Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 106 references

The Orbit of WASP-4 b is in Decay

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The orbit of hot Jupiter WASP-4 b is shrinking: a quadratic timing model beats linear and apsidal-motion alternatives by a Bayes factor near $2\times10^{11}$, implying a stellar tidal quality factor $Q'_\star \approx 8\times10^4$.

desk verdict Confirms WASP-4 b orbital decay with the largest TTV dataset yet; the 12 s systematic timing offset is a real concern but not disqualifying. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15022 v2 pith:UEKPF6X6 submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Ö. Baştürk , A. C. Kutluay , A. Barker , S. Yalç{i}nkaya , J. Southworth , K. Barkaoui , A. Wünsche , M. J. Burgdorf
show 20 more authors
M. Timmermans E. Jehin J. Tregloan-Reed R. Figuera Jaimes T. C. Hinse B. Duru J. Hitchcock P. Longa-Peña S. Rahvar S. Sajadian M. Bretton S. O. Selam M. Gillon M. Bonavita G. D'Ago M. Dominik U. G. J{o}rgensen C. Snodgrass P. Spyratos L. Mancini
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords transittimingvariationsorbitaldecayhotJupiterWASP-4btidalqualityfactorinternalgravitywavesTTVdiagramdissipation
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 argues that the hot Jupiter WASP-4 b is undergoing true orbital decay, not apsidal precession or an unseen companion. Using the largest transit-timing dataset for the system, 216 mid-transit times spanning 16 years, the authors find that a quadratic ephemeris is overwhelmingly preferred over a linear one ($\Delta\mathrm{BIC}=-51.96$, Bayes factor $\approx 2\times10^{11}$) and over an apsidal-motion model. The fitted quadratic coefficient gives a period change of about $-2\times10^{-10}$ days per orbit, corresponding to a modified tidal quality factor $Q'_\star=(8.08\pm1.17)\times10^4$ if stellar tides drive the decay. The paper then tests this value against tidal theory and finds that internal gravity-wave damping in the star's radiative core can reach the required efficiency only if the host star is near the end of its main-sequence life, with a slightly larger mass and radius than the best-fit observed parameters. A sympathetic reader would care because WASP-4 b is a primary case for tidal orbital decay, and the result puts a concrete number on a longstanding theoretical mismatch.

What carries the argument

The central object is the transit-timing variation (TTV) diagram: 216 mid-transit times of WASP-4 b plotted against orbital epoch, assembled from 158 homogeneously modelled light curves (37 new from ground-based telescopes plus TESS, ETD, and literature data) and 58 literature timings. The load-bearing comparison is between three parametric models fitted to this diagram, linear ephemeris, quadratic ephemeris, and apsidal motion, with model selection via AIC, BIC, and the resulting Bayes factor. The quadratic coefficient $a$ is the mechanism: it directly measures the secular period change through the relation $dP/dE=2a$ and, via the formula of Goldreich and Soter and of Patra et al., maps to the modified tidal quality factor $Q'_\star$. On the theory side, the paper computes $Q'_\star$ for gravity waves launched at the radiative-convective interface and fully damped in the core, using stellar-structure models; the Brunt–Väisälä frequency profile near that interface controls the dissipation efficiency. The mismatch between the observed and predicted $Q'_\star$ is the argument's engine: it forces the conclusion that only an evolved, slightly overluminous host can explain the decay.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to continue monitoring WASP-4 b transits for another 5 to 10 years: if the quadratic coefficient is real orbital decay, the timing residuals should continue along the same parabola, with the period decreasing at the predicted rate; if the curvature flattens, reverses, or jumps, the decay interpretation fails. A shorter test is to re-reduce the shared light curves with a single common pipeline and check whether the 11.8-second systematic offset varies with time or source; if it drifts coherently across epochs, the fitted quadratic coefficient could be an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that WASP-4 b's transit times deviate from a constant-period ephemeris with a curvature best described by a negative quadratic term in the epoch, $T(E)=T_0+P_0E+aE^2$ with $a=(-9.81\pm1.21)\times10^{-11}$ days per orbit squared, equivalently $(-0.98\pm0.12)\times10^{-10}$ days per orbit squared. The quadratic model is strongly preferred in AIC, BIC, and Bayes-factor comparisons, and no significant periodic signal survives in the residuals; the 387.96-day peak found in a periodogram does not phase-fold and fails as a Keplerian. The authors therefore adopt orbital decay as the only viable explanation, convert the curvature to a tidal quality factor, and confront it with stellar models. Their main-sequence models predict $Q'_\star\approx(2\text{--}5)\times10^5$ from internal gravity waves, about two to four times too large (too little dissipation); matching the observed $Q'_\star\approx8\times10^4$ requires an older, more massive, slightly larger host near the end of the main sequence, which does not quite agree with the observationally inferred radius. On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that WASP-4 b's orbit is decaying and that the decay rate demands a more evolved host star than the nominal parameters suggest.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument hinges on the assumption that the 216 measured transit times, assembled from many telescopes and sources over 16 years, carry no time-correlated systematic error that mimics the parabolic curvature, for example a drift in the 11.8-second systematic offset the authors find between their homogeneous timings and published timings of the same light curves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the quadratic model is right, the observed TTVs are dominated by a steady secular shrinkage of the orbit, and mechanisms like apsidal precession, line-of-sight acceleration, or a wide companion cannot explain them.
  • The implied tidal quality factor $Q'_\star\approx8\times10^4$ places WASP-4 b among the most efficiently tidally dissipating hot-Jupiter hosts, comparable to WASP-12 b.
  • Standard main-sequence stellar models dissipate only about a third to a quarter as much tidal energy via internal gravity waves, so explaining the decay requires the host to be near the end of the main sequence with a slightly larger radius than observed.
  • Future transit monitoring can distinguish the decay model from systematic errors: the 11.8-second systematic offset between the authors' homogeneous timings and published timings is smaller than the accumulated TTV but must not drift with time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive extension would be to apply the authors' own pipeline to every archival light curve and test whether the 11.8-second systematic offset depends on epoch, telescope, or filter; a drifting offset would mimic part of the quadratic curvature and should be subtracted before trusting $a$.
  • If the decay is real, WASP-4 b joins a small sample of hot Jupiters whose measured tidal dissipation exceeds standard main-sequence predictions; comparing decay rates across this sample could reveal whether the common resolution is an evolved host star or a missing dissipation mechanism in the theory.
  • The near-absence of persistent periodic TTV signals, despite a 387.96-day peak that fails to phase-fold, suggests that the remaining scatter is dominated by noise or spot-induced asymmetries; high-cadence, multi-year monitoring at the level of a few seconds would be needed to detect the expected small signal from the proposed 7001-day companion.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 37 new transit light curves of WASP-4 b from several ground-based telescopes plus TESS data, re-analyzes an extensive set of literature and ETD light curves with EXOFAST v1 to derive homogeneous mid-transit timings, and combines these with 58 literature timings into a 216-point TTV diagram spanning 15.98 yr. The authors fit linear, quadratic, and apsidal models; the quadratic model is strongly preferred (ΔBIC = -51.96, Bayes factor ~2×10^11), yielding a negative quadratic coefficient and an implied modified tidal quality factor Q'_* = (8.08±1.17)×10^4 under the orbital-decay interpretation. They then compute theoretical Q'_* from internal gravity wave dissipation in MESA stellar models, finding that main-sequence models give Q'_* ~ 2-5×10^5, while only more massive/evolved models (with radii larger than observed) can reach the observed value.

Significance. The TTV dataset is the largest assembled for WASP-4 b, and the model comparison is thorough. If robust, the inferred Q'_* ≈ 8×10^4 makes WASP-4 b one of the best examples of tidal orbital decay and challenges current tidal theory, which the paper addresses with independent MESA-based calculations. The theoretical analysis is a strength: it uses reproducible stellar modeling (MESA) and an established formalism (Barker 2020), and it transparently states the tension between the observed Q'_* and main-sequence models. However, the astrophysical conclusion rests on the quadratic coefficient being free of time-correlated systematic errors in the timing data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.1, Fig. 3] The systematic offset between the authors' EXOFAST v1 timings and published timings for the same 109 light curves (average 11.8 s, 98/109 positive, including 43/46 for TESS) is unexplained and is the main threat to the central claim. Because the cumulative quadratic signal over the 16-yr baseline is only ~160 s, a time-dependent component of this offset could bias the fitted quadratic coefficient in sign or magnitude. The authors should explicitly test for a time trend in the offset (e.g., comparing residuals in early vs. late epochs), include a free constant offset between the re-measured and literature-only subsets in the TTV model, or demonstrate that the result persists when using only a single homogeneous timing set (e.g., TESS-only or new ground-based data). The own-only fit in Table 6 reduces but does not eliminate this concern, because the re-measured subset itself combines heterogeneous instruments and epochs.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.2, Table 6] The reduced chi-squared values of 3.61 (all data) and 4.14 (own-only) for the preferred quadratic model indicate that the reported timing uncertainties are underestimated by about a factor of two. The quoted 1σ errors on the quadratic coefficient (a = -9.81±1.21 × 10^-11 days/orbit^2) and on Q'_* must therefore be regarded as lower limits. A re-analysis including a jitter term (or an explicit rescaling of the errors) is needed to obtain realistic uncertainties on a and Q'_* and to confirm that the model comparison (ΔAIC, ΔBIC, Bayes factor) is not driven by the underestimated scatter. This is directly relevant to the theoretical comparison in Section 4, which depends on whether Q'_* is consistent with ~6×10^4 or could be as high as ~2×10^5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Many instances of '9P' and '9M' (e.g., in the Introduction and Section 4) are LaTeX rendering errors for \dot{P} and \dot{M}; they should be fixed before publication.
  2. [Sec. 2.6 / Sec. 5] The reported numbers of new observations are inconsistent: the abstract states 37 new observations, Table 1 lists 28 Danish + 5 Ckoirama + 2 TRAPPIST + 4 El Sauce = 39 new light curves, and the conclusion says '37 newly obtained observations ... of which three were excluded.' Please clarify the exact counts and which telescopes contributed.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.1] The phrase 'the average difference between the measurements from the same light curves is only 11.83 seconds' is misleading, since 11.8 s is comparable to the typical 25-27 s uncertainties and is a substantial systematic; it should be flagged as a concern rather than 'only'.
  4. [Fig. 4] The y-axis label reads 'TTV (mi utes)'; the 'n' in 'minutes' is missing.
  5. [Sec. 3.3.2] When dismissing the 387.96-day periodic signal, the authors state that a Keplerian fit 'ends up within much poorer fit statistics' but do not give the resulting AIC/BIC or amplitude; please quantify this statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quadratic TTV fit is independent data analysis, and the tidal Q' comparison is computed from separate stellar models without tuning.

full rationale

The central claim that WASP-4 b's orbit is decaying rests on a direct fit of a quadratic ephemeris to 216 transit timings (Eq. 3), with model comparison statistics reported against linear and apsidal-motion alternatives. The conversion of the fitted quadratic coefficient to a tidal quality factor (Eq. 4) is an explicit, standard algebraic mapping ('if this is due to stellar tides'), not a hidden use of the conclusion as an input; the paper does not present Q'_* as an independent prediction of the timing data. The theoretical Q'_IGW values are computed from independent MESA stellar models using the Barker (2020) formalism (Eq. 41), which is a published, externally referenced framework (also Goodman & Dickson 1998; Chernov et al. 2017; Ahuir et al. 2021; Ma & Fuller 2021) and is not adjusted to match the observed Q'_*. The paper honestly reports that main-sequence models give Q' ~ 2-5 x 10^5 and that only older, larger-radius models reach ~8 x 10^4. Co-author Barker's prior work is cited for tidal theory, but the cited formalism is not the present paper's own ansatz and does not encode the target result. The reported 11.8 s systematic timing offset (Sec. 3.3.1) is a data-quality concern and a potential systematic bias, but it is not a circularity: the analysis does not define the decay signal in terms of that offset, and the offset is explicitly disclosed and examined. The high reduced chi-squared of the quadratic model is likewise an honest goodness-of-fit limitation, not a circular step. The derivation chain is self-contained: timing measurements -> quadratic coefficient -> conditional Q'_* -> independent theoretical Q'_IGW comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The paper relies on standard stellar structure, MESA evolution models, and the published Barker (2020) tidal formalism. The central fitted quantity is the quadratic TTV coefficient; the theoretical Q' comparison is a consistency test against independent stellar models.

free parameters (3)
  • Quadratic coefficient a (TTV ephemeris) = -0.98 +/- 0.12 x 10^-10 days orbit^-2
    Fitted directly to 216 transit timings. The entire orbital decay measurement, the derived decay rate (about 5 ms/yr), and Q'_* ≈ 8×10^4 are algebraic transforms of this single fitted coefficient (Eq. 3 and Eq. 4).
  • Initial stellar mass and metallicity scanned in MESA models = M = 0.858-0.945 M_sun, Z about 0.01-0.03 (within observational 1-sigma)
    In the theoretical comparison, the stellar mass and metallicity are scanned within the observational uncertainties to find models matching the observed Q'. The match requires M greater than about 0.911 M_sun, at the upper edge of the fitted stellar mass, which is a mild selection within uncertainty.
  • MESA input physics choices (semiconvective mixing, elemental diffusion) = default MESA vs MIST parameterizations
    The predicted Q'_IGW depends on the radial gradient of the Brunt-Vaisala frequency near the radiative-convective interface. The paper notes these choices are uncertain and affect the predicted Q', so they act as hand-chosen modeling degrees of freedom.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed TTV is dominated by a secular period decrease; apsidal precession, line-of-sight acceleration, and external perturbers are negligible.
    The paper rules these out by citing prior RV and occultation analyses (Bouma et al. 2019, 2020; Baluev et al. 2020; Turner et al. 2022) and by direct model comparison. The TTV fit does not include an acceleration or companion term.
  • standard math The modified tidal quality factor Q'_* is related to the fitted quadratic coefficient by the equilibrium-tide formula of Goldreich & Soter (1966) and Patra et al. (2017), Eq. 4.
    Used to convert the fitted quadratic coefficient to Q'_*. This is a standard formula, but its applicability to a non-equilibrium tide is an assumption; the paper's own theoretical section uses a different gravity-wave formalism.
  • domain assumption Internal gravity wave dissipation in the radiative core, with waves fully damped by wave breaking, is the dominant tidal mechanism; equilibrium tides and inertial waves are ineffective.
    Invoked in Section 4 with citations to Barker (2020), Duguid et al. (2020), and Guo et al. (2023). The paper verifies WASP-4 b's mass exceeds the critical mass for wave breaking for ages below 10 Gyr.
  • domain assumption MESA/MIST stellar models with the adopted masses and metallicities accurately represent WASP-4's internal structure, including the Brunt-Vaisala frequency profile at the radiative-convective interface.
    The predicted Q'_IGW depends on the radial gradient of N^2 near the interface; the paper notes the choice of semiconvective mixing and elemental diffusion parameterizations is uncertain and affects predictions.
  • domain assumption The stellar radius of WASP-4 is correctly measured to about 0.9 R_sun by SED and IRFM; the models that match the observed Q'_* have larger radii and may not represent the star.
    Used to argue the theoretical match requires an unobserved larger star. If the measured radius is underestimated, the tension would resolve.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Orbit of WASP-4 b is in Decay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UEKPF6X6

@misc{pith2026250615022,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Orbit of WASP-4 b is in Decay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UEKPF6X6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15022}
}
read the original abstract

WASP-4 b is a hot Jupiter exhibiting a decreasing orbital period, prompting investigations into potential mechanisms driving its evolution. We analyzed 173 transit light curves, including 37 new observations, and derived mid-transit timings with EXOFAST, forming the most extensive TTV dataset for this system. Adding 58 literature timings and removing unreliable data, we constructed a TTV diagram with 216 points. Our analysis considered linear, quadratic, and apsidal motion models, with the quadratic model proving to be significantly superior in all model comparison statistics. We found no significant periodic signals in the data. The quadratic model allows us to infer a tidal quality factor of Q' ~ 80,000 from the orbital decay rate if this is due to stellar tides. Theoretical considerations indicate that such efficient dissipation is possible due to internal gravity waves in the radiative core of WASP-4, but only in our models with a more evolved host star, possibly near the end of its main-sequence lifetime, and with a larger radius than the observed one. Our main-sequence models produce only about a third of the required dissipation (Q' ~ 200,000 - 500,000). Therefore, the observed orbital decay can only be explained by a slightly larger or more evolved host, resembling the case for WASP-12. Our findings highlight the need for further stellar modeling and improvement in our current understanding of tidal dissipation mechanisms driving orbital decay in close-in exoplanetary systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15022 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Broadband fluxes of WASP-4. Red points represents the data points including error bars, while blue points represents model fluxes. The error bars in wavelength denote the bandwidth of the corresponding filter. statistics (Winn et al. 2008), which are frequently used to characterize white and red noise, respectively. We removed the light curves that have PNR values higher than the transit depth, while we eliminated t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: TESS transit light curves of WASP-4 b used in global modelling (black dots) and the exofastv2 model (red continuous line). Each TESS sector is time-folded and binned in two-minute intervals. Right panel: residuals from the global model (black dots). The red line indicates the zero level. radius and also effective temperature (Teff ) with the exo￾fastv2 (Eastman 2017; Eastman et al. 2019) code and the Mod… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of our own measurements of mid-transit times and those from the literature based on the O-C values com￾puted by employing linear ephemerides provided by Southworth et al. (2019), mid-transit times from the literature (x-axis), and those from our own measurements with the exofast code (y-axis) in seconds. The blue line is for equal O-C’s, while the dashed or￾ange line is the best linear fit. set in our mid… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TTV diagram of WASP-4 b with the strongly favoured quadratic model superimposed on the timing data. The last 5000 models have been plotted with the lighter shade of green, while the model based on the median values of model parameters from their posterior distributions…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar properties and tidal quality factor computed using either MESA default parameters or MIST parameters for the initial masses and metallicities specified in the legend. Panels (a) and (b) show the stellar normalised radius and effective temperature, over￾plotting…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Ahuir J., Mathis S., Amard L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A...3A 651, A3

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040174 2021

  3. [3]

    Akaike H., 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ITAC...19..716A 19, 716

    1974

  4. [4]

    H., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385..621A 385, 621

    Applegate J. H., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385..621A 385, 621

    doi:10.1086/170967 1992

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    Ba s t \"u rk \"O ., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2062B 512, 2062

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac592 2022

  8. [8]

    V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.1294B 490, 1294

    Baluev R. V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.1294B 490, 1294

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2620 2019

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496L..11B 496, L11

    Baluev R. V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496L..11B 496, L11

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18468.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.1365B 414, 1365

    Barker A. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18468.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.1365B 414, 1365

    2011

  3. [11]

    J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.2270B 498, 2270

    Barker A. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.2270B 498, 2270

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    J., Efroimsky M., Makarov V

    Barker A. J., Efroimsky M., Makarov V. V., Veras D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5131B 527, 5131

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    E., Shallis M

    Blackwell D. E., Shallis M. J., 1977, MNRAS, 1977MNRAS.180..177B 180, 177

    1977

  6. [15]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A.107B 602, A107

    Bonomo A. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A.107B 602, A107

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab189f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..217B 157, 217

    Bouma L. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab189f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..217B 157, 217

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    G., Winn J

    Bouma L. G., Winn J. N., Howard A. W., Howell S. B., Isaacson H., Knutson H., Matson R. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..29B 893, L29

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    C \'a ceres C., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A...5C 530, A5

    2011 doi

  10. [19]

    Char F., Unda-Sanzana E., Colque J., Fossey S., Rocchetto M., 2016, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016BAAA...58..200C 58, 200

    2016

  11. [20]

    V., Ivanov P

    Chernov S. V., Ivanov P. B., Papaloizou J. C. B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2054C 470, 2054

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    Claret A., Bloemen S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529A..75C 529, A75

    2011 doi

  14. [23]

    A., Kielkopf J

    Collins K. A., Kielkopf J. F., Stassun K. G., Hessman F. V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...77C 153, 77

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    M., et al., 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003yCat.2246....0C p

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003yCat.2246....0C p. II/246

    2003

  16. [25]

    M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014yCat.2328....0C p

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014yCat.2328....0C p. II/328

    2021

  17. [26]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3164D 428, 3164

    Doyle A. P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3164D 428, 3164

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    Dragomir D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..115D 142, 115

    2011 doi

  20. [29]

    D., Barker A

    Duguid C. D., Barker A. J., Jones C. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.3400D 497, 3400

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    D., de Vries N

    Duguid C. D., de Vries N. B., Lecoanet D., Barker A. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966L..14D 966, L14

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    Eastman J., 2017, EXOFASTv2: Generalized publication-quality exoplanet modeling code ( @eprint ascl 1710.003 )

    2017

  23. [32]

    S., 2010, PASP, 2010PASP..122..935E 122, 935

    Eastman J., Siverd R., Gaudi B. S., 2010, PASP, 2010PASP..122..935E 122, 935

    2010

  24. [33]

    S., Agol E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/669497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125...83E 125, 83

    Eastman J., Gaudi B. S., Agol E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/669497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125...83E 125, 83

    2013 doi

  25. [34]

    D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190709480E p

    Eastman J. D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190709480E p. arXiv:1907.09480

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    K., Wright J

    Feng Y. K., Wright J. T., Nelson B., Wang S. X., Ford E. B., Marcy G. W., Isaacson H., Howard A. W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...22F 800, 22

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..505F 642, 505

    Ford E. B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..505F 642, 505

    2006 doi

  28. [37]

    J., Shporer A., Winn J

    Fulton B. J., Shporer A., Winn J. N., Holman M. J., P \'a l A., Gazak J. Z., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142...84F 142, 84

    2011 doi

  29. [38]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    doi

  31. [40]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...6G 649, A6

    doi

  32. [41]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    J., Timmermans M., Pozuelos F

    Garcia L. J., Timmermans M., Pozuelos F. J., Ducrot E., Gillon M., Delrez L., Wells R. D., Jehin E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.4817G 509, 4817

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    Gillon M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...496..259G 496, 259

    2009 doi

  35. [44]

    Gillon M., Jehin E., Magain P., Chantry V., Hutsem \' e kers D., Manfroid J., Queloz D., Udry S., 2011, @doi [ EPJ Web of Conferences] 10.1051/epjconf/20101106002 , 11, 06002

    2011

  36. [45]

    Goldreich P., Soter S., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966Icar....5..375G 5, 375

    1966 doi

  37. [46]

    S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507..938G 507, 938

    Goodman J., Dickson E. S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507..938G 507, 938

    1998 doi

  38. [47]

    G., 2024, MNRAS, 2024MNRAS.534..843G 534, 843

    Goswamy T., Collier Cameron A., Wilson T. G., 2024, MNRAS, 2024MNRAS.534..843G 534, 843

    2024

  39. [48]

    I., Barker A

    Guo Z., Ogilvie G. I., Barker A. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.1353G 521, 1353

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    Harre J.-V., Smith A. M. S., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9120506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ....9..506H 9, 506

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A.124H 669, A124

    Harre J. V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A.124H 669, A124

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...52H 726, 52

    Hartman J. D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...52H 726, 52

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    A., Templeton M., Terrell D., Smith T

    Henden A. A., Templeton M., Terrell D., Smith T. C., Levine S., Welch D., 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016yCat.2336....0H p. II/336

    2016

  44. [53]

    H g E., et al., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...355L..27H 355, L27

    2000

  45. [54]

    Hoyer S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt962 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434...46H 434, 46

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    Hroch F., 2014, Munipack: General astronomical image processing software , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1402.006

    2014

  47. [56]

    M., D \'e sert J

    Huitson C. M., D \'e sert J. M., Bean J. L., Fortney J. J., Stevenson K. B., Bergmann M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7f72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...95H 154, 95

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    Jehin E., et al., 2011, The Messenger, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Msngr.145....2J 145, 2

    2011

  49. [58]

    M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J

    Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J. C., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV. p. 99133E, @doi 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    C., Basturk O., Yal c inkaya S., Saguner Rambaldi T., Yerli S

    Kutluay A. C., Basturk O., Yal c inkaya S., Saguner Rambaldi T., Yerli S. K., 2023, @doi [Turkish Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.55064/tjaa.1307803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023TJAA....4...10A 4, 10

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377L..74L 377, L74

    Liddle A. R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377L..74L 377, L74

    2007

  53. [62]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  54. [63]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...4L 649, A4

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    Ma L., Fuller J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac088e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...16M 918, 16

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    arXiv:2501.05704

    Ma X., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250105704M p. arXiv:2501.05704

    2025 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    Maciejewski G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.32023/0001-5237/72.1.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AcA....72....1M 72, 1

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    E., 2011, @doi [Behavior Research Methods] 10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5 , 43, 679

    Masson M. E., 2011, @doi [Behavior Research Methods] 10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5 , 43, 679

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    C., Sousa S

    Mortier A., Santos N. C., Sousa S. G., Fernandes J. M., Adibekyan V. Z., Delgado Mena E., Montalto M., Israelian G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A.106M 558, A106

    2013 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Mead R., 1965, @doi [The Computer Journal] 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 , 7, 308

    Nelder J. A., Mead R., 1965, @doi [The Computer Journal] 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 , 7, 308

    1965 doi

  61. [70]

    B., Rawlik M., Ingargiola A., Nelson A., 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.014

    Newville M., Stensitzki T., Allen D. B., Rawlik M., Ingargiola A., Nelson A., 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.014

    2016

  62. [71]

    Nikolov N., Henning T., Koppenhoefer J., Lendl M., Maciejewski G., Greiner J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A.159N 539, A159

    2012 doi

  63. [72]

    Oriol A.-P., et al., 2023, @doi [ PeerJ Computer Science] 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516 , 9, e1516

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    C., Winn J

    Patra K. C., Winn J. N., Holman M. J., Yu L., Deming D., Dai F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154....4P 154, 4

    2017 doi

  65. [74]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  66. [75]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  67. [76]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  69. [78]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  70. [79]

    P., Mauas P

    Petrucci R., Jofr \'e E., Schwartz M., C \'u neo V., Mart \' nez C., G \'o mez M., Buccino A. P., Mauas P. J. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/779/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779L..23P 779, L23

    2013 doi

  71. [80]

    L., et al., 2006, PASP, 2006PASP..118.1407P 118, 1407

    Pollacco D. L., et al., 2006, PASP, 2006PASP..118.1407P 118, 1407

    2006

  72. [81]

    D., Jayawardhana R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abba1e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..249R 160, 249

    Ridden-Harper A., Turner J. D., Jayawardhana R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abba1e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..249R 160, 249

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    Roberts A., 1899, ApJ, 1899ApJ....10..308R 10, 308

  74. [83]

    N., 1899, ApJ, 1899ApJ....10..315R 10, 315

    Russell H. N., 1899, ApJ, 1899ApJ....10..315R 10, 315

  75. [84]

    N., Holman M

    Sanchis-Ojeda R., Winn J. N., Holman M. J., Carter J. A., Osip D. J., Fuentes C. I., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733..127S 733, 127

    2011 doi

  76. [85]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  77. [86]

    335, The Light-Time Effect in Astrophysics: Causes and cures of the O-C diagram

    Schneider J., 2005, in Sterken C., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 335, The Light-Time Effect in Astrophysics: Causes and cures of the O-C diagram. p. 191

    2005

  78. [87]

    Schwarz G., 1978, Annals of Statistics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978AnSta...6..461S 6, 461

    1978

  79. [88]

    Seager S., Mall \'e n-Ornelas G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...585.1038S 585, 1038

    2003 doi

  80. [89]

    G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141584 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A..53S 656, A53

    Sousa S. G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141584 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A..53S 656, A53

    2021 doi

  81. [90]

    Southworth J., et al., 2009a, MNRAS, 2009MNRAS.396.1023S 396, 1023

  82. [91]

    Southworth J., et al., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15283.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..287S 399, 287

    2009

  83. [92]

    Southworth J., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 2014MNRAS.444..776S 444, 776

    2014

  84. [93]

    Southworth J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.4230S 490, 4230

    2019 doi

  85. [94]

    G., Corsaro E., Pepper J

    Stassun K. G., Corsaro E., Pepper J. A., Gaudi B. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa998a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...22S 155, 22

    2018 doi

  86. [95]

    B., 1987, PASP, 1987PASP...99..191S 99, 191

    Stetson P. B., 1987, PASP, 1987PASP...99..191S 99, 191

    1987

  87. [96]

    Sun M., Townsend R. H. D., Guo Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb33a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945...43S 945, 43

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    R., Huber D., van Saders J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...31T 927, 31

    Tayar J., Claytor Z. R., Huber D., van Saders J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...31T 927, 31

    2022 doi

  89. [98]

    Townsend R. H. D., Teitler S. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3406T 435, 3406

    2013 doi

  90. [99]

    D., Flagg L., Ridden-Harper A., Jayawardhana R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac686f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..281T 163, 281

    Turner J. D., Flagg L., Ridden-Harper A., Jayawardhana R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac686f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..281T 163, 281

    2022 doi

  91. [100]

    A., Marsh T

    Watson C. A., Marsh T. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16602.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.2037W 405, 2037

    2010

  92. [101]

    N., Davachi N., Essick R., Yu H., Arras P., Belland B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...50W 960, 50

    Weinberg N. N., Davachi N., Essick R., Yu H., Arras P., Belland B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...50W 960, 50

    2024 doi

  93. [102]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/586735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675L.113W 675, L113

    Wilson D. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/586735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675L.113W 675, L113

    2008 doi

  94. [103]

    N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683.1076W 683, 1076

    Winn J. N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683.1076W 683, 1076

    2008 doi

  95. [104]

    N., Holman M

    Winn J. N., Holman M. J., Carter J. A., Torres G., Osip D. J., Beatty T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/4/3826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....137.3826W 137, 3826

    2009 doi

  96. [105]

    Yal c nkaya S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2475Y 530, 2475

    2024 doi

  97. [106]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...888L...5Y 888, L5

    Yee S. W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...888L...5Y 888, L5

    2020 doi

  98. [107]

    Zhou G., Bayliss D. D. R., Kedziora-Chudczer L., Tinney C. G., Bailey J., Salter G., Rodriguez J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3002Z 454, 3002

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.