Non-transiting exoplanets as a means of understanding star-planet interactions in close-in systems

A. Dyrek; A.F. Lanza; \^A.R.G. Santos; A. Strugarek; C. Gourv\`es; R.A. Garc\'ia; S. Mathur; S.N. Breton

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Non-transiting exoplanets as a means of understanding star-planet interactions in close-in systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper identifies 88 Kepler stars whose power spectra contain a sharp, stable, rotation-distinct periodicity consistent with a close non-transiting substellar companion, most with orbital periods under a day and located inside the…

desk verdict A useful candidate catalogue of 88 ultra-short-period non-transiting companions, but the unquantified stellar-activity false-positive rate keeps the dearth-zone claim at hypothesis level. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10135 v2 pith:X4AOMIZ2 submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

C. Gourvès , S.N. Breton , A. Dyrek , A.F. Lanza , R.A. García , S. Mathur , Â.R.G. Santos , A. Strugarek This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

keywords non-transitingexoplanetsclose-inplanetsstar-planetinteractionsphase-curvephotometryKeplerlightcurvesdearthzonetidaldissipationpowerspectraldensity

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

The paper reports a systematic search for close-in non-transiting substellar companions in 55,232 Kepler light curves of main-sequence and subgiant stars with measured surface rotation periods, targeting orbital periods below 2.3 days. After requiring a sharp, high-amplitude power-spectral peak distinct from the rotation period and its harmonics, checking against known binaries, transiting planets, false positives, and field contaminants, and verifying that the modulation is stable in phase-folded and wavelet analyses, the authors are left with 88 candidate hosts. More than half of the candidates (55) have periods under one day, a regime where transiting planets are rare. The paper argues that if confirmed, these systems would sit mostly inside the dearth zone in the rotation-period versus orbital-period plane, the region that tidal and magnetic star-planet interaction models predict to be depleted, and would thereby provide a population for calibrating those models.

What carries the argument

The carrying tool is a power-spectral-density peak search over calibrated light curves, in which a candidate is a sharp, high-amplitude peak at a frequency corresponding to a period below 2.3 days, distinct from the star's known rotation period and its broad harmonics. A statistical detection threshold suppresses noise peaks, visual inspection removes rotation-harmonic chains, and phase-folding plus wavelet analysis tests whether the modulation is coherent across the four-year observing baseline. For the surviving candidates, fits using the three physical phase-curve components (atmospheric reflection and emission, tidal ellipsoidal distortion, and Doppler boosting) convert the observed modulation amplitude into constraints on companion radius and mass. The dearth zone, the region where fast rotators are thought to have lost their close-in planets to tides and magnetic braking, is the interpretive target that gives the detected population its wider significance.

What would settle it

Run high-resolution radial-velocity monitoring of the 88 candidates at the predicted orbital periods and amplitudes; if a large fraction show no radial-velocity variation with the photometric period and phase, the peaks are not caused by companions. The fastest version is to start with the nine stars whose multi-component fits give self-inconsistent masses, such as the solution implying a roughly solar-mass object for one candidate; spectroscopy there can reject or confirm the companion model within a few nights.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 88 of 55,232 stars carry a detectable photometric signature consistent with a close non-transiting substellar companion, with orbital periods below 2.3 days and 55 of them below one day. After removing known binaries, transiting systems, false positives, and field contaminants, the authors fit the phase-folded light curves of 86 candidates: for 77 the modulation is quasi-sinusoidal and is modelled as reflected starlight plus thermal emission, while for nine the fit includes tidal ellipsoidal distortion and Doppler boosting. The paper then shows that, in the rotation-period versus orbital-period plane, the candidates fall mostly below the lower envelope of known close-in planets, that is, inside the dearth zone that tidal and magnetic interaction models predict to be depleted. The paper repeatedly stresses that the detections are candidates, not confirmed planets, and that ground-based radial-velocity follow-up is required.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any sharp, high-amplitude, stable peak in a star's brightness variations at a period different from the star's rotation period and its harmonics is caused by an orbiting companion, not by stellar activity, active longitudes, or an unseen neighbouring star.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If confirmed, the 88 candidates would substantially enlarge the known population of non-transiting short-period companions, which currently numbers only a handful of systems.
The 55 sub-day candidates give tidal and magnetic interaction models a concrete sample, because their short orbits imply fast orbital evolution and hence measurable decay or migration over years of monitoring.
The three candidates with a dominant second harmonic are systems where tidal ellipsoidal distortion outweighs the other phase-curve terms, making them the best targets for extracting companion masses from photometry alone.
The same peak-search and phase-curve method can be re-run on K2, TESS, and PLATO data, where brighter target stars will make ground-based radial-velocity confirmation more efficient.

Reading between the lines

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

If even a fraction of the candidates survive radial-velocity follow-up, the dearth zone would look less empty than the transiting-planet record suggests; the depletion may be partly an inclination and detection-geometry effect of the transit method rather than a purely dynamical one.
The wavelet-stability cut assumes a companion signal is coherent for all four years of Kepler; a genuine companion whose phase-curve amplitude is modulated by magnetic activity could be rejected by that cut. Injecting synthetic non-transiting signals into real Kepler light curves and re-running the pipeline would quantify how often this happens.
Because non-transiting geometry bounds the orbital inclination from above, the photometric fits can be combined with radial-velocity masses to test the assumed albedo and heat-recirculation behaviour: any systematic inconsistency would point to missing physics in the phase-curve model.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Candidate catalogue with real value, but the false-positive rate is the open wound.

The paper has one clear product: a vetted list of 88 non-transiting companion candidates with orbital periods below 2.3 days, 55 below one day, none overlapping with Millholland & Laughlin. That is a meaningful extension of the phase-curve search into the ultra-short-period regime, and it gives the tidal and magnetic star-planet interaction community a set of targets worth follow-up.

The search design is mostly sound. Using the Santos rotation catalogue to remove rotation harmonics is the right first cut, and the contamination checks against KOI, Gaia, and 2MASS are thorough. The authors also deserve credit for transparency: they explicitly flag the empirical nature of their PSD threshold, they exclude stars with non-convergent fits, and they report the embarrassing 1.3 solar-mass 'companion' for KIC 5697777 and inconsistent inclinations for three other systems rather than hiding them. That honesty makes the catalogue more credible. The citation pattern is also reasonable - the rotation catalogue is the natural resource, and the G23 model is the thing under test.

The soft spot is real and is the difference between a candidate list and a population statement. The Section 2.1 detection threshold is calibrated on a pure noise chi-square null, not on stellar activity. Active longitudes and spot groups in fast rotators can produce sharp, coherent PSD peaks at periods distinct from the catalogued rotation period, and the visual checks in Section 2.3 are filters, not a statistical control. Three candidates in Appendix D are kept even though their periods are rotation harmonics, on the strength of morphology. No injection-recovery test or activity-only control sample is presented, so the false-positive rate among the 88 is unquantified. If a substantial fraction are activity artifacts, the dearth-zone concentration in Section 4 becomes a contamination story rather than an interaction story. The authors themselves remind us that the method favors short periods, so part of the dearth-zone clustering is selection.

None of this kills the paper. The candidates are openly labeled as candidates, and the fitting failures are acknowledged. What it means is that the central population claim should be treated as a hypothesis, not a result, until the null is addressed.

The paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review but require the authors to add an injection-recovery test or an equivalent activity-control analysis, and to soften the dearth-zone language if the correction is not applied. It is a useful paper for the star-planet interaction community and for anyone building follow-up target lists.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper searches 55,232 Kepler FGKM main-sequence and subgiant stars from the Santos et al. (2019, 2021) rotation catalogues for photometric phase-curve signatures of close-in non-transiting substellar companions. The detection pipeline computes the power spectral density of each light curve, applies an empirically chosen high-amplitude peak threshold (s_det/s_bar ≈ 260), removes candidate peaks that coincide with the stellar rotation period or its harmonics unless the morphology is judged clearly distinct, cross-matches against binary and false-positive catalogues, and performs phase-folding, wavelet, Gaia, and 2MASS visual checks. The final list contains 88 candidates with orbital periods below 2.3 days, 55 of which have P_orb < 1 day. The paper then fits sinusoidal or three-component phase-curve models to 86 of these candidates, derives companion radius/mass constraints for some of them, and places the 88 systems in the P_rot versus P_orb plane, concluding that they lie mostly inside the McQuillan et al. (2013) dearth zone. The authors repeatedly and appropriately use the term 'candidates' and explicitly condition the dearth-zone statement on confirmation.

Significance. If the candidate sample is acceptably pure, the paper would provide a substantial new set of very short-period non-transiting companion candidates that transit searches systematically miss, and it would strengthen the empirical case that such systems populate the dearth zone predicted by tidal and magnetic star-planet interaction models. The work is valuable as a survey plus candidate catalogue: the pipeline is clearly described, the starting sample is large and public, the catalogue cross-matches are documented, and the phase-curve fitting uses Bayesian posterior sampling with reported uncertainties. The paper is also transparent about some model limitations, notably the inconsistent physical parameters obtained for several three-component fits. However, the central population claim rests on the assumption that the sharp coherent PSD peaks are produced by orbiting companions rather than by stellar activity, and the current manuscript does not quantify that false-positive rate, so the significance of the dearth-zone conclusion is not yet established.

major comments (4)

[§2.1] The detection threshold s_det/s_bar ≈ 260 is calibrated against a pure-noise chi-squared two-degrees-of-freedom null (Woodard 1984; Appourchaux et al. 2000) after 'some empirical tests.' The relevant null for this search is not white noise but the stellar-activity signal: coherent active longitudes and persistent spot groups can produce sharp, high-amplitude, quasi-coherent PSD peaks at periods distinct from the catalogued rotation period and its harmonics, especially among the fast rotators that dominate the final sample. The absence of an injection-recovery test or an activity-control sample means that the paper does not currently quantify the false-positive rate of the 88-candidate list. This is load-bearing because the dearth-zone population statement in §4 would be biased if a substantial fraction of the candidates are activity artefacts. Please add quantitative false-positive and recovery metrics, for example by injecting synthetic companions into real Kepler light curves of inactive stars and by comparing candidate rates as a function of rotation period or activity level.
[§2.3 and Appendix D] Several selection steps are subjective and are not given quantitative criteria: peaks within the rotation harmonic pattern are retained when they show a 'clearly distinct morphology,' and the phase-folding, wavelet-stability, and 2MASS-halo judgements are made by visual inspection. Appendix D explicitly keeps three candidates whose P_orb equals a rotation harmonic based on a stability assessment. These choices may be appropriate, but they currently lack reproducibility metrics. Please provide either a scoring rule with thresholds or an inter-rater/audit table, and quantify how many candidates at each stage (4,788 → 362 → 283 → 245 → 153 → 142 → 88) were removed by each visual criterion. Since a stricter rotation-harmonic veto would remove three of the final candidates, this directly affects the dearth-zone comparison.
[§3 and Table B.2] The three-component phase-curve fits do not provide independent confirmation of the companion interpretation. For KIC 5697777 the inferred companion mass is about 1.3 M_sun, which is manifestly inconsistent with a substellar companion, and for KIC 4373708, KIC 11702835, and KIC 5622796 the inferred inclination values are inconsistent. The manuscript attributes these results to model breakdown, but this means the §3 'constraints' cannot be used as supporting evidence for the candidate nature of these systems. Please state more prominently that the candidate status rests on the PSD and photometric-morphology selection alone until radial-velocity or other follow-up is available, and consider removing or clearly flagging the systems whose fitted parameters are unphysical.
[§4 and Fig. 5] The comparison with the McQuillan et al. (2013) dearth envelope is not corrected for the survey selection function. The search is restricted to frequencies above 5 µHz and the method strongly favours very short orbital periods, so the clustering of candidates at P_orb < 1 day and below the M13 lower envelope is partly a selection effect. The paper acknowledges this qualitatively, but the claim that the candidates 'populate a previously deserted area' requires a detection-completeness map: the recovery fraction as a function of P_orb, P_rot, and signal amplitude. Without such a map, the dearth-zone statement cannot be separated from the sensitivity of the search method.

minor comments (5)

[§2.1] There is a typo in the threshold sentence: 'we decided to consider as det/s value' should read 'we decided to consider a s_det/s value of approximately 260,' and 'Nyquist frequence' should be 'Nyquist frequency.'
[Appendix A.3] The target name is inconsistent: the text begins by discussing KIC 2852669 but concludes that KIC 3233612 was excluded, and the figure caption refers to KIC 3233612. Please correct the identifiers.
[§3] The statement that for all 86 datasets 'the posterior distribution of each parameter as well as the residuals of the fit follow a normal distribution' is too strong given the reported asymmetric credible intervals and the mild asymmetries visible in Figures B.1 and B.2; please rephrase to 'are unimodal and show no strong systematic residuals' or provide a normality test.
[Data availability] The heading 'Data avaibility' contains a typo, and Table A.1 uses 'correponding' for 'corresponding.'
[Throughout] The package name UltraNest appears as 'theUltraNestsampler' with missing spaces, and the software versions used for the pipeline are not listed; please add the version numbers or a software environment statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; self-citations are ancillary and the central candidate search and dearth-zone comparison rest on external data and benchmarks.

full rationale

The candidate search is an empirical PSD peak search: a statistical threshold (s_det/s~ ~260, p_det=1e-100) selects peaks above 5 microHz, then rotation harmonics are excluded using the Santos et al. (2019, 2021) rotation catalogue, and contamination is checked against the NASA Exoplanet Archive, Berger et al. (2018), Gaia DR3, 2MASS, and visual phase-fold/wavelet inspection. The phase-curve fit in Sect. 3 uses standard Shporer (2017) and Millholland & Laughlin (2017) equations and does not feed back into the selection; it is a post-detection characterisation, not a predicted quantity derived from the fitted parameters. The dearth-zone statement compares the final 88 candidates with the external McQuillan et al. (2013) lower envelope; the paper explicitly acknowledges that the search is biased toward short orbital periods and that longer-period candidates would populate the region above the envelope, so the concentration below the envelope is not presented as an unbiased prediction. Self-citations appear (Santos rotation catalogue, G23 dearth model, star-privateer software) but none of them assumes the 88-candidate result or the dearth-zone finding; they provide inputs, context, or tools. The unquantified stellar-activity null is a potential false-positive risk but not a circularity: it concerns the validity of the noise model, not an equation-level reduction. Thus no step reduces by construction to its own input. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations, not a circular derivation.

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

The central claim rests on a detection threshold tuned empirically, per-candidate fitted periods and amplitudes, and a set of domain assumptions about stellar rotation, binary synchronization, circular orbits, and the phase-curve model. No new physical entities are introduced; the candidates are proposed observational detections requiring confirmation.

free parameters (5)

PSD detection threshold ratio s_det/s = about 260
Chosen after empirical tests to remove rotation harmonics while keeping candidate peaks; not derived from a specified false-positive rate for the full pipeline (Section 2.1).
Orbital period P_orb (Gaussian fit to PSD peak) = per-candidate values in Table C.1
Inferred for each candidate by fitting the PSD peak with a Gaussian using pymc; the central detection depends on these periods.
Phase-curve amplitudes A0, A_atm, A_ellip, A_boost and epoch T0 = per-candidate values in Tables B.1 and B.2
Bayesian fits to the phase-folded light curves used to derive companion mass and radius constraints (Section 3).
alpha_ellip and alpha_boost effective temperature coefficients = alpha_ellip = -2.2e-4 T_eff + 2.6; alpha_boost = -6e-4 T_eff + 7.2
Adopted from Millholland & Laughlin (2017), Eq. (7), not fitted here; enter the mass estimates.
alpha_refl (albedo and recirculation combination) = not independently determined; only alpha_refl sin i (Rp/RJ)^2 reported
Appears in Eq. (3); degenerate with inclination and radius, so only a product is constrained.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Kepler KEPSEISMIC light curve, filtered at 20 days, contains the phase-curve modulation of any close-in non-transiting companion as described by the Shporer (2017) model.
Used throughout Section 2.1 and Fig. 1 to motivate searching for PSD peaks.
domain assumption For main-sequence solar-type stars with a measured rotation period, no coherent stellar signal above 5 microHz exists except rotation and its harmonics.
Invoked in Section 2.1 with reference to García & Ballot (2019); if false, stellar activity can mimic companion peaks.
domain assumption Low-inclination stellar binaries are tidally synchronized, so a signal at a period distinct from P_rot is not a binary.
Used in Section 2.1 to exclude binaries, following Zahn (1975); non-synchronized binaries would violate this.
domain assumption Candidate companions are on circular orbits.
Used in Section 3 for the maximum inclination condition (Eq. 9) and for the mass/inclination estimates; eccentric orbits change the phase-curve shape and amplitudes.
domain assumption Equilibrium-tide response of the star and a simple atmospheric emission/reflection model are sufficient for the fits.
Stated as a caveat in Section 3; dynamic tides and more complex atmospheres could change derived amplitudes.
standard math The statistical PSD threshold formula of Appourchaux et al. (2000) applies to these Kepler light curves.
Used in Section 2.1 to compute the detection threshold; assumes chi-squared with two degrees of freedom for the PSD noise.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-transiting exoplanets as a means of understanding star-planet interactions in close-in systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4AOMIZ2

@misc{pith2026250510135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-transiting exoplanets as a means of understanding star-planet interactions in close-in systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4AOMIZ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10135}
}

read the original abstract

Previous studies showed evidence of a dearth of close-in exoplanets around fast rotators, which can be explained by the combined action of intense tidal and magnetic interactions between planets and their host star. Detecting more exoplanets experiencing such interactions, with orbits evolving on short timescales, is therefore crucial to improve our understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms. For this purpose, we performed a new search for close-in non-transiting substellar companions in the Kepler data, focusing on orbital periods below 2.3 days. We focused on main-sequence solar-type stars and subgiant stars for which a surface rotation period was measured. For each star, we looked for an excess in the power spectral density of the light curve, which could correspond to the signature of a close-in non-transiting companion. We compared our candidates with existing catalogues to eliminate potential contaminants in our sample, and we visually inspected the phase-folded light curve and its wavelet decomposition. We identify 88 stars exhibiting a signature consistent with the presence of a close non-transiting substellar companion. We show that the objects in our sample are located mostly within the dearth zone, emphasising the importance of performing follow-up of such systems in order to gather observational evidence of star-planet interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10135 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Simulated contributions of the three modulations to the phasecurve amplitude according to the phase angle. The modulation linked to atmospheric processes is shown in black and includes reflection and emission modulations. The ellipsoidal distortion is shown in purple, while the Doppler boosting is in orange. The overall contribution is shown by the composite phase-curve in yellow. Here, an eclipse would occur at th… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Flux analysis of KIC 5697777. (a) Light curve calibrated according to the KEPSEISMIC method and filtered at 20 days. (b) Power spectral density of the light curve. The rotation period of the star is taken from Santos et al. (2021) and is located within the orange area. The green area shows the high-amplitude signal peak at around 0.5 days. The second high-amplitude signal peak located at around 0.25 days is the sec… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Phase-folded light curve of KIC 4264634, together with the bestfit model in orange. The red points correspond to data binned in 1-day intervals. The scatter of the residuals is higher due to a larger dispersion of the data points but remains free of large systematic trends as well. The full results of the fits are displayed in Tables B.1 and B.2. For all 86 datasets, the posterior distribution of each parameter as … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Phase-folded light curve of KIC 4930913, together with the bestfit model in orange. The red points correspond to data binned in 1-day intervals. The residuals show the difference between the model and the data points and are free of large systematic trends. At this st…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Prot as a function of Porb for the 88 non-transiting-exoplanet candidate systems. The size of the dots is a function of the Kepler apparent magnitude of the host star, sourced from Brown et al. (2011), whereas the temperature Teff, sourced from Berger et al. (2020), i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

S., & Mathis , S

Ahuir , J., Strugarek , A., Brun , A. S., & Mathis , S. 2021, , 650, A126

work page 2021
[2]

L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al

Akeson , R. L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al. 2013, , 125, 989

2013
[3]

2000, , 538, 401

Appourchaux , T., Fr \"o hlich , C., Andersen , B., et al. 2000, , 538, 401

work page 2000
[4]

M., Lim , P

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167

2022
[5]

J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V

Barker , A. J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V. V., & Veras , D. 2024, , 527, 5131

work page 2024
[6]

S., Le Poncin-Lafitte , C., & Mathis , S

Benbakoura , M., R \'e ville , V., Brun , A. S., Le Poncin-Lafitte , C., & Mathis , S. 2019, , 621, A124

work page 2019
[7]

A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J

Berger , T. A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J. L. 2018, , 866, 99

2018
[8]

A., Huber , D., van Saders , J

Berger , T. A., Huber , D., van Saders , J. L., et al. 2020, , 159, 280

2020

Show all 62 references

[9]

J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al

Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

2010
[10]

N., Garc \' a , R

Breton , S. N., Garc \' a , R. A., Ballot , J., Delsanti , V., & Salabert , D. 2022, , 663, A118

2022
[11]

N., Lanza , A

Breton , S. N., Lanza , A. F., Messina , S., et al. 2024, , 689, A229

2024
[12]

M., Latham , D

Brown , T. M., Latham , D. W., Everett , M. E., & Esquerdo , G. A. 2011, , 142, 112

2011
[13]

2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

Buchner , J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

2021
[14]

& Jardine , M

Collier Cameron , A. & Jardine , M. 2018, , 476, 2542

2018
[15]

Cullen , C. J. & Bayliss , D. 2024, , 531, 1133

2024
[16]

J., De Mooij, E

Esteves, L. J., De Mooij, E. J. W., & Jayawardhana, R. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 51

2013
[17]

2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

2016
[18]

J., Dawson, R

Fortney, J. J., Dawson, R. I., & Komacek, T. D. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2020JE006629, \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2020JE006629

2021 doi
[19]

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

2023
[20]

Garc \' a , R. A. & Ballot , J. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 4

2019
[21]

A., Gourv \`e s , C., Santos , \^A

Garc \' a , R. A., Gourv \`e s , C., Santos , \^A . R. G., et al. 2023, , 679, L12

2023
[22]

A., Hekker , S., Stello , D., et al

Garc \' a , R. A., Hekker , S., Stello , D., et al. 2011, , 414, L6

2011
[23]

A., Mathur , S., Pires , S., et al

Garc \' a , R. A., Mathur , S., Pires , S., et al. 2014, , 568, A10

2014
[24]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

2020
[25]

B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al

Howell , S. B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al. 2014, , 126, 398

2014
[26]

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

2007
[27]

1980, , 92, 167

Hut , P. 1980, , 92, 167

1980
[28]

2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 966

Kjeldsen , H., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., Handberg , R., et al. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 966

2010
[29]

2021, , 654, A9

Lillo-Box , J., Millholland , S., & Laughlin , G. 2021, , 654, A9

2021
[30]

Liu, Y., San Liang, X., & Weisberg, R. H. 2007, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 24, 2093

2007
[31]

2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed

Mathis , S. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte , 24

2018
[32]

M., et al

Mathur , S., Huber , D., Batalha , N. M., et al. 2017, , 229, 30

2017
[33]

& Queloz , D

Mayor , M. & Queloz , D. 1995, , 378, 355

1995
[34]

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

2008
[35]

2013, , 775, L11

McQuillan , A., Mazeh , T., & Aigrain , S. 2013, , 775, L11

2013
[36]

S., de Oliveira , L

Messias , Y. S., de Oliveira , L. L. A., Gomes , R. L., et al. 2022, , 930, L23

2022
[37]

& Laughlin , G

Millholland , S. & Laughlin , G. 2017, , 154, 83

2017
[38]

M., et al

Montalto , M., Piotto , G., Marrese , P. M., et al. 2021, , 653, A98

2021
[39]

D., Bryson , S

Morton , T. D., Bryson , S. T., Coughlin , J. L., et al. 2016, , 822, 86

2016
[40]

N., Brun , A

Noraz , Q., Breton , S. N., Brun , A. S., et al. 2022,

2022
[41]

2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas

pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas

2020
[42]

C., Winn , J

Patra , K. C., Winn , J. N., Holman , M. J., et al. 2017, , 154, 4

2017
[43]

& Sandford , E

Penoyre , Z. & Sandford , E. 2019, , 488, 4181

2019
[44]

A., et al

Pires , S., Mathur , S., Garc \' a , R. A., et al. 2015, , 574, A18

2015
[45]

2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 7: Non-single stars

Pourbaix , D., Arenou , F., Gavras , P., et al. 2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 7: Non-single stars

2022
[46]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

2024 arXiv
[47]

R., Winn , J

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

2015
[48]

Santos , \^A . R. G., Breton , S. N., Mathur , S., & Garc \' a , R. A. 2021, , 255, 17

2021
[49]

Santos , \^A . R. G., Garc \' a , R. A., Mathur , S., et al. 2019, , 244, 21

2019
[50]

2010, Exoplanet atmospheres: physical processes, Princeton series in astrophysics (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press), oCLC: ocn466343197

Seager, S. 2010, Exoplanet atmospheres: physical processes, Princeton series in astrophysics (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press), oCLC: ocn466343197

2010
[51]

2017, , 129, 072001

Shporer , A. 2017, , 129, 072001

2017
[52]

F., Cutri , R

Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

2006
[53]

2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed

Strugarek , A. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte , 25

2018
[54]

& Compo , G

Torrence , C. & Compo , G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61

1998
[55]

R., Rowe , J

Torres , G., Kane , S. R., Rowe , J. F., et al. 2017, , 154, 264

2017
[56]

E., et al

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

2020
[57]

2023, pymc-devs/pymc: v5.4.0

Wiecki, T., Salvatier, J., Vieira, R., et al. 2023, pymc-devs/pymc: v5.4.0

2023
[58]

Winn, J. N. 2014, Transits and Occultations , arXiv:1001.2010 [astro-ph]

2014 arXiv
[59]

Woodard , M. F. 1984, PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego

1984
[60]

Zahn , J. P. 1975, , 41, 329

1975
[61]

, " * 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...
[62]

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 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S., & Mathis , S

Ahuir , J., Strugarek , A., Brun , A. S., & Mathis , S. 2021, , 650, A126

work page 2021

[2] [2]

L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al

Akeson , R. L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al. 2013, , 125, 989

2013

[3] [3]

2000, , 538, 401

Appourchaux , T., Fr \"o hlich , C., Andersen , B., et al. 2000, , 538, 401

work page 2000

[4] [4]

M., Lim , P

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167

2022

[5] [5]

J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V

Barker , A. J., Efroimsky , M., Makarov , V. V., & Veras , D. 2024, , 527, 5131

work page 2024

[6] [6]

S., Le Poncin-Lafitte , C., & Mathis , S

Benbakoura , M., R \'e ville , V., Brun , A. S., Le Poncin-Lafitte , C., & Mathis , S. 2019, , 621, A124

work page 2019

[7] [7]

A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J

Berger , T. A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J. L. 2018, , 866, 99

2018

[8] [8]

A., Huber , D., van Saders , J

Berger , T. A., Huber , D., van Saders , J. L., et al. 2020, , 159, 280

2020