Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A possible misaligned orbit for the young planet AU Mic c

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First spin-orbit angle measurement for the young planet AU Mic c suggests a misaligned orbit.

desk verdict First RM constraint for AU Mic c, honestly presented as tentative, but the flare mitigation needs a blind injection-recovery test before the misalignment claim can carry weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16958 v2 pith:WLLCVX4C submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

H. Yu , Z. Garai , M. Cretignier , Gy. M. Szabó , S. Aigrain , D. Gandolfi , E. M. Bryant , A. C. M. Correia
show 93 more authors
B. Klein A. Brandeker J. E. Owen M. N. Günther J. N. Winn A. Heitzmann H. M. Cegla T. G. Wilson S. Gill L. Kriskovics O. Barragán A. Boldog L. D. Nielsen N. Billot M. Lafarga A. Meech Y. Alibert R. Alonso T. Bárczy D. Barrado S. C. C. Barros W. Baumjohann D. Bayliss W. Benz M. Bergomi L. Borsato C. Broeg A. Collier Cameron Sz. Csizmadia P. E. Cubillos M. B. Davies M. Deleuil A. Deline O. D. S. Demangeon B. O. Demory A. Derekas L. Doyle B. Edwards J. A. Egger D. Ehrenreich A. Erikson A. Fortier L. Fossati M. Fridlund K. Gazeas M. Gillon M. Güdel Ch. Helling K. G. Isaak L. L. Kiss J. Korth K. W. F. Lam J. Laskar A. Lecavelier des Etangs M. Lendl D. Magrin P. F. L. Maxted J. McCormac B. Merín C. Mordasini V. Nascimbeni S. M. O'Brien G. Olofsson R. Ottensamer I. Pagano E. Pallé G. Peter D. Piazza G. Piotto D. Pollacco D. Queloz R. Ragazzoni N. Rando H. Rauer I. Ribas N. C. Santos G. Scandariato D. Ségransan A. E. Simon A. M. S. Smith S. G. Sousa R. Southworth M. Stalport M. Steinberger S. Sulis S. Udry B. Ulmer S. Ulmer-Moll V. Van Grootel J. Venturini E. Villaver N. A. Walton P. J. Wheatley
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR PACS 97.82.-k
keywords Rossiter-McLaughlineffectspin-orbitangleyoungplanetsAUMicroscopiistellaractivityflarestransittimingvariationssub-Neptune
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 reports the first measurement of the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect for AU Mic c, a 24-million-year-old sub-Neptune, and finds tentative evidence that the planet's orbit is tilted relative to its star's spin axis. The authors measure a sky-projected spin-orbit angle of $\lambda_c = 67.8^{+31.7}_{-49.0}$ degrees (68.3% credible interval), with 89% of the posterior samples preferring misalignment ($\lambda_c \geq 10$ degrees). Because the star is seen nearly equator-on, this implies a genuinely inclined orbit if real. The result is not a significant detection, but if confirmed it would be the first misaligned orbit among planets younger than 100 Myr, informing how early dynamical events shape planetary systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect: as the transiting planet blocks part of the rotating star's disk, the apparent radial velocity of the star shifts in a way that traces the planet's trajectory across the stellar disk, encoding the sky-projected angle $\lambda$ between the orbital plane and stellar spin axis. Because AU Mic is highly active, the authors construct a flare proxy from 33 emission lines in the ESPRESSO spectra, rank the roughly 5000 spectral lines by sensitivity to that proxy, and retain only the 2000 least flare-sensitive lines to extract cross-correlation-function RVs. Data taken when the flare proxy exceeds 3 are excluded. The CHEOPS lightcurves and ESPRESSO RVs are then fit jointly with a transit/RM model (batman and ARoME), a quadratic polynomial for active-region trends, and a Matérn 5/2 Gaussian process, with nested sampling used to explore the posterior; each transit gets its own mid-transit time to absorb transit-timing variations.

What would settle it

Observe additional transits of AU Mic c with a high-precision spectrograph and simultaneous photometry at an epoch when strong flares do not overlap ingress and egress; if the combined-data posterior for $\lambda_c$ is consistent with 0 degrees at 1$\sigma$, the tentative misalignment claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using two transits observed simultaneously with ESPRESSO and CHEOPS, and after removing the effects of flares and stellar activity, the authors find that the orbit of AU Mic c is probably not aligned with the stellar equator. The best-fit projected spin-orbit angle is $\lambda_c \approx 87$ degrees, with a median posterior value of 67.8 degrees and a 68.3% credible interval of $-49.0$ to $+31.7$ degrees; 89% of posterior samples have $\lambda_c \geq 10$ degrees. They stress that the measurement is tentative: the posterior also includes aligned orbits, and strong flares during ingress and egress of both transits limited the data usable for the Rossiter-McLaughlin signal. The paper's central claim is that the data are consistent with a misaligned orbit, and that such a misalignment, if real, would have been produced by dynamical interactions such as a giant impact or a secular resonance rather than by a quiescent formation history.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that the flare-proxy line selection, data masking, polynomial detrending, and Gaussian process fully remove the star's flares and magnetic activity, leaving only the planet's Rossiter-McLaughlin signature in the in-transit radial velocities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, AU Mic c would be the first planet younger than 100 Myr found on a misaligned orbit, with only seven other young planets having measured obliquities to date.
  • A real misalignment would disfavor a quiet formation history and support dynamical events such as a giant impact between planets or a nodal secular resonance with an unseen companion.
  • A significantly misaligned orbit implies a high mutual inclination between planets b and c and with the debris disk, which is in tension with the dynamical stability of the system and makes the observed double-transit configuration less probable by roughly a factor of 17.
  • The posterior for $\lambda_c$ is bimodal and strongly correlated with the mid-transit times, so precise transit timing is critical for any future obliquity measurement in this system.
  • The flare-resistant line-selection technique developed here could enable radial-velocity and obliquity measurements of other planets around active young stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the misalignment is real, it would suggest that significant orbital restructuring happened after the gas disk dispersed, and the coincidence of the planet's high density with the presumed tilt would make a giant impact a particularly attractive explanation; that scenario could be tested by searching for a debris ring or atmospheric metal enrichment around the planet.
  • The stability analysis's finding that orbits with $\lambda > 50$ degrees are dynamically unstable implies that the true obliquity, if the planet survives, likely sits near the lower end of the measured 68.3% interval, and a longer baseline of transit timing and duration variations could discriminate between the stable and unstable branches of the posterior.
  • The same flare-proxy and line-ranking procedure could be applied to archival ESPRESSO data for other active stars, effectively increasing the sample of young-planet obliquities without new observations.
  • Because $\lambda$ is strongly correlated with the transit midpoint, errors in transit timing could masquerade as obliquity; including independent TTV constraints from other facilities (for example NGTS or TESS) in the joint fit would narrow $\lambda$ even without waiting for flare-free transits.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first Rossiter-McLaughlin measurement for the young sub-Neptune AU Mic c, using two transits observed simultaneously with ESPRESSO, CHEOPS, and NGTS. After constructing a flare proxy from 33 emission lines, masking flare-affected photometry and RVs, extracting RVs with a 2000-line flare-resistant mask, and jointly fitting the CHEOPS light curves and ESPRESSO RVs with a transit-plus-GP model, the authors obtain a sky-projected spin-orbit angle lambda_c = 67.8 (+31.7, -49.0) degrees (68.3% credible interval), with 89% of posterior samples at lambda_c >= 10 degrees. They explicitly frame this as a tentative indication rather than a significant detection, discuss formation scenarios (giant impact, secular resonance, Kozai-type interaction), and examine the tension with dynamical stability and transit probability.

Significance. If the result is substantiated, this would be the first obliquity measurement for AU Mic c and the first candidate misaligned orbit among planets younger than 100 Myr, with direct implications for early dynamical evolution and for scenarios involving giant impacts or disk-driven misalignment. The paper is unusually transparent: the limitations in Section 5.1 are stated honestly, the data are public, the flare-mitigation methodology is described in detail, and the dynamical stability and transit-probability checks in Section 5.4 are useful. However, because the central value is bimodal, strongly correlated with weakly constrained transit times, and obtained under residual flare contamination that is not validated by an injection-recovery test, the significance is conditional on additional robustness checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2–3.3, §5.1] The central claim that the residual RV anomaly is dominated by the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect rather than by flares is not supported by an injection-recovery test. The expected RM semi-amplitude is roughly (Rp/Rs)^2 * v sin i_star ~ 9 m/s, while the paper reports that even after mitigation the strongest flares produce RV perturbations up to ~5 km/s (§3.2). A residual flare contribution at the 1% level would already exceed the RM signal, and the strongest flares coincided with the ingress and egress of both transits (§5.1), exactly the phases that carry the RM signature. I request an injected-signal test in which a known RM anomaly (and optionally residual flare-like perturbations) is added to the data, showing that the pipeline recovers both lambda=0 and the injected nonzero lambda. Without this, the 89% posterior fraction above 10 degrees could be contaminated by flare systematics.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2] The posterior for lambda is bimodal and strongly correlated with the mid-transit times, yet the derived TTVs of 27 and 49 minutes are substantially larger than the 5–10 minute TTVs previously reported for planet c (see §1). Because the mid-transit times enter through wide uniform priors and the CHEOPS light curves contain gaps and masked flares, the lambda measurement may be absorbing TTV uncertainty. Please demonstrate robustness by re-fitting with tighter transit-time priors consistent with the published TTV amplitudes, or by reporting how the lambda posterior changes when the second transit's mid-time is constrained by the NGTS analysis in Appendix C. This is necessary to support the quantitative 89% statement.
  3. [§5.4, Figure 9] The dynamical stability map shows that orbits with lambda > 50 degrees and eccentricity > 0.3 are wholly unstable, the median lambda lies in this unstable region, and the double-transit probability for the median lambda is about 1/17 of the aligned case. The paper acknowledges this tension, but the quantitative implication is understated: under a uniform prior on lambda, most of the posterior mass lies in a region that is dynamically disfavored. Please add a quantitative statement of the posterior probability falling in the stable region and discuss whether the stability criterion should be incorporated as a prior or used as an additional model-comparison diagnostic. This would sharpen the paper's own conclusion that the lower end of the lambda range is favored.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says 'observations of the transits of AUMicb', but the figure shows the transits of AU Mic c; this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Acknowledgements] The phrase 'supports a a PRODEX Experiment Agreement' contains a duplicated article; please correct 'a a'.
  3. [Table B1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'ESRPESSO' for 'ESPRESSO'.
  4. [§5.2] The sentence describing the sequential fit says it 'yielded a nominally much more significant detection of a misaligned orbit, with lambda = 108.7 ± 12.5 degrees'; it would be helpful to state explicitly that this value is not the adopted result and to explain in one sentence why the joint fit is preferred over the sequential fit beyond the TTV inconsistency already mentioned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Rossiter-McLaughlin measurement of AU Mic c is an independent fit to new ESPRESSO and CHEOPS data, with priors taken from published external analyses.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational measurement of lambda_c from the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, obtained by fitting an ARoME RM model plus a batman transit model to two transits observed simultaneously with ESPRESSO and CHEOPS (Sections 2 and 4). The input priors for orbital parameters, v sin i, and ephemerides come from independent published works (Wittrock et al. 2023; Donati et al. 2023; Zicher et al. 2022), not from the quantity being measured. The flare-resistant line mask was tuned on the archival, independently known transit of AU Mic b (Section 3.3), not on the AU Mic c RVs used to infer lambda_c, so no fitted parameter is being renamed as a prediction. The stability and double-transit-probability checks in Section 5.4 use the measured value as an input and are explicitly presented as consistency tests that are in tension with the tentative misalignment, which is a limitation rather than a circular step. The paper states its own limitation: "The large uncertainties on our reported value of the projected spin-orbit angle lambda for planet c preclude any claim of a significant misalignment at this stage" (Section 5.1), and the dynamical arguments "alone do not preclude such an orbit" (Section 5.4). I find no step where a result is equivalent to its inputs by construction, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. The flare-contamination fragility noted by skeptics is an observational systematic risk, not circularity, because residual flares are not built into the model as the quantity being measured.

Assumptions & free parameters 17 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement depends on a moderately large set of fitted parameters, mostly detrending polynomials and GP hyperparameters, plus external priors from prior literature. No new physical entities are introduced. The main non-observational assumptions are that the RM model, the flare proxy, and the near edge-on geometry are accurate.

free parameters (17)
  • lambda_c (sky-projected spin-orbit angle) = 67.8 degrees
    The central measured quantity; posterior is bimodal at about 87 and 34 degrees.
  • Inclination i_c = 89.09 degrees
    Orbital inclination of planet c; degenerate with lambda in the RM model.
  • Projected stellar rotation velocity v sin i* = 8.49 km/s
    Sets the amplitude scale of the RM anomaly; fitted with a Gaussian prior from Donati et al. 2023.
  • Planet-to-star radius ratio Rp/Rs = 0.0320
    Controls transit depth in the joint photometric and RV model.
  • Scaled semi-major axis a/Rs = 32.35
    Controls transit duration and RM shape; fitted with a Gaussian prior from Wittrock et al. 2023.
  • Quadratic limb darkening u1 = 0.51
    Limb darkening coefficient shared between CHEOPS and ESPRESSO models.
  • Quadratic limb darkening u2 = 0.32
    Limb darkening coefficient shared between CHEOPS and ESPRESSO models.
  • Mid-transit time offset Tc1 = 0.0191 days
    Transit midpoint for the first visit relative to the Wittrock et al. 2023 ephemeris; strongly correlated with lambda.
  • Mid-transit time offset Tc2 = 0.0341 days
    Transit midpoint for the second visit; only weakly constrained and a major source of lambda uncertainty.
  • RV1 polynomial coefficients b0,b1,b2 = 1.5982, 0.0540, -0.0130
    Second-order polynomial detrending of the first-transit ESPRESSO RVs.
  • RV2 polynomial coefficients b0,b1,b2 = -0.7591, -0.7207, 0.0228
    Second-order polynomial detrending of the second-transit ESPRESSO RVs.
  • LC1 polynomial coefficients b0,b1,b2,b3 = 0.0456, -0.0078, 0.0649, 1.0022
    Detrending of the first CHEOPS visit for spot-induced variability.
  • LC2 polynomial coefficients b0,b1,b2,b3 = 0.0408, 0.1271, 0.0213, 1.0010
    Detrending of the second CHEOPS visit for spot-induced variability.
  • GP hyperparameters LC-sig, LC-rho, LC-jit = 0.00033, 0.0064 days, 0.0001
    Gaussian process variance, timescale, and jitter for the CHEOPS light curves.
  • GP hyperparameters RV-sig, RV-rho, RV-jit = 0.0050, 0.0234 days, 0.0011
    Gaussian process variance, timescale, and jitter for the ESPRESSO RVs.
  • Flare-proxy exclusion threshold = 3
    RVs taken when the flare proxy exceeds 3 were excluded from the analysis; chosen by visual inspection of residual flare impact.
  • Flare-resistant line-list size = 2000 lines
    The mask with 2000 least flare-sensitive lines was chosen as the best trade-off based on the archival AU Mic b transit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ARoME Rossiter-McLaughlin model correctly describes the anomalous RV induced by a transiting planet across the stellar disk.
    Section 4.1; if the CCF-based RM model is inaccurate for an active, rapidly rotating M dwarf, the inferred lambda is biased.
  • domain assumption Gaussian priors on inclination, a/Rs, Rp/Rs, limb darkening, and v sin i* taken from Wittrock et al. 2023 and Donati et al. 2023 are accurate.
    Section 4.1 and Table B1; the fit leans on these external measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper The flare proxy constructed from 33 emission lines linearly tracks spectral contamination, and the 2000-line mask removes flare-sensitive lines without removing the RM signal.
    Sections 3.2 to 3.3; the line selection and exclusion threshold are tuned to these specific observations.
  • domain assumption The star and both planet orbits are near edge-on, so lambda_c approximates the longitude of the node and the mutual inclination.
    Section 5.4 footnote; if i* deviates significantly, the mutual-inclination interpretation changes.
  • domain assumption The stability initial conditions, including the proposed interior planet d, are correctly taken from Wittrock et al. 2023.
    Section 5.4; planet d is a TTV-inferred candidate, not an independently confirmed body, so the stability map may not apply if it is absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A possible misaligned orbit for the young planet AU Mic c." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WLLCVX4C

@misc{pith2026241116958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A possible misaligned orbit for the young planet AU Mic c},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WLLCVX4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16958}
}
abstract

The AU Microscopii planetary system is only 24 Myr old, and its geometry may provide clues about the early dynamical history of planetary systems. Here, we present the first measurement of the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect for the warm sub-Neptune AU Mic c, using two transits observed simultaneously with the European Southern Observatory's (ESO's) Very Large Telescope (VLT)/Echelle SPectrograph for Rocky Exoplanets and Stable Spectroscopic Observations (ESPRESSO), CHaracterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS), and Next-Generation Transit Survey (NGTS). After correcting for flares and for the magnetic activity of the host star, and accounting for transit-timing variations, we find the sky-projected spin-orbit angle of planet c to be in the range $\lambda_c=67.8_{-49.0}^{+31.7}$\,degrees (1-$\sigma$). We examine the possibility that planet c is misaligned with respect to the orbit of the inner planet b ($\lambda_b=-2.96_{-10.30}^{+10.44}$\,degrees), and the equatorial plane of the host star, and discuss scenarios that could explain both this and the planet's high density, including secular interactions with other bodies in the system or a giant impact. We note that a significantly misaligned orbit for planet c is in some degree of tension with the dynamical stability of the system, and with the fact that we see both planets in transit, though these arguments alone do not preclude such an orbit. Further observations would be highly desirable to constrain the spin-orbit angle of planet c more precisely.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CHEOPS photometric observations of the AU Mic c transits. The left and right column show the first and second visit, respectively. The top row shows the lightcurves as extracted by the PIPE software after normalising each visit to unity, with the outliers caused by enhanced straylight at the start and end of each orbit marked in grey. The second row shows the data after subtracting a low-order polynomial trend (for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Extraction of the flare proxy. The top panel shows the time-series of "flare CCFs" (see text for details), from left to right: the 2021 transit of AU Mic b, then the two transits of AU Mic c observed in 2023. The white markers indicate the mean of a Gaussian fit to each CCF, while their size reflects the amplitude (or contrast of this Gaussian), which is also displayed in the bottom panel, and consists of our flare … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RV time-series extracted with progressively fewer flare sensitive lines (from red to blue) for the archival transit of planet b (left) and the two transits of AU Mic c (middle and right). The colour represents the mean flare index of all lines in the line list. Note that the flare just before the first transit of AU Mic c caused such a large RV perturbation in the RVs extracted with all the line (red points) that it… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint analysis of the first and second transits of AU Mic c. The upper plots show the raw data with lines and contours corresponding to the full model (GP + polynomial + transits). The middle plots show the data and models subtracting the polynomial component. The lowe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-folded lightcurve (top) and RV (bottom) observations of the transits of AU Mic b (transit 1 in blue, transit 2 in orange). The polynomial and GP terms used to model the spot signals and residual short-term variations respectively have been subtracted from the dat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior distribution of key parameters in the joint analysis of the first and second transits of AU Mic c. Wittrock et al. 2023; Donati et al. 2023), this mechanism is a viable explanation for the planet c’s misalignment. In this scenario, the nodal precession freque…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Projected spin-orbit angle of planets in systems younger than 100 Myr. The measurement of AU Mic c obtained in the work is shown in light blue. The measurements of other systems are from Albrecht et al. (2022). stable region. However, stability is possible within the u…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper panel: Posterior distribution of the sky-projected spin-orbit angle of AU Mic c 𝜆𝑐. Middle panel: Transit probability versus 𝜆𝑐, assuming AU Mic b is well aligned, estimated following Read et al. (2017). Lower panel: Stability analysis of the AU Mic planetary sys…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Unstable magnetospheric accretion on the T Tauri star TW Hya

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 4.5 of 10

    TW Hya’s large-scale field is a ~0.83 kG tilted dipole that varies yearly; accretion is unstable (rmag/rcor ≈ 0.33–0.40) and no close-in planet is detected above ~0.3–1 Mjup.

  2. CHEOPS photometry from 2024 reveals a reversal in the transit-timing variations of AU Mic c

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    2024 CHEOPS transit timings of AU Mic c show a reversal of the 2023 timing offset, indicating the large deviation was not sustained.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  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]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..137A 162, 137

    Addison B. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..137A 162, 137

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1685 2021

  3. [3]

    H., Dawson R

    Albrecht S. H., Dawson R. I., Winn J. N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134h2001A 134, 082001

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 2022

  4. [4]

    Barbary K., 2016, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00058 , 1, 58

    doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  5. [5]

    R., Song I., Caillault J

    Barrado y Navascu \'e s D., Stauffer J. R., Song I., Caillault J. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...520L.123B 520, L123

    doi:10.1086/312162 1999

  6. [6]

    Benz W., et al., 2021, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-020-09679-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ExA....51..109B 51, 109

    doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09679-4 2021

  7. [7]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    Boccaletti A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature15705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.526..230B 526, 230

    doi:10.1038/nature15705 2015

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Boccaletti A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732462 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..52B 614, A52

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Bolmont E., Mathis S., 2016, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016CeMDA.126..275B 126, 275

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..53B 550, A53

    Bou \'e G., Montalto M., Boisse I., Oshagh M., Santos N. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..53B 550, A53

    2013 doi

  4. [13]

    Bourrier V., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A.152B 654, A152

    doi

  5. [14]

    Brakensiek J., Ragozzine D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...47B 821, 47

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    A., Morris B

    Brandeker A., Patel J. A., Morris B. M., 2024, PIPE: Extracting PSF photometry from CHEOPS data , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2404.002

    2024

  7. [16]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5872B 494, 5872

    Bryant E. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5872B 494, 5872

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    Burrows A., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...491..856B 491, 856

    1997 doi

  9. [18]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..295C 162, 295

    Cale B. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..295C 162, 295

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    B., Matsumura S., Rasio F

    Chatterjee S., Ford E. B., Matsumura S., Rasio F. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..580C 686, 580

    2008 doi

  11. [20]

    Correia A. C. M., Udry S., Mayor M., Laskar J., Naef D., Pepe F., Queloz D., Santos N. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042376 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005A

    2005 doi

  12. [21]

    Correia A. C. M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912700 , http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  13. [22]

    Cretignier M., Francfort J., Dumusque X., Allart R., Pepe F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..42C 640, A42

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    C., Pepe F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A..43C 653, A43

    Cretignier M., Dumusque X., Hara N. C., Pepe F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A..43C 653, A43

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    C., Bourrier V., Laskar J., K \"o nig P

    Dalal S., H \'e brard G., Lecavelier des \'E tangs A., Petit A. C., Bourrier V., Laskar J., K \"o nig P. C., Correia A. C. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A..28D 631, A28

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    B., Adams F

    Davies M. B., Adams F. C., Armitage P., Chambers J., Ford E., Morbidelli A., Raymond S. N., Veras D., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI. pp 787--808 ( @eprint arXiv 1311.6816 ), @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch034

    2014 arXiv

  17. [26]

    P., Farr W

    Denham P., Naoz S., Hoang B.-M., Stephan A. P., Farr W. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4146D 482, 4146

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..455D 525, 455

    Donati J. F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..455D 525, 455

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    C., Winn J

    Fabrycky D. C., Winn J. N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.1230F 696, 1230

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    Gaia Collaboration Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Babusiaux C., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2018a, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180409365G ( @eprint arXiv 1804.09365 )

    arXiv

  22. [31]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    doi

  23. [32]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A..70G 664, A70

    Galindo-Guil F. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A..70G 664, A70

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    S., Winn J

    Gaudi B. S., Winn J. N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655..550G 655, 550

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    Goldreich P., Lithwick Y., Sari R., 2004, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 42, 549

    2004

  26. [35]

    J., Hobson M

    Handley W. J., Hobson M. P., Lasenby A. N., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450L..61H 450, L61

    doi

  27. [36]

    J., Hobson M

    Handley W. J., Hobson M. P., Lasenby A. N., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1911 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4384H 453, 4384

    doi

  28. [37]

    C., Ardila D

    Hebb L., Petro L., Ford H. C., Ardila D. R., Toledo I., Minniti D., Golimowski D. A., Clampin M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11904.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379...63H 379, 63

    2007

  29. [38]

    Hirano T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aba6eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899L..13H 899, L13

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    G., Deleuil M., Meunier J

    Hoyer S., Guterman P., Demangeon O., Sousa S. G., Deleuil M., Meunier J. C., Benz W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..24H 635, A24

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    A., MacGregor M

    Hurt S. A., MacGregor M. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accf9d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...10H 954, 10

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    C., Matthews B

    Kalas P., Liu M. C., Matthews B. C., 2004, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1093420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Sci...303.1990K 303, 1990

    2004 doi

  33. [42]

    Kreidberg L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/683602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127.1161K 127, 1161

    2015 doi

  34. [43]

    Lai D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.3532L 440, 3532

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    Laskar J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90084-M , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1990Icar...88..266L&db_key=AST 88, 266

    1990 doi

  36. [45]

    Laskar J., 1993, @doi [Physica D Nonlinear Phenomena] 10.1016/0167-2789(93)90210-R , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1993PhyD...67..257L&db_key=PHY 67, 257

    1993 doi

  37. [46]

    Laskar J., Robutel P., 2001, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2001CeMDA..80...39L 80, 39

    2001

  38. [47]

    Lin D. N. C., Ida S., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477..781L 477, 781

    1997 doi

  39. [48]

    A., Albert L., Lafreni \`e re D., Artigau \'E ., Gagn \'e J., Riedel A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...37M 792, 37

    Malo L., Doyon R., Feiden G. A., Albert L., Lafreni \`e re D., Artigau \'E ., Gagn \'e J., Riedel A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...37M 792, 37

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    E., Bell C

    Mamajek E. E., Bell C. P. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2169M 445, 2169

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    Mantovan G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684L..17M 684, L17

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    Martioli E., H \'e brard G., Correia A. C. M., Laskar J., Lecavelier des Etangs A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.177M 649, A177

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    Messina S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..29M 596, A29

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    Miret-Roig N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.179M 642, A179

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    Mordasini C., Alibert Y., Klahr H., Henning T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...547A.111M 547, A111

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    N., Holman M

    Narita N., Hirano T., Sanchis-Ojeda R., Winn J. N., Holman M. J., Sato B., Aoki W., Tamura M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/62.6.L61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASJ...62L..61N 62, L61

    2010 doi

  47. [56]

    R., Damasso M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...527A..85N 527, A85

    Nascimbeni V., Piotto G., Bedin L. R., Damasso M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...527A..85N 527, A85

    2011 doi

  48. [57]

    E., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AREPS..47...67O 47, 67

    Owen J. E., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AREPS..47...67O 47, 67

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    E., Lai D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.2834O 469, 2834

    Owen J. E., Lai D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.2834O 469, 2834

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    E., Wu Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..105O 775, 105

    Owen J. E., Wu Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..105O 775, 105

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    Palle E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A..25P 643, A25

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    Pepe F., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 12.1002/asna.201312004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AN....335....8P 335, 8

    2014

  53. [62]

    Pepe F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A..96P 645, A96

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    J., Kratter K

    Petrovich C., Mu \ n oz D. J., Kratter K. M., Malhotra R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abb952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902L...5P 902, L5

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    Plavchan P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2400-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.582..497P 582, 497

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    L., Naef D., Sivan J

    Queloz D., Eggenberger A., Mayor M., Perrier C., Beuzit J. L., Naef D., Sivan J. P., Udry S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...359L..13Q 359, L13

    2000 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    J., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1006.3727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1006.3727R p

    Ragozzine D., Holman M. J., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1006.3727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1006.3727R p. arXiv:1006.3727

    2010 doi arXiv

  58. [67]

    A., Ford E

    Rasio F. A., Ford E. B., 1996, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.274.5289.954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...274..954R 274, 954

    1996 doi

  59. [68]

    J., Wyatt M

    Read M. J., Wyatt M. C., Triaud A. H. M. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469..171R 469, 171

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  61. [70]

    D., Linsky J

    Robinson R. D., Linsky J. L., Woodgate B. E., Timothy J. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..368R 554, 368

    2001 doi

  62. [71]

    Rodono M., et al., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...165..135R 165, 135

    1986

  63. [72]

    E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795L..15S 795, L15

    Schlichting H. E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795L..15S 795, L15

    2014 doi

  64. [73]

    Smith A. M. S., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.202013768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AN....341..273S 341, 273

    2020 doi

  65. [75]

    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

  66. [76]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A.159S 654, A159

    Szab \'o G. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A.159S 654, A159

    2021 doi

  67. [77]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659L...7S 659, L7

    Szab \'o G. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659L...7S 659, L7

    2022 doi

  68. [78]

    Teyssandier J., Terquem C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..568T 443, 568

    2014 doi

  69. [79]

    Teyssandier J., Terquem C., Papaloizou J. C. B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428..658T 428, 658

    2013 doi

  70. [80]

    Torres C. A. O., Quast G. R., da Silva L., de La Reza R., Melo C. H. F., Sterzik M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...460..695T 460, 695

    2006 doi

  71. [81]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...524A..25T 524, A25

    2010 doi

  72. [82]

    R., Colombo G., Franklin F

    Ward W. R., Colombo G., Franklin F. A., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90117-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Icar...28..441W 28, 441

    1976 doi

  73. [83]

    J., Marzari F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/384619a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.384..619W 384, 619

    Weidenschilling S. J., Marzari F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/384619a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.384..619W 384, 619

    1996 doi

  74. [84]

    W., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154....1W 154, 1

    Werner M. W., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154....1W 154, 1

    2004 doi

  75. [85]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.4476W 475, 4476

    Wheatley P. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.4476W 475, 4476

    2018 doi

  76. [86]

    N., Fabrycky D

    Winn J. N., Fabrycky D. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..409W 53, 409

    2015 doi

  77. [87]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...631.1215W 631, 1215

    Winn J. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...631.1215W 631, 1215

    2005 doi

  78. [88]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac68e5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...27W 164, 27

    Wittrock J. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac68e5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...27W 164, 27

    2022 doi

  79. [89]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acfda8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..232W 166, 232

    Wittrock J. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acfda8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..232W 166, 232

    2023 doi

  80. [90]

    Wu Y., Murray N., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589..605W 589, 605

    2003 doi

  81. [91]

    Zicher N., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3060Z 512, 3060

    2022 doi

  82. [92]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.