Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

An Obliquity Measurement of the Hot Neptune TOI-1694b

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using transit-time radial velocities, the paper measures the hot Neptune TOI-1694b's sky-projected obliquity as 9 degrees (+22/-18), indicating a nearly aligned orbit around its K-type host star.

desk verdict A useful new hot Neptune obliquity measurement, but the 'strong evidence for alignment' wording outruns a posterior that still permits 31 degrees and rests on an untested white-noise model. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07950 v1 pith:JXVGGDPP submitted 2024-12-10 astro-ph.EP

Luke B. Handley , Andrew W. Howard , Ryan A. Rubenzahl , Fei Dai , Dakotah Tyler , Rena A. Lee , Steven Giacalone , Howard Isaacson
show 4 more authors
Aaron Householder Samuel Halverson Arpita Roy Josh Walawender
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsstellarobliquityRossiter-McLaughlineffecthotNeptuneradialvelocitiestransitphotometryexoplanetdynamicsTOI-1694
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

Using 25 radial-velocity measurements from the Keck Planet Finder taken during a single transit of the 3.77-day hot Neptune TOI-1694b, the paper models the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect and recovers a sky-projected obliquity of $\lambda = 9^\circ$ with 68% bounds of $+22^\circ$ and $-18^\circ$. The authors read this as strong evidence for a nearly aligned orbit, meaning the planet's orbital plane and the star's spin are close to parallel. Because a Neptune-mass planet cannot tidally realign its host within the system's age, the aligned orbit is interpreted as a fossil of formation and early dynamics rather than a tidal artifact. Placing this one system in the growing census of hot Neptune obliquities, the paper argues the population splits into aligned and polar groups, with a Hartigan dip test giving a 0.018 probability that the true-obliquity distribution is unimodal. The polar group is characterized by periods at or below about 6 days and mass ratios near $10^{-4}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect itself: as the planet crosses the stellar disk, it hides parts of the rotating star, producing a time-varying Doppler distortion of the spectral line that encodes the sky-projected angle $\lambda$ between the stellar spin axis and the planet's orbital axis. The paper fits these transit-time radial velocities with the analytic RM prescription of Hirano et al. (2011b), sampling 11 parameters (including $\lambda$, $v \sin i_\star$, a jitter term, convective blueshift, impact parameter, and limb-darkening coefficients) with MCMC. Supporting machinery includes a TESS-based transit model that pins the ephemeris, a Hartigan dip test on the 12-system true-obliquity sample used to claim a polar population, and the disk-dispersal resonance model from Petrovich et al. (2020), whose crossing probabilities are compared with the observed $\lambda$ to decide which dynamical histories are viable.

What would settle it

Re-reduce the same 25 KPF spectra with the final data-reduction pipeline, fit the RM effect using the reported per-point uncertainties (not zeroed, no single jitter term), and check whether the recovered $\lambda$ stays within the quoted $\pm 20^\circ$ of zero; a shift toward polar values would refute the aligned interpretation. Independently, obtain a second high-precision transit observation to test whether the true depth is $0.070$ rather than $0.061$; if the deeper depth is confirmed, the RM-derived $\lambda$ and its error budget would need re-evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that TOI-1694b, a 26.1 $M_\oplus$ hot Neptune on a 3.77-day orbit around a K star, is nearly aligned with its host: $\lambda = 9^\circ$ ($+22^\circ$/$-18^\circ$). The measurement comes from the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, fitted to 25 KPF spectra obtained across one transit, with the transit ephemeris anchored by TESS photometry from Sectors 19, 20, and 73. The paper argues that this alignment is dynamically significant rather than tidal, since the estimated realignment timescale ($\sim 10^{14}$ years) vastly exceeds the system age. It then uses TOI-1694b as the latest data point in a sample of 24 hot Neptune systems and reports that true obliquities are bimodal: nearly aligned systems and nearly polar systems, with a Hartigan dip test p-value of 0.018 ruling out a unimodal distribution at about the 2-$\sigma$ level. The polar systems cluster at periods $\lesssim 6$ days and mass ratios $M_p/M_\star \sim 10^{-4}$, and the paper identifies resonance sweeping by the dispersing protoplanetary disk, mediated by an outer giant like TOI-1694c, as the most plausible generator of the polar population while ZKL oscillations and nodal precession fit the data less well.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on treating the 25 transit radial velocities as fully described by one fitted white-noise jitter term, after setting the pipeline-reported per-point uncertainties to zero, and on trusting the TESS-only transit model even though excluded Dragonfly photometry gives a 4-sigma deeper transit depth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TOI-1694b becomes one of fewer than ten small planets with a confirmed outer giant for which an obliquity has been measured, adding a directly measured aligned case to the hot Neptune census.
  • Because the tidal realignment timescale for a Neptune-mass planet in this configuration is of order $10^{14}$ years, the measured alignment must reflect the system's primordial or early dynamical state, not later tidal damping.
  • The disk-resonance model, applied under the paper's parameter estimates, yields a 51.6% probability of an aligned orbit and a 48.4% probability of a mild $10^\circ$--$40^\circ$ tilt, both consistent with the measurement, while strongly oblique final states are ruled out.
  • The Hartigan dip test on 12 hot Neptune systems gives a p-value of 0.018 for the true obliquities, supporting a distinct polar population; the same test on hot Jupiters around cool stars gives 0.42, so the polar group appears specific to Neptunes.
  • Polar hot Neptunes are nearly all at periods $\le 6$ days and mass ratios near $10^{-4}$, so a complete theory must generate polar orbits in that regime without producing them at longer periods or higher mass ratios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the polar population is real, then future obliquity measurements of hot Neptunes should be predictable: planets with $P \le 6$ days and $M_p/M_\star \sim 10^{-4}$ will preferentially land near $90^\circ$, while systems with a close-to-aligned outer giant, like TOI-1694b, should stay near aligned.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's reading of the disk-resonance model implies a directly testable prediction for TOI-1694c: its own sky-projected obliquity should be small. A future RM or spectroscopic measurement of the outer giant's orbit could confirm or reject the low-mutual-inclination conclusion.
  • Editorial inference: the excluded Dragonfly photometry, which implies a transit depth about 4-sigma deeper than the TESS value, is a pointed systematics test. If an independent, high-precision transit confirms the deeper depth, the ephemeris and RM amplitude could shift enough to move $\lambda$ outside its quoted uncertainties.
  • Editorial inference: the mass-ratio boundary at $M_p/M_\star \sim 10^{-4}$ suggests a dynamical or tidal filter that the paper leaves open; one concrete extension would be to compute whether disk-dispersal resonance crossing rates or subsequent tidal circularization naturally cut off at this ratio, which would make the boundary a prediction rather than an observation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports Keck Planet Finder (KPF) radial-velocity observations of TOI-1694 during a transit of the hot Neptune TOI-1694b, models the Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) effect, and derives a sky-projected obliquity of lambda = 9^{+22}_{-18} degrees, which the abstract describes as "strong evidence for a nearly aligned orbit." The authors also refine the transit ephemeris using TESS Sectors 19, 20, and 73, and they place the measurement in a dynamical context involving the outer giant TOI-1694c, considering disk-dispersal resonance sweeping, Kozai-Lidov oscillations, and nodal precession. In a population analysis of 12 hot Neptunes with measured obliquities, they report a Hartigan Dip Test p-value of 0.018 supporting a dichotomy between aligned and polar systems, and they propose that early resonance crossings with outer companions best explain the polar population.

Significance. If the measurement is robust, TOI-1694b adds a valuable datapoint to the still-small sample of hot Neptune obliquities, particularly because the system hosts a confirmed outer giant companion and because tidal realignment timescales for Neptune-mass planets are long, making the obliquity more diagnostic of formation and early dynamical evolution. The paper is also honest about many of its limitations, including the developmental stage of the KPF DRP and the problematic Dragonfly photometry. The population-level claim of an aligned/polar dichotomy is interesting but is based on only 12 systems and a single p-value, so it should be regarded as suggestive rather than established. The main strengths are the careful treatment of the TESS light curves, the explicit discussion of alternative dynamical mechanisms, and the transparent presentation of the excluded Dragonfly data in Appendix A.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The RM likelihood sets all per-point uncertainties from Table 2 to zero and instead fits a single white-noise jitter term sigma_RV, whose posterior value is 1.41 +/- 0.25 m/s. The stated per-point errors range from 1.46 to 2.03 m/s, and the RM signal is only a few m/s, so the noise model is directly load-bearing for both the location and width of the lambda posterior. Because the KPF DRP is described as being in a developmental stage and the observations span 4.5 hours, time-correlated or heterogeneous systematics (e.g., wavelength drift, airmass-dependent line-profile variations, stellar activity) are plausible and are not tested. I would like to see at least one alternative treatment: retaining the reported errors, adding a second noise component, modeling a red-noise term, or fitting the first and second halves of the transit separately. Without such a robustness test, the quoted 68% interval and the "strong evidence" language are not fully supported.
  2. [Abstract; Section 3.2] The phrase "strong evidence for a nearly aligned orbit" overstates what lambda = 9^{+22}_{-18} degrees demonstrates. The 68% interval extends to 31 degrees, the posterior is fully consistent with lambda = 0, and at 2 sigma the data permit obliquities around 50 degrees, as the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 4.2. The word "strong" is especially hard to justify given the unmodeled noise concerns above. I recommend rewording to "consistent with a nearly aligned orbit" or "tentatively aligned," and making clear that the measurement alone does not exclude moderate misalignment.
  3. [Section 4.1] The statement that "our measurement of lambda rules out an adiabatic crossing as high confidence (cases 3 and 4)" is not consistent with the reported posterior. Case 3 corresponds to obliquities of 60-80 degrees and Case 4 to polar orbits; the 2-sigma range of the lambda posterior reaches roughly 50 degrees, and Section 4.2 explicitly says a ~50-degree orientation is permitted at the 2-sigma level. Thus the inference that the outer companion must be nearly aligned (psi_c <~ 6 degrees) and the resulting 51.6%/48.4% split between Cases 1 and 2 are not robust to the full posterior. The dynamical conclusions should be re-evaluated using the full posterior distribution of lambda rather than a point estimate at the peak.
  4. [Section 5.1, Figure 4] The Hartigan Dip Test p-value of 0.018 is presented as evidence for an independent polar population, but the test is performed on 12 systems, does not incorporate measurement uncertainties, and uses a selection cut requiring 1-sigma errors of at most 40 degrees. The authors themselves caution that p-values may not be robust in this regime, yet the abstract and conclusion still state the dichotomy as a finding. Moreover, the same test on cos(lambda) gives p = 0.43, so the evidence depends entirely on the true obliquities cos(psi), which are available for only a subset and require stellar inclination constraints. I request robustness checks: Monte Carlo simulations that inject measurement errors, sensitivity to the 40-degree cut and to the sample definition, and a calibrated or simulated p-value for a sample of size 12. The population claim should be softened unless these tests support it.
  5. [Appendix A] The Dragonfly photometry is excluded because its fitted transit depth (Rp/Rstar ~ 0.070) is more than 4 sigma deeper than the TESS-only value (0.061). Since the RM amplitude scales with Rp/Rstar, and the transit parameters from Section 2 are used as priors in the RM fit, this discrepancy could in principle affect the recovered lambda and v sin i. The paper does not test whether including the Dragonfly data, or adopting the deeper depth, changes the RM results. At minimum, a brief test showing that the RM posterior is insensitive to the assumed transit depth would close this gap; without it, the transit model is a potential source of systematic bias in the central obliquity measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] TESS Sectors 19 and 20 are consecutive rather than concurrent; the text says "two concurrent Sectors," which is inaccurate.
  2. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in "We were unable to constrain the the true obliquity" and in Section 4.1 "polar orbits can are generated." These should be corrected.
  3. [Table 3] The table caption labels the reference for the v sin i prior as "B" (Van Zandt et al. 2023), but the text in Section 3.2 states the prior is uniform between 0 and 5 km/s; please clarify whether the prior is uniform or informed by the previous measurement.
  4. [Section 5.1] The text says there are "12 values of psi and 23 values of lambda across 24 systems," but the analysis then uses a sample of 12 for the dichotomy claim; the relationship between these numbers and the plotted sample should be stated more explicitly, especially which systems contribute the cos(psi) values used in the Hartigan Dip Test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the obliquity measurement is data-driven and the population analysis is a statistical test, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The central result, lambda = 9 (+22/-18) degrees, is obtained by fitting a standard Rossiter-McLaughlin model (Hirano et al. 2011b) to 25 KPF radial velocities with a uniform prior on lambda (Section 3.2, Eq. 3). The transit parameters used as priors come from an independent TESS photometric analysis (Section 2), not from the RM fit itself. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to another by construction. The population claim in Section 5.1 is a Hartigan Dip Test on externally cataloged obliquity measurements; it is an empirical statistical test, not a model fitted to the same data it claims to validate. The dynamical discussion (Section 4) applies the external Petrovich et al. (2020) disk-resonance model and explicitly notes its limitations, including that it does not explain the mass-ratio pileup. Self-citations to Rubenzahl et al. (2021) supply nominal line-width and microturbulent values and contextual figures; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem and do not force the central result. The choice to set per-point RV uncertainties to zero and fit a single jitter term is a modeling assumption, not a circular step: it does not make the derived lambda equal to an input. No load-bearing reduction to inputs or self-citations is present.

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

The measurement itself relies on standard model assumptions (RM prescription, transit model) and physical parameters from the literature. The dynamical interpretation introduces assumed distributions for PMS stellar radius and rotation period, but no new entities or forces. The main free parameters are noise terms and physically-motivated nuisance parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma_RV (RV jitter) = 1.41 +0.25/-0.20 m/s
    Free noise term in the RM likelihood; all reported RV uncertainties are set to zero and the jitter inflates them equally (Section 3.2).
  • sigma_73 (Sector 73 photometric jitter) = 2.96 +0.02/-0.02 ppt
    Free noise term for the Sector 73 FFI light curve, estimated with a Jeffrey's prior in the transit fit (Section 2.2).
  • v_cb (convective blueshift velocity) = -71.75 +/- 196.92 m/s
    Free parameter in the RM model with a wide Gaussian prior centered at -126 m/s; posterior equals the prior, so it is unconstrained and effectively a nuisance parameter (Section 3.2).
  • Adopted PMS stellar radius R'_star = 1.07 +/- 0.03 R_sun
    Chosen by hand to reconcile the PARSEC and BCAH15 isochrone values at 1-sigma; directly affects the J2 estimate in the disk resonance model (Section 4.1).
  • PMS rotation period P'_star prior = sampled uniform 2-15 days
    Assumed uncertainty range for the pre-main-sequence stellar rotation period, used to derive J2 in the disk resonance model (Section 4.1).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Rossiter-McLaughlin effect is accurately described by the Hirano et al. (2011b) prescription.
    Adopted as the forward model for the RM fit (Section 3.2); the accuracy of this model is assumed.
  • standard math The transit light curve is modeled by batman with quadratic limb darkening (Kipping 2013).
    Standard transit modeling assumption used in the TESS fit (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption TOI-1694b has zero eccentricity.
    Adopted from Van Zandt et al. (2023) and used in the transit and RM models (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption The Zahn (1977) tidal realignment timescale formula applies to this system and gives tsync ~ 10^14 yr.
    Used to argue that the observed obliquity is primordial (Section 4, Equation 1).
  • domain assumption The disk-dispersal resonance sweeping model of Petrovich et al. (2020) is the relevant dynamical mechanism.
    Applied to TOI-1694 to compute probabilities of polar vs aligned outcomes (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption The tidal Love number k2 for the PMS star is about 0.2.
    Adopted from Claret (2012) to estimate J2 in Equation (4) (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Obliquity Measurement of the Hot Neptune TOI-1694b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JXVGGDPP

@misc{pith2026241207950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Obliquity Measurement of the Hot Neptune TOI-1694b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JXVGGDPP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07950}
}
abstract

We present spectral observations of the multiplanet host TOI-1694 during the transit of TOI-1694b, a 26.1 $M_\oplus$ hot Neptune with a 3.77-day orbit. By analyzing radial velocities obtained from the Keck Planet Finder, we modeled the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect and constrained the sky-projected obliquity to ${9\degree}^{+22\degree}_{-18\degree}$, which is strong evidence for a nearly aligned orbit. TOI-1694b is one of fewer than ten small planets accompanied by confirmed outer giant planets for which the obliquity has been measured. We consider the significance of the outer planet TOI-1694c, a Jupiter-mass planet with a 1-year orbit, and its potential role in influencing the orbit of TOI-1694b to its current state. Incorporating our measurement, we discuss the bifurcation in hot Neptune obliquities and present evidence for an independent polar population. The observed polar planets nearly ubiquitously have periods of $\le 6$ days and mass ratios of $10^{-4}$. Early perturbations by outer companions from resonance crossings in the disk-dispersal stage provide the most compelling explanation for this population. Systems which lack the necessary configuration will retain their primordial obliquity, since hot Neptunes lack the angular momentum needed to realign their hosts on relevant timescales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TESS light curves for TOI-1694b, phase folded to the median period of the MCMC posterior. PDCSAP light curves from the 120-second cadence observations in Sectors 19 and 20 are shown on top. Our derived light curves from 200-second cadence FFI observations in Sector 73 are below. The model is shown in blue, and the black squares are binned data points at 10 minute intervals. the transit parameters. We checked that th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our fit to the RM effect induced by TOI-1694b (red) compared to the observations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Most probable final obliquity of TOI-1694b for different inclinations of the outer companion assuming a resonance crossing. Regions of the parameter space which are allowed by both the model and our constraints on λ are shaded in blue, with associated 1σ and 2σ confidence intervals. Near-aligned orbits are probable at low mutual inclinations. resonance. For the case of TOI-1694b, it is trivial to show that the GR ap… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Absolute values of known obliquity measurements of hot Neptune systems from the catalog in Southworth (2011), shown as a function of mass ratio and colored by stellar effective temperature (only cool stars have so far been explored). Cross shaped markers denote a true …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Warm Sub-Saturns Orbiting Single Stars Are Spin-Orbit Aligned

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Warm sub-Saturns around single cool stars are predominantly aligned whereas hot sub-Saturns are frequently misaligned (3.2σ), a separation-dependent transition the authors attribute to high-eccentricity migration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., & van Dokkum, P

    Abraham, R. G., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2014, PASP, 126, 55, doi: 10.1086/674875

    doi:10.1086/674875 2014

  2. [2]

    N., Johnson, J

    Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18 12

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/18 2012

  3. [3]

    H., Dawson, R

    Albrecht, S. H., Dawson, R. I., & Winn, J. N. 2022, PASP, 134, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 2022

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., et al. 2005, A&A, 436, L47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500123

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500123 2005

  5. [5]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  6. [6]

    H., & Laughlin, G

    Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ, 829, 114, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/114

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/114 2016

  7. [7]

    Bodenheimer, P., Hubickyj, O., & Lissauer, J. J. 2000, Icarus, 143, 2, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6246

    arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    arXiv 1997

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    2023, A&A, 669, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245004

    Bourrier, V., Attia, O., Mallonn, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245004

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Tran, Q

    Bowler, B. P., Tran, Q. H., Zhang, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbd34

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S

    Brasseur, C. E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S. W., Mullally, S. E., & White, R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.007

    2019

  4. [12]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  5. [13]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, A&A, 541, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218881

    Claret, A. 2012, A&A, 541, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218881

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    Dai, F., & Winn, J. N. 2017, AJ, 153, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa65d1

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    Dong, J., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 266, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1711406115

    Dong, S., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., Zheng, Z., & Luo, A. 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 266, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1711406115

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    S., & Agol, E

    Eastman, J., Gaudi, B. S., & Agol, E. 2013, PASP, 125, 83, doi: 10.1086/669497

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    I., Stef´ ansson, G., Petrovich, C., et al

    Espinoza-Retamal, J. I., Stef´ ansson, G., Petrovich, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18631, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.18631

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Rider, K., et al. 2024, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D

    2024

  15. [23]

    13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309609, doi: 10.1117/12.3017841

    Vernet, Vol. 13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309609, doi: 10.1117/12.3017841

    doi

  16. [24]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    A., & Hartigan, P

    Hartigan, J. A., & Hartigan, P. M. 1985, The Annals of Statistics, 13, 70 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176346577

    1985

  18. [26]

    W., et al

    Hattori, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac625a H´ ebrard, G., Ehrenreich, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016331

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2011a, PASJ, 63, 531, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp2.S531

    Hirano, T., Narita, N., Shporer, A., et al. 2011a, PASJ, 63, 531, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp2.S531

    doi

  20. [28]

    N., et al

    Hirano, T., Suto, Y., Winn, J. N., et al. 2011b, ApJ, 742, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/69

    doi

  21. [29]

    W., Myers, A

    Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2166

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    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

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Johnson, J

    Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1467, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1467

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., & Lissauer, J. J. 2005, Icarus, 179, 415, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.06.021

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Zheng, J

    Innanen, K. A., Zheng, J. Q., Mikkola, S., & Valtonen, M. J. 1997, AJ, 113, 1915, doi: 10.1086/118405

    1997 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019, 1, doi: 10.1155/2019/4819475

    Kang, Y.-J., & Noh, Y. 2019, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019, 1, doi: 10.1155/2019/4819475

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 2152–2160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  31. [39]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161–1165, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161–1165, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    V., Reiners, A., & Zechmeister, M

    Liebing, F., Jeffers, S. V., Reiners, A., & Zechmeister, M. 2021, A&A, 654, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039607 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Libr...

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    J., & Lai, D

    Liu, B., Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2396 13

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Wang, S., Winn, J

    Louden, E. M., Wang, S., Winn, J. N., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4b1b

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2008, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Mazeh, T. 2008, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 29, EAS Publications Series, ed. M. J. Goupil & J. P. Zahn, 1–65, doi: 10.1051/eas:0829001

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    2016, A&A, 589, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

    Mazeh, T., Holczer, T., & Faigler, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22, doi: 10.1086/142826

    1924 doi

  38. [46]

    2007, ApJ, 657, 521, doi: 10.1086/511128

    Michikoshi, S., Inutsuka, S.-i., Kokubo, E., & Furuya, I. 2007, ApJ, 657, 521, doi: 10.1086/511128

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, AJ, 166, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd548

    Mistry, P., Pathak, K., Prasad, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd548

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    2011, Nature, 473, 187, doi: 10.1038/nature10076

    Teyssandier, J. 2011, Nature, 473, 187, doi: 10.1038/nature10076

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Johns-Krull, C

    Nofi, L. A., Johns-Krull, C. M., L´ opez-Valdivia, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeab3

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Ogilvie, G. I. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 171, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035941 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    2012, European Physical Journal H, 37, 745, doi: 10.1140/epjh/e2012-30039-4

    Perryman, M. 2012, European Physical Journal H, 37, 745, doi: 10.1140/epjh/e2012-30039-4

    2012 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Kratter, K

    Petrovich, C., Mu˜ noz, D. J., Kratter, K. M., & Malhotra, R. 2020, ApJL, 902, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb952

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    A., et al

    Piaulet, C., Benneke, B., Rubenzahl, R. A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd3c

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    H., DePoy, D

    Pinsonneault, M. H., DePoy, D. L., & Coffee, M. 2001, ApJL, 556, L59, doi: 10.1086/323531

    2001 doi

  48. [56]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  49. [57]

    Powell, M. J. D. 1964, The Computer Journal, 7, 155, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155

    1964 doi

  50. [58]

    Quillen, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1367, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09826.x

    2006

  51. [59]

    M., Stauffer, J

    Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Cody, A. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 273, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab893c

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    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

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Rossiter, R. A. 1924, ApJ, 60, 15, doi: 10.1086/142825

    1924 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Dai, F., Howard, A

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Dai, F., Howard, A. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd177

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    C., Winn, J

    Siegel, J. C., Winn, J. N., & Albrecht, S. H. 2023, ApJL, 950, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd62f

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 2166, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19399.x

    Southworth, J. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2166, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19399.x

    2011

  57. [65]

    Sterne, T. E. 1939, MNRAS, 99, 451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/99.5.451 Szab´ o, G. M., & Kiss, L. L. 2011, ApJL, 727, L44, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L44

    1939 doi

  58. [66]

    A., & Fischer, D

    Valenti, J. A., & Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141, doi: 10.1086/430500 Van Zandt, J., Petigura, E. A., MacDougall, M., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca6ef

    2005 doi

  59. [67]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    W., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Sch¨ olkopf, B

    Wang, D., Hogg, D. W., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Sch¨ olkopf, B. 2017, A pixel-level model for event discovery in time-domain imaging. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.02428

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2010a, ApJL, 718, L145, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L145

    doi

  62. [70]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    N., Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2010b, ApJL, 723, L223, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L223

    doi

  64. [72]

    2003, ApJ, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    Wu, Y., & Murray, N. 2003, ApJ, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    2003 doi

  65. [73]

    W., & Wyatt, M

    Xuan, J. W., & Wyatt, M. C. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2033

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    W., Petigura, E

    Yee, S. W., Petigura, E. A., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabfec

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    E., Eastman, J

    Yu, L., Rodriguez, J. E., Eastman, J. D., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad6e7

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Zahn, J. P. 1977, A&A, 57, 383

    1977

  69. [77]

    Zahn, J. P. 2008, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 29, EAS Publications Series, ed. M. J. Goupil & J. P. Zahn, 67–90, doi: 10.1051/eas:0829002

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    Zechmeister, M., & K¨ urster, M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.