Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Polka-dotted Stars: a Hierarchical Model for Mapping Stellar Surfaces Using Occultation Light Curves and the Case of TOI-3884

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transit light curves alone can map starspot latitudes and recover stellar spin-orbit geometry.

desk verdict Solid new framework and synthetic validation, but the TOI-3884 validation claims are internally inconsistent—reconcile before accepting. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21852 v2 pith:TCCHL4AW submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Sabina Sagynbayeva , Will M. Farr , Brett Morris , Rodrigo Luger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords starspotstransitlightcurvesoccultationmappingsphericalharmonicsGaussianprocessstellarobliquityspin-orbitmisalignmentTOI-3884
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 introduces StarryStarryProcess, a hierarchical Bayesian model that uses exoplanet transits as moving probes of a star's surface. It claims that by fitting the full photometric time series and modeling the small brightness bumps caused by spot crossings, single-band transit data can constrain the latitude distribution of starspots, the stellar inclination, and the obliquity between the stellar spin axis and the planetary orbit. The authors verify the recovery on synthetic data, extend the model to surfaces that evolve between transits, and apply it to TESS observations of TOI-3884, where they infer a near-polar spot concentration and a strongly misaligned orbit. If the claim holds, transit photometry becomes a practical tool for studying stellar magnetic activity and for separating stellar contamination from planetary signals in exoplanet observations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Gaussian-process prior over spherical-harmonic surface coefficients, combined with the linear design matrix that turns a surface map into an observed light curve. The flux is written as $\mathbf{M}(\Theta)\,\mathbf{y}$, so with a Gaussian prior on the map $\mathbf{y}$ the map can be integrated out exactly; the resulting marginal covariance $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{C} + \mathbf{M}\Lambda\mathbf{M}^\top$ is what the sampler evaluates. Transits enter through the design matrix, so each spot-crossing bump contributes information along the planet's chord rather than only from disk-integrated rotation. A transformed stellar-orientation coordinate system with a half-normal prior breaks the reflection degeneracy between inclination and obliquity during sampling, and the time-dependent extension linearly interpolates between independent surface maps at successive epochs.

What would settle it

Generate synthetic transit light curves from surfaces with large, bright spots of order-unity contrast and run the same inference; if the recovered spot latitude distribution, size, or obliquity shifts outside the quoted uncertainties, the linearity assumption is falsified. Alternatively, multi-band transit photometry of TOI-3884 that resolves whether the crossing feature is bright or dark would directly test whether the near-polar spot interpretation is an artifact of the small-spot linear model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Gaussian-process prior on the spherical-harmonic coefficients of a stellar surface, combined with an analytic transit design matrix, lets each transit carve information out of the null space that rotational light curves alone cannot see. Because both the prior and the map-to-flux operation are Gaussian and linear, the surface map can be marginalized analytically, leaving a Gaussian likelihood whose covariance encodes measurement noise plus spot-induced correlated variability. Spot-crossing events then constrain spot latitude, size, contrast, and number, along with stellar inclination and obliquity. For TOI-3884 the model finds spot latitudes concentrated near $\pm 75^\circ$, a stellar inclination of about $35^\circ$, and a sky-projected obliquity near $80^\circ$, with consistency against an independent spectroscopic $v \sin i$ measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes spot-induced brightness changes are small enough that the flux is linear in the spherical-harmonic surface map, an assumption the paper notes prevents it from distinguishing bright from dark spots; if spots are large or include bright regions, the inferred contrasts, sizes, and the high-latitude reading of TOI-3884 could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spot latitude distributions can be inferred from single-band transit photometry, not only from rotational modulation, so spot-crossing events become direct diagnostics of stellar magnetic activity.
  • Stellar inclination and obliquity can be constrained photometrically, opening spin-orbit studies for faint or otherwise inaccessible systems where high-resolution spectroscopy is impractical.
  • Jointly modeling spot crossings with transits reduces stellar contamination in derived planetary radii and transit shapes, supporting more accurate corrections for transmission-spectroscopy measurements.
  • The evolving-surface extension can track spot emergence, migration, and dissipation across multiple epochs, relevant to long-baseline surveys and future photometric missions.
  • For TOI-3884, the inferred polar spot concentration and near-$80^\circ$ obliquity constitute a photometric signature of spin-orbit misalignment and high-latitude magnetic flux emergence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the method scales computationally, archival transit surveys could be mined for spot-latitude demographics, effectively turning exoplanet surveys into stellar-activity surveys.
  • Multi-band or spectroscopic transit observations, which make spot contrast wavelength-dependent, could break the paper's noted bright-versus-dark spot ambiguity and tighten the inferred spot sizes and latitudes.
  • The same analytic marginalization could be adapted to other linear mapping problems, such as eclipse mapping of binaries or Doppler tomography, wherever a Gaussian prior on the mapped quantity is reasonable.
  • The finding that spot-crossing statistics carry obliquity information suggests that future transit surveys could measure spin-orbit misalignment distributions for small planets, complementing traditional Rossiter-McLaughlin measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents StarryStarryProcess, a hierarchical Bayesian framework that combines the spherical-harmonic surface representation of starry with the Gaussian-process spot model of StarryProcess and a full transit model, in order to infer stellar surface features, stellar inclination, obliquity, and spot parameters from transit light curves. The surface map is marginalized analytically, leaving a Gaussian-process likelihood over the hyperparameters. The authors validate the framework with two synthetic experiments (a static surface and an evolving surface), recovering input parameters within roughly 2σ and illustrating the inclination–obliquity reflection degeneracy. They then apply the model to TESS observations of TOI-3884 and report a high-latitude spot concentration (µϕ ≈ 75°), a low stellar inclination (i⋆ ≈ 35°), and a large spin-orbit obliquity (ψ⋆ ≈ 80°). Section 5.2 claims that the photometrically derived v sin i provides strong independent validation of the geometric model. The paper has a reproducibility appendix, with code, data, and notebooks linked from the figures.

Significance. If the method is sound, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: it extends the starry/StarryProcess framework to the transit-occultation geometry, shows that spot latitude, stellar inclination, and obliquity can in principle be constrained from single-band photometry, and demonstrates the approach on a real TESS target. The analytical marginalization of the surface map is elegant, the synthetic experiments are clearly described, and the reproducibility infrastructure (public code, chains, and notebooks) is a genuine strength. The central limitation is that the synthetic tests draw data from the same model family and therefore do not independently validate the TOI-3884 inferences; the claimed external validation through v sin i is, as written, internally inconsistent. The paper's significance for stellar-activity and obliquity studies depends on resolving that inconsistency and on clarifying the latitude-parameterization issue.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 2, §5.2, Figure 22] The manuscript reports three mutually incompatible values for the photometrically derived v sin i of TOI-3884: Table 2 gives 1.69+0.11−0.09 km/s, §5.2 states 'v sini⋆ = 5.2+0.7−0.8 km/s' and calls this 'strong independent validation', and the text around Figure 22 says 'approximately 2.5 km/s'. These cannot all be summaries of the same posterior. The comparison with the spectroscopic value of 3.59 ± 0.92 km/s from Libby-Roberts et al. (2023) is therefore not a validation; depending on which number is used, the photometric result sits on different sides of the spectroscopic measurement. Because v sin i is the principal external check on the photometrically recovered stellar inclination and obliquity, the TOI-3884 geometric claims need to be recomputed with a single, correctly defined conversion from P⋆ and i⋆, and the stellar radius used in that conversion must be stated consistently with §4.1.
  2. [Table 2, §5.2, §4.1] The rotation period reported in Table 2, P⋆ = 9.07+0.45−0.51 d, is in strong tension with the Libby-Roberts et al. (2023) entry quoted in the same table, P⋆ < 4.22 ± 1.09 d, yet the discussion does not address this discrepancy. The rotation period and inclination jointly enter the v sin i derivation and the interpretation of spot latitudes, so a >2σ disagreement with an independent measurement is load-bearing and must be discussed, not omitted. Relatedly, §4.1 states that the stellar radius is fixed at 1 R☉; this is inconsistent with the inferred stellar density ρ⋆ = 15.18 g cm⁻³, which would correspond to a star of roughly 10.8 M☉ at 1 R☉. The radius assumption (or the sentence describing it) needs to be corrected, since the derived v sin i and the geometric interpretation depend directly on it.
  3. [Section 2, Eqs. (3)–(7)] The latitude parameterization is defined through a Beta distribution on cosϕ, but Eqs. (6)–(7) identify µϕ and σ²ϕ with the mean and variance of a Beta random variable. For a random variable X = cosϕ, E[X] = α/(α+β) and Var[X] = αβ/((α+β)²(α+β+1)) are the mean and variance of cosϕ, not of the latitude ϕ. The text also refers to a 'mode' of the latitude distribution, which would have yet another formula. As written, the quoted TOI-3884 result 'µϕ = 75.24°' is therefore not the mean spot latitude under the stated model, and the interpretation of a near-polar spot is ambiguous until the correct mapping from (µϕ, σϕ) to (α, β) is supplied and used consistently in the figures and tables.
  4. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The synthetic experiments are self-consistency checks: the data are generated from the same StarryProcess prior and the same starry design matrix used for the inference, and the TOI-3884 analysis is the only independent test. Given that the v sin i validation in §5.2 is inconsistent, the paper currently lacks an out-of-sample check that would justify the claim that transit photometry alone can reliably recover stellar orientation and spot latitudes. The authors should either add a test with data drawn from a different generative model (for example, discrete circular spots, or a surface not obeying the GP prior) or explicitly restrict the validation claim to self-consistency.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The prior on the planetary inclination is written as U(−bmax,−bmax); it should read U(−bmax, bmax).
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos that should be corrected in a revision: 'simultaniously' (§1), 'beacuse' (§2), 'distiguish' (§2), 'Firgure' (§3.3), 'imroved' (§5.3), and 'T able 1' in the Table 1 caption.
  3. [Appendix A] The reproducibility software is cited as 'show your work! (?)'; the placeholder question mark should be replaced with a proper citation or a clear description of the tool.
  4. [Section 2.3] The sentence 'yi+1 does not depend on yi−1' is confusing in the context of linear interpolation; the authors should clarify that the prior on each map is independent even though consecutive maps are interpolated between epochs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photometric inversion is a genuine fit with broad priors, and the synthetic tests are calibration checks rather than construction-forced predictions.

full rationale

The model's core relation f_true = M(Theta)y (Eq. 10) with a Gaussian prior on y makes the marginal likelihood (Eq. 13) an ordinary GP likelihood; the spherical-harmonic prior is taken from Luger et al. (2021a), but that is a published model/algorithm used as a component, not a self-citation invoked to forbid alternatives or to establish the target result. No equation defines the inferred spot parameters in terms of the claimed outputs: mu_phi, sigma_phi, n, c, and r are hyperparameters of the Beta/GP prior and are constrained by the transit light curve through Eq. 13. The synthetic experiments draw a true map from the same process and then fit it; the paper explicitly frames this as calibration ('To verify the proper calibration of our model'), and a recovery test can fail (indeed n and c show a known degeneracy), so it is not a prediction forced by construction. For TOI-3884, the priors are broad (e.g., mu_phi ~ U(0.1, 80), P_star from 2 to 18 d), and the high-latitude posterior is data-driven rather than hard-wired. The v sin i comparison is an external check against Libby-Roberts et al. (2023) spectroscopy, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the fact that Section 5.2, Table 2, and Figure 22 report mutually inconsistent v sin i values is an internal-consistency/correctness problem, not a circularity. Consequently no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its inputs, and the central claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the spherical harmonic surface map is a mathematical representation, not a new postulated object. The central claim rests on several modeling assumptions inherited from prior work, the most fragile being the small-perturbation linearity assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • n (number of spots) = 7.58 (+1.39/-2.85) for TOI-3884; 4.45 (+3.53/-2.6) in synthetic Experiment I
    Inferred from the data; the posterior is broad and correlated with contrast.
  • c (spot contrast) = 0.049 (+0.028/-0.013) for TOI-3884
    Fitted contrast as fraction of background intensity; the paper notes a degeneracy with n.
  • r (spot angular radius) = 26.77 (+9.7/-8.7) degrees for TOI-3884
    Fitted spot radius; affects the spherical harmonic resolution requirements.
  • mu_phi (mean spot latitude) = 75.24 (+2.67/-4.11) degrees for TOI-3884
    Fitted latitude of the Beta distribution of spots; drives the polar-spot claim.
  • sigma_phi (latitude spread) = 12.99 (+4.91/-5.08) degrees for TOI-3884
    Fitted variance of spot latitude distribution; posterior shows bimodality.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The stellar surface brightness map has a Gaussian process prior in spherical harmonic space with covariance from StarryProcess.
    Invoked in Section 2, Eq. 14; this prior encodes the spot model (n, c, r, latitude Beta distribution) and is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The observed flux is a linear function of the surface map via the starry design matrix.
    Eq. 10; relies on the linear spherical harmonic formalism of Luger et al. (2019).
  • ad hoc to paper Spot-induced brightness changes are small, so the linear approximation holds and bright and dark spots cannot be distinguished.
    Stated in Section 2; the paper explicitly says this assumption prevents distinguishing bright and dark spots.
  • domain assumption Spot latitudes follow a Beta distribution in cos(latitude).
    From Luger et al. (2021a), used for the GP hyperparameters; it shapes the inferred polar-spot solution.
  • domain assumption The stellar radius is fixed to 1 R_sun for TOI-3884.
    Section 4.1: sampling stellar mass then sets density; a fixed radius affects v sin i and spot size interpretation.
  • domain assumption For evolving surfaces, maps at different epochs are linearly interpolated, with each map a fresh draw from the same GP prior.
    Section 2.3, Eq. 22; the paper calls this a preliminary model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polka-dotted Stars: a Hierarchical Model for Mapping Stellar Surfaces Using Occultation Light Curves and the Case of TOI-3884." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCCHL4AW

@misc{pith2026250421852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polka-dotted Stars: a Hierarchical Model for Mapping Stellar Surfaces Using Occultation Light Curves and the Case of TOI-3884},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCCHL4AW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21852}
}
read the original abstract

We present StarryStarryProcess, a novel hierarchical Bayesian framework for mapping stellar surfaces using exoplanet transit light curves. While previous methods relied solely on stellar rotational light curves -- which contain limited information about spot properties -- our approach leverages planetary transits as probes of stellar surfaces. When a planet crosses a spot during transit, it creates a distinctive change in the light curve that directly reveals spot properties. Our model integrates planetary transit modeling with stellar variability analysis by combining the spherical harmonic surface map representation from starry, the probabilistic approach to spot properties of StarryProcess, and a comprehensive transit model that accounts for spot-crossing events during transits. We demonstrate through synthetic data experiments that our model successfully recovers spot distributions, stellar orientation, and spot physical properties. We extend the framework to handle evolving stellar surfaces through time-dependent modeling. Applying our method to TESS observations of TOI-3884, we find evidence for high-latitude spot concentrations and significant spin-orbit misalignment. The transit-based approach overcomes fundamental limitations of previous models by providing constraints on spot properties that would remain hidden in the null space of rotational light curves alone. This methodology enables more accurate exoplanet characterization by disentangling stellar activity due to starspots from planetary signals while simultaneously providing insights into stellar magnetic activity patterns. The whole paper is reproducible, and can be found by clicking the GitHub icon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21852 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves from the kinds of stars shown on the left panel (these light curves were calculated analytically using starry (Luger et al. 2019)): (a) the light curve shows a flat flux if the star has no surface features and no planet orbiting it; (b) a transit in the light curve of the star that hosts an exoplanet; (c) if the star has one orbiting planet and one starspot under the planet’s trajectory then it is seen … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The breakdown of a surface map into its constituent components: the original map (left), its preimage (center), and null space (right). Accompanying each set is the corresponding impact on the star’s rotational light curve. The preimage represents surface patterns that directly influence the observed light curve, while the null space encompasses patterns that have no effect on the flux measurements. It’s noteworthy … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation in stellar light curves as a function of inclination angle. Each curve displays the photometric time series (light curve) for a hypothetical spotted star observed at different inclination angles. The x-axis represents time in days, while the y-axis shows the relative flux. Inclination angles range from 0◦ (pole-on view) to 90◦ (equator-on view). Note how the amplitude and shape of the light curve modulatio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of stellar obliquity on consecutive planetary transit light curves. Each column represents a different stellar obliquity scenario, with obliquity increasing from left to right. The rows show three consecutive transits for each scenario. The x-axis represents tim…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the degeneracy between stellar inclination (i⋆) and obliquity (ψ⋆) in transit light curves. The left panel shows a star-planet system with inclination i⋆ and obliquity −ψ⋆, while the right panel depicts a system with inclination 180−i⋆ and obliquity ψ⋆ …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The upper panel shows the true map for the Experiment I of this paper. The black dots on the map indicate the trajectory of the planet as it moves across the face of the star during the transit event. The left panel shows the stellar map along with its orientation on t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior distributions for the all the parameters Θ for the synthetic data run ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of true and inferred stellar surface maps, light curve fit, and transit details. Top panel: the true stellar surface map used to generate synthetic data and two inferred stellar surface maps due to the obliquity-inclination degeneracy, representing the mean …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior distributions of spot latitudes derived from synthetic data analysis. The pink curves represent individual Beta distribution probability density functions (PDFs) for spot latitude, each generated using parameters sampled from the posterior distributions of µϕ…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulated light curve from our evolving stellar surface model spanning approximately 150 days. The black line represents the true underlying flux variations, while the blue points with error bars show binned simulated observations. The complex pattern of photometric v…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated stellar surface maps at three repre￾sentative epochs corresponding to the light curve in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior distributions and correlations for key spot model hyperparameters recovered from simulated data. The solid black lines indicate true parameter values used to generate the simulated light curves, while dashed black lines show the ±1σ boundaries. Parameters in…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Posterior probability distribution of spot latitudes for Section 3.3 just like the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between true and inferred stellar surface maps from our evolving surface model using simulated data. Top panel: True stellar surface maps (left column) and our inferred reconstructions averaged over 1000 samples (middle column and the right column) at three…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Short 2-minute cadence of the TESS Sectors 46 and 49. Both sets of light curves use the PDCSAP flux. § ter space, which is the physical quantity constrained by our observations. For the Gaussian Process (GP) kernel parameters modeling stellar activity, we employ unifo…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Corner plot showing the posterior distributions and correlations for the spot model parameters. The diagonal panels display the marginalized posterior distributions for each parameter: the spot size r ( ◦ ), spot contrast c, number of spots n, spot latitude µϕ ( ◦ ), …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Posterior probability distribution of spot latitudes for TOI-3884. The black line shows the mean distribution, while the pink lines represent individual posterior samples from our MCMC analysis. The distribution peaks at high latitudes (±75◦ ) with minimal probability…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Light curves for eight transit events of TOI-3884b. Each panel shows the observed photometric data from TESS (gray points with error bars) and the results of our MCMC modeling. The solid pink lines represent the model average from 100 posterior samples, while the ligh…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Light curves binned and averaged across the eight transit events of TOI-3884b. The plot shows the ob￾served photometric data from TESS (black points with error bars) and the results of our MCMC modeling averaged across transits and binned in time. The solid pink lines…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Mollweide projections of the stellar surface of TOI-3884 showing spot distributions from nine representative posterior samples. The majority of samples exhibit prominent high-latitude spot concentrations, with some variation in the exact morphology and distribution. T…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Observer’s view of TOI-3884 during transit events from nine representative posterior samples. Each panel shows the stellar disk as viewed from Earth, with dark purple regions indicating cooler spots and yellow-orange areas representing the warmer photosphere. Black do…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The corner plot for planet’s inclination (ip), orbital eccentricity (e), stellar inclination (i⋆), sky-projected spin-orbit angle (λ⋆), planet-to-star radius ratio (Rp/R⋆), projected stellar rotational velocity (v sin i), and stellar density (ρ⋆). The red shaded regio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spot-Crossing Variations Confirm a Misaligned Orbit for a Planet Transiting an M Dwarf

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Photometry and transit-shape modeling of TOI-3884 reveal an 11-day stellar rotation period and a polar starspot, confirming a misaligned orbit (true obliquity about 77 degrees) for the hot Neptune TOI-3884 b.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., et al

    Almenara, J. M., Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244791

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244791 2022

  2. [2]

    R., Jeffers, S

    Barnes, J. R., Jeffers, S. V., Haswell, C. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1482 B´ eky, B., Kipping, D. M., & Holman, M. J. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1061

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1482 2017

  3. [3]

    2006, A&A, 446, 1027, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042475

    Chabrier, G., & K¨ uker, M. 2006, A&A, 446, 1027, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042475

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042475 2006

  4. [4]

    D., Pendleton, B

    Duane, S., Kennedy, A. D., Pendleton, B. J., & Roweth, D. 1987, Physics Letters B, 195, 216, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-X

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-x 1987

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Ducrot, E., Sestovic, M., Morris, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aade94

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aade94 2018

  6. [6]

    J., & Deem, M

    Earl, D. J., & Deem, M. W. 2005, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 7, 3910, doi: 10.1039/b509983h

    doi:10.1039/b509983h 2005

  7. [7]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  8. [8]

    2013, A&A, 549, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220317

    Gastine, T., Morin, J., Duarte, L., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220317

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220317 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    2016, A&A, 586, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425369

    Herrero, E., Ribas, I., Jordi, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425369

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    D., & Gelman, A

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

    2011 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    W., Price-Whelan, A

    Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Leistedt, B. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.14199, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.14199

    2020 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Czesla, S., Wolter, U., & Schmitt, J

    Huber, K. F., Czesla, S., Wolter, U., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2010, A&A, 514, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913914

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Jehn, F

    Ilin, E., Angus, R., Luger, R., Morris, B. M., & Jehn, F. U. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4326, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1690

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Ilin, E., Poppenhaeger, K., Schmidt, S. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2159

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, SPIE Bellingham

    Jenkins, J., Chiozzi, G., & Guzman, J. 2016, SPIE Bellingham

    2016

  9. [17]

    G., Lendl, M., Cubillos, P

    Juvan, I. G., Lendl, M., Cubillos, P. E., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731345

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accc2f Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://a...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, AJ, 157, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

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

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2021a, AJ, 162, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfdb9

    Luger, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Hedges, C. 2021a, AJ, 162, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfdb9

    doi

  14. [22]

    Luger, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., Hedges, C., & Hogg, D. W. 2021b, AJ, 162, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfdb8

    doi

  15. [23]

    Maxted, P. F. L. 2016, A&A, 591, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628579

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1530 31

    Montalto, M., Bou´ e, G., Oshagh, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1530 31

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Petit, P., et al

    Morin, J., Donati, J. F., Petit, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 567, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13809.x

    2008

  18. [26]

    M., Agol, E., Hebb, L., & Hawley, S

    Morris, B. M., Agol, E., Hebb, L., & Hawley, S. L. 2018a, AJ, 156, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad3b7 —. 2018b, AJ, 156, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad3b7

    doi

  19. [27]

    Hawley, S. L. 2017, ApJ, 846, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8555

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2013, A&A, 549, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220173

    Oshagh, M., Boisse, I., Bou´ e, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220173

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    F., et al

    Scandariato, G., Nascimbeni, V., Lanza, A. F., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730966

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Silva, A. V. R. 2003, ApJL, 585, L147, doi: 10.1086/374324

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    Solanki, S. K. 2003, A&A Rv, 11, 153, doi: 10.1007/s00159-003-0018-4

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    Strassmeier, K. G. 2009, A&A Rv, 17, 251, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0020-6

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 3671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts306

    Tregloan-Reed, J., Southworth, J., & Tappert, C. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts306

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv730

    Tregloan-Reed, J., Southworth, J., Burgdorf, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv730

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Farr, W

    Vousden, W. D., Farr, W. M., & Mandel, I. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2422

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    K., Gastine, T., Christensen, U

    Yadav, R. K., Gastine, T., Christensen, U. R., & Reiners, A. 2015, A&A, 573, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424589

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.