Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 227 references

M dwarfs that host sub-Neptunes are more metal-rich than those that host super-Earths, favoring formation beyond the water ice line.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 06:43 UTC pith:CRA7WSQA

load-bearing objection Solid homogeneous SpeX sample showing sub-Neptune hosts are more metal-rich than super-Earth hosts around M dwarfs; the statistical result holds under multiple radius-valley cuts, but selection bias keeps it from being an occurrence claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02833 v1 pith:CRA7WSQA submitted 2026-07-03 astro-ph.EP

Uniform Metallicity Measurements of M Dwarf Planet Hosts Support Metallicity-Dependent Sub-Neptune Formation

Emma V. Turtelboom , Steven Giacalone , Rebecca Gore , Courtney D. Dressing , Ryan Cloutier , Karina Kimani-Stewart , Aida Behmard , C.M. Lisse
show 1 more author
M.L. Sitko
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords M dwarfssub-Neptunessuper-Earthsstellar metallicityradius valleyplanet formationwater ice lineTESS
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.

This paper measures uniform metallicities for dozens of cool, low-mass stars that host small planets, then shows that the hosts of sub-Neptunes sit systematically higher in metallicity than the hosts of super-Earths. The difference survives several independent ways of drawing the radius valley that separates the two planet classes and is not explained by differences in stellar mass or temperature within the sample. The authors interpret the offset as evidence that sub-Neptunes around M dwarfs assemble beyond the water ice line, where they can accrete ices, and then migrate inward. Metal-rich disks supply both more refractory solids and more volatiles beyond the ice line, making that pathway easier. Because M dwarfs dominate the stellar population of the Galaxy, the result matters for how most of the planets in the Milky Way form and for why the small-planet radius valley looks different around low-mass stars than around Sun-like stars.

Core claim

With a homogeneous sample of 86 cool dwarfs hosting 142 planets and candidates, M dwarfs that host sub-Neptunes are statistically more metal-rich than those that host super-Earths. The offset is robust to the empirical and theoretical radius-valley prescriptions tested and is unlikely to be driven by differences in the stellar-mass, temperature, or luminosity distributions of the two host samples.

What carries the argument

Homogeneous [Fe/H] and [M/H] measurements from medium-resolution IRTF/SpeX near-infrared spectra, combined with updated stellar radii and planet radii, allow a controlled comparison of metallicity distributions for super-Earth versus sub-Neptune hosts via cumulative distribution functions and Anderson-Darling tests under multiple radius-valley definitions.

Load-bearing premise

The metallicity difference between the observed super-Earth and sub-Neptune hosts is treated as a formation signature even though the sample is drawn from known planet hosts without completeness correction or occurrence-rate calculation.

What would settle it

A completeness-corrected occurrence study of super-Earths and sub-Neptunes around M dwarfs that finds no metallicity dependence, or that finds the apparent offset vanishes once selection biases are removed, would falsify the central claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Sub-Neptunes around M dwarfs are expected to be volatile-enriched water worlds that formed outside the ice line and migrated in, rather than dry rocky cores that later acquired thin H/He envelopes.
  • Metal-rich M-dwarf disks should produce more sub-Neptunes relative to super-Earths than metal-poor disks of the same mass.
  • Systems containing only super-Earths should on average be more metal-poor than systems that contain at least one sub-Neptune.
  • The radius-valley slope and location around low-mass stars can be shaped by disk metallicity as well as by stellar mass and irradiation.
  • Future occurrence-rate studies can treat metallicity as a second dimension that conditions the relative rates of super-Earths and sub-Neptunes around M dwarfs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the ice-line migration picture is correct, atmospheric retrievals of M-dwarf sub-Neptunes should more often show high water or volatile fractions than those of similarly sized planets around metal-poor hosts.
  • The same metallicity preference may appear in the density valley for M-dwarf planets even when the radius valley itself is washed out by observational incompleteness.
  • Population-synthesis models that vary disk solid and ice inventories with stellar metallicity should recover a higher mean host metallicity for sub-Neptunes than for super-Earths around stars below roughly half a solar mass.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents homogeneous [Fe/H] and [M/H] measurements for 59 cool dwarfs hosting 76 TESS planets/candidates from IRTF/SpeX SXD spectra, using the Mann et al. (2013b) K-band empirical relations, then expands the sample with prior SpeX-based metallicities (Dressing et al. 2019; Gore et al. 2024) to 86 stars and 142 planets. Updated stellar radii (Mann et al. 2015/2019 relations with metallicity corrections) are used to recompute planet radii. The central claim is that M dwarfs hosting sub-Neptunes are statistically more metal-rich than those hosting super-Earths. This is tested via Monte-Carlo sampling of radius and metallicity uncertainties, three empirical radius-valley prescriptions (PM25, CM20, V21) plus three theoretical scalings, Anderson-Darling tests, jackknife resampling, and checks that stellar-mass (and Teff/luminosity) distributions do not drive the result for the best-matched prescriptions. The authors interpret the offset as supporting volatile-rich sub-Neptune formation beyond the ice line followed by migration, while explicitly noting that the sample is not completeness-corrected and does not yield occurrence rates.

Significance. If the intra-sample metallicity offset holds under the stated caveats, it supplies a clean, homogeneous observational constraint on small-planet formation around the Galaxy’s most common hosts. The work’s strengths are the uniform SpeX metallicities (avoiding method-to-method systematics), the multi-prescription AD-test framework with uncertainty resampling, and the explicit stellar-mass/Teff checks that isolate the metallicity signal for CM20/PM25. These elements make the directional claim falsifiable and useful for population-synthesis comparisons (e.g., Burn et al. 2021). The formation interpretation remains provisional precisely because occurrence rates are not measured, but the homogeneous catalog itself is a lasting contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. §6.2–6.3 and abstract: the central claim is framed as supporting a metallicity-dependent formation pathway, yet the sample is constructed from known TOIs/confirmed planets without completeness correction or occurrence-rate calculation (§2). The paper already flags this limitation, but the abstract and conclusions still present the result as evidence for formation preference. The language should be tightened so that the statistical offset is clearly labeled an intra-sample property of the observed hosts, not an occurrence result; otherwise the formation interpretation over-reaches the data.
  2. §6.3 and Fig. 6: under the V21 radius-valley prescription the stellar-mass (and Teff/luminosity) distributions of the two host samples are inconsistent (AD p-values strongly peaked <0.05), while the metallicity offset remains. The paper correctly discounts V21 for this reason, but the abstract and main text still state that the result is “robust to the radius valley prescription used.” That phrasing should be qualified to the prescriptions whose host samples are mass-matched (CM20/PM25); otherwise the robustness claim is overstated.
  3. §5.2 and Table 2: five candidates are flagged as “likely planets” (FPP<0.5, NFPP<10^{-3}) but none are validated, and the remaining 20 candidates remain unvetted at the same level. Because the metallicity comparison mixes confirmed planets with candidates, a short sensitivity test that repeats the AD analysis on the confirmed-only subsample (or on the five “likely” objects alone) would strengthen that the offset is not driven by residual false positives.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 3 caption and §5.1: the median precision improvement of ~80% for planet-candidate radii is stated without quoting the absolute median uncertainties before/after; a parenthetical would help readers judge the gain.
  2. §4.1: the preference for K-band metallicities over J-band is justified by telluric contamination, but the typical [Fe/H] difference between the two bands for the sample is not reported; a one-sentence summary would quantify the choice.
  3. Table 4 and §6.1: several literature metallicity outliers (K2-344, K2-155) are discussed, yet the residual plots in Fig. 4 exclude them “for visual clarity.” Including them (perhaps as open symbols) would make the comparison more transparent.
  4. Appendix C / Fig. 8: the theoretical radius-valley CDFs are useful, but the gas-depleted case is the only one that rejects the null; a brief statement of how many of the 100 draws fall below p=0.05 for each scaling would make the figure self-contained.
  5. Typographical: “F ormation” in the title (line break artifact), “unceranties” in Fig. 5 caption, and occasional missing spaces around ± symbols.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: homogeneous SpeX metallicities and AD tests under independent radius-valley prescriptions yield an intra-sample statistical result that is not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper measures [Fe/H] and [M/H] for 59 M dwarfs from new IRTF/SpeX spectra using the published Mann et al. (2013b) empirical relations (K-band preferred), then expands the sample with prior SpeX results that used the identical methodology (Dressing et al. 2019; Gore et al. 2024). Planet radii are recomputed from literature or newly fitted transit depths and the updated stellar radii. Super-Earth versus sub-Neptune classification is performed with three independent empirical radius-valley relations (PM25, CM20, V21) plus three theoretical scalings; the metallicity CDFs of the two host populations are compared via k-sample Anderson-Darling tests with jack-knife resampling and uncertainty Monte Carlo. The AD tests are not tautological: the metallicity values and the radius-valley cuts are independent inputs, and the paper explicitly checks that stellar-mass (and Teff, luminosity) distributions do not drive the offset under the best-matched prescriptions. Minor self-citation of the authors’ earlier SpeX papers is present only to enlarge the homogeneous sample; it does not supply a uniqueness theorem or force the directional result. The formation interpretation is offered as consistent with the observed offset, not as a derivation from first principles. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard empirical calibrations for M-dwarf parameters and on literature radius-valley loci; no new free parameters are fitted to produce the metallicity difference, and no new physical entities are postulated. The main domain assumptions are that the Mann relations apply to the sample and that the chosen radius-valley cuts meaningfully separate formation pathways.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Mann et al. (2013b) K-band metallicity indices calibrated on FGK–M binaries yield [Fe/H] and [M/H] for K7–M5 dwarfs with ~0.1 dex uncertainty.
    Used in §4.1 to convert SpeX spectra into the metallicities that enter every CDF and AD test.
  • domain assumption Mann et al. (2015, 2019) absolute-magnitude relations (with metallicity correction) give stellar radius and mass.
    §4.2; planet radii are derived from these stellar radii, so the super-Earth/sub-Neptune classification inherits the relations.
  • domain assumption Empirical radius-valley loci of Parashivamurthy & Mulders (2025), Cloutier & Menou (2020), and Van Eylen et al. (2021) correctly separate super-Earths from sub-Neptunes for the sample’s mass range.
    §6.3; the paper tests robustness across them but the claim still depends on at least one of them being a meaningful compositional divider.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed TOI/confirmed-planet sample’s metallicity distributions can be compared without completeness correction for the purpose of an intra-sample formation test.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation in §6.2–6.3; the authors do not claim occurrence rates.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 50550 in / 2714 out tokens · 31042 ms · 2026-07-12T06:43:41.971190+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

M dwarfs are the most common sites of planet formation in the Milky Way. Planet occurrence and composition are closely linked with the availability of metals in protoplanetary disks, which can be probed by measuring planet host star metallicities. In this work, we measure the metallicities ([M/H] and [Fe/H]) of 59 M dwarfs hosting 76 planets and candidates using medium-resolution near-infrared spectra collected with IRTF/SpeX. We combine these results with literature metallicity measurements for planet-hosting cool dwarfs, and present 86 stars hosting 142 candidate, validated, and confirmed planets with homogeneously derived stellar parameters. Using our updated stellar radii, we calculate planet radii from TESS transit depths for both the confirmed (N = 51, 0.6 - 12.5 R$_\oplus$, median $R_p$ = 1.8R$_\oplus$) and candidate (N = 25, 0.6 - 7.2 R$_\oplus$, median $R_p$ = 2.1R$_\oplus$) planets. We compare the metallicity distributions of super-Earth and sub-Neptune host stars, finding that M dwarfs hosting sub-Neptunes are statistically more metal-rich than those hosting super-Earths. This result is robust to the radius valley prescription used, and is likely not due to differences in the stellar samples considered. This result supports the hypothesized formation pathway whereby sub-Neptunes form beyond the water ice line where they can accrete volatiles before migrating inwards to their observed locations. The enhanced inventories of refractory elements throughout the disk and of volatiles beyond the ice line in metal-rich disks around low-mass stars may contribute to the preference seen in the observed planet sample for sub-Neptunes to orbit metal-rich M dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02833 by Aida Behmard, C.M. Lisse, Courtney D. Dressing, Emma V. Turtelboom, Karina Kimani-Stewart, M.L. Sitko, Rebecca Gore, Ryan Cloutier, Steven Giacalone.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The observed spectrum for TIC 219041246 (TOI-5713, red) compared with a IRTF standard spectrum of Gl 273 (grey). The spectra are offset for visual clarity. The wavelength ranges of the J, H, and K spectral band-passes are indicated for reference. The bottom panel shows the residuals between the observed and standard spectra. The regions of larger residual scatter near 1.4 µm are due to high H2O telluric co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Histograms of measured stellar parameters for the 76 stars in our sample, showing (from left to right) stellar masses, radii, effective temperatures, and metallicities. The median values and associated standard deviations are shown in each panel. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 ExoFOP/Literature Planet Radius (R © ) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 U p d ate d Pla n et R a diu s (R © ) CPs - This Wo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of existing and updated planet radii for small (Rp < 4R⊕) planets orbiting M dwarfs. The shape of data points is set by whether the planets’ host stars are in the sample presented in this work (dark pur￾ple diamonds - confirmed planets, blue circles - candidate planets) or with existing stellar parameters measured us￾ing IRTF/SpeX (green squares). A one-to-one line (dashed black) is included for… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Comparison of literature values from the TIC and measured in this work for stellar effective temper￾ature and metallicity ([Fe/H]). We include a 1:1 line (black) for reference, and highlight stellar metallicity measurements from Behmard et al. (2025, B25) in orange in the right-most plot. The effective temperatures derived from our spectra have markedly smaller errors than the corresponding liter￾atur… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Planet instellation vs. radius for the observed planet candidates (circles) and confirmed planets (squares) in our sample, as well as confirmed planets from the literature (squares). Points are coloured according to measured stellar metallicity [Fe/H]. Planets orbiting metal-rich stars tend to be larger than those orbiting metal-poor stars. Empirical relations for the radius valley around low-mass stars ar… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left 3 plots:) Per planet cumulative distribution function of measured metallicities (top row) and stellar mass (bottom row) for super-Earths (brown) and sub-Neptunes (blue) for 100 samples of the measured planet radius, stellar metallicity, and stellar mass uncertainties. The distinction between the two populations are set following the empirical radius valley prescriptions from PM25 (dark blue), CM20 (t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CDFs of stellar metallicity and mass, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left 3 plots:) Cumulative distribution function of measured metallicities (top row) and stellar mass (bottom row) for super-Earths (brown) and sub-Neptunes (blue). The distinction between the two populations are set following the radius valley prescriptions for the photoevaporation (navy), core-powered mass loss (teal), and gas-depleted formation (yellow) scenarios. (Right:) Histograms showing the p-value… 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

227 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 47 internal anchors

  1. [3]

    2020, , 159, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee

    Agol , E., Luger , R., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2020, , 159, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 2020

  2. [5]

    G., Delgado-Mena , E., Santos , N

    Antoniadis-Karnavas , A., Sousa , S. G., Delgado-Mena , E., Santos , N. C., & Andreasen , D. T. 2024, A&A, 690, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450722

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450722 2024

  3. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  5. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  6. [11]

    P., Narita , N., et al

    Barkaoui , K., Schwarz , R. P., Narita , N., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A264, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349127

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349127 2024

  7. [12]

    2025, A&A, 695, A281, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452916

    Barkaoui , K., Korth , J., Gaidos , E., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A281, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452916

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452916 2025

  8. [13]

    L., Benedict , G

    Bean , J. L., Benedict , G. F., & Endl , M. 2006, ApJL, 653, L65, 10.1086/510527

    work page doi:10.1086/510527 2006

  9. [15]

    K., Casey , A

    Behmard , A., Ness , M. K., Casey , A. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/adaf1f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaf1f 2025

  10. [18]

    N., & Izidoro , A

    Bitsch , B., Raymond , S. N., & Izidoro , A. 2019, , 624, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935007

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935007 2019

  11. [20]

    2005, A&A, 442, 635, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053046

    Bonfils , X., Delfosse , X., Udry , S., et al. 2005, A&A, 442, 635, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053046

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053046 2005

  12. [21]

    Boss , A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    doi:10.1126/science.276.5320.1836 1997

  13. [22]

    P., Blunt , S

    Bowler , B. P., Blunt , S. C., & Nielsen , E. L. 2020, , 159, 63, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11 2020

  14. [24]

    L., & Lee , E

    Bryan , M. L., & Lee , E. J. 2025, ApJL, 982, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/adb0bd

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb0bd 2025

  15. [28]

    2021, , 656, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140390

    Burn , R., Schlecker , M., Mordasini , C., et al. 2021, , 656, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140390

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140390 2021

  16. [29]

    A., Hooton , M

    Burt , J. A., Hooton , M. J., Mamajek , E. E., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b52

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b52 2024

  17. [30]

    R., Hogg , D

    Casey , A. R., Hogg , D. W., Ness , M., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.03040, 10.48550/arXiv.1603.03040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.03040 2016

  18. [31]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 5416, 10.1093/mnras/staa2353

    Castro Gonz \'a lez , A., D \' ez Alonso , E., Men \'e ndez Blanco , J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5416, 10.1093/mnras/staa2353

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2353 2020

  19. [32]

    Castro-Gonz \'a lez , A., Demangeon , O. D. S., Lillo-Box , J., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346550

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346550 2023

  20. [33]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Chabrier , G., Johansen , A., Janson , M., & Rafikov , R. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 619--642, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch027

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch027 2014

  21. [38]

    S., Muirhead , P

    Chittidi , J. S., Muirhead , P. S., Rojas-Ayala , B., & Jorgenson , R. A. 2019, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 233, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#233, 140.01

    2019

  22. [39]

    2020, AJ, 159, 211, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8237

    Cloutier , R., & Menou , K. 2020, AJ, 159, 211, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8237

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8237 2020

  23. [41]

    C., Vacca , W

    Cushing , M. C., Vacca , W. D., & Rayner , J. T. 2004, , 116, 362, 10.1086/382907

    doi:10.1086/382907 2004

  24. [42]

    J., Mamajek , E

    David , T. J., Mamajek , E. E., Vanderburg , A., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 302, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaeed7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaeed7 2018

  25. [44]

    P., Livingston , J., Endl , M., et al

    de Leon , J. P., Livingston , J., Endl , M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 195, 10.1093/mnras/stab2305

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2305 2021

  26. [45]

    E., et al

    Diamond-Lowe , H., Kreidberg , L., Harman , C. E., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 172, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7807

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7807 2022

  27. [46]

    L., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J

    D \' ez Alonso , E., Su \'a rez G \'o mez , S. L., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., et al. 2018 a , MNRAS, 476, L50, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly040

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly040 2018

  28. [47]

    I., Su \'a rez G \'o mez , S

    D \' ez Alonso , E., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., Su \'a rez G \'o mez , S. L., et al. 2018 b , MNRAS, 480, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly102

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly102 2018

  29. [49]

    Dreizler , S., Crossfield , I. J. M., Kossakowski , D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038016

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038016 2020

  30. [50]

    D., & Charbonneau , D

    Dressing , C. D., & Charbonneau , D. 2013, ApJ, 767, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/95

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/95 2013

  31. [53]

    D., Hardegree-Ullman , K., Schlieder , J

    Dressing , C. D., Hardegree-Ullman , K., Schlieder , J. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 87, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2895

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2895 2019

  32. [54]

    M., et al

    Duque-Arribas , C., Montes , D., Tabernero , H. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/acacf6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acacf6 2023

  33. [55]

    D., Rodriguez , J

    Eastman , J. D., Rodriguez , J. E., Agol , E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480, 10.48550/arXiv.1907.09480

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.09480 2019

  34. [56]

    2021, , 656, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

    Emsenhuber , A., Mordasini , C., Burn , R., et al. 2021, , 656, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038553 2021

  35. [58]

    2022, A&A, 666, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243731

    Esparza-Borges , E., Parviainen , H., Murgas , F., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243731

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243731 2022

  36. [59]

    2022, AJ, 163, 133, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4af0

    Espinoza , N., Pall \'e , E., Kemmer , J., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 133, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4af0

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4af0 2022

  37. [62]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Luger , R., Agol , E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994. 2105.01994

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [63]

    2021, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, 10.5281/zenodo.1998447

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Savel, A., Luger, R., et al. 2021, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, 10.5281/zenodo.1998447

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447 2021

  39. [64]

    J., Petigura , E

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb 2017

  40. [67]

    X., et al

    Gan , T., Lin , Z., Wang , S. X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 83, 10.1093/mnras/stab3708

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3708 2022

  41. [68]

    V., D \'e vora-Pajares , M., et al

    Ghachoui , M., Rackham , B. V., D \'e vora-Pajares , M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A263, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451120

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451120 2024

  42. [69]

    T., & Johnson , J

    Ghezzi , L., Montet , B. T., & Johnson , J. A. 2018, , 860, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac37c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac37c 2018

  43. [70]

    D., Jensen , E

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc6af 2021

  44. [72]

    2017, NatAs, 1, 0056, 10.1038/s41550-017-0056

    Gillon , M., Demory , B.-O., Van Grootel , V., et al. 2017, NatAs, 1, 0056, 10.1038/s41550-017-0056

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0056 2017

  45. [73]

    M., Brasseur , C

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  46. [74]

    A., Saidel , M., et al

    Gomez Barrientos , J., Knutson , H. A., Saidel , M., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 99, 10.3847/1538-3881/ae246f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae246f 2026

  47. [75]

    D., et al

    Gore , R., Giacalone , S., Dressing , C. D., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 48, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2c0c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2c0c 2024

  48. [76]

    E., Siegmund , W

    Gunn , J. E., Siegmund , W. A., Mannery , E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, 10.1086/500975

    doi:10.1086/500975 2006

  49. [78]

    Gupta , A., & Schlichting , H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24, 10.1093/mnras/stz1230

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1230 2019

  50. [80]

    K., Cushing , M

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab21d2 2019

  51. [81]

    R., Millman, K

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

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

  52. [82]

    D., Bakos , G

    Hartman , J. D., Bakos , G. \'A ., Csubry , Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 163, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf56e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf56e 2023

  53. [83]

    M., & Dawson , P

    Hejazi , N., De Robertis , M. M., & Dawson , P. C. 2015, AJ, 149, 140, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/140

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/140 2015

  54. [84]

    J., & Jao , W.-C

    Henry , T. J., & Jao , W.-C. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 593, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-102740

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-102740 2024

  55. [86]

    Ho , C. S. K., Rogers , J. G., Van Eylen , V., Owen , J. E., & Schlichting , H. E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3698, 10.1093/mnras/stae1376

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1376 2024

  56. [87]

    D., & Gelman , A

    Hoffman , M. D., & Gelman , A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246, 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1111.4246 2011

  57. [88]

    J., Kempton , E

    Hord , B. J., Kempton , E. M.-R., Evans-Soma , T. M., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 233, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3068

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad3068 2024

  58. [89]

    2024, AJ, 167, 289, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4115

    Hori , Y., Fukui , A., Hirano , T., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 289, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4115

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4115 2024

  59. [90]

    W., Marcy , G

    Howard , A. W., Marcy , G. W., Bryson , S. T., et al. 2012, ApJS, 201, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15 2012

  60. [91]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  61. [93]

    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, 10.1117/12.2233418

    doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016

  62. [95]

    2017, AREPS, 45, 359, 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    Johansen , A., & Lambrechts , M. 2017, AREPS, 45, 359, 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226 2017

  63. [97]

    E., Stef \'a nsson , G., Masuda , K., et al

    Jones , S. E., Stef \'a nsson , G., Masuda , K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 93, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad55ea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad55ea 2024

  64. [100]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 713, 10.1093/pasj/psad031

    Kagetani , T., Narita , N., Kimura , T., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 713, 10.1093/pasj/psad031

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psad031 2023

  65. [101]

    I., et al

    Kanodia , S., Stefansson , G., Ca \ n as , C. I., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 135, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1940 2021

  66. [102]

    F., Ca \ n as , C

    Kanodia , S., Gupta , A. F., Ca \ n as , C. I., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 235, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7796

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7796 2024

  67. [103]

    2020, A&A, 642, A236, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038967

    Kemmer , J., Stock , S., Kossakowski , D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A236, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038967

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038967 2020

  68. [104]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013

  69. [105]

    A., Rix , H.-W., Aerts , C., et al

    Kollmeier , J. A., Rix , H.-W., Aerts , C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 52, 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0576

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae0576 2026

  70. [106]

    2021, A&A, 656, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141587

    Kossakowski , D., Kemmer , J., Bluhm , P., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141587

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141587 2021

  71. [108]

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. A. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10.21105/joss.01143

    doi:10.21105/joss.01143 2019

  72. [111]

    M., Gratadour , D., Chauvin , G., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Gratadour , D., Chauvin , G., et al. 2009, , 493, L21, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811325

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200811325 2009

  73. [112]

    J., & Chiang , E

    Lee , E. J., & Chiang , E. 2015, , 811, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/41

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/41 2015

  74. [113]

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

    Lee , E. J., Karalis , A., & Thorngren , D. P. 2022, ApJ, 941, 186, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c66

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c66 2022

  75. [115]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1812.013

    2018

  76. [117]

    D., & Rice , K

    Lopez , E. D., & Rice , K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5303, 10.1093/mnras/sty1707

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1707 2018

  77. [119]

    2019, , 157, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

    Luger , R., Agol , E., Foreman-Mackey , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5 2019

  78. [121]

    J., Kunimoto , M., et al

    Luque , R., Fulton , B. J., Kunimoto , M., et al. 2022 a , A&A, 664, A199, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243834

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243834 2022

  79. [122]

    2022 b , A&A, 666, A154, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244426

    Luque , R., Nowak , G., Hirano , T., et al. 2022 b , A&A, 666, A154, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244426

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244426 2022

  80. [124]

    G., Petigura , E

    MacDougall , M. G., Petigura , E. A., Gilbert , G. J., et al. 2023, , 166, 33, 10.3847/1538-3881/acd557

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd557 2023

Showing first 80 references.