Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Modeling the Impact of Starspot Inhomogeneity on Spectroscopic Retrievals of Directly-Imaged Planets

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Ordinary starspots barely change water retrievals for directly imaged Earths; only rare extreme spots raise the SNR needed and bias albedo low.

desk verdict Solid HWO-requirements paper: Solar-type starspots are negligible for reflection retrievals; only rare extreme hidden spots matter, and a simple variability cut largely clears the target list. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.11728 v1 pith:ZW4GCAUF submitted 2026-07-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Alex R. Howe , Natasha Latouf , Christopher C. Stark , Avi M. Mandel , Veselin Kostov This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords starspotsdirectimagingspectroscopicretrievalsHabitableWorldsObservatorywatervaporalbedobiasstellaractivityexoEarths
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Future space telescopes that take reflected-light spectra of Earth-like planets will see a star face that is not the same as the face the planet reflects. Starspots on the unseen hemisphere can therefore dim the planet relative to the star and slightly reshape molecular features. This paper runs end-to-end simulations of that mismatch for quiet, solar-like, and extreme 10-percent-coverage spots around G, K, and M stars. It finds that ordinary activity leaves water-vapor detection thresholds and retrieved abundances essentially unchanged, while a single large spot hidden from the observer raises the required signal-to-noise ratio modestly and pulls the retrieved albedo down to roughly two-thirds of the true value. Because such extreme, perfectly hidden spots are rare once stars with photometric variability above about 1 percent are excluded, the authors conclude that starspot contamination will not be a major error source for a Habitable Worlds Observatory-style survey.

What carries the argument

Worst-case planet-to-star contrast spectra generated by ExoVista (with analytic projected starspots, PHOENIX atmospheres, and limb darkening) that are then inverted with the BARBIE nested-sampling retrievals on the KEN grid; the log-Bayes factor for water vapor quantifies detection strength.

What would settle it

A direct-imaging observation of a known highly spotted star in which a large spot is independently confirmed to lie on the planet-facing hemisphere yet remains invisible to the observer, showing either an albedo bias far larger than two-thirds or a water SNR threshold well above 18 at 0.74 µm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For Solar-type activity the effect on spectroscopic retrievals of Earth-like planets is negligible; only an extreme single large spot with 10 percent coverage that is invisible to the observer raises the SNR needed for water detection from about 5 to 8 at 0.9 µm and from about 13 to 18 at 0.74 µm, and drives the retrieved albedo to roughly two-thirds of its true value. After a modest variability cut, such contaminants will not be a significant error source for an HWO-style exoEarth survey.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that survey impact remains small rests on the premise that chromatic speckles, faculae, flares, and time-evolving spots stay sub-dominant once targets with photometric variability above about 1 percent are cut.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies how starspot inhomogeneity biases spectroscopic retrievals of Earth-like planets in reflected light for an HWO-style survey. Using ExoVista 2.5 to generate planet–star contrast spectra (quiet, 1% solar-type, and 10% single-spot extreme activity; G2V/K5V/M2V hosts) and BARBIE/KEN nested-sampling retrievals, the authors show that solar-type activity is negligible relative to a quiet star, while an extreme hidden 10% spot raises the SNR needed for H2O detection from ~5 to ~8 at 0.9 µm and from ~13 to ~18 at 0.74 µm and biases the retrieved geometric albedo to ~2/3 of truth. They then estimate that a photometric-variability cut ≳1% removes most problematic targets from a representative HWO list, so starspot contaminants should not be a major error source for the survey under the stated assumptions.

Significance. The work fills a clear gap: stellar activity effects on reflection spectra for direct imaging have been far less studied than for transit or RV. The central quiet/active/extreme comparison is supported by concrete forward models, lnB heatmaps (Fig. 3), and corner plots (Figs. 4–5) with known injected truths, and the paper ships usable tools (ExoVista updates; PSGNest/BARBIE grids). The SNR thresholds and albedo bias for the extreme case are falsifiable and directly useful for HWO target selection and exposure-time planning. The survey-impact estimate is carefully scoped and does not overclaim once the omitted channels (speckles, faculae, time evolution) are acknowledged.

major comments (2)
  1. §5.2 and the abstract claim that after a ≳1% variability cut starspot contaminants will not be a significant HWO error source. That conclusion rests on two linked premises that are only partly quantified: (i) the extreme 10% hidden-spot geometry of §3 is rare enough that the TESS/Kepler variability statistics bound the risk, and (ii) omitted channels (chromatic speckles, faculae, flares, time-evolving spots; §1, §5.3) remain sub-dominant once variable stars are cut. The geometry argument is plausible but not demonstrated with a simple Monte Carlo over inclination/spot longitude; a short calculation or explicit statement that the survey claim is conditional on those omissions would make the load-bearing step transparent without changing the retrieval results.
  2. §2.1 and Table 1 fix umbra/penumbra temperatures at 2500/2700 K for all spectral types (G2–M2) to avoid the PHOENIX grid edge. For the extreme 10% case this choice sets both the continuum flux deficit and any second-order H2O spectral-shape contamination that the paper argues is mild. The text asserts that spot flux is low enough that temperature variation is negligible, but that is not shown for the extreme geometry where the planet sees a large cool area face-on. A brief sensitivity check (e.g., one G2 run with warmer spots scaled to solar umbra/penumbra contrasts) would confirm that the reported SNR shifts and As bias are not artifacts of the fixed cool temperatures.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract and §1 use “SNR«5” / “„2{3” etc.; these appear to be typesetting artifacts for ≈ and ~. Please normalize to standard ≈ / ∼ throughout.
  2. Fig. 2 caption notes that for extreme activity the major residual source is limb darkening evaluated only at the spot center. That limitation should also be mentioned briefly in §2.1 or §4 so readers do not over-interpret the residual shape.
  3. Corner plots (Figs. 4–5) and Table 3 are shown only for G2; the heatmaps include K5 and M2. A sentence or small appendix panel confirming that the As bias and H2O posteriors are similar for K5/M2 would better support the claim of spectral-type independence.
  4. §2.3 redefines lnB cuts relative to Benneke & Seager (2013). The motivation is clear; please state the adopted thresholds once in a short table or equation for easy reference.
  5. Table 1 lists default spot coverage 0.2 while the Active model in Table 2 uses 1%; a cross-reference would avoid confusion for readers implementing ExoVista 2.5.
  6. Code availability is appreciated; please pin the ExoVista 2.5 commit or release tag used for the figures so the contrast spectra can be regenerated exactly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward ExoVista contrast spectra plus independent BARBIE nested-sampling retrievals against known injected truths; self-citations supply tools/grids, not the numerical answer.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (quiet/active SNR thresholds ~5/13; extreme hidden 10% spot raises them to ~8/18 and biases As to ~2/3) are produced by an open simulation pipeline: ExoVista 2.5 generates planet-to-star contrast spectra under fixed worst-case geometries and three activity models (Quiet/Active/Extreme), then BARBIE/PSGnest retrieves on the KEN grid against known injected Earth VMRs and As=0.3. Detection strength is scored by log-Bayes factors with slightly adjusted thresholds relative to Benneke & Seager (2013); those cuts are applied uniformly and do not force the quiet-vs-extreme difference by construction. Self-citations to ExoVista, BARBIE1–3, and the authors' prior target list supply software, grids, and an example HWO list; they are not uniqueness theorems or fitted inputs that redefine the result. Survey-impact estimates (variability cut ≳1% removes ≲4% of targets) rest on external TESS/Kepler catalogs, not on a circular self-definition. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation that is itself the target claim. The deliberate omissions (speckles, faculae, time evolution) are scoped as future work and do not create internal circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on standard stellar-atmosphere and exoplanet-retrieval machinery plus several hand-chosen activity and geometry settings that define the quiet/active/extreme cases. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are mostly model knobs and detection metrics, not fits to observational data.

free parameters (8)
  • Extreme spot coverage fraction = 0.10
    Set by hand to 10% single-spot coverage as a limiting rapid-rotator case; drives the elevated SNR and albedo bias results.
  • Active (Solar-type) spot coverage = 0.01
    Chosen as 1% (above solar max ~0.5%) as a reference near the high end of field-star activity.
  • Umbra and penumbra temperatures = 2500 K / 2700 K
    Fixed at 2500 K / 2700 K for all spectral types to stay above the PHOENIX grid floor; not fitted per star.
  • Granulation coverage and ΔT = 0.2, −200 K
    f_gran=0.2 and ΔT=−200 K adopted (M-dwarf-like); paper argues results are insensitive.
  • Quadratic limb-darkening coefficients = u1=0.0473, u2=0.0841
    Solar u1=0.0473, u2=0.0841 applied across models; spectral variation acknowledged but not varied.
  • lnB detection thresholds = 2.5 and 5.0
    Authors shift Benneke & Seager bins so lnB<2.5 unconstrained, 2.5–5 weak, ≥5 strong; these cuts define 'detection' in heatmaps.
  • Earth-twin atmosphere and albedo inputs = VMR H2O=3e-3, As=0.3, clouds=0
    H2O/O2/O3 VMRs, As=0.3, P0=1 bar, T=250 K, 0% clouds fixed from PSG/Earth twin assumptions.
  • Survey variability cutoff and catalog subsample = ~1% variability; 71/168 stars
    Impact estimate uses ~1% photometric variability cut and 71/168 TESS-overlap stars from an AYO target list.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PHOENIX-ACES stellar spectra and linear combination of photosphere/granule/penumbra/umbra components correctly represent spotted-star SEDs for contrast calculations.
    Section 2.1 replaces prior Kurucz models with PHOENIX and weights by projected areas.
  • domain assumption Planet reflection is Lambertian at quadrature with orthographic stellar illumination; phase-function and geometric errors are negligible for HZ distances.
    Section 2.2; used for all contrast spectra.
  • ad hoc to paper Instrumental chromatic speckles, faculae, flares, and time-variable spots can be neglected when assessing astrophysical retrieval bias.
    Stated scope in Introduction and Section 5.3; load-bearing for survey-impact conclusions.
  • domain assumption Nested-sampling log-Bayes factors on the KEN/Merman grid with Gaussian pixel noise are adequate proxies for HWO water detectability.
    Section 2.3; BARBIE/PSGnest methodology carried from prior papers.
  • ad hoc to paper Worst-case geometries (face-on, pole-on, hidden extreme spot) bound the practical survey risk after a variability cut.
    Section 3 model selection and Section 5.2 geometric rarity argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the Impact of Starspot Inhomogeneity on Spectroscopic Retrievals of Directly-Imaged Planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZW4GCAUF

@misc{pith2026260711728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the Impact of Starspot Inhomogeneity on Spectroscopic Retrievals of Directly-Imaged Planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZW4GCAUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11728}
}
abstract

Stellar activity is a major complication in the detection and characterization of exoplanets by both radial velocities and transits, and the upcoming Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) invites us to also consider its effect on direct imaging. Spectra of directly-imaged planets can vary with the activity of their host stars because the face of the star we see is not the same as the face reflected by the planet. This discrepancy could potentially result in inaccurate measurements of the planet's radius and unexpected, externally-caused variability in its contrast spectrum with the star. To assess the scientific capabilities and requirements of HWO, it is important that the magnitude of these effects be quantified. We present results of model retrievals of Earth-like exoplanets observed with an HWO-style survey, as they would appear when affected by starspots, using the ExoVista code for spectrum generation and the BARBIE code for spectroscopic retrieval. Both Solar-type stellar activity and highly active rapid rotators are considered and compared with an idealized quiescent host star. In the quiescent case, ${\rm SNR}\approx5$ is needed to detect atmospheric water vapor at 0.9 microns and ${\rm SNR}\approx13$ at 0.74 microns. We find that for Solar-type activity, the effect on retrievals will be negligible, but it could present problems for certain highly-active stars at limiting geometries. For an extreme case with a single large spot with 10\% coverage not visible to the observer, the SNR required for water detection increases to ${\rm SNR}\approx8$ at 0.9 microns and ${\rm SNR}\approx18$ at 0.74 microns. It also decreases the accuracy of the retrieved albedo, resulting in a value $\sim2/3$ of the true value. In light of these results, we estimate the impact that stellar variability and starspots may have on an HWO-style survey.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of the stellar disks modeled in this study. Left column: G2 star. Middle column: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inferred planetary albedo spectra and residuals for the observations modeled in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmap plots illustrating detection strength as a function of SNR and varying stellar type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two corner plots, one for a quiet G2 star and one for an active G2 star. Each has the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four corner plots, two for a quiet G2 star and two for an extremely active G2 star. All other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Search for exoplanets with the radial-velocity technique: quantitative diagnostics of stellar activity,

    M. Desort, A. M. Lagrange, F. Galland,et al., “Search for exoplanets with the radial-velocity technique: quantitative diagnostics of stellar activity,”A&A473, 983–993 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Accounting for stellar activity signals in radial- velocity data by using change point detection techniques,

    U. Simola, A. Bonfanti, X. Dumusque,et al., “Accounting for stellar activity signals in radial- velocity data by using change point detection techniques,”A&A664, A127 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Comparison of Kepler Photometric Variability with the Sun on Different Timescales,

    G. Basri, L. M. Walkowicz, and A. Reiners, “Comparison of Kepler Photometric Variability with the Sun on Different Timescales,”ApJ769, 37 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Spotted Star Light Curves with Enhanced Precision,

    R. E. Wilson, “Spotted Star Light Curves with Enhanced Precision,”AJ144, 73 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Time Variation of Kepler Transits Induced By Stellar Rotating Spots—a Way to Distinguish between Prograde and Retrograde Motion. I. Theory,

    T. Mazeh, T. Holczer, and A. Shporer, “Time Variation of Kepler Transits Induced By Stellar Rotating Spots—a Way to Distinguish between Prograde and Retrograde Motion. I. Theory,” ApJ800, 142 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    ACCESS: a featureless optical transmission spectrum for W ASP-19b from Magellan/IMACS,

    N. Espinoza, B. V . Rackham, A. Jord´an,et al., “ACCESS: a featureless optical transmission spectrum for W ASP-19b from Magellan/IMACS,”MNRAS482, 2065–2087 (2019)

  7. [7]

    High Tide or Riptide on the Cosmic Shoreline? A Water-rich Atmosphere or Stellar Contamination for the Warm Super-Earth GJ 486b from JWST Observations,

    S. E. Moran, K. B. Stevenson, D. K. Sing,et al., “High Tide or Riptide on the Cosmic Shoreline? A Water-rich Atmosphere or Stellar Contamination for the Warm Super-Earth GJ 486b from JWST Observations,”ApJL948, L11 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Transmission spectroscopy of W ASP-52 b with JWST NIRISS: water and helium atmospheric absorption, alongside prominent star-spot crossings,

    M. Fournier-Tondreau, Y . Pan, K. Morel,et al., “Transmission spectroscopy of W ASP-52 b with JWST NIRISS: water and helium atmospheric absorption, alongside prominent star-spot crossings,”MNRAS539, 422–438 (2025)

    2025

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Water Vapor in the Spectrum of the Extrasolar Planet HD 189733b. I. The Transit,

    P. R. McCullough, N. Crouzet, D. Deming,et al., “Water Vapor in the Spectrum of the Extrasolar Planet HD 189733b. I. The Transit,”ApJ791, 55 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Forecasting the Impact of Stellar Activity on Transiting Exoplanet Spectra,

    R. T. Zellem, M. R. Swain, G. Roudier,et al., “Forecasting the Impact of Stellar Activity on Transiting Exoplanet Spectra,”ApJ844, 27 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Toward Robust Corrections for Stellar Contamination in JWST Exoplanet Transmission Spectra,

    B. V . Rackham and J. de Wit, “Toward Robust Corrections for Stellar Contamination in JWST Exoplanet Transmission Spectra,”AJ168, 82 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e,

    N. Espinoza, N. H. Allen, A. Glidden,et al., “JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e,”ApJL990, L52 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    A Study of Differential Rotation on II Pegasi via Photometric Starspot Imaging,

    R. M. Roettenbacher, R. O. Harmon, N. Vutisalchavakul,et al., “A Study of Differential Rotation on II Pegasi via Photometric Starspot Imaging,”AJ141, 138 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Minimizing Star-spot Contamination of Exoplanet Transit Spectroscopy Using Alternate Normalization,

    D. Deming, M. H. Currie, V . S. Meadows,et al., “Minimizing Star-spot Contamination of Exoplanet Transit Spectroscopy Using Alternate Normalization,”AJ170, 11 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    ExoVista: A Suite of Planetary System Models for Exoplanet Studies,

    C. C. Stark, “ExoVista: A Suite of Planetary System Models for Exoplanet Studies,”AJ163, 105 (2022). 18

    2022

  8. [16]

    Scientific impact of a noiseless energy-resolving detector for a future exoplanet-imaging mission,

    A. R. Howe, C. C. Stark, and J. E. Sadleir, “Scientific impact of a noiseless energy-resolving detector for a future exoplanet-imaging mission,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, In- struments, and Systems10, 025008 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosigna- ture Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE). I. Using Grid-based Nested Sampling in Coron- agraphy Observation Simulations for H2O,

    N. Latouf, A. M. Mandell, G. L. Villanueva,et al., “Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosigna- ture Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE). I. Using Grid-based Nested Sampling in Coron- agraphy Observation Simulations for H2O,”AJ166, 129 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosigna- ture Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE). II. Using Grid-based Nested Sampling in Coron- agraphy Observation Simulations for O2 and O3,

    N. Latouf, A. M. Mandell, G. L. Villanueva,et al., “Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosigna- ture Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE). II. Using Grid-based Nested Sampling in Coron- agraphy Observation Simulations for O2 and O3,”AJ167, 27 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    BARBIE. Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosignature Identification on exoEarths. III. Introducing the KEN,

    N. Latouf, M. D. Himes, A. M. Mandell,et al., “BARBIE. Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosignature Identification on exoEarths. III. Introducing the KEN,”AJ169, 50 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    VSPEC: Variable Star PhasE Curve

    T. M. Johnson, C. Kelahan, A. M. Mandell,et al., “VSPEC: Variable Star PhasE Curve.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2504.013 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    The Stagger-grid: A grid of 3D stellar atmosphere models - VI. Surface appearance of stellar granulation,

    Z. Magic and M. Asplund, “The Stagger-grid: A grid of 3D stellar atmosphere models - VI. Surface appearance of stellar granulation,”arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1405.7628 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres,

    F. Castelli and R. L. Kurucz, “New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres,” inModelling of Stellar Atmospheres, N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, and D. F. Gray, Eds.,210, A20 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    A new extensive library of PHOENIX stellar atmospheres and synthetic spectra,

    T. O. Husser, S. Wende-von Berg, S. Dreizler,et al., “A new extensive library of PHOENIX stellar atmospheres and synthetic spectra,”A&A553, A6 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Detailed effects of limb darkening upon light and velocity curves of close binary systems,

    Z. Kopal, “Detailed effects of limb darkening upon light and velocity curves of close binary systems,”Harvard College Observatory Circular454, 1–12 (1950)

    1950

  17. [25]

    Claret, P

    A. Claret, P. H. Hauschildt, and S. Witte, “New limb-darkening coefficients for Phoenix/1d model atmospheres. II. Calculations for 5000 KďT ef f ď10 000 K Kepler, CoRot, Spitzer, uvby, UBVRIJHK, Sloan, and 2MASS photometric systems,”A&A552, A16 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Claret, P

    A. Claret, P. H. Hauschildt, and S. Witte, “New limb-darkening coefficients for PHOENIX/1D model atmospheres. I. Calculations for 1500 KďT ef f ď4800 K Kepler, CoRot, Spitzer, uvby, UBVRIJHK, Sloan, and 2MASS photometric systems,”A&A546, A14 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds,

    J. Chen and D. Kipping, “Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds,” ApJ834, 17 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Planetary Spectrum Generator: An accurate online radiative transfer suite for atmospheres, comets, small bodies and exoplanets,

    G. L. Villanueva, M. D. Smith, S. Protopapa,et al., “Planetary Spectrum Generator: An accurate online radiative transfer suite for atmospheres, comets, small bodies and exoplanets,” JQSRT217, 86–104 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    G. L. Villanueva, G. Liuzzi, S. Faggi,et al.,Fundamentals of the Planetary Spectrum Gener- ator, Self-Published (2022). 19

    2022

  22. [30]

    Characterizing Earth Analogs in Reflected Light: Atmospheric Retrieval Studies for Future Space Telescopes,

    Y . K. Feng, T. D. Robinson, J. J. Fortney,et al., “Characterizing Earth Analogs in Reflected Light: Atmospheric Retrieval Studies for Future Space Telescopes,”AJ155, 200 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    The LUVOIR Mission Concept Study Final Report,

    The LUVOIR Team, “The LUVOIR Mission Concept Study Final Report,”arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219 (2019)

    1912 arXiv

  24. [32]

    MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics,

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, “MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics,”MNRAS398, 1601–1614 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    How to Distinguish between Cloudy Mini-Neptunes and Water/V olatile-dominated Super-Earths,

    B. Benneke and S. Seager, “How to Distinguish between Cloudy Mini-Neptunes and Water/V olatile-dominated Super-Earths,”ApJ778, 153 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    An Open-source Bayesian Atmo- spheric Radiative Transfer (BART) Code. I. Design, Tests, and Application to Exoplanet HD 189733b,

    J. Harrington, M. D. Himes, P. E. Cubillos,et al., “An Open-source Bayesian Atmo- spheric Radiative Transfer (BART) Code. I. Design, Tests, and Application to Exoplanet HD 189733b,”The Planetary Science Journal3, 80 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Intrinsic Colors, Temperatures, and Bolometric Corrections of Pre-main-sequence Stars,

    M. J. Pecaut and E. E. Mamajek, “Intrinsic Colors, Temperatures, and Bolometric Corrections of Pre-main-sequence Stars,”ApJS208, 9 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    The Solar Cycle,

    D. H. Hathaway, “The Solar Cycle,”Living Reviews in Solar Physics12, 4 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Digital color codes of stars,

    J.-V . Harre and R. Heller, “Digital color codes of stars,”Astronomische Nachrichten342, 578–587 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    ExoEarth yield landscape for future direct imaging space telescopes,

    C. C. Stark, R. Belikov, M. R. Bolcar,et al., “ExoEarth yield landscape for future direct imaging space telescopes,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems5, 024009 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Variability Catalog of Stars Observed during the TESS Prime Mission,

    T. Fetherolf, J. Pepper, E. Simpson,et al., “Variability Catalog of Stars Observed during the TESS Prime Mission,”ApJS268, 4 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Double Dipping: A New Relation between Stellar Rotation and Starspot Activity,

    G. Basri and H. T. Nguyen, “Double Dipping: A New Relation between Stellar Rotation and Starspot Activity,”ApJ863, 190 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Rotation of Late-type Stars in Praesepe with K2,

    L. M. Rebull, J. R. Stauffer, L. A. Hillenbrand,et al., “Rotation of Late-type Stars in Praesepe with K2,”ApJ839, 92 (2017). 20

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.