pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.04519 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM· astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

NASA's Pandora SmallSat Mission: Simulating the Impact of Stellar Photospheric Heterogeneity and Its Correction

Benjamin V. Rackham , Aishwarya R. Iyer , D\'aniel Apai , Peter McGill , Yoav Rotman , Knicole D. Col\'on , Brett M. Morris , Emily A. Gilbert
show 23 more authors
Elisa V. Quintana Jessie L. Dotson Thomas Barclay Pete Supsinskas Jordan Karburn Christina Hedges Jason F. Rowe David R. Ciardi Jessie L. Christiansen Trevor O. Foote Thomas P. Greene Kelsey Hoffman Rae Holcomb Aurora Y. Kesseli Veselin B. Kostov Nikole K. Lewis James P. Mason Gregory Mosby Jr. Susan E. Mullally Joshua E. Schlieder Megan Weiner Mansfield Luis Welbanks Allison Youngblood
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords stellar photospheric heterogeneityexoplanet transmission spectroscopyPandora SmallSatstellar contaminationBayesian retrievalsspot filling factorout-of-transit observationssimulated datasets
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations show NASA's Pandora mission recovers stellar temperatures to 30 K and reduces contamination to under 10 ppm for simple spot patterns using out-of-transit data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests Pandora's capacity to handle stellar photospheric heterogeneity through 160 simulated datasets based on eight activity scenarios. Bayesian retrievals applied to out-of-transit spectrophotometry recover temperatures with 30 K uncertainties and no bias, while strongly favoring two-component models once spot coverage exceeds 0.3 percent. For straightforward spot geometries the method shrinks contamination from hundreds or thousands of ppm down to 10 ppm or less, below the mission's expected 30-100 ppm precision for transmission spectra. Readers would care because this systematic has previously distorted atmospheric measurements of exoplanets, and Pandora is built to separate stellar and planetary signals with simultaneous visible and near-infrared coverage.

Core claim

Given accurate models, Bayesian retrievals of Pandora spectrophotometry recover photospheric temperatures with typical uncertainties of ≈30 K, with no significant bias. Models with two spectral components are strongly favored in 95 percent of cases. For simple spot distributions, contamination signals of 10^2-10^3 ppm are reduced to ≲10 ppm, well below Pandora's expected transmission spectroscopy precision of 30-100 ppm. For complex distributions geometric degeneracies leave residuals at the 10^3 ppm level that require additional constraints such as spot-crossing events.

What carries the argument

Bayesian retrievals of multi-component stellar spectra from simulated out-of-transit Pandora spectrophotometry that incorporate time-dependent activity, instrument response functions, and noise models.

If this is right

  • Contamination of 100-1000 ppm drops to ≲10 ppm when spot distributions are simple.
  • Two-component models are preferred once spot filling factors exceed a 0.3 percent detection threshold.
  • Complex spot geometries leave 1000 ppm residuals that cannot be corrected from stellar data alone.
  • The mission can flag targets where extra information such as spot crossings or joint stellar-planetary retrievals will be required.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Pandora data on stars with simple activity could be used to prioritize targets for transmission spectroscopy with other facilities.
  • If real stellar heterogeneity is often more complex than the tested scenarios, many observations may still need multi-epoch or multi-instrument follow-up.
  • Incorporating the transmission spectrum itself into the retrieval could reduce residuals even in degenerate cases.
  • The same simulation approach could be applied to other planned small-satellite or ground-based stellar monitoring programs.

Load-bearing premise

The eight constructed stellar activity scenarios, assumed instrument responses, and noise models accurately represent real Pandora observations, and the retrieval models contain all relevant physics.

What would settle it

Compare retrieved temperatures and residual contamination levels from actual Pandora observations against independent constraints such as high-resolution spectroscopy or observed spot-crossing events during transits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.04519 by Aishwarya R. Iyer, Allison Youngblood, Aurora Y. Kesseli, Benjamin V. Rackham, Brett M. Morris, Christina Hedges, D\'aniel Apai, David R. Ciardi, Elisa V. Quintana, Emily A. Gilbert, Gregory Mosby Jr., James P. Mason, Jason F. Rowe, Jessie L. Christiansen, Jessie L. Dotson, Jordan Karburn, Joshua E. Schlieder, Kelsey Hoffman, Knicole D. Col\'on, Luis Welbanks, Megan Weiner Mansfield, Nikole K. Lewis, Peter McGill, Pete Supsinskas, Rae Holcomb, Susan E. Mullally, Thomas Barclay, Thomas P. Greene, Trevor O. Foote, Veselin B. Kostov, Yoav Rotman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simulated time-dependent spot filling factors for each stellar scenario. Each panel shows sinusoidal variations in the projected spot filling factor over a full 30-day observing window, using the adopted stellar rotation period (5 or 30 d) and the fmin and fmax values from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative simulated Pandora spectra for each stellar scenario. Each row corresponds to a stellar scenario, while the left and right columns show count rate and flux density, respectively. In each panel, a representative 12-hr binned spectrum is shown for both giant-spot (red) and solar-like spot (orange) morphologies. Vertical error bars, which are generally smaller than the line width, denote 12-hr m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time series of inferred stellar parameters from fits to simulated Pandora observations of K-dwarf targets under four variability scenarios. Panels show the recovered photospheric temperature (Tphot), spot temperature (Tspot), spot filling factor (fspot), and stellar radius (R⋆) as a function of time. Each point corresponds to a pre- or post-transit stellar spectrum from an individual 24-hr visit. Black box… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time series of inferred stellar parameters from fits to simulated Pandora observations of M-dwarf targets under four variability scenarios. The figure elements are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: True and residual stellar contamination signals for the spot prescriptions we consider: giant spots (top), solar-like spots with maximum contamination (middle), and solar-like spots with moderate contamination (bottom). In each row, columns correspond to the four related scenarios (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stellar photospheric heterogeneity is a dominant astrophysical systematic impacting exoplanet transmission spectroscopy. NASA's Pandora SmallSat Mission is designed to address this challenge through contemporaneous visible photometry and NIR spectroscopy of exoplanet host stars. Here we present an end-to-end simulation study quantifying Pandora's ability to infer stellar photospheric properties and correct stellar contamination using out-of-transit observations. We construct eight representative stellar activity scenarios and generate 160 simulated Pandora datasets, incorporating time-dependent stellar spectra, instrument response, and noise. Given accurate models, Bayesian retrievals of Pandora spectrophotometry recover photospheric temperatures with typical uncertainties of ${\approx}30$ K, with no significant bias. Models with two spectral components (i.e., quiescent photosphere and spots) are strongly favored in 95% of cases; one-component models are preferred when true spot filling factors fall below a detection threshold of ${\approx}0.3$%. We propagate the true and inferred stellar parameters to compute true, inferred, and residual contamination signals under physically motivated spot geometries. For simple spot distributions, contamination signals of $10^2{-}10^3$ ppm are reduced to ${\lesssim}10$ ppm, well below Pandora's expected transmission spectroscopy precision (30$-$100 ppm). For more complex spot distributions, geometric degeneracies limit deterministic corrections, leaving residual contamination at the $10^3$ ppm level that must be mitigated using additional constraints, such as spot-crossing events and joint stellar-planetary retrievals of transmission spectra. These results define regimes in which stellar contamination can be corrected from stellar observations alone and show how Pandora stellar observations can identify cases where additional information is required.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an end-to-end simulation study of NASA's Pandora SmallSat mission, constructing eight stellar activity scenarios to generate 160 synthetic datasets that incorporate time-dependent spectra, instrument response, and noise. Bayesian retrievals on out-of-transit spectrophotometry are used to recover photospheric temperatures and spot parameters, which are then propagated to compute true, inferred, and residual stellar contamination signals in transmission spectroscopy under different spot geometries.

Significance. If the results hold, the work provides a quantitative benchmark for Pandora's ability to mitigate stellar heterogeneity—a dominant systematic in exoplanet transmission spectroscopy—showing that contamination can be reduced from 10^2-10^3 ppm to ≲10 ppm for simple spot distributions, below the mission's expected 30-100 ppm precision. The simulation framework with time-dependent spectra and explicit model-selection tests adds practical value for mission planning and data analysis strategies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (retrieval results): the reported temperature recovery to ≈30 K with no significant bias and contamination reduction to ≲10 ppm are conditioned on the retrieval model exactly matching the two-component (quiescent + spots) generative model used to create the data; no simulations are shown for misspecification cases such as faculae (+300-500 K) or vertical temperature gradients, which would bias the posteriors on T_phot and the derived residual contamination even if instrument noise is matched.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (model selection): the finding that two-component models are strongly favored in 95% of cases and that one-component models are preferred only below a 0.3% filling-factor threshold is derived under perfect model match; this threshold and the reported detection performance may shift if the true stellar spectrum includes unmodeled components, undermining the claim that Pandora observations alone can identify when additional constraints are required.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 5] Figure 5 (contamination propagation): the caption and text should explicitly state the assumed spot latitudes and longitudes used for the 'simple' versus 'complex' geometries, as these directly affect the reported residual levels of 10^3 ppm.
  2. [§2.3] §2.3 (noise model): the description of the noise model could include a brief statement on whether correlated noise (e.g., from instrument systematics) is included, to clarify the realism of the 30-100 ppm precision benchmark.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which correctly identify key assumptions in our simulation framework. We address each point below and have made partial revisions to clarify the scope and limitations of the results without overclaiming generality.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (retrieval results): the reported temperature recovery to ≈30 K with no significant bias and contamination reduction to ≲10 ppm are conditioned on the retrieval model exactly matching the two-component (quiescent + spots) generative model used to create the data; no simulations are shown for misspecification cases such as faculae (+300-500 K) or vertical temperature gradients, which would bias the posteriors on T_phot and the derived residual contamination even if instrument noise is matched.

    Authors: We agree that the reported temperature recovery (~30 K, unbiased) and contamination reduction (to ≲10 ppm for simple spots) assume exact model match between retrieval and generative models. Our study is scoped to the two-component case as a baseline for Pandora's performance when this model is appropriate, which is common for many active stars. We did not run misspecification tests (faculae or gradients) as they fall outside the current simulation suite. The manuscript already highlights that complex geometries leave ~1000 ppm residuals, indicating limits. We will add explicit caveats in the abstract and §4 noting that results are conditioned on model correctness and that misspecification could introduce biases, recommending future work on such cases. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (model selection): the finding that two-component models are strongly favored in 95% of cases and that one-component models are preferred only below a 0.3% filling-factor threshold is derived under perfect model match; this threshold and the reported detection performance may shift if the true stellar spectrum includes unmodeled components, undermining the claim that Pandora observations alone can identify when additional constraints are required.

    Authors: The model selection results (two-component favored in 95% of cases; one-component below ~0.3% filling factor) are derived under perfect model match. We acknowledge that unmodeled components could shift the Bayes factor thresholds and detection performance. Our claim is limited to showing that Pandora data can distinguish models and flag cases needing extra constraints when the two-component assumption holds. We will revise §3.2 to explicitly state this assumption and note that real applications may require cross-validation with other data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward-modeling with known ground truth provides external benchmark

full rationale

The paper constructs eight stellar activity scenarios, generates 160 synthetic Pandora datasets with known inputs (time-dependent spectra, instrument response, noise), then performs Bayesian retrievals and compares recovered photospheric temperatures and contamination signals directly to those injected ground-truth values. This is a standard validation test against external benchmarks rather than any reduction by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain. The central claims (≈30 K recovery with no bias, contamination reduced to ≲10 ppm for simple spots) are conditioned on model match but remain falsifiable against the known inputs, qualifying as self-contained simulation work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on the domain assumption that stellar spectra are adequately described by one- or two-component models and that the simulated instrument and noise properties match reality. No new physical entities are postulated; all parameters (temperatures, filling factors) are fitted within the retrieval framework.

free parameters (2)
  • spot filling factor
    Fitted parameter in the two-component Bayesian retrievals; detection threshold of ~0.3% is reported from the simulations.
  • photospheric and spot temperatures
    Recovered parameters with stated ~30 K uncertainty; central to both temperature recovery and contamination correction.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stellar spectra can be represented as linear combinations of quiescent photosphere and spot spectral components.
    Invoked when constructing the eight activity scenarios and when performing the Bayesian retrievals that favor two-component models.
  • domain assumption Instrument response and noise properties are known and correctly modeled in the simulations.
    Used to generate the 160 simulated datasets and to interpret the retrieval performance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5769 in / 1644 out tokens · 58748 ms · 2026-05-15T15:56:35.603977+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    B., Mansfield, M., et al

    Ahrer, E.-M., Stevenson, K. B., Mansfield, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 653, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4 2023

  2. [2]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    Ahrer, E.-M., Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add010 2025

  3. [3]

    2023, ARA&A, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    Aigrain, S., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 2023

  4. [4]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  5. [5]

    H., Espinoza, N., Boehm, V

    Allen, N. H., Espinoza, N., Boehm, V. A., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae28cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae28cb 2026

  6. [6]

    M., Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., et al

    Almenara, J. M., Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244791

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244791 2022

  7. [7]

    D., Kim, D

    Apai, D., Milster, T. D., Kim, D. W., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2631 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, Pr...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2631 2019

  8. [8]

    V., Col´ on, K., et al

    Barclay, T., Quintana, E. V., Col´ on, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.09730, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.09730

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.09730 2025

  9. [9]

    R., Jeffers, S

    Barnes, J. R., Jeffers, S. V., Haswell, C. A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1482

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1482 2017

  10. [10]

    R., Jeffers, S

    Barnes, J. R., Jeffers, S. V., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/42

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/42 2015

  11. [11]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2013, ApJ, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/153 2013

  12. [12]

    Berardo, D., de Wit, J., & Rackham, B. V. 2024, ApJL, 961, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5b 2024

  13. [13]

    Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2005-8

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2005-8 2005

  14. [14]

    2021, The Exoplanet Characterization Toolkit (ExoCTK), 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4556063

    Bourque, M., Espinoza, N., Filippazzo, J., et al. 2021, The Exoplanet Characterization Toolkit (ExoCTK), 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4556063

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4556063 2021

  15. [15]

    2022, ExoCTK: Exoplanet Characterization Tool Kit,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.012

    Bourque, M., Espinoza, N., Filippazzo, J., et al. 2022, ExoCTK: Exoplanet Characterization Tool Kit,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.012

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    The TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey: Periods for 1,046,317 Stars Within 500 pc

    Boyle, A. W., Bouma, L. G., & Mann, A. W. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05586, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05586

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05586 2026

  17. [17]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001 22Rackham et al

    Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001 22Rackham et al

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03001 2021

  18. [18]

    M., Lendl, M., et al

    Chakraborty, H., Almenara, J. M., Lendl, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555998

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555998 2025

  19. [19]

    Green, G. M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/128

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/128 2015

  20. [20]

    Espinoza, N., & Perrin, M. D. 2026, in Handbook of Exoplanets (Springer International Publishing AG), 216, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 216-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 2026

  21. [21]

    V., Jord´ an, A., et al

    Espinoza, N., Rackham, B. V., Jord´ an, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2691

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2691 2019

  22. [22]

    H., Glidden, A., et al

    Espinoza, N., Allen, N. H., Glidden, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e 2025

  23. [23]

    D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1 2023

  24. [24]

    O., Barclay, T., Hedges, C

    Foote, T. O., Barclay, T., Hedges, C. L., et al. 2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 047001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.4.047001

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.9.4.047001 2023

  25. [25]

    2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 8305, doi: 10.21105/joss.08305

    Garcia, L., Rackham, B., & Panwar, V. 2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 8305, doi: 10.21105/joss.08305

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.08305 2025

  26. [26]

    J., Moran, S

    Garcia, L. J., Moran, S. E., Rackham, B. V., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142603

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142603 2022

  27. [27]

    Nature 585(7825), 357–362 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  28. [28]

    H., Barman, T., Baron, E., Aufdenberg, J

    Hauschildt, P. H., Barman, T., Baron, E., Aufdenberg, J. P., & Schweitzer, A. 2025, A&A, 698, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554171

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554171 2025

  29. [29]

    J., Hord, B., et al

    Hedges, C., Holcomb, R. J., Hord, B., et al. 2024, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VIII, Vol. 13101 (SPIE), 182–190, doi: 10.1117/12.3020326

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3020326 2024

  30. [30]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/9

    Hirano, T., Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Takeda, Y., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/1/9 2014

  31. [31]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  32. [32]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  33. [33]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449541

    Ilin, E., Poppenh¨ ager, K., Stelzer, B., & Dsouza, D. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449541

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449541 2024

  34. [34]

    R., & Line, M

    Iyer, A. R., & Line, M. R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab612e JWST Transiting Exoplanet Community Early Release Science Team, Ahrer, E.-M., Alderson, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 649, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05269-w

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab612e 2020

  35. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05392, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05392

    Kipping, D., & Benneke, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05392, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05392

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.05392 2025

  36. [36]

    V., MacDonald, R

    Kirk, J., Rackham, B. V., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfcd2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfcd2 2021

  37. [37]

    E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accc2f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accc2f 2023

  38. [38]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4 2023

  39. [39]

    M., MacDonald, R

    May, E. M., MacDonald, R. J., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f 2023

  40. [40]

    B., McQuillan, A., & Goldstein, E

    Mazeh, T., Perets, H. B., McQuillan, A., & Goldstein, E. S. 2015, ApJ, 801, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/3 2015

  41. [41]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 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

    work page doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2010

  42. [42]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24 2014

  43. [43]

    E., Stevenson, K

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c 2023

  44. [44]

    2025, AJ, 170, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ade2df

    Mori, M., Fukui, A., Hirano, T., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ade2df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ade2df 2025

  45. [45]

    Hawley, S. L. 2017, ApJ, 846, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8555

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8555 2017

  46. [46]

    A., Garcia, L., Rackham, B

    Murray, C. A., Garcia, L., Rackham, B. V., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15414. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15414

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    S., Rackham, B

    Narrett, I. S., Rackham, B. V., & de Wit, J. 2024, AJ, 167, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1f6c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1f6c 2024

  48. [48]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/93 2016

  49. [49]

    V., de Wit, J., et al

    Niraula, P., Rackham, B. V., de Wit, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24585, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.24585

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.24585 2026

  50. [50]

    M., Beeck, B., Unruh, Y

    Norris, C. M., Beeck, B., Unruh, Y. C., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629879

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629879 2017

  51. [51]

    M., Unruh, Y

    Norris, C. M., Unruh, Y. C., Witzke, V., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1738 2023

  52. [52]

    V., Madhusudhan, N., & Apai, D

    Pinhas, A., Rackham, B. V., Madhusudhan, N., & Apai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2209

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2209 2018

  53. [53]

    V., Dotson, J

    Quintana, E. V., Dotson, J. L., Col´ on, K. D., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1309214, doi: 10.1117/12.3020633

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3020633 2024

  54. [54]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa4f6c

    Rackham, B., Espinoza, N., Apai, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa4f6c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa4f6c 2017

  55. [55]

    Rackham, B. V. 2023, speclib, 0.0-beta.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7868050

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7868050 2023

  56. [56]

    Rackham, B. V. 2025, speclib: Tools for working with stellar spectral libraries,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2505.001

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

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

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 853, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c Pandora Stellar Contamination Simulated Performance23

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c 2018

  58. [58]

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

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2019, AJ, 157, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf892

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf892 2019

  59. [59]

    V., & de Wit, J

    Rackham, B. V., & de Wit, J. 2024, AJ, 168, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5833

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad5833 2024

  60. [60]

    V., Espinoza, N., Berdyugina, S

    Rackham, B. V., Espinoza, N., Berdyugina, S. V., et al. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 148, doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzad009

    work page doi:10.1093/rasti/rzad009 2023

  61. [61]

    E., & Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (The MIT Press)

    work page 2006

  62. [62]

    D., Buchhave, L

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada5c7 2025

  63. [63]

    2026, AJ, 171, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4d3c

    Rotman, Y., McGill, P., Welbanks, L., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4d3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae4d3c 2026

  64. [64]

    K., Liu, R., & Wang, A

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Liu, R., & Wang, A. 2022, ApJL, 928, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b6f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b6f 2022

  65. [65]

    K., Mukherjee, S., et al

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y 2023

  66. [66]

    M., Morris, B

    Sagynbayeva, S., Farr, W. M., Morris, B. M., & Luger, R. 2025, ApJ, 990, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf6be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf6be 2025

  67. [67]

    I., Solanki, S

    Shapiro, A. I., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323086

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323086 2014

  68. [68]

    Solanki, S. K. 2003, A&A Rv, 11, 153, doi: 10.1007/s00159-003-0018-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-003-0018-4 2003

  69. [69]

    W., Garc´ ıa-Mej´ ıa, J., et al

    Tamburo, P., Yee, S. W., Garc´ ıa-Mej´ ıa, J., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf72f TRAPPIST-1 JWST Community Initiative, de Wit, J.,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adf72f 2025

  70. [70]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 810, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02298-5

    Doyon, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 810, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02298-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02298-5 2024

  71. [71]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    work page doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 2008

  72. [72]

    E., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  73. [73]

    R., Lewis, N

    Wakeford, H. R., Lewis, N. K., Fowler, J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf04d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf04d 2019

  74. [74]

    I., Kostogryz, N

    Witzke, V., Shapiro, A. I., Kostogryz, N. M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 941, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca671

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca671 2022

  75. [75]

    V., & Apai, D

    Zhang, Z., Zhou, Y., Rackham, B. V., & Apai, D. 2018, AJ, 156, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aade4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aade4f 2018