pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.05586 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

The TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey: Periods for 1,046,317 Stars Within 500 pc

Andrew W. Boyle , Luke G. Bouma , Andrew W. Mann
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 14:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords stellar rotationTESS photometryrotation periodsstellar variabilitynearby starsall-sky catalogstellar ages
0
0 comments X

The pith

The TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey catalogs variability periods for 1,046,317 stars within 500 pc, estimating 93 percent as true rotation periods.

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

The paper introduces the TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey catalog of stellar variability periods drawn from TESS photometry for over a million stars brighter than T magnitude 16 and closer than 500 parsecs. The authors estimate that 93 percent of the reported periods represent genuine stellar rotation after applying corrections for common aliases. This dataset multiplies the count of known rotation periods by a factor of four in that volume and by 2.3 within 100 parsecs. The work also includes a practical method for recovering periods up to 25 days from individual TESS sectors. Public release of the light curves and adjustable analysis code lets other researchers tune the catalog for studies of stellar ages, activity, and Galactic structure.

Core claim

We present the TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey (TARS), an all-sky catalog of stellar variability periods for 1,046,317 stars with T < 16 and distances within 500 pc. We estimate that 93% of these periods are rotation periods. This catalog increases the number of rotation period measurements for stars with T < 16 within 100 pc by a factor of 2.3 and within 500 pc by 4.0. We also present a method to correct half-period aliases in TESS data and show that it reliably recovers periods as long as 25 days from a single TESS sector.

What carries the argument

The half-period alias correction method applied to TESS light curves, which recovers reliable periods up to 25 days from single sectors.

If this is right

  • Quadruples the sample of rotation periods available within 500 pc for studies of stellar magnetic evolution.
  • Supplies a homogeneous foundation for mapping stellar ages across the solar neighborhood.
  • Enables improved characterization of exoplanet host stars through their rotation properties.
  • Provides public light curves as an HLSP and code for users to create custom catalogs with chosen completeness thresholds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Cross-matching the periods with Gaia kinematics could sharpen age estimates for field stars without clusters.
  • The alias-correction technique may transfer to other photometric surveys that share TESS-like sampling gaps.
  • Rotation data at this scale could help trace the distribution of young stellar populations across the disk.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that 93 percent of the detected periods are genuine stellar rotation periods after alias correction rather than other variability or artifacts.

What would settle it

A targeted follow-up campaign obtaining independent rotation measurements for several hundred catalog stars via ground-based photometry or spectroscopy that yields a confirmation rate well below 93 percent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.05586 by Andrew W. Boyle, Andrew W. Mann, Luke G. Bouma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Selection function. Top left: Sky coverage. We used TESS images from 2018 July–2025 September; the white gap is where TESS did not observe in Sectors 1–96. Top right: Histogram of number of TESS observations per star; numbers above each bin give the star count. The median star has four sectors of TESS data. Lower left: The TESS magnitude T as a function of the distance to each star in our survey, colored b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example vetting plot. Probabilities from our systematics and harmonic classifiers are listed. One such vetting plot is available for each of the 39,044,569 light curves through the TARS High-Level Science Product at MAST. An interactive vetting plot explorer is also available online. each light curve into 100 temporal segments, trained the systematics model on each of the other segments, and applied the re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Systematics masquerade as period detections. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Systematics classifier performance vs. rotation period. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Half-period harmonics can be identified at the cost of completeness. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Validation of our vetting procedure using Kepler, K2, and ZTF. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The default TARS sample as functions of period, temperature, and amplitude. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Our harmonic classifier enables reconstruction of open cluster rotation-temperature sequences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Selecting fast rotators (Prot < 13 days) enhances the visibility of clustered populations. Left: Distribution in Galactocentric X and Y coordinates of all stars in the TARS target list satisfying T < 16 and d < 500 pc. The Sun is marked as a yellow point at the origin. Right: The same sky region, restricted to stars with adopted rotation periods Prot < 13 days. After applying this cut, clustered population… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gaia DR3 variability classifications in period–temperature and color–magnitude space. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The TARS Prot-Teff plane recovers structures seen in longer baseline surveys. Top left: The default TARS catalog with rotational isochrones from NGC-3532 (D. J. Fritzewski et al. 2021), NGC-6811 (J. L. Curtis et al. 2019a), and Ruprecht-147 (J. L. Curtis et al. 2020) overplotted. The structure in this diagram is discussed in Section 6.6. Top right: The sample of Kepler rotators from A. McQuillan et al. (2… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Photometric binarity is common at fast periods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The rotation-effective temperature distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Extra validation plots for our systematics classifier. Top left: Confusion matrix for our negative (systematic) and positive (rotation signal) classes. Top right: ROC curve for this classifier showing the effectiveness of the classifier at distinguishing systematics from probable rotation signals. Bottom left: Histogram showing the probability distribution of each class. The bimodal distribution with a wi… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Extra validation plots for our harmonic classifier. Top left: Confusion matrix for our negative (harmonic) and positive (true rotation signal) classes. Top right: ROC curve for this classifier showing the effectiveness of the classifier at distinguishing harmonics from non-harmonic rotation signals. Bottom left: Histogram showing the probability distribution of each class. Compared to the systematics clas… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stellar rotation is a fundamental tracer of stellar magnetic evolution, age, and activity, with broad implications for Galactic archaeology and exoplanet characterization. The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) provides high-precision time-series photometry across the sky, enabling rotation measurements for an unprecedented number of stars. We present the TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey (TARS), an all-sky catalog of stellar variability periods for 1,046,317 stars with T < 16 and distances within 500 pc. We estimate that 93% of these periods are rotation periods. This catalog increases the number of rotation period measurements for stars with T < 16 within 100 pc by a factor of 2.3 and within 500 pc by 4.0. We also present a method to correct half-period aliases in TESS data and show that it reliably recovers periods as long as 25 days from a single TESS sector. TARS represents the largest homogeneous catalog of stellar rotation periods to date, providing a foundation for studies of stellar ages, young associations, and Galactic structure. We make the light curves used in our analysis available as a HLSP through MAST. Beyond the default TARS catalog, we provide code that allows users to generate rotation period catalogs with adjustable completeness and reliability thresholds. This code and all rotation period measurements are available through Zenodo.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents the TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey (TARS), a catalog containing stellar variability periods for 1,046,317 stars with T < 16 and distances < 500 pc. It claims that 93% of these periods are genuine stellar rotation periods, introduces a half-period alias correction method that recovers periods up to 25 days from a single TESS sector, and reports that the catalog increases the number of rotation measurements by factors of 2.3 (within 100 pc) and 4.0 (within 500 pc) relative to prior work. The light curves, code for adjustable thresholds, and period measurements are made publicly available.

Significance. If the 93% purity and alias-recovery claims are substantiated, TARS would constitute the largest homogeneous stellar rotation catalog to date, directly enabling improved constraints on stellar ages, magnetic evolution, young moving groups, and Galactic structure. The public release of the underlying light curves as an HLSP and the adjustable-threshold code are clear strengths that support reproducibility and community use.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Alias-correction method): the statement that the method 'reliably recovers periods as long as 25 days from a single TESS sector' is not accompanied by any injection-recovery statistics, success fractions, or false-alias rates on simulated light curves with known input periods; without these metrics the 93% purity claim cannot be evaluated.
  2. [§5] §5 / Table 2 (Catalog validation): the 93% purity estimate is presented without quantitative cross-checks against independent rotation catalogs (e.g., Kepler or ground-based surveys) for the overlapping stars, nor any reported false-positive rate from the downstream filtering steps; this is load-bearing for the central catalog claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3: axis labels and color scale for the period distribution are too small to read in print; consider enlarging or splitting into two panels.
  2. [§2.1] §2.1: the distance cut at 500 pc is stated but the corresponding parallax uncertainty threshold or quality cuts on Gaia data are not explicitly listed; add a short table of selection criteria.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract claims a factor-of-4 increase within 500 pc, but no explicit comparison table to the prior largest catalog is provided; a one-row summary table would clarify the gain.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. Their comments highlight important areas where additional quantitative validation will strengthen the presentation of the TARS catalog. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Alias-correction method): the statement that the method 'reliably recovers periods as long as 25 days from a single TESS sector' is not accompanied by any injection-recovery statistics, success fractions, or false-alias rates on simulated light curves with known input periods; without these metrics the 93% purity claim cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks the quantitative injection-recovery statistics needed to fully substantiate the alias-correction performance. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (or expanded §4) presenting results from simulated light curves with injected periods ranging from 1 to 30 days. These tests will report recovery success fractions, false-alias rates, and dependence on signal-to-noise and sector length, directly supporting the claim that periods up to 25 days can be recovered from a single sector and allowing readers to evaluate the 93% purity estimate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 / Table 2 (Catalog validation): the 93% purity estimate is presented without quantitative cross-checks against independent rotation catalogs (e.g., Kepler or ground-based surveys) for the overlapping stars, nor any reported false-positive rate from the downstream filtering steps; this is load-bearing for the central catalog claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the 93% purity figure requires stronger empirical grounding through external validation. In the revised manuscript we will expand §5 to include a quantitative cross-match analysis with the Kepler rotation catalog and selected ground-based surveys for stars in common. We will report agreement fractions, period-difference distributions, and an estimated false-positive rate derived from the filtering pipeline steps. These additions will provide the independent checks requested and allow a more rigorous assessment of catalog reliability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in TARS catalog derivation

full rationale

The paper constructs its catalog by direct processing of TESS light curves to extract periods, with the 93% rotation-period purity estimate presented as the outcome of alias-correction and validation steps applied to the data. No equations, fitted parameters, or claims reduce the reported periods or purity fraction to quantities defined from the output itself or from self-citations that bear the central load. The work remains self-contained against external observational benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that collapse back to the present inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about the origin of photometric variability and the effectiveness of period-finding algorithms; no free parameters or new entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Photometric variability in TESS light curves is dominated by rotational modulation from starspots for the majority of stars in the sample.
    This is invoked implicitly when interpreting detected periods as rotation periods and when estimating the 93% purity fraction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1285 out tokens · 79584 ms · 2026-05-15T14:57:29.489553+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. NASA's Pandora SmallSat Mission: Simulating the Impact of Stellar Photospheric Heterogeneity and Its Correction

    astro-ph.EP 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0

    Pandora simulations recover stellar photospheric temperatures to ~30 K with no bias and reduce simple spot contamination from 100-1000 ppm to under 10 ppm, but complex spot geometries leave ~1000 ppm residuals.

  2. A useful representation of TESS light curves

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A quantile-graph PCA SOM embedding creates a map of 1.5 million TESS light curves where proximity reflects similarity in variability amplitude, timescale, SNR, and shape, with stable positions for repeat observations.

  3. The HAges Catalog: Stellar Ages for High Priority HWO Target Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The HAges catalog compiles published asteroseismic and gyrochronological ages for 659 HWO target stars, finding that only ~5% have asteroseismic ages and ~20% have gyrochronal ages.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167, doi: 10.1086/519295 Barrag´ an, O., Aigrain, S., Rajpaul, V. M., & Zicher, N. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2889

    work page doi:10.1086/519295 2007

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [4]

    S., Jeffries, R

    Binks, A. S., Jeffries, R. D., & Maxted, P. F. L. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1309

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1309 2015

  5. [5]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  6. [6]

    Bakos, G. ´A. 2019, ApJS, 245, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4a7e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4a7e 2019

  7. [7]

    G., Hillenbrand, L

    Bouma, L. G., Hillenbrand, L. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad855f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad855f 2024

  8. [8]

    G., Palumbo, E

    Bouma, L. G., Palumbo, E. K., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2023, ApJL, 947, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc589

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc589 2023

  9. [9]

    W., Bouma, L

    Boyle, A. W., Bouma, L. G., & Mann, A. W. 2025a, ApJ, 994, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0724

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0724

  10. [10]

    W., Mann, A

    Boyle, A. W., Mann, A. W., & Bush, J. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcecc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcecc

  11. [11]

    N., Lanza, A

    Breton, S. N., Lanza, A. F., Messina, S., et al. 2024, aap, 689, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449893

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449893 2024

  12. [12]

    J., Levine, A., Fausnaugh, M., et al

    Burke, C. J., Levine, A., Fausnaugh, M., et al. 2020, TESS-Point: High precision TESS pointing tool,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2003.001 http://ascl.net/2003.001

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 2020

  14. [14]

    L., Reefe, M., Plavchan, P., et al

    Cale, B. L., Reefe, M., Plavchan, P., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 295, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c80 Canto Martins, B. L., Gomes, R. L., Messias, Y. S., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba73f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c80 2021

  15. [15]

    R., van Saders, J

    Claytor, Z. R., van Saders, J. L., Cao, L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad159a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad159a 2024

  16. [16]

    L., Angus, R., David, T., et al

    Colman, I. L., Angus, R., David, T., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2c86

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad2c86 2024

  17. [17]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Douglas, S. T., & Meibom, S. 2019a, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2393

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2393

  18. [18]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Mamajek, E. E., Wright, J. T., & Cummings, J. D. 2019b, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899

  19. [19]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Matt, S. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58 2020

  20. [20]

    2024, AJ, 168, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6

    Dai, F., Goldberg, M., Batygin, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6 2024

  21. [21]

    2023, A&A, 672, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245391

    Damasso, M., Locci, D., Benatti, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245391

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245391 2023

  22. [22]

    Davenport, J. R. A., & Covey, K. R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae842

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae842 2018

  23. [23]

    J., Angus, R., Curtis, J

    David, T. J., Angus, R., Curtis, J. L., et al. 2022, arXiv:2203.08920 [astro-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08920

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    C., Brugaletta, E., et al

    Distefano, E., Lanzafame, A. C., Brugaletta, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244178

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244178 2023

  25. [25]

    T., Cargile, P

    Douglas, S. T., Cargile, P. A., Matt, S. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0fe3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0fe3 2024

  26. [26]

    T., Curtis, J

    Douglas, S. T., Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2468

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2468 2019

  27. [27]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90be 33

    Dungee, R., van Saders, J., Gaidos, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90be 33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac90be 2022

  28. [28]

    2023, A&A, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    Eyer, L., Audard, M., Holl, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244242 2023

  29. [29]

    2021, PASP, 133, 095002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac1d3f

    Fausnaugh, M., Morgan, E., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2021, PASP, 133, 095002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac1d3f

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac1d3f 2021

  30. [30]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    Fetherolf, T., Pepper, J., Simpson, E., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5 2023

  31. [31]

    Clayton, G. C. 2019, ApJ, 886, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a 2019

  32. [32]

    Strassmeier, K. G. 2021, A&A, 652, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140894 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140894 2021

  33. [33]

    J., Foreman-Mackey, D., Murray, C

    Garcia, L. J., Foreman-Mackey, D., Murray, C. A., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3cd6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad3cd6 2024

  34. [34]

    A., Davenport, J

    Gordon, T. A., Davenport, J. R. A., Angus, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf63e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf63e 2021

  35. [35]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, AJ, 165, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7 2023

  36. [36]

    D., Bakos, G

    Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. ´A., Bouma, L. G., & Csubry, Z. 2025, PASP, 137, 024501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adad42

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adad42 2025

  37. [37]

    2025, AJ, 170, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add0ab

    Colman, I. 2025, AJ, 170, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add0ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/add0ab 2025

  38. [38]

    W., et al

    Hattori, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2021, arXiv:2106.15063 [astro-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15063

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke, M., David, T. J., Mulders, G. D., & Heller, R. 2019, AJ, 158, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984 2019

  40. [40]

    J., Robertson, P., Hartigan, P., Oelkers, R

    Holcomb, R. J., Robertson, P., Hartigan, P., Oelkers, R. J., & Robinson, C. 2022, ApJ, 936, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8990

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8990 2022

  41. [41]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    work page doi:10.1086/676406 2014

  42. [42]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e 2020

  43. [43]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.13424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.13424

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.13424 2023

  44. [44]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty838 2018

  46. [46]

    M., Caldwell, D

    Jenkins, J. M., Caldwell, D. A., Chandrasekaran, H., et al. 2010, ApJL, 713, L120, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L120

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/l120 2010

  47. [47]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016

  48. [48]

    C., Kraus, A

    Kerr, R., Rizzuto, A. C., Kraus, A. L., & Offner, S. S. R. 2021, arXiv:2105.09338 [astro-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.09338

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    D., et al

    Klein, B., Zicher, N., Kavanagh, R. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac761

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac761 2022

  50. [50]

    G., Bouma, L

    Kounkel, M., Stassun, K. G., Bouma, L. G., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac866d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac866d 2022

  51. [51]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, The Astrophysical Journal, 150, 551, doi: 10.1086/149359

    work page doi:10.1086/149359 1967

  52. [52]

    H., Petigura, E

    Livingston, J. H., Petigura, E. A., David, T. J., et al. 2026, Nature, 649, 310, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09840-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09840-z 2026

  53. [53]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  54. [54]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af

    Long, L., Bi, S., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af 2023

  55. [55]

    L., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y. L., Curtis, J. L., Angus, R., David, T. J., & Hattori, S. 2022, AJ, 164, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9bee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9bee 2022

  56. [56]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24 2014

  57. [57]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 5972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2745

    Nardiello, D. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2745

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2745 2020

  58. [58]

    R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/93

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/93 2016

  59. [59]

    2018, AJ, 156, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b

    Charbonneau, D. 2018, AJ, 156, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b 2018

  60. [60]

    R., Rampalli, R., Kraus, A

    Newton, E. R., Rampalli, R., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8154

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8154 2022

  61. [61]

    J., Rodriguez, J

    Oelkers, R. J., Rodriguez, J. E., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9bf4 OSG. 2006, OSPool, OSG, doi: 10.21231/906P-4D78 OSG. 2015, Open Science Data Federation, OSG, doi: 10.21231/0KVZ-VE57

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9bf4 2018

  62. [62]

    Owen, J. E. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246 2019

  63. [63]

    G., Collins, K

    Paegert, M., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.04778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.04778 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.04778 2021

  64. [64]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9 2013

  65. [65]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 34

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 34

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    2007, in 78, Vol

    Pordes, R., Petravick, D., Kramer, B., et al. 2007, in 78, Vol. 78, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 012057, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/78/1/012057

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/78/1/012057 2007

  67. [67]

    A., Curtis, J

    Rampalli, R., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Curtis, J. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c1e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c1e 2021

  68. [68]

    M., Stauffer, J

    Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Cody, A. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab605

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab605 2018

  69. [69]

    M., Stauffer, J

    Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Bouvier, J., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/113

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/113 2016

  70. [70]

    Shapiro, A. I. 2019, A&A, 621, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833754

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833754 2019

  71. [71]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936887

    Reinhold, T., & Hekker, S. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936887

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936887 2020

  72. [72]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  73. [73]

    C., Mann, A

    Rizzuto, A. C., Mann, A. W., Vanderburg, A., Kraus, A. L., & Covey, K. R. 2017, AJ, 154, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9070

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9070 2017

  74. [74]

    Santos, A. R. G., Breton, S. N., Mathur, S., & Garc´ ıa, R. A. 2021, arXiv:2107.02217 [astro-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.02217

    work page arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Santos, A. R. G., Garc´ ıa, R. A., Mathur, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 244, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3b56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab3b56 2019

  76. [76]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    work page doi:10.1086/160554 1982

  77. [77]

    1962, Annales d’Astrophysique, 25, 18

    Schatzman, E. 1962, Annales d’Astrophysique, 25, 18

    work page 1962

  78. [78]

    Feinstein, A. D. 2026, ApJS, 282, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1ba7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1ba7 2026

  79. [79]

    C., Holzman, B., et al

    Sfiligoi, I., Bradley, D. C., Holzman, B., et al. 2009, in 2, Vol. 2, 2009 WRI World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, 428–432, doi: 10.1109/CSIE.2009.950

    work page doi:10.1109/csie.2009.950 2009

  80. [80]

    I., Solanki, S

    Shapiro, A. I., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323086

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323086 2014

Showing first 80 references.