pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22655 · v1 · pith:QRR2BF75new · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Evidence of Radius Inflation Based on 50 Transiting Brown Dwarfs and Low-mass Stellar Companions

Aarushi Mehrotra , Chih-Chun Hsu , Jason J. Wang , Christopher A. Theissen , Adam J. Burgasser This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 03:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords brown dwarfsradius inflationtransiting companionsstellar irradiationsubstellar evolutionlow-mass stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

Transiting brown dwarfs are on average 8.7 percent larger than model predictions predict.

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

The paper assembles a sample of 85 transiting brown dwarfs and low-mass stellar companions and focuses on the 50 objects with the best-constrained ages and parameters. It compares the radii measured from transit light curves against radii from standard evolutionary models at the same mass, age, and metallicity. The measured radii exceed the model values by 8.7 percent on average, a 4.6-sigma offset that holds for the whole sample. The offset grows to a median of 16 percent for companions orbiting at 0.05 au or less and shrinks at larger separations, suggesting the extra size is driven by stellar irradiation. The authors release the full parameter compilation for community use.

Core claim

For the 50 transiting companions with robust ages and model constraints, the difference between observed and model radii averages 8.7 ± 1.9 percent, corresponding to a 4.6σ discrepancy. Objects at separations ≤ 0.05 au show a median inflation of 16 ± 6 percent at 2.7σ significance, while the inflation declines toward wider orbits, consistent with reduced stellar irradiation at larger distances.

What carries the argument

Direct subtraction of theoretical model radii from transit-derived radii, performed across a population with known masses, ages, metallicities, and orbital separations.

If this is right

  • Radius inflation is established as a population-level property of transiting brown dwarfs rather than an isolated anomaly.
  • Inflation strength correlates inversely with orbital separation, supporting irradiation as the dominant driver.
  • The released compilation supplies a ready benchmark set for testing future models that include irradiation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models that omit irradiation will systematically under-predict radii for any close-in substellar objects, affecting mass-radius inferences in young systems.
  • The separation dependence may help distinguish irradiation from other proposed inflation mechanisms such as enhanced metallicity or tidal heating.
  • Similar radius offsets could appear in directly imaged companions once their ages and irradiation histories are known at comparable precision.

Load-bearing premise

Standard evolutionary models give the correct radius for a given mass, age, and metallicity when irradiation is absent.

What would settle it

A new sample or revised models in which the average measured-minus-model radius difference for similar objects falls to zero within 2σ would falsify the population-level inflation claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22655 by Aarushi Mehrotra, Adam J. Burgasser, Chih-Chun Hsu, Christopher A. Theissen, Jason J. Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Radius versus mass, along with Baraffe et al. (2003) evolutionary tracks, color-coded by ages; (b) Radius difference versus mass, along with median and 1 σ radius differences by mass bins, color-coded by ages; (c) Radius difference versus orbital separation, color-coded by ages; (d) Median radius difference versus separation bins. The central point on each blue line represents the median difference, an… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Statistical assessment of stellar parameters enables validation and improvements in theoretical models. We compiled a sample of 85 transiting stellar and substellar companions, with masses ranging from $\sim$13-100 $M_\mathrm{Jup}$. We focus on analyzing 50 transiting companions with robust ages and model constraints, and evaluate the degree of radius inflation versus mass, separation, equilibrium temperature, and metallicity. Our evaluation of the differences between measured and model radii indicates an $8.7\pm1.9$% radius inflation for the full sample, at $4.6\sigma$ discrepancy, validating the existence of radius inflation at a population level in transiting brown dwarfs. For brown dwarfs at separations $\leq 0.05$ au, we find an even higher radius inflation, with a median inflation of $16\pm6$% at $2.7\sigma$, and the inflation decreases toward wider separations, likely due to reduced stellar irradiation. Finally, we provide our compilation for the community to use.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles a sample of 85 transiting stellar and substellar companions with masses from ~13 to 100 M_Jup. It focuses on a subsample of 50 objects with robust ages and model constraints to assess radius inflation by comparing measured radii to theoretical evolutionary model predictions. The authors report an 8.7 ± 1.9% radius inflation for the sample at 4.6σ significance, with a higher median inflation of 16 ± 6% for objects at separations ≤ 0.05 au at 2.7σ, decreasing at wider separations. They attribute this to stellar irradiation and provide the compiled dataset for community use.

Significance. If the model baselines prove accurate, this work provides population-level statistical evidence for radius inflation in transiting brown dwarfs, supporting irradiation as a key driver and showing a clear separation dependence. The public release of the compiled parameters is a concrete strength that enables follow-up studies and model improvements.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (model radius comparison and inflation statistics)] The central 8.7±1.9% inflation result (4.6σ) is computed as (R_obs − R_model)/R_model using one set of evolutionary models for the 50-object subsample. No cross-check against alternative grids (e.g., Baraffe vs. Sonora or COND) is reported, despite known radius differences of several percent at fixed mass, age, and metallicity in the 13–100 M_Jup range. This test is required to establish that the discrepancy reflects physical inflation rather than a systematic offset in the chosen baseline models.
  2. [§2 (sample compilation and selection)] The criteria used to select the 50 objects with 'robust ages and model constraints' from the parent sample of 85 are not stated with sufficient quantitative detail (e.g., age uncertainty thresholds, metallicity requirements, or validation against independent indicators). Without this, it is difficult to evaluate possible selection biases that could affect the reported inflation percentages and significance levels.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states an 8.7% inflation 'for the full sample' immediately after describing the focus on the 50-object subsample; a brief clarification of which sample the quoted statistic refers to would remove ambiguity.
  2. [§5 (trends with separation and metallicity)] Notation for equilibrium temperature and metallicity in the trend plots could be made more explicit (e.g., consistent use of T_eq and [Fe/H]) to aid readers comparing with other brown-dwarf studies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and positive review, which highlights the potential value of our compiled sample and statistical analysis. We address each major comment in detail below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional checks and clarifications where these strengthen the work without altering our core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central 8.7±1.9% inflation result (4.6σ) is computed as (R_obs − R_model)/R_model using one set of evolutionary models for the 50-object subsample. No cross-check against alternative grids (e.g., Baraffe vs. Sonora or COND) is reported, despite known radius differences of several percent at fixed mass, age, and metallicity in the 13–100 M_Jup range. This test is required to establish that the discrepancy reflects physical inflation rather than a systematic offset in the chosen baseline models.

    Authors: We agree that cross-validation against alternative evolutionary grids is important to rule out model-specific systematics. In the revised manuscript we have added a direct comparison in §4 using the Baraffe et al. (2015) and Sonora grids (in addition to our primary model set). The median inflation remains 7.9–9.2% across all three grids, with the 4.6σ significance preserved; differences between grids are at the 2–3% level and do not remove the detected offset. We have included a new table and brief discussion of these results to demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The criteria used to select the 50 objects with 'robust ages and model constraints' from the parent sample of 85 are not stated with sufficient quantitative detail (e.g., age uncertainty thresholds, metallicity requirements, or validation against independent indicators). Without this, it is difficult to evaluate possible selection biases that could affect the reported inflation percentages and significance levels.

    Authors: We accept that the selection criteria require explicit quantitative thresholds. The 50-object subsample was defined by requiring (i) fractional age uncertainty <25% (or absolute uncertainty <1 Gyr for systems older than 4 Gyr) and (ii) at least one independent metallicity constraint from spectroscopy or photometry. We have now stated these criteria verbatim in §2, added a flowchart and table documenting the rejection steps from the parent sample of 85, and included a short discussion of possible selection biases. These additions do not change the reported inflation statistics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct comparison to external models

full rationale

The paper's central claim of 8.7±1.9% radius inflation is obtained by direct subtraction of radii predicted by independent theoretical evolutionary models from the observed radii of a selected 50-object subsample. This metric is computed post hoc from external model grids and measured parameters without any fitting of model parameters to the target data, without self-referential definitions that equate the output to the input, and without load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes that reduce the result to prior author work by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on the appropriateness of chosen theoretical models as uninflated baselines and on the robustness of age determinations for the selected subsample.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Theoretical models accurately predict radii for the masses, ages, and metallicities of the sample in the absence of irradiation effects
    The inflation metric is defined as the difference from these model radii.
  • domain assumption The 50-object subsample possesses robust ages and model constraints
    Abstract explicitly restricts analysis to these 50 objects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5730 in / 1381 out tokens · 52960 ms · 2026-05-22T03:13:16.722911+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S., Goad, M

    Acton, J. S., Goad, M. R., Burleigh, M. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2741, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1459 Adams Redai, J., Chandra, V., Yee, S. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.06069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.06069 Artigau, ´E., H´ ebrard, G., Cadieux, C., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac096d

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1459 2021

  2. [2]

    Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  3. [3]

    Barkaoui and D

    Barkaoui, K., Sebastian, D., Z´ u˜ niga-Fern´ andez, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453508

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453508 2025

  4. [4]

    2017, AJ, 153, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/15

    Bayliss, D., Hojjatpanah, S., Santerne, A., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/15 2017

  5. [5]

    Y., Krushinsky, V

    Benni, P., Burdanov, A. Y., Krushinsky, V. V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1567 2021

  6. [6]

    S., Sozzetti, A., Santerne, A., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Sozzetti, A., Santerne, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323042

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323042 2015

  7. [7]

    2011, A&A, 525, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015276

    Bouchy, F., Deleuil, M., Guillot, T., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015276

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015276 2011

  8. [8]

    The SpeX Prism Library Analysis Toolkit (SPLAT): A Data Curation Model

    Burgasser, A. J., & Splat Development Team. 2017, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol. 14, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 7–12, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1707.00062

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.00062 2017

  9. [9]

    B., Lunine, J

    Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Bender, C. F., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2018, ApJL, 861, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aacbc5

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.719 2001

  10. [10]

    Carmichael, T. W. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3720

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3720 2023

  11. [11]

    Vanderburg, A. M. 2019, AJ, 158, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab245e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab245e 2019

  12. [12]

    W., Quinn, S

    Carmichael, T. W., Quinn, S. N., Mustill, A. J., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9b84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9b84 2020

  13. [13]

    arXiv , journal =:2009.13515 , number =

    Carmichael, T. W., Quinn, S. N., Zhou, G., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd4e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd4e1 2021

  14. [14]

    W., Irwin, J

    Carmichael, T. W., Irwin, J. M., Murgas, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1666

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1666 2022

  15. [15]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2301

    Napiwotzki, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2301

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2301 2024

  16. [16]

    New determination of the hydrogen burning limit

    Debras, F. 2023, A&A, 671, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243832

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243832 2023

  17. [17]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1560

    Mahadevan, S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1560

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1560 2016

  18. [18]

    2015, A&A, 584, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526763

    Csizmadia, S., Hatzes, A., Gandolfi, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526763

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526763 2015

  19. [19]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    David, T. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Gillen, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe09

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafe09 2019

  20. [20]

    J., Alonso, R., et al

    Deleuil, M., Deeg, H. J., Alonso, R., et al. 2008, A&A, 491, 889, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810625 D´ ıaz, R. F., Damiani, C., Deleuil, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321124 D´ ıaz, R. F., Montagnier, G., Leconte, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424406

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810625 2008

  21. [21]

    B., van Roestel, J., & Rodriguez, A

    El-Badry, K., Burdge, K. B., van Roestel, J., & Rodriguez, A. C. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 33, doi: 10.21105/astro.2307.15729 Ferreira dos Santos, T., Rice, M., Wang, X.-Y., & Wang, S. 2024, AJ, 168, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b7f

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2307.15729 2023

  22. [22]

    R., Casewell, S

    French, J. R., Casewell, S. L., Amaro, R. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2121

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2121 2024

  23. [23]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da7 6Mehrotra et al

    Frost, W., Albert, L., Doyon, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da7 6Mehrotra et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da7 2024

  24. [24]

    J., et al

    Gill, S., Ulmer-Moll, S., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac798

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac798 2022

  25. [25]

    A., David, T

    Gillen, E., Hillenbrand, L. A., David, T. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b3 2017

  26. [26]

    and Collins, Karen A

    Grieves, N., Bouchy, F., Lendl, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141145

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141145 2021

  27. [27]

    and Casewell, Sarah L

    Henderson, B. A., Casewell, S. L., Goad, M. R., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 530, 318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae508

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae508

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    Henderson, B. A., Casewell, S. L., Jord´ an, A., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 2823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1940 Hodˇ zi´ c, V., Triaud, A. H. M. J.,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1940

  29. [29]

    R., et al

    Anderson, D. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2512

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2512 2018

  30. [30]

    J., Theissen, C

    Hsu, C.-C., Burgasser, A. J., Theissen, C. A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6b27

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6b27 2024

  31. [31]

    K., et al

    Irwin, J., Buchhave, L., Berta, Z. K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1353, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1353

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/2/1353 2010

  32. [32]

    M., Charbonneau, D., Esquerdo, G

    Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D., Esquerdo, G. A., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad9a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad9a3 2018

  33. [33]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2496

    Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2496

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2496 2019

  34. [34]

    2023, A&A, 672, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245608

    Chakraborty, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245608

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245608 2023

  35. [35]

    D., Faherty, J

    Kiman, R., Brandt, T. D., Faherty, J. K., & Popinchalk, M. 2024, AJ, 168, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5cf3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad5cf3 2024

  36. [36]

    N., Kobulnicky, H

    Larsen, A., Swaby, T. N., Kobulnicky, H. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adbb54

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adbb54 2025

  37. [37]

    X., et al

    Lin, Z., Gan, T., Wang, S. X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1745

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1745 2023

  38. [38]

    2023, A&A, 674, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346096

    Maldonado, J., Petralia, A., Mantovan, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346096

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346096 2023

  39. [39]

    2020, AJ, 160, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba526

    Mireles, I., Shporer, A., Grieves, N., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba526

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba526 2020

  40. [40]

    S., Bruno, G., et al

    Moutou, C., Bonomo, A. S., Bruno, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322201

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322201 2013

  41. [41]

    J., Carmichael, T

    Mukherjee, S., Fortney, J. J., Carmichael, T. W., Davis, C. E., & Thorngren, D. P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.08249, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.08249

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08249 2025

  42. [42]

    2017, AJ, 153, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5cb6

    Nowak, G., Palle, E., Gandolfi, D., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5cb6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa5cb6 2017

  43. [43]

    and Wittenmyer, Robert A

    Page, E., Pepper, J., Wright, D., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1a18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1a18 2024

  44. [44]

    G., Brown, A

    Parsons, S. G., Brown, A. J., Casewell, S. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf166

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf166 2025

  45. [45]

    R., et al

    Parviainen, H., Palle, E., Zapatero-Osorio, M. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935958

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935958 2020

  46. [46]

    EPIC 212036875b: a 51 M _ J object in a 5-day orbit around an F7 V star

    Persson, C. M., Csizmadia, S., Mustill, A. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935505

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935505 2019

  47. [47]

    Pont, F., Melo, C. H. F., Bouchy, F., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500025

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500025 2005

  48. [48]

    2006, A&A, 447, 1035, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053692

    Pont, F., Moutou, C., Bouchy, F., et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 1035, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053692

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053692 2006

  49. [49]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243454 , eid =

    Psaridi, A., Bouchy, F., Lendl, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243454

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243454 2022

  50. [50]

    P., Schlaufman, K

    Schmidt, S. P., Schlaufman, K. C., Ding, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0135

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0135 2023

  51. [51]

    W., Deleuil, M., et al

    Sebastian, D., Guenther, E. W., Deleuil, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2131 2022

  52. [52]

    2017, ApJL, 847, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8bff

    Shporer, A., Zhou, G., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 847, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8bff

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8bff 2017

  53. [53]

    J., Beatty, T

    Siverd, R. J., Beatty, T. G., Pepper, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/123

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/123 2012

  54. [54]

    2013, A&A, 553, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220862

    Tal-Or, L., Mazeh, T., Alonso, R., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220862

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220862 2013

  55. [55]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J., Hebb, L., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219643 Brown Dwarf Radius Inflation7 von Boetticher, A., Triaud, A. H. M. J.,

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219643 2013

  56. [56]

    2017, A&A, 604, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731107 —

    Queloz, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731107 —. 2019, A&A, 625, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834539

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731107 2017

  57. [57]

    2023, in AAS/Division of Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, Vol

    Vowell, N. 2023, in AAS/Division of Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, Vol. 55, AAS/Division of Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, 400.02

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    , keywords =

    Vowell, N., Rodriguez, J. E., Latham, D. W., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/addd17 ˇSubjak, J., Sharma, R., Carmichael, T. W., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7245

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/addd17 2025

  59. [59]

    Y., Carmichael, T

    Zhang, E. Y., Carmichael, T. W., Huber, D., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae23c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae23c7 2026

  60. [60]

    ´A., Bayliss, D., et al

    Zhou, G., Bakos, G. ´A., Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf1bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf1bb 2019