Design Considerations for a Ground-Based Search for Transiting Planets around L and T Dwarfs

Patrick Tamburo; Philip S. Muirhead

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Design Considerations for a Ground-Based Search for Transiting Planets around L and T Dwarfs

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2-meter-class telescope with an H-band detector, dithering among 5-7 L and T dwarfs per night for 360-480 nights, has an over-80% chance of detecting at least one transiting Earth-sized planet.

desk verdict Useful design study with a sound qualitative recommendation, but the headline yields ignore systematics the authors themselves measure, so treat the 80% success rate as an idealized upper limit. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03593 v2 pith:HCCB5QY2 submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.EP

Patrick Tamburo , Philip S. Muirhead This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords surveysstars:browndwarfsplanetsandsatellites:detectionLTtransitsurveynear-infraredphotometryditheringstrategy

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

L and T dwarfs, objects straddling the boundary between the lowest-mass stars, brown dwarfs, and planetary-mass bodies, have never been thoroughly searched for transiting planets. This paper argues that a dedicated ground-based survey can be the first to do so: it simulates photometry and full observing campaigns, and finds that a 2-meter-class telescope with an H-band near-infrared detector, dithering between several targets each night for 360-480 nights, has an over-80% chance of detecting at least one Earth-sized planet, with about two detections on average. The numbers matter because L/T dwarfs are only about Jupiter-sized, so an Earth-radius transit is a roughly 1% dip, deep enough for a modest ground-based telescope to catch. The paper also shows why red-optical detectors are the wrong tool and why H-band is the right window. If the survey design is right, the first transiting planets around brown-dwarf-mass objects, prime targets for atmospheric characterization, are within reach of a single ground-based telescope.

What carries the argument

Two linked pieces carry the argument. The first is the CCD-equation photometric model: signal-to-noise is target signal divided by the quadrature sum of Poisson noise from the target, sky, dark current, and read noise, applied to six detector concepts (red-optical z-prime, and high- and low-dark-current NIR J/H/Ks bands) with real reference-star fields around 132 L/T dwarfs. It shows that a low-dark-current H-band detector gives the lowest one-hour scatter because L/T dwarfs are brightest there, reaching a median 7.1-sigma minimum detectable radius of roughly 0.57 Earth radii on a 2-m telescope. The second is a Monte Carlo survey simulator: 998 observable L/T targets, synthetic planetary systems drawn from Kepler M dwarf occurrence rates, host masses and radii from evolutionary models, transit shapes injected with the BATMAN code, photometry binned into blocks set by the dithering cadence, and a planet counted as detected when a binned point falls 7.1 sigma below the baseline. The 7.1-sigma threshold is chosen, as in large-scale transit surveys, to make non-astrophysical false positives essentially impossible, but it also means the design relies on detecting a single deep block rather than a full multi-transit lightcurve.

What would settle it

Observe a sample of roughly 30-50 L/T dwarfs with a 2-meter-class telescope in H band using the recommended five-night dithering cadence, and measure the distribution of binned lightcurve scatter and the frequency of greater-than-1% excursions; if a substantial tail appears from flat-field placement or intrinsic variability, the assumed 7.1-sigma sensitivity to 1% transits fails and the predicted over-80% survey success rate is not attainable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the first thorough transit search of L and T dwarfs can be carried out from the ground with a single modest telescope, and specifies the design that maximizes yield. On the basis of simulated photometry for real L/T targets and Monte Carlo surveys of synthetic planetary systems, it recommends a 2-meter-class telescope with a low-dark-current near-infrared camera observing in H band, 360-480 observing nights (about 120 per year with 30% lost to weather), five to seven targets per night with a dithering cadence of 5-10 minutes per target, and five nights per target group. Under the assumption that L/T dwarfs host planets at the Kepler-measured M dwarf rate, this design has over an 80% chance of detecting at least one planet and yields about two detections on average; a specific four-year, 2-m, six-targets-per-night configuration has a fitted Poisson mean of 1.88 detections. The paper argues these would typically be 1-2 Earth-radius planets on roughly 4-day orbits receiving about a third of Earth's insolation, making them attractive targets for atmospheric follow-up. It also stresses that the yield is conservative, since occurrence rates appear to rise toward later spectral types.

Load-bearing premise

The survey-success numbers assume the photometry is limited by uncorrelated Gaussian noise from the CCD equation, with no component from L/T dwarf variability or imperfect dithering flat-fielding, even though the paper's own Section 4 shows those systematics can be as large as an Earth-sized transit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 1-m telescope is insufficient for most of the sample, while a 4-m telescope adds only marginal success over a 2-m, so the efficient niche is a 2-meter-class facility.
A survey longer than about four years yields diminishing returns because the brightest observable targets have already been scheduled for five nights, so the fifth year adds little.
Dithering between five and seven targets per night outperforms staring at one target, and 5-10 minutes per visit beats both shorter and longer cadences because it balances time baseline against phase coverage.
Typical detections will be sub-2-Earth-radius planets on short periods, receiving roughly a third of Earth's insolation, making them potentially habitable-zone objects suitable for atmospheric follow-up.
If occurrence rates rise toward later spectral types, as the paper argues, the expected number of detections roughly doubles.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the simulations treat noise as uncorrelated Gaussian scatter, the stated 80% success rate is likely an upper bound; the paper's own dithering test shows flat-field placement jumps of over 3% when uncontrolled, and L/T variability affects 3-24% of targets at the 2% level, both comparable to a 1% Earth transit.
The block-based detection method means most candidates will be single-transit events with unknown periods; the paper notes that period estimation from a single transit in non-continuous photometry is unproven, so the realistic near-term product may be a candidate list requiring follow-up rather than confirmed planets.
If the occurrence-rate trend toward later spectral types holds, the same design could yield three to four planets rather than two, making a dedicated 2-m NIR survey competitive with space-based transit searches for the lowest-mass hosts.
The detector comparison suggests that adding an H-band camera to existing red-optical ultracool-dwarf surveys is the most direct way to extend them into the L/T regime, since z-prime photometry is insensitive to sub-Earth planets for half the sample.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is the first paper I know of that actually simulates detector choice and survey yield for transiting planets around L/T dwarfs, and the qualitative recommendation is sound. Second thing: the quantitative success rates in the abstract are optimistic, because the Monte Carlo treats noise as Gaussian while Section 4 documents two systematics at exactly the level of an Earth-sized transit.

What is new and good: the detector comparison uses a real sample of L/T dwarfs and nearby reference stars, and it makes a clear case for H-band with a low-dark-current NIR detector on a 2-m class telescope. The survey simulation is transparent: it propagates Kepler M dwarf occurrence rates from Dressing & Charbonneau through a forward model of geometry, weather, and dithering cadence, and it optimizes over telescope size, survey duration, targets per night, and time per target. The Mimir dithering test in Section 4.1 is real data, not a cartoon: 3% jumps if target placement is ignored, 0.2% with careful placement. The authors also flag that occurrence rates may be higher around L/T dwarfs than M dwarfs. No circularity here; the yield is a straightforward propagation of an assumed input.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The headline numbers—over 80% chance of at least one planet, about 2 planets on average—come from Section 3.1, where photometric noise is only the CCD equation. Section 4 then tells you that flat-field stability is 0.2% with careful placement, and that a large fraction of L dwarfs show intrinsic variability above 0.2%. The stress-test arithmetic is persuasive: for a median target, block noise is about 0.21%, and adding 0.2% flat-field and 0.2% variability in quadrature brings it to roughly 0.35%. A typical detected 1.5 R_Earth planet then drops from about 11 sigma to 6.6 sigma, below the 7.1 threshold. So a substantial fraction of the simulated detections would not survive real systematics. The paper acknowledges these limitations qualitatively, but it does not propagate them into the simulation that produces the abstract numbers.

Also, "detection" here means one binned point crossing 7.1 sigma, not a confirmed planet. The authors are honest about follow-up being needed, but the abstract's "detect around 2 planets" reads as confirmed planets when it really means candidate transits.

None of this kills the qualitative guidance. H-band, 2-m, dithering with careful placement, and 3-4 years are probably the right design choices. But the simulation should have included the systematics, or the abstract should have labeled the yields as idealized.

I would send this to peer review. It deserves serious referee time, and any group planning such a survey should read it. The parts to trust are the detector comparison, the median detection radii, and the cadence optimization. The parts to quote with caution are the 80% success rate and the expected number of planets.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a design study for a ground-based transit survey targeting L and T dwarfs. It first simulates photometric precision in several optical and near-infrared bandpasses using the CCD equation, and concludes that a low-dark-current H-band NIR detector on a 2-meter-class telescope provides the best sensitivity to Earth-sized transits. It then builds a forward Monte Carlo survey around a catalog of 998 spectroscopically confirmed L/T dwarfs, injecting planets according to Kepler M dwarf occurrence rates, simulating weather losses, and testing different dithering strategies, survey durations, and telescope sizes. The central quantitative claims are that an optimal survey uses a 2-m telescope, 360-480 observing nights, and 5-7 targets per night with 5-10 minute dithering, yielding over an 80% chance of detecting at least one planet and roughly 2 planets on average. Section 4 then discusses practical limitations including dithering flat-field instability, L/T dwarf photometric variability, single-transit follow-up, and false positives.

Significance. If the quantitative yields were robust, this would be a genuinely useful design study: a single modest ground-based telescope could conduct the first thorough transit search of L/T dwarfs and likely find several Earth-sized candidates, with important implications for exoplanet demographics and JWST follow-up. The paper's strengths are the explicit comparison of detector architectures, the realistic target sample, the transparent forward-modeling framework, and an unusually honest Section 4 that measures and reports the principal systematics. The recommended instrument and telescope combination is sensible and likely robust. However, the headline success rates and expected yields are computed from a noise model that excludes the systematics quantified later in the paper, so the abstract's 'over 80%' and 'around 2 planets' should be read as idealized upper limits rather than expected survey outcomes.

major comments (2)

[§3.1, §3.2, §4.1, §4.2] The survey simulation models photometric noise only as uncorrelated Gaussian scatter from the CCD equation, and defines a detection as a single 7.1 sigma binned point. This is the load-bearing assumption for the abstract's claim of over 80% success and about 2 planets. The systematics the authors themselves quantify in Section 4 act at exactly this scale. For a median mH about 15 target on a 2-m telescope, the 3-minute block noise is about 0.21% when the 1-hour, 7.1 sigma minimum radius of 0.57 R_Earth from Figure 2 is scaled to the six-exposure blocks used in Section 3.2. Section 4.1 reports 0.2% RMS flat-field stability even with careful target placement, and Section 4.2 quotes greater than 0.2% variability for 80% of L3-L9.5 dwarfs (Metchev et al. 2015). Adding two such 0.2% terms in quadrature raises the block noise to about 0.35%; the median detected planet radius is 1.51 R_Earth (Figure 8d), corresponding to a transit depth of about 2.3% around a 0.88 R_Jup host, so the typical detection SNR falls from about 11 to 6.6, below the 7.1 sigma threshold. A large fraction of the detections that drive the claimed success rates would be lost. The qualitative caveat in Section 2.4 and the discussion in Section 4 do not replace propagating these systematics through the Monte Carlo.
[§3.1, §3.2, §4.3] The detection criterion is a single binned point that crosses 7.1 sigma below the baseline; the simulation does not require the candidate signal to appear in multiple blocks, on multiple nights, or with the periodicity expected of a transit. Section 4.3 correctly states that most planets would produce only a single transit during the five-night observing windows, and Section 4.2 notes that non-periodic variability can mimic transits in non-continuous photometry. Since the success rates in Figures 6 and 7 are built on this single-block criterion, the yields are optimistic even apart from the systematics issue raised above. The assertion that 7.1 sigma 'virtually guarantees zero non-astrophysical false positives' holds only under the Gaussian-noise assumption, which is not the regime the paper itself documents.

minor comments (5)

[§4.1] The text describes an observing run in May 2018 but dates the Mimir observation of 2MASS 1337 as UT 25 May 2016; please reconcile this discrepancy.
[§1.1] The reference 'Udalksi et al. (2015)' is a typo for 'Udalski et al. (2015).'
[§2.4] The caveat that the analysis neglects systematic noise would be more useful if accompanied by a quantitative estimate of how much the minimum detection radii increase under the systematics listed in Section 4.
[Figure 8] Please check the panel-by-panel caption descriptions against the figure panels; as printed, the ordering of the labels in the text and the figure is confusing.
[Abstract] The meaning of '360-480 observing nights' is clear only after reading Section 3; consider stating this as '3-4 years at about 120 usable nights per year' in the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey-yield prediction is a forward Monte Carlo calculation from external occurrence rates, detector noise, and geometry, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central yield claim (over 80% chance of at least one planet, ~2 planets on average for a 2-m-class survey) is obtained by an explicit forward simulation: planets are drawn from the external Kepler M-dwarf occurrence rates of Dressing & Charbonneau (2015), orbital geometries are assigned randomly, transit events are injected into photometry whose scatter comes from the CCD equation, and detections are counted when binned points cross a stated 7.1-sigma threshold. No parameter is fitted to the final success rate, and no output quantity is defined in terms of the inputs in a way that makes the result true by construction. The occurrence-rate assumption is explicitly flagged as an assumption, and the paper tests sensitivity to it by doubling the rates, showing that the yield scales roughly linearly. The self-citation to Hardegree-Ullman et al. (2019) appears only in that sensitivity discussion and is not load-bearing for the main derivation; the central calculation rests on the independent Dressing & Charbonneau rates. Section 4 identifies unmodeled systematics such as dithering flat-field instability and L/T variability, and the paper acknowledges these as limitations; omitting them affects the realism and robustness of the predicted yields, but that is a correctness or modeling-risk concern, not circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its stated inputs and does not reduce to its own conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The predicted yield of about two planets with over 80% success is the output of a forward model whose inputs are assumed occurrence rates, idealized Gaussian noise, and a loose single-point detection threshold. No new physical entity is posited; the main uncertainty is whether the assumed inputs match reality, especially the occurrence rate and the unmodeled systematics.

free parameters (5)

7.1 sigma detection threshold = 7.1
Chosen to match Kepler and TESS and to make false positives negligible under Gaussian noise; it sets the sensitivity of every simulated detection and is not derived in this paper.
Weather loss fraction = 30%
Randomly discards 30% of nights to simulate weather, based on a typical continental observatory; expected yields scale directly with usable nights.
Dithering overhead = 2 minutes
Assumed slewing and acquisition overhead per target switch; cadence values of 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 minutes are explored, but the 20-minute cadence becomes inefficient because transits occur between visits.
Nights per target group = 5 nights
Seven nights maximized yield in the simulation, but the authors elected five nights to fit two groups per 10-night run; the paper states this choice reduces predicted yield only slightly.
Mutual inclination scatter = 0.3 degrees
Assumed for multi-planet systems, taken from the TRAPPIST-1 90% upper limit; it affects the geometric transit probability in simulated multi-planet systems.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Kepler M dwarf occurrence rates from Dressing & Charbonneau (2015) apply to L and T dwarfs.
Used in Section 3.1 to draw planet populations for each simulated LT target; the authors flag this as likely conservative because occurrence increases toward later M subtypes, but it is unverified for LTs.
domain assumption Host radii and masses follow Baraffe et al. (2015) evolutionary models via the Faherty et al. (2016) Teff-spectral-type relation and a uniform age draw between 0.0005 and 10 Gyr.
Section 3.1 adopts these models to assign each target a mass and radius; transit depth and geometric transit probability depend on these quantities.
domain assumption Photometric noise is uncorrelated and Gaussian as described by the CCD equation.
Sections 2.3 and 3.1 assume this for scatter, detection thresholds, and false-positive estimates; Sections 4.1 and 4.2 document real correlated systematics that are not injected into the simulations.
standard math Standard Gaussian error propagation and Poisson statistics for source, sky, dark current, and read noise.
Used in Equation (1) and for the 1-in-1.6e12 outlier frequency estimate; accepted background in the field.
ad hoc to paper A single 7.1 sigma binned point identifies a planet detection.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 define a detection as one binned point crossing 7.1 sigma; Section 4.3 later concedes most candidates are single-transit events requiring follow-up, so this is an alert criterion rather than a confirmed planet.
domain assumption All simulated planets have zero orbital eccentricity.
Section 3.1 assumes circular orbits when converting periods to separations and computing transit geometry; eccentric orbits would change transit durations and probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design Considerations for a Ground-Based Search for Transiting Planets around L and T Dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HCCB5QY2

@misc{pith2026190803593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design Considerations for a Ground-Based Search for Transiting Planets around L and T Dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HCCB5QY2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03593}
}

abstract

We present design considerations for a ground-based survey for transiting exoplanets around L and T dwarfs, spectral classes that have yet to be thoroughly probed for planets. We simulate photometry for L and T targets with a variety of red-optical and near-infrared detectors, and compare the scatter in the photometry to anticipated transit depths. Based on these results, we recommend the use of a low-dark-current detector with H-band NIR photometric capabilities. We then investigate the potential for performing a survey for Earth-sized planets for a variety of telescope sizes. We simulate planetary systems around a set of spectroscopically confirmed L and T dwarfs using measured M dwarf planet occurrence rates from $\textit{Kepler}$, and simulate their observation in surveys ranging in duration from 120 to 600 nights, randomly discarding 30% of nights to simulate weather losses. We find that an efficient survey design uses a 2-meter-class telescope with a NIR instrument and 360-480 observing nights, observing multiple L and T targets each night with a dithering strategy. Surveys conducted in such a manner have over an 80% chance of detecting at least one planet, and detect around 2 planets, on average. The number of expected detections depends on the true planet occurrence rate, however, which may in fact be higher for L and T dwarfs than for M dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03593 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Top: The photometric error on the timescale of one hour vs. the magnitude of each target in H -band for the six different simulated detectors. These results are based on a 2-m telescope using a 30-second exposure time, and every detector is assumed to have a 50% net throughput. The plot is also labeled with the minimum planetary radius that could be detected at 7.1σ in each lightcurve, assuming transits in front of … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Standard deviation of simulated lightcurves on the timescale of 1-hour versus target magnitude in H -band for different sized telescopes. Photometry was simulated using the low-dark-current H -band detector described in Sec. 2.1. As the 7.1σ detection radii indicate, telescopes smaller than 1-meter are insensitive to the detection of Earth-sized planets for a majority of LT targets. tector setup found in the previo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Locations on the sky for the 998 LT targets within the declination limits of the Perkins Telescope. The galactic plane, which inhibits the discovery of faint LTs, is shown in red. lected targets for observation out of groups which transited the meridian within two hours of local midnight. The brightest observable targets were prioritized in the scheduling. If no new targets were available for scheduling, we schedu… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top: Histogram of the H -band magnitudes for the 998 targets in our sample. The median magnitude is 15.1. Bottom: Histogram of the spectral types of targets in the sample. determine which planets would transit from our line-ofsight. Doing this, we found that 0.8+0.3 −…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A simulated lightcurve for a target with two detected transiting planets. The target had a measured H - band apparent magnitude of 14.9, a simulated radius of 0.86 RJup, and a simulated mass of 46.1 MJup. Top: The full fivenight lightcurve for the object, with one nig…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Success rates (defined as the fraction of surveys in which at least one planet was detected at greater than 7.1σ) for a variety of different survey configurations. Telescope diameter increases to the right, and survey duration increases to the bottom. In each panel, we…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Poisson mean of number of detected planets for the same survey configurations shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Normalized distributions of detected planet parameters for 2000 simulations of a four-year survey using a 2-m telescope, observing six targets per night, and spending five minutes per target before slewing. In panel a, we report the median value of a Poisson fit to the…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Left: One night of Mimir photometry of 2MASS 1337, a mJ = 13.8 L0 dwarf, obtained in late May 2018 with the 1.8-m Perkins Telescope. We switched between this object and one other (leading to gaps in the data), in order to test searching multiple targets for planets in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[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]

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 ""...
[3]

+3*EL8 '*x WG?wW/5 s xy / _v5z))4F |lњj >3 2>wfʠ]B* o z◁x-___5_z^ 5/ ^ ݺ, /] ]<Gݻܜ ' 7_ώ ޺v( /=zF;kOg\ˁ Wtj1Aiֈц;uWs ]7P baE;M T*ueѭ:k]ڇ 5ҥ 8Ě<

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

2017
[4]

D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

2015
[6]

E., Lewis, N

Batalha, N. E., Lewis, N. K., Line, M. R. et al., 2018, ApJL, 856, L34

2018
[7]

Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., & Lamm, M.\ 2003, MNRAS, 339, 477

2003
[8]

& Johnson, J

Ballard, S. & Johnson, J. A. 2016, ApJ, 816, 66

2016
[9]

2015, A&A, 577, A42

Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

2015

Show all 107 references

[10]

C., Burgasser, A

Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Burgasser, A. J., Schmidt, S. J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04166

2019 arXiv
[11]

& Heller, R

Barnes, R. & Heller, R. 2013, AsBio, 13, 279

2013
[12]

R., Selsis, F., Morales, J.-C

Belu, A. R., Selsis, F., Morales, J.-C. et al., 2011, A&A, 525, A83

2011
[13]

R., Selsis, F., Raymond, S

Belu, A. R., Selsis, F., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 125

2013
[14]

K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al.\ 2012, AJ, 144, 145

Berta, Z. K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al.\ 2012, AJ, 144, 145

2012
[15]

K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D

Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D. et al., 2015, Nature, 527, 204

2015
[16]

N., & Leconte, J

Bolmont, E., Raymond, S. N., & Leconte, J. 2011, A&A, 535, A94

2011
[17]

H., Bloom, J

Blake, C. H., Bloom, J. S., Latham, D. W., et al.\ 2008, PASP, 120, 860

2008
[18]

Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Owen, J. E. et al., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3728

2017
[19]

J., Koch, D., Basri, G

Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G. et al., 2010, Science, 327, 5968

2010
[20]

et al., 2017, SPECULOOS Exoplanet Search and Its Prototype on TRAPPIST, p.130, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 \_ 130-1

Burdanov, A., Delrez, L, Gillon, M. et al., 2017, SPECULOOS Exoplanet Search and Its Prototype on TRAPPIST, p.130, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 \_ 130-1

2017 doi
[21]

J.\ 2001, Ph.D

Burgasser, A. J.\ 2001, Ph.D. Thesis

2001
[22]

J., Geballe, T

Burgasser, A. J., Geballe, T. R., Leggett, S. K. et al., 2006, ApJ, 637, 1067

2006
[23]

J., Blake, C

Burgasser, A. J., Blake, C. H., Gelino, C. R., et al.\ 2016, ApJ, 827, 25

2016
[24]

Hubbard, W

Burrows, A., Marley, M. Hubbard, W. B. et al., 1997, ApJ, 491, 856

1997
[25]

2011, ApJ, 736, 47

Burrows, A., Heng, K., & Nampaisarn, T. 2011, ApJ, 736, 47

2011
[26]

M., Latham, D

Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., & Mayor, M. 2000, ApJL, 529, L45

2000
[27]

M., Noyes R

Charbonneau, D., Brown T. M., Noyes R. W., & Gilliland R. L. 2002, ApJ, 568, 377

2002
[28]

K., Burke, C

Charbonneau, D., Berta, Z. K., Burke, C. J. et al., 2009, Nature, 462, 891

2009
[29]

Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., et al.\ 2004, A&A, 425, L29

2004
[30]

Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., et al.\ 2005, A&A, 438, L25

2005
[31]

Chiu, K., Fan, X>, Leggett, S. K. et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 2722

2006
[32]

Clemens, D. P. Pinnick, A. F., Pavel, M. D., & Taylor, B. W. 2012, ApJS, 200, 19

2012
[33]

Claret, A., & Bloemen, S.\ 2011, A&A, 529, A75

2011
[34]

P., Sarcia, D., Grabau, A

Clemens, D. P., Sarcia, D., Grabau, A. et al., 2007, PASP, 119, 862

2007
[35]

A., & Megeath, S

Cohen, M., Wheaton, W. A., & Megeath, S. T.\ 2003, AJ, 126, 1090

2003
[36]

et al., 2015, ApJ, 802, 28

Croll, B., Albert, L., Jayawardhana, R. et al., 2015, ApJ, 802, 28

2015
[37]

M., Skrutskie, M

Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al.\ 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

2003
[38]

et al., 2018, Proc

Delrez, L., Gillon, M., Queloz, D. et al., 2018, Proc. SPIE 10700, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VII, 107001I

2018
[39]

A., Irwin, J

Dittmann, J. A., Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D. et al., 2017, Nature, 544, 333

2017
[40]

J., Rom\' a n-Z\' u \ n iga, C., Ballesteros-Paredes, J

Downes, J. J., Rom\' a n-Z\' u \ n iga, C., Ballesteros-Paredes, J. et al., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3490

2015
[41]

Dressing, C. D. & Charbonneau, D. 2013, ApJ, 767, 95

2013
[42]

Dressing, C. D. & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45

2015
[43]

Dupuy, T. J. & Liu, M. C. 2012, ApJS, 201, 19

2012
[44]

J., Liu, M

Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Ireland, M. J.\ 2014, ApJ, 790, 133

2014
[45]

J., Liu, M

Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., Allers, K. N. et al., 2018, AJ, 156, 2

2018
[46]

et al., 1997, The Messenger, 87, 27

Epchtein, N., de Batz, B., Capoani, L. et al., 1997, The Messenger, 87, 27

1997
[47]

R., Saumaon, D., Leggett, S

Geballe, T. R., Saumaon, D., Leggett, S. K. et al., 2001, ApJ, 556, 373

2001
[48]

R., Knapp, G

Geballe, T. R., Knapp, G. R., Leggett, S. K. et al., 2002, 564, 466

2002
[49]

K., Riedel, A

Faherty, J. K., Riedel, A. R., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 10

2016
[50]

Fontanive, C., Biller, B., Bonavita, M., et al.\ 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2702

2018
[51]

J., Ninkov, Z., & Garnett, J

Forrest, W. J., Ninkov, Z., & Garnett, J. D. 1989, Proceedings of the Third Infrared Detector Technology Workshop, ed. C. R. McCreight (NASA Technical Memorandum No. 102209), 157

1989
[52]

E., et al.\ 1996, AJ, 111, 1748

Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al.\ 1996, AJ, 111, 1748

1996
[53]

2014, List of All UltraCool Dwarfs, https://jgagneastro.wordpress.com/list-of-ultracool-dwarfs/

Gagne, J. 2014, List of All UltraCool Dwarfs, https://jgagneastro.wordpress.com/list-of-ultracool-dwarfs/

2014
[54]

et al., 2013, EPJ Web Conf

Gillon, M., Jehin, E., Fumel, A. et al., 2013, EPJ Web Conf. 47, 03001 (2013)

2013
[55]

Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Jehin, E., et al.\ 2013, A&A, 555, L5

2013
[56]

M., et al.\ 2016, Nature, 533, 221

Gillon, M., Jehin, E., Lederer, S. M., et al.\ 2016, Nature, 533, 221

2016
[57]

H., Demory, B.-O

Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H., Demory, B.-O. et al., 2017, Nature, 542, 456

2017
[58]

P., Udalski, A., & Jung, Y

Han, C, Bennett, D. P., Udalski, A., & Jung, Y. K. 2016, ApJ, 825, 1

2016
[59]

K., Cushing, M

Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Cushing, M. C., Muirhead, P. S., et al.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.05900

2019 arXiv
[60]

K., Hallinan, G., Milburn, J

Harding, L. K., Hallinan, G., Milburn, J. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3

2016
[61]

Y., Triaud, A

He, M. Y., Triaud, A. H. M. J., & Gillon, M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2687

2017
[62]

L., Hall, D

Hodapp, K.-W., Hora, J. L., Hall, D. N. B. et al., 1996, New Astronomy, 1, 177

1996
[63]

& Lin, D

Ida, S. & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 603, 388

2004
[64]

& Falco, E

Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Nutzman, P. & Falco, E. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 253, Transiting Planets, ed. F. Pont, D. Sasselov, & M. J. Holman, 37-43

2009
[65]

K., Burke, C

Irwin, J., Berta, Z. K., Burke, C. J., et al.\ 2011, ApJ, 727, 56

2011
[66]

Jackman, J. A. G., Wheatley, P. J., Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L136

2019
[67]

M., Caldwell, D

Jenkins, J. M., Caldwell, D. A., & Borucki, W. J.\ 2002, ApJ, 564, 495

2002
[68]

K., Udalski, A., Gould, A

Jung, Y. K., Udalski, A., Gould, A. et al., 2018, AJ, 155, 5

2018
[69]

D., Henry, T

Kirkpatrick, J. D., Henry, T. J., & Irwin, M. J. 1997, AJ, 113, 4

1997
[70]

D., Reid, I

Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J. et al., 1999, ApJ, 519, 802

1999
[71]

2015, PASP, 127, 1161

Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161

2015
[72]

Kumar, S. S. 1963, ApJ, 137, 1121

1963
[73]

Luger, R., Lustig-Yaeger, J., & Agol, E.\ 2017, ApJ, 851, 94

2017
[74]

Luhman, K. L. & Mamajek, E. E. 2012, ApJ, 758, 1

2012
[75]

Mace, G. N. 2014, PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles

2014
[76]

W., Terrien, R

Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., Terrien, R. et al., 2014, Proc. SPIE, 9147, 91471G

2014
[77]

E.\ 2005, ApJ, 634, 1385

Mamajek, E. E.\ 2005, ApJ, 634, 1385

2005
[78]

A., Astudillo-Defru, N., et al.\ 2019, AJ, 157, 32

Ment, K., Dittmann, J. A., Astudillo-Defru, N., et al.\ 2019, AJ, 157, 32

2019
[79]

A., Heinze, A., Apai, D

Metchev, S. A., Heinze, A., Apai, D. et al., 2015, ApJ, 799, 154

2015
[80]

V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z

Morley, C. V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z. et al., 2017, ApJ, 850, 121

2017
[81]

S., Johnson, J

Muirhead, P. S., Johnson, J. A., Apps, K. et al., 2012, ApJ, 747, 144

2012
[82]

D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D.\ 2015, ApJ, 814, 130

Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D.\ 2015, ApJ, 814, 130

2015
[83]

& Charbonneau, D

Nutzman, P. & Charbonneau, D. 2008, PASP, 120, 317

2008
[84]

T., Charbonneau, D., Alonso, R., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, 662, 658

O'Donovan, F. T., Charbonneau, D., Alonso, R., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, 662, 658

2007
[85]

P., Armstrong, D

Osborn, H. P., Armstrong, D. J., Brown, D. J. A. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2273

2016
[86]

Payne, M. J. & Lodato, G. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1597

2007
[87]

L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A

Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A. et al., 2006, PASP, 118, 848

2006
[88]

et al., 2004, Proc

Puget, P., Stadler, E., Doyon, R. et al., 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5492, 978

2004
[89]

& Artigau, \' E

Radigan, J., Jayawardhana, R., Lafreni\` e re, D. & Artigau, \' E . 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 488, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull, M. K. Browning, & A. A. West, 187

2011
[90]

et al., 2014, ApJ, 750, 105

Radigan, J., Jayawardhana, R., Lafreniere, D. et al., 2014, ApJ, 750, 105

2014
[91]

2014, ApJ, 797, 2

Radigan, J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 2

2014
[92]

R., Winn, J

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

2015
[93]

C., Mann, A

Rizzuto, A. C., Mann, A. W., Vanderburg, A. et al., 2017, AJ, 154, 6

2017
[94]

Ross, M. N. & Schubert, G. 1987, Nature, 325, 6100

1987
[95]

N., & Schubert, G

Ross, M. N., & Schubert, G. 1989, Icarus, 78, 1

1989
[96]

2018, Proc

Shapiro, C., Huff, E., & Smith, R. 2018, Proc. SPIE, 10709, 1070936

2018
[97]

F., Cutri, R

Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R. et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

2006
[98]

A., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, 669, 1279

Seager, S., Kuchner, M., Hier-Majumder, C. A., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, 669, 1279

2007
[99]

2013, ApJ, 767, 77

Sorahana, S., Yamamura, I., & Murakami, H. 2013, ApJ, 767, 77

2013
[100]

C., Marley, M

Stephens, D. C., Marley, M. S., Noll, K. S., et al.\ 2001, ApJ, 556, L97

2001
[101]

W., Croll, B

Sullivan, P. W., Croll, B. & Simcoe, R. A. 2014, Proc. SPIE, 9154, 91541F

2014
[102]

W., Winn, J

Sullivan, P. W., Winn, J. N., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., et al.\ 2015, ApJ, 809, 77

2015
[103]

G., McAlister, H

Tsay, W.-S., Bagnuolo, W. G., McAlister, H. A. et al., 1990, PASP, 102, 1339

1990
[104]

K., Han, C

Udalski, A., Jung, Y. K., Han, C. et al., 2015, ApJ, 812, 1

2015
[105]

S., Gillon, M

Van Grootel, V., Fernandes, C. S., Gillon, M. et al., 2018, ApJ, 853, 30

2018
[106]

L., Eisenhardt, P

Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K. et al., 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

2010
[107]

Yoder, C. F. 1979, Nature, 279, 5716

1979
[108]

G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J

York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E. Jr. et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[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 ""...

[3] [3]

+3*EL8 '*x WG?wW/5 s xy / _v5z))4F |lњj >3 2>wfʠ]B* o z◁x-___5_z^ 5/ ^ ݺ, /] ]<Gݻܜ ' 7_ώ ޺v( /=zF;kOg\ˁ Wtj1Aiֈц;uWs ]7P baE;M T*ueѭ:k]ڇ 5ҥ 8Ě<

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

2017

[4] [4]

D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

2015

[5] [6]

E., Lewis, N

Batalha, N. E., Lewis, N. K., Line, M. R. et al., 2018, ApJL, 856, L34

2018

[6] [7]

Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., & Lamm, M.\ 2003, MNRAS, 339, 477

2003

[7] [8]

& Johnson, J

Ballard, S. & Johnson, J. A. 2016, ApJ, 816, 66

2016

[8] [9]

2015, A&A, 577, A42

Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

2015