Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Tidal Synchronization of TESS Eclipsing Binaries

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read About 10% of short-period eclipsing binaries rotate at 7/8 of their orbital period instead of synchronously, a population this paper finds independently in TESS and Kepler data.

desk verdict A genuinely useful TESS EB rotation catalog and a plausible independent recovery of the 7:8 population, but the significance claims rest on a pseudo-likelihood that overstates certainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04082 v2 pith:E5LQZDSE submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Marshall Hobson-Ritz , Jessica Birky , Leah Peterson , Peter Gwartney , Rachel Wong , John Delker , Tyler Gordon , Samantha Gilbert
show 2 more authors
James R. A. Davenport Rory Barnes
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP PACS 97.80.-d97.10.Kc
keywords tidalsynchronizationeclipsingbinariesstarspotrotationspin-orbitresonanceTESSBayesianmodelcomparisonsubsynchronousstellarperiods
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 asks whether the odd subsynchronous population of eclipsing binaries first seen in Kepler data is real or a survey artifact, and answers by measuring rotation periods for 584 starspot-modulated short-period binaries from the TESS mission. It finds the same two-peaked structure in the ratio of orbital to rotation period: a dominant synchronous peak at 1:1 and a secondary peak near 7/8, comprising roughly 10% of the sample. Bayesian model comparison strongly favors a double-peaked distribution over a single-peaked one for the TESS, Kepler, and combined samples, which the authors take as evidence that the 7:8 rotators cannot be attributed to noise. Because the peak appears with a different telescope, detectors, period-finding codes, and human vetting, the paper concludes it is a genuine astrophysical population that tidal evolution theory will have to explain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin-orbit ratio $P_{\rm orb}/P_{\rm rot}$, summarized as an empirical cumulative distribution function and fitted by single- and double-peaked Gaussian and Lorentzian models through nested sampling; the evidence for a second population is quantified by Bayes factors (marginal likelihood ratios) between model pairs. The value $7/8$ marks the subsynchronous peak. The measurement pipeline is also load-bearing: a random-forest classifier trained on Kepler labels and then human-vetted, followed by three period-finding methods (Lomb–Scargle, autocorrelation, phase dispersion minimization) applied after masking eclipses, with the adopted period chosen by visual inspection of phase-folded light curves. The Bayes factor test is the mechanism that converts the appearance of a second peak into the claim that the 7:8 rotators are distinct from noise.

What would settle it

Re-derive rotation periods for all 584 binaries with a blind full-posterior method (for example a Gaussian process) without first targeting objects in the 0.82 to 0.92 ratio range; the 7:8 peak is real only if it re-emerges and the fraction of systems in that bin does not depend on which objects were re-measured. A complementary test is to inject synthetic starspot light curves with known 1:1 synchronization into the same pipeline: a spurious 7:8 peak would indicate that the eclipse-masking or period-finding procedure creates the artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the subsynchronous population of eclipsing binaries discovered in Kepler data is present in TESS data as well, and that the 7:8 overdensity is statistically distinct from the synchronous population. Working from the TESS Eclipsing Binary Catalog, the authors classify 4584 light curves, retain 584 high-confidence starspot-modulated systems with orbital periods under 10 days, and measure rotation periods with Lomb–Scargle, autocorrelation, phase dispersion minimization, and visual inspection. About 6% of the TESS sample falls in the spin-orbit range $0.82 < P_{\rm orb}/P_{\rm rot} < 0.92$, and this secondary peak is decisively favored over a unimodal model in Bayes factor tests on the cumulative distribution. An independent Cramér–von Mises test finds the Kepler and TESS distributions consistent with a common origin (p = 0.99). The paper therefore concludes that roughly 10% of short-period eclipsing binaries rotate very close to 7/8 of their orbital period instead of synchronously, and that existing tidal-plus-magnetic-braking models, which produce a broad subsynchronous spread, cannot account for the tightness of the 7:8 ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The significance of the 7:8 population rests on treating the points of the empirical cumulative distribution as independent measurements sharing one error of $\sigma = 0.025$ in the likelihood; adjacent CDF points are strongly correlated, so the very large Bayes factors almost certainly overstate the evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 7:8 subsynchronous rotators are a real population appearing in two independent surveys, so future theories of tidal evolution must explain a tight ratio near 7/8 rather than a broad subsynchronous spread.
  • Existing simulations that couple tidal dissipation and magnetic braking can produce subsynchronous rotation for orbital periods longer than about 4 days but not the tight 7:8 overdensity, ruling out current implementations of those processes as a complete explanation.
  • The published catalog of 584 rotation periods, orbital periods, and eccentricities provides a new resource for studying tidal synchronization, differential rotation, and circumbinary exoplanets.
  • Among the three period-finding methods, phase dispersion minimization matches the visually inspected period in 96% of cases and has 98% ten-percent accuracy, making it the recommended method for starspot-modulated EB light curves; Lomb–Scargle tends to overestimate rotation periods, often by a factor of two.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Bayes factor calculation treats correlated CDF points as independent, the reported log Bayes factors above 1000 are not trustworthy at face value; a bootstrap or a likelihood that models the CDF's correlation structure would give a more honest significance level, and the paper's sigma-sensitivity test cannot fix this because it only varies the assumed error magnitude, not the independe
  • A clean test of the artifact hypothesis would be to search for the same 7:8 peak in K2 data or in synthetic light curves drawn from a different window function, where the sampling and systematics differ from both missions; the paper's claim predicts the peak should appear regardless of window function.
  • If the peak is real, the near-exact rational ratio 7:8 suggests a dynamical resonance or a preferred spin state, possibly a spin-orbit commensurability set by tidal torque or a triaxial shape, rather than a continuously varying pseudosynchronous state; this predicts the ratio should be independent of orbital period and eccentricity within the population.
  • The paper re-measured periods only for objects already inside the 0.82–0.92 window, which risks sharpening the very peak being tested; a blinded re-analysis of the entire sample would settle whether the narrowness of the peak is a selection effect.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new catalog of rotation periods for 584 high-confidence starspot-modulated eclipsing binaries from TESS, together with orbital periods, eccentricities, and light-curve classifications. Using Lomb-Scargle, ACF, and PDM period measurements with visual vetting, the authors compare the distribution of the spin-orbit ratio Porb/Prot against the Kepler sample of Lurie et al. (2017). They report a weak subsynchronous excess at Porb/Prot ~ 0.89 in TESS (about 6% of the sample in the range 0.82-0.92, versus 15% in Kepler), and use Bayesian model comparison with Gaussian and Lorentzian CDF fits to claim that a double-peaked model is decisively preferred over a single-peaked model, with natural log Bayes factors of order 10^3. The paper concludes that roughly 10% of short-period EBs rotate near the 7:8 spin-orbit ratio and that this population is statistically significant and not an instrument-specific artifact.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable independent confirmation of an unusual subsynchronous population in eclipsing binaries, obtained with a different instrument and different analysis choices than the original Kepler detection. The catalog itself is a useful community resource: it provides inspected rotation periods, alias flags, eclipse parameters, and cross-method comparisons for 584 TESS EBs, and the methodology (random-forest classification plus human vetting, three period-finding methods, and eclipse masking) is carefully documented. The paper also honestly states its main limitation: individual per-period uncertainties are not measured, and the authors acknowledge that this limits statistical confirmation of the 7:8 population. However, the headline significance claim rests on a pseudo-likelihood whose statistical meaning is not established, and the TESS-only evidence is explicitly weak. The paper's value as a catalog and as a qualitative confirmation is real, but the quantitative claim of statistical significance needs substantially more careful treatment before it can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Eq. (4)] The likelihood in Eq. (4) treats the empirical CDF values C(x_i) at the observed spin-orbit ratios as N independent data points with a common Gaussian error sigma = 0.025. This is not a valid statistical model: adjacent order statistics of a CDF are strongly correlated, because C(x_i) and C(x_{i+1}) share all but one data point of information. The effective number of independent constraints is far smaller than N = 584 (TESS) or ~1400 (combined). Consequently, the natural log Bayes factors reported in Table 6 (1330, 2607, 3838 for TESS, Kepler, and combined) are not calibrated, and the enormous values do not have their usual evidential meaning. The robustness test in Figure 19 varies sigma but retains the same correlated residual structure, so it cannot rescue the test. The authors should replace this with a likelihood that respects the dependence structure of the data (e.g., a quantile or order-statistic likelihood, a bootstrap over light curves, or a direct comparison of fitted parameter posteriors), or explicitly present the Bayes factors as exploratory rather than as decisive evidence.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Section 4.5] The authors recomputed rotational and orbital periods using full-sector data only for targets already falling in the subsynchronous range 0.82 < Porb/Prot < 0.92 (Section 4.2). This differential remeasurement can sharpen precisely the feature being tested, because the targets in the candidate peak are the ones that receive the higher-quality full-sector treatment. The TESS sample fed into the model comparison in Section 4.5 is therefore not uniformly measured. The authors should either apply the full-sector treatment to the entire sample or demonstrate, with a controlled experiment, that the targeted remeasurement does not preferentially move sources into the subsynchronous window.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 3.5] The TESS-only evidence for the subsynchronous population is weak: the paper states that 6% of TESS sources fall in the 0.82-0.92 window, compared with 15% in L17, and describes the TESS feature as 'a weak subsynchronous peak.' This is difficult to reconcile with the two-sample Cramer-von Mises p-value of 0.99 reported in Section 3.5, which is also used to justify pooling the samples. A p-value of 0.99 for a 6%-versus-15% difference in the same window is suspicious and suggests either a lack of power in the test or a problem with how the CDF comparison was performed. The significance claim should be reported for TESS alone with an honest, calibrated test; if TESS alone does not reach significance, the conclusion that the 7:8 population is 'confirmed' in TESS should be softened accordingly.
  4. [Section 5 and Section 3.5] The authors acknowledge in the conclusion that the lack of robust per-period measurement uncertainties 'limits statistical methods of confirming the presence of the 7:8 rotators.' This is a load-bearing limitation, not just a caveat for future work. With a uniform, hand-assigned sigma = 0.025 for all spin-orbit ratios, the model comparison cannot distinguish measurement scatter from an intrinsic physical population width. In particular, the reported amplitude of the secondary peak and the claim that the subsynchronous rotators are 'distinct from the synchronous rotators' are conditional on this unverified error model. The analysis would be substantially strengthened by deriving per-target period uncertainties (e.g., from Gaussian process or bootstrap fits) and propagating them into the distribution comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (4)] The expression for ln L omits the constant term -(N/2) ln(2 pi), which cancels in model comparison but should be included for completeness; as written, the formula is not exactly a Gaussian log-likelihood.
  2. [Table 5] In the Kepler Median row for the skewed Gaussian model, sigma1 is listed as 0.0426, identical to the TESS value, while the Kepler Mean value for the same parameter is 0.0399; this looks like a copy-paste error and should be checked.
  3. [Section 5] The concluding sentence says systems 'rotate very closely to 7/8ths of their orbital period,' but the analysis is framed throughout in terms of Porb/Prot ~ 0.875, which corresponds to Prot being about 8/7 of Porb (i.e., slower rotation). The wording '7/8ths of their orbital period' is mathematically the opposite and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  4. [References] The Ricker et al. 2014 reference appears twice in the reference list with identical bibliographic details; one duplicate should be removed.
  5. [Figure 12] The caption for the two panels in Figure 12 would be clearer if it explicitly stated that the left panel is 20% cross-method confidence and the right panel is 10%, matching the order in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TESS rotation periods are independently measured, and the 7:8 population claim is not forced by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the central claim is self-contained with respect to the data. Rotation periods are measured from TESS light curves with Lomb-Scargle, autocorrelation, and phase dispersion minimization, and the spin-orbit ratios are computed directly from those measurements; they are not derived from the Kepler result. The random forest classifier is trained on L17 labels, but it only selects which TESS light curves show starspot modulation; it does not prescribe the Porb/Prot distribution. Prior knowledge of L17 informs the prior range for the secondary peak and the definition of the 0.82-0.92 subsynchronous window, but the posterior peaks and Bayes factors are computed from the TESS data and the combined sample, so the bimodal conclusion is not equivalent to the prior by construction. The only self-citations (Fleming et al. 2019, which includes two of the present authors, and Gordon et al. 2021, which includes one) are used as theoretical context or methodological support, not as the evidence that TESS contains the 7:8 overdensity. The paper's statistical limitations, such as the correlated CDF pseudo-likelihood in Equation 4, the uniform error assumption, and the targeted recomputation of periods in the 0.82-0.92 window, are validity concerns rather than circular reductions; the paper explicitly concedes the lack of per-period uncertainties. No step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input by definition or by fitted parameter renaming.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends primarily on the period measurements and the statistical model. No new physical entities are introduced. The main fitted inputs are the model parameters and the uniform error assumed for the spin-orbit ratios.

free parameters (2)
  • uniform spin-orbit error sigma = 0.025, varied from 0.01 to 0.5
    Chosen as the standard deviation of a single Gaussian KDE fit to TESS spin-orbit ratios around 1:1; applied to every empirical CDF point in the likelihood. Drives the magnitude of the Bayes factors.
  • double-peak model parameters (mu1, sigma1, mu2, sigma2, a) = combined median: mu1=1.0031, sigma1=0.0096, mu2=0.8791, sigma2=0.0493, a=0.2202
    Fit to the empirical CDF of spin-orbit ratios in the Bayesian model comparison; the secondary peak parameters are the statistical evidence for the 7:8 population.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Starspot modulation periods measured from light curves equal the surface rotation period of a binary component.
    Used throughout Section 3.4 to convert quasiperiodic photometric variability into Prot.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical CDF of spin-orbit ratios can be treated as N independent data points with a common Gaussian error in the likelihood of Equation 4.
    Section 3.5; CDF points are correlated, so the assumption is not statistically justified, though the authors vary sigma to test robustness.
  • domain assumption Kepler and TESS spin-orbit ratio samples are drawn from the same underlying distribution, allowing combination.
    Section 3.5, Cramer-von Mises p=0.99; used to justify fitting the combined sample.
  • domain assumption A random forest trained on features from Kepler EBs labels transfers to TESS EBs.
    Section 3.1; used to classify TESS light curves before human vetting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tidal Synchronization of TESS Eclipsing Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5LQZDSE

@misc{pith2026250104082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tidal Synchronization of TESS Eclipsing Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5LQZDSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04082}
}
read the original abstract

Tidal synchronization plays a fundamental role in the evolution of binary star systems. However, key details such as the timescale of synchronization, efficiency of tidal dissipation, rotational period, and dependence on stellar mass are not well constrained. We present a catalog of rotation periods, orbital periods, and eccentricities from eclipsing binaries (EBs) that can be used to study the role of tides in the rotational evolution of low-mass dwarf (FGKM spectral type) binaries. This study presents the largest catalog of EB orbital and rotational periods (Porb and Prot) measured from the Transiting Exoplanet Satellite Survey (TESS). We first classify 4584 light curves from the TESS Eclipsing Binary Catalog according to out-of-eclipse stellar variability type: starspot modulation, ellipsoidal variability, non-periodic variability, and "other" variability (e.g. pulsations). We then manually validate each light curve classification, resulting in a sample of 1039 candidates with 584 high-confidence EBs that exhibit detectable star-spot modulation. From there, we measure and compare the rotation period of each starspot-modulated EB using three methods: Lomb-Scargle periodograms, autocorrelation function, and phase dispersion minimization. We find that our period distributions are consistent with previous work that used a sample of 816 starspot EBs from Kepler to identify two populations: a synchronous population (with Porb~Prot) and a subsynchronous population (with 8Porb~7Prot). Using Bayesian model comparison, we find that a bimodal distribution is a significantly better fit than a unimodal distribution for Kepler and TESS samples, both individually or combined, confirming that the subsynchronous population is statistically significant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04082 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left panel shows the light curve of an example of each classification type. The right panel shows the phase folded light curves for each classification type. These TICs are all from the TEBC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gaia color-magnitude diagram and orbital period vs. morphology of classified Kepler EBs from L17. We used this catalog of Kepler EBs to train a random forest classifier, which we then applied to classify lightcurves from TESS (Section 3.1). Here morphology refers to the metric defined in (Matijeviˇc et al. 2012), which quantifies how detached a system is ranging between 0 and 1 (where lower value corresponds to more… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Confusion matrix evaluating the accuracy of our random forest classifier trained on labels of eclipsing binaries classified by L17. Each light curve is classified into 4 categories: ellipsoidal variability (ev), non-periodic (np), other variability (ot), and starspot variability (sp). The y-axis shows the true label (as classified by L17) and the x-axis shows the label predicted by the random forest classifier. Entr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Random forest feature importance with descriptions of each feature given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Classes predicted by the random forest classifier compared to the human verified classifications. always perform well at representing the morphology of the eclipsing or star spot variability. For this reason, we also apply two other period-finding algorithms. The autoc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of a light curve with verified eclipses and masked-out data points. The top panel is the original light curve. The second is the normalized light curve. The third shows the phase-folded light curve at the optimized orbital period (Porb = 1.132 days), with eclip…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of a light curve with an applied mask on the orbital period and eclipses, used with the autocorrelation function (ACF) to identify the rotational period. The first plot is the ACF periodogram, with the orbital period, LS rotational period, and ACF rotational pe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example light curve (TIC ID 139252264) with an applied mask on the orbital period and eclipses, used in conjunc￾tion with phase dispersion minimization (PDM) to identify the rotational period. The first plot shows a PDM periodogram comparison, with the orbital period, …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of each method’s level of accuracy against an error threshold range of 1-25%. The error is the root mean square of the difference of the method rotational period to the inspected rotational period. threshold, with the error ranging 1-25%. By inspecting these three…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of rotational period measurements from different techniques, with dashed lines indicating common ratios. 4.4. Trends Across Stellar Type and Galactic Location To analyze the types of stars present in the subsample, we cross-referenced with TOPCAT (Taylor 20…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Full TESS sample inspected period, plotted alongside the L17 Kepler data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left panel: TESS subsample of values with 20% cross-method confidence of the inspected period, plotted alongside the L17 Kepler data. Right panel: Same as left figure, but with 10% cross-method confidence. Confident that we are primarily working with main sequence EBs…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cross matched EB catalog with Gaia data as a color magnitude diagram, colored by the EB’s period ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Frequency of spectral types in the Gaia cross-matched eclipsing binary catalog, shown as a stacked bar chart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A visualization of our catalog’s galactic coordinate positions based on Gaia data. where V represents the velocity (km/s) in the direction of Galactic rotation, W represents the velocity (km/s) toward the North Galactic Pole, and U represents the velocity (km/s) towar…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Corner plots for the weighted mean (blue) and median (red) Gaussian posteriors. The parameter values are shown with black lines. The parameters are µ1 (primary mean), σ1 (primary standard deviation), µ2 (secondary mean), σ2 (secondary standard deviation), a (secondary…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Corner plots for the weighted mean (blue) and median (red) Lorentz posteriors. The parameter values are shown with black lines. The parameters are µ1 (primary mean), γ1 (primary half width half maximum), µ2 (secondary mean), γ2 (secondary half width half maximum), a (…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Natural log Bayes factors (BF), representing the natural log of the marginal likelihood ratio of two different models, calculated using a variable uniform error value. The larger the value of the ln BF, the more the first model is favored over the second. Where T is t…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same dataset as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Prospects of Constraining Equilibrium Tides in Low-Mass Binary Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Equilibrium tide strength Q cannot be inferred to order-of-magnitude precision from individual binary systems because of degeneracies with initial conditions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ' T2`m R [ H5VW*ƥ0[j /]Ԗ .i4c' GB+Z D

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 3147, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19960.x

    Aigrain, S., Pont, F., & Zucker, S. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 3147, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19960.x

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Anderson, T. W. 1962, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 1148. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2237885

    work page arXiv 1962

  6. [6]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2094, 10.1093/mnras/stx2109

    Angus, R., Morton, T., Aigrain, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Rajpaul, V. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2094, 10.1093/mnras/stx2109

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2109 2018

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Angus, R., Beane, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2020, arXiv:2005.09387 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.09387

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, aap, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, aj, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, 10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3

    Bolmont, E., & Mathis, S. 2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, 10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    A., Matt , S

    Breimann , A. A., Matt , S. P., & Naylor , T. 2021, , 913, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a3

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    A., & Ingram, L

    Carroll, J. A., & Ingram, L. J. 1933, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 93, 508, 10.1093/mnras/93.7.508

    1933 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, arXiv:2005.08662 [astro-ph]

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, arXiv:2005.08662 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.08662

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Claret , A., & Cunha , N. C. S. 1997, , 318, 187

    1997

  10. [18]

    R., van Saders, J

    Claytor, Z. R., van Saders, J. L., Llama, J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 219, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac498f

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    Counselman, III, C. C. 1973, The Astrophysical Journal, 180, 307, 10.1086/151964

    1973 doi

  12. [21]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    David, T. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Cody, A. M., Carpenter, J. M., & Howard, A. W. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 816, 21, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/21

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    J., Conroy, K

    David, T. J., Conroy, K. E., Hillenbrand, L. A., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 112, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/112

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    2013, araa, 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    Duchêne, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, araa, 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    1991, aap, 248, 485

    Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, aap, 248, 485

    1991

  16. [25]

    2021, , 133, 095002, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac1d3f

    Fausnaugh , M., Morgan , E., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2021, , 133, 095002, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac1d3f

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    2008, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 101, 171, 10.1007/s10569-008-9133-x

    Ferraz-Mello, S., Rodríguez, A., & Hussmann, H. 2008, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 101, 171, 10.1007/s10569-008-9133-x

    2008 doi

  18. [27]

    P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J

    Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J. R. A., & Luger, R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed2

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3285, 10.21105/joss.03285

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Agol, E., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3285, 10.21105/joss.03285

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    A., David, T

    Gillen, E., Hillenbrand, L. A., David, T. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b3

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    1984, , 141, 227

    Giuricin , G., Mardirossian , F., & Mezzetti , M. 1984, , 141, 227

    1984

  23. [32]

    A., Davenport, J

    Gordon, T. A., Davenport, J. R. A., Angus, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf63e

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Gray, D. F. 1976, The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976oasp.book.....G

    1976

  25. [34]

    2008, aap, 486, 951, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, aap, 486, 951, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  26. [35]

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

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 398, 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 92, 167

    Hut, P. 1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 92, 167. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980A&A....92..167H/abstract

    1980

  28. [37]

    1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126

    ---. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A

    1981

  29. [38]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3145, 10.1093/mnras/sty838

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    E., & Raftery, A

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

    1995

  31. [40]

    Kim, D.-W., & Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2016, Astronomy & amp; Astrophysics, 587, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527188

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 68, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    Kirk, B., Conroy, K., Prša, A., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 68, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    Leconte, J., Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., & Levrard, B. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    2010 doi

  34. [43]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1812.013

    2018

  35. [44]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  36. [45]

    C., Vyhmeister, K., Hawley, S

    Lurie, J. C., Vyhmeister, K., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 250, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa974d

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    2007, aap, 463, 1081, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066458

    Marilli, E., Frasca, A., Covino, E., et al. 2007, aap, 463, 1081, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066458

    2007 doi

  38. [47]

    A., et al

    Matijevič, G., Prša, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 123, 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/123

    2012 doi

  39. [48]

    A., Gies, D

    Matson, R. A., Gies, D. R., Guo, Z., & Orosz, J. A. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 139, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/139

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    P., Brun, A

    Matt, S. P., Brun, A. S., Baraffe, I., Bouvier, J., & Chabrier, G. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 799, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L23

    2015 doi

  41. [50]

    2014, apjs, 211, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, apjs, 211, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    2014 doi

  42. [51]

    Meibom, S., & Mathieu, R. D. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 970, 10.1086/427082

    2005 doi

  43. [52]

    D., & Stassun, K

    Meibom, S., Mathieu, R. D., & Stassun, K. G. 2006, apj, 653, 621, 10.1086/508252

    2006 doi

  44. [53]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730613

    Mowlavi, N., Lecoeur-Taïbi, I., Holl, B., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730613

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    S., & P \' e rez, F

    Naul, B., van der Walt, S., Crellin - Quick, A., Bloom, J. S., & P \' e rez, F. 2016, CoRR, abs/1609.04504

    2016 arXiv

  46. [55]

    2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 553, 10.1086/677042

    Penev, K., Zhang, M., & Jackson, B. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 553, 10.1086/677042

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    E., et al

    Prsa, A., Kochoska, A., Conroy, K. E., et al. 2021, arXiv:2110.13382 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.13382

    2021 arXiv

  48. [57]

    W., et al

    Prša, A., Batalha, N., Slawson, R. W., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 83, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/83

    2011 doi

  49. [58]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 190, 1, 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  50. [59]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 542, 10.1093/mnras/stu1454

    Repetto, S., & Nelemans, G. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 542, 10.1093/mnras/stu1454

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    W., Starr, D

    Richards, J. W., Starr, D. L., Butler, N. R., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 10, 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/10

    2011 doi

  52. [62]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann , Jacobus M., M. Clampin , ...

    2014 doi

  53. [63]

    2010, Time Series Analysis and Its Applications: With R Examples (Springer International Publishing)

    Shumway, S. 2010, Time Series Analysis and Its Applications: With R Examples (Springer International Publishing)

    2010

  54. [64]

    1972, apj, 171, 565, 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, apj, 171, 565, 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  55. [65]

    F., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al

    Song, H. F., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 609, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731073

    2018 doi

  56. [66]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132, 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  57. [67]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Pepper , J., et al. 2018, , 156, 102, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  58. [68]

    Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal, 224, 953, 10.1086/156444

    1978 doi

  59. [69]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  60. [70]

    L., Vanderburg, A., Kraus, A

    Torres, G., Curtis, J. L., Vanderburg, A., Kraus, A. L., & Rizzuto, A. 2018, apj, 866, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadca8

    2018 doi

  61. [71]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.1827, 10.48550/arXiv.1412.1827

    Vanderburg , A. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.1827, 10.48550/arXiv.1412.1827

    2014 doi arXiv

  62. [72]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 517, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014453

    Weise, P., Launhardt, R., Setiawan, J., & Henning, T. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 517, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014453

    2010 doi

  63. [73]

    Welsh , W. F. 1999, , 111, 1347, 10.1086/316457

    1999 doi

  64. [74]

    G., & Savonije, G

    Witte, M. G., & Savonije, G. J. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 386, 222, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020155

    2002 doi

  65. [75]

    A., & Brook, B

    Yates, L., Aandahl, Z., Richards, S. A., & Brook, B. W. 2022, Cross validation for model selection: a primer with examples from ecology, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04552

    2022 arXiv

  66. [76]

    2021, WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 11, e1425, 10.1002/widm.1425

    Yu, C., Li, K., Zhang, Y., et al. 2021, WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 11, e1425, 10.1002/widm.1425

    2021 doi

  67. [77]

    P., & Bouchet , L

    Zahn , J. P., & Bouchet , L. 1989, , 223, 112

    1989

  68. [78]

    J., & Wu, Y

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Wu, Y. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf097

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.