Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 173 references

Requirements for Joint Orbital Characterization of Cold Giants and Habitable Worlds with Habitable Worlds Observatory

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read To jointly image habitable-zone worlds and cold giants, HWO needs an outer working angle of at least 1440 milliarcseconds.

desk verdict Concrete HWO design numbers that will be quoted, but the headline OWA rests on an unvalidated prior and the visibility metric is defined three ways; send to review with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21443 v1 pith:OHZ6UECL submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Sabina Sagynbayeva , Asif Abbas , Stephen R. Kane , Eric L. Nielsen , William Thompson , Sarah Blunt , Malena Rice , Jessie L. Christiansen
show 5 more authors
Caleb K. Harada Elisabeth R. Newton Yasuhiro Hasegawa Philip J. Armitage Tansu Daylan
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords HabitableWorldsObservatorycoronagraphworkinganglescoldgiantplanetszoneconfirmationorbitalinclinationprecursorradialvelocityastrometricepochsdirectimaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper specifies what the Habitable Worlds Observatory must be able to see if it is to characterize both habitable-zone rocky planets and cold giant planets in the same observing campaign. Using simulated orbits around the 164 nearby stars on HWO's target list, the authors find that a coronagraph outer working angle of at least 1440 milliarcseconds is needed to keep 80–90% of cold Jupiters (5–30 AU) visible for a substantial fraction of their orbits. They also show that roughly 40 precursor radial velocity measurements at 1 m/s precision, combined with 6–8 astrometric epochs spread across the mission, determine orbital inclination to about a degree or a few degrees, whereas either technique alone leaves large degeneracies. For habitable-zone planets, 4–5 epochs give moderate confidence in HZ occupancy while 95% confirmation requires 8 or more epochs. These numbers are intended as concrete inputs to HWO's design and target-selection decisions.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the geometry of projected orbital separation: a simulated planet is counted as visible at a given epoch if its on-sky separation $\theta = r_{\mathrm{proj}}/d_\star$ falls between the coronagraph's inner and outer working angles. The authors draw 1000 orbits per star for the 164 ExEP targets from assumed distributions (semi-major axis log-uniform over 5–30 AU, eccentricity from a Beta distribution, isotropic inclinations), compute visibility fractions versus stellar distance for OWAs from 360 to 2520 mas, and fit simulated radial velocities and relative astrometric measurements with a Bayesian Hamiltonian Monte Carlo orbital inference code. For habitable-zone planets, the same machinery is adapted to test whether fitted orbits stay within optimistic habitable-zone boundaries, using rejection sampling early and Markov-chain Monte Carlo later. The load-bearing identity is simply that the fraction of an orbit lying inside the working-angle annulus, integrated over the target-star distance distribution, is what converts a telescope architecture choice into a detection completeness number.

What would settle it

A survey of cold giant occurrence specifically around the ExEP target stars, for example long-baseline radial velocity monitoring or astrometry sensitive to planets at 5–30 AU, would test the assumed semi-major axis distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the joint science goal sets a quantitative floor on coronagraph reach: an outer working angle of at least 1440 mas, combined with an inner working angle of roughly 20–65 mas set by habitable-zone targets, yields 80–90% detection completeness for cold giants across the 164-star ExEP sample, with diminishing returns beyond that value. The second discovery is methodological: radial velocity data alone cannot determine orbital inclination or true mass for these systems, but adding six to eight astrometric measurements spaced over the mission timeline rather than clustered in one year collapses inclination uncertainties to roughly 0.8–3 degrees and breaks the inclination–mass degeneracy, with sparse sampling across five years improving precision by orders of magnitude for the longest-period planets. The third is that habitable-zone confirmation is an epoch-counting problem: moderate (68%) confidence emerges after 4–5 epochs, while 95% confidence requires 8 or more, and some true HZ planets remain unconfirmed even after 16 epochs because their orbits place them outside the detection window.

Load-bearing premise

The headline outer-working-angle requirement rests on the assumption that cold giants around HWO's target stars have semi-major axes log-uniformly distributed between 5 and 30 AU, a prior drawn from a large direct-imaging survey rather than measured for these 164 stars; if the real population skews wider, the 1440 mas recommendation would be too small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HWO's coronagraph should be designed with an outer working angle of at least 1440 mas; going beyond roughly 1920 mas buys only 5–10% more visibility while adding cost and complexity.
  • A precursor ground-based radial velocity program of about 40 measurements per target at roughly 1 m/s should be scheduled before launch to provide ephemerides and break degeneracies with HWO astrometry.
  • Astrometric epochs should be spread across the full mission timeline rather than clustered; for planets with periods under about 100 years, 6–8 well-spaced epochs are sufficient for inclination to a few degrees.
  • Habitable-zone confirmation should be planned as a two-phase campaign: a fast screening phase (4–5 epochs) for moderate-confidence candidates, then extended monitoring (8+ epochs) for the 95% confidence needed for atmospheric follow-up.
  • Planets with orbital periods longer than about 100 years will remain poorly characterized even with the optimized baseline, so HWO's cold-giant science should focus on systems with periods shorter than the mission lifetime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 1440 mas requirement is tied to the assumed 5–30 AU log-uniform cold-giant distribution; if future occurrence surveys show a significant population beyond 30 AU, the required OWA would grow, while a steeper inward-weighted distribution would relax it.
  • The same joint RV+astrometry formalism could be used to prioritize which of the 164 ExEP stars to observe first: systems where precursor RV already hints at a giant companion give the largest gain in inclination and mass precision per astrometric epoch.
  • The two-phase HZ strategy suggests an observing-schedule optimization problem: early epochs should be allocated broadly across candidates, with later epochs concentrated on systems that remain HZ-compatible, and the paper gives the quantitative epoch thresholds such an optimizer would use.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives proposed observational requirements for the Habitable Worlds Observatory by combining two simulation exercises: (1) geometric visibility calculations for synthetic cold giants around the 164-star ExEP catalog, used to recommend a coronagraph outer working angle of at least 1440 mas for 80-90% completeness; and (2) Bayesian orbit fits with octofitter of simulated radial-velocity and astrometric data, used to recommend approximately 40 precursor RV measurements and 6-8 astrometric epochs, plus a separate OFTI/MCMC analysis of habitable-zone planets used to recommend 4-5 epochs for moderate-confidence HZ confirmation and 8+ epochs for 95% confidence. The paper argues that joint characterization of cold giants and HZ planets is feasible with these specifications.

Significance. If the headline requirements were secure, they would provide concrete, actionable inputs to HWO instrument design and target selection, and the paper usefully demonstrates Bayesian multi-technique orbit fitting on the actual ExEP target list, including a striking improvement when astrometric epochs are spread over the full mission baseline (Figure 14). However, the central OWA recommendation rests on an unvalidated cold-giant population prior and on an inconsistently defined visibility metric, and several headline numbers from the abstract (40 RV points, 0.8-3 degree inclinations, 8+ HZ epochs) are not supported by the body as written. The Bayesian orbital-inference machinery itself is sound and the HZ analysis is a reasonable proof of concept, so the paper is a useful contribution once the load-bearing definitions and sensitivity analyses are fixed.

major comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.2 and Figure 3 caption] The visibility fraction that underlies the OWA recommendation is defined in at least three different ways in the paper: 'the probability that a planet will have at least one point in its orbit' (§3.1.2), 'the portion of a planet's orbit during which it remains detectable' (Figure 3 caption), and 'detection completeness' (§3.1.2 and §7). These are not the same quantity; for a fixed circular orbit, the first is a step function of separation while the second is an orbital-phase-averaged quantity that can take intermediate values. The manuscript never states whether a random orbital phase was drawn for each simulated orbit, whether the minimum projected separation over the orbit was used, or how the ensemble was averaged over the 164-star sample. Because the 1440 mas target is defined by reaching 80-90% under this metric, the definition must be fixed and the calculation rerun consistently before the headline number can be interpreted.
  2. [§3.1.1, Eq. (5); §3.1.2; §7] The OWA requirement is computed for an assumed cold-giant population with semi-major axes log-uniformly distributed between 5 and 30 AU (Eq. 5). The paper itself concedes at the end of §3.1.2 that the occurrence studies used to motivate this range cover 'a similar, though not identical, parameter space': Fernandes et al. (2019) is limited to separations below roughly 10 AU and Fulton et al. (2021) does not directly constrain the shape of the 5-30 AU distribution. No validation of this prior against occurrence-rate data for the specific ExEP target stars is provided. Figure 3's caption additionally says the axes were 'uniformly distributed' rather than log-uniformly distributed, a discrepancy that changes the predicted angular-separation distribution. The 80-90% completeness claim and the 1440 mas recommendation are therefore direct projections of an unvalidated population model, and the sensitivity of the required OWA to the upper cutoff and slope of the distribution should be quantified.
  3. [§4.1 and §6.4] The recommendation of 'approximately 40 precursor radial velocity measurements' is an input assumption, not a derived result. Section 4.1 fixes the RV-only and combined models at 40 measurements with 1 m/s uncertainty, and Section 6.4 then states that 40 measurements are 'necessary' without any experiment that varies the number of RV points. To establish necessity, the authors should show how the precision of recovered orbital parameters degrades as the RV count is reduced from, say, 80 to 20, and identify where the improvement plateaus. As written, the claim is circular.
  4. [§4.1, §4.2, Figure 14, §6.1] The recommendation that 6-8 astrometric epochs be 'distributed across the five-year mission timeline' is not supported by the nominal simulation design. Section 4.1 sets six astrometric observations at two-month intervals within one year; the only evidence for spreading epochs over five years comes from re-analysis of two long-period outlier systems (simulations 8 and 95) in Figure 14. The improvement from a five-year baseline is dramatic for those cases, but the recommendation is generalized to all targets without a systematic experiment varying cadence across the full 100-planet sample. In addition, Figure 6's caption says the epochs have 'an uncertainty of 1◦' while Section 4.1 states astrometric uncertainties of 5 mas; these are different quantities and the caption should be corrected.
  5. [Abstract and §4.2] The abstract's headline precision claim of 'inclination uncertainties of 0.8-3 degrees' is not traceable to any figure or table in the body. Section 4.2 states that eight well-timed astrometric measurements reduce uncertainties to roughly ±3-6 degrees, Figure 9 shows a combined RV+astrometry example with 63.6 ± 2.7 degrees, and Figure 14 reports percentage uncertainties rather than degrees. The authors should reconcile these numbers and state explicitly whether the quoted values are absolute or relative uncertainties and from which simulation they are drawn.
  6. [§5.2, Figure 17, Abstract] The statement that habitable-zone confirmation requires 4-5 epochs at moderate confidence and 8+ epochs at 95% confidence is not directly read off Figure 17. That figure plots the cumulative number of confirmed HZ planets (out of 29) versus epoch for 68% and 95% thresholds; it does not show the number of epochs required for a typical or for every planet to reach each threshold, and the text does not state what fraction of true HZ planets are confirmed by epoch 8. The abstract's '8+ observations' is an extrapolation that should be quantified (e.g., median and spread of confirmation epochs) or softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.2] Section 6.2 says the catalog's stars are 'all stars within 20 pc', but Section 2 and Figure 2 state that the ExEP catalog extends to 25 pc; this should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says the astrometric epochs have 'an uncertainty of 1◦', which appears to be a leftover from an earlier draft; the body uses 5 mas uncertainties and the caption should match the actual simulation setup.
  3. [§4.1 and §4.2] The paper should be explicit that the six epochs in the nominal setup are clustered within one year while the improved long-period results use epochs randomly distributed across five years; the text currently moves between these two cadences without clearly labeling which one is being discussed.
  4. [§3.1.2] The sentence 'For coronagraphs with OWAs of 800 mas or larger, planets around stars out to 20 parsecs maintain visibility fractions above 0.7' appears stronger than the curves in Figure 3 show for 800 mas at the largest distances; please check the value against the plotted data or soften the statement.
  5. [General] No data or code availability statement is provided; given that the analysis uses public tools (octofitter, orbitize, starry) and the ExEP catalog, a short reproducibility statement would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the '40 RV measurements required' claim restates the Section 4.1 assumption as a derived requirement, while the OWA and astrometric-epoch results are genuine simulation outputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.4 (Needed Precursor R V Observations) vs Section 4.1 (Methodology); also Abstract and Conclusions]
    "R V-only model: we assumed a total of 40 R V measurements per target. ... Our analysis indicates that approximately 40 R V measurements per target, with a precision of ∼ 1 m/s, are necessary to adequately constrain the orbital parameters and identify optimal timing windows for direct imaging observations."

    The '40 RV measurements are necessary' requirement is a verbatim restatement of the methodology's input assumption ('we assumed a total of 40 R V measurements per target'). The paper never varies the number of RV epochs to locate a threshold or demonstrate that 39 or 41 would fail; the only scan is over astrometric epochs (Figure 6). The Abstract and Conclusions repeat the same number as a derived specification. Thus the recommendation is an assumed experimental design re-labeled as a requirement, not a prediction from the model. This is a mild circular step and does not affect the OWA or astrometric-epoch results, which come from parameter scans.

full rationale

The central quantitative results — the OWA=1440 mas recommendation and the 6–8 astrometric epoch requirement — are outputs of Monte Carlo and Bayesian simulations, not fits to target values. The OWA follows from simulating 1000 orbits per star with stated priors (Eqs. 5–9) and reading off visibility as a function of OWA; the epoch requirement follows from a scan over 1–8 epochs in Figure 6 and the timing comparison in Figure 14. Those chains are self-contained and not circular, although they inherit the unvalidated log-uniform 5–30 AU prior (Eq. 5), which is a correctness and robustness concern rather than a circularity. One genuine input-vs-output conflation occurs for the precursor RV count: Section 4.1 assumes 40 RV measurements as the model design, and Section 6.4 (and the Abstract and Conclusions) restate 'approximately 40 RV measurements per target ... are necessary' as a derived requirement, with no sensitivity study over RV count. That is a mild 'fitted input called prediction' step, but it does not drive the headline OWA or epoch claims. The wording that the six-epoch choice 'was chosen based on the results presented in Figure 6' is self-referential but is backed by the independent epoch scan in that figure, so it is not treated as a circular step. The inconsistent visibility-fraction definitions (at least one point in orbit vs. portion of orbit) and the log-uniform vs. dN/da ∝ a^-2 citation mismatch with Nielsen et al. (2019) are flagged as correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central requirements are conditional on the assumed orbital population priors and the chosen instrument precision and cadence. No new physical entities are introduced. The main ledger entries are the adopted cold-giant parameter ranges, the assumed RV and astrometry precision and cadence, and the chosen visibility and confidence thresholds.

free parameters (7)
  • Cold giant semi-major axis range = 5-30 AU
    Defines the target population for the OWA visibility calculation; the 1440 mas requirement is conditional on this range (Section 3.1.1, Equation 5).
  • Cold giant mass range = 0.001-10 MJ
    Defines 'cold Jupiter' in Section 3.1.2 and affects the contrast and visibility conclusions.
  • Number of precursor RV measurements = 40
    Assumed in the RV-only model (Section 4.1) and then recommended as a requirement (Section 6.4) without a sensitivity study.
  • RV precision = 1 m/s
    Chosen as a compromise between current and next-generation instruments (Section 4.1).
  • Astrometric uncertainty = 5 mas
    Chosen as representative HWO performance (Section 4.1); Figure 6 caption instead says 1 degree, a discrepancy.
  • Visibility completeness target = 80-90%
    Hand-picked threshold that sets the OWA recommendation (Section 3.1.2).
  • HZ confidence thresholds = 68% and 95%
    Chosen confidence levels for habitable-zone confirmation (Sections 5.1-5.2).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Cold giant semi-major axis prior: a ~ LogU(5, 30) AU
    Underlying population distribution assumed from the GPI survey (Nielsen et al. 2019), not measured for HWO targets (Equation 5).
  • domain assumption Eccentricity prior: e ~ Beta(0.867, 3.03)
    Eccentricity distribution from Kipping (2013), used for both visibility and orbit-fitting simulations (Equation 6).
  • standard math Isotropic orbital orientation: cos(i) uniform, omega and Omega uniform
    Standard assumption of randomly oriented orbits (Equations 7-9).
  • domain assumption Lambertian scattering phase function
    Used for reflected-light contrast and flux calculations (Equation 4); ignores realistic scattering behavior.
  • domain assumption Optimistic habitable-zone boundaries from Kopparapu et al. (2013)
    Defines 'fully within the HZ' used in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Contrast requirement of 10^-10
    HWO raw contrast requirement taken from Mamajek & Stapelfeldt (2024), used as the detection threshold.
  • domain assumption Single-planet assumption in RV/astrometry fits
    Simulated systems contain one planet, ignoring multi-planet signals; Section 4.1 states planets were drawn without consideration of known planets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Requirements for Joint Orbital Characterization of Cold Giants and Habitable Worlds with Habitable Worlds Observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHZ6UECL

@misc{pith2026250721443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Requirements for Joint Orbital Characterization of Cold Giants and Habitable Worlds with Habitable Worlds Observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHZ6UECL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21443}
}
read the original abstract

We determine optimal requirements for the joint detection of habitable-zone planets and cold giant planets with the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO). Analysis of 164 nearby stars shows that a coronagraph outer working angle (OWA) of 1440 milliarcseconds (mas) is necessary to achieve 80-90% visibility of cold giants. Approximately 40 precursor radial velocity measurements with 1 m/s precision are required to adequately constrain orbital parameters before HWO observations. We demonstrate that 6-8 astrometric measurements distributed across the mission timeline, compared to radial velocity constraints alone and to astrometry constraints alone, significantly improve orbital parameter precision, enabling direct determination of orbital inclination with uncertainties of 0.8-3 degrees. For habitable-zone planet characterization, 4-5 epochs provide moderate confidence, while high-confidence (95%) confirmation requires 8+ observations. These specifications are essential for the comprehensive characterization of planetary system architectures and understanding the potential habitability of terrestrial exoplanets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of coronagraph working angles. The Inner Working Angle (IWA) and Outer Work￾ing Angle (OWA) define the detectable region (dotted pat￾tern) where exoplanets can be observed. The central star is blocked by the coronagraph, while planets can be detected between the IWA (red dashed line) and OWA (blue dashed line). Green dots represent detectable planets, while gray dots indicate planets that fa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Properties of stars in the ExEP catalog. Left: Distribution of V magnitudes, showing a peak between V = 5-6, indicating a sample dominated by bright stars. Right: Distribution of distances, showing a relatively uniform spread of targets out to 20 parsecs, with most stars between 5-20 parsecs, making this a sample of nearby stars. of 20 pc, this corresponds to physical separations of 0.5- 1 AU; the detection capabili… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the expected visibility fraction of plan￾ets as a function of stellar distance for different coron￾agraph configurations. We compare visibility fractions across different coronagraph configurations, where each colored line represents a fixed IWA of 60 mas and OWA values ranging from 360 to 2520 mas. The visibility frac￾tion represents the probability that a planet will have at least one point in its orbit that… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase curves showing reflected flux as a function of orbital phase for different planetary albedo values ranging from 0.1 to 0.5. The orbital phase runs from 0 to 1, where phase 0 corresponds to the inferior conjunction and phase 0.5 to the superior conjunction. All cu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The phase curve of a planet over one rotation at eight different illumination phases. The images at the right show renderings of the planet’s illuminated surface throughout the observation. Each curve represents a different viewing geometry, the observer-planet-star an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reduction in the uncertainty in % of orbital parameters as a function of the number of astrometric ob￾servations (epochs) with an uncertainty of 1◦ for 100 simu￾lated planets. The black lines show the uncertainty in or￾bital inclination, while the purple lines show the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of orbital solution constraints with an increasing number of simulated astrometric observations, shown in relative right ascension (∆ra) and declination (∆dec) coordinates in milliarcseconds. Each panel shows the ensemble of possible orbits (colored lines) co…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The accuracy of exoplanet orbital parameter determination using radial velocity (RV) measurements combined with astrometry. The top panels show the correlation between inferred and true values for orbital inclination (left) and eccentricity (right), with blue triangles…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot showing posterior distributions of orbital parameters from two different models: Astrometry-only (blue) and combined RV+astrometry (orange) for a simulated planetary system. The star is at 20 pc, and the astrometric measurements span two months between epoc…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corner plot showing posterior distributions of orbital parameters from two different models: RV-only (blue) and combined RV+astrometry (orange) for a simulated planetary system. The star is at 20 pc, and the astrometric measurements span two months between epochs. The…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Parameter recovery precision across 100 independent orbital simulations combining RV and astrometric measure￾ments after six epochs of astrometric observations covering around a year (one epoch every two months). The left panel shows relative precision in recovered in…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbital fits for the two cases showing poor precision in their orbital parameters (simulations 8 and 95). Each panel displays the projected orbit in the plane of the sky, where ∆ra and ∆dec are given in milliarcseconds (mas). The white circles represent the actual obs…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of eccentricity absolute uncertainties (∆e) and inclination absolute uncertainties (∆i) between RV￾only (blue triangles), Astrometry-only (yellow diamonds), and combined RV+astrometry (white circles) solutions across 100 simulated planetary systems. While t…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of orbital inclination constraints for four planetary systems using different observation timing strategies. Histograms show the posterior distributions of inclination measurements for observations scheduled every two months within one year (light red) and …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Confidence that a simulated Earth-like planet (a = 0.74 AU, e = 0.21) is within the star’s habitable zone (both periastron and apastron within the habitable zone (HZ) boundaries), increases with additional epochs of relative astrometry. Top left: Posterior probability…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows the cumulative number of confirmed HZ planets as a function of observational epochs, using two different confidence thresholds. As expected, the 68% confidence curve (solid blue line) - where at least 68% of the fitted orbital posteriors fall within the HZ - ris…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    ) pY R c5 -I1dl *;y3 ̘ 5=0L: \5Q2 ! 牵dDUVBW

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

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    M., Lim , P

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  7. [7]

    Bakos , G. A. 1964, SAO Special Report, 162

    1964

  8. [8]

    Barnes , R., & Raymond , S. N. 2004, , 617, 569, 10.1086/423419

    doi:10.1086/423419 2004

Show all 173 references
  1. [10]

    L., De Rosa , R

    Blunt , S., Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., et al. 2017, , 153, 229, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6930

    2017 doi

  2. [11]

    J., Angelo, I., et al

    Blunt, S., Wang, J. J., Angelo, I., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 181

    2019

  3. [12]

    S., Dumusque , X., Massa , A., et al

    Bonomo , A. S., Dumusque , X., Massa , A., et al. 2023, , 677, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346211

    2023 doi

  4. [14]

    L., Knutson , H

    Bryan , M. L., Knutson , H. A., Lee , E. J., et al. 2019, , 157, 52, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf57f

    2019 doi

  5. [15]

    L., & Lee , E

    Bryan , M. L., & Lee , E. J. 2024, , 968, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5013

    2024 doi

  6. [16]

    2025, , 982, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/adb0bd

    ---. 2025, , 982, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/adb0bd

    2025 doi

  7. [17]

    C., et al

    Carri \'o n-Gonz \'a lez , \'O ., Garc \' a Mu \ n oz , A., Santos , N. C., et al. 2021, , 651, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039993

    2021 doi

  8. [18]

    B., Mulders , G

    Fernandes , R. B., Mulders , G. D., Pascucci , I., Mordasini , C., & Emsenhuber , A. 2019, , 874, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0300

    2019 doi

  9. [19]

    J., Rosenthal , L

    Fulton , B. J., Rosenthal , L. J., Hirsch , L. A., et al. 2021, , 255, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1

    2021 doi

  10. [20]

    Gaia Collaboration , Smart, R. L. , Sarro, L. M. , et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498

    2021 doi

  11. [21]

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

    Gaudi , B. S., Seager , S., Mennesson , B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06683, 10.48550/arXiv.2001.06683

    2020 doi arXiv

  12. [22]

    K., Dressing , C

    Harada , C. K., Dressing , C. D., Kane , S. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10679, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10679

    2024 doi

  13. [23]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  14. [24]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    1970 doi

  15. [25]

    M., & Kitzmann , D

    Heng , K., Morris , B. M., & Kitzmann , D. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1001, 10.1038/s41550-021-01444-7

    2021 doi

  16. [26]

    L., Bott , K., Dalba , P

    Hill , M. L., Bott , K., Dalba , P. A., et al. 2023, , 165, 34, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca1c0

    2023 doi

  17. [27]

    D., & Gelman , A

    Hoffman , M. D., & Gelman , A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246, 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246

    2011 doi arXiv

  18. [28]

    W., & Fulton , B

    Howard , A. W., & Fulton , B. J. 2016, , 128, 114401, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/114401

    2016 doi

  19. [29]

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

    2007

  20. [30]

    Kane , S. R. 2015, , 814, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L9

    2015 doi

  21. [31]

    2023, , 166, 187, 10.3847/1538-3881/acfb01

    ---. 2023, , 166, 187, 10.3847/1538-3881/acfb01

    2023 doi

  22. [32]

    R., & Blunt , S

    Kane , S. R., & Blunt , S. 2019, , 158, 209, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4c3e

    2019 doi

  23. [33]

    R., & Burt , J

    Kane , S. R., & Burt , J. A. 2024, , 168, 279, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8a68

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    R., & Fetherolf , T

    Kane , S. R., & Fetherolf , T. 2023, , 166, 205, 10.3847/1538-3881/acff5a

    2023 doi

  25. [35]

    R., & Gelino , D

    Kane , S. R., & Gelino , D. M. 2012 a , , 124, 323, 10.1086/665271

    2012 doi

  26. [36]

    2012 b , Astrobiology, 12, 940, 10.1089/ast.2011.0798

    ---. 2012 b , Astrobiology, 12, 940, 10.1089/ast.2011.0798

    2012

  27. [37]

    R., Gelino, D

    Kane, S. R., Gelino, D. M., Ciardi, D. R., Dragomir, D., & von Braun, K. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 61, 10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/61

    2011 doi

  28. [38]

    R., Li , Z., Turnbull , M

    Kane , S. R., Li , Z., Turnbull , M. C., Dressing , C. D., & Harada , C. K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00263, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00263

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [39]

    R., & Wittenmyer , R

    Kane , S. R., & Wittenmyer , R. A. 2024, , 962, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2463

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    R., Hill , M

    Kane , S. R., Hill , M. L., Kasting , J. F., et al. 2016, , 830, 1, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/1

    2016 doi

  31. [41]

    F., Whitmire , D

    Kasting , J. F., Whitmire , D. P., & Reynolds , R. T. 1993, , 101, 108, 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

    1993

  32. [42]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 434, L51, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075

    2013 doi

  33. [43]

    K., & Barnes , R

    Kopparapu , R. K., & Barnes , R. 2010, , 716, 1336, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1336

    2010 doi

  34. [44]

    K., Ramirez , R

    Kopparapu , R. K., Ramirez , R. M., SchottelKotte , J., et al. 2014, , 787, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    2014 doi

  35. [45]

    K., Ramirez , R., Kasting , J

    Kopparapu , R. K., Ramirez , R., Kasting , J. F., et al. 2013, , 765, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    2013 doi

  36. [46]

    2024, , 692, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451263

    Kral , Q., Huet , P., Bergez-Casalou , C., et al. 2024, , 692, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451263

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    A., Mamajek , E

    Laliotis , K., Burt , J. A., Mamajek , E. E., et al. 2023, , 165, 176, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc067

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    2019, , 157, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

    Luger , R., Agol , E., Foreman-Mackey , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

    2019 doi

  39. [49]

    , Abiad, F

    Mahapatra, G. , Abiad, F. , Rossi, L. , & Stam, D. M. 2023, A&A, 671, A165, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243190

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    2017, , 282, 19, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.023

    Mallama , A., Krobusek , B., & Pavlov , H. 2017, , 282, 19, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.023

    2017 doi

  41. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    Mamajek , E., & Stapelfeldt , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    S., Gelino , C., Stephens , D., Lunine , J

    Marley , M. S., Gelino , C., Stephens , D., Lunine , J. I., & Freedman , R. 1999, , 513, 879, 10.1086/306881

    1999 doi

  43. [53]

    2019, , 51, 552

    Meech , K., Castillo-Rogez , J., Hainaut , O., Lazio , J., & Raymond , S. 2019, , 51, 552

    2019

  44. [54]

    W., Rosenbluth, M

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. 1953, 10.2172/4390578

    1953 doi

  45. [55]

    I., et al

    Morbidelli , A., Chambers , J., Lunine , J. I., et al. 2000, , 35, 1309, 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01518.x

    2000

  46. [56]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Morgan , R., Savransky , D., Turmon , M., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle , S. Matsuura , & M. D. Perrin ...

    2024 doi

  47. [57]

    2023, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 10.17226/26141

    National Academies of Sciences, E., & Medicine. 2023, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 10.17226/26141

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    L., Liu , M

    Nielsen , E. L., Liu , M. C., Wahhaj , Z., et al. 2014, , 794, 158, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/158

    2014 doi

  49. [59]

    L., De Rosa , R

    Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., Macintosh , B., et al. 2019, , 158, 13, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1767, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21766.x

    Pancino, E., Altavilla, G., Marinoni, S., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1767, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21766.x

    2012

  51. [61]

    N., & Izidoro , A

    Raymond , S. N., & Izidoro , A. 2017, , 297, 134, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.030

    2017 doi

  52. [62]

    N., Quinn , T., & Lunine , J

    Raymond , S. N., Quinn , T., & Lunine , J. I. 2004, , 168, 1, 10.1016/j.icarus.2003.11.019

    2004 doi

  53. [63]

    N., Armitage , P

    Raymond , S. N., Armitage , P. J., Moro-Mart \' n , A., et al. 2011, , 530, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116456

    2011 doi

  54. [64]

    2011, , 527, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015861

    Reffert , S., & Quirrenbach , A. 2011, , 527, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015861

    2011 doi

  55. [65]

    J., & Mancinelli , R

    Rothschild , L. J., & Mancinelli , R. L. 2001, , 409, 1092, 10.1038/35059215

    2001 doi

  56. [67]

    Schulze-Makuch , D., & Irwin , L. N. 2006, Naturwissenschaften, 93, 155, 10.1007/s00114-005-0078-6

    2006 doi

  57. [68]

    C., & Cowan , N

    Schwartz , J. C., & Cowan , N. B. 2015, , 449, 4192, 10.1093/mnras/stv470

    2015 doi

  58. [69]

    C., Roberge , A., Mandell , A., & Robinson , T

    Stark , C. C., Roberge , A., Mandell , A., & Robinson , T. D. 2014, , 795, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/122

    2014 doi

  59. [70]

    P., Sumi , T., et al

    Suzuki , D., Bennett , D. P., Sumi , T., et al. 2016, , 833, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/145

    2016 doi

  60. [71]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219, 10.48550/arXiv.1912.06219

    The LUVOIR Team . 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219, 10.48550/arXiv.1912.06219

    2019 doi arXiv

  61. [72]

    2023, , 166, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    Thompson , W., Lawrence , J., Blakely , D., et al. 2023, , 166, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    2023 doi

  62. [73]

    W., Stark , C

    Tuchow , N. W., Stark , C. C., & Mamajek , E. 2024, , 167, 139, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad25ec

    2024 doi

  63. [74]

    A., Lubin , J., et al

    Van Zandt , J., Petigura , E. A., Lubin , J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06342, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06342

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [75]

    R., Gebhard , T

    Vaughan , S. R., Gebhard , T. D., Bott , K., et al. 2023, , 524, 5477, 10.1093/mnras/stad2127

    2023 doi

  65. [76]

    Veras , D., & Armitage , P. J. 2006, , 645, 1509, 10.1086/504582

    2006 doi

  66. [77]

    L., Casey, A

    Wallace, A. L., Casey, A. R., Brown, A. G. A., & Castro-Ginard, A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 2485, 10.1093/mnras/stae2769

    2024 doi

  67. [78]

    M., Isaacson , H., Howard , A

    Weiss , L. M., Isaacson , H., Howard , A. W., et al. 2024, , 270, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0cab

    2024 doi

  68. [79]

    M., & Pollard , D

    Williams , D. M., & Pollard , D. 2002, International Journal of Astrobiology, 1, 61, 10.1017/S1473550402001064

    2002 doi

  69. [80]

    A., Wang , S., Horner , J., et al

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Wang , S., Horner , J., et al. 2020, , 492, 377, 10.1093/mnras/stz3436

    2020 doi

  70. [81]

    2020, in Proceedings of The 2nd Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference ( PMLR ), 1--10

    Xu, K., Ge, H., Tebbutt, W., et al. 2020, in Proceedings of The 2nd Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference ( PMLR ), 1--10. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v118/xu20a.html

    2020

  71. [82]

    D., Shahar , A., & Schlichting , H

    Young , E. D., Shahar , A., & Schlichting , H. E. 2023, , 616, 306, 10.1038/s41586-023-05823-0

    2023 doi

  72. [83]

    2022, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23, 1

    Zhang, L., Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., & Vehtari, A. 2022, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23, 1. http://jmlr.org/papers/v23/21-0889.html

    2022

  73. [84]

    2019, , 873, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0205

    Zhu , W. 2019, , 873, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0205

    2019 doi

  74. [85]

    I., Petit, J

    Morbidelli, A., Chambers, J., Lunine, J. I., Petit, J. M., Robert, F., Valsecchi, G. B., & Cyr, K. E. (2000). Source regions and time scales for the delivery of water to Earth. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 35(6), 1309-1320

    2000

  75. [86]

    Kral, Q., Huet, P., Bergez-Casalou, C., Thébault, P., Charnoz, S., & Fornasier, S. (2024). An impact-free mechanism to deliver water to terrestrial planets and exoplanets. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A70

    2024

  76. [87]

    D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H

    Young, E. D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H. E. (2023). Earth shaped by primordial H _ 2 atmospheres. Nature, 616(7956), 306-311

    2023

  77. [88]

    Veras, D., & Armitage, P. J. (2006). Predictions for the Correlation between Giant and Terrestrial Extrasolar Planets in Dynamically Evolved Systems. The Astrophysical Journal, 645(2), 1509-1515

    2006

  78. [89]

    Raymond, S. N. et al. (2011). Debris disks as signposts of terrestrial planet formation. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, A62

    2011

  79. [90]

    Barnes, R., & Raymond, S. N. (2004). Predicting Planets in Known Extrasolar Planetary Systems. I. Test Particle Simulations. The Astrophysical Journal, 617(1), 569-574

    2004

  80. [91]

    Hill, M. L. et al. (2023). A Catalog of Habitable Zone Exoplanets. The Astronomical Journal, 165(2), 34

    2023

  81. [92]

    R., & Gelino, D

    Kane, S. R., & Gelino, D. M. (2012). The Habitable Zone Gallery. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124(914), 323

    2012

  82. [93]

    R., & Gelino, D

    Kane, S. R., & Gelino, D. M. (2012). The Habitable Zone and Extreme Planetary Orbits. Astrobiology, 12(10), 940-945

    2012

  83. [94]

    Kane, S. R. (2014). Habitable Zone Dependence on Stellar Parameter Uncertainties. The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 111

    2014

  84. [95]

    Kane, S. R. (2015). Stability of Earth-mass Planets in the Kepler-68 System. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 814, L9

    2015

  85. [96]

    Kane, S. R. et al. (2016). A Catalog of Kepler Habitable Zone Exoplanet Candidates. The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 1

    2016

  86. [97]

    R., & Blunt, S

    Kane, S. R., & Blunt, S. (2019). In the Presence of a Wrecking Ball: Orbital Stability in the HR 5183 System. The Astronomical Journal, 158(5), 209

    2019

  87. [98]

    Kane, S. R. (2023). Surrounded by Giants: Habitable Zone Stability Within the HD 141399 System. The Astronomical Journal, 166(5), 187

    2023

  88. [99]

    R., & Fetherolf, T

    Kane, S. R., & Fetherolf, T. (2023). GJ 357 d: Potentially Habitable World or Agent of Chaos? The Astronomical Journal, 166(5), 205

    2023

  89. [100]

    R., & Wittenmyer, R

    Kane, S. R., & Wittenmyer, R. A. (2024). Eccentricity Distribution beyond the Snow Line and Implications for Planetary Habitability. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 962(1), L21

    2024

  90. [101]

    R., Li, Z., Turnbull, M

    Kane, S. R., Li, Z., Turnbull, M. C., Dressing, C. D., & Harada, C. K. (2024). Dynamical Viability Assessment for Habitable Worlds Observatory Targets. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00263

    2024 arXiv

  91. [102]

    R., & Burt, J

    Kane, S. R., & Burt, J. A. (2024). Hic Sunt Dracones: Uncovering Dynamical Perturbers within the Habitable Zone. The Astronomical Journal, 168(6), 279

    2024

  92. [103]

    David, T. J. et al. (2021). Evolution of the Exoplanet Size Distribution: Forming Large Super-Earths Over Billions of Years. The Astronomical Journal, 161(6), 265

    2021

  93. [104]

    Jurić, M., & Tremaine, S. (2008). Dynamical Origin of Extrasolar Planet Eccentricity Distribution. The Astrophysical Journal, 686(1), 603-620

    2008

  94. [105]

    B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F

    Chatterjee, S., Ford, E. B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F. A. (2008). Dynamical Outcomes of Planet-Planet Scattering. The Astrophysical Journal, 686(1), 580-602

    2008

  95. [106]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. (2015). The Occurrence and Architecture of Exoplanetary Systems. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 409-447

    2015

  96. [107]

    Fabrycky, D. C. et al. (2014). Architecture of Kepler's Multi-transiting Systems. II. New Investigations with Twice as Many Candidates. The Astrophysical Journal, 790(2), 146

    2014

  97. [108]

    J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S

    Walsh, K. J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., O'Brien, D. P., & Mandell, A. M. (2011). A low mass for Mars from Jupiter's early gas-driven migration. Nature, 475(7355), 206-209

    2011

  98. [109]

    Mamajek, E., & Stapelfeldt, K. (2024). NASA Exoplanet Exploration Program (ExEP) Mission Star List for the Habitable Worlds Observatory (2023). arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414

    2024 arXiv

  99. [110]

    Thompson, W. et al. (2023). Octofitter: Fast, Flexible, and Accurate Orbit Modeling to Detect Exoplanets. The Astronomical Journal, 166(4), 164

    2023

  100. [111]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. (2011). The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246

    2011 arXiv

  101. [112]

    W., Stark, C

    Tuchow, N. W., Stark, C. C., & Mamajek, E. (2024). HPIC: The Habitable Worlds Observatory Preliminary Input Catalog. The Astronomical Journal, 167(3), 139

    2024

  102. [113]

    L., Casey, A

    Wallace, A. L., Casey, A. R., Brown, A. G. A., & Castro-Ginard, A. (2024). Detection and Characterisation of Giant Planets with Gaia Astrometry. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06705

    2024 arXiv

  103. [114]

    Carrión-González, Ó. et al. (2021). Catalogue of exoplanets accessible in reflected starlight to the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Population study and prospects for phase-curve measurements. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, A7

    2021

  104. [115]

    Harada, C. K. et al. (2024). SPORES-HWO. II. Limits on Planetary Companions of Future High-contrast Imaging Targets from > 20 Years of HIRES and HARPS Radial Velocities. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10679

    2024

  105. [116]

    Laliotis, K. et al. (2023). Doppler Constraints on Planetary Companions to Nearby Sun-like Stars: An Archival Radial Velocity Survey of Southern Targets for Proposed NASA Direct Imaging Missions. The Astronomical Journal, 165(4), 176

    2023

  106. [117]

    W., & Fulton, B

    Howard, A. W., & Fulton, B. J. (2016). Limits on Planetary Companions from Doppler Surveys of Nearby Stars. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128(969), 114401

    2016

  107. [118]

    Astropy Collaboration et al. (2018). The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package. The Astronomical Journal, 156(3), 123

    2018

  108. [119]

    Luger, R. et al. (2019). starry: Analytic Occultation Light Curves. The Astronomical Journal, 157(2), 64

    2019

  109. [120]

    C., & Cowan, N

    Schwartz, J. C., & Cowan, N. B. (2015). Balancing the energy budget of short-period giant planets: evidence for reflective clouds and optical absorbers. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449(4), 4192-4203

    2015

  110. [121]

    M., & Kitzmann, D

    Heng, K., Morris, B. M., & Kitzmann, D. (2021). Closed-form ab initio solutions of geometric albedos and reflected light phase curves of exoplanets. Nature Astronomy, 5, 1001-1008

    2021

  111. [122]

    Kipping, D. M. (2013). Parametrizing the exoplanet eccentricity distribution with the beta distribution. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, L51-L55

    2013

  112. [123]

    Fulton, B. J. et al. (2021). California Legacy Survey. II. Occurrence of Giant Planets beyond the Ice Line. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 255(1), 14

    2021

  113. [124]

    Wittenmyer, R. A. et al. (2020). Cool Jupiters greatly outnumber their toasty siblings: occurrence rates from the Anglo-Australian Planet Search. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492(1), 377-383

    2020

  114. [125]

    B., Mulders, G

    Fernandes, R. B., Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Mordasini, C., & Emsenhuber, A. (2019). Hints for a Turnover at the Snow Line in the Giant Planet Occurrence Rate. The Astrophysical Journal, 874(1), 81

    2019

  115. [126]

    N., & Izidoro, A

    Raymond, S. N., & Izidoro, A. (2017). Origin of water in the inner Solar System: Planetesimals scattered inward during Jupiter and Saturn's rapid gas accretion. Icarus, 297, 134-148

    2017

  116. [127]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. (1993). Habitable Zones around Main Sequence Stars. Icarus, 101(1), 108-128

    1993

  117. [128]

    M., & Pollard, D

    Williams, D. M., & Pollard, D. (2002). Earth-like worlds on eccentric orbits: excursions beyond the habitable zone. International Journal of Astrobiology, 1(1), 61-69

    2002

  118. [129]

    K., & Barnes, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., & Barnes, R. (2010). Stability Analysis of Single-planet Systems and Their Habitable Zones. The Astrophysical Journal, 716(2), 1336-1344

    2010

  119. [130]

    Kopparapu, R. K. et al. (2013). Habitable Zones around Main-sequence Stars: New Estimates. The Astrophysical Journal, 765(2), 131

    2013

  120. [131]

    Kopparapu, R. K. (2013). A Revised Estimate of the Occurrence Rate of Terrestrial Planets in the Habitable Zones around Kepler M-dwarfs. The Astrophysical Journal, 767(1), L8

    2013

  121. [132]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., Kasting, J. F., Domagal-Goldman, S., & Eymet, V. (2014). Habitable Zones around Main-sequence Stars: Dependence on Planetary Mass. The Astrophysical Journal, 787(2), L29

    2014

  122. [133]

    N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J

    Raymond, S. N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J. I. (2004). Making other earths: dynamical simulations of terrestrial planet formation and water delivery. Icarus, 168(1), 1-17

    2004

  123. [134]

    Luger, R. et al. (2017). A seven-planet resonant chain in TRAPPIST-1. Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

    2017

  124. [135]

    Gillon, M. et al. (2017). Seven temperate terrestrial planets around the nearby ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1. Nature, 542(7642), 456-460

    2017

  125. [136]

    M., Fabrycky, D

    Mills, S. M., Fabrycky, D. C., Migaszewski, C., Ford, E. B., Petigura, E., & Isaacson, H. (2016). A resonant chain of four transiting, sub-Neptune planets. Nature, 533(7604), 509-512

    2016

  126. [137]

    Leleu, A. et al. (2021). Six transiting planets and a chain of Laplace resonances in TOI-178. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A26

    2021

  127. [138]

    Nielsen, E. L. et al. (2019). The Gemini Planet Imager Exoplanet Survey: Giant Planet and Brown Dwarf Demographics from 10 to 100 au. The Astronomical Journal, 158(1), 13

    2019

  128. [139]

    S., Gelino, C., Stephens, D., Lunine, J

    Marley, M. S., Gelino, C., Stephens, D., Lunine, J. I., & Freedman, R. (1999). Reflected Spectra and Albedos of Extrasolar Giant Planets. I. Clear and Cloudy Atmospheres. The Astrophysical Journal, 513(2), 879-893

    1999

  129. [140]

    Blunt, S. et al. (2017). Orbits for the Impatient: A Bayesian Rejection-sampling Method for Quickly Fitting the Orbits of Long-period Exoplanets. The Astronomical Journal, 153(5), 229

    2017

  130. [141]

    Nielsen, E. L. et al. (2014). The Gemini NICI Planet-Finding Campaign: The Orbit of the Young Exoplanet Pictoris b. The Astrophysical Journal, 794(2), 158

    2014

  131. [142]

    Xu, K., Ge, H., Tebbutt, W., Tarek, M., Trapp, M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2020). AdvancedHMC.jl: A Robust, Modular and Efficient Implementation of Advanced HMC Algorithms. Proceedings of The 2nd Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference, 1-10

    2020

  132. [143]

    Zhang, L., Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., & Vehtari, A. (2022). Pathfinder: Parallel quasi-Newton variational inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(306), 1-49

    2022

  133. [144]

    Vaughan, S. R. et al. (2023). Chasing rainbows and ocean glints: Inner working angle constraints for the Habitable Worlds Observatory. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(4), 5477-5485

    2023

  134. [145]

    C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., & Robinson, T

    Stark, C. C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., & Robinson, T. D. (2014). Maximizing the ExoEarth Candidate Yield from a Future Direct Imaging Mission. The Astrophysical Journal, 795(2), 122

    2014

  135. [146]

    Mallama, A., Krobusek, B., & Pavlov, H. (2017). Comprehensive wide-band magnitudes and albedos for the planets, with applications to exo-planets and Planet Nine. Icarus, 282, 19-33

    2017

  136. [147]

    The LUVOIR Mission Concept Study Final Report

    The LUVOIR Team (2019). The LUVOIR Mission Concept Study Final Report. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219

    2019 arXiv

  137. [148]

    Gaudi, B. S. et al. (2020). The Habitable Exoplanet Observatory (HabEx) Mission Concept Study Final Report. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06683

    2020 arXiv

  138. [149]

    Hastings, W. K. (1970). Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika, 57, 97-109

    1970

  139. [150]

    W., Rosenbluth, M

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1953). Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. United States

    1953

  140. [151]

    Harris, C. R. et al. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357-362

    2020

  141. [152]

    Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3), 90-95

    2007

  142. [153]

    Blunt, S. et al. (2019). orbitize!: A Comprehensive Orbit-fitting Software Package for the High-contrast Imaging Community. The Astronomical Journal, 158(5), 181

    2019

  143. [154]

    Suzuki, D. et al. (2016). The Exoplanet Mass-ratio Function from the MOA-II Survey: Discovery of a Break and Likely Peak at a Neptune Mass. The Astrophysical Journal, 833(2), 145

    2016

  144. [155]

    Reffert, S., & Quirrenbach, A. (2011). Mass constraints on substellar companion candidates from the re-reduced Hipparcos intermediate astrometric data: nine confirmed planets and two confirmed brown dwarfs. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 527, A140

    2011

  145. [156]

    Morgan, R. et al. (2024). HWO yield sensitivities in the NIR and NUV. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 13092, 130925M

    2024

  146. [157]

    J., & Mancinelli, R

    Rothschild, L. J., & Mancinelli, R. L. (2001). Life in extreme environments. Nature, 409(6823), 1092-1101

    2001

  147. [158]

    Schulze-Makuch, D., & Irwin, L. N. (2006). The prospect of alien life in exotic forms on other worlds. Naturwissenschaften, 93(4), 155-172

    2006

  148. [159]

    Zhu, W. (2019). Influence of Stellar Metallicity on Occurrence Rates of Planets and Planetary Systems. The Astrophysical Journal, 873(1), 8

    2019

  149. [160]

    L., & Lee, E

    Bryan, M. L., & Lee, E. J. (2025). Resolving the Super-Earth/Gas Giant Connection in Stellar Mass and Metallicity. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 982(1), L7

    2025

  150. [161]

    L., & Lee, E

    Bryan, M. L., & Lee, E. J. (2024). Friends Not Foes: Strong Correlation between Inner Super-Earths and Outer Gas Giants. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 968(2), L25

    2024

  151. [162]

    Bryan, M. L. et al. (2019). An Excess of Jupiter Analogs in Super-Earth Systems. The Astronomical Journal, 157(2), 52

    2019

  152. [163]

    Van Zandt, J. et al. (2025). The TESS-Keck Survey XXIV: Outer Giants may be More Prevalent in the Presence of Inner Small Planets. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06342

    2025 arXiv

  153. [164]

    Weiss, L. M. et al. (2024). The Kepler Giant Planet Search. I. A Decade of Kepler Planet-host Radial Velocities from W. M. Keck Observatory. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270(1), 8

    2024

  154. [165]

    Bonomo, A. S. et al. (2023). Cold Jupiters and improved masses in 38 Kepler and K2 small planet systems from 3661 HARPS-N radial velocities. No excess of cold Jupiters in small planet systems. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A33

    2023

  155. [166]

    Meech, K., Castillo-Rogez, J., Hainaut, O., Lazio, J., & Raymond, S. (2019). Sampling Extrasolar Planetary Systems: Interstellar Objects in the Solar System. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 51(3), 552

    2019

  156. [167]

    Betancourt, M. (2017). A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1701.02434

    2017 arXiv

  157. [168]

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T., & Fonnesbeck, C. (2015). Probabilistic Programming in Python using PyMC. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08050

    2015 arXiv

  158. [169]

    Mahapatra, G., Abiad, F., Rossi, L., & Stam, D. M. (2023). From exo-Earths to exo-Venuses: Flux and polarization signatures of reflected light. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671, A165

    2023

  159. [170]

    R., Gelino, D

    Kane, S. R., Gelino, D. M., Ciardi, D. R., Dragomir, D., & von Braun, K. (2011). Planetary Phase Variations of the 55 Cancri System. The Astrophysical Journal, 740(2), 61

    2011

  160. [171]

    L., Casey, A

    Wallace, A. L., Casey, A. R., Brown, A. G. A., & Castro-Ginard, A. (2024). Detection and characterization of giant planets with Gaia astrometry. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536(3), 2485-2495

    2024

  161. [172]

    Brown, A. G. A. (2025). Gaia: Ten Years of Surveying the Milky Way and Beyond. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01533

    2025 arXiv

  162. [173]

    Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023). Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    2023

  163. [174]

    Astropy Collaboration et al. (2013). Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

    2013

  164. [175]

    Pancino, E. et al. (2012). The Gaia spectrophotometric standard stars survey — I. Preliminary results. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426(3), 1767-1781

    2012

  165. [176]

    Gaia Collaboration et al. (2021). Gaia Early Data Release 3 - The Gaia Catalogue of Nearby Stars. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A6

    2021

Pith tools

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