Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 71 references

Three-Dimensional Orbital Architectures and Detectability of Adjacent Companions to Hot Jupiters

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stellar spin-down hides outer planets around hot Jupiters

desk verdict A solid, honest application of an already-known secular mechanism to hot Jupiter companion detectability; the central asymmetry is not new, but the system-by-system transit maps are useful, and the paper is upfront about its main limitation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11637 v1 pith:ANQQFR2V submitted 2025-05-16 astro-ph.EP

Thomas MacLean , Juliette Becker This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords hotJupitersplanetarycompanionssecularresonancestellarobliquityspin-downtransitprobabilityJ2quadrupolemomentexoplanetdynamics
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

The paper argues that the apparent dearth of outer planetary companions to hot Jupiters is in part an observational bias caused by stellar evolution. As a host star spins down, its quadrupole moment $J_2$ decreases, and for a hot Jupiter with an exterior companion the pair can pass through a secular resonance that tilts the outer planet out of the transiting plane while leaving the hot Jupiter and any inner companion transiting. Higher stellar obliquity amplifies this effect. If correct, transit surveys will systematically miss outer companions in high-obliquity systems, so the known sample of hot Jupiter multi-planet systems is not representative of what is actually there.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the time-varying stellar quadrupole moment $J_2 = (k_2/3)(\Omega_{\rm star}/\Omega_{\rm breakup})^2$, which decays as the star spins down. In the secular theory the $J_2$ term enters the diagonal of the planet-planet interaction matrix $B$, and as $J_2$ falls the eigenfrequencies of the hot Jupiter-outer companion pair can cross, exciting large mutual inclination oscillations. The crossing criterion, derived from Laplace-Lagrange theory, predicts that only the outer companion pair is vulnerable; the paper tests this prediction with N-body integrations that logarithmically decrease $J_2$ from $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-8}$ and compute final transit probabilities.

What would settle it

Compare the transit-detection rate of outer companions in hot Jupiter systems split by measured stellar obliquity: if high-obliquity hosts do not show a deficit of transiting outer companions relative to low-obliquity hosts, the proposed bias is not operating at observable strength. A complementary check is that RV-detected outer companions should preferentially appear around high-obliquity stars if the bias is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that in a three-planet architecture with a hot Jupiter flanked by an inner and an outer nearby companion, the transit probability of the inner planet is nearly immune to the combined effect of stellar obliquity and the decaying stellar quadrupole moment, while the transit probability of the outer planet is not. The reason is that the hot Jupiter-outer companion pair encounters a secular resonance as $J_2$ decays, whereas the inner pair does not. Across 498 WASP-47-like N-body realizations and case studies of the six known hot Jupiter-plus-inner-companion systems, the outer companion frequently attains a non-mutually-transiting configuration, with the frequency increasing with stellar obliquity. The paper reads this as a dynamical explanation for why WASP-47 is the only known system with an outer adjacent companion, and as a caution that missing outer companions do not imply missing planets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the planets were already near their currently observed orbits when the host star's $J_2$ crossed the value that triggers the resonance; if hot Jupiters arrived late via migration, the decoupling would not have affected those systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inner companions to hot Jupiters in stable configurations are expected to remain mutually transiting; their absence in a system is not attributable to this spin-down mechanism.
  • Outer companions can be present yet non-transiting, so occurrence rates of outer companions derived from transit surveys are lower limits.
  • Higher stellar obliquity should correlate with lower detection rates of outer companions in transit.
  • When an outer companion is observed in transit, the system likely either assembled late or has low stellar obliquity, offering a timing constraint on hot Jupiter migration.
  • Warm Jupiter systems, with larger separations, are not expected to show this bias because $J_2$ precession falls steeply with distance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism operates, radial-velocity or phase-curve searches for non-transiting outer companions should find more companions around high-obliquity hot Jupiter hosts than around low-obliquity hosts; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The same decoupling physics may apply to other compact multi-planet systems with a high-mass inner planet and a low-mass outer planet, not only hot Jupiters, because the resonance criterion is mass-ratio dependent.
  • A completeness model folding in this obliquity-dependent bias could reconcile the apparent rarity of outer companions with formation models that predict them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether stellar spin-down, through a decaying stellar quadrupole moment J2, can remove adjacent planetary companions of hot Jupiters from the transiting plane. Using second-order secular theory and N-body integrations with REBOUND/REBOUNDx, the authors simulate three-planet configurations based on WASP-47 and then inject a test outer companion into the six known hot-Jupiter systems with inner companions. They report that inner companions almost always remain transiting with the hot Jupiter, while outer companions can be driven to mutually non-transiting configurations, with higher stellar obliquity increasing this effect. The central observational claim is that the observed dearth of outer companions to hot Jupiters is partly a transit-selection bias produced by stellar evolution.

Significance. If the conclusions are robust, the paper provides a concrete dynamical explanation for the striking architectural asymmetry in the small observed sample: all known hot-Jupiter systems with adjacent companions except WASP-47 show inner companions only. The modeling is a genuine forward calculation: observed masses, radii, and periods are inputs, and no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the observed absence of outer companions. The authors appropriately extend earlier work by Spalding & Batygin (2016) and Brefka & Becker (2021) to realistic three-planet hot-Jupiter systems and to the current observed census, and the use of standard, publicly available integration tools is a strength. The result, if it survives the robustness tests requested below, would be of interest to exoplanet demographics and to planning searches for non-transiting companions. However, the quantitative predictive content is currently limited by the ad hoc J2 decay schedule and by an explicitly stated but untested early-assembly condition.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Figure 3] The stellar quadrupole is implemented as a fixed logarithmic ramp from J2 = 10^-3 to 10^-8 over 10^5 years, with no tie to a physical stellar spin-down model, to stellar age, or to the specific stellar parameters in Table 1. Because the secular resonance is encountered during this ramp, the final inclinations depend on the crossing rate and on the initial J2 value; a different decay law, or an initial J2 set by Eq. (4) with realistic k2 and rotation evolution, could shift the boundaries between the decoupling, stable-transiting, and oscillating regimes in Figure 3. The authors should add sensitivity tests over initial J2 and decay rate, or map the adopted schedule onto stellar ages and spin-down tracks, and show that the headline conclusion for outer companions is not an artifact of this choice.
  2. [§5.1] The paper correctly states that the decoupling mechanism requires the planets to be in roughly their observed orbital locations while the stellar J2 is still large enough for the system to cross the secular resonance. This is a load-bearing condition for the observational interpretation, yet the manuscript never quantifies whether the six observed systems, or the simulated WASP-47 analogues, plausibly satisfy it. Since the authors themselves cite Zink & Howard (2023) for the view that most hot Jupiters arrive late via high-eccentricity tidal migration, a substantial fraction of hot-Jupiter systems may have assembled after J2 had already decayed below the resonance value; for those systems the modeled decoupling would not operate. Please either add a quantitative assessment of the assembly-time requirement (for instance, using stellar spin-down ages and migration timescales) or explicitly restrict the observational claim to systems that assembled early.
  3. [§3.1, §4.1] The numerical validation currently consists only of varying the integration length. The results also depend on choices that are not varied: zero initial eccentricities, a test outer companion mass fixed at 10% of the hot Jupiter mass with zero initial inclination, and, in the WASP-47 suite, a fixed stellar obliquity of 10 degrees. Given that Eq. (6) depends sensitively on the companion mass and semimajor-axis ratio, the authors should demonstrate robustness of the transit-probability statistics to these choices, or at minimum state which conclusions are qualitative and which are quantitative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The definition of the sampling distribution is unclear and appears to have a units error: after defining ζHJ as a dimensionless scaling factor for the hot Jupiter semimajor axis, the text states ζHJ ∼ Uniform(aUSP,0,1.4), which mixes a semimajor-axis value with a dimensionless bound. Please restate the sampling procedure unambiguously.
  2. [§2, after Eq. (3)] The sentence 'The term b(1)3/2 is a convergent Laplace coefficient. The m represents the mass of each planet...' is duplicated verbatim; one copy should be removed.
  3. [Eq. (6)] Equation (6) has typesetting issues (the resonance condition appears as 'J2 res≈' and the brackets are unbalanced), and the notation mixes m1, m2, and mj in the numerator. Please typeset the equation cleanly and verify that the masses are defined consistently with the two-planet criterion of Spalding & Batygin (2016).
  4. [§4.1] The phrase 'the mean planet of the planets' should read 'the mean plane of the planets.'
  5. [Figure 3] The caption and axis labels are confusing: the diagonal line labeled aHJ = aUSP is not explained as a forbidden boundary, and the color scale for the transit probability is not defined in the caption. Please clarify.
  6. [Table 1] The table header contains the typo 'T ransit' for 'Transit', and the footnote for WASP-47 c should make explicit that m sin i is a lower limit on the mass everywhere it is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the simulations are forward models using observed initial conditions, the resonance criterion comes from independent prior work, and self-citations are corroborative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that inner companions tend to stay transiting while outer companions can decouple during stellar spin-down—is produced by N-body integrations (Rebound/Reboundx) initialized with the observed masses, radii, and periods in Table 1; no parameter is fitted to reproduce the observed absence of outer companions, and transit probabilities are computed afterward from simulated inclinations via the geometric criterion in Eq. 7. The analytic resonance criterion (Eq. 6) is explicitly attributed to Spalding & Batygin (2016), i.e., external prior work, and is used interpretively to explain the numerical outcomes; the simulations are not derived from it. Self-citations (Becker et al. 2015, 2017, 2020; Brefka & Becker 2021; Howe et al. 2025) appear for contextual results, WASP-47 parameters, and as corroboration that similar decoupling was seen earlier, but the load-bearing evidence is this paper's own Figures 3-5. The explicit condition in Section 5.1 that 'the system must have assembled early enough... when the star's J2 attained the value that would have caused the onset of a secular resonance' is a genuine scope limitation on the observational conclusion—not a circularity—because it restricts when the mechanism applies without being an input to the derivation. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the only mild caveats are the non-load-bearing self-citations and the acknowledged early-assembly condition, giving a score of 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forward model is fed by observed parameters from Table 1. The listed free parameters are modeling and sampling choices, not fits to the target outcome; the central qualitative claim does not hinge on their exact values, but the quantitative transit-probability maps do.

free parameters (4)
  • J2 spin-down schedule = logarithmic from 1e-3 to 1e-8 over 1e5 yr
    Adopted in all simulations (Section 3.1). Controls the speed of the resonance crossing and therefore the quantitative final inclinations; not anchored to a stellar spin-down model.
  • Stellar obliquity grid = 1, 5, 10, 20, 30 degrees
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.1 to explore the dependence; the observed obliquities of the target systems are not well constrained.
  • Test outer companion mass ratio = 0.1 M_HJ
    Assumed for all six case studies in Section 4.1; not varied in the reported maps, though the secular interaction strength depends on it.
  • Sampling distribution bounds for WASP-47 variants = ζUSP ~ U(0.5,3), ζHJ ~ U(aUSP,0,1.4)
    Bounds chosen by hand in Section 3.1 to stay near the observed configuration; the extent of the phase-space map is a design choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Second-order secular perturbation theory captures the inclination evolution; short-period terms average to zero.
    Used to derive Equation 5 and the resonance criterion. Standard in planetary dynamics (Murray & Dermott 1999), but neglects higher-order secular terms and mean motion resonances.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar J2 decays logarithmically from 1e-3 to 1e-8 over 1e5 years in all simulations.
    Section 3.1. Not derived from a stellar evolution model; validated only against integration length, not against the physical spin-down rate.
  • domain assumption The distant companion WASP-47 c is dynamically decoupled and coplanar with the inner system.
    Section 3, first paragraph. If this companion precesses the inner plane, the resonance dynamics could differ.
  • domain assumption All planetary eccentricities are initially zero.
    Section 3.1. Excludes eccentricity-driven resonances and eccentric instabilities; appropriate for an inclination-focused study but a simplification.
  • ad hoc to paper The test outer companion in the case studies has mass 10% of the hot Jupiter and zero initial eccentricity and inclination.
    Section 4.1. Chosen to be potentially detectable; different masses would change the secular interaction strength and the resulting transit probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-Dimensional Orbital Architectures and Detectability of Adjacent Companions to Hot Jupiters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANQQFR2V

@misc{pith2026250511637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-Dimensional Orbital Architectures and Detectability of Adjacent Companions to Hot Jupiters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANQQFR2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11637}
}
read the original abstract

The orbital properties of the (as-yet) small population of hot Jupiters with nearby planetary companions provide valuable constraints on the past migration processes of these systems. In this work, we explore the likelihood that dynamical perturbations could cause nearby inner or outer companions to hot Jupiter to leave the transiting plane, potentially leaving these companions undetected despite their presence at formation. Using a combination of analytical and numerical models, we examine the effects of stellar evolution on hot Jupiter systems with nearby companions and identify several possible outcomes. We find that while inner companions are generally unlikely to leave the transiting plane, outer companions are more prone to decoupling from the hot Jupiter and becoming non-transiting, depending on the system's initial orbital architecture. Additionally, we observe a range of dynamical behaviors, including overall stability, inclination excitation, and, in some cases, instability leading to the ejection or collision of planets. We also show that the effect of stellar obliquity (with respect to the mean planet of the planets) is to amplify these effects and potentially cause outer companions to attain non-mutually-transiting configurations more often. Our results highlight the complex dynamical pathways shaping the architectures of hot Jupiter systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic showing the architectures of the known systems hosting a hot Jupiter and adjacent compan￾ion planets. In these the six known systems, only the hot Jupiter in the WASP-47 system possesses both an inner and an outer companion, while the remainder of the known sys￾tems are seen to host only inner companions. in architectures. Interestingly, while only one known system (WASP-47) hosts an adjacent exterior co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of eigenfrequencies for each of the modes in the three-planet WASP-47 system as determined by the secular model described in Section 2. Which mode dominates the dynamics of the system will depend on the value of J2. pled and assume its orbit is oriented roughly coplanar to the inner system such that it does not significantly precess the plane of the inner planets with respect to the host star (Vanderburg et al.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase space plot of the (top panel) outer planet’s transit probability and (bottom panel) inner planet’s transit probability over the range of planetary parameters tested in the suite of simulations. To calculate the transit probability, we compute the impact parameter as defined by the condition from Equation 7 for each time-step in each simulation, and we calculate the transit probability by averaging the state of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our simulations show a range of dynamical behavior resulting from planet-planet interactions and the evolving effect of the stellar quadrupole J2. There are several notable regimes of behavior: (upper left panel) dynamical stability where the outermost planet’s inclina…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The six systems depicted are all those with inner companions to hot Jupiters. In each system, we simulate the planetary evolution by running simulations where each system begins with a “test” outer planet adjacent to the hot Jupiter in the transiting plane. Each plot s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    """"" H f

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    R., Jackson , B., Johnson , S., et al

    Adams , E. R., Jackson , B., Johnson , S., et al. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 152, 10.3847/PSJ/ac0ea0

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac0ea0 2021

  3. [3]

    M., D \' az , R

    Almenara , J. M., D \' az , R. F., Bonfils , X., & Udry , S. 2016, , 595, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629770

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629770 2016

  4. [4]

    2018, , 866, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/aade90

    Bailey , E., & Batygin , K. 2018, , 866, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/aade90

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aade90 2018

  5. [5]

    Batygin , K., & Adams , F. C. 2013, , 778, 169, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/169

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/169 2013

  6. [6]

    H., & Laughlin , G

    Batygin , K., Bodenheimer , P. H., & Laughlin , G. P. 2016, , 829, 114, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/114

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/114 2016

  7. [7]

    2020, , 160, 254, 10.3847/1538-3881/abbad3

    Becker , J., Batygin , K., Fabrycky , D., et al. 2020, , 160, 254, 10.3847/1538-3881/abbad3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abbad3 2020

  8. [8]

    C., Vanderburg , A., Adams , F

    Becker , J. C., Vanderburg , A., Adams , F. C., Khain , T., & Bryan , M. 2017, , 154, 230, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9176

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9176 2017

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    C., Vanderburg , A., Adams , F

    Becker , J. C., Vanderburg , A., Adams , F. C., Rappaport , S. A., & Schwengeler , H. M. 2015, , 812, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L18

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Granados Contreras , A

    Boley , A. C., Granados Contreras , A. P., & Gladman , B. 2016, , 817, L17, 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L17

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, , 689, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450974

    Borsato , L., Degen , D., Leleu , A., et al. 2024, , 689, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450974

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Brefka , L., & Becker , J. C. 2021, , 162, 242, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2a32

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    I., Wang , S., Mahadevan , S., et al

    Ca \ n as , C. I., Wang , S., Mahadevan , S., et al. 2019, , 870, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aafa1e

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    1996, Icarus, 119, 261

    Chambers, J., Wetherill, G., & Boss, A. 1996, Icarus, 119, 261

    1996

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04557, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04557

    Chen , C., Kong , L., Li , G., & Tao , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04557, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04557

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2022, , 930, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6024

    Chen , C., Li , G., & Petrovich , C. 2022, , 930, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6024

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

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

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

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    J., & Bayliss , D

    Cullen , C. J., & Bayliss , D. 2024, , 531, 1133, 10.1093/mnras/stae1197

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Dawson , R., & Johnson , J. A. 2018, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 787, 10.1146/doi

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, , 931, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5b79

    Epstein-Martin , M., Becker , J., & Batygin , K. 2022, , 931, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5b79

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky , D., & Tremaine , S. 2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    H., Naoz , S., Li , G., & Inzunza , N

    Faridani , T. H., Naoz , S., Li , G., & Inzunza , N. 2023, , 956, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf378

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Naoz , S., Li , G., Rice , M., & Inzunza , N

    Faridani , T. H., Naoz , S., Li , G., Rice , M., & Inzunza , N. 2025, , 978, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ebf

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    V., Smith , A

    Harre , J. V., Smith , A. M. S., Barros , S. C. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07797, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07797

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Col \'o n , K

    Hord , B. J., Col \'o n , K. D., Kostov , V., et al. 2021, , 162, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2602

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Col \'o n , K

    Hord , B. J., Col \'o n , K. D., Berger , T. A., et al. 2022, , 164, 13, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6f57

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Becker , J

    Howe , A. R., Becker , J. C., Stark , C. C., & Adams , F. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08191, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08191

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    Howell , S. B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al. 2014, , 126, 398, 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    Huang , C., Wu , Y., & Triaud , A. H. M. J. 2016, , 825, 98, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/98

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    X., Quinn , S

    Huang , C. X., Quinn , S. N., Vanderburg , A., et al. 2020, , 892, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7302

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

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

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, , 675, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244617

    Korth , J., Gandolfi , D., S ubjak , J., et al. 2023, , 675, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244617

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad65fd

    Korth, J., Chaturvedi, P., Parviainen, H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad65fd

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, , 890, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab72f4

    Li , G., Dai , F., & Becker , J. 2020, , 890, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab72f4

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, , 654, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140746

    Lillo-Box , J., Millholland , S., & Laughlin , G. 2021, , 654, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140746

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Lin , D. N. C., Bodenheimer , P., & Richardson , D. C. 1996, , 380, 606, 10.1038/380606a0

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Shakespeare , C

    MacDonald , M. G., Shakespeare , C. J., & Ragozzine , D. 2021, , 162, 114, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac12d5

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, , 525, L43, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad078

    Maciejewski , G., Golonka , J., oboda , W., et al. 2023, , 525, L43, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad078

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2014, , 442, 1110

    Marzari , F. 2014, , 442, 1110

    2014

  34. [42]

    2017, , 154, 83, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7a0f

    Millholland , S., & Laughlin , G. 2017, , 154, 83, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7a0f

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Tran , Q

    Morgan , M., Bowler , B. P., Tran , Q. H., et al. 2024, , 167, 48, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0728

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    D., & Winn , J

    Morton , T. D., & Winn , J. N. 2014, , 796, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/47

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    D., & Dermott , S

    Murray , C. D., & Dermott , S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics

    1999

  38. [46]

    2023, , 673, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245486

    Nascimbeni , V., Borsato , L., Zingales , T., et al. 2023, , 673, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245486

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    R., et al

    Neveu-VanMalle , M., Queloz , D., Anderson , D. R., et al. 2016, , 586, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526965

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, 2.2.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, 2.2.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2015 a , , 799, 27, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27

    Petrovich , C. 2015 a , , 799, 27, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2015 b , , 805, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    ---. 2015 b , , 805, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    2016, , 829, 132, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132

    Petrovich , C., & Tremaine , S. 2016, , 829, 132, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  45. [53]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Sanchis-Ojeda , Roberto, e. a. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/47

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, , 506, 2999, 10.1093/mnras/stab1899

    Schultz , K., Spalding , C., & Batygin , K. 2021, , 506, 2999, 10.1093/mnras/stab1899

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Huang , C

    Sha , L., Vanderburg , A. M., Huang , C. X., et al. 2023, , 524, 1113, 10.1093/mnras/stad1666

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2015, , 811, 82, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/82

    Spalding , C., & Batygin , K. 2015, , 811, 82, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/82

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    2016, , 830, 5, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/5

    ---. 2016, , 830, 5, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/5

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Spalding , C., & Winn , J. N. 2022, , 927, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4993

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    H., Ragozzine , D., Fabrycky , D

    Steffen , J. H., Ragozzine , D., Fabrycky , D. C., et al. 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 109, 7982, 10.1073/pnas.1120970109

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, , 491, 2885, 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Tamayo , D., & Rein , H. 2020, , 491, 2885, 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 2885–2901, 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    , & Rein, H

    Tamayo, D. , & Rein, H. 2023, 99. https://reboundx.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    2023

  56. [64]

    C., Buchhave , L

    Vanderburg , A., Becker , J. C., Buchhave , L. A., et al. 2017, , 154, 237, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa918b

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Horch , E

    Wang , J., Fischer , D. A., Horch , E. P., & Huang , X. 2015, , 799, 229, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/229

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    R., Colombo , G., & Franklin , F

    Ward , W. R., Colombo , G., & Franklin , F. A. 1976, , 28, 441, 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90117-2

    1976 doi

  59. [67]

    M., & Marcy , G

    Weiss , L. M., & Marcy , G. W. 2014, , 783, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L6

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Deck , K

    Weiss , L. M., Deck , K. M., Sinukoff , E., et al. 2017, , 153, 265, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6c29

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    C., & Vanderburg , A

    Weisserman , D., Becker , J. C., & Vanderburg , A. 2023, , 165, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/acac80

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  63. [71]

    K., & Howard , A

    Zink , J. K., & Howard , A. W. 2023, , 956, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfdab

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.