Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Measuring Long Stellar Rotation Periods (>10 days) from TESS FFI Light Curves is Possible: An Investigation Using TESS and ZTF

T0 review · 3 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 TESS can recover stellar rotation periods longer than the 27-day sector length from full-frame image light curves, matching ground-truth ZTF periods for 66% of a 272-star sample.

desk verdict The threshold-free 66% recovery rate is the real result; the 81% with a power cut is tuned in-sample and should be read as optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10376 v1 pith:7A6OCQC7 submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Soichiro Hattori , Ruth Angus , Daniel Foreman-Mackey , Yuxi (Lucy) Lu , Isabel Colman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords stellarrotationTESSZTFLomb-ScargleperiodogramcontinuousviewingzoneMdwarfsKFFIlightcurves
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 argues that TESS full-frame image light curves can yield reliable stellar rotation periods longer than 10 days—even beyond the 27-day span of a single TESS sector—for K and M dwarfs in the northern continuous viewing zone. Using six years of ZTF r-band photometry as a reference set of 272 slow rotators, the authors report that 179 of 272 TESS periods (66%) agree with ZTF to within 10%, and that restricting to sources with TESS Lomb-Scargle power above 0.02 raises the agreement to 81% (137 of 170). If correct, the result opens TESS's all-sky coverage to the study of slow rotators, the stars most relevant to gyrochronology and magnetic-activity relations.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is an offset-corrected Lomb-Scargle periodogram: the standard sinusoidal design matrix is augmented with one boxcar column per TESS sector, so the flux offset in each sector is fitted at the same time as the sinusoid rather than subtracted in advance. This removes the artificial boundary jumps that would otherwise suppress signals longer than a sector. The other half of the machinery is the unpopular de-trending step, an L2-regularized linear regression that models each target pixel's systematics using flux from distant pixels in the same FFI cutout, chosen to retain astrophysical variability while removing scattered-light trends.

What would settle it

A reader could settle this by injecting synthetic sinusoids with known periods between 15 and 60 days into real TESS FFI cutouts from the northern continuous viewing zone, adding realistic scattered-light systematics, and running the same de-trending and offset-corrected period search; if most injected periods beyond 27 days are not recovered within 10%, the central claim would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that slow stellar rotation is recoverable from TESS prime-mission FFI light curves once each sector is de-trended with the unpopular pipeline and the period search fits per-sector flux offsets jointly with a sinusoid. On a reference sample of 272 K and M dwarfs with ZTF periods longer than 10 days, the TESS period matches the ZTF period within 10% for 66% of the sample. About 43 of the 93 non-matches are TESS periods at half the ZTF value, a known Lomb-Scargle harmonic failure; if those are counted as matches the upper-limit agreement is 82%. Applying a TESS Lomb-Scargle maximum-power threshold of 0.02 leaves 170 sources, of which 137 (81%) match, and examples such as TIC 165552443 show recovery of a ~50-day period, almost twice the sector length.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison treats the ZTF r-band periods as the true rotation periods, so if many of those reference periods are harmonics, aliases, or non-rotation signals, the reported match rates would not measure how well TESS recovers real rotation periods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TESS continuous-viewing-zone data can support systematic searches for slow rotators instead of being limited to periods under the 13.7-day orbital timescale.
  • Catalog users can apply a Lomb-Scargle power threshold around 0.02 to trade sample size for period fidelity, roughly 81% ZTF agreement versus 66%.
  • Periods up to at least 50 days, nearly double a 27-day sector, are measurable, as illustrated by the ~49-day recovery for TIC 165552443.
  • Many apparent failures are harmonic aliases rather than wrong detections, so counting 1:2 matches raises the upper-limit agreement to 82% (94% after the power cut).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper itself presents a source where TESS's shorter period is likely correct and ZTF's longer period is wrong, the true TESS recovery rate for slow rotators may be higher than 66%.
  • The sector-offset design-matrix trick is a general device: any multi-epoch photometric survey with per-epoch flux offsets could adopt the same simultaneous-fit periodogram for long-period searches.
  • A shape-aware or harmonic-aware prior could rescue many of the 1:2 mismatches without a power cut, since those cases retain genuine periodicity at the fundamental frequency.
  • If the power threshold selects against incompletely removed systematics, de-trending hyperparameter choices will directly control catalog completeness at long periods, a testable prediction for the upcoming catalog.
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 asks whether TESS prime-mission FFI light curves in the northern continuous viewing zone can yield reliable stellar rotation periods longer than 10 days, including periods beyond the 27-day sector length. The authors select 272 K and M dwarfs with ZTF r-band periods longer than 10 days from six years of ZTF data, de-trend TESS Cycle 2 FFI cutouts with the unpopular pipeline, and search with a modified Lomb-Scargle periodogram that includes per-sector offset terms. They report that 179/272 (66%) of TESS periods match ZTF periods within 10%, rising to 137/170 (81%) after applying a TESS Lomb-Scargle power threshold of 0.02, and they present individual worked examples including a ~50-day match. The conclusion is that long rotation periods can be measured from TESS FFI light curves.

Significance. If the result holds, it is practically important: TESS all-sky data would substantially expand the sample of slow rotators useful for gyrochronology and stellar activity studies. The paper's strengths are its transparent methodology, a machine-readable table of the 272 stars and their periods, the offset-corrected periodogram formulation with a toy demonstration, and explicit discussion of failure modes such as 1:2 harmonics and the window-function alias. The core feasibility claim is supported by the threshold-free 66% recovery rate and by the worked examples, even though the 81% headline is inflated by in-sample threshold selection and the ZTF "ground truth" is not independently verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figures 9 and 10] The power threshold of 0.02 is selected by scanning thresholds from 0.0 to 0.3 in steps of 0.01 on the same 272-star sample with the explicit objective of increasing the match rate; consequently, the 81% (137/170) figure is an in-sample optimization result, not an unbiased estimate of the reliability of a power>=0.02 cut for new targets. This is load-bearing because the abstract presents the 81% as the paper's headline reliability claim. Please validate the threshold with cross-validation or an independent sample, and either report the threshold-free rates (66%, or 82% when 1:2 harmonics are counted) as the primary claims or clearly label the 81% as exploratory.
  2. [Sections 2.4 and 4] The validation treats ZTF r-band periods as the ground truth, but no independent verification of those periods is provided, and Section 4 itself states that "it is difficult to identify the conditions under which ZTF periods are erroneously wrong" and shows a case (TIC 353875094) where the TESS period is likely correct and the ZTF period is not. If a substantial fraction of the 272 ZTF periods are harmonics or aliases, the reported match rates measure mutual consistency rather than TESS period accuracy. Please quantify this risk, for example by examining the 32 g-band mismatches, cross-matching against literature periods or activity benchmarks, and showing that the main conclusions are robust to removing or reclassifying such sources.
  3. [Section 5 and Abstract] The paper's own limitation statement in Section 5 says the match rates should not be interpreted as the fraction of sources with reliable TESS periods, but rather as the fraction recovered for sources with relatively strong periodic signals. Since the abstract presents 66% and 81% without this caveat, the paper risks overgeneralizing the rates to the general TESS sample; please move this qualification into the abstract and the discussion of Figures 6 and 10.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The column labeled "dec dr3" is described as "Gaia DR2 Declination" in the table notes; this appears to be a typo and should read "Gaia DR3 Declination."
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 5 text] The paragraph preceding Figure 5 contains a garbled sentence that introduces TIC 320504531 and then continues "for TIC 198459831, the same source presented above"; please clarify which source is actually shown in Figure 5.
  3. [Section 4, Figures 6 and 10] Match rates are reported without binomial uncertainties; for example, 179/272 = 65.8% with a 1-sigma binomial uncertainty of about 2.9%. Adding confidence intervals would help readers compare the rates quantitatively.
  4. [Section 2.4] The sentence about g-band consistency reports 240 matching sources and 32 mismatches, of which 5 had no downloadable g-band light curves; please clarify whether those 5 are included among the 32 mismatches or counted separately.
  5. [Section 1] The phrase "sources with a with maximum TESS Lomb-Scargle power" contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the 81% match rate is reported at a TESS power threshold selected by scanning the same sample to maximize the match rate; the core 66% feasibility claim against ZTF is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (power-threshold scan), Figures 9-10; abstract 81% claim]
    "At each power threshold, where we started from 0 and increased in increments of 0.01 until we reached 0.3, we removed the sources where the TESS LS max power was smaller than the threshold value from the sample... The objective we are pursuing with this power threshold is to increase the match rate... Therefore, we would like to use the smallest power threshold while increasing the match-rate. This TESS power threshold turns out to be power=0.02, where out of the 170 sources left in our sample 137 of them having matching periods (81%)."

    The threshold is chosen by scanning the same 272-star benchmark sample and selecting the cut that increases the match rate; the reported 81% (137/170) is the in-sample match rate at the optimized threshold, not an out-of-sample prediction of what power>=0.02 would yield on new TESS light curves. The abstract presents the 81% as a general match-rate increase without noting that the threshold was selected to produce it, so this particular headline number is partly forced by the selection rule rather than independently measured. The threshold-free 66% (179/272) match rate is unaffected, so the main feasibility claim remains externally anchored to ZTF.

full rationale

No self-definitional or self-citation chain forces the TESS periods to equal the ZTF periods: the TESS periods come from an independent offset-corrected Lomb-Scargle search on unpopular-de-trended FFI data, and the ZTF 'ground truth' is an explicit assumption, not a fitting target. The unpopular self-citation is a methodological citation for de-trending software, not a load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz argument. The paper also candidly warns that the match rates apply to relatively strong ZTF-selected signals and should not be over-interpreted. The only mild circularity is the in-sample optimization of the TESS LS power threshold that produces the headline 81% figure: the threshold was scanned on the same 272-star sample to maximize the match rate, making the 81% an in-sample, optimistic statistic. Since the 66% full-sample recovery rate and the demonstration of >10-day periods do not depend on that threshold, the overall circularity is minor.

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

The central result rests on standard periodogram math and on domain assumptions about TESS systematics and the ZTF reference set. No invented entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the TESS power threshold (chosen on the same sample) and the pipeline hyperparameters (lambda, regressor count, aperture); these choices affect the reported match rates but not the feasibility conclusion.

free parameters (5)
  • TESS LS power threshold = 0.02
    Selected by scanning thresholds from 0 to 0.3 in increments of 0.01 on the same 272-source sample (Figure 9) to increase match rate from 66% to 81%; the resulting 81% rate is in-sample.
  • unpopular regularization lambda = 0.01
    Chosen by de-trending several light curves with eight lambda values from 1e-5 to 100 and confirming similar results; only large lambda changes the light curve (Section 3.2).
  • number of regressors = 128
    Chosen for 41x41 cutouts after finding minimal difference vs 256 regressors on 91x91 cutouts (Section 3.1).
  • aperture size = 3x3 pixels
    Aperture used to sum de-trended pixel fluxes (Section 3.2).
  • ZTF sample selection cuts = max power > 0.1, SNR > 50, Prot > 10 d, >=500 public r-band points
    Restrictive cuts used to build a clean ground-truth sample; these shape the conditional match rates (Section 2.4).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle periodogram is equivalent to least-squares fitting of a sinusoid at each frequency
    Used to justify the offset-corrected design matrix in Section 3.3, citing VanderPlas 2018.
  • domain assumption Common systematics in TESS FFIs can be modeled as a linear combination of fluxes from other pixels (unpopular assumption)
    Core of de-trending in Section 3.2; if false, the de-trended light curves would retain or distort the astrophysical signal.
  • domain assumption Stellar rotation produces a coherent, approximately sinusoidal flux modulation over the ~1-year TESS CVZ baseline
    Needed for the LS periodogram to recover the rotation period; starspot evolution breaks this assumption, and Section 4 acknowledges quasi-periodicity.
  • domain assumption ZTF r-band periods are the true rotation periods
    The reference set is defined by ZTF; Section 4 notes at least one case where TESS is likely correct and ZTF wrong.
  • domain assumption Sector flux offsets can be represented as step functions; fitting them simultaneously does not absorb the periodic signal
    The offset-corrected LS in Section 3.3 assumes the boxcar model is adequate and does not bias the sinusoid fit.
  • domain assumption The 5x5 pixel exclusion region prevents source astrophysical signal from entering the systematics regressors
    Section 3.2; if source flux leaks into regressors, de-trending could remove real variability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring Long Stellar Rotation Periods (>10 days) from TESS FFI Light Curves is Possible: An Investigation Using TESS and ZTF." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7A6OCQC7

@misc{pith2026250510376,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring Long Stellar Rotation Periods (>10 days) from TESS FFI Light Curves is Possible: An Investigation Using TESS and ZTF},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7A6OCQC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10376}
}
read the original abstract

The rotation period of a star is an important quantity that provides insight into its structure and state. For stars with surface features like starspots, their periods can be inferred from brightness variations as these features move across the stellar surface. TESS, with its all-sky coverage, is providing the largest sample of stars for obtaining rotation periods. However, most of the periods have been limited to shorter than the 13.7-day TESS orbital period due to strong background signals (e.g., scattered light) on those timescales. In this study, we investigated the viability of measuring longer periods (> 10 days) from TESS light curves for stars in the Northern Continuous Viewing Zone (NCVZ). We first created a reference set of 272 period measurements longer than 10 days for K & M dwarfs in the NCVZ using data from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) that we consider as the "ground truth" given ZTF's long temporal baseline of 6+ years. We then used the unpopular pipeline to de-trend TESS light curves and implemented a modified Lomb-Scargle (LS) periodogram that accounts for flux offsets between observing sectors. For 179 out of the 272 sources (66%), the TESS-derived periods match the ZTF-derived periods to within 10%. The match rate increases to 81% (137 out of 170) when restricting to sources with a TESS LS power that exceeds a threshold. Our results confirm the capability of measuring periods longer than 10 days from TESS data, highlighting the dataset's potential for studying slow rotators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10376 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The ZTF r & g band light curves and the period analysis for TIC 198459831. In the top panel we show the r and g band light curves. The middle panel shows the same light curves but zooms into the shaded region between 59400-59500 days. The bottom left panel shows the LS periodogram over the range of 2-100 days. In the bottom right panel we show the phase-folded light curve, folded at the period with the highest LS po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The measured ZTF periods overlaid on the McQuillan et al. (2014) Kepler catalog. In the left panel, the orange crosses (N = 6265) indicate targets which did not pass the cut described in the text, while the blue circles (N = 272) indicate those that did. The horizontal streak of periods at ∼29 days is due to the lunar phase and are treated as systematics. The high temperature cutoff is due to our threshold of Teff <… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TESS FFI cutouts and de-trended light curves for TIC 198459831. Each FFI cutout from a TESS sector is accompanied to its right by the de-trended light curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A toy example showing the offset-corrected LS periodogram. The top panel shows a simulated sinusoidal signals with some Gaussian noise. The simulated light curve is broken up into eight equal chunks, represented by different colors in the top panel, similar to how a TE…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The de-trended TESS light curve and period analysis for TIC 198459831. In the top panel we show the de-trended normalized and centered de-trended flux measurements (black dots), the sector boundaries(dashed lines) , and the best-fit model (orange line). In the bottom l…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A plot comparing the periods measured from the ZTF light curves and the TESS light curves. The points are colored by their TESS peak powers. The 1:1 line with 10% uncertainties are indicated with the black line and the shaded region. The 1:2 line is indicated in red. A…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A source (TIC 219795667) where we measured a TESS period that is half of what was measured from ZTF. We can see that the second TESS periodogram peak at 43 days corresponds to the same period as that measured from ZTF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A source (TIC 353875094) where the shorter TESS-measured period of PTESS = 9.26 days is likely the correct rotation period instead of the ZTF-measured period of PZTF = 18.63 days. In the TESS periodogram we see that while there is a small peak at PZTF, the peak at PTES…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A plot showing the match (blue)and non-match (orange) rates as a function of the TESS power threshold. The black line indicates the fraction of remaining samples as we increase the power threshold. removed many of the sources with mismatched periods. This result shows …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: An example of a source (TIC 165552443) where we measured a period of 50 days from both ZTF and TESS light curves. As an individual TESS sector is 27 days, this result shows it is possible to probe for periodic signals exceeding the length of a single sector [PITH_FUL…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Three new exoplanet systems from the Dispersed Matter Planet Project

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DMPP-7 hosts a confirmed 0.72 Saturn-mass planet at P=4.93 days; HD 67200 and HD 2134 show moderate evidence for 2.7-2.8 day low-mass candidates that remain unconfirmed.

  2. Evaluating the Limits of Rotation Period Recovery through Gyrochronology Criteria

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using open-cluster gyrochronology as a constraint, the authors recover short stellar rotation periods from simulated and real blended TESS light curves, but periods beyond about 10 days generally remain unresolved.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Johnson, J. A. 2016, ApJ, 818, 109, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/109

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/109 2016

  2. [2]

    2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol. 29, 2258432 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P.,

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    J., et al

    Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    M., & Herbst, W

    Attridge, J. M., & Herbst, W. 1992, ApJL, 398, L61, doi: 10.1086/186577

    doi:10.1086/186577 1992

  5. [5]

    2006, in 36th COSPAR Scientific

    Baglin, A., Auvergne, M., Boisnard, L., et al. 2006, in 36th COSPAR Scientific

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    2021, lightkurve/lightkurve: Lightkurve v2.0.9, v2.0.9, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1181928

    Barentsen, G., Hedges, C., Vin´ ıcius, Z., et al. 2021, lightkurve/lightkurve: Lightkurve v2.0.9, v2.0.9, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1181928

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1181928 2021

  7. [7]

    Barnes, S. A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 464, doi: 10.1086/367639

    doi:10.1086/367639 2003

  8. [8]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    S., & G¨ unther, H

    Binks, A. S., & G¨ unther, H. M. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1850

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Brandt, J. C. 1966, ApJ, 144, 1221, doi: 10.1086/148720

    1966 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S

    Brasseur, C. E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S. W., Mullally, S. E., & White, R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images. http://ascl.net/1905.007 Canto Martins, B. L., Gomes, R. L.,

    2019

  5. [13]

    S., et al

    Messias, Y. S., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba73f

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2011, A&A, 530, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016276

    Casagrande, L., Sch¨ onrich, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016276

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    I., & Herbst, W

    Choi, P. I., & Herbst, W. 1996, AJ, 111, 283, doi: 10.1086/117780

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    R., van Saders, J

    Claytor, Z. R., van Saders, J. L., Cao, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad159a

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    R., van Saders, J

    Claytor, Z. R., van Saders, J. L., Llama, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac498f

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Angus, R., David, T., et al

    Colman, I. L., Angus, R., David, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14954

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, A&A, 674, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244178

    Brugaletta, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244178

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    1993, A&A, 275, 101

    Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., et al. 1993, A&A, 275, 101

    1993

  15. [23]

    S., & Sofia, S

    Endal, A. S., & Sofia, S. 1981, ApJ, 243, 625, doi: 10.1086/158628

    1981 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    Fetherolf, T., Pepper, J., Simpson, E., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    W., et al

    Hogg, D. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 215, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/215

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/ annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de

    Freeman, K., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/ annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de

    2002

  19. [27]

    Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A.,

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Gaidos, E., Claytor, Z., Dungee, R., Ali, A., & Feiden, G. A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5283, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad343

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Haywood, R. D. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1931 26 Hattori et al

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    J., et al

    Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    W., et al

    Hattori, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac625a

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    F., & McCullough, P

    Healy, B. F., & McCullough, P. R. 2020, ApJ, 903, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc03

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 220, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abd106

    Hedges, C., Angus, R., Barentsen, G., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 220, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abd106

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    E., & Kennard, R

    Hoerl, A. E., & Kennard, R. W. 1970, Technometrics, 12, 55, doi: 10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634

    1970

  29. [37]

    J., Robertson, P., Hartigan, P., Oelkers, R

    Holcomb, R. J., Robertson, P., Hartigan, P., Oelkers, R. J., & Robinson, C. 2022, ApJ, 936, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8990

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

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

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 IRSA. 2022, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA539 Jofr´ e, P. 2021, ApJ, 920, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac10c1

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    1995, A&A, 294, 469

    Charbonneau, P. 1995, A&A, 294, 469

    1995

  33. [41]

    G., Bouma, L

    Kounkel, M., Stassun, K. G., Bouma, L. G., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac866d

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Kron, G. E. 1947, PASP, 59, 261, doi: 10.1086/125964

    1947 doi

  35. [43]

    S., et al

    LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., et al. 1989, Neural Computation, 1, 541, doi: 10.1162/neco.1989.1.4.541

    1989 doi

  36. [44]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y. L., Curtis, J. L., Angus, R., David, T. J., & Hattori, S. 2022, AJ, 164, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9bee

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    L., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al

    Lu, Y. L., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2364

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    1985, ApJ, 292, 172, doi: 10.1086/163143

    Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Serio, S., et al. 1985, ApJ, 292, 172, doi: 10.1086/163143

    1985 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Dressing, C

    Muirhead, P. S., Dressing, C. D., Mann, A. W., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab710

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763, doi: 10.1086/161945

    1984 doi

  43. [51]

    1981, ApJ, 248, 279, doi: 10.1086/159152

    Pallavicini, R., Golub, L., Rosner, R., et al. 1981, ApJ, 248, 279, doi: 10.1086/159152

    1981 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Simon, T

    Patten, B. M., & Simon, T. 1996, ApJS, 106, 489, doi: 10.1086/192346

    1996 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    Prince, T., & Zwicky Transient Facility Project. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2020

  46. [54]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  47. [55]

    Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    doi

  48. [56]

    J., Claire, M

    Rushby, A. J., Claire, M. W., Osborn, H., & Watson, A. J. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 833, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0938

    2013

  49. [57]

    Santos, A. R. G., Breton, S. N., Mathur, S., & Garc´ ıa, R. A. 2021, ApJS, 255, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac033f

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    Santos, A. R. G., Garc´ ıa, R. A., Mathur, S., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3b56

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  52. [60]

    1962, Annales d’Astrophysique, 25, 18

    Schatzman, E. 1962, Annales d’Astrophysique, 25, 18

    1962

  53. [61]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  54. [62]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581, doi: 10.1146/ annurev-astro-081309-130806 Long Stellar Rotation Periods from TESS 27

    2010

  55. [63]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    R., & Hartmann, L

    Stauffer, J. R., & Hartmann, L. W. 1987, ApJ, 318, 337, doi: 10.1086/165371 STScI. 2018, TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/FWDT-2X66 van Roestel, J., Bellm, E. C., Duev, D. A., et al. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Socie...

    1987 doi

  58. [66]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    2016, PASP, 128, 094503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/094503

    Foreman-Mackey, D., & Sch¨ olkopf, B. 2016, PASP, 128, 094503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/094503

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    J., & Davis, Leverett, J

    Weber, E. J., & Davis, Leverett, J. 1967, ApJ, 148, 217, doi: 10.1086/149138

    1967 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Drake, J

    Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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