., Cretignier, M., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452969

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452969 2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.