Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Exoplanet Atmospheric Refraction Effects in the Kepler Sample

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mini-Neptunes bend starlight, Kepler data show.

desk verdict A plausible but under-validated population-level refraction claim: the APR V bump is real-looking but sits right at the pipeline's validation floor, so the headline molecular weight rests on shakier ground than the abstract lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02126 v1 pith:GFI6URJV submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.EP

Dereck-Alexandre Lizotte , Jason Rowe , James Sikora , Michael R. B. Matesic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmospheresatmosphericrefractionKeplerphotometryperiod-radiusvalleymini-Neptunessuper-Earthslightcurvebinningplanetaryhazes
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

Atmospheric refraction should make a transiting exoplanet's host star look very slightly brighter just before and after the planet crosses the disc, because starlight skimming the atmosphere is bent toward the observer. This paper claims that this few-parts-per-million bump is actually present in stacked Kepler photometry of exoplanets above the period-radius valley — the gap near 1.8 Earth radii that separates rocky super-Earths from gas-enveloped mini-Neptunes — and that it is absent for planets below the valley. Fitting ray-traced refraction models to the stacked light curves gives a mean atmospheric molecular weight of about 8.8 g/mol for the above-valley population, heavier than the 2–4 g/mol expected for an optically thin H/He envelope. If the detection holds, it would provide a new population-level way to probe which exoplanets retain extended atmospheres, and it would suggest that clouds or hazes dampen refraction signals in the close-in Kepler planets.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is atmospheric refraction: as a planet approaches transit, starlight entering the atmosphere is bent toward the observer and forms a faint crescent secondary image, adding a few parts per million to the total flux just outside ingress and egress. To expose this signal, the paper stacks hundreds to thousands of Kepler light curves: each curve is detrended with a cubic polynomial, refit with a transit model, phase-folded, rescaled by the transit duration T14, and averaged in 0.1 T14 bins over ±3 T14, bringing the out-of-transit noise down to about 1 ppm. The predicted signals come from RETrO, a ray-tracing simulation, with the atmospheric scale height H = kT/(μg) controlling the signal size and mean molecular weight μ the only free parameter; an MCMC fit over μ and a vertical zero point yields the reported 8.8 g/mol for the above-valley population.

What would settle it

Regenerate the binned above-valley light curve after excluding all photometry within ±0.1 T14 of ingress and egress, or inject a 2 ppm refraction signal into the raw light curves and pass it through the full detrending and binning pipeline; if the bump vanishes or the injected signal is not recovered, the detection is an artifact of the reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the binned Kepler light curves of planets above the period-radius valley contain a small out-of-transit brightening — roughly 2 ppm — that matches an atmospheric refraction model with mean molecular weight 8.8 (+2.3/−0.9) g/mol, while the below-valley population shows no detectable refraction. Because an optically thin H/He atmosphere (2–4 g/mol) would produce a noticeably larger brightening, the authors conclude that such envelopes are not common in the observed above-valley sample. Their preferred reading is that these atmospheres are optically thick, with clouds and hazes damping the refracted beam; they note that, at the signal level available, an optically thick low-molecular-weight atmosphere is indistinguishable from an optically thin high-molecular-weight one. The result is framed as strong observational evidence that atmospheric refraction can be detected at the population level in Kepler photometry, not merely in individual favorable systems.

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if the detrending, transit-model subtraction, outlier clipping, and binning of the Kepler light curves create or erase a few-parts-per-million bump near transit, because the injection tests validate only ~10 ppm signals, five times larger than the reported ~2 ppm detection, and the main binned light curves are not shown to survive exclusion of data within ±0.1 T14 of ingress and egress.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Refraction brightening is detectable in Kepler archival photometry when populations are stacked, making the effect a usable population-level observable rather than an individual-planet one.
  • The above-valley population's mean atmosphere is heavier than pure H/He or is cloud/haze-damped, so optically thin H/He envelopes are not the standard picture for these Kepler mini-Neptunes.
  • The below-valley population shows no refraction signal, consistent with compact, high-molecular-weight or absent atmospheres and with the photoevaporation picture of the valley.
  • Because haze scattering falls as the fourth power of wavelength, infrared follow-up should see stronger refraction signals than Kepler's optical bandpass.
  • Atmospheric escape arguments suggest only a subset of above-valley planets can even retain H2, and even that subset shows a heavily damped refraction bump relative to the H/He model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper version of the paper's own test would inject 2 ppm signals (the claimed amplitude) rather than 10 ppm signals and would exclude the ±0.1 T14 ingress/egress window in the main binned light curves; if the bump survives, the detection is on much firmer ground.
  • If the detection is real, the same stacking procedure could be applied in narrow period and radius bins to map where the refraction amplitude turns on, effectively tracing the valley's atmospheric-retention boundary in mean molecular weight.
  • The degeneracy between optically thick low-μ and optically thin high-μ atmospheres could be broken by combining the stacked refraction amplitude with transmission-spectroscopy haze measurements for the same population, or by repeating the stack in the infrared where Rayleigh scattering is weaker.
  • A testable prediction follows for future large-sample infrared surveys: the above-valley population should show a larger, clearer refraction bump, with an amplitude that depends on wavelength in a way that distinguishes haze damping from genuinely heavy atmospheres.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a population-level stacking of Kepler DR25 light curves, split by the period-radius valley, can reveal a few-ppm enhancement in out-of-transit flux caused by atmospheric refraction. It detrends and phase-folds KOI light curves, bins them in units of transit duration, compares the binned photometry with RETrO ray-tracing refraction models for fixed mean molecular weights, and then fits mean molecular weight and a vertical offset with MCMC using linear interpolation between the simulated model grid points. The central claim is that the above-valley (APR V) population shows a ~2 ppm out-of-transit bump consistent with mu ≈ 8.8 (+2.3/-0.9) g/mol, while the below-valley (BPR V) population shows no detectable refraction. The authors interpret the result as evidence against common optically thin H/He atmospheres in the APR V population and attribute the damping to clouds and hazes.

Significance. An archival Kepler detection of atmospheric refraction at the 2 ppm level would be a novel population-level probe of exoplanet atmospheres and would complement transmission spectroscopy. The paper has real strengths: it uses the public RETrO simulation suite, performs injection tests to check the pipeline, and includes a random-subsample check showing that the bump is not driven by one subset of the APR V sample. The central result, however, rests on a signal five times smaller than the smallest injected test signal, and the paper does not supply a formal significance for the bump against a flat null. These are fixable with additional analysis, so the result is not yet established but the approach is worth pursuing.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4 (Injection Tests)] The injection tests only validate recovery of a ~10 ppm peak refraction signal (Figure 3 caption), whereas the APR V detection reported in §5 is ~2 ppm. Because detrending, transit-subtraction, outlier clipping, and binning can in principle have amplitude-dependent effects, recovering a 10 ppm signal does not establish that a 2 ppm signal survives the pipeline. Please rerun the injections with peak amplitudes comparable to 2 ppm, report the recovered amplitude and scatter, and confirm that the shape is preserved.
  2. [§3.1 / §5] No significance statistic is given for the APR V out-of-transit bump relative to a straight-line (no-refraction) null. The chi-squared values quoted for the discrete 2/4/10/30 g/mol models are not compared to the null for the APR V population, and the MCMC posterior on mu does not by itself tell the reader whether the bump is significantly different from zero. Report a formal delta-chi-squared or bootstrap p-value, with the number of fitted parameters and degrees of freedom, before claiming strong observational evidence.
  3. [§2 / §4] The main light-curve analysis does not appear to apply the ±0.1 T14 exclusion around ingress/egress that is used in the injection tests to guard against 30-minute-cadence blending. Since the claimed bump peaks close to ingress/egress, transit-model residuals or blending at those phases could mimic the signal. Apply the same exclusion to the main binned APR V and BPR V light curves and show that the 2 ppm bump and the mu = 8.8 g/mol result persist.
  4. [§3.1] The vertical offset used to compare the binned photometry with the models is manually applied to match the out-of-transit baseline, while the MCMC simultaneously fits a zero-point parameter z. A manual offset is an ad hoc step that can bias the fitted mu and is not part of a statistically self-consistent model. Replace it with a single joint fit of z and mu over the same phase range, or at least demonstrate that the manual offset does not change the posterior by repeating the fit with different baseline choices.
  5. [§3.1 / Figure 6] For the BPR V population the interpretation is internally inconsistent: the text states that no detection is made, yet the reported chi-squared comparison favors the 30 g/mol model over the null by delta-chi-squared ~10, and the MCMC posterior peaks at mu ~ 212 g/mol, far outside the 2-30 g/mol grid over which the RETrO models were computed. The paper should clarify whether the BPR V data are better described by a heavy atmosphere or by the null model, and state how the interpolation behaves outside the simulated grid.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §5] The abstract and conclusion use strong observational evidence for a ~2 ppm effect whose amplitude is near the binned noise floor; this wording is stronger than the caveats in §3.1 and should be aligned with the reported significance.
  2. [§3.1] Section 3.1 reports chi-squared values of 91.5, 97.2, 92.3, and 108.1 without degrees of freedom or uncertainties; please provide reduced chi-squared values or the number of data points involved.
  3. [Figure 6 / §5] The APR V mu posterior is reported as 8.79 (+2.25/-0.94) in Figure 6 but written as 8.8 ± 2.2/0.9 in the text; please use a consistent asymmetric-error notation.
  4. [Equation (2)] The transit-duration formula in Equation (2) is quoted from Seager & Mallen-Ornelas (2002) via an arXiv e-print entry; please cite the published version of the equation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed refraction detection is a fitted amplitude comparison against external RETrO models, not a prediction derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: build binned population light curves from Kepler DR25 PDC photometry; generate RETrO refraction templates using external mean-molecular-weight values; compare templates to the binned data via chi-square and MCMC fits whose free parameters are a vertical zero-point z and the mean molecular weight mu; then interpret the fitted mu. The central number (mu ~8.8 g/mol for APR V) is a fitted parameter, and the conclusion that optically thin H/He atmospheres are not common follows from the discrepancy between the observed ~2 ppm excess and the ~10 ppm 2-4 g/mol templates. That is a model comparison, not an input recycled as an output. The code-level self-citations (Rowe 2015; Rowe 2016; Lissauer et al. 2024) provide methodology, software, or updated parameters rather than importing the result, and RETrO (Dalba 2017) is external. The injection tests are limited to ~10 ppm amplitudes and do not test the Kepler PDC module (Section 4), and the main light curves are not shown with the +/-0.1 T14 ingress/egress exclusion applied in the injection test; these are validation and robustness limitations that belong in a correctness assessment, not circularity. The manual vertical offset in Section 3.1 is another data-processing concern but does not make the fitted mu equal to the conclusion by construction. No equation in the paper defines the detection in terms of the conclusion, and no parameter fitted to the data is renamed as an independent prediction.

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

Ledger: the central quantitative claims rest on two fitted values (mu and the zero point), two hand-chosen inputs (Bond albedo, noise-exclusion threshold) and a series of modeling assumptions about planetary masses, temperatures and optically thin, haze-free atmospheres. The analysis does not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • mean molecular weight (mu) = APR V: 8.8 (+2.3/-0.9) g/mol; BPR V: 211 (+62/-88) g/mol
    Fitted via MCMC to the binned phase-folded light curves for each population (Section 3.1, Figure 6); this is the central inferred quantity and the basis for the haze/heavy-atmosphere interpretation.
  • zero point offset (z) = APR V: 0.24; BPR V: 0.03
    Free nuisance parameter in the MCMC fit (Figure 6), absorbs residual baseline levels in the binned photometry.
  • Bond albedo alpha = 0.3
    Set by hand as Earth-like (Section 3, Eq. 5); enters the equilibrium temperature and thus the atmospheric scale height and the shape and amplitude of the simulated refraction signal.
  • noise exclusion threshold = 1.5 x expected noise
    Chosen after inspecting the distribution of residual standard deviations (Section 2) to decide which KOIs to exclude; a hand-chosen cut that changes the sample.
  • RETrO mu simulation grid = 2, 4, 10, 30 g/mol
    Only four atmospheric compositions were simulated; the MCMC linearly interpolates between them (Section 3.1), effectively making the grid spacing a modeling choice that shapes the posterior for mu.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Chen & Kipping (2016) mass-radius relation is used to assign Mp from Rp.
    Section 3: 'The planetary mass was estimated from the radius using the mass-radius relationship published by Chen & Kipping (2016).' The refraction signal scale depends on Mp through g, so any bias in this relation propagates into the mu estimate.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium temperature Teq with Bond albedo 0.3 and full stellar heating sets the atmospheric temperature.
    Section 3, Eq. 5: Teq = T*(1-alpha)^(1/4) sqrt(R*/2a). The scale height used by RETrO depends linearly on Tatm; the actual temperature profile (with nightside, circulation, internal heat) is more complex.
  • domain assumption Atmospheres are well-mixed, isothermal, optically thin, and haze-free in the RETrO simulations used for interpretation.
    Section 3 and Section 6: the paper states the simulations assume optically thin atmospheres and do not include clouds/hazes. This is the premise that makes mu an unambiguous interpretation, and the paper itself notes the resulting degeneracy.
  • domain assumption The period-radius valley division (Fulton et al.) separates populations with different atmospheric retention.
    The whole sample split assumes the valley is a physical boundary in atmospheric properties; if the valley is not clean, the population contrast would blur.
  • domain assumption The ensemble average of thousands of heterogeneous planets reflects a single representative atmosphere, so a single mu can describe the binned light curve.
    The stacked light curve mixes planets with different radii, temperatures, masses and compositions. The interpretation assumes the average signal behaves like a single RETrO model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exoplanet Atmospheric Refraction Effects in the Kepler Sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFI6URJV

@misc{pith2026250702126,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exoplanet Atmospheric Refraction Effects in the Kepler Sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFI6URJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02126}
}
read the original abstract

We present an analysis on the detection viability of refraction effects in Kepler's exoplanet atmospheres using binning techniques for their light curves in order to compare against simulated refraction effects. We split the Kepler exoplanets into sub-populations according to orbital period and planetary radius, then search for out-of-transit changes in the relative flux associated with atmospheric refraction of starlight. The presence of refraction effects - or lack thereof - may be used to measure and set limits on the bulk properties of an atmosphere, including mean molecular weight or the presence of hazes. In this work, we use the presence of refraction effects to test whether exoplanets above the period-radius valley have H/He atmospheres, which high levels of stellar radiation could evaporate away, in turn leaving rocky cores below the valley. We find strong observational evidence of refraction effects for exoplanets above the period-radius valley based on Kepler photometry, however those related to optically thin H/He atmospheres are not common in the observed planetary population. This result may be attributed to signal dampening caused by clouds and hazes, consistent with the optically thick and intrinsically hotter atmospheres of Kepler exoplanets caused by relatively close host star proximity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02126 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Binned Kepler photometry (blue dots) for KOI populations above/below the period-radius valley (APRV/BPRV; top/bottom), with refraction simulations overlaid for 2, 4, 10 and 30 g/mol. The black vertical lines indicate ingress and egress, between which all in-transit data has been excised for clarity. Contrary to expectations of the APRV population possessing inflated, low molecular weight atmospheres, the 2 g/mol mod… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kepler photometry (blue dots) for the same above/below (top/bottom) period-radius valley KOI popu￾lations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Binned Kepler photometry of KOI popula￾tions above/below the period-radius valley (top/bottom) with/without (red/blue dots) injected refraction signature (solid red line). Prior to binning, a random sample of 300 light curves were injected with a simulated refraction effect—limited to a maximum flux increase of ∼10 ppm— in order to assess its significance across the out-of-transit photometry. To protect against the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Above/below (grey/black) period-radius valley KOI populations used in the binning process with coloured lines representing various atmospheric escape limits. KOIs below any given lines may viably retain atmospheres of cor￾responding compositions. Here, the cyan line co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Binned Kepler photometry (blue dots) of the KOI population which both exists above the period-radius valley and below the H2 atmospheric evaporation limit shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plots of MCMC posteriors corresponding to the KOI populations above/below the period-radius valley (APRV/BPRV; left/right), from which samples were drawn for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Binned Kepler photometry (blue dots) corresponding to three 500-KOI realizations (without replacement) from the above period-radius valley (APRV) population. From this, we see significant sensitivity to systematic noise across realizations. As refraction effects are ex…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  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 note 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.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres

    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...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    , Carron, F

    Alibert, Y. , Carron, F. , Fortier, A. , et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A109. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321690

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321690 2013

  5. [5]

    , & Demory, B.-O

    Alp, D. , & Demory, B.-O. 2018, A&A, 609, A90. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731484 2018

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L14

    Benneke, B., Wong, I., Piaulet, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab59dc

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Borucki , W. J. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 036901

    2016

  3. [11]

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

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  4. [12]

    Bétrémieux, Y., & Swain, M. R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2834. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx257

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Zahnle , K

    Catling , D. C., & Zahnle , K. J. 2009, Scientific American, 300, 36

    2009

  6. [14]

    M., Kreidberg, L., et al

    Charnay, B., Mendon c a, J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 417. https://doi.org/10.1007

    2021

  7. [15]

    Chatterjee, S., & Tan, J. C. 2013, 780, 53. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/53

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 17

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 3444

    Chiang, E., & Laughlin, G. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 3444. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt424

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Clarke, B

    Christiansen, J. L., Clarke, B. D., Burke, C. J., et al. 2015, 810, 95. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/95

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Coleman, G. A. L., & Nelson, R. P. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 479. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1715

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Dalba, P. A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e47

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, Science, 342, 1473–1477

    de Wit, J., & Seager, S. 2013, Science, 342, 1473–1477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1245450

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, 807, 45. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/45

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Hinsen , K., & Hugunin , J

    Dubois , P. F., Hinsen , K., & Hugunin , J. 1996, Computers in Physics, 10, 262

    1996

  16. [24]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

    Foreman-Mackey , D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

    2016

  17. [25]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2013, 766, 81

    Fressin, F., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2013, 766, 81. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/766/2/81

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 109. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Hansen, B. M. S., & Murray, N. 2012, 751, 158. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/158

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  22. [30]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 323

    Helled, R., Werner, S., Dorn, C., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 323. https://doi.org/10.1007

    2021

  23. [31]

    W., Marcy, G

    Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2012, 201, 15. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    2002, , 572, 540

    Hui , L., & Seager , S. 2002, , 572, 540

    2002

  25. [33]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  26. [34]

    M., He, C., Lewis, N

    Hörst, S. M., He, C., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 303–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0397-0

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, 604, 388. https://doi.org/10.1086/381724

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Fegley Jr., B., Schaefer, L., & Ford, E

    Kite, E. S., Fegley Jr., B., Schaefer, L., & Ford, E. B. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 111. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab6ffb

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    G., Borucki , W

    Koch , D. G., Borucki , W. J., Basri , G., et al. 2010, , 713, L79

    2010

  30. [38]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 481, L83–L86

    Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., & Sing, D. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 481, L83–L86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200809388

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2016, 817, 90. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/90

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Chiang, E., & Ormel, C

    Lee, E. J., Chiang, E., & Ormel, C. W. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/95

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Rowe, J

    Lissauer, J. J., Rowe, J. F., Jontof-Hutter, D., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 152. https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad0e6e

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., Fortney, J. J., & Miller, N. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/59

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    D., & Rice, K

    Lopez, E. D., & Rice, K. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5303–5311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1707

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171–L175

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171–L175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/345520

    2002 doi

  37. [45]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney , W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman , 56 -- 61

    2010

  38. [46]

    K., & Meadows, V

    Misra, A. K., & Meadows, V. S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, L14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L14

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    , Alibert, Y

    Mordasini, C. , Alibert, Y. , & Benz, W. 2009, A&A, 501, 1139. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    , Alibert, Y

    Mordasini, C. , Alibert, Y. , Georgy, C. , et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A112. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118464

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    D., & Swift, J

    Morton, T. D., & Swift, J. 2014, 791, 10. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/791/1/10

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, NASA Exoplanet Archive: A Service of NASA Exoplanet Science Institute , ,

    NASA. 2022, NASA Exoplanet Archive: A Service of NASA Exoplanet Science Institute , , . https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/

    2022

  43. [51]

    Oliphant , T. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 10

    2007

  44. [52]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Marcy, G

    Petigura, E. A., Marcy, G. W., & Howard, A. W. 2013, 770, 69. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/69

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    Piette, A. A. A., & Madhusudhan, N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 154. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abbfb1

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    N., & Cossou, C

    Raymond, S. N., & Cossou, C. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 440, L11. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slu011

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632

    Rigby , J., Perrin , M., McElwain , M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2016, Kepler: Kepler Transit Model Codebase Release

    Rowe , J. 2016, Kepler: Kepler Transit Model Codebase Release. , Zenodo, v1.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.60297

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    F., Coughlin, J

    Rowe, J. F., Coughlin, J. L., Antoci, V., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 217, 16. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/16

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    Seager , S., & Mallen-Ornelas , G. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2002

  52. [60]

    B., & Deming, D

    Sheets, H., Jacob, L., Cowan, N. B., & Deming, D. 2018, A Search for Refraction in Kepler Photometry of Gas Giants, , , arXiv:1809.01189

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A., & Deming, D

    Sheets, H. A., & Deming, D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 133. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/133

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 160

    ---. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 160. https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa88b9

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 904

    Sidis, O., & Sari, R. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 904. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/904

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

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

    The Pandas Development Team . 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , vlatest, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    E., Coughlin, J

    Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., Hoffman, K., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    E., Coughlin , J

    Thompson , S. E., Coughlin , J. L., Hoffman , K., et al. 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Kepler planetary cand. VIII. DR25 reliability (Thompson+, 2018) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/235/38. Originally published in: 2018ApJS..235...38T, , , doi:10.26093/cds/vizier.22350038

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, Ariel: Enabling planetary science across light-years, arXiv, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2104.04824

    Tinetti, G., Eccleston, P., Haswell, C., et al. 2021, Ariel: Enabling planetary science across light-years, arXiv, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2104.04824. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.04824

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Chandrasekaran , H., Jenkins , J

    Twicken , J. D., Chandrasekaran , H., Jenkins , J. M., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7740, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy, ed. N. M. Radziwill & A. Bridger , 77401U

    2010

  61. [69]

    1995 a , Extending and embedding the Python interpreter , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica

    Van Rossum , G. 1995 a , Extending and embedding the Python interpreter , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/5006

    1995

  62. [70]

    1995 b , Python tutorial , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica

    ---. 1995 b , Python tutorial , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/5007

    1995

  63. [71]

    1995 c , Python reference manual , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica

    ---. 1995 c , Python reference manual , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/5008

    1995

  64. [72]

    1995 d , Python library reference , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica

    ---. 1995 d , Python library reference , Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/5009

    1995

  65. [73]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  66. [74]

    Youdin, A. N. 2011, 742, 38. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/38

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 822–831

    Yu, X., He, C., Zhang, X., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 822–831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01375-3

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 122. https://doi.org/10.3847\

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.