Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The paper confirms two Saturn-density giant exoplanets orbiting M2 dwarf stars and reports a bias-corrected trend toward closer orbits among M-dwarf giant planets.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:03 UTC pith:BIIJT4IP

load-bearing objection Two new GEMS confirmations, one clean and one whose Saturn-density label rests on a grazing transit and unconstrained dilution; the population trend is suggestive but not yet tested. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11798 v1 pith:BIIJT4IP submitted 2025-10-13 astro-ph.EP

Searching for GEMS: TOI-5916 b & TOI-6158 b are two Saturn-density planets orbiting M2 dwarfs

Shane O'Brien , Amber Wong , Te Han , Paul Robertson , Shubham Kanodia , Caleb I. Ca\~nas , Arvind F. Gupta , Tera Swaby
show 15 more authors
Henry A. Kobulnicky Nidia Morrell Michael Rodruck Andrea S.J. Lin Andrew Monson William D. Cochran Chad F. Bender Scott A. Diddams Samuel Halverson Daniel M. Krolikowski Jessica E. Libby-Roberts Joe P. Ninan Arpita Roy Christian Schwab Gudmundur Stefansson
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsM dwarf starsgiant planetstransiting exoplanetsradial velocitySaturn-densityGEMSplanet formation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper confirms that two transiting exoplanet candidates, TOI-5916 b and TOI-6158 b, are genuine giant planets rather than false positives. Combining space-based and ground-based photometry with high-precision radial velocities, the authors measure masses of about 219 and 135 Earth masses and radii near 12 and 10 Earth radii, giving both planets densities close to Saturn's. The two systems add to a small but growing census of giant planets around low-mass stars and reinforce the emerging pattern that these planets are preferentially Saturn-density and orbit closer to their stars than giants around Sun-like stars. The results point toward a formation pathway for warm Saturn-density giants that does not depend strongly on host-star mass.

Core claim

The central discovery is that TOI-5916 b and TOI-6158 b are Saturn-density giant exoplanets orbiting M2 dwarf stars in short-period orbits. Their radii and masses place them squarely within the GEMS population, and both have measured densities consistent with Saturn's. The paper also reports a preliminary trend, which survives a geometric transit-bias correction, in which giant planets around M dwarfs sit systematically closer to their hosts than giant planets around FGK stars, and finds no evidence that these planets are inflated by stellar irradiation. Taken together, the two confirmations strengthen the claim that warm giant planets at Saturn-like densities form through a mechanism that o

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a joint Bayesian fit of transit light curves and radial velocities for each system, which simultaneously constrains the orbital parameters, planetary radius, and mass. For one target, the fit includes per-observation dilution terms to correct for unresolved background stars; the grazing geometry of that transit makes the dilution difficult to pin down. The population comparison uses a weighted empirical cumulative distribution, with each system weighted by the inverse of its geometric transit probability, to correct for the observational bias favoring close-in transiting planets.

Load-bearing premise

The density of TOI-6158 b hinges on an unconstrained dilution correction for a grazing transit; if the true dilution lies significantly outside the fitted range, the planet could shift from Saturn-density toward water-density, although the planet's existence would remain intact.

What would settle it

A high-cadence, full-transit observation of TOI-6158 b with a space-based or large ground-based telescope would measure the transit shape and impact parameter precisely, determining whether the inferred dilution correction is correct; if the resulting radius moved outside the 8–15 Earth-radius GEMS range, the density classification would fail.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the two planets are confirmed as claimed, the known transiting GEMS population grows to 35 objects, a sample size that allows more statistically meaningful tests of formation scenarios.
  • Both planets having Saturn-like densities adds to the clustering of GEMS between 0.5 and 1 g/cm^3, strengthening the empirical claim that this density range is characteristic of the population.
  • The bias-corrected orbital-distance trend, if real, implies that giant planets around M dwarfs migrate inward more effectively or experience stronger tidal effects than those around FGK stars.
  • The lack of radius inflation with insolation, if it persists, rules out strong stellar heating as a dominant driver of the observed radii for these planets.
  • These two systems become additional targets for atmospheric characterization with next-generation space telescopes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to measure the atmospheric carbon-to-oxygen ratio of these two planets: values near solar would favor core accretion, whereas super-solar values would favor gravitational instability.
  • If the close-orbit trend is confirmed with more systems, planet–planet scattering followed by tidal circularization predicts an eccentricity distribution that declines with age; archival radial velocities could search for that signature.
  • The grazing transit of TOI-6158 b offers a rare opportunity to constrain the dilution directly with a high-cadence observation of the fully covered transit, which would sharpen the density measurement and test whether the Saturn-density classification survives.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the confirmation of two transiting giant planets around M2 dwarfs, TOI-5916 b and TOI-6158 b, discovered by TESS and followed up with ground-based photometry (RBO and Swope) and HPF radial velocities. Joint modeling of the transit light curves and RVs yields orbital parameters, masses (219±28 M⊕ and 135+19−18 M⊕), radii (11.8+0.52−0.51 R⊕ and 10.4+2.70−1.11 R⊕), and densities (0.73+0.14−0.13 and 0.66+0.41−0.23 g cm⁻³). The authors interpret both planets as Saturn-density GEMS and use them to support population-level trends, including a close-in orbital period distribution for GEMS relative to FGK giants. The existence claims rest on coherent phase-folded RV signals and multiple transit datasets, and high-resolution imaging rules out bright stellar companions.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper adds two massive giant planets around M dwarfs to the small GEMS census, with RV masses and photometric radii. The multi-instrument approach (TESS, ground-based photometry, speckle and AO imaging, HPF RVs) and the careful stellar characterization are strengths. The main weakness is that the Saturn-density classification of TOI-6158 b rests on a grazing transit (b = 0.86+0.09−0.06) and per-sector TESS dilution terms that the authors themselves state they cannot constrain precisely. The planet's existence is not at risk—the RV signal is independent of dilution—but the density claim in the title and abstract is not as secure as presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5 and Table 4] The paper states in §5 that for TOI-6158 'the grazing geometry precludes us from giving a precise estimate on the dilution,' yet Table 4 reports per-sector dilution values D = 1.475+0.242−0.213 (sector 56), 1.311+0.220−0.199 (sector 82), and 1.270+0.214−0.181 (sector 83). Because the observed transit depth scales as (R_p/R_*)^2 / D, the fitted R_p = 10.4+2.70−1.11 R⊕ and hence ρ_p = 0.66+0.41−0.23 g cm⁻³ are conditioned on the fitted D posterior. The text explicitly allows D near unity; at D = 1, R_p would shrink by roughly 12% and ρ_p would rise to about 1 g cm⁻³, placing the planet near or above water density rather than in the Saturn-density envelope. Please add a robustness test with D fixed to plausible values (e.g., D = 1 and D = 1.5) and report the resulting ρ_p posterior. Without this test, the density classification for TOI-6158 b is model-dependent rather than robust.
  2. [Abstract and §6.2] The abstract's statement that 'Both planets have Saturn-like densities' and the §6.2 claim of an '~84% probability to be less dense than water' overstate the certainty for TOI-6158 b. The posterior for ρ₂ has a 68% credible interval from 0.43 to 1.07 g cm⁻³, so water density is within 1σ even under the fitted dilution; under the D = 1 scenario the density moves further above water. The title and abstract should be qualified, for example by saying TOI-5916 b has a Saturn-like density and TOI-6158 b is consistent with a low-density, Saturn-like composition within the current uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs §1] The abstract defines GEMS as 'Exoplanets Transiting M-dwarf Stars,' while §1 defines it as 'Giant Exoplanets around M-dwarfs.' Please use the definition consistently.
  2. [Figure 2 caption and Figures 4–5] Typographical errors: 'Similiar' in the Figure 2 caption, and 'Resdiual' in the y-axis labels of Figures 4 and 5. Should be 'Similar' and 'Residual.'
  3. [Table 3] The header 'Metalicity' should be 'Metallicity.'
  4. [References] The Hotnisky et al. (2025) reference appears twice with the same DOI; merge the duplicate.
  5. [§6.3 and §7] The semi-major axis trend is based on small samples (35 GEMS) and the §6.3 text properly calls it preliminary with large uncertainties on the weighted medians. The conclusion's wording 'GEMS appear to tend towards shorter, sub-four day periods' is still stronger than the analysis supports; consider adding 'preliminary' there as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: planet masses/radii/densities are derived from independent photometry and RVs; population trends are contextual, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the central claim (confirmation and bulk parameters of TOI-5916 b and TOI-6158 b) is self-contained with respect to new data. The radii come from a joint fit (exoplanet/PyMC3) of TESS, RBO, and Swope light curves; masses come from HPF RVs (K = 164±20 m/s and 95±13 m/s); densities are then M_p/(4/3 π R_p^3), i.e., ratios of independently constrained fitted quantities, not inputs. No fitted dilution term is relabeled as a prediction: Table 4 reports D_TESS values and the text explicitly acknowledges that the grazing geometry limits dilution precision for TOI-6158 b. That is a model-parameter risk and a limitation the authors flag, not circularity. The 'Saturn-density' language is an interpretation of the derived ρ values against Saturn's density (0.687 g/cm^3), not a constraint imposed in the fit. The GEMS/population comparisons ('growing trend', closer orbits) use the NASA Exoplanet Archive plus two published systems (Hotnisky et al. 2025) and add the two new objects as additional points; they are not predictions generated by a model fitted to those same points. Self-citations (Kanodia et al. 2024a, 2025; Kanodia 2025) define the GEMS classification and prior population context, but the measured masses, radii, and densities do not reduce to those citations. No equation in the paper is identical by construction to its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence no circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim consumes several unverified inputs: a PSF-modeled light curve, model-dependent stellar radii, fitted dilution/jitter terms, and a selection-corrected comparison sample. None of these is an invented physical entity; the largest measurement-driven uncertainty is the dilution of the grazing TOI-6158 transit, and the largest assumption-driven uncertainty is the completeness of the GEMS population comparison.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-sector TESS dilution D = TOI-5916: 1.045+0.083−0.074, 1.033+0.074−0.066; TOI-6158: 1.475+0.242−0.213, 1.311+0.220−0.199, 1.270+0.214−0.181
    Fit in the joint model to account for unresolved background stars. For TOI-6158 the grazing geometry makes D poorly constrained, directly widening the radius/density posterior.
  • HPF RV jitter = 19+20−13 m/s (TOI-5916); 32±12 m/s (TOI-6158)
    White-noise term added to RV likelihood beyond formal errors; affects mass uncertainties but not central values.
  • Per-dataset photometric jitter = ≈25–48 ppm (Table 4, 8 values)
    White-noise scalars per instrument/sector in the transit fit; small but fitted.
  • Quadratic limb-darkening coefficients = not tabulated individually
    Kipping-parameterized and sampled per instrument; for the grazing transit of TOI-6158 the limb-darkening assumption affects the inferred radius.
  • Orbital and transit parameters (P, T0, Rp/R*, a/R*, i, e, ω, K) = Table 4: e.g., P=2.36712341 d and 3.04468990 d; Rp/R*=0.2213 and 0.2017; K=164±20 and 95±13 m/s
    Standard Keplerian/transit parameters estimated from the joint fit; they are the measurements the density claim is built on.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The TESS-Gaia Light Curve (TGLC) PSF modeling correctly removes contamination and dilution from neighboring stars.
    Invoked in §2.1 for all TESS photometry; incorrect PSF/deblending would bias transit depths and radii.
  • ad hoc to paper The anomalous background transit in TOI-5916 Sector 55 is not from the target and excising ±0.2 day does not remove real transit signal.
    Data exclusion in §2.1/§5; pixel analysis supports it, but if the background dip were partly on-target the transit shape/depth could be biased.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses/radii from EXOFASTv2 SED + MIST isochrones, with HPF-SpecMatch priors, are accurate.
    Planet radii and semi-major axes scale with R_star and M_star; systematic stellar model errors would propagate.
  • domain assumption The HPF RV reduction (SERVAL, barycorrpy) provides a stable wavelength solution and no significant unseen companion dilutes the signal.
    RVs from §2.4; supported by NESSI/ShaneAO companion search but not fully excluded at all separations.
  • domain assumption The NASA Exoplanet Archive sample plus two additions is representative enough for the GEMS vs FGK comparison; the transit probability formula (Eq. 2) and Horvitz-Thompson weighting correct the main geometric bias.
    Population trend in §6.3; TESS detection efficiency and follow-up selection are not corrected.
  • domain assumption A quadratic limb-darkening law and the Kipping parameterization adequately model stellar intensity profiles for both transits.
    Used for all transit fits; the grazing TOI-6158 transit is particularly sensitive to limb-darkening assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18975 in / 16324 out tokens · 143729 ms · 2026-08-04T10:03:11.687346+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for GEMS: TOI-5916 b & TOI-6158 b are two Saturn-density planets orbiting M2 dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIIJT4IP

@misc{pith2026251011798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for GEMS: TOI-5916 b & TOI-6158 b are two Saturn-density planets orbiting M2 dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIIJT4IP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.11798}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We confirm the planetary nature of (1) TOI-5916 b and (2) TOI-6158 b, two Exoplanets Transiting M-dwarf Stars (GEMS), both discovered by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). Both systems were confirmed with ground-based photometry (Red Buttes Observatory and Swope, respectively) and radial velocity data from the Habitable-zone Planet Finder. Their radii are $R_{1}=11.8^{+0.52}_{-0.51}\text{ }R_{\oplus}$ and $R_{2}=10.4^{+2.70}_{-1.11}\text{ }R_{\oplus}$ and masses are $M_{1}=219\pm28\text{ }M_{\oplus}$ and $M_{2}=135^{+19}_{-18}\text{ }M_{\oplus}$. Both planets have Saturn-like densities ($\rho_{1} = 0.73^{+0.14}_{-0.13}\,\text{g cm}^{-3}$, $\rho_{2} = 0.66^{+0.41}_{-0.23}\,\text{g cm}^{-3}$), which appears to be a growing trend among GEMS systems and, more generally, warm Jupiters. In confirming both of these exoplanets, we add to the growing evidence for a population of Saturn-density planets among the GEMS systems. We also find evidence for a preliminary trend in which GEMS exhibit systematically closer orbits compared to FGK giants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11798 by Amber Wong, Andrea S.J. Lin, Andrew Monson, Arpita Roy, Arvind F. Gupta, Caleb I. Ca\~nas, Chad F. Bender, Christian Schwab, Daniel M. Krolikowski, Gudmundur Stefansson, Henry A. Kobulnicky, Jessica E. Libby-Roberts, Joe P. Ninan, Michael Rodruck, Nidia Morrell, Paul Robertson, Samuel Halverson, Scott A. Diddams, Shane O'Brien, Shubham Kanodia, Te Han, Tera Swaby, William D. Cochran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: TGLC calibrated aperture light curve of TOI-5916 for TESS Sectors 55 (600s cadence) and 82 (200s cadence). Red lines correspond to the observed transits of TOI-5916 b. The blue line corresponds to an anomalous background transit that was observed by TESS during its observation of TOI-5916 (see Section 5 for more on this background transit). 2825 2830 2835 2840 2845 2850 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Normalized … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Similiar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pixel-by-pixel analysis of the anomalous transit observed in TGLC Sector 55 data. The red box indicates the 3 × 3 aperture used by TGLC, while the blue shading represents the relative baseline fluxes of individual pixels after subtracting background stars. Each panel displays the normalized and detrended light curves obtained by removing flux contributions from neighboring stars. A genuine on-target signal… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The phase-folded light curve for TOI-5916. The gray data points are the raw photometry data. The black data points are the 10-minute binned data points. The red line represents the median (best joint fit model). The confidence intervals, ranging from 1σ to 3σ, are shown in decreasing intensity of blue. For TESS Sector 55, the exposure time was 600 s, where as for TESS Sector 82 it was 200 s. The exposure t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Binned HPF RV data for TOI-5916. Left: The time series of the RV data binned by each night (black points), with the median model value in solid blue and the light blue region being the 1σ region. Right: The phase-folded RV curve for the binned data. The median model value is shown in solid blue and the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ confidence intervals are shown in descending intensities of blue. University of California… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NESSI speckle images and contrast limits for TOI-5916 (left) and TOI-6158 (right). The 5-σ contrast limits are shown in blue and red for the r’ and z’ filters, respectively, and cutouts of the reconstructed speckle images are shown as insets in the upper corner of each plot. No nearby companions or background sources are detected for either star. framework (Salvatier et al. 2015), which uses Hamilton Monte… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: TOI-5916 and TOI-6158 are represented by the triangles highlighted in blue and red, respectively. The plots show the two systems, other GEMS, and FGK systems in various parameter spaces. Confirmed transiting GEMS systems are represented by the color-coded points. The gray points in the background are transiting giants around FGK dwarf stars. (a) The two target GEMS planets in the mass-radius parameter spac… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of semi-major axis (left) and scaled semi-major axis, a/R⋆ (right), for giant planets around M dwarfs (blue) and FGK dwarfs (orange) discovered by TESS. The histograms show the raw distribution of semi-major axes. Dotted curves show the observed empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDFs) of these raw distribution, while solid curves show the bias-corrected ECDFs obtained by weightin… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Magnetic field strengths of hot giant exoplanets consistent with Solar System values

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Wind speed measurements in seven ultra-hot Jupiters decrease with temperature, consistent with magnetic drag and implying magnetic field strengths of a few gauss.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    Boss, A. P. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 641, 1148, doi: 10.1086/500530

    work page doi:10.1086/500530 2006

  3. [3]

    P., & Kanodia, S

    Boss, A. P., & Kanodia, S. 2023, ApJ, 956, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf373

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf373 2023

  4. [4]

    M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad626

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad626 2023

  5. [5]

    M., Bayliss, D., Hartman, J

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2034

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2034 2024

  6. [6]

    2021, A&A, 656, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140390 Ca˜ nas, C

    Burn, R., Schlecker, M., Mordasini, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140390 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Stefansson, G., Kanodia, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abac67 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Kanodia, S., Libby-Roberts, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdac7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140390 2021

  7. [7]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  8. [8]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  9. [9]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V. 2017, AJ, 153, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 2017

  10. [10]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, (IPAC/California Institute of Technology) (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013)

    2021

  12. [12]

    2025, AJ, 169, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8ec1

    Dong, J., Chontos, A., Zhou, G., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8ec1

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8ec1 2025

  13. [13]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  14. [14]

    D., Rodriguez, J

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09480

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  16. [16]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A.G.A., Prusti, T., & et al

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A.G.A., Prusti, T., & et al. 2022, A&A, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 2017

  17. [17]

    2025, ApJS, 276, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9c65

    Mao, S. 2025, ApJS, 276, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9c65

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad9c65 2025

  18. [18]

    X., Wang, S., et al

    Gan, T., Wang, S. X., Wang, S., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b12

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b12 2022

  19. [19]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    doi:10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 2006

  20. [20]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  21. [21]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7 2023

  22. [22]

    D., et al

    Han, T., Robertson, P., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade794

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade794 2025

  23. [23]

    2024, AJ, 167, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad09c2

    Han, T., Robertson, P., Kanodia, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad09c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad09c2 2024

  24. [24]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02 2021

  25. [25]

    G., & Thompson, D

    Horvitz, D. G., & Thompson, D. J. 1952, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 663, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1952.10483446

    arXiv 1952

  26. [27]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 170, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add2ef

    Hotnisky, A., Kanodia, S., Libby-Roberts, J., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 170, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add2ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/add2ef 2025

  27. [28]

    Ciardi, D. R. 2011, AJ, 142, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/19

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/19 2011

  28. [29]

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

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e 2020

  29. [30]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 1045, doi: 10.1086/429953

    doi:10.1086/429953 2005

  30. [31]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psad031 2023

  31. [32]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9823

    Kanodia, S. 2025, ApJ, 978, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9823

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9823 2025

  32. [33]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    Kanodia, S., & Wright, J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7 2018

  33. [34]

    W., et al

    Kanodia, S., Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., et al. 2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, Vol. 10702, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 107026Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2313491

    doi:10.1117/12.2313491 2018

  34. [35]

    I., Mahadevan, S., et al

    Kanodia, S., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2024a, AJ, 167, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad27cb 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad27cb

  35. [36]

    F., Ca˜ nas, C

    Kanodia, S., Gupta, A. F., Ca˜ nas, C. I., et al. 2024b, AJ, 168, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7796

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7796

  36. [37]

    I., Mahadevan, S., et al

    Kanodia, S., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.17861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.17861

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.17861 2025

  37. [38]

    H., Ellis, T

    Kasper, D. H., Ellis, T. G., Yeigh, R. R., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 105005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/968/105005

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/968/105005 2016

  38. [39]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013

  39. [40]

    2022a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 236, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aca158

    Kunimoto, M., Tey, E., Fong, W., et al. 2022a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 236, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aca158

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aca158

  40. [41]

    2022b, ApJS, 259, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5688

    Kunimoto, M., Daylan, T., Guerrero, N., et al. 2022b, ApJS, 259, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5688

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5688

  41. [42]

    Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Adams, F. C. 2004, 612, L73, doi: 10.1086/424384

    doi:10.1086/424384 2004

  42. [43]

    2012, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed

    Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L., Bender, C., et al. 2012, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, Vol. 8446, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 84461S, doi: 10.1117/12.926102

    doi:10.1117/12.926102 2012

  43. [44]

    W., Terrien, R., et al

    Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., Terrien, R., et al. 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, Vol. 9147, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 91471G, doi: 10.1117/12.2056417 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2025, Planetary Systems Composite Parameters, Version: 2025-04-15 00:00,...

    doi:10.1117/12.2056417 2014

  44. [45]

    P., Bender, C

    Ninan, J. P., Bender, C. F., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10709, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VIII, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 107092U, doi: 10.1117/12.2312787

    doi:10.1117/12.2312787 2018

  45. [46]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3207

    Osborn, A., & Bayliss, D. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3207

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3207 2020

  46. [47]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bef

    Pfalzner, S., & Dincer, F. 2024, ApJ, 963, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bef

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bef 2024

  47. [48]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., III, T. G. B., et al. 1998, in Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, Vol. 3352, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 34 – 42, doi: 10.1117/12.319287

    doi:10.1117/12.319287 1998

  48. [49]

    A., & Ford, E

    Rasio, F. A., & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954, doi: 10.1126/science.274.5289.954

    doi:10.1126/science.274.5289.954 1996

  49. [50]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2014

  50. [51]

    Probabilistic Programming in Python using PyMC

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1507.08050

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1507.08050 2015

  51. [52]

    J., Howell, S

    Scott, N. J., Howell, S. B., Horch, E. P., & Everett, M. E. 2018, PASP, 130, 054502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aab484

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aab484 2018

  52. [53]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Srinath, S., McGurk, R., Rockosi, C., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9148, Adaptive Optics Systems IV, ed. E. Marchetti, L. M. Close, & J.-P. Vran, 91482Z, doi: 10.1117/12.2055672

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2055672 2014

  53. [54]

    G., Oelkers, R

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 2019

  54. [55]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/175 Stef´ ansson, G., Ca˜ nas, C., Wisniewski, J., et al

    Stefansson, G., Hearty, F., Robertson, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/175 Stef´ ansson, G., Ca˜ nas, C., Wisniewski, J., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f15 Stef´ ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Miguel, Y., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1031, doi: 10.1126/science.abo0233

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/175 2016

  55. [56]

    T., & Eastman, J

    Wright, J. T., & Eastman, J. D. 2014, PASP, 126, 838, doi: 10.1086/678541

    doi:10.1086/678541 2014

  56. [57]

    W., Petigura, E

    Yee, S. W., Petigura, E. A., & von Braun, K. 2017, ApJ, 836, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/77

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/77 2017

  57. [58]

    J., et al

    Zechmeister, M., Reiners, A., Amado, P. J., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731483 16

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731483 2018