Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 114 references

An Earth-like Density for the Temperate Earth-sized Planet GJ 12b

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A temperate Earth-sized exoplanet gets an Earth-like density

desk verdict Careful RV work gives a new mass for GJ12b, but the quoted 0.71 ± 0.12 M⊕ is conditional on a moderately preferred activity model, and the model-selection spread is larger than the formal error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20561 v1 pith:JPHXEKYO submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.EP

Madison Brady , Jacob Bean , Ritvik Basant , Nina Brown , Tanya Das , Matthew Nixon , Rafael Luque , Caroline Piaulet-Ghorayeb
show 4 more authors
Michael Radica Andreas Seifahrt Julian Stürmer Lily Zhao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords GJ12bMdwarfradialvelocityexoplanetmasstemperaterockyplanetcosmicshorelineMAROON-Xtransmissionspectroscopy
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 sets out to measure the mass of GJ12b, a newly discovered temperate, Earth-sized planet around a nearby quiet M dwarf, using 42 high-precision radial-velocity observations from the MAROON-X spectrograph. The authors find a mass of 0.71 ± 0.12 Earth masses, which combined with the previously measured radius of 0.958 ± 0.05 Earth radii gives a bulk density about the same as Earth's or a bit lower. If right, GJ12b becomes one of only a handful of temperate rocky planets with a 5-sigma mass measurement, and a strong alternative to the TRAPPIST-1 planets for JWST atmospheric studies. The lower-than-Earth density could mean water, a small iron core, or a thin atmosphere, and the planet sits near the cosmic shoreline, making it a test case for whether small temperate planets keep atmospheres.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a joint radial-velocity model in which the 12.76 d planet signal (semi-amplitude K = 0.50 ± 0.08 m/s) is fit alongside two longer-period Keplerian signals near 39 d and 58 d and a quasi-periodic Gaussian process that absorbs stellar rotation, with a linear etalon drift slope in the MAROON-X data calibrated from the star HD3651. The Gaussian process uses a double simple harmonic oscillator kernel with a rotation-period prior of 100 ± 30 days. This machinery separates the tiny planetary wobble from activity signals that are several times larger; the paper's quoted mass comes from the model that combines the planet, both Keplerians, and the activity GP.

What would settle it

A longer radial-velocity campaign that recovers the 12.76 d signal with the same amplitude while showing the 39 d and 58 d signals change phase or amplitude with activity, or a JWST transmission spectrum whose scale height requires a substantially different surface gravity, would overturn the claimed mass and density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, GJ12b has a mass of 0.71 ± 0.12 M⊕, a 17% measurement that is the first precise mass for this planet and improves on the earlier 50%-uncertainty estimate. Together with the radius from K24, this yields a density slightly below Earth's, consistent with a rocky body that is iron-poor, water-bearing, or surrounded by a modest atmosphere. The radial-velocity solution also gives moderate evidence for a nonzero eccentricity (e ≈ 0.16), a plausible value given a circularization timescale above 80 Gyr. The paper therefore concludes that GJ12b is likely not a sub-Neptune with a thick envelope, that its primordial H/He atmosphere is probably lost, and that any present atmosphere would have to be secondary, possibly sustained by tidal volcanism if the orbit is eccentric.

Load-bearing premise

The mass hangs on the assumption that stellar activity and two long-period signals can be modeled well enough to isolate the tiny 0.5 m/s planet wobble, and that the etalon drift correction learned from a different star applies to GJ12.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GJ12b's 17%-precision mass meets the threshold needed for reliable transmission-spectroscopy interpretation, so a JWST observation can be planned with known surface gravity.
  • If the planet is as light as measured, any detected atmosphere must be thin (less than about 0.1% of the planet's mass for steam, and under 0.03% for H/He), so a detection would point to a secondary, outgassed atmosphere.
  • With an eccentric orbit, tidal heating could keep a partially molten mantle (14-20% melt) and drive Io-like volcanism, replenishing an atmosphere.
  • GJ12b sits near the cosmic shoreline, so measuring whether it has an atmosphere will help locate the boundary between planets that retain and lose atmospheres around M dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the mass holds, GJ12b becomes a calibration point for the low-mass end of the mass-radius relation, suggesting that Earth-sized planets around metal-poor M dwarfs may commonly have sub-Earth core mass fractions.
  • Editorial inference: A testable extension is that additional RVs spread over two or more seasons should reveal whether the 39 d and 58 d signals are coherent Keplerians (planets) or drift and change like activity; that distinction changes the implied system architecture.
  • Editorial inference: If JWST transmission spectroscopy shows a featureless or high-molecular-weight spectrum, it would support the tidally sustained secondary-atmosphere scenario and would strengthen the case that similarly placed planets like TRAPPIST-1e may be airless.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports new MAROON-X radial-velocity (RV) observations of the M dwarf GJ12, which hosts the transiting, temperate, Earth-sized planet GJ12b. After modeling the known MAROON-X etalon drift (calibrated with the contemporaneous calibrator HD3651), a stellar-activity GP, and two additional coherent signals at ~39 d and ~58 d, the authors measure a planet mass of 0.71 +/- 0.12 M_Earth (Section 3.3, Table 4). Combined with the previously measured radius of 0.958 +/- 0.05 R_Earth, this yields an Earth-like or slightly sub-Earth bulk density. The paper further reports moderate evidence for a nonzero eccentricity (e ~ 0.16), discusses possible compositions (water layer, low core mass fraction, or atmosphere), evaluates atmospheric retention and tidal heating, and assesses the planet's suitability for JWST transmission spectroscopy. The analysis is detailed and transparent, with extensive model comparison, stability checks, and a careful treatment of instrumental systematics.

Significance. If the mass measurement holds, GJ12b is a valuable addition to the small set of temperate, Earth-sized planets with precise masses: it would be one of the lowest-mass transiting planets with a ~5-sigma RV detection, and a high-value JWST target orbiting a relatively inactive M dwarf. The paper's strengths include the use of a contemporaneous calibrator to characterize the MAROON-X etalon slope, the combination of multiple independent RV datasets, and an explicit exploration of activity-model choices. However, the planet's RV semi-amplitude (K ~ 0.5 m/s) is much smaller than the modeled activity signals (K ~ 1.8 and 1.1 m/s at 39 d and 58 d), and the final mass is conditional on the adopted activity decomposition. The significance of the detection and the quoted mass uncertainty therefore depend on model assumptions that are not fully propagated into the final result.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3, Table 3] The quoted mass uncertainty of 0.12 M_Earth is the posterior width of a single, preferred model. The model-selection and data-selection systematics are not propagated into this error bar. In Table 3, models with moderate support (Delta ln Z within ~5 of the preferred model) give masses ranging from 0.63 +/- 0.10 M_Earth (circular 39d+58d+GP) to 0.71 +/- 0.12 M_Earth (eccentric 39d+58d+GP) for the full dataset, and the paper itself notes in §3.3 that including versus excluding the August data shifts most model masses by ~0.1 M_Earth. The spread is comparable to the quoted statistical error, and the density interpretation (Earth-like vs. volatile-rich) changes across this range. The paper should provide a Bayesian model-averaged mass or add a systematic error term reflecting model and data-selection uncertainty before claiming a 5-sigma mass measurement.
  2. [§3.3 and §5] The detection significance of the planet signal is conditional on the activity model. The l1 periodogram recovers the 12.5-12.8 d signal only at log10 FAP ~ -1 to -2.7, and without either the 39 d Keplerian or the GP there is no significant evidence for the transiting planet (Delta ln Z < 1). The paper acknowledges this in Section 5 ('we were not able to independently confirm the presence of the 12.8 d transiting planet with RV data alone'), but the abstract and Section 4.1 state the mass is measured at the '5-sigma level' without this caveat. Because the adopted activity model could in principle absorb or inject power at 12.76 d, the authors should demonstrate robustness with an injection-recovery test (e.g., injecting a planet with K ~ 0.5 m/s into the activity-only model and recovering it) or explicitly qualify the significance as being within the chosen model family.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The table is difficult to parse: the column headers 'Delta lnZ (No Aug.' and 'Massb' appear to have formatting issues, and the model names are long. Please reorganize the table for clarity, e.g., with separate columns for dataset and the two statistics.
  2. [§4.1] The claim that GJ12b is 'one of the lowest-mass transiting planets with a mass measurement at the 5-sigma level' should be qualified as applying within the adopted activity model, given the model-selection concerns raised above.
  3. [§3.2] The etalon slope prior is calibrated with a single star (HD3651), and the paper is appropriately cautious. To further test the impact on the planet mass, it would be useful to include a model with the slope fixed to the calibrator value, or a much wider slope prior, in Table 3.
  4. [§4.1.1] The N-body stability analysis shows that the three-eccentric-Keplerian model is unstable (ejection within 2 Myr), yet the paper's preferred model includes three Keplerians. Since the 39 d and 58 d signals are not claimed as planets, please state explicitly that the preferred model is a phenomenological fit and that the quoted eccentricity of GJ12b is derived in this context.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'moderate evidence that the planet has an eccentric orbit' is supported by Delta ln Z preferences of 2.7-7.0, but the eccentricity posterior e = 0.16+0.14-0.09 includes zero at about the 1.5-sigma level. Consider giving the Bayesian evidence or a significance value in the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planet mass is an independently fitted RV parameter, and the only self-referential element is an instrumental calibration transfer, not a definitional input.

full rationale

The central claim is the measured mass of GJ12b, 0.71 ± 0.12 M⊕, obtained from a joint fit to MAROON-X RVs together with external RVs from CARMENES, IRD, HARPS-N, and TRES, using the transit ephemeris from K24. The planet's RV semi-amplitude K is a fitted parameter, not a quantity defined by the claimed result; the mass is then computed from K and the known orbital period/inclination. The etalon drift slope prior is the only self-referential element, derived from the authors' own HD3651 calibration program (Basant et al. 2025) and re-fitted in Section 3.2. This is an instrumental systematic applied to the target data, not an input that encodes the planet mass; the slope and offsets are fitted simultaneously with the Keplerians, and the posterior slope (2.46–2.66 cm/s/d) is data-driven. The composition interpretation in Section 4 compares the measured mass and radius to external mass-radius models (e.g., Zeng et al. 2019), so it is empirically falsifiable. The paper's own discussion of model-selection sensitivity (Table 3, Section 5) is a statistical robustness caveat, not circular reasoning. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no load-bearing claim depends solely on a self-citation.

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

The central mass claim rests on a standard RV analysis with a small signal buried in stellar activity. The key free parameters are the activity and systematic corrections (etalon slope, offsets, GP, 39 d and 58 d Keplerians), not physical constants. The main domain assumptions are that the activity decomposition and the calibrator transfer are valid; the radius from K24 is also assumed. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Etalon drift slope = posterior 2.46 +/- 0.20 (circular) to 2.66 +/- 0.18 cm/s/d
    Fitted with broad prior N(2.4,0.5) based on HD3651 and Basant et al. 2025; applied to MAROON-X RVs and could trade against long-period signals.
  • Chromatic offsets at September anomaly = free uniform priors; HD3651 suggests blue -2.0, red -0.7 m/s
    Account for instrumental zero-point shift during temperature anomaly; affect pre-anomaly data and hence the planet amplitude.
  • GP activity hyperparameters = P_rot = 72.6 d, sigma ~0.3-0.4 m/s per instrument, Q0,dQ,f
    dSHO-GP models stellar activity; if mischaracterized, could absorb or inject signal at the 12.8 d planet period.
  • 39d Keplerian amplitude = K = 1.81 +/- 0.24 m/s (eccentric model)
    Unconfirmed signal, possibly activity harmonic; its presence or absence changes the planet mass in Table 3.
  • 58d Keplerian amplitude = K = 1.12 +/- 0.15 m/s
    Unconfirmed signal, possibly related to rotation or alias; included in the final model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 12.76 d transiting planet's RV signal is Keplerian with period and phase fixed by the transit ephemeris from K24.
    Used in all RV fits (Section 3.3, Table 4) to separate the planet from other signals.
  • domain assumption Stellar activity of GJ12 can be represented by a quasi-periodic Gaussian process (dSHO kernel) plus optional coherent Keplerians at 39 d and 58 d.
    Section 3.3: this decomposition is load-bearing for isolating the small planet signal; alternative activity models change the mass.
  • domain assumption The MAROON-X etalon drift slope and chromatic offsets measured or assumed from HD3651 apply to GJ12 after appropriate priors.
    Section 3.2: the slope prior N(2.4,0.5) is transferred from a calibrator star; if the drift is not exactly representative, the RV model is biased.
  • domain assumption The eccentricity prior for GJ12b follows the Stevenson et al. (2025) Beta distribution for 1-20 M_Earth planets.
    Section 3.3: informs the eccentric model; a different prior would shift the eccentricity posterior.
  • domain assumption The planet's radius from K24 (0.958 +/- 0.05 R_Earth) is accurate.
    Used to compute density and composition; any systematic error in the transit-derived radius propagates into the density claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Earth-like Density for the Temperate Earth-sized Planet GJ 12b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPHXEKYO

@misc{pith2026250620561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Earth-like Density for the Temperate Earth-sized Planet GJ 12b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPHXEKYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20561}
}
read the original abstract

While JWST has provided us with the opportunity to probe the atmospheres of potentially-habitable planets, observations of the TRAPPIST-1 system have shown us that active stars severely complicate efforts at studying their planets. GJ 12b is a newly-discovered temperate (Teq ~ 300 K), Earth-sized (Rp = 0.96 +/- 0.05 Earth radii) planet orbiting an inactive M dwarf that might be a good alternate to the TRAPPIST-1 planets for atmospheric characterization. In this paper, we use MAROON-X radial velocities to measure a mass of 0.71 +/- 0.12 Earth masses for GJ 12b. We also find moderate evidence that the planet has an eccentric (e ~ 0.16) orbit. GJ 12b's mass results in a planetary density comparable to or less dense than Earth, possibly indicating the presence of water or a low bulk iron mass fraction. With its low mass, GJ 12b is likely within reach of JWST transmission spectroscopy observations, making it an excellent target for determining the location of the cosmic shoreline. Its low mass may mean that the planet could have trouble retaining its primary atmosphere during the star's active pre-main-sequence phase. However, if it has a heightened eccentricity, it may be able to sustain a secondary atmosphere through tidally-induced volcanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The MAROON-X RVs described in this paper. The RVs that are not used in the final analysis are shown in lighter colors and indicated with ’x’ markers. The grayed-out region represents the time during the September 1-18 tem￾perature anomaly. We also include a dashed line indicative of the etalon drift slope as calculated for the calibrator star HD 3651 (see Section 3.2 for more details). darks are taken with the etalo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. All of the RVs used in our analysis. Each dataset shown is mean-subtracted to highlight the relative changes in RV of the star. We have also subtracted the etalon drift slope and offsets (calibrated using those from HD 3651, see Section 3.2 for more details) from the MAROON-X data. Our MAROON-X data has a much smaller scatter than the data from other instruments, indicating that our MAROON-X data will provide much m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The serval-calculated activity indicators calculated from our MAROON-X data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The serval-calculated activity indicators calcu￾lated from our MAROON-X data. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Residuals of our RV fits to the single eccentric planet in the HD 3651 system. MAROON-X data. We show the residuals for the model fits for the 2024 MAROON-X data in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The results from our ℓ1 periodogram analysis of the RVs of GJ 12. The figure shows the identified significant periods of the top 1% of noise models (in terms of cross-val￾idation scores) for our RV data and identifies the FAPs that they are present in the data. We incl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The phased RVs for the three Keplerians in our eccentric-orbit model for GJ 12 with a rotation GP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The phased RVs for the three Keplerians in our circular-orbit model for GJ 12 with a rotation GP. tions, assuming that either 1) all three of the Kepleri￾ans in the system are true planets, 2) the 39d signal is caused by stellar activity, or 3) the 58d signal is caused…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The mass and radius of our two models for GJ 12 b (circular and eccentric orbits) compared to various composition models from L. Zeng et al. (2019), as well as a steam atmosphere model from M. Turbet et al. (2020) and a H/He atmosphere model from M. C. Nixon & N. Madh…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The cosmic shoreline formulation from E. K. Pass et al. (2025) for small planets orbiting mid-to-late M dwarfs within 50 pc, showing our eccentric model for GJ 12 b (black star) in escape velocity versus XUV radia￾tion space compared to the solar system planets (vario…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of the internal energy balance cal￾culation with melt for GJ-12 b. We illustrate the calculations of both Fconv (dashed) and Ftidal (solid lines) as a function of mantle temperature, with equilibria highlighted for each B value with black circles. The con…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The inferred water contents of both our cir￾cular-orbit and eccentric-orbit GJ 12 b models using the L. Zeng et al. (2019) models (top) and A. Aguichine et al. (2021) models (bottom). model grid does not include any models with tempera￾tures below 400 K, and our plane…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The inferred CMF of both our circular-orbit and eccentric-orbit GJ 12 b models using the L. Zeng et al. (2019) models, assuming the planet lacks both water and an atmosphere. In addition, given their mass and radius errors, both models are also consistent with a 0% ir…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., et al

    Adibekyan, V., Dorn, C., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2021, Science, 374, 330, doi: 10.1126/science.abg8794

    doi:10.1126/science.abg8794 2021

  2. [2]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99

    Aguichine, A., Mousis, O., Deleuil, M., & Marcq, E. 2021, ApJ, 914, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99 2021

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010 Artigau, É., Cadieux, C., Cook, N

    Ahrer, E.-M., Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010 Artigau, É., Cadieux, C., Cook, N. J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce6 20 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whe...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add010 2025

  4. [4]

    2017, A&A, 600, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527078

    Astudillo-Defru, N., Delfosse, X., Bonfils, X., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527078

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527078 2017

  5. [5]

    Barr, A. C. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 113, E07009, doi: 10.1029/2008JE003114

    doi:10.1029/2008je003114 2008

  6. [6]

    C., Dobos, V., & Kiss, L

    Barr, A. C., Dobos, V., & Kiss, L. L. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 613, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731992

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731992 2018

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Basant, R., Das, T., Bean, J. L., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adba48

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adba48 2025

  8. [8]

    E., Lewis, T., Fortney, J

    Batalha, N. E., Lewis, T., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4909

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4909 2019

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    L., Seifahrt, A., Hartman, H., et al

    Bean, J. L., Seifahrt, A., Hartman, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 410, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/410

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    Falco, E. E. 2012, AJ, 144, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/145

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5c

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., Blackman, R. T., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab99c9

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Polanski, A

    Brinkman, C. L., Polanski, A. S., Huber, D., et al. 2024a, AJ, 168, 281, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad82eb

    doi

  6. [14]

    L., Weiss, L

    Brinkman, C. L., Weiss, L. M., Dai, F., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acad83

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Weiss, L

    Brinkman, C. L., Weiss, L. M., Huber, D., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00213, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00213 Brügger, N., Burn, R., Coleman, G. A. L., Alibert, Y., &

    doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2020, A&A, 640, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038042 Cañas, C

    Benz, W. 2020, A&A, 640, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038042 Cañas, C. I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06966, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06966

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, AJ, 166, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdacc

    Shorttle, O. 2023, AJ, 166, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdacc

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Cosentino, R., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461V, doi: 10.1117/12.925738

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, (IPAC/California Institute of Technology) (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    P., et al

    Czesla, S., Schröter, S., Schneider, C. P., et al. 2019, http://ascl.net/1906.010

    2019

  13. [21]

    H., & Davies, D

    Davies, J. H., & Davies, D. R. 2010, Solid Earth, 1, 5, doi: 10.5194/se-1-5-2010

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 1276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1152

    Dholakia, S., Palethorpe, L., Venner, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1152

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    S., & Savanov, I

    Dmitrienko, E. S., & Savanov, I. S. 2018, Astronomy Reports, 62, 412, doi: 10.1134/S1063772918060033

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Dobbs-Dixon, I., Lin, D. N. C., & Mardling, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 610, 464, doi: 10.1086/421510

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    Dobos, V., & Turner, E. L. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/41

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    G., & Guinan, E

    Engle, S. G., & Guinan, E. F. 2023, ApJL, 954, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf472

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b93 Fűrész, G., Szentgyorgyi, A

    Farhat, M., Auclair-Desrotour, P., Boué, G., Lichtenberg, T., & Laskar, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b93 Fűrész, G., Szentgyorgyi, A. H., & Meibom, S. 2008, in Precision Spectroscopy in Astrophysics, ed. N. C. Santos, L. Pasquini, A. C. M. Correia, & M. Ro...

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    1990, Icarus, 83, 39, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90005-T

    Fischer, H.-J., & Spohn, T. 1990, Icarus, 83, 39, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90005-T

    1990 doi

  22. [30]

    2017, ArXiv

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Angus, R., & Ambikasaran, S. 2017, ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09710

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456, doi: 10.1038/nature21360

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Drant, T., et al

    Gkouvelis, L., Pozuelos, F. J., Drant, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.02188, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02188

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Boué, G., Laskar, J., & Correia, A

    Hara, N. C., Boué, G., Laskar, J., & Correia, A. C. M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2261

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 21

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    K., & Davis, D

    Hartmann, W. K., & Davis, D. R. 1975, Icarus, 24, 504, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(75)90070-6

    1975 doi

  31. [39]

    G., O’Connell, R

    Henning, W. G., O’Connell, R. J., & Sasselov, D. D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 1000, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1000

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Kowalski, A

    Howard, W. S., Kowalski, A. F., Flagg, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe75

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Ih, J., Kempton, E. M. R., Whittaker, E. A., & Lessard, M. 2023, ApJL, 952, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace03b

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    K., Burke, C

    Irwin, J., Berta, Z. K., Burke, C. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/56

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Park Coy, B., & Kite, E

    Ji, X., Chatterjee, R. D., Park Coy, B., & Kite, E. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.19872, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19872

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Kempton, E. M. R., & Knutson, H. A. 2024, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 90, 411, doi: 10.2138/rmg.2024.90.12

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Kempton, E. M. R., Bean, J. L., Louie, D. R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 114401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Fu, G., et al

    Kirk, J., Stevenson, K. B., Fu, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    2024,, v2.1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2024,, v2.1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, A&A, 666, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243773

    Kossakowski, D., Kürster, M., Henning, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243773

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    H., et al

    Kuzuhara, M., Fukui, A., Livingston, J. H., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3642

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 145, doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9695-y Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Lainey, V. 2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 145, doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9695-y Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1812.013

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Ip, W

    Lin, C. L., Ip, W. H., Hou, W. C., Huang, L. C., & Chang, H. Y. 2019, ApJ, 873, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab041c

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    P., Meadows, V

    Lincowski, A. P., Meadows, V. S., Zieba, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acee02

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1399, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02347-z

    Luo, H., Dorn, C., & Deng, J. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1399, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02347-z

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    Luque, R., & Pallé, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    Maldonado, J., Micela, G., Baratella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, A&A, 570, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423431

    Benz, W. 2014, A&A, 570, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423431

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Lincowski, A

    Meadows, V. S., Lincowski, A. P., & Lustig-Yaeger, J. 2023, PSJ, 4, 192, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acf488

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    Moore, W. B. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 108, 5096, doi: 10.1029/2002JE001943

    2003 doi

  57. [65]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/110

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J. J. 2017, ApJ, 850, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927b

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Malavolta, L., et al

    Mortier, A., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Malavolta, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3144

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

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

    Newton, E. R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/20

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

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

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/93

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    C., & Madhusudhan, N

    Nixon, M. C., & Madhusudhan, N. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1500

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    C., Piette, A

    Nixon, M. C., Piette, A. A. A., Kempton, E. M. R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad615b

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    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

  65. [73]

    K., Charbonneau, D., & Vanderburg, A

    Pass, E. K., Charbonneau, D., & Vanderburg, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01182, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.01182

    2025 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al

    Peterson, M. S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 701, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05934-8

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    A., et al

    Piaulet, C., Benneke, B., Rubenzahl, R. A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd3c

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, ApJL, 974, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f00

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Radica, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f00

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A., et al

    Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1407, doi: 10.1086/508556

    2006 doi

  70. [78]

    V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 853, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Taylor, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    D., Buchhave, L

    Rathcke, A. D., Buchhave, L. A., de Wit, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada5c7

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 22

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    2000, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 181, 585, doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00222-3

    Renner, J., Evans, B., & Hirth, G. 2000, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 181, 585, doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00222-3

    2000 doi

  75. [83]

    G., Gupta, A., Owen, J

    Rogers, J. G., Gupta, A., Owen, J. E., & Schlichting, H. E. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2897

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    Petkowski, J. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12946

    2025 doi

  78. [86]

    N., & Schubert, G

    Segatz, M., Spohn, T., Ross, M. N., & Schubert, G. 1988, Icarus, 75, 187, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(88)90001-2

    1988 doi

  79. [87]

    L., Stürmer, J., et al

    Seifahrt, A., Bean, J. L., Stürmer, J., 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. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990818, doi: 10.1117/12.2232069

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    L., & Schwab, C

    Seifahrt, A., Stürmer, 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

  81. [89]

    Simard, & H

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

    doi

  82. [90]

    L., Stürmer, J., et al

    Seifahrt, A., Bean, J. L., Stürmer, J., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J

    2020

  83. [91]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 114471F, doi: 10.1117/12.2561564

    doi

  84. [92]

    L., Kasper, D., et al

    Seifahrt, A., Bean, J. L., Kasper, D., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

    2022

  85. [93]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121841G, doi: 10.1117/12.2629428

    doi

  86. [94]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  87. [95]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer,...

    2004 doi

  88. [96]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    2006 doi

  89. [97]

    S., & Moresi, L.-N

    Solomatov, V. S., & Moresi, L.-N. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 21795, doi: 10.1029/2000JB900197

    2000 doi

  90. [98]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  91. [99]

    T., Haswell, C

    Stevenson, A. T., Haswell, C. A., Faria, J. P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf502 Suárez Mascareño, A., Rebolo, R., González Hernández, J. I., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732143

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    2015, in LPI Contributions, Vol

    Szurgot, M. 2015, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 1839, Comparative Tectonic and Geodynamics of Venus, Earth and Rocky Exoplanets, ed. LPI Editorial Board, 5001

    2015

  93. [101]

    2014, A&A, 562, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322208

    Thiabaud, A., Marboeuf, U., Alibert, Y., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322208

    2014 doi

  94. [102]

    2020, A&A, 636, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936686

    Trifonov, T., Tal-Or, L., Zechmeister, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936686

    2020 doi

  95. [103]

    2020, A&A, 638, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937151 Van Looveren, G., Güdel, M., Boro Saikia, S., &

    Turbet, M., Bolmont, E., Ehrenreich, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937151 Van Looveren, G., Güdel, M., Boro Saikia, S., &

    2020 doi

  96. [104]

    2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    Kislyakova, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    2024 doi

  97. [105]

    J., Davies, A

    Veeder, G. J., Davies, A. G., Matson, D. L., et al. 2012, Icarus, 219, 701, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.004

    2012 doi

  98. [106]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    Winn, J. N. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager, 55–77, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1001.2010

    2010 doi arXiv

  100. [108]

    G., Charbonneau, D., Henry, T

    Winters, J. G., Charbonneau, D., Henry, T. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcc74

    2021 doi

  101. [109]

    C., & Abbot, D

    Yang, J., Boué, G., Fabrycky, D. C., & Abbot, D. S. 2014, ApJL, 787, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L2

    2014 doi

  102. [110]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 843, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    J., et al

    Zechmeister, M., Reiners, A., Amado, P. J., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731483

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    D., & Jacobsen, S

    Zeng, L., Sasselov, D. D., & Jacobsen, S. B. 2016, ApJ, 819, 127, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127

    2016 doi

  105. [113]

    B., Sasselov, D

    Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S. B., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2019, PNAS, 116, 9723, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812905116

    2019 doi

  106. [114]

    red” or “blue

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z 23 APPENDIX A. MAROON-X DATA Column Name Description channel Channel of observation (“red” or “blue”) flag Flag if excluded from RV analysis (’0’ if used in RV analysis, ’1’ ot...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.