Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 150 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Thirty TESS signals are confirmed giant planets, not eclipsing binaries.

desk verdict A solid, transparent hot Jupiter catalog paper whose one load-bearing judgment call—dismissing the TOI-4734 RV–BIS correlation—is argued, disclosed, and probably right, but deserves a skeptical eye. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01855 v1 pith:5FO4OBCD submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.EP

Samuel W. Yee , Joshua N. Winn , Joel D. Hartman , Joseph E. Rodriguez , George Zhou , David W. Latham , Samuel N. Quinn , Allyson Bieryla
show 118 more authors
Karen A. Collins Jason D. Eastman Kevin I. Collins Dennis M. Conti Eric L. N. Jensen David R. Anderson Özgür Baştürk David Baker Khalid Barkaoui Matthew P. Battley Daniel Bayliss Thomas G. Beatty Yuri Beletsky Alexander A. Belinski Zouhair Benkhaldoun Paul Benni Pau Bosch-Cabot César Briceño Andrzej Brudny Matthew R. Burleigh R. Paul Butler Stavros Chairetas Ashley Chontos Jessie Christiansen David R. Ciardi Catherine A. Clark Ryan Cloutier Matthew W. Craig Jeffrey D. Crane Nicholas Dowling Courtney D. Dressing Jehin Emmanuel Phil Evans Mark E. Everett Gareb Fernández-Rodríguez Jorge Fernández Fernández Raquel Forés-Toribio Charles D. Fortenbach Akihiko Fukui Elise Furlan Tianjun Gan Mourad Ghachoui Steven Giacalone Samuel Gill Michaël Gillon Kylie Hall Yuya Hayashi Christina Hedges Jesus Higuera Eric G. Hintz Lea Hirsch Rae Holcomb Keith Horne Ferran Grau Horta Andrew W. Howard Steve B. Howell Howard Isaacson Jon M. Jenkins Taiki Kagetani Jacob Kamler Alicia Kendall Judth Korth Maxwell A. Kroft Gaia Lacedelli Didier Laloum Nicholas Law Jerome Pitogo de Leon Alan M. Levine Pablo Lewin Sarah E. Logsdon Michael B. Lund Madelyn M. Madsen Andrew W. Mann Christopher R. Mann Nataliia A. Maslennikova Sandra Matutano Mason McCormack Kim K. McLeod Edward J. Michaels Ismael Mireles Mayuko Mori Jose A. Muñoz Felipe Murgas Norio Narita Sean M. O'Brien Caroline Odden Enric Palle Yatrik G. Patel Peter Plavchan Alex S. Polanski Adam Popowicz Don J. Radford Phillip A. Reed Howard M. Relles Malena Rice George R. Ricker Boris S. Safonov Arjun B. Savel Jack Schulte Richard P. Schwarz Heidi Schweiker Sara Seager Ramotholo Sefako Stephen A. Shectman Avi Shporer Denise C. Stephens Chris Stockdale Stephanie Striegel Thiam-Guan Tan Johanna K. Teske Mathilde Timmermans Solène Ulmer-Moll Gavin Wang Peter J. Wheatley Selçuk Yalcinkaya Roberto Zambelli Judah Van Zandt Carl Ziegler
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords hotJupiterstransitingexoplanetsTESSradialvelocityconfirmationexoplanetmassesradiieccentricitydemographics
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 is trying to establish that 30 transit signals detected by the TESS satellite are genuine giant planets orbiting bright, roughly solar-type (FGK) host stars. Each planet receives a measured mass, radius, and orbital period from a consistent analysis, with masses spanning 0.17 to 3.3 Jupiter masses and radii between 0.9 and 1.7 Jupiter radii. The host stars are brighter than $G \le 12.5$, and the orbital periods run from 1.6 to 8.2 days, placing all 30 in the hot Jupiters category. If the paper is right, the survey's magnitude-limited sample of confirmed hot Jupiters grows from 30 to 60 systems. That larger sample is the foundation the survey was built to provide for studying how hot Jupiters form and evolve.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-instrument confirmation chain: ground-based photometry with arcsecond resolution to show which star is fading, speckle and adaptive-optics imaging to expose close companions, and radial velocity monitoring to prove the companion's mass is planetary rather than stellar. These data are combined in a global joint fit that simultaneously models the transit light curves, catalog photometry, stellar evolutionary models, and radial velocities, including a dedicated blend analysis that compares the planet interpretation against diluted eclipsing binaries. For systems with close stellar companions, the fit treats both stars as a coeval pair and corrects the measured radial velocity amplitude for light dilution. The eccentricity measurements come from comparing circular and eccentric orbit fits with the Bayesian Information Criterion.

What would settle it

Take roughly ten additional high-signal-to-noise radial-velocity spectra of TOI-4734, particularly near orbital quadrature, and test whether the velocity and spectral line-shape measurements still correlate after removing any dependence on signal-to-noise; if the correlation persists at a similar strength, the planet interpretation would fail and the paper's confirmed count would drop from 30 to 29.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is the confirmation and characterization of 30 new transiting giant planets from the TESS mission, each validated against false-positive scenarios and assigned self-consistent physical parameters. Follow-up ground-based photometry localized the transits, high-angular-resolution imaging searched for blended stellar companions, and high-resolution spectroscopy plus radial velocity monitoring measured the orbiting masses. A global joint fit of the space and ground photometry, the stellar spectral energy distribution, and the radial velocities produced the adopted masses, radii, and periods. For most systems the circular orbit is preferred, while TOI-3593 b and TOI-4961 b show significant non-zero eccentricities of $0.106^{+0.053}_{-0.029}$ and $0.182^{+0.040}_{-0.048}$, respectively. The survey has now confirmed 60 hot Jupiters within its stated magnitude-limited selection, a step toward demographic analysis of this planet population.

Load-bearing premise

The sample-wide conclusion that all 30 signals are genuine planets rests on the assumption that no unresolved blended eclipsing binary slips through the validation tests, with the most fragile point being TOI-4734, where the radial velocities from one instrument show a line-shape correlation that the paper treats as an instrumental artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The confirmed hot Jupiter catalog from this survey reaches 60 systems with uniform parameter estimation, making magnitude-limited demographic studies of hot Jupiters around bright FGK stars feasible.
  • The two significant eccentricities, TOI-3593 b and TOI-4961 b, provide concrete cases for testing tidal circularization and high-eccentricity formation pathways.
  • Six of the new planets have masses at or below Saturn, extending the sample into the sub-Saturn regime and placing several objects near the hot Neptune desert.
  • TOI-2986 b and TOI-3682 b sit at the edge of the hot Neptune desert, and TOI-3682 b is the least dense planet in the paper, making it a plausible target for atmospheric mass-loss studies.
  • Five of the confirmed planets appear on the Ariel mission's candidate list, and their mass measurements directly improve target selection for atmospheric spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper stops short of quantifying the survey's completeness, but if detection and follow-up efficiency can be characterized, the 60-planet sample could yield hot Jupiter occurrence rates that depend only weakly on heterogeneous discovery biases.
  • The clustering of the two least massive planets near six-day periods and sub-Saturn masses suggests a mass boundary between gas giants and lower-mass planets that additional mass measurements along the hot Neptune desert could test.
  • The TOI-4734 case exposes a testable protocol: when a single radial velocity instrument shows a line-shape correlation, independent observations at higher signal-to-noise should be obtained before the planet mass is treated as secure.
  • If the measured eccentricity of TOI-3593 b holds up, the young host star provides an opportunity to turn the tidal circularization timescale into an empirical constraint on the tidal quality factor of hot Jupiters.
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. The paper reports the discovery and confirmation of 30 transiting giant planets detected by TESS, orbiting relatively bright (G ≤ 12.5) FGK stars with periods between 1.6 and 8.2 days. The confirmation is based on ground-based follow-up photometry, high-resolution imaging, spectroscopy, and radial-velocity monitoring, with global EXOFASTv2 fits for each system. Planet radii span 0.84–1.8 RJ, masses span 0.17–3.35 MJ, and two systems (TOI-3593 b and TOI-4961 b) have significant non-zero eccentricities. The paper also includes blend analyses for grazing and close-companion systems, simulated spectral dilution corrections for three binary hosts, and a sample-level discussion of hot Jupiter demographics. The central claim is that all 30 signals are bona fide giant planets, adding to the survey's magnitude-limited sample.

Significance. If the validation holds, this is a valuable homogeneous addition to the hot Jupiter catalog, bringing the survey sample to 60 systems and enabling demographic studies of giant planets around bright FGK stars. The paper is unusually transparent about its validation procedures, with public data products, machine-readable tables, quantitative blend tests for the grazing systems (ΔBIC = 22.9 and 33.6), and explicitly reported spectral dilution factors for the close-companion systems. The convergence criteria for the MCMC fits are stated, and the circular versus eccentric model comparison is reported via BIC. The main scientific risk is sample-level: the claim of exactly 30 confirmed planets rests on the validation of every individual system, and at least one system (TOI-4734) has a load-bearing diagnostic that needs further scrutiny.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5 (TOI-4734)] The only significant RV–BIS correlation in the sample is found in the NEID data for TOI-4734 (R² = 0.66, p = 0.02, with bisector spans varying by tens of m/s, comparable to K = 17.3 ± 2.8 m/s). The paper dismisses this correlation using three arguments: the HIRES data show no such correlation, the NEID bisector spans correlate with signal-to-noise at p = 0.04, and other blend indicators are negative. The p = 0.04 BIS–S/N correlation is marginal with only 14 NEID points, and the paper does not test whether the RVs themselves correlate with S/N or with time, nor does it report the slope and uncertainty of the RV–BIS regression. Because this object is one of the 30 planets in the headline claim, the dismissal is load-bearing for the sample-level result. I recommend adding the missing regressions (RV versus S/N, RV versus time, and the RV–BIS slope with confidence interval), attempting an activity-indicator check if the spectra allow it, or explicitly marking TOI-4734 b as a candidate pending additional data.
  2. [§4.2 (Close Companions)] For TOI-3160, TOI-3523, and TOI-5386, the blended-eclipsing-binary scenarios are ruled out by the statement that the planet scenario 'resulted in the best fit to the data,' without reporting the quantitative model comparison (Δχ² or ΔBIC), the number of free parameters, or the priors used for the bound and unbound binary scenarios. Because the companions are at angular separations of 0.24–0.67 arcsec and the ground-based photometry cannot resolve them, the quantitative comparison is essential to the confirmation of these three systems. Please report these statistics, or point explicitly to the table or supplementary file where they appear.
  3. [§2.5 (multiple comparisons)] The paper scans a large number of RV–BIS correlations across 30 targets and multiple instruments, so the raw p = 0.02 for TOI-4734 should be interpreted in light of the number of tests performed. The large amplitude of the BIS variations makes the correlation important, but a multiple-testing correction (or an explicit statement of the number of trials and the resulting false-alarm probability) would strengthen the discussion and help justify the conclusion that this is the only anomalous object in the sample.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 6] In the TOI-5181 row, the G-band magnitude is listed as 17.289 ± 0.003, which is the secondary star's G magnitude in Table 7; the primary's G magnitude is 12.2091. This table entry should be corrected.
  2. [§2.5] The text says 'A G2 line mask was used for TOI-2196, TOI-2986, TOI-4734, and TOI-5386'; TOI-2196 should presumably be TOI-2169, which is the target listed in Table 5 for NEID observations.
  3. [Figure 4.1 caption] The caption contains the duplicated phrase 'available in the available in the online journal'; the wording should be cleaned up.
  4. [Table 3 note] The note reads 'publicly avilable via ExoFOP'; the spelling should be 'publicly available'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 30 planet confirmations rest on independent data channels and Keplerian fits, with no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the 30 TESS transit signals are bona fide giant planets—is supported by independent channels: TESS and ground-based transit shape and depth, achromaticity checks, high-angular-resolution imaging that excludes most blended companions, and radial velocities that vary in phase with the ephemeris. Planet masses are derived by fitting Keplerian semi-amplitudes K to RV time series and combining them with stellar masses from SEDs, parallax, and MIST models; nothing in that chain is normalized to force the planet interpretation. The grazing-transit systems TOI-3980 and TOI-5592 receive explicit blend analyses with simulated bisector variations, and the close-companion systems are modeled with the secondary stars' flux dilution included, so the reported Rp and Mp are not set by construction. The most fragile object, TOI-4734, has a significant NEID RV-BIS correlation, but the paper does not dismiss it by definition; it adduces the absence of the correlation in HIRES data, a p=0.04 BIS-S/N correlation, achromatic transits, high-resolution imaging nondetections, and Gaia RUWE=0.981. That is evidence-based validation reasoning, not circularity. Self-citations to the survey's earlier papers (Yee et al. 2021, 2022, 2023) and to analysis tools such as EXOFASTv2, SpecMatch-Emp, and Hartman et al. (2019) are present, but they are not load-bearing in a circular sense: the cited codes and procedures are applied to new independent data, and the previous survey papers do not supply the planet parameters claimed here. No 'prediction' in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted input, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim, 30 confirmed planets, rests on standard Keplerian physics and established stellar models, with fitted nuisance parameters (RV jitter, dilution, drift) shaping the quoted uncertainties. No new physical entities are postulated; all planets are detected objects with multiple independent confirmation channels. The main assumption of concern is the bound-coeval treatment of close stellar companions, which enters the dilution corrections and hence the planet radii for four systems.

free parameters (7)
  • Per-instrument RV jitter (sigma_J) = e.g., TOI-2031 HIRES: 32(+23/-11) m/s; TOI-2169 NEID: 0.00(+19/-0.00) m/s
    Fitted per instrument in the global EXOFASTv2 model (Section 4). Absorbs stellar activity and instrument noise; directly widens the planet-mass posteriors (Table 11).
  • Linear RV drift (gamma_dot) = e.g., TOI-2346: 2.06 ± 0.61 m/s/day; TOI-4734: -0.148 ± 0.019 m/s/day
    Fitted for 9 systems to absorb long-period companions or activity (Section 4, Table 11). Affects the inferred Keplerian K and hence planet mass.
  • TESS light-curve dilution (AD) = e.g., TOI-2346: 0.085(+0.037/-0.039); TOI-3474: 0.113(+0.027/-0.028)
    Fitted per sector with a 10% Gaussian prior to allow for imperfect pipeline dilution corrections (Section 4). Directly adjusts transit depth and planet radius.
  • TOI-4961 QLP additional dilution = 27.5 ± 1.8%
    Fitted freely after discounting QLP transit depths in favor of SPOC and ground-based data (Section 4.3). Ad hoc calibration term that reconciles discrepant transit depths.
  • Limb-darkening coefficients u1, u2 per band = Fitted; priors from Claret & Bloemen (2011) and Claret (2017)
    Fitted in EXOFASTv2 with model-based priors; shape the transit profile and hence the inferred radii and impact parameters (Table 11).
  • Planet radius upper limit Rp < 2.5 RJ = 2.5 RJ (bound)
    Hand-placed prior for the grazing-transit systems TOI-3980 and TOI-5592 (Section 4.1). The authors report it changes the posterior median, so they quote modes and HDIs instead.
  • HIRES jitter inflation = 4.7 m/s
    Added in quadrature to HIRES instrumental errors following Dalba et al. (2020) for the matched-template RV technique (Section 2.5). Affects mass uncertainties.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Keplerian two-body physics converts RV semi-amplitude K to companion mass
    Used throughout Section 4 to derive Mp from K, P, and stellar mass; unproblematic standard physics.
  • domain assumption MIST stellar evolutionary models describe the host stars
    EXOFASTv2 fits the SED, parallax, and spectroscopic priors against MIST grids (Dotter 2016; Choi et al. 2016) to derive stellar mass, radius, and age. Systematic offsets between model grids are acknowledged (Tayar et al. 2022) but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Mandel-Agol quadratic limb-darkened transit model with Claret coefficients
    Transit shapes are fit with priors on u1, u2 interpolated from Claret & Bloemen (2011) and Claret (2017) (Section 4). Informs planet radius and impact parameter.
  • domain assumption Close companions are bound, coeval pairs
    For TOI-3160, TOI-3523, TOI-5181, and TOI-5386 (Section 4.2), companions are assumed gravitationally bound with the same [Fe/H], age, distance, and extinction; a 0.1 Gyr Gaussian age-difference penalty is imposed. If a companion were a chance alignment, the dilution corrections and derived parameters would shift.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax and photometry are reliable after zero-point correction
    Parallax zero-point corrected with the Gaia team code (Section 2.6); distances and stellar properties depend on this.
  • domain assumption Tidal circularization timescale formula of Adams and Laughlin (2006) with QP = 10^6
    Used to interpret the two eccentric planets (Section 5). QP is uncertain by orders of magnitude, and the paper stresses this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The TESS Grand Unified Hot Jupiter Survey. III. Thirty More Giant Planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FO4OBCD

@misc{pith2026250701855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The TESS Grand Unified Hot Jupiter Survey. III. Thirty More Giant Planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FO4OBCD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01855}
}
abstract

We present the discovery of 30 transiting giant planets that were initially detected using data from NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) mission. These new planets orbit relatively bright ($G \leq 12.5$) FGK host stars with orbital periods between 1.6 and 8.2 days, and have radii between 0.9 and 1.7 Jupiter radii. We performed follow-up ground-based photometry, high angular-resolution imaging, high-resolution spectroscopy and radial velocity monitoring for each of these objects to confirm that they are planets and determine their masses and other system parameters. The planets' masses span more than an order of magnitude ($0.17\,M_J < M_p < 3.3\,M_J$). For two planets, TOI-3593 b and TOI-4961 b, we measured significant non-zero eccentricities of $0.11^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ and $0.18^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ respectively, while for the other planets, the data typically provide a 1-$\sigma$ upper bound of 0.15 on the eccentricity. These discoveries represent a major step toward assembling a complete, magnitude-limited sample of transiting hot Jupiters around FGK stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01855 by the authors.

Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. Speckle sensitivity curve (solid line) and auto￾correlation function (ACF, inset image) from the SOAR HRCam observations of TOI-3464. The faint (∆I = 5.5 mag) companion can be seen in the top left and bot￾tom right corners of the ACF image, marked with a white arrow. The NEID observations were affected by the Contr￾eras Fire in June 2022 at KPNO, which required the safe shutdown and warming of the NEID spectrograph.… view at source ↗
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Top: Speckle sensitivity curve (solid line) and auto-correlation function (ACF, inset image) from the SOAR HRCam observation of TOI-3160. A companion with ∆I = 3.3 mag and a separation of 0. ′′33 was detected, and can be seen in the ACF image just above and below the cen￾tral star. Bottom: Speckle 5σ magnitude sensitivity curve (solid line) and reconstructed image (inset) from the Gemini￾South/Zorro observation of T… view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. Top: Palomar PHARO adaptive optics image of TOI-3523 (inset) and sensitivity curve (solid line), in the Hcont band. Middle: Same as above, but for observation in the narrow Brγ band. Bottom: SAI speckle polarimeter I-band reconstructed image and sensitivity curve for obser￾vation of TOI-3523. A companion is clearly detected 0. ′′67 due east of the primary in all observations. telescope at CTIO. For TOI-2876, TOI-348… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (39 more)
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: From left to right, top to bottom: SOAR HRCam, WIYN/NESSI, Palomar/PHARO Hcont, Palomar/PHARO Brγ, and SAI Speckle Polarimeter observations of TOI-5181. Evidence of the companion is south of the central star. In each figure, the solid lines show the detection sensiti…
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5. Figure 1.5: Left to right: WIYN/NESSI, Palomar/PHARO Hcont, Palomar/PHARO Brγ observations of TOI-5386. A close companion is detected at ≈ 0. ′′3 from the primary. surements (RUWE = 0.981), we do not further consider the stellar blend scenario for this system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gaia color-magnitude diagram for transiting hot Jupiter hosts (P < 10 days, 8 R⊕ < Rp < 24 R⊕ ) from the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Yellow squares represent the stel￾lar hosts of the newly-confirmed planets in this paper; green diamonds and orange circles show the systems…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The new planets confirmed by our survey in context. Gray points show previously known transiting planets from the NASA Exoplanet Archive with masses and radii measured to better than 2.5-σ. a): Planet masses and radii. The new planets have masses that span more than an…
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Data and EXOFASTv2 fit results for TOI-2031 b. Left: TESS and ground-based light-curves, phase-folded onto the best-fit period and time of conjunction. Faint colored points represent the unbinned data, while large black circles show the time-series data binned to 30-…
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Same as above, but for TOI-2169 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_4_2.png]
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Same as above, but for TOI-2346 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_4_3.png]
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Same as above, but for TOI-2382 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_4_4.png]
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5: Same as above, but for TOI-2876 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_4_5.png]
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6: Same as above, but for TOI-2886 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_4_6.png]
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7: Same as above, but for TOI-2986 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_4_7.png]
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.8. Figure 4.8: Same as above, but for TOI-2992 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_4_8.png]
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.9. Figure 4.9: Same as above, but for TOI-3135 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_4_9.png]
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10: Same as above, but for TOI-3160 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_4_10.png]
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.11. Figure 4.11: Same as above, but for TOI-3464 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_4_11.png]
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.12. Figure 4.12: Same as above, but for TOI-3474 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_4_12.png]
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.13. Figure 4.13: Same as above, but for TOI-3486 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_4_13.png]
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.14. Figure 4.14: Same as above, but for TOI-3523 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_4_14.png]
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.15. Figure 4.15: Same as above, but for TOI-3593 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_4_15.png]
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.16. Figure 4.16: Same as above, but for TOI-3682 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_4_16.png]
Figure 4.17
Figure 4.17. Figure 4.17: Same as above, but for TOI-3856 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_4_17.png]
Figure 4.18
Figure 4.18. Figure 4.18: Same as above, but for TOI-3877 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_4_18.png]
Figure 4.19
Figure 4.19. Figure 4.19: Same as above, but for TOI-3980 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_4_19.png]
Figure 4.20
Figure 4.20. Figure 4.20: Same as above, but for TOI-4214 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_4_20.png]
Figure 4.21
Figure 4.21. Figure 4.21: Same as above, but for TOI-4487 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p066_4_21.png]
Figure 4.22
Figure 4.22. Figure 4.22: Same as above, but for TOI-4734 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_4_22.png]
Figure 4.23
Figure 4.23. Figure 4.23: Same as above, but for TOI-4794 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_4_23.png]
Figure 4.24
Figure 4.24. Figure 4.24: Same as above, but for TOI-4961 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p069_4_24.png]
Figure 4.25
Figure 4.25. Figure 4.25: Same as above, but for TOI-5181 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p070_4_25.png]
Figure 4.26
Figure 4.26. Figure 4.26: Same as above, but for TOI-5210 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p071_4_26.png]
Figure 4.27
Figure 4.27. Figure 4.27: Same as above, but for TOI-5322 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p072_4_27.png]
Figure 4.28
Figure 4.28. Figure 4.28: Same as above, but for TOI-5340 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p073_4_28.png]
Figure 4.29
Figure 4.29. Figure 4.29: Same as above, but for TOI-5386 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p074_4_29.png]
Figure 4.30
Figure 4.30. Figure 4.30: Same as above, but for TOI-5592 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p075_4_30.png]
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: High-Resolution imaging of hot Jupiter hosts described in this paper. From top to bottom, left to right: Row 1: Gemini-N/’Alopeke observations of TOI-2031; Palomar/PHARO Brγ observation of TOI-2169; Palomar/PHARO Hcont observation of TOI-2169; Row 2: SAI/Speckle Pola…
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: High-Resolution imaging of hot Jupiter hosts described in this paper (continued). From top to bottom, left to right: Row 1: Shane/ShARCS J observation of TOI-2986; Shane/ShARCS Ks observation of TOI-2986; SOAR/HRCam observation of TOI-2992; Row 2: SOAR/HRCam observat…
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.3. Figure 5.3: High-Resolution imaging of hot Jupiter hosts described in this paper (continued). From top to bottom, left to right: Row 1: SAI/Speckle Polarimeter observation of TOI-3856; WIYN/NESSI observations of TOI-3856; SAI/Speckle Polarimeter observation of TOI-3877; Row 2: S…
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4: High-Resolution imaging of hot Jupiter hosts described in this paper (continued). From top to bottom, left to right: Row 1: WIYN/NESSI observation of TOI-4487; Gemini-S/Zorro observations of TOI-4734; SAI/Speckle Polarimeter observa￾tion of TOI-4734; Row 2: WIYN/NESS…
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.5. Figure 5.5: High-Resolution imaging of hot Jupiter hosts described in this paper (continued). From top to bottom, left to right: Row 1: SAI/Speckle Polarimeter observation of TOI-5340; WIYN/NESSI observations of TOI-5340; SAI/Speckle Polarimeter observation of TOI-5592 [PITH_FU…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., & Laughlin, G

    Adams, F. C., & Laughlin, G. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 649, 1004, doi: 10.1086/506145

    doi:10.1086/506145 2006

  2. [2]

    2020, AJ, 159, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee

    Agol, E., Luger, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2020, AJ, 159, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 2020

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    W., Kov´ acs, G., et al

    Bakos, G., Noyes, R. W., Kov´ acs, G., et al. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 116, 266, doi: 10.1086/382735

    doi:10.1086/382735 2004

  5. [5]

    ´A., Csubry, Z., Penev, K., et al

    Bakos, G. ´A., Csubry, Z., Penev, K., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 154, doi: 10.1086/669529

    doi:10.1086/669529 2013

  6. [6]

    1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 119, 373

    Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., et al. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 119, 373

    1996

  7. [7]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf422

    Barkaoui, K., Burdanov, A., Hellier, C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf422

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf422 2019

  8. [8]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2179

    Beleznay, M., & Kunimoto, M. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2179

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2179 2022

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    D., Wittenmyer, R

    Brahm, R., Nielsen, L. D., Wittenmyer, R. A., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abba3b

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 1031, doi: 10.1086/673168

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, The Occurrence Rate of Giant Planets Orbiting Low-Mass Stars with TESS, arXiv. http://ascl.net/2303.00659

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M., Bayliss, D., McCormac, J., et al

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., McCormac, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1075

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Bakos, G

    Buchhave, L. A., Bakos, G. ´A., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 1118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1118

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Latham, D

    Buchhave, L. A., Latham, D. W., Johansen, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 486, 375, doi: 10.1038/nature11121

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Marcy, G

    Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Williams, E., et al. 1996, PASP, 108, 500, doi: 10.1086/133755

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, 210, A20 Castro-Gonz´ alez, A., Bourrier, V., Lillo-Box, J., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A250, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450957

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03299, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03299

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 600, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705

    Claret, A. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 600, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629705

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 529, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

    Claret, A., & Bloemen, S. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 529, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    N., Latham, D

    Collins, K., Quinn, S. N., Latham, D. W., et al. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 439.08

    2018

  16. [24]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V. 2017, AJ, 153, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, astropy/ccdproc: 2.1.0, 2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4588034

    Craig, M., Crawford, S., Seifert, M., et al. 2019, astropy/ccdproc: 2.1.0, 2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4588034

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, feder-observatory/stellarphot: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15277119

    Craig, M., Cabanela, J., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021, feder-observatory/stellarphot: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15277119

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Shectman, S

    Crane, J. D., Shectman, S. A., & Butler, R. P. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye, 626931, doi: 10.1117/12.672339

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Shectman, S

    Crane, J. D., Shectman, S. A., Butler, R. P., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S

    2010

  21. [29]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773553, doi: 10.1117/12.857792

    doi

  22. [30]

    D., Shectman, S

    Crane, J. D., Shectman, S. A., Butler, R. P., Thompson, I. B., & Burley, G. S. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 701479, ...

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246 Thirty TESS Giant Planets 93

    2003

  24. [32]

    Cutri, R. M. e. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/311

    2012

  25. [33]

    Howard, A. W. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abad27

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8

    Danieli, S., Lokhorst, D., Zhang, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    I., & Johnson, J

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    S., & Agol, E

    Eastman, J., Gaudi, B. S., & Agol, E. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 83, doi: 10.1086/669497

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Diamond-Lowe, H., & Tayar, J

    Eastman, J. D., Diamond-Lowe, H., & Tayar, J. 2023, AJ, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aceda2

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Rodriguez, J

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09480

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    2022, AJ, 164, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6bf9

    Edwards, B., & Tinetti, G. 2022, AJ, 164, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6bf9

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 692, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451404

    Ehrhardt, J., Thomas, L., Kellermann, H., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 692, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451404

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323 ExoFOP. 2019, Exoplanet Follow-up Observing Program -

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    TESS, IPAC, doi: 10.26134/EXOFOP3

    doi

  36. [44]

    2020, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 251, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abd63a F˝ ur´ esz, G

    Vanderspek, R. 2020, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 251, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abd63a F˝ ur´ esz, G. 2008, PhD thesis, University of Szeged, Hungary

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    A., & Valenti, J

    Fischer, D. A., & Valenti, J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 1102, doi: 10.1086/428383

    2005 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Dawson, R

    Fortney, J. J., Dawson, R. I., & Komacek, T. D. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2020JE006629, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006629

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Everett, M

    Furlan, E., Ciardi, D. R., Everett, M. E., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/71 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A., Prusti, T., & et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    X., Wang, S., et al

    Gan, T., Wang, S. X., Wang, S., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 17

    2022

  41. [49]

    J., Timmermans, M., Pozuelos, F

    Garcia, L. J., Timmermans, M., Pozuelos, F. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3113

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2014, in Adaptive Optics Systems IV, Vol

    Gavel, D., Kupke, R., Dillon, D., et al. 2014, in Adaptive Optics Systems IV, Vol. 9148 (SPIE), 38–48, doi: 10.1117/12.2055256

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  44. [53]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip \Hocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 285, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.2.403

    Gonzalez, G. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 285, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.2.403

    1997 doi

  46. [55]

    K., Saunders, N., Sun, M., et al

    Grunblatt, S. K., Saunders, N., Sun, M., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4972

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    M., Seager, S., Huang, C

    Guerrero, N. M., Seager, S., Huang, C. X., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abefe1

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    2023, DREAM: III.A Helium Survey in Exoplanets on the Edge of the Hot Neptune Desert with GIANO-B@TNG, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.00967

    Guilluy, G., Bourrier, V., Jaziri, Y., et al. 2023, DREAM: III.A Helium Survey in Exoplanets on the Edge of the Hot Neptune Desert with GIANO-B@TNG, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.00967

    2023 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    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

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    D., & Bakos, G

    Hartman, J. D., & Bakos, G. ´A. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 17, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.05.006

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    D., Bakos, G

    Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. ´A., & Torres, G. 2011, EPJ Web of Conferences, 11, 02002, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20101102002

    2011

  52. [61]

    D., Bakos, G

    Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. ´A., Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf8b6

    2019 doi

  53. [62]

    L., Brandl, B., Pirger, B., et al

    Hayward, T. L., Brandl, B., Pirger, B., et al. 2001, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 113, 105, doi: 10.1086/317969

    2001 doi

  54. [63]

    W., Johnson, J

    Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, 1467, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1467

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    Ciardi, D. R. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/19

    2011 doi

  56. [65]

    B., Matson, R

    Howell, S. B., Matson, R. A., Ciardi, D. R., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 164

    2021

  57. [66]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020a, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e —. 2020b, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 206, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

    doi

  58. [67]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 94

    2007 doi

  59. [68]

    E., Quinn, S

    Ikwut-Ukwa, M., Rodriguez, J. E., Quinn, S. N., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2ee1

    2021 doi

  60. [69]

    2011, The Messenger, 145, 2

    Jehin, E., Gillon, M., Queloz, D., et al. 2011, The Messenger, 145, 2

    2011

  61. [70]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, Vol. 9913 (SPIE), 1232–1251, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    2013, Tapir: A web interface for transit/eclipse observability, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Jensen, E. 2013, Tapir: A web interface for transit/eclipse observability, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1306.007 Kab´ ath, P., Chaturvedi, P., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 5955, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1254

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    2022, Gaia Data Release 3 Properties and Validation of the Radial Velocities, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.05902

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2022, Gaia Data Release 3 Properties and Validation of the Radial Velocities, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.05902

    2022 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    Kipping, D. M. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1758, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17242.x

    2010

  65. [74]

    M., Gandolfi, D., et al

    Knudstrup, E., Serrano, L. M., Gandolfi, D., et al. 2022, arXiv:2204.13956 [astro-ph], doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.13956 Kov´ acs, G., Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 391, 369, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802 Kov´ acs, G., Bakos, G.´A., Hartman, J. D., et ...

    2022 doi arXiv

  66. [75]

    2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 234, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2ef0

    Kunimoto, M., Huang, C., Tey, E., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 234, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2ef0

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    2022b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5688

    Kunimoto, M., Daylan, T., Guerrero, N., et al. 2022b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5688

    doi

  68. [77]

    2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III, Vol

    Kupke, R., Gavel, D., Roskosi, C., et al. 2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III, Vol. 8447 (SPIE), 1190–1196, doi: 10.1117/12.926470

    2012 doi

  69. [78]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1993, SYNTHE spectrum synthesis programs and line data

    1993

  70. [79]

    Laughlin, G., Crismani, M., & Adams, F. C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 729, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L7

    2011 doi

  71. [80]

    D., et al

    Li, J., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 024506 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Cod...

    2019

  72. [81]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  73. [82]

    2002, ApJL, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, ApJL, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    2002 doi

  74. [83]

    A., Howell, S

    Matson, R. A., Howell, S. B., Horch, E. P., & Everett, M. E. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac778

    2018 doi

  75. [84]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 589, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

    Mazeh, T., Holczer, T., & Faigler, S. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 589, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

    2016 doi

  76. [85]

    H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al

    McCully, C., Volgenau, N. H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V, ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen, 107070K, doi: 10.1117/12.2314340

    2018 doi

  77. [86]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    McGurk, R., Rockosi, C., Gavel, D., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9148, Adaptive Optics Systems IV, ed. E. Marchetti, L. M. Close, & J.-P. Vran, 91483A, doi: 10.1117/12.2057027

    2014 doi

  78. [87]

    2021, Posters from the TESS Science Conference II (TSC2), 128, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5130661

    Mireles, I., Hesse, K., Guerrero, N., et al. 2021, Posters from the TESS Science Conference II (TSC2), 128, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5130661

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 1726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2438

    Montalto, M., Borsato, L., Granata, V., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 1726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2438

    2020 doi

  80. [89]

    2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.1.015001 NASA Exoplanet Archive

    Narita, N., Fukui, A., Kusakabe, N., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.1.015001 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2022, Planetary Systems Composite Parameters, Version: 2022-02-14, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi: 10.26...

    2019 doi

  81. [90]

    A., Hinkley, S., et al

    Ngo, H., Knutson, H. A., Hinkley, S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 8

    2016

  82. [91]

    D., Bouchy, F., Turner, O., et al

    Nielsen, L. D., Bouchy, F., Turner, O., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834577 O’Brien, S. M., Bayliss, D., Osborn, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 6111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3399 pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: P...

    2019 doi

  83. [92]

    A., Henry, T

    Paredes, L. A., Henry, T. J., Quinn, S. N., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac082a

    2021 doi

  84. [93]

    R., et al

    Parviainen, H., Palle, E., Zapatero-Osorio, M. R., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935958 Thirty TESS Giant Planets 95

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 388, 632, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020433

    Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Galland, F., et al. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 388, 632, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020433

    2002 doi

  86. [95]

    B., Siverd, R., James, D., & Stassun, K

    Pepper, J., Kuhn, R. B., Siverd, R., James, D., & Stassun, K. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 230, doi: 10.1086/665044

    2012 doi

  87. [96]

    W., DePoy, D

    Pepper, J., Pogge, R. W., DePoy, D. L., et al. 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 923, doi: 10.1086/521836

    2007 doi

  88. [97]

    Petigura, E. A. 2015, PhD thesis, University of California,

    2015

  89. [98]

    L., Skillen, I., Cameron, A

    Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Cameron, A. C., et al. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1407, doi: 10.1086/508556

    2006 doi

  90. [99]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243454 —

    Psaridi, A., Bouchy, F., Lendl, M., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243454 —. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346406

    2022 doi

  91. [100]

    N., White, R

    Quinn, S. N., White, R. J., Latham, D. W., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/L33

    2012 doi

  92. [101]

    2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 027002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.027002

    Reefe, M., Alfaro, O., Foster, S., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 027002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.027002

    2022 doi

  93. [102]

    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

  94. [103]

    D., Evans, D

    Riello, M., Angeli, F. D., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    2021 doi

  95. [104]

    E., Quinn, S

    Rodriguez, J. E., Quinn, S. N., Huang, C. X., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab11d9

    2019 doi

  96. [105]

    E., Quinn, S

    Rodriguez, J. E., Quinn, S. N., Zhou, G., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe38a

    2021 doi

  97. [106]

    E., Quinn, S

    Rodriguez, J. E., Quinn, S. N., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad595

    2023 doi

  98. [107]

    S., Lysenko, P

    Safonov, B. S., Lysenko, P. A., & Dodin, A. V. 2017, Astronomy Letters, 43, 344, doi: 10.1134/S1063773717050036

    2017 doi

  99. [108]

    C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M

    Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 415, 1153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034469

    2004 doi

  100. [109]

    K., Huber, D., et al

    Saunders, N., Grunblatt, S. K., Huber, D., et al. 2021, arXiv:2108.02294 [astro-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.02294

    2021 arXiv

  101. [110]

    B., Dressing, C

    Savel, A. B., Dressing, C. D., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 287, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc47d

    2020 doi

  102. [111]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  103. [112]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  104. [113]

    E., Bieryla, A., et al

    Schulte, J., Rodriguez, J. E., Bieryla, A., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4a57

    2024 doi

  105. [114]

    1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  106. [115]

    J., Howell, S

    Scott, N. J., Howell, S. B., Horch, E. P., & Everett, M. E. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 054502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aab484

    2018 doi

  107. [116]

    J., Howell, S

    Scott, N. J., Howell, S. B., Gnilka, C. L., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 138, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.716560

    2021

  108. [117]

    J., & Vanderburg, A

    Shallue, C. J., & Vanderburg, A. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9e09

    2018 doi

  109. [118]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  110. [119]

    C., Stumpe, M

    Smith, J. C., Stumpe, M. C., Cleve, J. E. V., et al. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 1000, doi: 10.1086/667697

    2012 doi

  111. [120]

    G., Oelkers, R

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

    2018 doi

  112. [121]

    G., Oelkers, R

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

    2019 doi

  113. [122]

    A., Safonov, B

    Strakhov, I. A., Safonov, B. S., & Cheryasov, D. V. 2023, Astrophysical Bulletin, 78, 234, doi: 10.1134/S1990341323020104

    2023 doi

  114. [123]

    C., Smith, J

    Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Catanzarite, J. H., et al. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 100, doi: 10.1086/674989

    2014 doi

  115. [124]

    C., Smith, J

    Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Cleve, J. E. V., et al. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 985, doi: 10.1086/667698 ˇSubjak, J., Endl, M., Chaturvedi, P., et al. 2022, arXiv:2201.13341 [astro-ph]. http://ascl.net/2201.13341 Szab´ o, G. M., & Kiss,...

    2012 arXiv

  116. [125]

    R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbc

    2022 doi

  117. [126]

    2025, A&A, 694, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451676

    Thomas, L., H´ ebrard, G., Kellermann, H., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451676

    2025 doi

  118. [127]

    2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, Vol

    Tinetti, G., Drossart, P., Eccleston, P., et al. 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, Vol. 9904 (SPIE), 658–667, doi: 10.1117/12.2232370 96

    2016 doi

  119. [128]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 035002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa7d9

    Tokovinin, A. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 035002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa7d9

    2018 doi

  120. [129]

    2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 170, doi: 10.1086/528809

    Tokovinin, A., & Cantarutti, R. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 170, doi: 10.1086/528809

    2008 doi

  121. [130]

    A., Bonati, M., et al

    Tokovinin, A., Fischer, D. A., Bonati, M., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 1336, doi: 10.1086/674012

    2013 doi

  122. [131]

    D., & Jha, S

    Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D. D., & Jha, S. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 614, 979, doi: 10.1086/423734

    2004 doi

  123. [132]

    D., Catanzarite, J

    Twicken, J. D., Catanzarite, J. H., Clarke, B. D., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 064502

    2018

  124. [133]

    A., & Fischer, D

    Valenti, J. A., & Fischer, D. A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 159, 141, doi: 10.1086/430500

    2005 doi

  125. [134]

    Vanderburg, A., & Johnson, J. A. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 948, doi: 10.1086/678764

    2014 doi

  126. [135]

    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

  127. [136]

    A., Greklek-McKeon, M., et al

    Vissapragada, S., Knutson, H. A., Greklek-McKeon, M., et al. 2022, The Upper Edge of the Neptune Desert Is Stable Against Photoevaporation, arXiv. http://ascl.net/2204.11865

    2022 arXiv

  128. [137]

    S., Allen, S

    Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362, doi: 10.1117/12.176725

    1994 doi

  129. [138]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7469 Wes McKinney

    Wang, X.-Y., Rice, M., Wang, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7469 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2024 doi

  130. [139]

    J., West, R

    Wheatley, P. J., West, R. G., Goad, M. R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 4476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2836

    2018 doi

  131. [140]

    A., Clark, J

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Clark, J. T., Trifonov, T., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3f39

    2022 doi

  132. [141]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 256, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac26bd

    Wong, I., Shporer, A., Zhou, G., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 256, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac26bd

    2021 doi

  133. [142]

    W., Petigura, E

    Yee, S. W., Petigura, E. A., & von Braun, K. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/77

    2017 doi

  134. [143]

    W., & Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., & Winn, J. N. 2023, ApJL, 949, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd552

    2023 doi

  135. [144]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., & Hartman, J. D. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2958

    2021 doi

  136. [145]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac73ff —. 2023, ApJS, 265, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca286

    2022 doi

  137. [146]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab21d6

    Yu, L., Vanderburg, A., Huang, C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab21d6

    2019 doi

  138. [147]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 145, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/44

    2013 doi

  139. [148]

    X., Bakos, G

    Zhou, G., Huang, C. X., Bakos, G. ´A., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab36b5

    2019 doi

  140. [149]

    N., Irwin, J., et al

    Zhou, G., Quinn, S. N., Irwin, J., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abba22

    2020 doi

  141. [150]

    2019, AJ, 159, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab55e9

    Ziegler, C., Tokovinin, A., Brice˜ no, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 159, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab55e9

    2019 doi

  142. [151]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac17f6

    Ziegler, C., Tokovinin, A., Latiolais, M., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac17f6

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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