Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 75 references

TOI-880 is an Aligned, Coplanar, Multi-planet System

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TOI-880 hosts three transiting planets whose orbits are coplanar and aligned with the host star's equator; the sky-projected obliquity of planet c is $|\lambda_c| = 7.4^{+6.8}_{-7.2}$ degrees.

desk verdict A clean RM measurement of lambda_c = -7.4 +/- 7 deg for a three-transiting K dwarf; the 'aligned' label is fair for the sky-projected angle, but the true obliquity and the precession longevity claim rest on an unconstrained stellar inclination. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16194 v1 pith:UK4CXA5X submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.EP

Elina Y. Zhang , Huan-Yu Teng , Fei Dai , Andrew W. Howard , Samuel P. Halverson , Howard Isaacson , Ryan A. Rubenzahl , Xian-Yu Wang
show 17 more authors
Songhu Wang Benjamin J. Fulton Louise D. Nielsen Jack Lubin Steven Giacalone Luke B. Handley Erik A. Petigura Emma V. Turtelboom Alex S. Polanski Steve R. Gibson Kodi Rider Arpita Roy Ashley Baker Jerry Edelstein Christopher L. Smith Josh Walawender Joshua N. Winn
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TOI-880stellarobliquityRossiter-McLaughlineffectmulti-transitingplanetarysystemscoplanaritynodalprecessionexoplanetformationdynamics
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 reports a measurement of the sky-projected obliquity—the angle between a planet's orbital axis and the host star's spin axis as seen on the sky—for TOI-880 c, a Neptune-sized planet in a three-planet transiting system. By modeling the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect in spectra taken during one transit, the authors find $|\lambda_c| = 7.4^{+6.8}_{-7.2}$ degrees, consistent with a prograde, well-aligned orbit. Because all three planets transit, the system is likely nearly coplanar, and the star's slow rotation implies a weak stellar quadrupole, so the orbits should remain coplanar for millions of years. The result adds a dynamically cold compact multi-planet system to the small sample used to decide whether misalignments are usually imposed on an entire protoplanetary disk or on individual planets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect: during a transit the planet blocks part of the rotating stellar disk, producing an anomalous Doppler shift whose time dependence encodes the sky-projected angle $\lambda$ between the orbital axis and the stellar spin axis. The paper fits this effect jointly with the TESS transit light curves using a nested-sampling fit. The dynamical conclusion then rides on a Laplace-Lagrange nodal precession calculation: because the planets' orbital angular momenta are comparable to the star's spin angular momentum, the authors use a modified precession treatment, and with the small adopted quadrupole $J_2 = 10^{-6}$ the eigenfrequencies show the three planets stay locked to a common plane while that plane precesses slowly around the system's total angular momentum.

What would settle it

Measure the star's true rotation period independently, through a long-baseline photometric campaign, asteroseismology, or high-resolution spectral line-profile analysis. If the rotation period is much shorter than the roughly 27 days inferred from $v \sin i_\star$, then the adopted $J_2 = 10^{-6}$ is too small and the coplanarity-timescale conclusion fails. A second check is to observe the Rossiter-McLaughlin signal of planet b or d: a significantly different $\lambda$ for either planet would directly contradict the aligned, coplanar picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that TOI-880 has preserved a quiet dynamical architecture: three transiting planets with mutual inclinations at the few-degree level or below, and at least the middle planet (c) has a sky-projected obliquity of $|\lambda_c| = 7.4^{+6.8}_{-7.2}$ degrees, consistent with an orbit in the same plane as the stellar equator. The low projected rotation velocity ($v \sin i_\star \approx 1.57$ km/s) and the absence of detectable rotational modulation are read as evidence that the K-type host star rotates slowly, giving it a small quadrupole moment ($J_2 \approx 10^{-6}$). In a Laplace-Lagrange secular calculation, the planets are strongly coupled to each other and precess together rather than separating, so the system is expected to stay coplanar and transiting on million-year timescales. TOI-880 c also has a transmission spectroscopy metric of about 170, which makes it a favorable target for atmospheric follow-up, and no H-$\alpha$ excess absorption was detected, indicating no vigorous ongoing atmospheric escape.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the system will stay coplanar for millions of years assumes the host star actually rotates slowly; if we are seeing the star nearly pole-on, the true rotation and the stellar quadrupole moment could be much larger, and the nodal precession argument would speed up accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured alignment is correct, TOI-880's architecture was likely set by a calm protoplanetary disk, with no need to invoke disk-tilting or star-tumbling mechanisms.
  • The same observation technique can be pushed to Neptune-sized planets, extending obliquity studies well beyond the hot Jupiters that dominate current samples.
  • TOI-880 c, with a transmission spectroscopy metric near 170, is a high-priority target for JWST atmospheric characterization.
  • The non-detection of H-alpha excess absorption implies that any atmospheric escape from planet c is currently below the detectable level.
  • If the nodal precession model is right, all three planets will remain transiting for millions of years, making the system a stable benchmark for formation models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A single aligned system does not by itself separate whole-disk-tilt models from star-tumbling models; measuring the obliquities of planets b and d would discriminate, since a shared value of $\lambda$ confirms a common plane and a differing value would break the aligned picture.
  • The slow-rotation interpretation is the weakest link: a star viewed nearly pole-on would hide a faster spin and a larger $J_2$, shortening the predicted coplanarity timescale; an independent rotation-period measurement would settle this.
  • The H-alpha non-detection does not exclude atmospheric escape in other tracers; metastable helium or Lyman-alpha observations could probe outflow in a way H-alpha cannot.
  • The Monte Carlo coplanarity argument assumes exactly three planets exist; an unseen fourth planet would relax the constraint that the transiting geometry already implies low mutual inclinations.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents KPF Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) observations of TOI-880 c, one of three transiting planets in the TOI-880 system, and combines them with TESS photometry in a joint allesfitter fit. The authors measure a sky-projected obliquity of |lambda_c| = 7.4 +6.8/-7.2 degrees and a projected stellar rotation velocity v sin i_star = 1.57 +/- 0.18 km/s. They use the multi-transiting geometry to argue that the three planets are nearly coplanar, adopt a slow rotation period of 27 days and a stellar quadrupole J2 = 1e-6, and run a Laplace-Lagrange nodal precession model to argue that the system will remain in its current transiting configuration for Myr timescales. The paper also reports a non-detection of H-alpha atmospheric escape from planet c and identifies TOI-880 c as a promising JWST transmission spectroscopy target with TSM ~ 170.

Significance. The RM measurement of a Neptune-sized planet in a compact multi-planet system is a useful and technically demanding addition to the small sample of obliquity measurements in multi-transiting systems. The joint TESS/KPF fit is transparent, the posterior uncertainties on lambda and v sin i_star are honestly reported, and the data are made available through MAST and the public KPF pipeline. If interpreted carefully, the result supports the emerging picture that compact multi-planet systems are dynamically cold. The paper also provides a useful JWST target assessment and a clean H-alpha non-detection. The main weakness is interpretive: the data constrain only the sky-projected angle lambda, and the paper's title and abstract go beyond what lambda alone establishes by asserting true stellar alignment and by basing long-term coplanarity on an assumed slow-rotator/J2 model that is not secured by the observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Title, Abstract, and Section 6, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The central claim that TOI-880 is 'Aligned' conflates the measured sky-projected obliquity lambda_c with the true stellar obliquity psi. Because the stellar inclination i_star is not constrained, a near-pole-on stellar spin axis can produce lambda near zero even when psi is large. The paper attempts to rule this out in Sections 3 and 6 using v sin i_star = 1.57 km/s and the absence of TESS rotational modulation, but both are naturally explained by a pole-on geometry: a fast rotator viewed within a few degrees of the pole would show exactly these observables. In that case L_star and J2 used in Eqs. (4)-(5) and the precession model would be incorrect. I recommend either obtaining an independent constraint on i_star (e.g., a photometric rotation period, asteroseismology, or activity-cycle diagnostics) or reframing the title, abstract, and Section 8 claims as 'consistent with alignment' rather than 'aligned'. This is load-bearing for the headline result.
  2. [Section 6, J2 and L_star adopted values] The nodal precession calculation adopts J2 = 1e-6 and L_star = 0.93e41 kg m2/s, both derived from the assumed 27-day rotation period. If the star is rotating several times faster and is viewed near pole-on, J2 could be 10-100 times larger, and the last eigenfrequency of 3.0e-6 rad/yr in Table 4 would scale correspondingly. The conclusion that all three planets remain transiting for a fixed observer on Myr timescales (Figure 4) would not follow in that regime. Please quantify the sensitivity of Figure 4 to J2 over a plausible range, including J2 ~ 1e-4, and state explicitly that the result depends on the unconstrained i_star.
  3. [Section 4, Table 2] All three planets are forced to circular orbits, with sqrt(e)cos(omega) and sqrt(e)sin(omega) fixed to zero, and no orbital RV semi-amplitudes are fitted. For a planet with no measured mass and only one RM transit, eccentricity is effectively unconstrained, and an unmodeled nonzero eccentricity for planet c can shift the RM signal relative to the transit center and bias the recovered lambda_c. A test that marginalizes over eccentricity with a plausible prior, or at least a discussion of the expected bias, would strengthen the central measurement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6] The text cites 'Nielsen et al. (priv. comm.)' for RV masses of the three planets. A private communication is not reproducible; please replace this with a published citation or remove the reference and rely solely on the Chen & Kipping (2017) mass-radius relation used in the main calculation.
  2. [Sections 3 and 6] The statement that the lack of rotational modulation and low v sin i_star 'imply slow rotation' is too strong. Absence of modulation can also result from low spot coverage or from a near-pole-on viewing geometry, and v sin i_star is only a lower limit on the true rotation speed. Please soften this wording to 'are consistent with slow rotation'.
  3. [Table 2] The reported T0 values (e.g., T0;b = 2400.6128 BJD) lie outside the listed prior ranges (e.g., 2202.195-2202.395), which is presumably due to the automatic epoch shifting described in the note. A reader unfamiliar with allesfitter could mistake this for an error; please clarify in the table note what the reported epoch refers to.
  4. [Section 7 and Figure 5] The H-alpha line center is quoted as 6564.7463 Å, which is the vacuum wavelength; H-alpha in air is 6562.8 Å. Please specify the wavelength convention to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 5] The sentence about mutual inclinations 'appear to be ≲ 2°' assumes a common longitude of ascending node; this assumption should be stated explicitly in that sentence, since the individual inclinations alone do not determine mutual inclinations without node information.
  6. [Section 4 and Figure 1] The fitted parameter in Table 2 is lambda_c = -7.4 +6.8/-7.2 degrees, while the abstract and Figure 6 quote |lambda_c|. Please use a consistent convention and note that the sign reflects the orientation on the sky and is not physically meaningful without additional constraints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: λ_c is a free fitted parameter and the coplanarity/nodal-precession conclusions are forward calculations, not restatements of inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the RM fit of λ_c and v sin i_* from KPF RVs jointly with TESS light curves (Section 4, Table 2). The conclusion that TOI-880 is aligned is an interpretation of the fitted |λ_c| = 7.4° value, not an input to the fit: λ_c is given a wide uniform prior U(-180, 180) and is a free parameter, so the small fitted value is data-driven rather than imposed. The coplanarity argument (Section 5) uses the geometric fact that all three planets transit and a Monte Carlo forward calculation of the probability of this observation as a function of mutual-inclination spread; it does not use λ_c as an input. The nodal precession analysis (Section 6) is a forward dynamical calculation conditional on adopted masses (Chen & Kipping 2017, cross-checked with independent RV masses), an assumed 27-day rotation period, and an adopted J2 = 1e-6; the conclusion that the system remains transiting on Myr timescales follows from the equations of motion, not from the measurement of λ. The only noticeable self-citation is Teng et al. (2025), used for background on HD 3167 and as a methodological pointer to the precession model, but the load-bearing secular formalism is cited to Barnes et al. (2013) and Spalding & Batygin (2016); this self-citation is not load-bearing. The concern that a near-pole-on, faster-rotating star would invalidate the slow-rotation/J2 assumption is an assumption-sensitivity or correctness issue, not circularity: the paper does not fit the coplanarity conclusion from the data that it then uses to prove it.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central obliquity measurement depends on a standard RM model with several fitted nuisance parameters (lambda_c, v sin i*, limb darkening, jitter) and on assumptions about circular orbits, limb-darkening law, and the stellar rotation geometry. The dynamical coplanarity conclusion additionally rests on an adopted J2 and masses from a calibrated mass-radius relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_c (sky-projected obliquity of planet c) = -7.4 +6.8/-7.2 degrees (posterior median)
    Central measured quantity from the RM fit; the paper's claim of alignment is based on this value being consistent with 0.
  • v sin i* (projected stellar rotation velocity) = 1.57 +0.18/-0.16 km/s (posterior median)
    Fitted jointly with lambda_c; controls the RM amplitude and the inferred rotation period.
  • J2 (stellar quadrupole moment) = 1e-6 (adopted)
    Chosen by hand in Section 6 to be consistent with slow rotation; sets the nodal precession timescales.
  • Stellar rotation period used for L* = 27 days (assumed from P sin i* = 27.1 +/- 3.3 days)
    Used to compute the stellar angular momentum and J2; no rotation modulation was detected, so the period is not directly measured.
  • Planet masses from mass-radius relation = b: 5.8 M_Earth, c: 21.5 M_Earth, d: 11.1 M_Earth (Chen & Kipping 2017)
    Used in Section 6 to compute orbital angular momenta in the precession model; not measured directly in this paper.
  • Quadratic RV baseline coefficients in the RM fit = not reported
    Ad hoc function of time in Section 4 to absorb orbital motion and stellar activity; can partially absorb the RM signal if too flexible.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption All three planets are assumed to have circular orbits (e = 0 fixed).
    In Section 4 the fit sets sqrt(e) cos(omega) and sqrt(e) sin(omega) to 0 for all planets because no RV data are available; an eccentric orbit for planet c could bias the RM-derived lambda.
  • domain assumption Common longitude of ascending node when computing mutual inclinations.
    Section 5: 'Assuming a common longitude of ascending node, the mutual inclinations among the TOI-880 planets appear to be less than about 2 degrees.' If the nodes differ, mutual inclinations could be larger.
  • domain assumption Planet masses from the Chen & Kipping (2017) mass-radius relation.
    Used in Section 6 to compute orbital angular momenta; the authors note unpublished RV masses from Nielsen et al. are broadly consistent, but those data are not available.
  • ad hoc to paper J2 = 1e-6 for the host star.
    Adopted in Section 6 to match the inferred slow rotation; not measured, and the precession rates scale with J2.
  • domain assumption Laplace-Lagrange secular theory is valid for this system.
    Section 6 invokes the Laplace-Lagrange formulation assuming small inclinations and no resonances; 'the planets are far from resonances' is asserted without a period-ratio resonance check.
  • domain assumption SpecMatch-Syn and MIST isochrones give reliable stellar parameters.
    Section 3 derives Teff, log g, [Fe/H], and v sin i* from these pipelines; systematic errors are quoted from Tayar et al. (2022) but not fully propagated.
  • domain assumption The quadratic limb-darkening law of Kipping (2013) is a valid representation.
    Used in Section 4 for both TESS and KPF; limb darkening affects the RM anomaly shape.
  • domain assumption The measured sky-projected lambda is representative of the true stellar obliquity.
    Section 4 states the true obliquity requires knowledge of the stellar inclination i*, which is not measured; the paper interprets the small lambda as alignment without addressing the pole-on degeneracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TOI-880 is an Aligned, Coplanar, Multi-planet System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UK4CXA5X

@misc{pith2026250716194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TOI-880 is an Aligned, Coplanar, Multi-planet System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UK4CXA5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16194}
}
abstract

Although many cases of stellar spin-orbit misalignment are known, it is usually unclear whether a single planet's orbit was tilted or if the entire protoplanetary disk was misaligned. Measuring stellar obliquities in multi-transiting planetary systems helps to distinguish these possibilities. Here, we present a measurement of the sky-projected spin-orbit angle for TOI-880 c (TOI-880.01), a member of a system of three transiting planets, using the Keck Planet Finder (KPF). We found that the host star is a K-type star ($T_{\rm eff}=5050 \pm 100$ K). Planet b (TOI-880.02) has a radius of $2.19\pm0.11\mathrm{R_{\oplus}}$ and an orbital period of $2.6$ days; planet c (TOI-880.01) is a Neptune-sized planet with $4.95\pm0.20\mathrm{R_{\oplus}}$ on a $6.4$-day orbit; and planet d (TOI-880.03) has a radius of $3.40_{-0.21}^{+0.22}\mathrm{R_{\oplus}}$ and a period of $14.3$ days. By modeling the Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) effect, we found the sky-projected obliquity to be $|\lambda_c| = 7.4_{-7.2}^{+6.8}$$^{\circ}$, consistent with a prograde, well-aligned orbit. The lack of detectable rotational modulation of the flux of the host star and a low $\rm v\sin{i_\star}$ (1.6~km/s) imply slow rotation and correspondingly slow nodal precession of the planetary orbits and the expectation that the system will remain in this coplanar configuration. TOI-880 joins a growing sample of well-aligned, coplanar, multi-transiting systems. Additionally, TOI-880 c is a promising target for JWST follow-up, with a transmission spectroscopy metric (TSM) of $\sim 170$. We could not detect clear signs of atmospheric erosion in the H$\alpha$ line from TOI-880 c, as photoevaporation might have diminished for this mature planet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16194 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The radial velocity variations during the tran￾sit of TOI-880 c on UTC January 20, 2024, as observed by KPF. In the top panel, the fainter pink curves are from random posterior samples. The darker purple line is the best-fit model with a sky-projected obliquity of λc = −7.4 +6.8 −7.2 ◦ . The bottom panel shows the residuals, subtracting the best-fit model. 6. NODAL PRECESSION OF THE TOI-880 PLANETS Even if the TOI-8… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized flux verses time from mid-transit time (in hours) for TOI-880 b (left), TOI-880 c (middle), TOI-880 d (right). The planets are ordered in terms of increasing orbital periods. The star was observed at 2-minute cadence in sector 33. The pink points with blue edges are the phase-folded, binned data. The faint red lines are 20 curves from random posterior samples, and the darker purple line is the median fitt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Precession geometry of the TOI-880 system. In this framework, the z-axis is fixed to the system’s total angular momentum (Ltotal) — the sum of the stellar rotational component (L⋆) and the total planetary orbital component (Lp). Specifically for TOI-880, the system has L⋆ ∼ Lp with both components being non-negligible and simultaneously precessing around the system’s total angular momentum. Per Laplace-Lagrange theo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-varying probability that a fixed observer sees all three TOI-880 planets transit. The color of the solid lines indicate the initial true obliquity of the common orbital plane. As the planets undergo nodal precession, a fixed observer will no longer see all three p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: KPF Hα line during the transit of planet c. There are 32 spectra in total, color-coded by their observation number (epoch). The vertical solid green line marks the line center at 6564.7463˚A, and the two dashed green lines are 1˚A away from the center. Left: Exces…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The sky-projected obliquity λ verses planet radius (top), mass (middle), and semi-major axis over star radius (bottom). Systems that have obliquity measurement using more than one planet are shown as points of the same symbol with dark-blue edges. The three well-known …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, A&A, 647, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039885 Acu˜ na, L., Kreidberg, L., Zhai, M., & Molli` ere, P

    Acu˜ na, L., Deleuil, M., Mousis, O., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039885 Acu˜ na, L., Kreidberg, L., Zhai, M., & Molli` ere, P. 2024, A&A, 688, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450559

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039885 2021

  2. [2]

    H., Dawson, R

    Albrecht, S. H., Dawson, R. I., & Winn, J. N. 2022, PASP, 134, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 2022

  3. [3]

    H., Marcussen, M

    Albrecht, S. H., Marcussen, M. L., Winn, J. N., Dawson, R. I., & Knudstrup, E. 2021, ApJL, 916, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03 2021

  4. [4]

    W., van Eyken, J

    Barnes, J. W., van Eyken, J. C., Jackson, B. K., Ciardi, D. R., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/53

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/53 2013

  5. [6]

    R., Lodato, G., & Pringle, J

    Bate, M. R., Lodato, G., & Pringle, J. E. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 1505, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15773.x

    arXiv 2010

  6. [7]

    2012, Nature, 491, 418, doi: 10.1038/nature11560

    Batygin, K. 2012, Nature, 491, 418, doi: 10.1038/nature11560

    doi:10.1038/nature11560 2012

  7. [8]

    G., & Giles, P

    Beck, J. G., & Giles, P. 2005, ApJL, 621, L153, doi: 10.1086/429224

    doi:10.1086/429224 2005

  8. [9]

    2022, ApJL, 925, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac49e9

    Best, S., & Petrovich, C. 2022, ApJL, 925, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac49e9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac49e9 2022

Show all 75 references
  1. [10]

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

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

    2010 doi

  2. [11]

    G., Palumbo, E

    Bouma, L. G., Palumbo, E. K., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2023, ApJL, 947, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc589

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    2021, A&A, 654, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527

    Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., Cretignier, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527

    2021 doi

  4. [13]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

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

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    Castilho, B. V. 2005, A&A, 443, 735, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053511

    2005 doi

  7. [16]

    2019, A&A, 631, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935944

    Dalal, S., H´ ebrard, G., Lecavelier des´Etangs, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935944

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    I., & Johnson, J

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    J., Acu˜ na, L., et al

    Doyle, L., Armstrong, D. J., Acu˜ na, L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf670 14 Zhang et al

    2025 doi

  10. [19]

    D., Rodriguez, J

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.09480

    2019 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    C., Lissauer, J

    Fabrycky, D. C., Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/146

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    D., Montet, B

    Feinstein, A. D., Montet, B. T., Johnson, M. C., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f24

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    B., McKee, C

    Fielding, D. B., McKee, C. F., Socrates, A., Cunningham, A. J., & Klein, R. I. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv836

    2015 doi

  14. [23]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09365 —. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2012.01533. https://arxiv.or...

    2017 arXiv

  15. [24]

    P., et al

    Gandolfi, D., Barrag´ an, O., Hatzes, A. P., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa832a

    2017 doi

  16. [25]

    P., Mather, J

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

    2006 doi

  17. [26]

    R., Howard, A

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

    2016

  18. [27]

    Simard, & H

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

    doi

  19. [28]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Roy, A., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  20. [29]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107025X, doi: 10.1117/12.2311565

    doi

  21. [30]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Rider, K., 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

  22. [31]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 1144742, doi: 10.1117/12.2561783 G¨ unther, M. N., & Daylan, T. 2019, Allesfitter: Flexible Star and Exoplanet Inference From Photometry and Radial Velocity, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1903.003 —. 2021, ApJS, 254, 13, ...

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    Higson, E., Handley, W., Hobson, M., & Lasenby, A. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    N., et al

    Hirano, T., Suto, Y., Winn, J. N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/69

    2011 doi

  25. [34]

    2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2017418118, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2017418118

    Hjorth, M., Albrecht, S., Hirano, T., et al. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2017418118, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2017418118

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    B., Hirano, T., et al

    Hjorth, M., Justesen, A. B., Hirano, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz139

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    A., Barbieri, M., et al

    Huber, D., Carter, J. A., Barbieri, M., et al. 2013a, Science, 342, 331, doi: 10.1126/science.1242066

    doi

  28. [37]

    J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al

    Huber, D., Chaplin, W. J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 767, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/127

    doi

  29. [38]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca

    Huber, D., Zinn, J., Bojsen-Hansen, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

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

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu485

    Lai, D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu485

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    Lai, D., Foucart, F., & Lin, D. N. C. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2790, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18127.x Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913347 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges,...

    2011

  35. [44]

    J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D

    Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/8

    2011 doi

  36. [45]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  37. [46]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22, doi: 10.1086/142826

    1924 doi

  38. [47]

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

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

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    2011, Nature, 473, 187, doi: 10.1038/nature10076 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C

    Teyssandier, J. 2011, Nature, 473, 187, doi: 10.1038/nature10076 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJL, 855, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    Ong, J. M. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.19451, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.19451

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2017, ApJ, 847, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    Petigura, E. A. 2015, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley TOI-880 is an Aligned, Coplanar, Multi-planet System 15

    2015

  43. [52]

    A., Howard, A

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80de

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    Pireaux, S., & Rozelot, J. P. 2003, Ap&SS, 284, 1159, doi: 10.1023/A:1023673227013

    2003 doi

  45. [54]

    F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M

    Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 680, doi: 10.1086/427977

    2005 doi

  46. [55]

    2022, ApJL, 926, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac502d

    Rice, M., Wang, S., & Laughlin, G. 2022, ApJL, 926, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac502d

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    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

  48. [57]

    M., Lin, D

    Rogers, T. M., Lin, D. N. C., & Lau, H. H. B. 2012, ApJL, 758, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/L6

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    M., Lin, D

    Rogers, T. M., Lin, D. N. C., McElwaine, J. N., & Lau, H. H. B. 2013, ApJ, 772, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/21

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    Rossiter, R. A. 1924, ApJ, 60, 15, doi: 10.1086/142825

    1924 doi

  51. [60]

    A., Halverson, S., Walawender, J., et al

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Halverson, S., Walawender, J., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 125002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad0b30

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04438, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04438

    Rusznak, J., Wang, X.-Y., Rice, M., & Wang, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04438, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04438

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [62]

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

    1982 doi

  54. [63]

    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

  55. [64]

    2012, A&A, 543, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219011

    Souami, D., & Souchay, J. 2012, A&A, 543, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219011

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Sing, D

    Spake, J. J., Sing, D. K., Evans, T. M., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 68, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0067-5

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/5

    Spalding, C., & Batygin, K. 2016, ApJ, 830, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/5

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    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

  59. [68]

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

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbc

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    W., et al

    Teng, H.-Y., Dai, F., Howard, A. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10804

    2025 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    A., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Bieryla, A., Duev, D. A., et al. 2016, ApJL, 829, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L9

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    S., Radovan, M., Kibrick, R., et al

    Vogt, S. S., Radovan, M., Kibrick, R., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 359, doi: 10.1086/676120

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10038

    Wang, X.-Y., Rice, M., Wang, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10038

    2024 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2010, ApJL, 718, L145, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L145

    2010 doi

  65. [74]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    Wu, Y., & Lithwick, Y. 2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    2011 doi

  66. [75]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 2046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2655

    Yu, H., Garai, Z., Cretignier, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2655

    2025 doi

  67. [76]

    A., Dai, F., et al

    Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., Dai, F., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca75b

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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