Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 126 references

Short-Term Balmer Line Emission Variability in M Dwarfs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In M dwarfs, the blue Balmer lines H-beta through H-delta are intrinsically more variable than H-alpha, and photometric spot amplitude does not predict line activity.

desk verdict Solid observational extension of the G23 Balmer-line program, but the headline intrinsic-variability gradient rests on an error-subtraction assumption that the paper itself flags as contaminated by blue-side S/N, and the dark-spot claim for TIC 283866910 is suggestive, not solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02568 v2 pith:L4PFIVHT submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.SR

Aylin Garcia Soto , Girish M. Duvvuri , Elisabeth R. Newton , Ward S. Howard , Alejandro Núñez , Stephanie T. Douglas This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords MdwarfsBalmerlineschromosphericactivitystellarflaresstarspotsrotationTESSphotometryequivalentwidth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper analyzes 77 M dwarfs observed with ground-based optical spectroscopy combined with TESS photometry, and argues that short-term intrinsic variability grows systematically from H$\alpha$ through H$\beta$, H$\gamma$, to H$\delta$ on timescales of roughly 15 minutes to an hour, far shorter than a rotation period. It also re-examines the amplitude-activity relation and finds that the link between photometric spot amplitude and Balmer-line luminosity is weak and statistically insignificant for all four lines, and becomes more dispersed toward higher-order lines. The stakes are practical: M dwarfs host most small exoplanets, and the same magnetic activity that produces this line flicker contaminates exoplanet detection and characterization. The paper additionally reports Balmer-line flares that appear without corresponding TESS white-light flares, shallow Balmer decrements during flares, and evidence that one young M dwarf's active region is darker than its photosphere.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fractional intrinsic variability parameter $\sigma_{\rm intrinsic} = \sqrt{\sigma_{\rm observed}^2 - \sigma_{\rm measurement}^2} / |{\rm Median(measurement)}|$, which takes the scatter of each star's measured equivalent widths, subtracts the reported per-measurement error in quadrature, and normalizes by the median line strength so that stars can be compared. The entire claim that higher-order lines are more intrinsically variable rests on this subtraction isolating astrophysical signal from noise. Two supporting tools carry the rest of the analysis: the $\chi$ factor, the ratio of the continuum flux near a line to the bolometric flux, converts equivalent widths into $L_{\rm line}/L_{\rm bol}$ without flux calibration (recomputed here for all four lines from model spectra), and the Balmer decrement relative to H$\beta$ tracks how relative line fluxes change during flares. For flare energetics, the paper uses RADYN, a one-dimensional non-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium radiative-hydrodynamic code, to forward-model the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ profiles of the strongest observed flare and identify the electron-beam parameters that best reproduce them.

What would settle it

Re-observe a subset of these stars with a fringing-free, high-signal-to-noise blue spectrograph at the same cadence and recompute $\sigma_{\rm intrinsic}$ for each line: if the median intrinsic variability of H$\delta$ is no longer larger than that of H$\alpha$ once the bluer lines are measured cleanly, the claimed gradient is a measurement artifact, whereas if the ordering H$\alpha$ < H$\beta$ < H$\gamma$ < H$\delta$ survives, the trend is astrophysical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper establishes three connected results. First, using a fractional intrinsic variability parameter that subtracts reported measurement errors in quadrature from the observed scatter of equivalent widths, it finds that higher-order Balmer lines are progressively more variable: the distribution of $\sigma_{\rm intrinsic}$ shifts toward larger values from H$\alpha$ to H$\beta$ to H$\gamma$ to H$\delta$ across the 61 stars with more than six spectra. Second, the Spearman correlation between $R_{\rm var}$ (the semi-amplitude of the TESS light curve) and $L_{\rm line}/L_{\rm bol}$ is weak and not statistically significant for H$\alpha$ ($\rho \approx 0.39$), H$\beta$ ($\rho \approx 0.43$), H$\gamma$ ($\rho \approx 0.49$), or H$\delta$ ($\rho \approx 0.36$), meaning photometric spot amplitude does not determine chromospheric line output. Third, for stars observed simultaneously in TESS and in Balmer lines, white-light flares and Balmer flares frequently do not coincide: TIC 415508270 shows strong, long Balmer flares during weak TESS activity, and Balmer-only flares appear in TIC 220044948. The paper also shows that the Balmer decrement (line flux relative to H$\beta$) becomes shallower during Balmer-detected flares and differs between flares on the same star, and that in TIC 283866910 the H$\alpha$ equivalent width is anti-correlated with TESS flux, indicating an active region darker than the photosphere.

Load-bearing premise

The result that higher-order lines are more intrinsically variable assumes that the reported measurement uncertainties fully capture every non-stellar source of scatter, so that subtracting them in quadrature leaves only true astrophysical variability; if errors are underestimated for the bluer, noisier lines, or if fringing and continuum misplacement add scatter the error bars do not include, the apparent H$\gamma$/H$\delta$ excess could be partly instrumental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because H$\gamma$ and H$\delta$ carry the largest intrinsic variability per epoch, they are the most sensitive chromospheric tracers of short-term changes on ~15–60 minute timescales.
  • $R_{\rm var}$ is not a dependable predictor of an individual star's chromospheric activity: the amplitude-activity relation is weak for H$\alpha$ and statistically insignificant for all four lines, so photometric spot amplitude alone cannot rank activity levels.
  • Single-band flare surveys are incomplete: Balmer-line flares occur without detectable TESS white-light flares, and some TESS flares have no Balmer counterpart, so white-light monitoring alone underestimates the flare budget of M dwarfs.
  • The Balmer decrement shallows during Balmer-detected flares, consistent with higher-order lines brightening relative to lower-order lines as the latter become optically thick, and the decrement's shape differs between flares on the same star.
  • The RADYN fits attribute the largest observed flare to a modest electron beam (flux ≈ $10^{11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, electron energies 10–40 keV), providing concrete inputs for modeling the photochemical irradiation of M dwarf exoplanet atmospheres.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bluer lines are both more variable and noisier, a decisive test of the gradient would be repeat observations at higher signal-to-noise with fringing-free blue coverage: if the H$\gamma$/H$\delta$ excess over H$\alpha$ persists, the trend is astrophysical, and if it shrinks, part of it is instrumental (a test the authors' own caveat invites).
  • If Balmer-only, sub-white-light flares are as common as this sample suggests, then white-light flare statistics—and the UV irradiation doses used in exoplanet habitability studies—systematically undercount low-energy flaring on M dwarfs.
  • The anti-correlation of H$\alpha$ with TESS flux for TIC 283866910 suggests a general diagnostic: the phase relationship between chromospheric lines and broadband photometry can reveal whether active regions are darker or brighter than the photosphere, and applying the same F-test to a larger sample with full rotation-phase coverage could map spot contrasts across spectral types.
  • The newly tabulated $\chi$ values for H$\beta$, H$\gamma$, and H$\delta$ let other groups convert published equivalent widths into line luminosities for stars down to 2300 K, which could homogenize activity measurements across surveys that use different lines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes short-term (≥15 min) variability in Hα, Hβ, Hγ, and Hδ equivalent widths for 77 M dwarfs, combining new OSMOS/ModSpec spectroscopy with TESS photometry. It presents new χ factors converting equivalent widths to Balmer luminosities, updates the Rvar–activity relation, quantifies intrinsic line variability via Eq. (2), reports flare behavior in three stars, phase-folds observations of TIC 283866910, and fits a RADYN model to a flare. The main conclusions are that the Rvar–activity relation is weak for all four Balmer lines, that higher-order Balmer lines show progressively larger intrinsic short-term variability, and that TIC 283866910 shows an anti-correlation between Hα emission and TESS flux consistent with dark spots.

Significance. If the intrinsic-variability gradient is real, it is a useful observational constraint on chromospheric heating and flare microphysics in M dwarfs, and the published χ factors plus equivalent-width time series will be a valuable community resource. The paper is careful in describing data reduction, provides machine-readable tables and software links, and makes the observational products reproducible. However, the central gradient currently rests on an unvalidated quadrature subtraction of measurement errors and on qualitative fringing cuts; the dark-spot interpretation for TIC 283866910 likewise depends on an assumed phase zero-point. These load-bearing points need additional support before the headline claims can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (2)] The central claim that higher-order Balmer lines are intrinsically more variable than Hα rests on subtracting σ_measurement^2 from σ_observed^2 in quadrature. The text itself notes, in the discussion of Figure 3, that the apparent variability 'also includes the impact of decreased signal-to-noise towards the bluer wavelengths,' and fringing is excluded only by a per-star visual cut. If the quoted EW uncertainties undercount continuum-placement errors, residual fringing, or flux-calibration systematics—which are not quantified anywhere in the paper—the inferred σ_intrinsic gradient could be an artifact. Because the sample shrinks from 61 stars for Hα to 16 for Hδ, the trend is also partially a statement about a changing subsample. I request robustness tests: (i) show that a systematic error floor added to σ_measurement does not erase the gradient; (ii) recompute the gradient on the subset of stars with all four lines measured; and (iii) quantify how σ_intrinsic changes when the Table 5 continuum regions are perturbed.
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (2) normalization] The denominator in Eq. (2) is the median EW, which is systematically smaller for Hγ and Hδ than for Hα. A fixed absolute systematic uncertainty in the EW therefore maps to a larger fractional σ_intrinsic for the higher-order lines even if the astrophysical variability is identical. This bias is separate from the completeness of σ_measurement. The paper should report absolute σ_intrinsic (in Å) alongside the fractional value, or demonstrate that the gradient survives when a constant absolute error of plausible size is added to all lines.
  3. [§5.4] The dark-spot conclusion for TIC 283866910 depends on the phase-folding zero-point 2458423.7150, which the authors state is an 'assumption' for the epoch used by Medina et al. (2022a). They also report that they were unable to reproduce the Medina et al. figure with that zero-point. A different zero-point can change the sign of the correlation between Hα EW and TESS flux, so the anti-correlation shown in Figure 9 is not yet robust. The authors' own new data yield F-test = 3 with p = 0.08, only marginal. I ask that the authors justify the zero-point from the data or demonstrate that the anti-correlation persists over a plausible range of zero-points.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says the intrinsic variability is 'calculated by Equation 5.2'; this cross-reference should be to Eq. (2).
  2. [§5.4 and Table 6] The text reports F-test = 33 for the re-analysis and F-test = 3 for the 2020 December data, but Table 6 lists F-test = 2.84 for the 2020 December row; the text and table should be reconciled.
  3. [Table 5] The line widths are described as visually selected for each star; please clarify whether the same integration windows are used for all epochs of a given star, since varying the window between epochs would inflate σ_observed independently of astrophysical variability.
  4. [§5.2] Please state how many stars were excluded by the fringing criterion for each Balmer line, so the reader can assess the impact of that qualitative cut on the reported sample sizes.
  5. [Table 1 heading] The table heading appears as 'T able 1.Parameters'; this formatting typo should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central results are derived from independent spectra and TESS photometry, with acknowledged systematics as uncertainty rather than constructed equivalence.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: EW values are measured directly from the spectra; Rvar is computed from TESS light curves; the χ-factor conversion in Eq. 1 is calibrated against PHOENIX model spectra and is not fit to the variability result. The amplitude-activity correlations in §5.1 are Spearman tests on independently measured luminosities and amplitudes, with no parameter adjusted to force the null result. Equation (2) in §5.2 defines σ_intrinsic as the quadrature excess of observed EW scatter over quoted measurement errors; this is a variance decomposition, not a prediction re-fit from the conclusion, and the paper explicitly flags that the blue-side excess 'also includes the impact of decreased signal-to-noise towards the bluer wavelengths' (Figure 3 discussion, §5.2). That is an unquantified systematic uncertainty, which could affect the claimed higher-order Balmer variability trend, but it is not a circular step. The paper also warns in §4.2.1 that 'systematic uncertainties likely dominate the error budget,' again an uncertainty caveat rather than a constructed equivalence. The RADYN analysis fits beam parameters to observed Hα/Hβ profiles, but the comparison of the predicted TESS-band peak luminosity (1.4±0.1×10^28 erg/s) to independent TESS observations (1.7±0.5×10^28 erg/s) is an external benchmark, not a re-statement of the fitted input. Self-citations (G23, Duvvuri et al. 2023, Núñez et al. 2024) supply methods or prior supporting context; the present variability trend is computed from the present data and does not reduce to those citations. No step equates a prediction to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing claim is forced by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper introduces no new physical entities and relies on standard empirical calibrations and model assumptions. The main free parameters are the RADYN covering fraction and human-chosen analysis thresholds, plus a phase-folding zero-point. These are disclosed and affect specific conclusions, but they do not secretly encode the central claims.

free parameters (4)
  • Flare covering fraction (RADYN fits) = 0.036 ± 0.002 (H-alpha-only, mF11-17-3); 0.024 ± 0.004 (m2F11-17-3); 0.009 ± 0.006 (H-beta-only, m2F11-37-3); 0.017 ±…
    Covering fraction is fitted to observed H-alpha and H-beta profiles with Monte Carlo maximum likelihood; the beam model grid provides the line shapes, but the area is a free parameter adjusted to match the data.
  • Line width regions for EW integration = Not specified; chosen visually per star
    The integration windows for each Balmer line are visually selected per star to account for emission wings; this hand choice directly affects EW and luminosity values (§4.3.1, Table 5).
  • Phase-folding zero-point for TIC 283866910 = 2458423.7150 (assumed)
    The time zero-point for phase folding is assumed from the prior work; the dark-spot inference depends on the resulting phase alignment (§5.4).
  • stella flare detection threshold = 0.5
    A threshold of 0.5 on stella's flare score is chosen to flag flares; changing it alters which white-light flares are identified and compared to Balmer-line behavior (§4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mann et al. (2015) empirical radius-mass and mass-magnitude relations are accurate for M dwarfs.
    Stellar radii, masses, and luminosities used to compute L/Lbol are derived from these empirical relations (§3).
  • domain assumption PHOENIX ACES model spectra correctly represent the continuum flux ratio used in the chi factor.
    The chi values are derived from PHOENIX templates following Douglas et al. (2014) and Núñez et al. (2024); errors are assigned as 10% (§4.3.2, Table 4).
  • domain assumption Measurement errors on EW are Gaussian and independent, so quadrature subtraction in Eq. 2 isolates intrinsic variability.
    The definition of sigma_intrinsic assumes that observed scatter and measurement noise add in quadrature; if the noise model is wrong, the trend across lines is spurious (§5.2).
  • domain assumption RADYN initial conditions (Teff about 3600 K, log g=4.75, 1e9 cm loop, 3e10 cm^-3 density) are representative of the flaring M dwarf.
    The forward-modeled spectra depend on these assumed atmospheric parameters; no fit is performed over them (§6).
  • ad hoc to paper The assumed phase-folding zero-point for TIC 283866910 reproduces the rotation phase used in Medina et al. (2022a).
    The paper states 'our assumption for the time zero-point used in that work'; the re-analysis that yields the strong F-test depends on this choice (§5.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short-Term Balmer Line Emission Variability in M Dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4PFIVHT

@misc{pith2026250202568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short-Term Balmer Line Emission Variability in M Dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4PFIVHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02568}
}
abstract

M Dwarfs make up the majority of stars, offering an avenue for discovering exoplanets due to their smaller sizes. However, their magnetic activity poses challenges for exoplanet detection, characterization, and planetary habitability. Understanding its magnetic activity, including surface starspots and internal dynamos, is crucial for exoplanet research. In this study, we present short-term variability in four Balmer emission lines \ha, \hb, \hg, and \hd\ for a sample of 77 M dwarfs of varying spectral types, and binarity. Stars were observed using the MDM Observatory's Ohio State Multi-Object Spectrograph on the 2.4m Telescope and the Modular Spectrograph on the 1.3 m Telescope. These data are combined with TESS photometry to explore the connection between spectroscopic and photometric variability. We observe sporadic short-term variability in Balmer lines for some stars, on timescale $\gtrsim$ 15-min, but much shorter than the stellar rotation period. We calculate periods for stars lacking those measurements, re-evaluated the relationship between amplitude (\rvar)-activity relation for the \ha \ line from \citet{garcia_soto_contemporaneous_2023}, and extended our analysis to the \hb, \hg \ and \hd \ lines, which indicates that the relation becomes increasingly dispersed for higher-order Balmer lines. This is consistent with increased intrinsic variability from lower to higher order lines. Additionally, we compute the Balmer decrement, using \hb \ as the fiducial, for stars where we could measure \hg \ and/or \hd. The Balmer decrement can show distinct patterns during white-light flares, with significant differences even for the same star. We also find evidence for dark spots on \object{TIC 283866910}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02568 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample spectrum of a star (TIC 268280825) with Hα, Hβ, Hγ and Hδ, emission lines. et al. 2014; Reiners et al. 2022) generally show the same relation to stellar rotation in both partially and fully convective M Dwarfs. The relations show two regions: one where activity decreases slightly as stellar rotation slows, and another where activity decreases more signif￾icantly with further slowing of rotation (e.g., Mamajek… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rvar versus the median LHα/Lbol, LHβ/Lbol,LHγ/Lbol and LHδ/Lbol. We applied the RUWE and CR criteria along with a M⋆ cut of 0.45 M⊙. To show the variability of the Balmer lines, instead of the error bars plotted for Balmer luminosity, we plot the range of luminosities (min to max) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra snippets for TIC 178947176 centered on each Balmer line. The black line represents the median spectrum for each Balmer line, and the shaded regions are the 16th and 84th percentile, indicating the variability of each spectral line. The error bars are the median measurement error of flux values at that wavelength. 5.1. No strong amplitude-activity relation in Balmer lines We maintain the same criteria as we d… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intrinsic variability of a subsample of stars with more than six spectra, as calculated by Equation 5.2. The colors represent the spectral type (M3-M5) and the shape of the markers represents different objects. An alternative visualization of the same data can be seen …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histogram showcasing the density of the sample plotted against the intrinsic variability in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data from three different observation nights (the three panels) for TIC 415508270. Within each panel, the top subpanel shows the TESS 20-second cadence light curve plotted against the time since the first spectroscopic observation. We bin the TESS data to match the cad…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: TESS 120-second sector 5 light curve (semi￾contemporaneous with Medina et al. (2022a) spectra; over￾laps with the last two data points instead of all ten). We do not see a similar result to the findings in that paper. Bottom: TESS 120-second light curve, sector 32…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Grid search results comparing 43 RADYN model fits to the Hα and Hβ lines during the peak of the largest flare in our sample, which was observed with OSMOS from TIC 415508270 on 2020-12-09 at 5:52 UT. The electron beams that give the lowest RSS fits the observed s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    0(N# l H 8T Mmyo^*CʦZb L5#Sr* <8S GgMPX_ʧ s #] )9W ``!)c7ε|uJYK E fm4S Gׄ5tZ!| 14 ,

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee

    Agol, E., Luger, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 2020

  5. [5]

    2016, in SF2A -2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics

    Allard, F. 2016, in SF2A -2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016sf2a.conf..223A

    2016

  6. [6]

    C., Hawley, S

    Allred, J. C., Hawley, S. L., Abbett, W. P., & Carlsson, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 644, 484, 10.1086/503314

    work page doi:10.1086/503314 2006

  7. [7]

    C., Kowalski, A

    Allred, J. C., Kowalski, A. F., & Carlsson, M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/104

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/104 2015

  8. [8]

    2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4613887

    Angus, R. 2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4613887

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.4613887 2021

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    2023, agarciasoto18/starrotate: Alternate Starrotate for Paper , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7697238

    Angus, R., & Garcia Soto, A. 2023, agarciasoto18/starrotate: Alternate Starrotate for Paper , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7697238

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 608, 554, 10.1086/392494

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, KeplerGO /lightkurve: Lightkurve v1.11.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3836658

    Barentsen, G., Hedges, C., Vinícius, Z., et al. 2020, KeplerGO /lightkurve: Lightkurve v1.11.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3836658

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Ribas, I., et al

    Baroch, D., Morales, J. C., Ribas, I., et al. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 653, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141031

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Batalha, N., et al

    Basri, G., Walkowicz, L. M., Batalha, N., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 713, L155, 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L155

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 20, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20

    ---. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 20, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Hilton, E

    Bell, K. J., Hilton, E. J., Davenport, J. R. A., et al. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 14, 10.1086/664024

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Burke, C

    Berta, Z. K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Burke, C. J., & Falco, E. E. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 145, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/145

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Newton, E

    Boudreaux, E. M., Newton, E. R., Mondrik, N., Charbonneau, D., & Irwin, J. 2022, Astrophys. J., 929, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5cbf

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Penn, M

    Canfield, R. C., Penn, M. J., Wulser, J.-P., & Kiplinger, A. L. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 363, 318, 10.1086/169345

    1990 doi

  15. [23]

    Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 397, L59, 10.1086/186544

    1992 doi

  16. [24]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 440, L29, 10.1086/187753

    ---. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 440, L29, 10.1086/187753

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 481, 500, 10.1086/304043

    ---. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 481, 500, 10.1086/304043

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 626, 10.1086/340293

    ---. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 626, 10.1086/340293

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Oran, E

    Cheng, C. C., Oran, E. S., Doschek, G. A., Boris, J. P., & Mariska, J. T. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 265, 1090, 10.1086/160751

    1983 doi

  20. [28]

    Collier Cameron, A., & Robinson, R. D. 1989, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 236, 57, 10.1093/mnras/236.1.57

    1989 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Mullan, D

    Cram, L. E., & Mullan, D. J. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 234, 579, 10.1086/157532

    1979 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246, II/246. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003yCat.2246....0C

    2003

  23. [31]

    Davenport, J. R. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 23, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/23

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 364, 217, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0010586

    Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Ségransan, D., et al. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 364, 217, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0010586

    2000 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Irwin, J

    Dittmann, J. A., Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D., & Berta-Thompson, Z. K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 156, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/156

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Cheng, C

    Doschek, G. A., Cheng, C. C., Oran, E. S., Boris, J. P., & Mariska, J. T. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 265, 1103, 10.1086/160752

    1983 doi

  27. [35]

    T., Agüeros, M

    Douglas, S. T., Agüeros, M. A., Covey, K. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 161, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/161

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Butler, C

    Doyle, J. G., Butler, C. J., Bryne, P. B., & van den Oord, G. H. J. 1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 193, 229. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...193..229D

    1988

  29. [37]

    M., Pineda, J

    Duvvuri, G. M., Pineda, J. S., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., France, K., & Youngblood, A. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 12, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b49

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, astropy/specutils: v0.6, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3450769

    Earl, N., Jones, C., Kerzendorf, W., et al. 2019, astropy/specutils: v0.6, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3450769

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2020 a , The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2347, 10.21105/joss.02347

    Feinstein, A., Montet, B., & Ansdell, M. 2020 a , The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2347, 10.21105/joss.02347

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Montet, B

    Feinstein, A. D., Montet, B. T., Ansdell, M., et al. 2020 b , The Astronomical Journal, 160, 219, 10.3847/1538-3881/abac0a

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1709.008

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1709.008. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ascl.soft09008F

    2017

  34. [42]

    2020 a , exoplanet-dev/exoplanet: exoplanet v0.3.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3785072

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Czekala, I., et al. 2020 a , exoplanet-dev/exoplanet: exoplanet v0.3.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3785072

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2020 b , dfm/celerite: celerite v0.4.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3934421

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Angus, R., et al. 2020 b , dfm/celerite: celerite v0.4.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3934421

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 1960, 10.1093/mnras/stx3246

    Fouqué, P., Moutou, C., Malo, L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 1960, 10.1093/mnras/stx3246

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Gaia Collaboration, G., Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Gaia Collaboration, G., Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Gaia Collaboration, G., Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220800211G

    2022

  41. [49]

    R., Douglas, S

    García Soto, A., Newton, E. R., Douglas, S. T., Burrows, A., & Kesseli, A. Y. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 192, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc2ba

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Africano, J

    Giampapa, M. S., Africano, J. L., Klimke, A., et al. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 252, L39, 10.1086/183715

    1982 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Reid, I

    Gizis, J. E., Reid, I. N., & Hawley, S. L. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 123, 3356, 10.1086/340465

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    2014, General- Scripts \_v1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10013

    Gullikson, K. 2014, General- Scripts \_v1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10013

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J. P., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 132, 2360, 10.1086/508233

    2006 doi

  46. [54]

    1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  47. [55]

    R., & Doyle, J

    Houdebine, E. R., & Doyle, J. G. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 289, 185. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...289..185H

    1994

  48. [56]

    S., Corbett, H., Law, N

    Howard, W. S., Corbett, H., Law, N. M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2767

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Kowalski, A

    Howard, W. S., Kowalski, A. F., Flagg, L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe75

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 553, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    D., Albelo-Corchado, M

    Kazachenko, M. D., Albelo-Corchado, M. F., Tamburri, C. A., & Welsch, B. T. 2022, Solar Physics, 297, 59, 10.1007/s11207-022-01987-6

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    Y., Muirhead, P

    Kesseli, A. Y., Muirhead, P. S., Mann, A. W., & Mace, G. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 225, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabccb

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    L., Ribas, I., Lammer, H., et al

    Khodachenko, M. L., Ribas, I., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 167, 10.1089/ast.2006.0127

    2007

  54. [62]

    F., Allred, J

    Kowalski, A. F., Allred, J. C., & Carlsson, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 969, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4148

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    F., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Holtzman, J. A., Wisniewski, J. P., & Hilton, E. J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, L98, 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L98

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    F., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    F., Allred, J

    Kowalski, A. F., Allred, J. C., Uitenbroek, H., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa603e

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Berger, E., Knapp, G

    Kruse, E. A., Berger, E., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 722, 1352, 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1352

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Srivastava, M

    Kumar, V., Rajpurohit, A. S., Srivastava, M. K., Fernández-Trincado, J. G., & Queiroz, A. B. A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10.1093/mnras/stad2222

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kulikov, Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185, 10.1089/ast.2006.0128

    2007

  61. [69]

    Lee, K.-G., Berger, E., & Knapp, G. R. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 1482, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1482

    2010 doi

  62. [70]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 898, 10.1093/mnras/stu1161

    Leitzinger, M., Odert, P., Greimel, R., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 898, 10.1093/mnras/stu1161

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1812.013. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ascl.soft12013L

    2018

  64. [72]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hernández, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Hernández, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Weinberger, A

    MacGregor, M. A., Weinberger, A. J., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14c

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    R., et al

    Magaudda, E., Stelzer, B., Covey, K. R., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 638, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937408

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    G., et al

    Mallonn, M., Herrero, E., Juvan, I. G., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 614, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732300

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    E., & Hillenbrand, L

    Mamajek, E. E., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 1264, 10.1086/591785

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & Braun, K. v. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    A., et al

    Martini, P., Stoll, R., Derwent, M. A., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 187, 10.1086/658357

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 1203, 10.1093/mnras/stt536

    McQuillan, A., Aigrain, S., & Mazeh, T. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 1203, 10.1093/mnras/stt536

    2013 doi

  74. [82]

    2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 539, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016148

    McQuillan, A., Aigrain, S., & Roberts, S. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 539, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016148

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Charbonneau, D., Winters, J

    Medina, A. A., Charbonneau, D., Winters, J. G., Irwin, J., & Mink, J. 2022 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 185, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5738

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Winters, J

    Medina, A. A., Winters, J. G., Irwin, J. M., & Charbonneau, D. 2022 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    Mekkaden, M. V. 1985, Astrophysics and Space Science, 117, 381, 10.1007/BF00650163

    1985 doi

  78. [86]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    F., Forveille, T., et al

    Morin, J., Donati, J. F., Forveille, T., et al. 2008, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 384, 77, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12709.x

    2008

  80. [88]

    W., Mutabazi, T., & Jurua, E

    Muheki, P., Guenther, E. W., Mutabazi, T., & Jurua, E. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 637, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936904

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 68, 10.1093/pasj/psaa051

    Namekata, K., Maehara, H., Sasaki, R., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 68, 10.1093/pasj/psaa051

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    1999, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:9911.002

    National Optical Astronomy Observatories . 1999, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:9911.002. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ascl.soft11002N

    1999

  83. [91]

    Neupert, W. M. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 153, L59, 10.1086/180220

    1968 doi

  84. [92]

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

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/85

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., & Dittmann, J. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, L19, 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L19

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 32, 10.1093/pasj/psv001

    Notsu, Y., Honda, S., Maehara, H., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 32, 10.1093/pasj/psv001

    2015 doi

  87. [95]

    A., Curtis, J

    Núñez, A., Agüeros, M. A., Curtis, J. L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad117e

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A guide to NumPy , Vol. 1 (Trelgol Publishing USA)

    2006

  89. [97]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 9, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  90. [98]

    1993, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 278, 179

    Peres, G., Ventura, R., Pagano, I., & Rodono, M. 1993, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 278, 179. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...278..179P

    1993

  91. [99]

    2024, Promise and Peril : Stellar Contamination and Strict Limits on the Atmosphere Composition of TRAPPIST -1c from JWST NIRISS Transmission Spectra , 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19333

    Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Taylor, J., et al. 2024, Promise and Peril : Stellar Contamination and Strict Limits on the Atmosphere Composition of TRAPPIST -1c from JWST NIRISS Transmission Spectra , 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19333

    2024 doi arXiv

  92. [100]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 538, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/538

    Reiners, A., Basri, G., & Browning, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 538, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/538

    2009 doi

  93. [101]

    A., et al

    Reiners, A., Zechmeister, M., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 612, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732054

    2018 doi

  94. [102]

    J., et al

    Reiners, A., Shulyak, D., Käpylä, P. J., et al. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 662, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243251

    2022 doi

  95. [103]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2015 doi

  96. [104]

    Rodono, M., Pucillo, M., Sedmak, G., & de Biase, G. A. 1979, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 76, 242. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A&A....76..242R

    1979

  97. [105]

    V., & Fonnesbeck, C

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e55, 10.7717/peerj-cs.55

    2016 doi

  98. [106]

    2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1207.011

    Science Software Branch at STScI . 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1207.011. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ascl.soft07011S

    2012

  99. [107]

    M., Meadows, V., Kasting, J., & Hawley, S

    Segura, A., Walkowicz, L. M., Meadows, V., Kasting, J., & Hawley, S. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751, 10.1089/ast.2009.0376

    2010

  100. [108]

    L., et al

    Shan, Y., Revilla, D., Skrzypinski, S. L., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 684, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346794

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 102, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  102. [110]

    1986, IN: Instrumentation in astronomy VI; Proceedings of the Meeting, Tucson, AZ, Mar

    Tody, D. 1986, IN: Instrumentation in astronomy VI; Proceedings of the Meeting, Tucson, AZ, Mar. 4-8, 1986. Part 2 (A87-36376 15-35). Bellingham, WA, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 1986, p. 733., 627, 733, 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  103. [111]

    1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, A.S.P

    ---. 1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, A.S.P. Conference Series, Vol. 52, 1993, R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, and Jeannette Barnes, eds., p. 173., 52, 173. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ASPC...52..173T

    1993

  104. [112]

    E., & Bergeron, P

    Tremblay, P. E., & Bergeron, P. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 1755, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1755

    2009 doi

  105. [113]

    2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5599854

    Vanderburg, A. 2021, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5599854

    2021 doi

  106. [114]

    Vaughan, A. H. 1980, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 92, 392, 10.1086/130684

    1980 doi

  107. [115]

    A., Gregory, S

    Vidotto, A. A., Gregory, S. G., Jardine, M., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stu728

    2014 doi

  108. [116]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  109. [117]

    M., & Hawley, S

    Walkowicz, L. M., & Hawley, S. L. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 3297, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3297

    2009 doi

  110. [118]

    M., Hawley, S

    Walkowicz, L. M., Hawley, S. L., & West, A. A. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 116, 1105, 10.1086/426792

    2004 doi

  111. [119]

    M., Johns-Krull, C

    Walkowicz, L. M., Johns-Krull, C. M., & Hawley, S. L. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 593, 10.1086/526421

    2008 doi

  112. [120]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 204, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9659

    Watanabe, K., Kitagawa, J., & Masuda, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 204, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9659

    2017 doi

  113. [121]

    A., & Hawley, S

    West, A. A., & Hawley, S. L. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 1161, 10.1086/593024

    2008 doi

  114. [122]

    A., Hawley, S

    West, A. A., Hawley, S. L., Walkowicz, L. M., et al. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 426, 10.1086/421364

    2004 doi

  115. [123]

    J., Froning, C

    Wilson, D. J., Froning, C. S., Duvvuri, G. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe771

    2021 doi

  116. [124]

    Woolley, R. V. D. R. 1936, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 96, 515, 10.1093/mnras/96.5.515

    1936 doi

  117. [125]

    J., Newton, E

    Wright, N. J., Newton, E. R., Williams, P. K. G., Drake, J. J., & Yadav, R. K. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2351, 10.1093/mnras/sty1670

    2018 doi

  118. [126]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 1295, 10.1093/pasj/psac069

    Yamashita, M., Itoh, Y., & Oasa, Y. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 1295, 10.1093/pasj/psac069

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.