Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

The EBLM project -- XIV. TESS light curves for eclipsing binaries with very low mass companions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Systematic limb-darkening offsets previously seen in metal-rich hot-Jupiter hosts also appear in solar-type stars with M-dwarf companions across [Fe/H] = -0.61 to +0.32.

desk verdict Solid, careful extension of limb-darkening measurements to lower-metallicity EBLMs; the abstract overreaches on the EBLM-only offset but the paper is publishable after a modest revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09267 v1 pith:KLACV66Q submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Jay Fitzpatrick , Pierre F. L. Maxted , Alix V. Freckelton , Amuary H. M. J. Triaud , David V. Martin , Alison Duck This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords eclipsingbinarieslimbdarkeningTESSphotometrysolar-typestarsM-dwarfradiusinflationstellarmodelatmospheresmagneticfieldsmetallicity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper analyses 19 eclipsing binaries with very low mass M-dwarf companions observed by TESS to measure the limb-darkening of solar-type primary stars. Using two weakly correlated limb-darkening parameters that map directly to specific intensities at two points on the stellar disc, it finds that observed profiles are systematically less steep than predictions from model atmospheres that ignore magnetic fields. The mean offset, about +0.0086 in the first parameter and -0.0076 in the second, matches the offset previously seen in metal-rich hot-Jupiter hosts, extending the result to metallicities as low as [Fe/H] = -0.61. The same light curves yield radii for the M-dwarf companions that are on average about 2.6% larger than standard model predictions, confirming the known 'radius inflation' of very low mass stars. A sympathetic reader would care because the limb-darkening offset is a direct probe of missing physics in stellar atmosphere models, and because the widened metallicity and temperature coverage tests whether that missing physics depends on stellar composition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantities are $h'_1 = I_\lambda(2/3)$ and $h'_2 = h'_1 - I_\lambda(1/3)$, where $I_\lambda(\mu)$ is the specific intensity at wavelength $\lambda$ and $\mu = \cos\theta$. These two parameters, introduced in an earlier study of hot-Jupiter transits, are chosen because they are weakly correlated in fits to eclipse light curves and are directly comparable to model-atmosphere predictions. The light-curve analysis uses a 4-parameter Claret limb-darkening law fitted with a published eclipse model plus Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampling, with primary and secondary eclipses fitted simultaneously; predicted values are interpolated from several published model grids. For the radius work, the power-2 limb-darkening law parameterised in $q_1$,$q_2$ variables gives more precise radii, and masses come from combining the fitted parameters with an empirical mass-density-metallicity relation and spectroscopic orbit amplitudes.

What would settle it

Compile a sample of solar-type stars with transiting companions that show no photometric variability at all, or model star spots explicitly, and measure their limb-darkening parameters; if the offset $\Delta h'_1 \approx +0.008$ disappears or shrinks substantially, then the offset is caused by spot or facula contamination rather than a genuine atmospheric deficiency. Alternatively, if stars with independently stronger surface magnetic fields show systematically larger offsets, the magnetic-field explanation is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the systematic offset between observed and model-predicted limb-darkening profiles, previously attributed to metal-rich hot-Jupiter host stars, is also present in solar-type stars with M-dwarf companions at lower metallicity. In the TESS band, the observed specific intensity at $\mu = 2/3$ is higher than predicted ($\Delta h'_1 \approx +0.0086$) and the drop from $\mu = 2/3$ to $\mu = 1/3$ is smaller than predicted ($\Delta h'_2 \approx -0.0076$), across model grids including ATLAS, MPS-ATLAS, PHOENIX-COND, and Stagger. The offsets show no significant trend with effective temperature or metallicity in the TESS band, even though the sample spans [Fe/H] from -0.61 to +0.32. For the companion stars, the measured radii are on average $2.6\% \pm 1.1\%$ larger than MIST isochrone predictions, with a marginal metallicity dependence, confirming previous reports that very low mass stars are inflated relative to solar-calibrated mixing-length models.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that the light-curve-derived offset reflects the quiet, time-averaged atmosphere of each star rather than contamination from unresolved star spots or faculae, since the offset of about 0.008 is comparable to the bias a small spot coverage could produce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Model limb-darkening grids that omit magnetic effects will keep predicting steeper profiles than observed for solar-type stars across a wide metallicity range, so transit and eclipse analyses that fix limb darkening to such grids will inherit a small but systematic bias.
  • The absence of a metallicity trend means the offset cannot be blamed on the high-metallicity composition of hot-Jupiter hosts; the missing physics is composition-insensitive.
  • The new measurements enlarge the pool of stars with accurate limb-darkening constraints, giving modellers more data to test magnetic-field modifications of atmospheric temperature structure.
  • The companion radii confirm that very low mass stars are about 3% larger than standard stellar models predict, reinforcing that solar-calibrated convection is inadequate at the bottom of the main sequence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the offset persists in spot-free stars, limb darkening could be developed as a practical photometric probe of photospheric magnetic fields for a much larger sample than spectropolarimetry allows; a test would compare $\Delta h'_1$ against independently measured magnetic activity indicators on the same stars.
  • A potential limiting factor is unresolved spot or facula coverage: even stars without obvious pseudo-sinusoidal variability could have a few percent spot coverage that mimics a flatter limb-darkening profile, so a re-analysis with explicit spot modeling on a subset would settle whether the offset is atmospheric or surface-activity in origin.
  • The Kepler-band temperature trend versus the TESS-band flat offset hints that line-blanketing errors in the models are wavelength dependent; observing the same EBLM sample in additional bandpasses would test this directly.
  • If radius inflation scales with metallicity as suggested, the most inflated M-dwarfs should also be the most magnetically active; cross-matching with X-ray or H-alpha activity surveys could link the two phenomena.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes TESS light curves of 19 EBLM eclipsing binaries to measure the limb-darkening of the solar-type primary stars via a four-parameter non-linear limb-darkening law, and to determine the radii and effective temperatures of the M-dwarf companions. The limb-darkening parameters h'_1 and h'_2 are compared with predictions from five published model-atmosphere grids (ATLAS, MPS-ATLAS Set 1 and Set 2, PHOENIX-COND, and Stagger). The authors report small but significant global offsets between observed and predicted limb-darkening, with Δh'_1 ≈ +0.0086 and Δh'_2 ≈ −0.0076 across models, and argue that these offsets extend the same discrepancy previously seen in metal-rich hot-Jupiter hosts to the lower-metallicity EBLM sample. They also measure a radius inflation of 2.6 ± 1.1% for the M-dwarf companions relative to MIST isochrones, and find a marginal metallicity dependence of that inflation.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper provides an important extension of limb-darkening tests to a metallicity range more representative of typical solar-type stars, supporting the interpretation that the observed discrepancy between light-curve-derived and model-predicted limb darkening is a general atmospheric effect (e.g., magnetic field) rather than a peculiarity of metal-rich hot-Jupiter hosts. The analysis is careful and reproducible in its use of simultaneous primary and secondary eclipse fitting with batman, Rømer delay, tidal-distortion corrections via ellc simulations, MCMC convergence checks, and Monte Carlo error propagation. The use of multiple independent model grids and the explicit treatment of extra scatter through the pycheops combine function are methodological strengths. The radius-inflation measurements provide additional benchmarks for low-mass stellar models. However, the headline metallicity claim is not directly demonstrated by the quantitative results presented, and the paper's own conclusions are more conservative than the abstract in this respect.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Table 4] The abstract's claim that the systematic limb-darkening offset 'is also observed for these solar-type stars at lower metallicity' is not directly supported by the analysis as presented. Table 4 reports offsets for the combined sample of 17 EBLM targets plus 10 TESS hot-Jupiter systems from Maxted (2023), and no EBLM-only offset is quoted anywhere. Section 3.1 only states that the EBLM offsets 'agree with' those of Maxted (2023) within overlapping uncertainties, which is not a significance statement about the EBLM subsample alone. Since the EBLM targets are the only objects extending the sample to [Fe/H] below about −0.1, the paper must report the mean offset and credible interval for the 17 EBLM targets alone (using the Section 2.5 method) for each model grid, and state explicitly whether that offset is nonzero at a meaningful significance level.
  2. [Section 3.1.2] The metallicity-trend fits have limited power to exclude a gradient that would erase the offset at the low-metallicity end, which is the key extension claimed by the paper. With 27 points and per-star uncertainties of roughly 0.002–0.03 in h'_1, the statement that all fitted gradients encompass zero within 1σ (or 1.1σ for PHOENIX-COND) does not rule out a trend that reduces Δh'_1 to zero at [Fe/H] ≈ −0.6. Please report the fitted gradient and its uncertainty for each model, and quantify the range of metallicity gradients that would be consistent with the data; if a gradient that cancels the offset at the lowest metallicities is not excluded, the abstract's wording should be softened accordingly.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.1] The interpretation of the measured offset as a property of the quiet stellar atmosphere is vulnerable to contamination by unresolved star spots or faculae. The target selection in Section 2.1 removes systems with 'strong magnetic activity' seen as pseudo-sinusoidal variations, but the offset is only about 0.008 in h'_1, and a modest spot or facula filling factor could plausibly bias h'_1 by this amount. Please estimate an upper limit on the spot/facula coverage of the EBLM primaries from the out-of-eclipse photometric scatter (e.g., via a simple spot model or a variability amplitude threshold), and state whether such a coverage could account for the observed offset. If it cannot, that should be stated explicitly; if it can, the atmospheric interpretation should be qualified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains a duplicated word: 'the bottom two panels show show the fit and residuals'. Please correct.
  2. [Section 2.1] The criterion for excluding stars with 'strong magnetic activity' is not quantified. Please provide a threshold (e.g., peak-to-peak amplitude of the out-of-eclipse variations, or a Lomb-Scargle false-alarm probability) so the selection is reproducible.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The statement that the tidal-distortion corrections for R1/a, h'_1, and h'_2 are 'much less than their standard errors' would be more informative with the actual largest correction values, rather than a purely qualitative assertion.
  4. [Section 4.2] The additional noise of 1.7 km/s added to Gaia K1 measurements is derived from only eight stars in common with Triaud et al. (2017). Please give the uncertainty on this estimate and comment on how sensitive the final radius-inflation result is to that choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the limb-darkening offset and M-dwarf radius inflation are tested against externally published model grids, not defined by the paper's own fitted quantities.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is self-contained against external benchmarks. Predicted values of h'_1 and h'_2 are 'extracted for each target from published tabulations using linear interpolation' to Teff, logg, and [Fe/H] from grids of ATLAS, MPS-ATLAS, PHOENIX-COND, and Stagger models (Sec. 3). The observed h'_1 and h'_2 come from independent batman/emcee fits to TESS light curves (Secs. 2.3-2.4), and the offset is defined as a residual Delta h' = h'_obs - h'_cal. Nothing in that chain defines the measured quantity in terms of the claimed offset: the model grids are external, and the light-curve fits do not use the model predictions as priors. The PHOENIX-COND [Fe/H] correction (Eq. 4) is taken from Maxted (2023), but it is a model-side correction for metallicity dependence, not a fit to the current data. The radius-inflation result is likewise a comparison of measured secondary radii with MIST isochrones (Sec. 4.3), with secondary Teff from the external BT-NextGen grid. Same-group citations (Maxted 2023 method and hot-Jupiter sample; Freckelton et al. 2024 parameters; Swayne et al. 2024 comparison; Triaud et al. 2017 orbits) are prior measurements or published tools, not unverified self-referential premises; the central claims retain independent content. The absence of an EBLM-only offset in Table 4 (the pooled sample combines 17 EBLMs with 10 Maxted 2023 hot-Jupiter hosts) is a reporting/statistical weakness in supporting the abstract's wording, and unresolved spot/faculae contamination is a systematic-risk concern, but neither is a definitional reduction or a fitted-input-as-prediction. Hence no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central results are comparisons between fitted light-curve parameters and published model grids; the only fitted quantities beyond the per-system eclipse parameters are the extra-scatter hyper-parameters listed above. This is a low circularity-burden setup.

free parameters (4)
  • Extra scatter sigma_ext in offset estimator = sigma_ext,1 = 0.006 to 0.007, sigma_ext,2 = 0.001 to 0.004 depending on model (Table 4)
    Sampled in the combine function (Section 2.5) as a free hyper-parameter; the quoted offset uncertainties and significance depend on it.
  • Scatter added in trend fits sigma1, sigma2 = Kepler: sigma1 = 0.00524, sigma2 = 0.01359; TESS: sigma1 = 0.0097, sigma2 = 0.008 (Section 3.1.1)
    Added in quadrature to force chi-squared equal to the number of degrees of freedom for the linear trend fits; this is a fitted nuisance parameter.
  • Per-system error-scaling factor f = Not tabulated; sampled in each MCMC run
    Hyper-parameter in the Gaussian likelihood (Section 2.4); absorbs underestimated photometric errors but is not a physical input.
  • Scatter added in radius-inflation versus metallicity fit = 2.24 per cent (Section 4.3.1)
    Added to standard errors to achieve a reduced chi-squared of 1; it changes the significance of the metallicity trend.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 4-parameter Claret limb-darkening law is flexible enough to capture the true intensity profile at mu = 2/3 and mu = 1/3.
    Sections 2.3 and 2.4 use this law to fit the light curves; the h'_1 and h'_2 parameters are extracted from the fitted coefficients, so law flexibility is required for unbiased recovery.
  • domain assumption Light curves are unaffected by unmodeled star spots or faculae after removing active stars.
    Section 2.1 excludes systems with pseudo-sinusoidal variability; surviving stars are treated as having stable, symmetric eclipse shapes.
  • standard math Gaussian independent errors with a common error-scaling factor f describe the photometric noise.
    Section 2.4 likelihood makes this assumption; log f is a hyper-parameter, and no correlated noise beyond the scaling is modeled.
  • domain assumption Tidal distortion is adequately modeled by polytropic ellipsoids with index n = 1.5 and I-band gravity-darkening coefficients.
    Section 4.1.1 uses ellc to estimate corrections to Teff,2; deviations from this shape model propagate into Teff,2 and radii.
  • domain assumption The Enoch et al. (2010) empirical mass relation is unbiased for these primaries.
    Section 4.2 uses this relation to convert the photometric mean density into a primary mass, setting the scale for M2 and R2.
  • domain assumption MIST isochrones and BT-NextGen synthetic photometry provide valid comparison grids.
    Sections 4.1 and 4.3 use BT-NextGen for Teff,2 and MIST for predicted radii; errors in these grids appear as apparent radius inflation or temperature scatter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The EBLM project -- XIV. TESS light curves for eclipsing binaries with very low mass companions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLACV66Q

@misc{pith2026250209267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The EBLM project -- XIV. TESS light curves for eclipsing binaries with very low mass companions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLACV66Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09267}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate limb-darkening models are needed for accurate characterisation of eclipsing binary stars and transiting exoplanets from the analysis of their light curves. The limb-darkening observed in solar-type stars from the analysis of light curves for transiting hot-Jupiter exoplanets are systematically less steep than predicted by stellar model atmospheres that do not account for the stellar magnetic field. Hot-Jupiter host stars tend to be metal rich ([Fe/H] ~0.25) leading to a lack of low- and solar-metallicity targets in previous studies, so we have analysed the TESS light curves for a sample of 19 stars with transiting M-dwarf companions to extend the range of limb-darkening measurements to [Fe/H] values more typical for solar-type stars. We find that the systematic offset between the observed and predicted limb-darkening profiles observed in metal-rich hot-Jupiter systems is also observed for these solar-type stars at lower metallicity. These observations provide additional measurements to explore the impact of magnetic fields on the atmospheres of solar-type stars. We have also used the TESS light curves to make precise estimates of the radius and effective temperature of the M-dwarf companions in these 19 binary systems. We confirm the results from previous studies that find very low mass stars tend to be about 3 per cent larger than predicted by stellar models that use a mixing length prescription calibrated on the Sun.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kiel diagram of EBLMs and stars with transiting hot-Jupiters investigated in this paper. Triangle and circle points give targets observed with TESS from Maxted (2023) and this work respectively. Square points give targets investigated in the Kepler band in Maxted (2023). check the straight line fit to the flux outside of eclipse. This also allowed us to check eclipses were properly aligned around the re￾spective tim… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The TESS light curve of EBLM J0627−67 with the best fit from our analysis (red line) to unbinned data points (grey). The two top panels show the fit and residuals from the fit to the primary eclipse, and the bottom two panels show show the fit and residuals from the fit to the secondary eclipse. Purple data points show the light curve data binned in 120 s intervals for reference. we used 19 000 burn-in steps. The sl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed limb-darkening profile compared to the parameters predicted by the PHOENIX-COND model calculated in Claret (2018). Kepler systems are in blue on the left panels and TESS systems are in red on the right. Data from Maxted (2023) uses unfilled circles, targets characterised in this paper use filled circles. The solid green line is the best fit for each set of systems for 𝑇eff > 5500 K and the dotted green line… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameters determined for the primary and secondary stars, plotted with isochrones for comparison. Black filled circle points with error bars are EBLMs analysed using synthetic photometry assuming solar 𝛼-element abundance ([𝛼/Fe] = 0.0). The orange unfilled square poi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the radius inflation (Δ𝑅/𝑅[%]) vs mass (𝑀2) for the secondary star in the full sample of 19 EBLMs. Points are plotted with colour mapping correlated to metallicity. REFERENCES Allard F., Homeier D., Freytag B., 2011, in Johns-Krull C., Browning M. K., West A. A…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    K., West A

    Allard F., Homeier D., Freytag B., 2011, in Johns-Krull C., Browning M. K., West A. A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun. p. 91 ( @eprint arXiv 1011.5405 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1011.5405

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1011.5405 2011

  3. [3]

    Allard F., Homeier D., Freytag B., 2012, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RSPTA.370.2765A 370, 2765

    work page arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2075B 486, 2075

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  6. [6]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., Soubiran C., Heiter U., Jofr \'e P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...569A.111B 569, A111

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 2014

  7. [7]

    Borkovits T., Rappaport S., Hajdu T., Sztakovics J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..946B 448, 946

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv015 2015

  8. [8]

    249, Exoplanets: Detection, Formation and Dynamics

    Borucki W., et al., 2008, in Sun Y.-S., Ferraz-Mello S., Zhou J.-L., eds, Vol. 249, Exoplanets: Detection, Formation and Dynamics. pp 17--24, @doi 10.1017/S174392130801630X

    work page doi:10.1017/s174392130801630x 2008

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    Chabrier G., Gallardo J., Baraffe I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...472L..17C 472, L17

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Claret A., 2000, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A

    2000

  5. [13]

    Claret A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A..30C 600, A30

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Claret A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..20C 618, A20

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Claret A., Bloemen S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529A..75C 529, A75

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Csizmadia S., Pasternacki T., Dreyer C., Cabrera J., Erikson A., Rauer H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A...9C 549, A9

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Agol E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/669497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125...83E 125, 83

    Eastman J., Gaudi B. S., Agol E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/669497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125...83E 125, 83

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Hebb L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...516A..33E 516, A33

    Enoch B., Collier Cameron A., Parley N. R., Hebb L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...516A..33E 516, A33

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Espinoza N., Jord \'a n A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1879E 450, 1879

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Espinoza N., Jord \'a n A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3573E 457, 3573

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    C., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1006.3834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1006.3834F p

    Fabrycky D. C., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1006.3834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1006.3834F p. arXiv:1006.3834

    2010 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    A., Chaboyer B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..183F 779, 183

    Feiden G. A., Chaboyer B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..183F 779, 183

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Chaboyer B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...53F 789, 53

    Feiden G. A., Chaboyer B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...53F 789, 53

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4085F 531, 4085

    Freckelton A. V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4085F 531, 4085

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022yCat.1357....0G p. I/357

    2022

  20. [28]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CAMCS...5...65G 5, 65

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    O., Corbally C

    Gray R. O., Corbally C. J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AJ....107..742G 107, 742

    1994 doi

  22. [30]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005161325181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SSRv...85..161G 85, 161

    Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005161325181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SSRv...85..161G 85, 161

    1998 doi

  23. [31]

    T., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...161.1083H 161, 1083

    Hoxie D. T., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...161.1083H 161, 1083

    1970 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Charbonneau D., Noyes R

    Knutson H. A., Charbonneau D., Noyes R. W., Brown T. M., Gilliland R. L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655..564K 655, 564

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Witzke V., Shapiro A

    Kostogryz N. M., Witzke V., Shapiro A. I., Solanki S. K., Maxted P. F. L., Kurucz R. L., Gizon L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A..60K 666, A60

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02252-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs.tmp...73K

    Kostogryz N. M., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02252-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs.tmp...73K

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Kreidberg L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/683602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127.1161K 127, 1161

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    L., 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MSAIS...8...14K 8, 14

    Kurucz R. L., 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MSAIS...8...14K 8, 14

    2005

  29. [37]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1812.013 )

    2018

  30. [38]

    G., Steffen M., Freytag B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A..65L 679, A65

    Ludwig H. G., Steffen M., Freytag B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A..65L 679, A65

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...70M 787, 70

    MacDonald J., Mullan D. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...70M 787, 70

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..68M 624, A68

    Martin D. V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..68M 624, A68

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Maxted P. F. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A.111M 591, A111

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Maxted P. F. L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..39M 616, A39

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Maxted P. F. L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3723M 519, 3723

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Maxted P. F. L., Triaud A. H. M. J., Martin D. V., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9120498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ....9..498M 9, 498

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Homeier D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..111M 154, 111

    Morello G., Tsiaras A., Howarth I. D., Homeier D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..111M 154, 111

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    J., MacDonald J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559..353M 559, 353

    Mullan D. J., MacDonald J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559..353M 559, 353

    2001 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Huber K

    M \"u ller H. M., Huber K. F., Czesla S., Wolter U., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A.112M 560, A112

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Espinoza N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..228P 163, 228

    Patel J. A., Espinoza N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..228P 163, 228

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118552 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....114.1195P 114, 1195

    Popper D. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118552 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....114.1195P 114, 1195

    1997 doi

  42. [50]

    Queloz D., et al., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354...99Q 354, 99

    2000

  43. [51]

    R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M. J., Clampin M., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 9143...

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    R., Welsh W

    Short D. R., Welsh W. F., Orosz J. A., Windmiller G., Maxted P. F. L., 2019, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ab3a3e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RNAAS...3..117S 3, 117

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Spada F., Demarque P., Kim Y.-C., Sills A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/87 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...87S 776, 87

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    Stassun K. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5703S 528, 5703

    Swayne M. I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5703S 528, 5703

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730993 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A.129T 608, A129

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Verma K., Maxted P. F. L., Singh A., Ludwig H. G., Sable Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.3893V 534, 3893

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Basu S., Ong J

    Viani L. S., Basu S., Ong J. M. J., Bonaca A., Chaplin W. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858...28V 858, 28

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    N., 2010, in Seager S., ed., , Exoplanets

    Winn J. N., 2010, in Seager S., ed., , Exoplanets. pp 55--77, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1001.2010

    2010 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.