Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 14 cited by

The NASA Exoplanet Archive and Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program: Data, Tools, and Usage

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NASA's exoplanet ledger now counts 5,811 confirmed planets.

desk verdict A necessary infrastructure reference that is honest about its limits; the completeness claim needs a footnote, not a rewrite. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03299 v1 pith:MBDW3CSH submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Jessie L. Christiansen , Douglas L. McElroy , Marcy Harbut , David R. Ciardi , Megan Crane , John Good , Kevin K. Hardegree-Ullman , Aurora Y. Kesseli
show 12 more authors
Michael B. Lund Meca Lynn Ananda Muthiar Ricky Nilsson Toba Oluyide Michael Papin Amalia Rivera Melanie Swain Nicholas D. Susemiehl Raymond Tam Julian van Eyken Charles Beichman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords AstronomydatabasesExoplanetcatalogsExoplanetsNASAArchiveExoFOPfollow-upobservationsTESSObjectsofInterestTableAccessProtocol
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 describes two community resources: the NASA Exoplanet Archive (NEA) and the Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program (ExoFOP). The paper's central claim is that the NEA provides a complete and accurate accounting of confirmed exoplanetary systems published by NASA missions and in the refereed literature, and that ExoFOP provides an open platform for coordinating follow-up observations. The authors report that the archive now holds 5,811 confirmed planets, roughly 36,000 published parameter sets, and over 590,000 planet parameter values, and that ExoFOP has passed one million uploaded files. If true, the paper establishes that the restructured archive is a dependable, well-sourced, well-documented reference for exoplanet research, accessible through web tools, TAP, astroquery, and bulk downloads. The reader should care because nearly every exoplanet study today draws on these services as its reference census and parameter source.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the archive itself, specifically its curated ingestion pipeline and its restructured tables. The pipeline consists of a machine-learning classifier, trained on previously manually selected papers, that ranks new refereed papers daily; NEA staff then evaluate whether each new parameter set extends or improves existing holdings before ingestion, and select a default parameter set per planet. The serving layer is the interactive Planetary Systems table, with one row per publication per planetary solution, the Planetary Systems Composite Data table with one filled-out row per planet, the Atmospheric Spectroscopy table for published transmission and emission spectra, and standardized IVOA-compliant Table Access Protocol (TAP) access that lets users query all of it programmatically. This machinery is what converts a flood of heterogeneous papers and mission products into a single consistent, queryable, citable census.

What would settle it

Count the refereed exoplanet discoveries in an independent exhaustive bibliography, for example a full ADS query for a fixed set of discovery papers from 2020 through 2024, and compare the list and parameter values to the NEA's Planetary Systems table for the same period; any missed confirmed planet, missed parameter set, or mismatched value would show that the completeness claim is overreaching.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that decades of heterogeneous exoplanet publications can be captured in a single curated, continuously updated archive that stays complete and accurate despite exponential growth. The paper demonstrates this by documenting the NEA's holdings as of December 2024: 5,811 confirmed planets, 7,662 mission candidates, roughly 36,000 planetary solutions, about 590,000 planet parameter values, about 3,670,000 stellar parameter values, and about 3,400 references. It describes the ingestion process that keeps those numbers current: a daily machine-learning classifier ranks new papers from ADS and arXiv, staff vet new parameter sets against existing holdings, and the best set is chosen as the default for each planet. The archive also tracks changes of status, so a planet identified as a false positive in new peer-reviewed work is demoted and removed from the main tables but remains on its system overview page, while uncertain planets can be flagged as controversial. The paper also describes the companion ExoFOP service, where over 1,600 registered users share follow-up data, now nearly one million files, for Kepler, K2, TESS, and Ariel targets, and where community-proposed TESS candidates can be promoted to official TOIs. In the authors' telling, the two services together form the community's shared ledger and sandbox for exoplanet discovery and characterization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the archive's paper-ingestion pipeline—a machine-learning classifier trained on past manual selections plus staff review—catches every relevant refereed exoplanet publication and records its parameters correctly; if a paper slips through or a value is misassigned, the 'complete and accurate' mandate fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can treat the NEA Planetary Systems table as the reference census of confirmed exoplanets: 5,811 planets with roughly 36,000 published parameter sets, each traceable to its refereed source.
  • Published JWST exoplanet spectra are available in one place for direct comparison, with the Atmospheric Spectroscopy table combining transmission, emission, and directly imaged spectra in a single interface.
  • Anyone can query the archive programmatically through TAP and astroquery, so community tools and tutorials can build directly on the same data professionals use.
  • ExoFOP's one million uploaded files and over 70,000 observing summaries make the follow-up record for Kepler, K2, TESS, and Ariel targets openly visible and coordinated, lowering the barrier for new teams to join follow-up campaigns.
  • The predicted influx of more than 200,000 planets from Gaia, Roman, PLATO, and Earth 2.0 will arrive at a service designed for exponential growth, with API access and machine-learning data extraction planned.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the completeness claim is testable by audit; a periodic comparison of the NEA's confirmed-planet list against an independently compiled bibliography of refereed exoplanet discoveries would reveal any systematic blind spot in the ML-based paper-ingestion pipeline.
  • Editorial inference: because the default parameter set for each planet is chosen by staff judgement on what is most complete and precise, population-level studies built on the Composite Data table inherit a selection rule that may vary across planets and publications; this is a potential bias the paper does not quantify.
  • Editorial inference: the stated roadmap of machine extraction from papers and author-supplied templates implies the archive's bottleneck will shift from human curation to algorithmic accuracy, making the classifier's recall and the extraction's fidelity the new critical failure points.
  • Editorial inference: linking ExoFOP's user-uploaded data to NEA parameters through shared TIC identifiers effectively makes the two services a single graph; if ExoFOP opens to arbitrary user-defined candidates as planned, the same target context will immediately apply to community discoveries, not just official TOIs and KOIs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper describes the current state of the NASA Exoplanet Archive (NEA) and the Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program (ExoFOP), updating the earlier Akeson et al. (2013) description. It reports holdings as of December 2024 (5,811 confirmed planets, roughly 36,000 planetary solutions, about 590,000 planetary parameter values, and about 3.67 million stellar parameter values), describes the daily ingestion pipeline including a machine-learning paper classifier, and details new tables, tools, data-access methods (TAP, astroquery, bulk download), community support mechanisms, and future plans for supporting TESS, Gaia, Roman, PLATO, Ariel, Pandora, Landolt, and HWO. The central stated claim is that the NEA provides a complete and accurate accounting of exoplanetary systems published by NASA missions and in the refereed literature.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable and timely reference for the exoplanet community. Its strengths are concreteness and verifiability: the paper gives public URLs for essentially every data table and service, an example TAP query, tables of holdings and predicted survey yields, and explicit descriptions of curation workflows. There are no fitted parameters or derivations, so the descriptive claims can be checked directly by querying the public services. The main intellectual risk is the abstract's absolute completeness and accuracy claim, which rests on an unpublished triage classifier and an internal curation process rather than on demonstrated validation metrics or an independent audit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 2.1.1] The key phrase 'complete and accurate accounting' is not supported as stated. Section 2.1.1 explains that papers are collected from ADS and arXiv and ranked by a machine-learning classifier 'trained on previously manually selected papers (N. Susemiehl et al., in prep)', after which NEA staff evaluate the ranked output. No recall or precision of this classifier is reported, and because staff review operates only on the ranked list, systematic under-ranking of any relevant paper class (for example, single-object radial-velocity papers, Gaia astrometry discoveries, or papers in venues under-represented in the training set) would lead to silent omissions that manual review cannot catch. The completeness branch of the central claim therefore needs either published classifier validation metrics, an independent audit against a comparable catalog, or an explicit qualification of the claim as a process commitment rather than a demonstrated property.
  2. [Sec. 2.1.1] The paper itself limits ingestion to parameter sets that 'extend' or 'improve' existing holdings and states that publications doing neither 'are not ingested.' This means the archive is not a complete accounting of all published parameters, even if it aims to be complete for the list of confirmed planets. The abstract's 'complete and accurate accounting' should be reworded to specify that completeness applies to the confirmed-planet list (and candidates), not to all published measurements, and that the archive deliberately does not contain every published parameter set.
  3. [Sec. 2.1.1] The accuracy branch of the central claim is also asserted rather than demonstrated. The description says NEA staff select the 'most complete and precise' available parameter set as the default, but the paper gives no validation of this selection, such as comparisons against benchmark measurements, inter-catalog agreement statistics, or a list of known discrepancies. If 'accurate' is intended as an accuracy goal rather than a measured accuracy rate, the text should say so explicitly; otherwise, the abstract overstates what the curation process is shown to guarantee.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1; Table 1] The sentence 'In March 2022, the NASA Exoplanet Archive reached 5,000 confirmed planets—and is poised to serve more than 6,000 confirmed exoplanets within the year' is not reconciled with Table 1, which reports 5,811 confirmed planets as of December 2024; please update the sentence or clearly specify the intended date.
  2. [Sec. 5.2] The cross-references '(§4.2.1.6)' and '(§4.1.2.2)' do not match the section numbering of this paper; replace them with the correct section numbers or remove them.
  3. [Title; Fig. 3 caption] The title contains an unintended space in 'F ollow-up', and the Figure 3 caption renders the planet name as 'W ASP-39 b'; these should be corrected to 'Follow-up' and 'WASP-39 b'.
  4. [Sec. 2.1.2] The statement that 'backfill efforts are currently underway to complete our holdings' should define what 'complete' means in this context (for example, all published JWST spectra versus all HST and Spitzer spectra) and, if possible, give an expected completion date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is a descriptive service report, and its completeness claim rests on an asserted ingestion process rather than on any equation or fitted quantity.

full rationale

The paper contains no derived prediction, no fitted parameter renamed as a result, and no derivation chain whose output equals its input by construction. Its central claim — that the NEA provides 'a complete and accurate accounting of exoplanetary systems published by NASA missions and by the community in the refereed literature' — is a description of the archive's ingestion mandate (Sec. 2.1.1), not a conclusion derived from the data or from the cited prior work. The self-citations (Akeson et al. 2013 for the prior service description, and 'N. Susemiehl et al., in prep' for the machine-learning paper-relevance classifier) are descriptive rather than evidential: the ML classifier is presented as part of the intake workflow, not as authority for the completeness claim. No recall or precision figure is given, so the completeness claim is not demonstrated, but a missing measurement or an unverified pipeline is an evidential gap, not circularity. The paper is self-description of the authors' own services; no equation, table, or tool output is shown to reduce to the inputs of the same paper. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is a minor self-citation with no load-bearing circular content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are involved because the paper makes no scientific derivation or prediction. One domain assumption about planet classification is central to the archive's data holdings.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Confirmed planet inclusion criteria: object mass <= 30 Jupiter masses, not free-floating, false-positive probability deemed unlikely, and properties published in peer-reviewed literature.
    These criteria (Sec. 2.1.1) define what counts as a confirmed planet in the archive. If the criteria are too strict or too loose, the 'complete and accurate' claim would be affected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The NASA Exoplanet Archive and Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program: Data, Tools, and Usage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBDW3CSH

@misc{pith2026250603299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The NASA Exoplanet Archive and Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program: Data, Tools, and Usage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBDW3CSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03299}
}
read the original abstract

The NASA Exoplanet Archive and the Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program service are two widely used resources for the exoplanet community. The NASA Exoplanet Archive provides a complete and accurate accounting of exoplanetary systems published by NASA missions and by the community in the refereed literature. In anticipation of continued exponential growth in the number of exoplanetary systems, and the increasing complexity in our characterization of these systems, the NASA Exoplanet Archive has restructured its primary tables and interfaces, as well as extending and standardizing their modes of access. The Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program service provides the exoplanet community with a venue for coordinating and sharing follow-up and precursor data for exoplanets, their host stars, and stars that might eventually be targets for future planet searches, and recently reached one million files uploaded by the community. In this paper we describe the updates to our data holdings, functionality, accessibility, and tools, as well as future priorities for these two services.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03299 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The number of planets has been growing exponentially for decades. Here we show the decade leading up to 2025, and a projection of the expected yield of exoplanets for the following decade (see Sec. 5.1 for a discussion of the future landscape). From the ground, a new generation of [extreme] precision radial velocity ([E]PRV) instruments came online (e.g. Gibson et al. 2016; Jurgenson et al. 2016; Seifahrt et al. 201… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A screenshot of the graphical representation of the planetary system architecture at the top of the alpha Centauri system overview page (Sec. 2.1.1). This is a triple-star system, with a confirmed planet (shown as a solid purple circle) orbiting proxima Centauri, two candidate planets (shown as blue circles with white question marks) orbiting proxima Centauri, and a false positive planet (shown as a red circle with … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An overview of the layout of the NEA Atmospheric Spectroscopy environment (Sec. 2.1.2). The table in the top left lists the available spectra in the NEA, the table in the top right lists the data from the selected spectrum in the top left table, and the plot in the bottom panel displays all the selected spectra in the top left table—in this case, Spitzer, Hubble, and JWST transmission spectroscopy of WASP-39 b. hand… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of ground-based time-series photometry of TOI-3569 obtained by the TESS Follow-Up Observation Program and shared with the community on ExoFOP (Sec. 2.2). of data and results of observational work necessary to characterize the stars and planets as part of the Ar…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of reconnaissance spectra (left), and high-resolution imaging of TOI-3569 (right) obtained by the TESS Follow-Up Observation Program and shared with the community on ExoFOP (Sec. 2.2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A screenshot of the interactive table plotting tool, which is accessible from the top menu bar of each interactive table (Sec. 3.1). Users can select x and y values from a subset of the (typically numerical) columns in the originating table, and also select additional …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example airmass plot provided with the results of the Transit and Ephemeris Service (Sec. 3.3). The plot shows the altitude/airmass of an object as it rises and sets over the course of a night, with any predicted transits highlighted in pink, and the 1σ-uncertainty …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

  1. TOI-7169 b: A Hot Jupiter Transiting a Metal-Poor Star

    astro-ph.EP 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    TOI-7169 b is an inflated hot Jupiter (1.475 R_Jup, 0.41 M_Jup, P=3.44 d) around a spectroscopically confirmed metal-poor ([Fe/H]=-0.72), ancient (12.3 Gyr) thin-disk star.

  2. Stellar Observation Scheduling Optimization for Distributed Space Interferometry Missions

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

    Multi-objective dynamic programming produces globally optimal Pareto fronts balancing ΔV and exoplanet yield for LEO nulling-interferometer observation schedules under realistic ConOps and observability constraints.

  3. HD 148797: A bright F-type star with two moderate-period low-density sub-Jovian planets. Compact multi-planet architectures are common in the Neptunian savanna

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

    HD 148797 hosts two ~40 ME, ~8.3 RE, low-density savanna planets near a 1.619 period ratio whose anti-correlated TTVs yield masses and support compact multi-planet architectures as typical in the savanna.

  4. The GAPS Programme with HARPS-N at TNG LXXVII. Occurrence rates of small close-in planets in the presence of cold Jupiters

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

    Occurrence rates of hot/warm/cool Neptunes and Super-Earths around cold-Jupiter hosts are ~5–16%, higher when the outer giant leaves a stable inner zone, with no strong ISP–CJ correlation at average metallicity.

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

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

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

  6. On the Eccentricity Distribution and Tidal Evolution of Transiting Brown Dwarfs

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

    Short-period (P<16 d) transiting brown dwarfs are low-eccentricity while longer-period ones are more excited; assuming a shared primordial Beta distribution, tidal evolution constrains Q_BD ≈ 10^{7.1–8.1}.

  7. High five from ASTEP: Three validated planets and two eclipsing binaries in a diverse set of long-period candidates

    astro-ph.EP 2025-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Three TESS long-period candidates (TOI-4507b, TOI-3457b, TOI-707b) are validated as planets and two (TOI-2404, TOI-4404) are identified as eclipsing binaries.

  8. An Increase in the Galactic Planet Host Fraction Fails to Reproduce the Galactic Height Trend in Planet Occurrence

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Time-dependent increases in the planet host fraction cannot reproduce the steep decline in small-planet occurrence with Galactic height seen by Kepler and K2.

  9. Rossby number regime, convection suppression, and dynamo-generated magnetism in inflated hot Jupiters

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Inflated hot Jupiters with outer-envelope heat deposition have suppressed deep convection and surface magnetic fields at or below Jupiter's, which may explain the absence of detected coherent radio emission.

  10. An Aligned Sub-Neptune Revealed with MAROON-X and a Tendency Towards Alignment for Small Planets

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

    The sub-Neptune TOI-1759A b has sky-projected obliquity |λ|=4±18 deg, and small exoplanets with measured obliquities tend toward alignment, especially in compact systems.

  11. exoatlas: friendly Python code for exoplanet populations

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

    The exoatlas package provides a Python interface for retrieving, deriving, and visualizing exoplanet and Solar System populations.

  12. The TESS Grand Unified Hot Jupiter Survey. III. Thirty More Giant Planets

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

    Thirty TESS-discovered hot Jupiters around bright FGK stars are validated and characterized, including two with measured non-zero eccentricities.

  13. Searching for Habitable Exoplanets with Relative Astrometry (SHERA). I. The Case for Searching for Planets in Binary Star Systems

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SHERA is a proposed Small Explorer astrometry mission that could detect rocky habitable-zone planets around 14 nearby Sun-like stars in binary systems using microarcsecond relative astrometry.

  14. The Radius, Composition, Albedo, and Absolute Magnitude of Planet Nine Based on Exoplanets with Teq less than 600 K and the Planet Nine Reference Population 3.0

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Planet Nine, if it exists, is most likely a mini-Neptune with a radius of 2 to 2.6 Earth radii and an H-He envelope of 0.6 to 3.5 percent by mass, based on a sample of cool exoplanets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 14 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., 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-Whel...

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    Barclay, T., Pepper, J., & Quintana, E. V. 2018, ApJS, 239, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae3e9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae3e9 2018

  3. [3]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09679-4 Bokeh Development Team

    Benz, W., Broeg, C., Fortier, A., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09679-4 Bokeh Development Team. 2018, Bokeh: Python library for interactive visualization. https://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/

    doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09679-4 2021

  4. [4]

    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 31 Acknowledging datasets at the NEA: https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/acknowledge.html

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  5. [5]

    M., Latham, D

    Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Everett, M. E., & Esquerdo, G. A. 2011, AJ, 142, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112 2011

  6. [6]

    S., & Agol, E

    Eastman, J., Gaudi, B. S., & Agol, E. 2013, PASP, 125, 83, doi: 10.1086/669497 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 —. 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

    doi:10.1086/669497 2013

  7. [7]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    doi:10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 2006

  8. [8]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Ge, J., & The ET team. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 445.01

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

  2. [10]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990870, doi: 10.1117/12.2233334

    doi

  3. [11]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 18

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    T., Haas, M

    Huber, D., Bryson, S. T., Haas, M. R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 2, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/2

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Joliet, E., & Wu, X. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 681

    2019

  7. [15]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Jurgenson, C., Fischer, D., McCracken, T., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

  8. [16]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99086T, doi: 10.1117/12.2233002

    doi

  9. [17]

    R., & Vanderspek, R

    Kunimoto, M., Winn, J., Ricker, G. R., & Vanderspek, R. K. 2022, AJ, 163, 290, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac68e3

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    T., Yee, J

    Montet, B. T., Yee, J. C., & Penny, M. T. 2017, PASP, 129, 044401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa57fb

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Collins, K

    Paegert, M., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.04778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.04778

    2021 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    T., Gaudi, B

    Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    ´A., & Lindegren, L

    Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. ´A., & Lindegren, L. 2014, ApJ, 797, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/14 Plotly Technologies Inc. 2024, CDash (2.18.2), Montreal, QC: Plotly Technologies Inc. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14182630

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Poleski, R., & Yee, J. C. 2019, Astronomy and Computing, 26, 35, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.11.001

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2013, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Roby, W., Wu, X., Ly, L., & Goldina, T. 2013, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 475, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXII, ed. D. N. Friedel, 315

    2013

  18. [26]

    G., Wang, J., Johnson, J

    Schulze, J. G., Wang, J., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 113, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abcaa8

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    L., & Schwab, C

    Seifahrt, A., St¨ urmer, J., Bean, J. L., & Schwab, C. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  20. [28]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107026D, doi: 10.1117/12.2312936

    doi

  21. [29]

    W., Gorjian, V., Morales, F

    Werner, M. W., Gorjian, V., Morales, F. Y., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abea20

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Barclay, T., Powell, B

    Wilson, R. F., Barclay, T., Powell, B. P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf3df

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.