Preparing for the Early eVolution Explorer: Characterizing the photochemical inputs and transit detection efficiencies of young planets using multiwavelength flare observations by TESS and Swift

Adina D. Feinstein; Ann Marie Cody; Jennifer A. Burt; Laura D. Vega; Laura Venuti; Meredith A. MacGregor; Neal J. Turner; Valerie J. Scott; Ward S. Howard

Preparing for the Early eVolution Explorer: Characterizing the photochemical inputs and transit detection efficiencies of young planets using multiwavelength flare observations by TESS and Swift

T0 review · 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 Simultaneous Swift and TESS flare observations show a 9000 K blackbody underestimates near-UV flare energy for about half of flares, and NUV-based flare removal can improve young-planet transit detection.

desk verdict Solid directly-measured NUV-flux result on a small sample; the predictive timing and transit-improvement claims are in-sample demonstrations that need out-of-sample validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08092 v1 pith:AIFDECTB submitted 2024-11-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Ward S. Howard , Meredith A. MacGregor , Adina D. Feinstein , Laura D. Vega , Ann Marie Cody , Neal J. Turner , Valerie J. Scott , Jennifer A. Burt

show 1 more author

Laura Venuti

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

keywords flareflaresenergyexplorerobservationsopticalplanetstess

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

Stars called M dwarfs are small, cool, and very active. They produce flares, sudden bursts of light. Astronomers usually estimate the ultraviolet light of a flare from its optical brightness by assuming the flare glows like a 9000 K blackbody, a simple model. This paper tests that assumption with 13 flares observed simultaneously in the near-ultraviolet by the Swift satellite and in red optical light by the TESS satellite, all at 20 second cadence. It finds the simple model underestimates the ultraviolet light by at least a factor of two for about half of the flares, and by nearly 15 times for one flare. The ultraviolet peak also arrives before the optical peak, by 0.5 to 6.6 minutes. The authors show that taking the time integral of the ultraviolet flare shape predicts when the optical flare will peak, an idea borrowed from solar physics. Using this prediction, flares can be removed from optical light curves, which would let astronomers detect transiting planets about 20 percent smaller than before. The paper also simulates how many flares a proposed NASA mission, EVE, would need to see in young star clusters to distinguish flare populations. The results are based on a small sample, and some claims, like the improved transit sensitivity, come from simulations rather than real detections.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The abstract states: 'We find a 9000 K blackbody underestimates the NUV flux by ≥2× for 54±14% of flares and 14.8× for one flare.' If correct, the standard method of scaling optical TESS flare energies to photochemically active NUV radiation is systematically low for many M dwarf flares, and simultaneous NUV-optical surveys are needed to calibrate the relation. The paper also claims a factor 2.0±0.6 reduction in scatter when comparing total NUV energy to TESS FWHM energy.

Load-bearing premise

The time-lag and transit-detrending methods assume that the TESS-band optical flare light curve follows the time integral (specifically the double time integral) of the NUV light curve, an extension of the solar Neupert effect to chromospheric optical emission (Section 3, paragraphs 1-3). The model choice was made after comparing single and double integrals against the same 13 TESS light curves used to report the 36±30% prediction accuracy (Section 3.1 items 2 and 4). If the optical emission is not generated this way, or if the model is overfit to this small sample, the predictive timing and the associated transit detection improvement are not supported.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my read. The paper is worth engaging: the 20 s simultaneous Swift/TESS data are new for three stars and give one of the cleanest direct measurements we have of NUV-to-optical flare energy budgets. The headline claim that a 9000 K blackbody underestimates NUV for about half the flares (54±14%, with one 14.8× outlier) is credible. It matches earlier HST/GALEX hints and is based on direct count-rate-to-flux conversion with stated systematic uncertainties. That alone justifies a serious referee.

What's new: first systematic NUV-optical peak time lags (0.5–6.6 min), a FWHM-based NUV-TESS energy relation with lower scatter (factor 2.0±0.6), and a transit-detrending demonstration. The EVE yield calculations are also useful as a mission-concept sanity check.

Where I'd push: the predictive chain is the soft spot, and the paper's own text doesn't hide it. The single- versus double-integral and Gaussian-versus-template choices are selected and scored on the same 13 TESS light curves, so the 36±30% timing accuracy is not an out-of-sample prediction. The Monte Carlo test only perturbs fluxes and fit ranges; it never tests model generalization. The transit-injection experiment stitches those same flares, predicts and subtracts the model, and then injects transits—so any bias from overfitting flare shapes or from the amplitude-scaling step absorbing transit signal won't show up. The Δδ=0.0052 and 0.42 R⊕ improvement should be labeled conditional. The scatter-reduction factor is honest but depends on excluding flares below 5.5e30 erg; that cut is motivated by low S/N, yet the factor itself is not a pure measurement.

Also worth noting: the sample is 13 flares from 5 stars, with some flares reanalyzed from Paudel et al. and Inoue et al. That doesn't make the energy-budget result wrong, but it does mean population fractions like 54±14% carry small-sample caveats. The paper is appropriately cautious in places—it says the small-flare energy budgets are tentative and that larger samples are needed.

Bottom line: a careful observational paper with a credible core measurement and two method demonstrations that need external validation. It deserves peer review, and I'd cite it for the energy-budget result. Take the predictive timing and transit-efficiency numbers with a grain of salt until applied to an independent set of flares.

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

The central claims rest on a modest set of assumptions. The most important free parameters appear in the power-law relations used for the scatter claim and the EVE yield estimates. The double-integral time-lag model is an ad hoc choice tested on the same data. No new physical entities are introduced; EVE is a proposed mission concept, not a new particle, force, or conserved quantity.

free parameters (5)

Power-law slope aslope for NUV-TESS FWHM energy relation = 1.02 ± 0.14
Fit to the nine flares with ET,FWHM > 5.5e30 erg in Section 4.2; the sample cut is ad hoc and the small sample makes the slope uncertain.
Power-law intercept b for NUV-TESS relation = 0.607 ± 4.69
Same fit, very uncertain; used to compute the reported 28±7% scatter.
Mid-M energy-amplitude relation log ATESS = 0.69 log ETESS - 24.41 = slope 0.69, intercept -24.41
Fitted to 2575 flares from Howard & MacGregor (2022) and used to estimate EVE NUV flare yields in Section 6.2.
FFD power laws for EVE yield = log nu = -0.84 log E + 27.34 (early M), -0.85 log E + 26.81 (mid M)
Fitted to TESS 2-minute cadence flare rates in 76 cluster cores (Section 6.2); extrapolated to 20 s and NUV via 9000 K scaling.
Simulated FNUV/FTESS ratios for Anderson-Darling tests = 0.475 (9000 K) and 1.283 (UV-luminous)
Chosen from literature values for the null-hypothesis tests in Section 6.1; not measured in this paper.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Swift count-rate to flux conversion assumes a 9000 K blackbody and neutral hydrogen column 3e18 cm^-2
Section 2.4; the paper's ECF values inherit this assumed spectrum, though the quoted systematic from 8000-16000 K is 1.6-3.2% for UVM2 and 18.1% for UVW2.
domain assumption The TESS optical flare light curve is the time integral (double integral for peak timing) of the NUV light curve
Section 3, Neupert-effect extension; used for all timing and transit-detrending claims.
ad hoc to paper The double-integral model is the correct model
Selected by comparing single versus double integration on the same 13 flares (Section 3.1), so the 36±30% accuracy is an in-sample measure.
domain assumption UVM2 and UVW2 energies are treated as comparable NUV energies
EV Lac was observed in UVW2 while the other four stars were observed in UVM2 (Section 2.2); no bandpass correction is applied when combining samples in Tables 2 and 3.
domain assumption The 0.6 d stitched light curve, with photometric noise scaled to the faintest star, represents a 30 d light curve of a young T=9.64 star
Section 5; the transit injection and recovery improvement relies on this representativeness.
domain assumption Berger et al. (2023) FUV/NUV ratio of 0.46±0.23 applies to EVE-detected flares
Section 7; used to convert NUV energies to FUV and to estimate photochemical O2 effects.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preparing for the Early eVolution Explorer: Characterizing the photochemical inputs and transit detection efficiencies of young planets using multiwavelength flare observations by TESS and Swift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIFDECTB

@misc{pith2026241108092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preparing for the Early eVolution Explorer: Characterizing the photochemical inputs and transit detection efficiencies of young planets using multiwavelength flare observations by TESS and Swift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIFDECTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08092}
}

abstract

Ultraviolet flare emission can drive photochemistry in exoplanet atmospheres and even serve as the primary source of uncertainty in atmospheric retrievals. Additionally, flare energy budgets are not well-understood due to a paucity of simultaneous observations. We present new near-UV (NUV) and optical observations of flares from three M dwarfs obtained at 20 s cadence with Swift and TESS, along with a re-analysis of flares from two M dwarfs in order to explore the energy budget and timing of flares at NUV--optical wavelengths. We find a 9000 K blackbody underestimates the NUV flux by $\geq$2$\times$ for 54$\pm$14% of flares and 14.8$\times$ for one flare. We report time lags between the bands of 0.5--6.6 min and develop a method to predict the qualitative flare shape and time lag to 36$\pm$30% accuracy. The scatter present in optical-NUV relations is reduced by a factor of 2.0$\pm$0.6 when comparing the total NUV energy with the TESS energy during the FWHM duration due to the exclusion of the $T_\mathrm{eff}\approx$5000 K tail. We show the NUV light curve can be used to remove flares from the optical light curve and consistently detect planets with 20% smaller transits than is possible without flare detrending. Finally, we demonstrate a 10$\times$ increase in the literature number of multi-wavelength flares with the Early eVolution Explorer (EVE), an astrophysics Small Explorer concept to observe young clusters with simultaneous NUV and optical bands in order to detect young planets, assess their photochemical radiation environments, and observe accretion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08092 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Although flare rates and energies are measured in the optical for most stars, the FUV and NUV energies determine the photochemical radiation environment of orbiting planets during these events. Simultaneous observations at UV and optical wavelengths are needed to derive the energy budget as flares with similar emission levels at optical wavelengths can produce NUV fluxes that differ by 2–20× depending on the Teff of… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** NUV 22 s cadence light curves of the 13 flares meeting our detection criteria. Flares are ordered by host star and size. The 5σ detection threshold is shown as a black dashed line, and times with simulated light curve data during gaps caused by the Swift duty cycle are shown in gray. Simulated sections are produced by fitting the Tovar Mendoza et al. (2022) flare model to the observed part of the decay phase and var… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Simultaneous 20 s cadence TESS light curves of the 13 flares meeting our detection criteria. The TESS components of the flares are ordered and displayed on the same time axis as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Predicted times for representative TESS band light curves relative to the times of the NUV peaks (which occur at t=0 on the x-axis and are not otherwise shown). A one- or two-component Gaussian is fit to the peak of the NUV light curve and the double time integral is c…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Predicted shapes for representative TESS band light curves based on the single time integral of the model fit to the corresponding NUV light curve. The predicted shapes are a superposition of the separate component peaks and the resulting complex flare model’s time axi…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Top panels: Simultaneous 20 s cadence light curves of the G 41-14 F1 and GJ 674 F1 events. Although the NUV light curves of both flares are clearly visible, the significance of the TESS light curve of GJ 674 F1 appears much weaker than that of G 41-14 and would have be…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Left: Flare energies in the TESS and NUV bands during the flare peak. Lines representing flare energy budgets for the 9000 K scenario and the NUV-luminous prediction from Jackman (2022) are shown for reference. The best-fit scaling relationship to the observed sample i…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Simultaneous 20 s cadence Swift NUV and TESS light curve segments have been stitched together to create a time series of 0.6 d. Top panel: The NUV light curve is shown with fluxes and uncertainties adjusted to the photometric uncertainty for the count rate of the faint…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Left: Transit detection efficiency for a T=9.64 star after flare detrending computed from 10,000 planet injection and recovery trials. The grayscale grid is the fraction of transits recovered in each planet period and transit depth bin, with lighter shades representing…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Left panel: The number of flares needed to reject the ∼9000 K energy budget null hypothesis at a given confidence level using an A-D test. Curves are shown for a range of cadences, where each curve represents a 3σ confidence interval on the distribution of p-values me…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Examples of 5×5 deg2 cluster pointings that produce high yields of simultaneous NUV flare detections. Here, we show the core region with the highest flare yield per cluster even though some clusters have multiple high-yield core regions. regions of some associations a…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Multi-wavelength flare yield estimates for a two year science mission, with conservative assumptions of 50% science margin and 9% NUV throughput. The FoV plot assumes 0.1e − s −1 and a read noise 4e −1 . Flares are detected at 3σ. This figure is intended to illustrate…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

2022, PASJ, 74, 1069

Aizawa, M., Kawana, K., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1069

2022
[2]

R., Alam, M

Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664

2023
[3]

Amard, L., & Matt, S. P. 2023, A&A, 678, A7

2023
[4]

J., & Clarke, C

Armitage, P. J., & Clarke, C. J. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 458 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., SipHocz, B. M., et al. 2018, aj, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

1996
[5]

2018, AJ, 156, 58

Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, AJ, 156, 58

2018
[6]

2015, A&A, 577, A42

Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

2015
[7]

R., France, K., Brown, A., et al

Behr, P. R., France, K., Brown, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 35

2023
[8]

2019, A&A, 630, A81

Benatti, S., Nardiello, D., Malavolta, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A81

2019

Show all 113 references

[9]

L., Hinkle, J

Berger, V. L., Hinkle, J. T., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.12511

2023
[10]

2007, A&A, 474, 293 2 http://www.astropy.org

Bonfils, X., Mayor, M., Delfosse, X., et al. 2007, A&A, 474, 293 2 http://www.astropy.org

2007
[11]

G., Curtis, J

Bouma, L. G., Curtis, J. L., Hartman, J. D., Winn, J. N., & Bakos, G. ´A. 2021, AJ, 162, 197

2021
[12]

E., Osten, R

Brasseur, C. E., Osten, R. A., Tristan, I. I., & Kowalski, A. F. 2023, ApJ, 944, 5

2023
[13]

Burton, K., & MacGregor, M. A. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 53, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 124.07

2021
[14]

2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

Chen, H., Zhan, Z., Youngblood, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

2021
[15]

Davenport, J. R. A., Covey, K. R., Clarke, R. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 241

2019
[16]

L., et al

Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Beuzit, J. L., et al. 1999, A&A, 344, 897 do Amaral, L. N. R., Barnes, R., Segura, A., & Luger, R. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 12

1999
[17]

G., Butler, C

Doyle, J. G., Butler, C. J., Bryne, P. B., & van den Oord, G. H. J. 1988, A&A, 193, 229

1988
[18]

2020, A&A, 640, A112

Ducrot, E., Gillon, M., Delrez, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A112

2020
[19]

G., & Guinan, E

Engle, S. G., & Guinan, E. F. 2023, ApJL, 954, L50

2023
[20]

D., Montet, B

Feinstein, A. D., Montet, B. T., Ansdell, M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 219

2020
[21]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00850 26

Kowalski, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00850 26

2024 arXiv
[22]

P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J

Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J. R. A., & Luger, R. 2019, ApJ, 881, 88

2019
[23]

W., Million, C., Osten, R

Fleming, S. W., Million, C., Osten, R. A., Kolotkov, D. Y., & Brasseur, C. E. 2022, ApJ, 928, 8

2022
[24]

S., Kowalski, A., France, K., et al

Froning, C. S., Kowalski, A., France, K., et al. 2019, ApJL, 871, L26 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 —. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

2019
[25]

Walkowicz, L. M. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 190

2021
[26]

A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E

Gilbert, E. A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E. V., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 147

2022
[27]

2019, A&A, 625, A12 G¨ unther, M

Godolt, M., Tosi, N., Stracke, B., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A12 G¨ unther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 60

2019
[28]

K., Dressing, C

Harada, C. K., Dressing, C. D., Kane, S. R., & Ardestani, B. A. 2024, ApJS, 272, 30

2024
[29]

E., Schwieterman, E

Harman, C. E., Schwieterman, E. W., Schottelkotte, J. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2015, ApJ, 812, 137

2015
[30]

L., & Fisher, G

Hawley, S. L., & Fisher, G. H. 1992, ApJS, 78, 565

1992
[31]

L., & Pettersen, B

Hawley, S. L., & Pettersen, B. R. 1991, ApJ, 378, 725

1991
[32]

L., Allred, J

Hawley, S. L., Allred, J. C., Johns-Krull, C. M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, 535

2003
[33]

S., Corbett, H., Law, N

Howard, W. S., Corbett, H., Law, N. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 9

2019
[34]

S., & MacGregor, M

Howard, W. S., & MacGregor, M. A. 2022, ApJ, 926, 204

2022
[35]

S., Corbett, H., Law, N

Howard, W. S., Corbett, H., Law, N. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 115

2020
[36]

S., MacGregor, M

Howard, W. S., MacGregor, M. A., Osten, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 103

2022
[37]

S., Kowalski, A

Howard, W. S., Kowalski, A. F., Flagg, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 64

2023
[38]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[39]

J., Poppenh¨ ager, K., et al

Ilin, E., Schmidt, S. J., Poppenh¨ ager, K., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A42

2021
[40]

2008, The SWIFT UVOT Software Guide Version 2.2, NASA/GSFC — Swift Science Center

Immler, S., Still, M., Boyd, P., et al. 2008, The SWIFT UVOT Software Guide Version 2.2, NASA/GSFC — Swift Science Center

2008
[41]

2024, PASJ, arXiv:2401.00399

Inoue, S., Enoto, T., Namekata, K., et al. 2024, PASJ, arXiv:2401.00399

2024 arXiv
[42]

Jackman, J. A. G. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3832

2022
[43]

Jackman, J. A. G., Shkolnik, E. L., Million, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3564

2023
[44]

Jackman, J. A. G., Shkolnik, E. L., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4354

2024
[45]

2014, ApJ, 795, 65

Jin, S., Mordasini, C., Parmentier, V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 65

2014
[46]

P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M

Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96

2021
[47]

2017, SSRv, 212, 1107

Klein, K.-L., & Dalla, S. 2017, SSRv, 212, 1107

2017
[48]

1991, ApJL, 370, L39

Koenigl, A. 1991, ApJL, 370, L39

1991
[49]

2022, A&A, 667, A15

Konings, T., Baeyens, R., & Decin, L. 2022, A&A, 667, A15

2022
[50]

2019, AJ, 158, 122

Kounkel, M., & Covey, K. 2019, AJ, 158, 122

2019
[51]

Kounkel, M., Covey, K., & Stassun, K. G. 2020, AJ, 160, 279

2020
[52]

Kowalski, A. F. 2024, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 21, 1

2024
[53]

P., & Hilton, E

Wisniewski, J. P., & Hilton, E. J. 2010, ApJL, 714, L98

2010
[54]

F., Hawley, S

Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 15

2013
[55]

F., Mathioudakis, M., Hawley, S

Kowalski, A. F., Mathioudakis, M., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 95

2016
[56]

F., Wisniewski, J

Kowalski, A. F., Wisniewski, J. P., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 167

2019
[57]

L., & Hillenbrand, L

Kraus, A. L., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2007, AJ, 134, 2340

2007
[58]

H., Moffett, T

Lacy, C. H., Moffett, T. J., & Evans, D. S. 1976, ApJS, 30, 85

1976
[59]

D., & Fortney, J

Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1

2014
[60]

J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al

Louca, A. J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3333

2023
[61]

2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 119

Youngblood, A. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 119

2020
[62]

Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 71

2018
[63]

2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

Luger, R., Sestovic, M., Kruse, E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

2017
[64]

Luhman, K. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 24 —. 2023, AJ, 165, 37

2022
[65]

A., Weinberger, A

MacGregor, M. A., Weinberger, A. J., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L25

2021
[66]

2021, PASJ, 73, 44

Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., Namekata, K., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 44

2021
[67]

R., et al

Magaudda, E., Stelzer, B., Covey, K. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A20

2020
[68]

W., Johnson, M

Mann, A. W., Johnson, M. C., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 179

2020
[69]

W., Wood, M

Mann, A. W., Wood, M. L., Schmidt, S. P., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 156

2022
[70]

Martioli, E., H´ ebrard, G., Correia, A. C. M., Laskar, J., & Lecavelier des Etangs, A. 2021, A&A, 649, A177 27 MAST Team. 2021, TESS ”Fast” Light Curves - All Sectors, doi:10.17909/T9-ST5G-3177

2021 doi
[71]

2020, ApJ, 905, 107

Charbonneau, D. 2020, ApJ, 905, 107

2020
[72]

Moranta, L., Gagn´ e, J., Couture, D., & Faherty, J. K. 2022, ApJ, 939, 94 NASEM. 2023, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), doi:10.17226/26141

2022 doi
[73]

Neupert, W. M. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 153, L59

1968
[74]

R., Mann, A

Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., Tofflemire, B. M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 880, L17

2019
[75]

F., Maehara, H., et al

Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A. F., Maehara, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 189

2024
[76]

A., & Wolk, S

Osten, R. A., & Wolk, S. J. 2015, ApJ, 809, 79

2015
[77]

A., Godet, O., Drake, S., et al

Osten, R. A., Godet, O., Drake, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 785

2010
[78]

A., Kowalski, A., Drake, S

Osten, R. A., Kowalski, A., Drake, S. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 174

2016
[79]

E., & Wu, Y

Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105

2013
[80]

R., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J

Paudel, R. R., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J. E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 31

2021
[81]

R., Barclay, T., Youngblood, A., et al

Paudel, R. R., Barclay, T., Youngblood, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12310

2024 arXiv
[82]

Pettersen, B. R. 1976, Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics Blindern Oslo Reports, 46, 1

1976
[83]

2020, Nature, 582, 497 Ratzenb¨ ock, S., Großschedl, J

Plavchan, P., Barclay, T., Gagn´ e, J., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 497 Ratzenb¨ ock, S., Großschedl, J. E., Alves, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A71

2020
[84]

M., Stauffer, J

Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Cody, A. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 196

2018
[85]

2016, A&A, 596, A111

Ribas, I., Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A111

2016
[86]

R., Winn, J

Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 914320

2014
[87]

R., Murphy, S

Riedel, A. R., Murphy, S. J., Henry, T. J., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 104

2011
[88]

C., Newton, E

Rizzuto, A. C., Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 33

2020
[89]

Maran, S. P. 1993, ApJ, 414, 872

1993
[90]

Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95

2005
[91]

K., Mukherjee, S., et al

Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659

2023
[92]

J., Finkbeiner, D

Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

1998
[93]

2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751

Hawley, S. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751

2010
[94]

2013, ApJS, 209, 5

Shibayama, T., Maehara, H., Notsu, S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 5

2013
[95]

2022, ApJ, 927, 90

Youngblood, A., & Arney, G. 2022, ApJ, 927, 90

2022
[96]

2019, Astrobiology, 19, 23

Davenport, J. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 23

2019
[97]

M., Rizzuto, A

Tofflemire, B. M., Rizzuto, A. C., Newton, E. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 171 Tovar Mendoza, G., Davenport, J. R. A., Agol, E.,

2021
[98]

Jackman, J. A. G., & Hawley, S. L. 2022, AJ, 164, 17

2022
[99]

I., Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A

Tristan, I. I., Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A. F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 33

2023
[100]

Tsai, S.-M., Lee, E. K. H., Powell, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 483

2023
[101]

N., Vanderburg, A., et al

Vach, S., Quinn, S. N., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 71 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

2022
[102]

M., et al

Venuti, L., Bouvier, J., Cody, A. M., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A23

2017
[103]

E., et al

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

2020
[104]

Kashyap, V. L. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3281

2017
[105]

A., Hawley, S

West, A. A., Hawley, S. L., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 785

2008
[106]

A., Weisenburger, K

West, A. A., Weisenburger, K. L., Irwin, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 3

2015
[107]

2017, ApJ, 849, 36

Yang, H., Liu, J., Gao, Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 36

2017
[108]

2023, A&A, 669, A15

Yang, Z., Zhang, L., Meng, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A15

2023
[109]

I., Fortney, J

Yu, X., Moses, J. I., Fortney, J. J., & Zhang, X. 2021, ApJ, 914, 38

2021
[110]

E., Verlyuk, I

Zhilyaev, B. E., Verlyuk, I. A., Romanyuk, Y. O., et al. 1998, A&A, 334, 931

1998
[111]

N., Irwin, J., et al

Zhou, G., Quinn, S. N., Irwin, J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 2

2021
[112]

P., Huang, C

Zhou, G., Wirth, C. P., Huang, C. X., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 289

2022
[113]

2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 914738

Zwintz, K., & Steindl, T. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 914738

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

2022, PASJ, 74, 1069

Aizawa, M., Kawana, K., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1069

2022

[2] [2]

R., Alam, M

Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664

2023

[3] [3]

Amard, L., & Matt, S. P. 2023, A&A, 678, A7

2023

[4] [4]

J., & Clarke, C

Armitage, P. J., & Clarke, C. J. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 458 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., SipHocz, B. M., et al. 2018, aj, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

1996

[5] [5]

2018, AJ, 156, 58

Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, AJ, 156, 58

2018

[6] [6]

2015, A&A, 577, A42

Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

2015

[7] [7]

R., France, K., Brown, A., et al

Behr, P. R., France, K., Brown, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 35

2023

[8] [8]

2019, A&A, 630, A81

Benatti, S., Nardiello, D., Malavolta, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A81

2019