Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

A uniform transit survey of 461 ExoFOP M-dwarf TOI hosts: Follow-up prioritization and new transit candidates

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A uniform re-analysis of 461 M-dwarf TOI hosts recovers 85.5% of confirmed planets and yields 13 new transit candidates, including two in the optimistic habitable zone.

desk verdict A solid, honest survey product with real new candidates and a genuinely useful screen; the main open risk is that the new pipeline stages were calibrated on only two multiyear-gapped systems, an acknowledged and testable limitation rather than a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23781 v3 pith:ZPYAIRLB submitted 2026-07-26 astro-ph.EP

Yohann Tschudi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords candidatesfollow-uphostspipelineplanettransitcandidatecataloged
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

This paper takes a computer pipeline that automatically finds small planets in data from the TESS space telescope and runs it on 461 red dwarf stars that are already known to host at least one planet or planet candidate. The pipeline removes stellar noise, searches for periodic dips in brightness, and then applies several layers of checks: it rejects signals whose transit times do not behave like a single clock, it calculates false-positive probabilities from a model of background star contamination, and it uses Gaia star catalogs to check whether a nearby star could mimic the signal. The main result is a scorecard: 85.5% of the 193 already confirmed planets are re-found, and 78.7% of the 286 unconfirmed candidates are re-found. Eleven candidate signals are flagged as likely false positives, and 87 candidates are ranked for ground-based follow-up. Beyond the catalog, the pipeline finds 13 brand-new transit signals, all small (0.7–2 Earth radii). Four of these are on stars where the signal was previously known but the orbital period was uncertain; two of those turn out to orbit in the optimistic habitable zone. The paper does not claim the new signals are confirmed planets — it says they are strong candidates that need ground-based radial-velocity or imaging follow-up. It releases the full target list with ephemerides so other astronomers can point their telescopes at the most promising objects.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

The merged full-baseline and segmented search recovers 165 of 193 (85.5%) in-range confirmed planets and 225 of 286 (78.7%) in-range planet candidates; after the event-time screen, TRICERATOPS vetting, and Gaia verification, 13 new transit candidates of 0.7–2.0 Earth radii survive, including two new members of a near-resonant three-planet system around TOI-6284.

Load-bearing premise

The frozen thresholds of the added pipeline components were calibrated on a ten-system validation set of which only two systems (L 98-59 and TOI-700) lie in the multiyear-gapped regime the segmented search is designed for (Sect. 2.3). If those thresholds do not transfer to the many gapped and active hosts in the survey, the reported recovery rates and new-candidate list could be biased. The paper itself acknowledges this: 'this validation measures the method’s safety rather than its yield.'

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a previously developed transit-detection and statistical-validation pipeline uniformly to 461 active ExoFOP M-dwarf TOI hosts (M0–M6). The pipeline merges a full-baseline TLS search with a segmented, semi-coherent search across gapped multiyear baselines, adds an event-time coherence screen (p_noclock), TRICERATOPS vetting, and Gaia DR3 background/aperture verification. Frozen-threshold validation was performed on ten benchmark systems. The survey reports recovery of 165/193 in-range confirmed planets (85.5%) and 225/286 in-range planet candidates (78.7%), with no confirmed planet flagged as a false positive. It yields 87 follow-up grade planet candidates, 13 new transit candidates (0.7–2.0 R_Earth), including two new members of a near-resonant three-planet candidate system around TOI-6284, and period determinations for four cataloged single- or dual-transit TOIs (TOI-2433.01, TOI-4565.01, TOI-4353.01, TOI-6492.01). The authors explicitly state that the survey validates no new planet; all strong candidates are cleared of dominant false-positive channels by archival follow-up and await radial velocities.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides the first homogeneous end-to-end detection, vetting, and verification survey of the active ExoFOP M-dwarf TOI population, producing a prioritized follow-up list that is immediately usable. The external benchmarks are genuinely strong: 165/193 confirmed planets recovered against independent ExoFOP labels with zero terminal false positives; blind co-recovery of TOI-237 c, a planet independently confirmed by Timmermans et al. (2026); and out-of-sample predicted-transit recoveries for TOI-4565.01 (sector 104) and TOI-4556.02 (held-out sectors). The paper is unusually candid about its limitations, enumerating ten systematic effects, and it ships public code and machine-readable catalogs. The principal unmeasured risk is the transfer of frozen thresholds from a ten-system validation set, of which only two systems lie in the multiyear-gapped regime the segmented search targets, to the full 461-host sample spanning 1–45 sectors and widely varying activity. That risk directly affects the false-positive rate of the 13 new transit candidates, which are the survey's most novel product.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 2.2.2] The frozen thresholds of the added components—segmented-search federation (SDE≥3.5, p<0.01, stacked 5σ, P>12 d jury) and the event-time screen pass/flag/fail cuts—were calibrated on ten systems, of which only L 98-59 and TOI-700 lie in the multiyear-gapped regime. The paper's own statement in Sect. 2.3 that “this validation measures the method’s safety rather than its yield” is candid, but it means the end-to-end false-positive rate of the full detection+screen chain is not directly measured on the survey's actual gapped/active population. The block-shift scramble test (0/42) covers only the benchmark light curves, and the synthetic clockless-train test covers only the event-time screen in isolation. Because the 13 new transit candidates and the 87 follow-up candidates are central survey products, I ask for a null-cohort test: run the full chain on a sample of M dwarfs without known TOIs
  2. [Sect. 2.2.2] The statement that “because the p<0.01 gate is applied across the full sample, it still admits of order ten chance groupings” is not quantified. Across 461 hosts, with up to 30 peaks per block and multiple blocks per host, the total number of period groupings tested is large, and the expected number of chance groupings depends on that total. Please report the total number of groupings tested, the expected number under the null, and the number removed by each subsequent stage (windowed confirmation, depth consistency, P>12 d jury). This would let the reader judge whether the 0/42 block-shift scramble is representative of the full survey and whether the combined false-positive rate is actually controlled.
  3. [Sect. 5.2, Table 9] For TOI-6284.02 and TOI-6284.03, the tabulated NFPP values (5.8% and 19.2%) still include the wide Gaia neighbors that the Gemini speckle imaging and ground-based nearby-eclipsing-binary check are claimed to clear. If those neighbors are indeed cleared, the NFPP should be recomputed with them excluded, as was done for TOI-4565.01 (Sect. 5.1) using archival contrast curves. As presented, the Tier 1 assignment for these two candidates rests on an external check that is not reflected in the reported vetting statistic, making the vetting pipeline appear more conservative than it actually is. Please either provide the updated FPP/NFPP after a TRICERATOPS rerun with the contrast curves, or explicitly state why such a rerun was not performed and how the reported NFPP should be interpreted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] Title contains a spacing typo: “F ollow-up” should be “Follow-up”.
  2. [Sect. 2.2.3, Eq. (1)] The definition of ω as the median |O−C| is given in the text, but the notation is reused in Eq. (1) without explicit restatement near the equation. Consider defining ω directly in the equation caption or immediately before Eq. (1).
  3. [Sect. 5.1, TOI-4353.01] The text states that four transits over a 2,577 d baseline hold a coherent linear ephemeris, while Table 9 gives p_noclock = FLAG LOWSENS (fewer than five timeable events). This is internally consistent because four events are fewer than five, but the reader would benefit from an explicit sentence noting that the flag reflects the small number of events, not incoherence.
  4. [Sect. 5.1, TOI-6492.01] The sentence “its cataloged 731.8 d period lying outside the search range, is not counted among the planet candidates” is slightly ambiguous: TOI-6492.01 is a recovery with a determined period, but it is not counted in the 87 follow-up planet candidates. Clarify that it is listed as a recovery and excluded from the PC counts for that reason.
Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey rests on a large set of operational thresholds calibrated on a ten-system validation set plus the standard assumptions of the TRICERATOPS and Gaia pipelines. No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the paper's main product is the catalog and the threshold choices.

free parameters (7)
  • event-time screen p_noclock thresholds = pass ≤0.05, flag 0.05–0.30, fail ≥0.30
    Calibrated on 16 confirmed planets and known window aliases in the validation set; determines which recovered signals survive the coherence test.
  • segmented search block-federation p-value = <0.01 (N=1000 reshuffles)
    Threshold for keeping a period group spanning ≥2 blocks; set so validation signals pass and scrambled-light-curve tests (0/42) remain negative.
  • segmented search peak floor and per-block limit = SDE=3.5, ≤30 peaks per block
    Blind-search floor inside each observing block; chosen to be low enough to catch faint coherent trains while keeping the null meaningful.
  • windowed confirmation stacked significance = ≥5σ inverse-variance depth combination
    Required to confirm a segmented candidate on the full baseline; calibrated on the validation set.
  • long-period jury thresholds (P>12 d) = depth≥4.5σ, S/N≥4, SDE≥12
    Additional cuts applied only to long-period segmented candidates; frozen before the survey.
  • cross-engine period-match tolerance = 1% (6% beyond 12 d)
    Defines when full-baseline and segmented detections merge; affects recovery counting.
  • aperture localization test thresholds = Spearman ρ≥0.5, p<0.01, ≥2× depth ratio, ≥8 sectors
    Criteria for flagging off-target aperture contamination; calibrated on validation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The ten-system validation set (16 confirmed planets) is representative of the 461-host survey population.
    All operational thresholds were frozen on this set (Sect. 2.3). The paper itself notes only 2/10 systems are in the multiyear-gapped regime, so the transfer is a real assumption.
  • domain assumption The no-clock null built from 200 reshuffled ephemerides on the candidate's own light curve correctly estimates the timing-dispersion distribution for incoherent noise.
    Used to compute p_noclock (Eq. 1); if the reshuffle preserves hidden correlations or is under-sampled, the pass/fail cut could misclassify signals.
  • domain assumption The celerite2 GP detrending (Matérn-3/2 + SHO kernel) removes stellar variability without removing transit signals.
    Overly aggressive detrending suppresses shallow transits, affecting recovery rates and new-candidate detection.
  • domain assumption TRICERATOPS/FPP over the all-sector TRILEGAL field-star catalog accurately quantifies false-positive probabilities for these M-dwarf hosts.
    Used for vetting; the paper acknowledges the conservative NFPP due to Gaia neighbors (Sect. 6.3).
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 resolves field stars above 0.4 arcsec and RUWE>1.4 flags unresolved companions.
    These calibration values underpin the verification dispositions (PLANET CANDIDATE, HEB CAUTION, NEEDS HR IMAGING).
  • domain assumption The ExoFOP disposition snapshot of 2026 June 29 is accurate and complete for assigning CP/PC labels.
    The recovery denominators (193 CP, 286 PC) depend entirely on this snapshot.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A uniform transit survey of 461 ExoFOP M-dwarf TOI hosts: Follow-up prioritization and new transit candidates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPYAIRLB

@misc{pith2026260723781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A uniform transit survey of 461 ExoFOP M-dwarf TOI hosts: Follow-up prioritization and new transit candidates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPYAIRLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23781}
}
read the original abstract

Context. M dwarfs are favorable hosts for small transiting planets. A transit-detection and statistical-validation pipeline was previously developed and validated at the photometric noise frontier, on M3-M6 dwarfs observed in few sectors. Aims. That pipeline is applied uniformly to the full active ExoFOP M-dwarf TOI population, 461 hosts (M0-M6) each hosting a confirmed planet (CP) or planet candidate (PC), to test its recovery and classification of the cataloged signals and to prioritize the candidates for follow-up. Methods. The pipeline chains two complementary blind searches merged per host, a full-baseline transit-least-squares scan and a segmented, semi-coherent search across the gapped multiyear baseline. It adds an event-time-coherence test that rejects signals with incoherent per-transit timing (window-function aliases of stellar variability), all-sector TRICERATOPS false-positive probabilities, and Gaia DR3 background and aperture-localization analysis. Results. Of 193 in-range CP, 165 (85.5%) are re-detected, none rejected as a false positive, and 147 (76.2%) reach a Gaia-verified disposition. Of 286 in-range PC, 225 (78.7%) are re-detected, of which 11 are flagged as false positives and 87 ranked as planet candidates for follow-up. Beyond the catalog, 13 new transit candidates of 0.7-2.0 Earth radii emerge, including two new members of a compact, dynamically stable near-resonant three-planet candidate system; four cataloged single- or dual-transit TOIs have their orbital periods determined, two of them in the optimistic habitable zone. Conclusions. The recoveries and new candidates are released as a uniform, prioritized follow-up target list.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23781 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the transit-detection and classification pipeline, from TESS photometry to a terminal disposition. Each stage is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A representative recovered confirmed planet, TOI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative recovered confirmed planet, TOI-4599.01 (TIC 307809773; P = 2.77 d, depth 635 ppm, Rp ≈ 1.3 R⊕). (a) The full-baseline TLS periodogram, peaking at SDE = 38.2 at the recovered period. (b) The phase-folded transit with the limb-darkened model (format as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Phase-folded TESS light curves of the five recovered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Insolation–radius diagram of the recovered confirmed planets (gray), the four new tier 1 candidates (blue), and the five recovered cataloged TOIs whose orbital periods are determined or recovered here (black stars). The shaded band marks the optimistic habitable zone (…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase-folded TESS light curves of the five tier 1 signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase-folded TESS light curves of the five recovered cataloged TOIs at the periods determined or recovered here (Sect. 5.1), each folded at that period, binned (blue circles with 1σ error bars) over the unbinned photometry (gray), with a limb-darkened transit model (or…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-folded TESS light curves of the four new tier 1 candidates and the confirmed planet TOI-237 c (bottom), which is recovered blind and serves as a screen calibration point rather than a new candidate (Sect. 5.2, 5.1); format as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pipeline architecture from data acquisition to final classification. An event-time coherence screen removes window￾function aliases (pnoclock ≥ 0.30, classified Alias False Positive) before TRICERATOPS vetting. Accepted vetting statuses (left, green) proceed to Gaia DR…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Phase-folded TESS light curves of the two strongest tier 2 signals (left column; Sect. 5.3) and the two marginal tier 3 candidates (right column; Sect. 5.4); format as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Bonfils, X., Otegi, J

    Almenara, J. M., Bonfils, X., Otegi, J. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243975 Astropy Collaboration, et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 —. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f —. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243975 2022

  2. [2]

    P., Narita, N., et al

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349127 2024

  3. [3]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 2020

  4. [4]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 2017

  5. [5]

    2017, A&A, 600, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705

    Claret, A. 2017, A&A, 600, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629705 2017

  6. [6]

    M., et al

    Cointepas, M., Bouchy, F., Almenara, J. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346899

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346899 2024

  7. [7]

    F., Pollacco, D., Anderson, D

    Cooke, B. F., Pollacco, D., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3569

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3569 2021

  8. [8]

    L., Mullally, F., Thompson, S

    Coughlin, J. L., Mullally, F., Thompson, S. E., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 12, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/12

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/12 2016

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    W., Halverson, S., et al

    Dai, F., Howard, A. W., Halverson, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5a7d

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    I., & Fabrycky, D

    Dawson, R. I., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2010, ApJ, 722, 937, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/937 D´ evora-Pajares, M., Pozuelos, F. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1740

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Barrag´ an, O., Aigrain, S., et al

    Eisner, N. L., Barrag´ an, O., Aigrain, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa138

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 209, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef38

    Espinoza, N. 2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 209, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef38

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, A&A, 649, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039834

    Fabricius, C., Luri, X., Arenou, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039834

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/146

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, RNAAS, 9, 73, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adc7fb Gaia Collaboration

    Fukui, A. 2025, RNAAS, 9, 73, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adc7fb Gaia Collaboration. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    X., Wang, S., et al

    Gan, T., Wang, S. X., Wang, S., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b12

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Jensen, E

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

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Jensen, E

    Giacalone, S., Dressing, C. D., Jensen, E. L. N., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4334

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Vanderburg, A., Rodriguez, J

    Gilbert, E. A., Vanderburg, A., Rodriguez, J. E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb599

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Gillis, E., Cloutier, R., & Pass, E. K. 2026, AJ, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae5810

    2026 doi

  16. [24]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042352

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    1993, Icarus, 106, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    Gladman, B. 1993, Icarus, 106, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    1993

  18. [26]

    M., Seager, S., Huang, C

    Guerrero, N. M., Seager, S., Huang, C. X., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abefe1

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J. P., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2360, doi: 10.1086/508233

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, A&A, 623, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834672

    Hippke, M., & Heller, R. 2019, A&A, 623, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834672

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

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

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

    doi

  22. [30]

    M., Caldwell, D

    Jenkins, J. M., Caldwell, D. A., & Borucki, W. J. 2002, ApJ, 564, 495, doi: 10.1086/324143

    2002 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9913, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  25. [33]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131 Kov´ acs, G., Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T. 2002, A&A, 391, 369, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, AJ, 170, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae070a

    Kunimoto, M., Bryson, S., Jaffee, D., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae070a

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2026, A&A, 705, A260, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557304 Lightkurve Collaboration, et al

    Lacedelli, G., Pall´ e, E., Luque, R., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A260, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557304 Lightkurve Collaboration, et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2026 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al

    Lissauer, J. J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/8

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64 Transit survey of 461 TESS M dwarfs29

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, AJ, 165, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd175

    Ment, K., & Charbonneau, D. 2023, AJ, 165, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd175

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Morton, T. D. 2012, ApJ, 761, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/6

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Dressing, C

    Muirhead, P. S., Dressing, C. D., Mann, A. W., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab710

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Thompson, S

    Mullally, F., Coughlin, J. L., Thompson, S. E., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 074502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/965/074502

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Coughlin, J

    Mullally, F., Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 210, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabae3

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2014, A&A, 561, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220860

    Ofir, A. 2014, A&A, 561, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220860

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11012.x

    Pont, F., Zucker, S., & Queloz, D. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11012.x

    2006

  39. [47]

    2026, A&A, 707, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557155

    Poultourtzidis, E., Lacedelli, G., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557155

    2026 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Su´ arez, J

    Pozuelos, F. J., Su´ arez, J. C., de El ´ ıa, G. C., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038047

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, JATIS, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    W., Winn, J

    Sullivan, P. W., Winn, J. N., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/77

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Seader, S., et al

    Tenenbaum, P., Jenkins, J. M., Seader, S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/5

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    E., Coughlin, J

    Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., Hoffman, K., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag710

    Timmermans, M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag710

    2026 doi

  47. [55]

    2026, A&A, 710, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202659754

    Tschudi, Y. 2026, A&A, 710, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202659754

    2026 doi

  48. [56]

    2025, AJ, 169, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada898

    Yaptangco, G., Ballard, S., & Dittmann, J. 2025, AJ, 169, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada898

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Baranec, C., et al

    Ziegler, C., Law, N. M., Baranec, C., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad80a

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    K., Hardegree-Ullman, K

    Zink, J. K., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Christiansen, J. L., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2309

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.