Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 70 references

A Hot Jupiter with a Retrograde Orbit around a Sun-like Star and a Toy Model of Hot Jupiters in Wide Binary Star Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 A hot Jupiter orbits its Sun-like star backwards, a finding that strains tidal-realignment theory.

desk verdict A solid new KPF obliquity measurement for a cool-star hot Jupiter with a retrograde orbit; the toy model is soft but clearly labeled as such. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02667 v1 pith:SJ7GNYDV submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.EP

Steven Giacalone , Andrew W. Howard , Ryan A. Rubenzahl , Fei Dai , Luke B. Handley , Howard Isaacson , Samuel Halverson , Max Brodheim
show 16 more authors
Matt Brown Theron W. Carmichael William Deich Benjamin J. Fulton Steven R. Gibson Grant M. Hill Bradford Holden Aaron Householder Russ R. Laher Kyle Lanclos Joel Payne Erik A. Petigura Arpita Roy Christian Schwab Martin M. Sirk Josh Walawender
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetdynamicsstar-planetinteractionsmigrationstellarobliquityRossiter-McLaughlineffecthotJupiterswidebinariesKELT-23A
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a sky-projected stellar obliquity of $\lambda = 180.4^{+4.9}_{-4.7}$ degrees for the hot Jupiter KELT-23A b, meaning the planet's orbit is retrograde with respect to the spin of its Sun-like host star. Because the star is cooler than the Kraft break near 6250 K, where hot Jupiters are normally found aligned, the system is a rare exception that complicates tidal-realignment models. The paper argues the misalignment may have been driven by the system's wide-separation M-dwarf companion, or that the planet is caught mid-realignment after recent arrival. A toy model is presented in which companion systems begin coplanar and migrating planets preferentially adopt aligned or polar orbits, reproducing the observed clustering of binary-orbit viewing angles.

What carries the argument

The Rossiter-McLaughlin effect is the central observable: as a transiting planet covers parts of the rotating stellar disk, it suppresses blueshifted and redshifted light, and modeling that anomaly yields the sky-projected obliquity $\lambda$. The fit uses the R-M model of Hirano et al. (2011) for the radial velocities and a Keplerian transit model for the photometry, sampled jointly with nested sampling. The second instrument is the binary-orbit viewing angle $\gamma$, computed from astrometric data using the method of Behmard et al. (2022); $\gamma$ distinguishes face-on from edge-on companion orbits. The toy model sets the planet and companion initially coplanar, assigns migrating planets an aligned or polar final orbit with probability $f_{\rm polar} = 0.75$, and lets a fraction $f_{\rm realign}$ (0.80 for cool stars, 0.30 for hot stars) realign before observation, which produces the observed $\gamma$--$\lambda$ clumping.

What would settle it

Measure the stellar rotation period of KELT-23A: for a typical 20-40 day period the stellar inclination should be about 10-20 degrees, making the true obliquity near 95-110 degrees (polar); a rotation period implying an equatorial view would falsify the polar interpretation, and re-fitting the transit with a free eccentricity would test the circular-orbit assumption directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that KELT-23A b, a 2.26-day hot Jupiter around a $T_{\rm eff} \approx 5900$ K star, has $\lambda = 180.4^{+4.9}_{-4.7}$ degrees, a projected obliquity that is retrograde to the stellar spin, determined from a Rossiter-McLaughlin measurement during a single transit together with space-based photometry. The host star's low projected rotation velocity ($v \sin{i_\star} \approx 0.5$ km s$^{-1}$) means the true three-dimensional obliquity could be near polar rather than exactly anti-aligned, assuming a typical rotation period for the star's 6.4-Gyr age. The authors identify KELT-23A as one of only four stars below the Kraft break with a hot Jupiter on a misaligned orbit, and note that three of these four have wide-separation stellar companions. They conclude that the orbit either stalled near antialigned or polar orientations during realignment, or the planet migrated inward relatively recently.

Load-bearing premise

The retrograde reading assumes a circular orbit and fixed stellar line-broadening parameters (microturbulence, macroturbulence, natural width, and line-spread width) in the Rossiter-McLaughlin fit; a different eccentricity or line profile could move $\lambda$ away from 180 degrees.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measurement stands, KELT-23A b becomes one of only a handful of cool-star hot Jupiters on misaligned orbits, implying tidal realignment is not guaranteed within a Gyr timescale for all systems.
  • The coincidence that three of the four misaligned cool-star hot Jupiters have wide companions strengthens the hypothesis that outer stellar companions drive or preserve spin-orbit misalignment.
  • The toy model's preferred polar fraction (0.75) is higher than standard von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai migration produces, suggesting that disk-companion misalignment mechanisms deserve more attention.
  • Because high-obliquity systems have lower R-M amplitudes, the observed sample may be biased; the true fraction of retrograde hot Jupiters around cool stars may be larger than currently seen.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test the paper does not run is a free-eccentricity fit; the reported solution assumes a circular orbit, and allowing $e$ to vary could shift $\lambda$ away from 180 degrees, so that fit would directly probe the stability of the retrograde reading.
  • If wide binaries are the cause, systems like KELT-23A should preferentially be found with the stellar companion's orbit near face-on or edge-on; this is a testable prediction for future companions with measured $\lambda$ and astrometric orbits.
  • The toy model's restriction of final orbits to aligned or polar states is a simplification; allowing a continuous distribution of final obliquities would let the same framework predict the full $\lambda$ histogram and be compared directly to upcoming radial-velocity surveys.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a single-transit Rossiter-McLaughlin observation of the hot Jupiter KELT-23A b with the Keck Planet Finder, jointly fitted with TESS photometry using DYNESTY/BATMAN and the Hirano et al. (2011) R-M model. The authors measure a sky-projected obliquity λ = 180.4+4.9−4.7°, a projected rotational velocity v sin i⋆ = 0.468+0.044−0.043 km/s, and a Gaia DR3 binary-orbit viewing angle γ = 60 ± 4°. They interpret the system as a rare retrograde (or possibly polar) hot Jupiter around a cool star and present a toy model in which initially coplanar planet and stellar-companion orbits, combined with inward migration and preferential aligned or polar final orbits, broadly reproduce the observed λ–γ distribution of hot Jupiters in wide binaries.

Significance. If the obliquity measurement is robust, KELT-23A b is a notable outlier: only a handful of cool-star hot Jupiters have |λ| > 90°, and the system strengthens the empirical association between wide stellar companions and spin-orbit misalignment. The measurement uses public data, standard public tools, and a joint fit, and the authors include a convective-blueshift robustness check (footnote 18) and explicitly label the three-dimensional polar-orbit inference as speculative. These are strengths. The toy model is transparently a toy, with parameters chosen by visual inspection, so its value is illustrative rather than predictive; importantly, the central obliquity measurement does not depend on the toy-model parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1 (Table 2 and the paragraph listing fixed broadening parameters)] The R-M fit fixes the macroturbulent velocity (4.18 km/s), microturbulence (0.7 km/s), natural width (1 km/s), and instrumental dispersion (1.56 km/s) while fitting v sin i⋆ = 0.468 km/s, so the adopted broadening kernels dominate the modeled line profile. The paper tests convective blueshift (footnote 18) but does not test these fixed values, nor does it release the circular-orbit assumption in the joint fit. Because the headline claim is the retrograde classification (|λ|>90°), please add a sensitivity analysis that repeats the fit with the fixed broadening parameters varied over their plausible ranges and, if possible, with eccentricity as a free parameter, and report the resulting λ. If λ remains within a few degrees of 180°, state that explicitly; if it shifts by tens of degrees, the quoted uncertainty and the outlier claim should be revised accordingly.
  2. [§4.1 (Figure 3 and the paragraph following the simulation description)] The toy model's key parameters, fpolar and frealign, are chosen by visual inspection to reproduce the same observed λ–γ distribution that the model is then used to interpret, and the simulated realizations underproduce the |λ|>90° systems. The sentence "This implies that a non-negligible fraction of HJs arrive near their host stars with true retrograde, non-polar orbits and remain in those orientations for long enough to be observed" therefore goes beyond what the model can support. Please quantify the agreement (e.g., a two-sample comparison or likelihood) and either soften "implies" to "is consistent with" or explicitly condition the conclusion on the adopted values of fpolar and frealign.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1 and §4] The phrase "one of the only cool stars" should be "one of the few cool stars" for grammatical clarity.
  2. [§3.1] The sentence "we found no strong evidence of strong modulation in the TESS data" contains a repeated word; it should read "no strong evidence of modulation."
  3. [§2.1 (Table 1)] The KPF radial velocities appear only as a printed table; providing a machine-readable table or a data availability link would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Title page] The draft title contains a typo, "T oy Model," which should read "Toy Model" in the published version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Toy model reproduces the observed lambda-gamma distribution only after its branching fractions are hand-tuned; the central obliquity measurement is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Toy Model and Population Synthesis), step 6 and Figure 3 caption]
    "Based on visual inspection, we found that fpolar = 0.75 with frealign = 0.80 most closely reproduces the observed distribution for cool stars and fpolar = 0.75 with frealign = 0.30 most closely reproduces the observed distribution for hot stars. The toy model broadly reproduces the most salient features of the observed distributions, namely the preference for transiting HJs to be in systems with gamma near 0, 90, and 180 degrees, in addition to the preference for values of lambda near 0 and 90 degrees."

    The two free parameters that control the model output, the polar-orbit fraction fpolar and the realignment fraction frealign, are explicitly chosen by eye to match the same observed lambda-gamma distribution the model is then said to reproduce. The output mixture is therefore built from the data used to set the parameters: peaks near lambda = 0 and lambda = 90 degrees follow directly from the assumed branching into aligned and polar orbits, and the gamma clumping follows from the assumed orbital geometry plus transit selection. Claiming that the model 'broadly reproduces' the observed distribution is thus a self-fit rather than an independent prediction or validation of the proposed migration scenario.

full rationale

The central result, lambda = 180.4 degrees from the joint DYNESTY fit of TESS photometry and KPF radial velocities using the Hirano et al. (2011) Rossiter-McLaughlin model, is a data-driven measurement that does not reduce to any fitted constant or to the paper's own definitions. The fixed line-broadening parameters and the circular-orbit assumption are external inputs and are a systematic-error concern, not a circularity. The gamma measurement for KELT-23B is a new Gaia DR3 calculation following the Behmard et al. (2022) method; self-citations to Behmard, Handley, Rubenzahl, and KPF instrument papers support methodology or robustness checks and are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The only partial circularity is the toy model in Section 4.1, where fpolar and frealign are hand-tuned to the observed distribution and the agreement is then presented as a successful reproduction. Because that toy model is a secondary illustrative component and the central obliquity claim is independent, the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central lambda measurement depends on standard published models and a circular-orbit assumption. The toy model introduces three hand-selected probabilities or widths that are fit to the same distribution they are used to explain, which is the main circularity burden.

free parameters (3)
  • fpolar = 0.75
    Probability that a migrating hot Jupiter obtains a polar orbit; chosen by visual inspection to reproduce the observed clumps near |lambda| about 90 degrees in Figure 3. Section 4.1.
  • frealign = 0.80 (Teff < 6250 K), 0.30 (Teff > 6250 K)
    Probability that the star realigns with a polar hot Jupiter before observation; chosen by eye separately for cool and hot stars. Section 4.1.
  • sigma_realign = 15 degrees
    Standard deviation of the half-Normal distribution for lambda after realignment; hand-selected. Section 4.1, step 4.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math The Hirano et al. (2011) Rossiter-McLaughlin model correctly describes the anomaly for the assumed stellar parameters.
    Used in Section 3.1 to model the KPF radial velocities; taken as a published, validated model.
  • standard math BATMAN and DYNESTY correctly implement the transit model and nested sampling.
    Public software cited in Section 3.1; treated as reliable tools.
  • domain assumption KELT-23A b's orbit is exactly circular.
    Assumed in Section 3.1 following Johns et al. (2019); not marginalized over eccentricity.
  • domain assumption Stellar line-broadening parameters (microturbulence 0.7 km/s, macroturbulence 4.18 km/s, natural width 1 km/s, KPF dispersion 1.56 km/s) are known.
    Fixed inputs in the Rossiter-McLaughlin fit, Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Differential rotation and convective blueshift do not significantly affect the inferred lambda.
    Stated in Section 3.1; convective blueshift is tested in a footnote and found not to change lambda significantly.
  • domain assumption The star's age (6.4 Gyr) implies a 20-40 day rotation period, giving a stellar inclination of roughly 10-20 degrees.
    Used in Section 3.1 to argue the true 3D obliquity is near-polar; the paper calls this speculative.
  • domain assumption In the toy model, the planet and the wide stellar companion initially orbit coplanar and aligned with the primary star's equator.
    Step 1 of Section 4.1; justified by citing recent papers but not derived.
  • domain assumption Toy model orbital elements of the binary companion (eccentricity uniform 0-1, cos i uniform 0-1, angles uniform) represent the system population.
    Step 2 of Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption The toy model's approximation lambda about 90 degrees minus phi is accurate to a few degrees.
    Step 5 of Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hot Jupiter with a Retrograde Orbit around a Sun-like Star and a Toy Model of Hot Jupiters in Wide Binary Star Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJ7GNYDV

@misc{pith2026250702667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hot Jupiter with a Retrograde Orbit around a Sun-like Star and a Toy Model of Hot Jupiters in Wide Binary Star Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJ7GNYDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02667}
}
abstract

We report an observation of a transit of the hot Jupiter (HJ) KELT-23A b with the Keck Planet Finder spectrograph and a measurement of the sky-projected obliquity ($\lambda$) of its Sun-like ($T_{\rm eff} \approx 5900$ K) host star. We measured a projected stellar obliquity of $\lambda \approx 180^\circ$, indicating that the orbit of the HJ is retrograde relative to the direction of the stellar spin. Due to the slow sky-projected rotational velocity of the host star ($v \sin{i_\star} \approx 0.5$ km s$^{-1}$), the true orbit of the HJ could be closer to polar. HJs around stars with effective temperatures below the Kraft break -- such as KELT-23A -- are generally found to have prograde orbits that are well-aligned with the equatorial planes of their host stars (i.e., $\lambda \sim 0^\circ$), most likely due to spin-orbit realignment driven by stellar tidal dissipation. This system is therefore a unique outlier that strains migration and tidal theories. The fact that the HJ has a highly misaligned orbit may suggest that the planet arrived at its close-in orbit relatively recently, possibly via interactions with the wide-separation (570 AU) M-dwarf companion in the system, or that it has stalled near an antialigned or polar orientation while realigning. Using Gaia DR3, we determined the orbit of the stellar companion to be moderately face-on ($\gamma = 60 \pm 4^\circ$). We show that the distribution of observed systems in the $\gamma - \lambda$ plane can be broadly reproduced using a toy model in which the orbits of the planetary and stellar companions begin aligned with the equatorial plane of the primary star and, upon migrating inwards, the planet preferentially obtains either an aligned or polar orbit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of the joint DYNESTY fit to the TESS photometry (left) and KPF radial velocities (right). A diagram of the best-fit transit is shown in the right-hand panel, where the color of the stellar surface indicates whether it is blueshifted and redshifted. The black points are the data, the dashed black lines are the best-fit (median) models, and the solid red lines are random samples from the posterior distribution… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sky-projected stellar obliquity (λ) versus stellar effective temperature (Teff ) for stars with HJs (planets with Mp = 0.3 − 13 MJup and a/R⋆ < 10). The yellow star is KELT-23A and the dashed line is the Kraft break (TKraft ≈ 6250 K). Systems with λ uncertainties greater than 30◦ or with unreliable λ measurements are excluded (see Section 4). KELT-23A is one of few cool stars with a HJ on a retrograde orbit (|λ| > 9… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sky-projected stellar obliquity (λ) versus sky-projected binary orbit angle (γ) for cool stars (left; Teff < 6250 K) and hot stars (right; Teff > 6250 K) with stellar binary companions and HJ companions (Mp = 0.3−13 MJup and a/R⋆ < 10). Black circles are the observed data and blue X’s are simulated data from the toy model in Section 4.1. Normalized histograms of the data are shown in the margins. Observed systems wi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualizations of the two extreme cases of the toy model in Section 4.1, in which the initial system is viewed edge-on (top) and face-on (bottom), and their possible outcomes. Initially edge-on systems generally produce transiting HJs with λ ≈ 0 ◦ or λ ≈ 90◦ . Initiall…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., Doyle, L., et al

    Ahrer, E., Seidel, J. V., Doyle, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1000

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1000 2024

  2. [2]

    N., Johnson, J

    Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/18 2012

  3. [3]

    H., Dawson, R

    Albrecht, S. H., Dawson, R. I., & Winn, J. N. 2022, PASP, 134, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 2022

  4. [4]

    H., Marcussen, M

    Albrecht, S. H., Marcussen, M. L., Winn, J. N., Dawson, R. I., & Knudstrup, E. 2021, ApJL, 916, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03 2021

  5. [5]

    R., Storch, N

    Anderson, K. R., Storch, N. I., & Lai, D. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2906

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2906 2016

  6. [6]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv423

    Angus, R., Aigrain, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., & McQuillan, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv423

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv423 2015

  7. [7]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167, doi: 10.1086/519295

    doi:10.1086/519295 2007

  8. [8]

    2012, Nature, 491, 418, doi: 10.1038/nature11560

    Batygin, K. 2012, Nature, 491, 418, doi: 10.1038/nature11560

    doi:10.1038/nature11560 2012

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Batygin, K., & Adams, F. C. 2013, ApJ, 778, 169, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/169 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Behmard, A., Dai, F., & Howard, A. W. 2022, AJ, 163, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac53a7

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

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

    Chatterjee, S., Ford, E. B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 580, doi: 10.1086/590227

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10379, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10379

    Christian, S., Vanderburg, A., Becker, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10379, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10379

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dawson, R. I. 2014, ApJL, 790, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L31

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    I., & Johnson, J

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    I., Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Johnson, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 798, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/66

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    Dong, J., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Rider, K., et al. 2024, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D

    2024

  11. [19]

    13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309609, doi: 10.1117/12.3017841

    Vernet, Vol. 13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309609, doi: 10.1117/12.3017841

    doi

  12. [20]

    D., Attia, M., et al

    Hagelberg, J., Nielsen, L. D., Attia, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244940

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Howard, A

    Handley, L. B., Howard, A. W., Rubenzahl, R. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb71b

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    N., et al

    Hirano, T., Suto, Y., Winn, J. N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/69

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Rodriguez, J

    Johns, D., Reed, P. A., Rodriguez, J. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab24c7

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Raymond, S

    Kaib, N. A., Raymond, S. N., & Duncan, M. 2013, Nature, 493, 381, doi: 10.1038/nature11780

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  19. [27]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551, doi: 10.1086/149359

    1967 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 486, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20893.x

    Lai, D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 486, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20893.x

    2012

  22. [30]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu485

    Lai, D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu485

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    Li, G., & Winn, J. N. 2016, ApJ, 818, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/5

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    1962 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12610, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308261110

    Lithwick, Y., & Wu, Y. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12610, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308261110

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Handley, L. B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08195, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08195

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    E., & Hillenbrand, L

    Mamajek, E. E., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1264, doi: 10.1086/591785

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, A&A, 613, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732234

    Mancini, L., Esposito, M., Covino, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732234

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Masuda, K., & Winn, J. N. 2020, AJ, 159, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65be

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, AJ, 153, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/60

    Matsakos, T., & K¨ onigl, A. 2017, AJ, 153, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/60

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22, doi: 10.1086/142826

    1924 doi

  32. [40]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 12 Mu˜ noz, D

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 12 Mu˜ noz, D. J., Lai, D., & Liu, B. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw983

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    M., & Rasio, F

    Naoz, S., Farr, W. M., & Rasio, F. A. 2012, ApJL, 754, L36, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L36

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    R., et al

    Neveu-VanMalle, M., Queloz, D., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424744

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Hinkley, S., et al

    Ngo, H., Knutson, H. A., Hinkley, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/8

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    2015a, ApJ, 799, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27

    Petrovich, C. 2015a, ApJ, 799, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27

    doi

  37. [45]

    2015b, ApJ, 805, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    Petrovich, C. 2015b, ApJ, 805, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75

    doi

  38. [46]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132

    Petrovich, C., & Tremaine, S. 2016, ApJ, 829, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, AJ, 167, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1bed

    Rice, M., Gerbig, K., & Vanderburg, A. 2024, AJ, 167, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1bed

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2022a, ApJL, 926, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac502d

    Rice, M., Wang, S., & Laughlin, G. 2022a, ApJL, 926, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac502d

    doi

  41. [49]

    2022b, AJ, 164, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8153

    Rice, M., Wang, S., Wang, X.-Y., et al. 2022b, AJ, 164, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8153

    doi

  42. [50]

    R., Latham, D

    Ricker, G. R., Latham, D. W., Vanderspek, R. K., et al. 2010, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2010

  43. [51]

    Rossiter, R. A. 1924, ApJ, 60, 15, doi: 10.1086/142825

    1924 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Dai, F., Howard, A

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Dai, F., Howard, A. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd177

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    V., et al

    Schwab, C., St¨ urmer, J., Gurevich, Y. V., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 880, doi: 10.1086/682879

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Winn, J

    Siegel, J. C., Winn, J. N., & Albrecht, S. H. 2023, ApJL, 950, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd62f

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 2166, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19399.x

    Southworth, J. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2166, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19399.x

    2011

  48. [56]

    2014, ApJ, 790, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/42

    Spalding, C., & Batygin, K. 2014, ApJ, 790, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/42

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1011

    Teyssandier, J., Lai, D., & Vick, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1011

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2825

    Tokovinin, A., & Kiyaeva, O. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2825

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    A., & Fischer, D

    Valenti, J. A., & Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141, doi: 10.1086/430500 von Zeipel, H. 1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345, doi: 10.1002/asna.19091832202

    2005 doi

  53. [61]

    N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2010, ApJL, 718, L145, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L145

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    N., Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., Albrecht, S., et al. 2009, ApJL, 703, L99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/L99

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    Wu, Y., & Lithwick, Y. 2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/66

    Xue, Y., Suto, Y., Taruya, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/66

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    Yang, E., Su, Y., & Winn, J. N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07927, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07927

    2025 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Chiang, E. 2025, ApJ, 983, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc114

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Dewberry, J., & Chiang, E

    Zanazzi, J. J., Dewberry, J., & Chiang, E. 2024, ApJL, 967, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4644

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2018a, MNRAS, 477, 5207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty951

    doi

  61. [69]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2018b, MNRAS, 478, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1075

    doi

  62. [70]

    K., & Howard, A

    Zink, J. K., & Howard, A. W. 2023, ApJL, 956, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfdab

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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