pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02473 · v1 · pith:LPBW36ISnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Orbit Refinement of WASP-18 b and Evidence Against the Existence of WASP-18 c

Avinash Salguneswaran Nediyedath , Kyle A. Pearson , Tara Fetherolf , Andre O. Kovacs This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 12:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords WASP-18 btransit ephemeristransit timing variationsradial velocityexoplanethot Jupiterorbital period
0
0 comments X

The pith

Refined ephemeris for WASP-18 b shows no consistent transit or radial velocity signals for a second planet.

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

The paper collects 205 transit light curves from TESS, CHEOPS and other sources to tighten the orbital period of WASP-18 b to 0.94145252 days with a propagated timing uncertainty of only 2.41 seconds by 2030. It then folds 449 radial velocity measurements from five spectrographs into the same analysis and searches for periodic signals that would indicate an additional planet. No significant, repeatable periodicity appears in both the transit-timing and radial-velocity data sets at once. A reader would care because an accurate ephemeris lets future telescopes schedule observations without accumulating timing error, and because ruling out extra planets clarifies whether hot Jupiters like WASP-18 b are typically alone or accompanied.

Core claim

Using the combined transit and radial-velocity data sets, the authors derive a new linear ephemeris for WASP-18 b and find that the most significant periodicities identified in either data type fail to appear consistently in the other; they therefore conclude that the previously proposed companion WASP-18 c does not produce detectable, dynamically relevant signals and is likely spurious.

What carries the argument

A high-precision linear ephemeris fitted to 205 transits, cross-checked against periodic signals extracted from 449 radial-velocity points, with consistency between the two data types required before any second planet is accepted.

If this is right

  • The updated ephemeris can be used to schedule observations through at least 2030 with sub-three-second timing uncertainty.
  • Claims of additional planets in hot-Jupiter systems should be tested for consistency across independent transit-timing and radial-velocity data sets.
  • The WASP-18 system is consistent with a single-planet architecture on the timescales probed by the current observations.
  • The derived Love number k2 = 0.62199 +/- 0.0011 provides a constraint on the internal structure of WASP-18 b.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar single-method detections of additional companions around other hot Jupiters may also be spurious when subjected to multi-technique consistency tests.
  • Future space-based photometry or high-precision radial-velocity campaigns can treat the published ephemeris as a reliable zero-point for searching smaller TTV signals.
  • The absence of a second planet reduces the dynamical complexity that would otherwise need to be modeled when interpreting the planet's inflated radius or tidal evolution.

Load-bearing premise

That any real, dynamically relevant second planet would produce detectable and consistent periodic signals in both transit-timing and radial-velocity data when observations from multiple instruments are combined.

What would settle it

New transit-timing or radial-velocity observations that reveal the same periodicity in both data types at the period previously claimed for WASP-18 c.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02473 by Andre O. Kovacs, Avinash Salguneswaran Nediyedath, Kyle A. Pearson, Tara Fetherolf.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Target pixel files for WASP-18 (TIC 100100827) during TESS observations created using tpfplotter (Aller et al. 2020) that shows potential contamination and dilution from neighboring stars. The 11 × 11 pixel flux map displays the electron flux (e −/s) per pixel. The orange-red outlined region defines the photometric aperture selected for light curve extraction. The red circles indicate sources identified in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top panels: Nested sampling posterior triangle plots and posterior distributions using EXOTIC for WASP-18 b for TESS sectors 30 and 69. The data points are color-coded to the likelihood of each fit, with darker colors indicating a higher likelihood. Bottom panels: Example phase-folded transit light curves of WASP-18 b for TESS sectors 30 and 69, respectively. The gray points represent the light curve photo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Combined residuals using Exoplanet Watch, ETD, ExoClock, Literature (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top two rows: Phase-folded best-fit model (gray line) plotted against RV observations across three distinct temporal segments to account for the long observational baseline. Third Row: RV observations along with the best-fit model in phase space of the WASP-18 b orbital period. Bottom Row: Residuals from the RV measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior probability distributions for the WASP-18 b orbital solution derived from MCMC sampling. Dashed vertical lines in the 1D histograms represent the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles. The tight constraint on ˙ω and its consistency with previous literature confirms the stability of the apsidal signal over our 15-year observational baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Lomb-Scargle periodograms for the combined mid-transit times (left) and the TESS-only photometry (right). The orbital period of the planet is 1 epoch (0.94145252 days). The combined dataset exhibits several peaks above the 99% false alarm probability (FAP; Power ≈ 0.1), which are sensitive to sampling rates and represent significant aliasing artifacts from inhomogeneous ground-based observations. In c… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top Panel: Lomb-Scargle Periodogram of the RV residuals. There are multiple peaks above the 99% FAP (Power ∼ 0.06) but none of them corroborate with previous findings of the WASP-18 c (∼2.1 days). Middle Panel: RV residuals fit with the periodogram fourier model of 1.4065 days and a linear model. Both show similar BIC values. Bottom Panel: RV residuals phase-folded at the highest detected peak of 1.4065 da… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an updated transit ephemeris for the exoplanet WASP-18 b and critically examine the existence of a proposed second planet, WASP-18 c. Using 205 transit light curves from TESS, CHEOPS, Exoplanet Watch, Exoplanet Transit Database and previous literature, we derive a refined mid-transit time of 2460933.096346 +/- 0.000022 BJD_TDB and an orbital period of 0.94145252 +/- 1.1 x 10^-8 days for WASP-18 b. Our forward-propagated ephemeris to January 1, 2030, shows a timing uncertainty of 2.41 seconds. This high-precision refinement serves as a robust baseline to test for Transit Timing Variations (TTVs), ensuring that any reported deviations are not artifacts of an insufficiently constrained orbital period. In addition, we analyze 449 radial velocity (RV) measurements from the CORALIE, HARPS, PFS, HIRES and ESPRESSO spectrographs to search for signatures of WASP-18 c, a previously proposed additional planetary companion, and also estimated the k2 love number as 0.62199 +/- 0.0011. However, we do not find significant variations in either transit timing or RV data that support the presence of WASP-18 c. Moreover, the most significantly identified periodicities are not consistently measured across the transit or RV datasets, strongly arguing against the existence of a dynamically relevant second planet in the system. Our results indicate that the claimed WASP-18 c signal is likely spurious in nature. Overall, this work enhances our understanding of the WASP-18 system and provides a valuable resource for future observational campaigns with the refinement of the b planet orbit and falsified status of the previously defined c planet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a refined ephemeris for WASP-18 b derived from 205 transit light curves compiled from TESS, CHEOPS, Exoplanet Watch, Exoplanet Transit Database, and literature sources, giving a mid-transit time of 2460933.096346 ± 0.000022 BJD_TDB and orbital period of 0.94145252 ± 1.1×10^{-8} days, with a propagated timing uncertainty of 2.41 s to 2030. It further analyzes 449 radial-velocity measurements from CORALIE, HARPS, PFS, HIRES, and ESPRESSO, estimates the Love number k2 = 0.62199 ± 0.0011, and concludes that no consistent periodic signals appear in either the transit-timing or RV datasets that would support the previously proposed companion WASP-18 c; the claimed signal is therefore judged spurious.

Significance. If the non-detection is robust, the work supplies a high-precision ephemeris that will be directly useful for scheduling future transit observations and for testing dynamical models of the WASP-18 system. The multi-instrument consistency check on periodicities adds a concrete falsification test for an additional planet and illustrates the value of combining large transit and RV archives when assessing candidate companions.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that periodicities were identified but does not specify the periodogram algorithm, normalization, or false-alarm-probability threshold used; a brief methods paragraph describing these choices would strengthen the non-detection claim.
  2. The quoted period uncertainty (1.1 x 10^-8) mixes decimal and scientific notation; adopt consistent scientific notation throughout the manuscript and tables.
  3. The forward-propagated ephemeris uncertainty of 2.41 s is quoted without stating whether it includes only the linear term or also higher-order contributions from period derivatives; a short derivation or reference to the propagation formula would clarify this.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our manuscript, including the recognition of the utility of the refined ephemeris and the value of the combined TTV and RV analysis in testing the WASP-18 c candidate. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of standard least-squares fitting of an ephemeris to 205 external transit light curves from TESS, CHEOPS and other listed instruments, followed by a periodogram search on 449 RVs from five independent spectrographs. Neither the refined mid-transit time/period nor the non-detection of WASP-18 c reduces to any quantity defined by the authors' prior work; both are direct statistical outputs from the input observations. The k2 Love-number estimate is likewise a fitted parameter. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing steps in the provided text, so the chain remains self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of combining heterogeneous transit and RV datasets and on the assumption that non-detection of consistent periodicities rules out a second planet; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • mid-transit time = 2460933.096346 BJD_TDB
    Fitted parameter reported as 2460933.096346 +/- 0.000022 BJD_TDB
  • orbital period = 0.94145252 days
    Fitted parameter reported as 0.94145252 +/- 1.1e-8 days
  • k2 love number = 0.62199
    Estimated parameter reported as 0.62199 +/- 0.0011
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Heterogeneous transit and RV datasets from different instruments can be jointly analyzed without dominant unmodeled systematics that would mask or mimic planetary signals.
    Invoked when merging TESS, CHEOPS, Exoplanet Watch, CORALIE, HARPS, PFS, HIRES and ESPRESSO data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5901 in / 1437 out tokens · 37498 ms · 2026-06-28T12:26:59.253743+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Johnson, J

    Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 18

    2012

  2. [2]

    F., & Barcel´ o Forteza, S

    Aller, A., Lillo-Box, J., Jones, D., Miranda, L. F., & Barcel´ o Forteza, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937118 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937118 2020

  3. [3]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 506, 411

    Auvergne, M., Bodin, P., Boisnard, L., et al. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 506, 411

    2009

  4. [4]

    2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 116, 266

    Bakos, G., Noyes, R., Kov´ acs, G., et al. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 116, 266

    2004

  5. [5]

    Experimental Astronomy , keywords =

    Benz, W., Broeg, C., Fortier, A., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09679-4 Blaˇ zek, M., Kab´ ath, P., Piette, A. A. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac992

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09679-4 2021

  6. [6]

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

    2016

  7. [7]

    Science , keywords =

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  8. [8]

    G., Winn, J

    Bouma, L. G., Winn, J. N., Baxter, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab189f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab189f 2019

  9. [9]

    R., et al

    Brogi, M., Emeka-Okafor, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaf5c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acaf5c 2023

  10. [10]

    2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    Buchner, J. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2016

  11. [11]

    F., et al

    Changeat, Q., Edwards, B., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc2 Cort´ es-Zuleta, P., Rojo, P., Wang, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc2 2022

  12. [12]

    2023, Nature, 620, 292

    Coulombe, L.-P., Benneke, B., Challener, R., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 292

    2023

  13. [13]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A45

    Csizmadia, S., Hellard, H., & Smith, A. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A45

    2019

  14. [14]

    E., Carone, L., et al

    Deline, A., Cubillos, P. E., Carone, L., et al. 2025, Dark skies of the slightly eccentric WASP-18 b from its optical-to-infrared dayside emission. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01544

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 590, A134

    Delisle, J.-B., S´ egransan, D., Buchschacher, N., & Alesina, F. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 590, A134

    2016

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1086/670067 , adsurl =

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  17. [17]

    2019, in UV/Optical/IR Space Telescopes and Instruments: Innovative Technologies and Concepts

    Warfield, K. 2019, in UV/Optical/IR Space Telescopes and Instruments: Innovative Technologies and Concepts

    2019

  18. [18]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.06683

    arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    M., Brasseur, C., et al

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 98

    2019

  20. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  21. [21]

    C., et al

    Hellier, C., Anderson, D., Cameron, A. C., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 1098

    2009

  22. [22]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke, M., David, T. J., Mulders, G. D., & Heller, R. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 143

    2019

  23. [23]

    2007, Matplotlib 0.90

    Hunter, J., & Dale, D. 2007, Matplotlib 0.90. 0 user’s guide, 487

    2007

  24. [24]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, Vol. 9913, SPIE, 1232–1251

    2016

  25. [25]

    A., Fulton, B

    Knutson, H. A., Fulton, B. J., Montet, B. T., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 126

    2014

  26. [26]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 4

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 4

    2023

  27. [27]

    F., & Breton, S

    Lanza, A. F., & Breton, S. N. 2024, A&A, 687, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348279 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1812.013

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348279 2024

  28. [28]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and space science, 39, 447

    1976

  29. [29]

    2020, Acta Astronomica, 70, 1–18, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/70.1.1

    Maciejewski, G., Knutson, H., Howard, A., et al. 2020, Acta Astronomica, 70, 1–18, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/70.1.1

    work page doi:10.32023/0001-5237/70.1.1 2020

  30. [30]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 2645

    Maxted, P., Anderson, D., Doyle, A., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 2645

    2013

  31. [31]

    S., Fowler, M

    Nediyedath, A. S., Fowler, M. J., Norris, A., et al. 2023, Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (JAAVSO), 51, 243

    2023

  32. [32]

    A., et al

    Nymeyer, S., Harrington, J., Hardy, R. A., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/35

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/35 2011

  33. [33]

    C., Winn, J

    Patra, K. C., Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d75 —. 2020, AJ, 159, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7374

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d75 2017

  34. [34]

    Pearson, K. A. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 243

    2019

  35. [35]

    A., Beichman, C., Fulton, B

    Pearson, K. A., Beichman, C., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 178

    2022

  36. [36]

    2000, in Optical and IR telescope instrumentation and detectors, Vol

    Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Delabre, B., et al. 2000, in Optical and IR telescope instrumentation and detectors, Vol. 4008, SPIE, 582–592 Updated Ephemeris of W ASP-18 b17

    2000

  37. [37]

    2021 , note =

    Pepe, F., Cristiani, S., Rebolo, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038306 2021

  38. [38]

    A., Cristiani, S., Rebolo Lopez, R., et al

    Pepe, F. A., Cristiani, S., Rebolo Lopez, R., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S

    2010

  39. [39]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77350F, doi: 10.1117/12.857122

    work page doi:10.1117/12.857122

  40. [40]

    Ca II H&K time series for the HARPS radial velocity database

    Perdelwitz, V., Trifonov, T., Teklu, J. T., Sreenivas, K. R., & Tal-Or, L. 2024, A&A, 683, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348263

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348263 2024

  41. [41]

    Pillitteri, I., Colombo, S., Micela, G., & Wolk, S. J. 2023, A&A, 673, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245467 Poddan` y, S., Br´ at, L., & Pejcha, O. 2010, New Astronomy, 15, 297

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245467 2023

  42. [42]

    L., Skillen, I., Cameron, A

    Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Cameron, A. C., et al. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1407

    2006

  43. [43]

    2001, The

    Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Udry, S., et al. 2001, The

    2001

  44. [44]

    Messenger, No. 105, p. 1-7 (September 2001), 105, 1

    2001

  45. [45]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003 Ros´ ario, N. M., Barros, S. C. C., Demangeon, O. D. S., &

    2015

  46. [46]

    Santos, N. C. 2022, A&A, 668, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244513

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244513 2022

  47. [47]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 263, Dec. 15, 1982, p. 835-853., 263, 835

    1982

  48. [48]

    X., et al

    Shporer, A., Wong, I., Huang, C. X., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 178

    2019

  49. [49]

    C., Dominik, M., et al

    Southworth, J., Hinse, T. C., Dominik, M., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 167

    2009

  50. [50]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 102

    2018

  51. [51]

    2026, ApJS, 282, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae2a29 TESS Team

    Sun, Q. 2026, ApJS, 282, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae2a29 TESS Team. 2021a, TESS Light Curves - All Sectors, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9-NMC8-F686 —. 2021b, TESS Target Pixel Files - All Sectors, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9-YK4W-ZC73

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae2a29 2026

  52. [52]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J., Collier Cameron, A., Queloz, D., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014525

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014525 2010

  53. [53]

    2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I., Rocchetto, M., et al. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2016

  54. [54]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  55. [55]

    N., Delrez, L., Barker, A

    Wilkins, A. N., Delrez, L., Barker, A. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 836, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d9f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d9f 2017

  56. [56]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A107

    Yan, F., Nortmann, L., Reiners, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A107

    2023

  57. [57]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c16

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c16 2020

  58. [58]

    T., Pearson, K

    Zellem, R. T., Pearson, K. A., Blaser, E., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 054401

    2020