Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Transit-timing variations in the AU Mic system observed with CHEOPS

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AU Mic's transit-timing record from 2018 to 2023 points to a third planet, AU Mic d, a roughly 0.2-Earth-mass body on a 12.6-day orbit between the two known sub-Neptunes.

desk verdict Useful new CHEOPS transit times and a refined TTV superperiod, but the abstract's planet d mass and period are configuration-dependent and should be presented as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13575 v1 pith:MBMRFKJF submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.EP

Á. Boldog , Gy. M. Szabó , L. Kriskovics , L. Borsato , D. Gandolfi , M. Lendl , M. N. Günther , A. Heitzmann
show 81 more authors
T. G. Wilson A. Brandeker Z. Garai Y. Alibert R. Alonso T. Bárczy D. Barrado Navascues S. C. C. Barros W. Baumjohann W. Benz N. Billot C. Broeg A. Collier Cameron A. C. M. Correia Sz. Csizmadia P. E. Cubillos M. B. Davies M. Deleuil A. Deline O. D. S. Demangeon B.-O. Demory A. Derekas B. Edwards J. A. Egger D. Ehrenreich A. Erikson A. Fortier L. Fossati M. Fridlund K. Gazeas M. Gillon M. Güdel P. Guterman Ch. Helling K. G. Isaak L. L. Kiss E. Kopp J. Korth K. W. F. Lam J. Laskar A. Lecavelier des Etangs A. Luntzer D. Magrin G. Mantovan L. Marafatto P. F. L. Maxted B. Merín C. Mordasini M. Munari V. Nascimbeni G. Olofsson R. Ottensamer I. Pagano E. Pallé G. Peter D. Piazza G. Piotto D. Pollacco K. Poppenhaeger D. Queloz R. Ragazzoni N. Rando H. Rauer I. Ribas M. Rieder N. C. Santos G. Scandariato D. Ségransan A. E. Simon A. M. S. Smith S. G. Sousa R. Southworth M. Stalport S. Sulis S. Udry S. Ulmer-Moll V. Van Grootel J. Venturini E. Villaver N. A. Walton T. Zingales
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords AUMictransit-timingvariationsCHEOPSexoplanetssub-Neptuneplanetsdynamicalmodelingstellaractivitythirdplanet
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

AU Mic is a 22-million-year-old M dwarf whose two transiting sub-Neptunes, b and c, have been arriving at their transits minutes early or late, a signature of gravitational tugs from other bodies. The paper combines new CHEOPS photometry from 2022-2023 with earlier TESS, Spitzer, and ground-based timings to map these transit-timing variations over 2018-2023. It finds that AU Mic c's transits ran about 80 minutes late by 2023 and that the TTV superperiod of AU Mic b is about 1150 days. Dynamical modeling then shows that the observed timing curve can be explained by a third planet, AU Mic d, on a 12.6-day orbit between b and c, with a mass of about 0.2 Earth masses. If correct, the result would confirm a low-mass 'middle d' architecture for a young planetary system and demonstrate that TTV observations can expose sub-Earth planets that are too small to transit.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the transit-timing variation (TTV) signal, meaning the O-C residuals between observed mid-transit times and a linear ephemeris; these residuals encode the gravitational signature of any unseen companions. The transit times themselves come from Allesfitter fits to CHEOPS light curves, with flares removed semi-automatically and stellar variability absorbed by a Gaussian-process model. The TTVs are then fed to TRADES, an N-body dynamical code that integrates the full system and simultaneously fits planet-to-star mass ratios, periods, eccentricities, and orbital angles, producing the four configurations whose Bayesian information criterion values decide which solution is preferred. The load-bearing identity is the mapping from the shape and superperiod of the O-C curves to the mass and period of the perturbing planet, here yielding the 12.6-day, 0.2-Earth-mass solution for AU Mic d.

What would settle it

Observe the next several AU Mic b and c transits with CHEOPS and TESS: the configuration-(2) solution predicts that the 2025 TESS sector and 2026 CHEOPS transits will continue the TTV curve with the 12.6-day perturbation pattern. If the timing residuals instead follow only the smooth roughly-1150-day superperiod with no 12.6-day component, or if the c offset returns to the old ephemeris, then the inferred planet d does not exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own account, the central discovery is that the combined 2018-2023 transit-timing record of AU Mic b and c cannot be reproduced by a two-planet system; the best-fitting model, configuration (2), requires a third body named AU Mic d with orbital period $12.6173^{+0.0050}_{-0.0114}$ days and mass $0.203^{+0.022}_{-0.024}$ $M_\oplus$, placing it between the orbits of b and c. The same dynamical solution yields a TTV superperiod of roughly 1150 days for planet b and a peak-to-peak TTV amplitude of about 24.5 minutes. It also implies that AU Mic c moves on a misaligned, presumably retrograde orbit, with a projected spin-orbit angle near $171.9^\circ$, while planet b remains well aligned. The paper emphasizes that the exact configuration is not uniquely pinned down because the number of fitted parameters (12) exceeds the number of transits available for AU Mic c, so the derived d parameters mark the preferred region of parameter space rather than a final measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed shifts in transit times come entirely from gravity and that fewer than a dozen transit groups suffice to pin down a 12-parameter model; if starspots or instrumental quirks mimic those shifts, the 0.2-Earth-mass planet d may be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AU Mic d is real, it joins the small set of sub-Earth planets found through transit timing, with a mass just over twice that of Mars.
  • The 12.6-day period places d between b and c, confirming the 'middle d' family of solutions proposed in earlier work.
  • A misaligned, retrograde orbit for AU Mic c, if confirmed, would indicate that the outer planet experienced a scattering or inclination excitation event rather than forming in a perfectly coplanar disk.
  • Continued CHEOPS and TESS monitoring over the next few years should either converge on the configuration (2) parameters or reveal that the timing residuals have another source.
  • The year-to-year changes in transit depth and impact parameter of both planets are attributed to starspot distributions, so radius values from any single epoch are biased by stellar activity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that the non-transiting geometry of d could be verified independently with high-precision radial velocities, since a 0.2-Earth-mass body on a 12.6-day orbit around a 0.6-solar-mass star would imprint a small but coherent periodic signal.
  • The 1150-day superperiod gives observers a scheduling tool: TTVs measured near the extrema of AU Mic b's O-C curve carry the most information about d, so future observations should target those phases.
  • Because no stellar activity model entered the dynamical fit, the cleanest test of the d claim is to repeat the fit with spot-induced timing offsets included; a surviving 12.6-day component would make the planet interpretation robust.
  • The same O-C inversion strategy could be exported to other active young M-dwarf systems, where stellar noise currently hides sub-Earth planets; AU Mic provides a proof of concept that high-cadence space photometry plus TTV modeling can reach sub-Earth masses.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents CHEOPS transit photometry of AU Mic b and c from 2022–2023, combines these with earlier TESS, Spitzer, and CHEOPS measurements to construct O–C diagrams, and reports a ~1150-day TTV superperiod for planet b. Using the TRADES dynamical code, the authors fit four configurations of the system and claim that the observed TTVs of both planets require a third planet, AU Mic d, with a BIC-preferred solution (configuration 2) of orbital period 12.6173 days and mass 0.203 M_Earth, along with a misaligned, likely retrograde orbit for planet c. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the limited number of transits prevents a unique dynamical interpretation and that the exact configuration and parameters remain undetermined.

Significance. If confirmed, the presence and characterization of a third planet in the young, active AU Mic system would be a valuable contribution to our understanding of early planetary system evolution. The paper's strengths include careful handling of stellar activity (semi-automated flare removal, roll-angle correction), use of public fitting and dynamical tools (Allesfitter, TRADES), and transparent presentation of posterior distributions in appendices. However, the headline planet-d parameters are not robust to the model configuration choices: configurations (3) and (4), which are also reported in Table B.1, give period and mass values that differ by far more than the quoted uncertainties. The paper is therefore better read as a status report on possible AU Mic d solutions than as a definitive detection of a specific planet, and the significance of the central claim is accordingly limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 4.2 and Table B.1] The abstract and Sect. 4.2 promote configuration (2) as the main solution on the basis of the lowest BIC, but the BIC difference relative to configuration (3) is only about 16 (−536.6 vs −520.3), and configuration (3) yields P_d = 13.614 d and M_d = 0.242 M_E while configuration (4) yields P_d = 13.928 d and M_d = 0.983 M_E. Because these values differ by far more than the stated 1σ uncertainties of configuration (2), the quoted P_d = 12.6173 d and M_d = 0.203 M_E are not a robust inference; they are conditional on a weakly preferred model. Please present the full spread of solutions as the headline or add a model-averaging or cross-validation argument to justify the emphasis on configuration (2).
  2. [Table B.1 and Sect. 4.2] Configuration (2), the BIC-selected solution, yields M_c = 4.40 M_E, which the authors themselves state disagrees with published RV masses (Cale et al. 2021; Zicher et al. 2022; Donati et al. 2023), whereas configuration (3) yields M_c = 14.24 M_E and is consistent with those masses. Since radial velocities are included only in configuration (4), the BIC ranking predominantly reflects the TTV data. The claim that configuration (2) is the main solution is therefore not well supported unless the authors can explain why the preferred TTV-only solution drives planet c to an implausibly low mass.
  3. [Sect. 4.2] The authors note that the dynamical fit has 12 derived parameters while AU Mic c has only 9 observed transits (Tables 3–4). This ratio indicates a high risk of overfitting, and the quoted posterior uncertainties may not reflect the model uncertainty inherent in the configuration choice. Please provide an explicit count of the independent constraints per planet and consider a leave-one-out or hold-out test (e.g., predicting the 2023 transit times from a fit to pre-2023 data only) to demonstrate that the reported configurations have predictive power rather than simply absorbing noise.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract states that the observed TTVs 'can be explained by a third planet' with a specific period of ~12.6 days and mass of 0.203 M_E, while also stating that the exact configuration and planetary parameters could not be determined. These two statements are in tension. Please reframe the abstract to emphasize the range of solutions across configurations (e.g., P_d ≈ 12.6–13.9 d, M_d ≈ 0.20–0.98 M_E) and to make clear that the quoted numbers are from the BIC-preferred configuration only, or state explicitly that the specific values are not yet secure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 4.2] The text 'the estimated 4.4 M ⊙ for AU Mic c' should read '4.4 M⊕'; the solar-mass symbol is a typo that obscures the meaning.
  2. [References] The reference list contains two entries labeled 'Szabó et al. 2022' (Sz2021 and Sz2022 in Tables 5 and 6); please disambiguate them (e.g., Szabó et al. 2021 and Szabó et al. 2022) in the table notes to avoid confusion.
  3. [Fig. 3] The caption describes the harmonic fit as 'without any dynamical interpretation'; please clarify that the quoted 1150-day superperiod is the period of this empirical fit and not a dynamically derived quantity.
  4. [Tables 5 and 6] The symbols ⋆, ⋆⋆, ⋄, ‡, and • used in the column headers are defined in the notes, but the mapping to specific papers is easy to miss; please make the notes more explicit, e.g., '⋆ This work (2023)', '⋆⋆ Szabó et al. (2022, 2021 data)', etc.
  5. [Sect. 4.2] The phrase 'distributed to 5–5 self-consistent groups of transits' is unclear; consider rewording to 'five independent groups of transits for each planet' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AU Mic d parameters and TTV superperiod are explicit fits to the observed TTV data, not dressed-up predictions; the paper's self-citations supply data and ephemerides, not the load-bearing conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central results — the 12.6-day, 0.203-M_E planet d solution, the 1150-day TTV superperiod, and the retrograde orbit of AU Mic c — are obtained by fitting the observed TTV data with explicitly stated models (Allesfitter, TRADES). This is a model-fitting exercise, not a derivation from first principles, and the paper does not label these quantities as predictions. For example, the superperiod is introduced as 'according to the fit in Fig. 3' (Sect. 3.2), and the planet d parameters come from the BIC-selected TRADES configuration (2) in Table B.1, whose fitted O-C diagrams are compared to the same data used in the fit. That is standard goodness-of-fit, not circularity. The paper openly acknowledges the limitations: 'the fit has 12 derived parameters, which exceeds the number of transits currently available for AU Mic c' (Sect. 4.2) and that the results 'mostly show the preferred parameter space of possible AU Mic d solutions rather than their exact quantitative values.' The alternative configurations (3) and (4) are presented side by side, so the model-dependence is explicit. Self-citations to Szabó et al. (2021, 2022) provide the reference ephemerides and prior TTV measurements; these are inputs, not conclusions, and the independent external anchoring from Wittrock et al. (2023), RV-based masses (Zicher et al. 2022; Donati et al. 2023), and Rossiter-McLaughlin measurements (Yu et al. 2025) further prevents the argument from reducing to a self-referential loop. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The identified concerns (model degeneracy, activity-induced biases, limited data) are correctness and robustness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Everything in the dynamical solution depends on fitted parameters: the planet d parameters, masses of b and c, and the harmonic TTV model. The key assumptions are that the timing residuals are purely dynamical and that the sparse dataset is sufficient to constrain the 12-parameter model. The invented entity is a non-transiting sub-Earth-mass planet d with no direct detection.

free parameters (6)
  • Planet d mass (Md) = 0.203 (+0.022/-0.024) M_Earth
    Fitted in TRADES configuration (2); the same data with configuration (3) gives 0.242 M_Earth, showing sensitivity to model choice.
  • Planet d orbital period (Pd) = 12.6173 days
    Fitted with uniform prior 11-15 days; central to the TTV explanation.
  • Planet d eccentricity (ed) = 0.291
    Fitted via sqrt(e)cos(omega) and sqrt(e)sin(omega).
  • Planet d inclination (id) = 127.08 degrees
    Fitted; places planet d on a non-transiting orbit.
  • Planet d longitude of ascending node (Omega_d) = 120 degrees
    Fitted; together with id makes the orbit non-transiting.
  • Masses of planets b and c (Mb, Mc) = 26 and 4.40 M_Earth (config 2)
    Fitted mass ratios; values vary widely across configurations and disagree with several literature values, indicating degeneracy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed O-C timing residuals are caused by gravitational perturbations, not by stellar activity or instrumental systematics.
    The entire TTV and TRADES analysis interprets the transit-time deviations as dynamical; the paper discusses spot-induced radius biases but does not model spot-induced timing shifts (Sect. 4.1).
  • standard math Newtonian N-body dynamics with point masses describes the AU Mic system over 2018-2023.
    TRADES integrates Newtonian equations of motion; no tidal, general-relativistic, or star-planet interaction terms are included (Sect. 3.2).
  • domain assumption The host star mass and radius are known from external literature.
    Stellar parameters Teff=3665+/-31 K, Rs=0.82+/-0.02 Rsun, Ms=0.60+/-0.04 Msun are taken from Donati et al. (2023) and Plavchan et al. (2020) and used to convert fitted scales (Sect. 3.1, Table 1).
  • ad hoc to paper Transit light-curve fits assume circular orbits for planets b and c.
    Stated in Sect. 3.1: 'We assumed a circular orbit of AU Mic b and c.' This can bias the derived radii and impact parameters, although the dynamical model later allows eccentricity.
  • ad hoc to paper The sinusoidal fit to the planet b TTVs adequately represents the superperiod.
    The 1150-day superperiod comes from a harmonic fit shown as a dotted line in Fig. 3, described as illustrative and without error bars (Sect. 3.2).
invented entities (1)
  • AU Mic d (third planet) independent evidence
    purpose: To account for the observed TTVs of AU Mic b and c
    The paper predicts a specific period (12.6 d) and mass (0.203 M_Earth) that can be tested with future RV or transit observations; however, the entity is currently inferred only from the TTV data used to fit it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transit-timing variations in the AU Mic system observed with CHEOPS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBMRFKJF

@misc{pith2026250113575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transit-timing variations in the AU Mic system observed with CHEOPS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBMRFKJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13575}
}
read the original abstract

AU Mic is a very active M dwarf with an edge-on debris disk and two transiting sub-Neptunes with a possible third planetary companion. The two transiting planets exhibit significant transit-timing variations (TTVs) that are caused by the gravitational interaction between the bodies in the system. Using photometrical observations taken with the CHaracterizing ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS), our goal is to constrain the planetary radii, the orbital distances and periods of AU Mic b and c. We aim to determine the superperiod of the TTVs for AU Mic b and to update the transit ephemeris for both planets. Based on the observed TTVs, we study the possible presence of a third planet in the system. We conducted high precision photometric observations with CHEOPS in 2022 and 2023. We used Allesfitter to fit the planetary transits and to constrain the planetary and orbital parameters. We combined our new measurements with results from previous years to determine the periods and amplitudes of the TTVs. We applied dynamical modelling based on TTV measurements from the 2018-2023 period to reconstruct the perceived variations. The orbital distances and periods for AU Mic b and c agree with the results from previous works. However, the values for the planetary radii deviate slightly from previous values, which we attribute to the effect of stellar spots. AU Mic c showed very strong TTVs, with transits that occurred ~80 minutes later in 2023 than in 2021. Through dynamical analysis of the system, we found that the observed TTVs can be explained by a third planet with an orbital period of ~12.6 days and a mass of 0.203+0.022-0.024 M_E. We explored the orbital geometry of the system and found that AU Mic c has a misaligned retrograde orbit. Due limited number of observations the exact configuration and planetary parameters could not be determined. Further monitoring with CHEOPS may improve these results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phased transit light curves of the 2022 and 2023 measurements of the AU Mic b (left panels) and c transits (right panels) after flare removal. The ephemeris and period used here are T0,b = 2 458 330.38416 d and Pb = 8.4631427 d, and T0,c = 2459454.8973 BJD, Pc = 18.85882 d. The TTV is very prominent for both planets compared to the earlier ephemeris. AU Mic b transited after the AU Mic c transit on 22 August 2022 (t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stacked and binned CHEOPS transit light curves of AU Mic b (left panels) and AU Mic c (right panels) from 2022 (top panels) and from 2023 (bottom panels), overplotted with the best-fitting Allesfitter models (20 curves from random posterior samples). The residuals are also shown. from Zicher et al. (2022). Another difference between the four configurations is the parameters that were fitted in the analysis. Generall… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TTV diagrams of AU Mic b (upper panel) calculated with Tc = 2 458 330.38416 and Pmean = 8.4631427 d, and AU Mic c (lower panel) calculated with Tc = 2 459 454.8973 and Pmean = 18.85882 d. We included Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS, red sym￾bols), Spitzer (blue symbols), Earth-based Pan-STARRS (light grey symbols) and CHEOPS (black symbols) measurements. The harmonic fit to AU Mic b data (dotted red line… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 5 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The Longest-period Young Transiting Exoplanets. A Duo of Puffy Giants inside a Debris Disk

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

    HD 114082 hosts two puffy, moderate-to-low-mass giants on nearly circular, coplanar, near-resonant orbits of 225.55 and ~314 days, the longest-period young transiting exoplanets known.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

54 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Barros , S. C. C., Demangeon , O., D \' az , R. F., et al. 2020, , 634, A75

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109

    Benz , W., Broeg , C., Fortier , A., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109

    2021

  3. [3]

    J., et al

    Bonfanti , A., Delrez , L., Hooton , M. J., et al. 2021, , 646, A157

    2021

  4. [4]

    2019, , 484, 3233

    Borsato , L., Malavolta , L., Piotto , G., et al. 2019, , 484, 3233

    2019

  5. [5]

    2014, , 571, A38

    Borsato , L., Marzari , F., Nascimbeni , V., et al. 2014, , 571, A38

    2014

  6. [6]

    2021, , 506, 3810

    Borsato , L., Piotto , G., Gandolfi , D., et al. 2021, , 506, 3810

    2021

  7. [7]

    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

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    J., Byrne , P

    Butler , C. J., Byrne , P. B., Andrews , A. D., & Doyle , J. G. 1981, , 197, 815

    work page 1981

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

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

    Cale , B. L., Reefe , M., Plavchan , P., et al. 2021, , 162, 295

    2021

  2. [10]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 13

    Claret , A. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 13

    2021

  3. [11]

    2020, , 635, A22

    Deline , A., Queloz , D., Chazelas , B., et al. 2020, , 635, A22

    2020

  4. [12]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 775

    Delrez , L., Ehrenreich , D., Alibert , Y., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 775

    2021

  5. [13]

    2023, , 678, A200

    Delrez , L., Leleu , A., Brandeker , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A200

    2023

  6. [14]

    F., Cristofari , P

    Donati , J. F., Cristofari , P. I., Finociety , B., et al. 2023, , 525, 455

    2023

  7. [15]

    2017, , 154, 220

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Agol , E., Ambikasaran , S., & Angus , R. 2017, , 154, 220

    2017

  8. [16]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  9. [17]

    E., Broeg , C., et al

    Fortier , A., Simon , A. E., Broeg , C., et al. 2024, , 687, A302

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  11. [19]

    & Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457

    1992

  12. [20]

    Geweke, J. F. 1991, Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments , Staff Report 148, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

    1991

  13. [21]

    A., Barclay , T., Quintana , E

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

    2022

  14. [22]

    G \"u nther , M. N. & Daylan , T. 2019, Allesfitter: Flexible Star and Exoplanet Inference From Photometry and Radial Velocity , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2019

  15. [23]

    G \"u nther , M. N. & Daylan , T. 2021, , 254, 13

    2021

  16. [24]

    C., et al

    Hebb , L., Petro , L., Ford , H. C., et al. 2007, , 379, 63

    2007

  17. [25]

    & Poppenhaeger , K

    Ilin , E. & Poppenhaeger , K. 2022, , 513, 4579

    2022

  18. [26]

    C., & Matthews , B

    Kalas , P., Liu , M. C., & Matthews , B. C. 2004, Science, 303, 1990

    2004

  19. [27]

    2014, , 570, A41

    Kallinger , T., De Ridder , J., Hekker , S., et al. 2014, , 570, A41

    2014

  20. [28]

    D., Vidotto , A

    Kavanagh , R. D., Vidotto , A. A., Klein , B., et al. 2021, , 504, 1511

    2021

  21. [29]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 435, 2152

    2013

  22. [30]

    & Reiners , A

    Kochukhov , O. & Reiners , A. 2020, , 902, 43

    2020

  23. [31]

    2020, , 643, A94

    Lendl , M., Csizmadia , S., Deline , A., et al. 2020, , 643, A94

    2020

  24. [32]

    A., Wilner , D

    MacGregor , M. A., Wilner , D. J., Rosenfeld , K. A., et al. 2013, , 762, L21

    2013

  25. [33]

    Mallorqu \' n , M., B \'e jar , V. J. S., Lodieu , N., et al. 2024, , 689, A132

    2024

  26. [34]

    Mamajek , E. E. & Bell , C. P. M. 2014, , 445, 2169

    2014

  27. [35]

    Martioli , E., H \'e brard , G., Correia , A. C. M., Laskar , J., & Lecavelier des Etangs , A. 2021, , 649, A177

    2021

  28. [36]

    & Doyle , J

    Mathioudakis , M. & Doyle , J. G. 1991, , 244, 433

    1991

  29. [37]

    C., Kennedy , G., Sibthorpe , B., et al

    Matthews , B. C., Kennedy , G., Sibthorpe , B., et al. 2015, , 811, 100

    2015

  30. [38]

    2023, , 673, A42

    Nascimbeni , V., Borsato , L., Zingales , T., et al. 2023, , 673, A42

    2023

  31. [39]

    B., & Payne , M

    Nelson , B., Ford , E. B., & Payne , M. J. 2014, , 210, 11

    2014

  32. [40]

    C., Boisse , I., et al

    Oshagh , M., Santos , N. C., Boisse , I., et al. 2013, , 556, A19

    2013

  33. [41]

    2016, , 585, A114

    Parviainen , H., Pall \'e , E., Nortmann , L., et al. 2016, , 585, A114

    2016

  34. [42]

    2020, , 582, 497

    Plavchan , P., Barclay , T., Gagn \'e , J., et al. 2020, , 582, 497

    2020

  35. [43]

    A., Hines , D

    Schneider , G., Grady , C. A., Hines , D. C., et al. 2014, , 148, 59

    2014

  36. [44]

    M., Gandolfi , D., Brandeker , A., et al

    Szab \'o , G. M., Gandolfi , D., Brandeker , A., et al. 2021, , 654, A159

    2021

  37. [45]

    M., Garai , Z., Brandeker , A., et al

    Szab \'o , G. M., Garai , Z., Brandeker , A., et al. 2022, , 659, L7

    2022

  38. [46]

    ter Braak, C. J. F. & Vrugt, J. A. 2008, Statistics and Computing, 18, 435

    2008

  39. [47]

    & Kellett , B

    Tsikoudi , V. & Kellett , B. J. 2000, , 319, 1147

    2000

  40. [48]

    Winn , J. N. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager , 55--77

    2010

  41. [49]

    P., Kowalski , A

    Wisniewski , J. P., Kowalski , A. F., Davenport , J. R. A., et al. 2019, , 883, L8

    2019

  42. [50]

    M., Plavchan , P

    Wittrock , J. M., Plavchan , P. P., Cale , B. L., et al. 2023, , 166, 232

    2023

  43. [51]

    2025, , 536, 2046

    Yu , H., Garai , Z., Cretignier , M., et al. 2025, , 536, 2046

    2025

  44. [52]

    2022, , 512, 3060

    Zicher , N., Barrag \'a n , O., Klein , B., et al. 2022, , 512, 3060

    2022

  45. [53]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  46. [54]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.