Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 83 references

JWST can detect Jupiter-like flattening and Ganymede-sized moons around order-10 wide-orbit giants if noise stays white and obliquities are not tiny.

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

2026-07-14 14:54 UTC pith:4LMYA2IW

load-bearing objection Solid, transparent JWST yield forecast for giant-planet oblateness and moons; order-10 numbers under demonstrated noise and ~10° obliquities are useful and properly caveated by red noise and priors. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09873 v1 pith:4LMYA2IW submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.EP

How Many Transiting Giant Planets Can JWST Search for Moons and Rotational Oblateness?

Le-Chris Wang , Joshua N. Winn This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords transit photometryplanetary oblatenessexomoonsJWSTgiant planetsphotometric noiseGaia
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 paper asks how many transiting giant planets are actually good enough for JWST to detect either rotational flattening or a large moon in a single transit light curve. Using analytic detectability metrics, Gaia stars, a giant-planet occurrence model, and both ideal and demonstrated JWST noise models, it finds that for hosts between 0.9 and 1.6 solar masses and real-world noise, roughly ten systems should allow a secure detection of Jupiter-like oblateness if typical obliquities are at least about 10 degrees, and a similar number should be searchable for Ganymede-sized moons if such moons are common. Including lower-mass hosts or approaching photon-limited performance multiplies the yields; a red-noise floor of only a few tens of parts per million on 1–10 hour timescales can erase them. The absence of detections so far is therefore more likely a census and systematics problem than proof that the signals do not exist.

Core claim

For 0.9–1.6 solar-mass hosts and a noise model based on demonstrated JWST performance, single-transit observations should detect Jupiter-like rotational oblateness in several known systems and of order 10 systems yet to be discovered if obliquities are typically ≳10°, with a comparable number of systems favorable for Ganymede-sized moons if such moons are common; the yields rise to tens or hundreds under more optimistic assumptions and collapse under modest time-correlated noise.

What carries the argument

Analytic Δχ² detectability scalings for projected flattening and for non-overlapping moon transits, calibrated by injection–recovery and combined with Gaia DR3 stellar catalogs and a California Legacy Survey occurrence model under a 0.3 AU periastron cut.

Load-bearing premise

That the one-minute photometric noise averages down as the square root of the number of points on the half-hour to multi-hour timescales that actually carry the signals, with no irreducible red-noise floor of a few tens of parts per million.

What would settle it

Measure residual scatter on half-ingress (~0.5 hr) and half-transit (several–10 hr) timescales for the highest-ranked known targets in Table 3; if that floor exceeds ~10–60 ppm, the white-noise yield forecasts fail for those systems.

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper forecasts how many transiting giant planets are favorable targets for JWST single-transit searches for rotational oblateness and large moons. The authors combine (i) analytic Δχ² detectability metrics for ingress–egress asymmetry and for a non-overlapping moon transit, calibrated with injection–recovery (Appendices A–B); (ii) ETC-based and empirical JWST white-light noise models; (iii) Gaia DR3 host-star catalogs; and (iv) California Legacy Survey giant-planet occurrence posteriors. For 0.9–1.6 M⊙ hosts and the empirical noise model, they predict of order 10 systems with detectable Jupiter-like oblateness if true obliquities are typically ≳10°, and a similar number of systems in which a Ganymede-sized moon would be detectable if present (Table 2). Yields rise substantially for lower-mass hosts or photon-limited performance, and fall to near zero under a few-tens-of-ppm red-noise floor on the signal timescale (Section 7) or under a Jupiter-like 3° obliquity prior. Comparison with the NASA Exoplanet Archive and TESS candidates indicates that the current long-period sample is incomplete relative to the forecast.

Significance. The work is a timely, quantitative bridge between JWST’s demonstrated photometric precision and the still-empty census of exoplanet spin states and large moons. Strengths include a leading-order geometric derivation of the ingress–egress asymmetry (Appendix A), explicit calibration of the Δχ² metrics against squishyplanet/pandora injection–recovery (Appendix B), Monte Carlo propagation of CLS occurrence posteriors, and a transparent sensitivity analysis to obliquity priors, Δχ² threshold, and red noise (Figures 5–8; Table 2). The ranked list of known systems (Table 3) and the incompleteness comparison (Section 8.2) give the community actionable target priorities and a clear motivation for longer-period transit surveys. If the white-noise and obliquity contingencies hold, the paper establishes that population-level studies of giant-planet spin and satellites with JWST are plausible rather than exotic.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7; Table 2; Abstract] Table 2 and the abstract’s “demonstrated JWST performance” order-of-10 claim still assume that the empirical 1-minute residual scatter (Eq. 2) averages as white noise (√N) down to the half-ingress (~0.5 hr) and half-transit (several–10 hr) timescales that carry the signals. Section 7 quantifies red-noise floors only on top of the ETC white-noise model, not the empirical model used for the headline yields. Because the paper itself notes that real JWST residuals for Kepler-167 e and TOI-700 already exceed the white-noise requirement for Δχ²=60 (Section 7), the baseline empirical yields should either (a) be recomputed with a modest σ_red term added in quadrature to σ_emp, or (b) be explicitly labeled in the abstract/Table 2 as white-noise extrapolations of the 1-min empirical floor. Without that, the central “order 10” claim is easy to over-read as already demonstrated on the relevant times
  2. [Section 3.2; Table 2; Abstract] Section 3.2 adopts an optimistic moon metric in which the moon transit is wholly separated from the planet transit and has the same duration T as the planet. The text acknowledges this and cites Kipping (2021) as a more conservative alternative, but the abstract and Table 2 present moon-searchable yields as “similar” to the oblateness yields without any quantitative bound on the inflation from non-overlap. Because overlap is common for moons inside ~0.05 R_Hill, a short appendix or paragraph estimating the factor by which Δχ² (and thus N) drops under a partial-overlap or non-overlapping-segment metric would make the moon column of Table 2 more interpretable and would prevent the “similar number” phrasing from being taken as a like-for-like comparison.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) writes the geometric factor as (1−b²) in the numerator in one place and discusses (1−b²)^(−1/2) in the text; the calibrated forms in Eqs. (B7)–(B8) use (1−b²)^(−1/2). Please make the main-text scaling consistent with the appendix.
  2. [Section 2.2; Figure 1] Figure 1 caption and Section 2.2: the empirical model favors G395H for K<9.5 and PRISM fainter, while the ETC envelope favors SOSS then PRISM. A one-sentence note on why SOSS is demoted in the empirical model (already hinted via 1/f noise) would help readers choosing modes.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 is heterogeneous (different reductions, bandpasses, stellar types). Consider adding a column for the approximate white-light wavelength range or a footnote that the σ_obs/σ_ETC ratios are not instrument-mode constants.
  4. [Section 5] Section 5: the restriction a(1−e) ≤ 20 AU is described as “somewhat arbitrary.” A brief check that the yield is insensitive to this upper bound (e.g., 10 vs 30 AU) would strengthen the claim that the results are not driven by that cut.
  5. [Figure 9] Figure 9 top panel: the color scale is τ_spin/Age, but the caption also refers to solid curves for Q′_p=10^5.5; ensure the legend distinguishes system-by-system points from the analytic curves clearly in the final figure.
  6. [Title page; Section 4] Typographical: “T ransiting” in the title on the draft title page; “How Many T ransiting” appears to have a stray space. Also “ind max” → “in d_max” near the start of Section 4.
  7. [Table 3; Section 8.2.1] Section 8.2.1: TOI-201 c is flagged as possibly a brown dwarf with uncertain ephemeris; consider demoting it in the ranked list or adding a clearer “scheduling not currently feasible” flag in Table 3 beyond the footnote.
  8. [Figures 5–7; footnote 8] The N ∝ (Δχ²_thr)^(−3/2) argument (footnote 8) assumes photon-limited σ ∝ d and uniform stellar density. For the empirical noise model, which has a magnitude-dependent floor, the scaling is only approximate; a short caveat in the Figure 5/6 captions would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: yields are forward Monte-Carlo forecasts from independent Gaia/CLS inputs, ETC/empirical noise models, and geometry-calibrated Δχ² scalings.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a population forecast (Table 2: order-10 systems for Jupiter-like oblateness under a Rayleigh-10° prior with the empirical noise model, and a similar number of Ganymede-searchable systems). The derivation chain is: (i) independent JWST noise models (PandExo ETC + literature residual scatter, Eqs. 1–2); (ii) analytic Δχ² scalings for ingress-egress asymmetry and moon dips (Eqs. 3–7, App. A), with overall normalizations fitted once to injection-recovery simulations that span the same parameter space but are not the yield sample (App. B, Eqs. B7–B11); (iii) Gaia DR3 star catalogs cut by optimistic detectability; (iv) CLS giant-planet occurrence posteriors (Rosenthal/Fulton) plus geometric transit probability. None of these steps reduces a claimed prediction to its own defining inputs. The Δχ²>60 threshold is an explicit conventional choice whose effect is shown (N∝(Δχ²_thr)^-3/2); obliquity priors and red-noise floors are varied openly. Self-citations (Lammers & Winn 2024/2026 for stellar-mass occurrence scaling and main-sequence cuts) supply auxiliary inputs, not a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise that forces the yield. The forecast is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and is not circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The forecast rests on standard transit geometry, published occurrence rates, and empirical/ETC noise models. The free choices that most affect the numerical yields are the Δχ² detection threshold, the 0.3 AU periastron cut, the three obliquity priors, the fiducial planet/moon sizes and flattenings, and the white-noise averaging assumption. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • Δχ² detection threshold = 60
    Systems are counted as detections when Δχ² > 60; the paper shows yields scale roughly as (Δχ²_thr)^−3/2, so the absolute numbers depend on this conventional choice.
  • Minimum periastron distance = 0.3 AU
    Planets with a(1−e) < 0.3 AU are excluded to avoid tidal despinning and to keep Hill spheres large enough for long-lived moons; the cut is motivated but somewhat arbitrary and directly truncates the sample.
  • Fiducial planet radius and flattening = 1 RJ, f=0.065; Rm=0.037 RJ
    Oblateness calculations fix Rp = 1 RJ and f = 0.065 (Jupiter-like); moon calculations fix Rm = 0.037 RJ (Ganymede). Yields scale as (f² Rp⁵)^{3/2} and Rm⁶, so these choices set the absolute scale.
  • Obliquity distribution priors = Rayleigh peak 10° (baseline)
    Three discrete priors (isotropic, Rayleigh 10°, Rayleigh 3°) are explored; the baseline ‘order 10’ claim uses the 10° Rayleigh case. True distribution is unknown and dominates yield uncertainty.
  • Empirical noise inflation factors = piecewise σ_emp(K) (Eq. 2)
    Literature white-light residuals are larger than ETC by median factors ~1.2 (PRISM/G395H) and ~2.4 (SOSS); the empirical model is a piecewise fit to those residuals and is used for the more conservative yields.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Photometric noise is white on the signal timescale so that averaging N one-minute samples reduces the fluctuation by √N (unless an explicit red-noise floor is added).
    Used throughout Sections 2–6; Section 7 shows that violating it with σ_red of tens of ppm nullifies the yields.
  • domain assumption Giant-planet occurrence follows the California Legacy Survey density (Eq. 8) with optional mass-dependent normalization for M⋆ < 0.9 M⊙.
    Section 5; draws from Rosenthal et al. / Fulton et al. posteriors.
  • standard math Projected oblateness signal is dominated by the leading-order ingress–egress chord-length asymmetry F ∝ f⊥ sin 2θ⊥ sin 2θ∥.
    Derived in Appendix A under the small-planet, straight-limb approximation and validated by injection-recovery.
  • ad hoc to paper A moon produces a fully separated transit of duration equal to the planet’s transit duration (optimistic non-overlapping case).
    Section 3.2; chosen to avoid extra orbital-phase assumptions; acknowledged as optimistic.
  • domain assumption Tidal despinning and moon survival become inefficient beyond ~0.3 AU for Jupiter-like Q′p and ages.
    Section 1 and footnote 4, using Carter & Winn (2010b) spindown timescale.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 30057 in / 3474 out tokens · 29199 ms · 2026-07-14T14:54:25.438897+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Observations with the {\it James Webb Space Telescope} (JWST) can, in principle, detect moons and rotational oblateness of giant exoplanets through subtle distortions of transit light curves. The most favorable planets are expected to be on wide orbits ($\gtrsim$0.3~AU) where moons and rapid rotation are more likely to survive tidal evolution. No unambiguous detections have yet been reported. Here, we forecast the number of systems with sufficiently favorable properties to allow for secure detections, using JWST noise models, analytic detectability scalings, giant-planet occurrence rates, and the Gaia star catalog. For planets orbiting 0.9--1.6$\,M_\odot$ stars and a noise model based on demonstrated JWST performance, single-transit observations should be capable of detecting Jupiter-like rotational oblateness in several known systems and of order 10 systems yet to be discovered, if obliquities are typically $\gtrsim$10$^\circ$. A similar number of systems are favorable for Ganymede-sized moons, if such moons are common. The yields can increase to tens or hundreds of systems if lower-mass host stars are included or if JWST can achieve photon-limited performance. Time-correlated noise on 1--10 hr timescales can strongly suppress these yields; a noise floor of a few tens of parts per million is enough to hide oblateness or moons in many otherwise favorable systems. Successful searches will therefore require both a more complete census of long-period transiting giant planets and low levels of instrumental systematics and stellar variability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09873 by Joshua N. Winn, Le-Chris Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: JWST photometric precision per minute, based on bandpass-summed time-series data and plotted versus ap￾parent K magnitude. (a) Empirically measured scatter re￾ported in the literature (points), compared with Exposure Time Calculator predictions from PandExo for three instru￾ments/modes (curves). The dashed curve is a fitting func￾tion for the lower envelope of the ETC predictions (Equation 1); in this fit,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the ingress–egress asymmetry produced by an oblate planet. Top: Transit geometry. The planet’s projected shape is elliptical, with projected flattening f⊥. The intersections of the ellipse with the stellar limb are nearly straight lines but with different lengths L, leading to different rates of ingress and egress. Bottom: Example light curve (red) with exaggerated projected oblateness (f⊥ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Favorable-star catalogs for detecting planetary oblateness (top) and moons (bottom) constructed under optimistic assumptions about planet/moon properties, viewing geometry, and JWST performance. The adopted detection threshold was ∆χ 2 = 60 using the ETC noise model. Panels a and d show the maximum search distance as a function of stellar mass. The solid curves show the formal distance limits, and the dash… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated light curves illustrating different levels of detection significance. The three columns show cases with ∆χ 2 = 100, 60, and 10 between the oblate model and the best-fit standard model with zero oblateness. Top row: Noisy transit photometry (black) and the best-fitting standard model (red). Bottom row: Residuals. We adopted ∆χ 2 ≳ 60 as the fiducial detectability threshold, and show the dependence… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameter distributions of simulated systems for which Jupiter-like oblateness is detectable with ∆χ 2 > 60, assuming an isotropic distribution of true obliquities. Results are shown separately for stellar masses 0.9 < M⋆/M⊙ < 1.6 (black) and 0.1 < M⋆/M⊙ < 0.9 (red). Above each histogram are the median and 16th/84th percentiles. The upper right panel shows how the number of detections scales with the ∆χ 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Parameter distributions of simulated systems for which Jupiter-like oblateness is detectable with ∆χ 2 > 60, shown for three true-obliquity distributions: isotropic (black), Rayleigh peaking at 10◦ (red), and Rayleigh peaking at 3◦ (blue). Above each histogram are median values and 16th/84th percentiles. The upper-right panel shows how the number of detections scales with the ∆χ 2 threshold for the ETC noi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity of the predicted yields to an added red-noise floor on the relevant signal timescale. The horizon￾tal axis specifies σred, the additional noise added in quadra￾ture to the ETC white-noise prediction after averaging to the relevant timescale (half the transit duration for moon detection, and half the ingress/egress duration for oblate￾ness detection). Solid curves show the number of systems with… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effects of relaxing the 0.3 AU periastron distance. Top row: Tidal despinning timescales for known transiting giant planets. Points show stellar age versus periastron dis￾tance and are colored according to τspin/Age, where τspin is evaluated system-by-system assuming Q ′ p = 105.5 . Solid curves show τspin for Q ′ p = 105.5 , assuming Jupiter-like plan￾etary properties. The dashed horizontal line marks the… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corner plot comparing the forecasted oblateness-favorable population (black) with the currently known confirmed and candidate systems (red). The upper-right panel shows cumulative distributions of G, M⋆, and a. The observed sample is fairly complete at the brightest magnitudes and smallest separations, but shows a growing deficit toward optically fainter stars, lower-mass stars, and larger orbital separat… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] 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

83 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, 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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add010 2025

  2. [2]

    2018, AJ, 155, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab9a1

    Aizawa, M., Masuda, K., Kawahara, H., & Suto, Y. 2018, AJ, 155, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab9a1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab9a1 2018

  3. [3]

    2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    Albert, L., Lafreni` ere, D., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3 2023

  4. [4]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  5. [5]

    2025, AJ, 170, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adec89

    Barat, S., D´ esert, J.-M., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adec89

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adec89 2025

  6. [6]

    W., & Fortney, J

    Barnes, J. W., & Fortney, J. J. 2003, ApJ, 588, 545, doi: 10.1086/373893

    work page doi:10.1086/373893 2003

  7. [7]

    W., & Fortney, J

    Barnes, J. W., & Fortney, J. J. 2004, ApJ, 616, 1193, doi: 10.1086/425067

    work page doi:10.1086/425067 2004

  8. [8]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 2017

  9. [9]

    P., Collins, K

    Battley, M. P., Collins, K. A., Ulmer-Moll, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449307

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449307 2024

  10. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15835, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15835

    Bello-Arufe, A., Hu, R., Zilinskas, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15835, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15835

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15835 2025

  11. [11]

    A., MacDonald, R

    Bennett, K. A., MacDonald, R. J., Peacock, S., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf198

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adf198 2025

  12. [12]

    2017, AJ, 154, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa88c2

    Biersteker, J., & Schlichting, H. 2017, AJ, 154, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa88c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa88c2 2017

  13. [13]

    J., et al

    Brahm, R., Ulmer-Moll, S., Hobson, M. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accadd Ca˜ nas, C. I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06966, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06966

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accadd 2023

  14. [14]

    A., & Winn, J

    Carter, J. A., & Winn, J. N. 2010a, ApJ, 709, 1219, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1219

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/1219

  15. [15]

    A., & Winn, J

    Carter, J. A., & Winn, J. N. 2010b, ApJ, 716, 850, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/850

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/850

  16. [16]

    2026, AJ, 171, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3a81

    Cassese, B., Kipping, D., Changeat, Q., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3a81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae3a81 2026

  17. [17]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6972, doi: 10.21105/joss.06972 22

    Cassese, B., Vega, J., Lu, T., et al. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6972, doi: 10.21105/joss.06972 22

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06972 2024

  18. [18]

    L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al

    Creevey, O. L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243688

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243688 2023

  19. [19]

    Dholakia, S., Dholakia, S., & Pope, B. J. S. 2025, ApJ, 987, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addb4e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addb4e 2025

  20. [20]

    Dobos, V., Charnoz, S., P´ al, A., Roque-Bernard, A., & Szab´ o, G. M. 2021, PASP, 133, 094401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/abfe04

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/abfe04 2021

  21. [21]

    C., Winter, O

    Domingos, R. C., Winter, O. C., & Yokoyama, T. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1227, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11104.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11104.x 2006

  22. [22]

    Doyle, L. R. 2019, NewAR, 84, 101515, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2019.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2019.05.001 2019

  23. [23]

    M., et al

    Espinoza, N., ´Ubeda, L., Birkmann, S. M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aca3d3

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aca3d3 2023

  24. [24]

    H., Glidden, A., et al

    Espinoza, N., Allen, N. H., Glidden, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e 2025

  25. [25]

    D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1 2023

  26. [26]

    2023, A&A, 674, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243919

    Fouesneau, M., Fr´ emat, Y., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243919

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243919 2023

  27. [27]

    J., Radica, M., et al

    Fournier-Tondreau, M., MacDonald, R. J., Radica, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3813

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3813 2024

  28. [28]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf489

    Fournier-Tondreau, M., Pan, Y., Morel, K., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf489

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf489 2025

  29. [29]

    J., Rosenthal, L

    Fulton, B. J., Rosenthal, L. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Garc´ ıa-Mej´ ıa, J., de Beurs, Z. L., Tamburo, P., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4d3d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1 2021

  30. [30]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Ge, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1309218, doi: 10.1117/12.3018669

    doi:10.1117/12.3018669 2024

  31. [31]

    Z., Marcy, G

    Heising, M. Z., Marcy, G. W., & Schlichting, H. E. 2015, ApJ, 814, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/81 2015

  32. [32]

    2022, A&A, 662, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243129

    Hippke, M., & Heller, R. 2022, A&A, 662, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243129

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243129 2022

  33. [33]

    J., Brahm, R., Jordan, A., et al

    Hobson, M. J., Brahm, R., Jordan, A., et al. 2021, in Posters from the TESS Science Conference II (TSC2), 25, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5120920

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5120920 2021

  34. [34]

    2024, A&A, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238

    Holmberg, M., & Madhusudhan, N. 2024, A&A, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348238 2024

  35. [35]

    Hughes, D. W. 2003, Planet. Space Sci., 51, 517, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(03)00035-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(03)00035-7 2003

  36. [36]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2189

    Kendall, A., Ulmer-Moll, S., Gill, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2189

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2189 2025

  37. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2013

    Kipping, D. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2013

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2013 2021

  38. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1182, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1492

    Kipping, D. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1182, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1492

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1492 2023

  39. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15317, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15317

    Kipping, D., Cassese, B., Changeat, Q., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15317, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15317 2025

  40. [40]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 367, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1

    Kipping, D., Bryson, S., Burke, C., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 367, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1 2022

  41. [41]

    M., Schmitt, A

    Kipping, D. M., Schmitt, A. R., Huang, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/14

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/14 2015

  42. [42]

    M., & Fabrycky, D

    Kisare, A. M., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3543

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3543 2024

  43. [43]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab20c8

    Kreidberg, L., Luger, R., & Bedell, M. 2019, ApJL, 877, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab20c8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab20c8 2019

  44. [44]

    Lammers, C., & Winn, J. N. 2024, ApJL, 977, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad91ae

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad91ae 2024

  45. [45]

    Lammers, C., & Winn, J. N. 2026, AJ, 171, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae21de

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae21de 2026

  46. [46]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8f39

    Liu, Q., Zhu, W., Masuda, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8f39

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8f39 2024

  47. [47]

    Liu, R., Wang, L.-C., Rustamkulov, Z., & Sing, D. K. 2025, AJ, 169, 335, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adcba7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adcba7 2025

  48. [48]

    R., Mullens, E., Alderson, L., et al

    Louie, D. R., Mullens, E., Alderson, L., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9688

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9688 2025

  49. [49]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z 2023

  50. [50]

    W., Fortenbach, C

    Mayo, A. W., Fortenbach, C. D., Louie, D. R., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adda2e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adda2e 2025

  51. [51]

    C., & Winn, J

    Millholland, S. C., & Winn, J. N. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 122, e2416189122, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2416189122

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2416189122 2025

  52. [52]

    Uncovering the Rapidly Evolving Orbits of the Dynamic TOI-201 System

    Mireles, I., Ulmer-Moll, S., Liveoak, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.23929, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.23929

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.23929 2026

  53. [53]

    T., Crepp, J

    Montet, B. T., Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2014, ApJ, 781, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/28

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/28 2014

  54. [54]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c 2023

  55. [55]

    K., Fu, G., et al

    Mukherjee, S., Sing, D. K., Fu, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10910, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.10910 2025

  56. [56]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2019, Confirmed Planets Table, IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA1

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174817 1999

  57. [57]

    K., Charbonneau, D., Vanderburg, A., & Bean, J

    Pass, E. K., Charbonneau, D., Vanderburg, A., & Bean, J. L. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.05235 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05235 2026

  58. [58]

    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

  59. [59]

    M., Pickering, T

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Pickering, T. E., Laidler, V. G., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9910, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, R. L. Seaman, & C. R. Benn, 991016, doi: 10.1117/12.2231768

    doi:10.1117/12.2231768 2016

  60. [60]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1762

    Radica, M., Welbanks, L., Espinoza, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1762

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1762 2023

  61. [61]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Taylor, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada381 2025

  62. [62]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    doi:10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4 2014

  63. [63]

    N., Dransfield, G., et al

    Rea, E., G¨ unther, M. N., Dransfield, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01725, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01725

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01725 2025

  64. [64]

    E., Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., et al

    Rigby, F. E., Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L70, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae247d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae247d 2025

  65. [65]

    TIC-65910228 b / NGTS-38 b, a 180 day transiting warm super-Jupiter

    Rodel, T., Ulmer-Moll, S., Gill, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.12977, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.12977

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12977 2026

  66. [66]

    E., & Cuntz, M

    Rosario-Franco, M., Quarles, B., Musielak, Z. E., & Cuntz, M. 2020, AJ, 159, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab89a7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab89a7 2020

  67. [67]

    J., Howard, A

    Rosenthal, L. J., Howard, A. W., Knutson, H. A., & Fulton, B. J. 2024, ApJS, 270, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acffc0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acffc0 2024

  68. [68]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c 2021

  69. [69]

    K., Mukherjee, S., et al

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y 2023

  70. [70]

    1999, A&AS, 134, 553, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999148

    Sartoretti, P., & Schneider, J. 1999, A&AS, 134, 553, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999148

    doi:10.1051/aas:1999148 1999

  71. [71]

    J., et al

    Schlawin, E., Ohno, K., Bell, T. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7fef

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7fef 2024

  72. [72]

    P., MacDonald, R

    Schmidt, S. P., MacDonald, R. J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae019a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae019a 2025

  73. [73]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbe

    Scholz, A., Moore, K., Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbe 2018

  74. [74]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 1004, doi: 10.1086/340994

    Seager, S., & Hui, L. 2002, ApJ, 574, 1004, doi: 10.1086/340994

    doi:10.1086/340994 2002

  75. [75]

    K., Rustamkulov, Z., Thorngren, D

    Sing, D. K., Rustamkulov, Z., Thorngren, D. P., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 831, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07395-z Tala Pinto, M., Jord´ an, A., Acu˜ na, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A268, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452517

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07395-z 2024

  76. [76]

    D., et al

    Taylor, J., Radica, M., Chatterjee, R. D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf894

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf894 2025

  77. [77]

    Teachey, A., & Kipping, D. M. 2018, Science Advances, 4, eaav1784, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav1784

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav1784 2018

  78. [78]

    Tokadjian, A., & Piro, A. L. 2020, AJ, 160, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb29e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb29e 2020

  79. [79]

    2025, A&A, 703, A258, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555168

    Ulmer-Moll, S., Gill, S., Brahm, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A258, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555168

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555168 2025

  80. [80]

    2025, PASJ, 77, 86, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae101

    Umetani, T., Aizawa, M., Ezoe, Y., & Ishisaki, Y. 2025, PASJ, 77, 86, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae101

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psae101 2025

Showing first 80 references.