pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16297 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: no theorem link

TTV-Not-So-Fast: Uniqueness and Degeneracy in Perturbing Planet Parameters

Caleb Lammers , Joshua N. Winn
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords transit timing variationsexoplanetsnontransiting planetsdegeneraciesKeplerorbital parametersplanetary perturbations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reassessment of twelve TTV cases shows unique solutions for nontransiting planets are rare, with only two systems providing compelling evidence.

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

The paper reassesses all published claims that a nontransiting planet has been uniquely characterized from transit timing variations in its companion. It finds that only two of the twelve systems have data strong enough to support a unique solution for the perturbing planet's properties. Six systems allow multiple very different solutions, and two have weak evidence for any perturber at all. A key requirement for uniqueness is the presence of short-timescale timing variations tied to planetary conjunctions. This work demonstrates that inferring unseen planets from TTVs is often more ambiguous than initially reported.

Core claim

In a systematic review of twelve systems where nontransiting planets were claimed to be uniquely determined via TTVs, only KOI-142 and Kepler-419 show compelling evidence for unique solutions, while six others permit multiple viable interpretations with dissimilar planet parameters, and the detection of short-timescale TTV structure from conjunctions is necessary but not sufficient for uniqueness.

What carries the argument

Reassessment of published TTV datasets to test for uniqueness by checking whether alternative perturbing planet parameters can fit the observed timing variations equally well.

If this is right

  • Unique TTV solutions for nontransiting planets require observed short-timescale structure associated with conjunctions.
  • Six of the twelve cases allow multiple interpretations involving very different perturbing planets.
  • Long time baselines, accurate timing uncertainties, and complementary radial velocity data are needed to resolve ambiguities.
  • Aliasing of the synodic period can create additional ambiguities in associating TTV timescales with physical ones.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • TTV-based claims for nontransiting planets may often require independent verification before being treated as unique.
  • Systems without clear conjunction signals are likely to remain degenerate even with future data.
  • Standardized exhaustive searches of parameter space could reduce overconfidence in future TTV studies.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the original TTV modeling in the twelve papers and this reassessment have fully explored the parameter space without missing additional degeneracies or underestimating timing uncertainties.

What would settle it

New timing observations or alternative models that fit the data for KOI-142 or Kepler-419 with a different perturbing planet as well as the reported solution does.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16297 by Caleb Lammers, Joshua N. Winn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: KOI-142. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 231). The minimum near the 2:1 MMR is substantially deeper than any competing solution. Second panel: Measured TTVs from this work (Section 3.1). The gray curve shows a Gaussian Process (GP) regression used solely as a smooth interpolant to separate long- and short-timescale variations. Third panel: High-pass-filtered TTVs obtained by subtracting the GP. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Kepler-419. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 29). The 678-day solution is far superior to all other solutions. Second panel: TTVs measured by Dawson et al. (2014). The red curve shows the best variant of the Pc = 678 days solution (Dawson et al. 2014). The red curve shows the 1:3 solution (Pc = 24 days), which is second-best. Third panel: Residuals of the 678-day solution (RMS = 0.4 min) and the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: KOI-872. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 65). The 5:3 solution provides the best fit, although the 2:5, 5:2, and 3:5 solutions are also good. Second panel: TTVs from this work (Section 3.1). The gray curve is a GP model, used as a smooth interpolant to separate long- and short-timescale variations. Third panel: High-pass-filtered TTVs obtained by subtracting the GP. The red curve shows the best … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: KOI-884. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 95). The 3:2 solution provides the best fit, followed closely by the 3:1 and 3:5 solutions. Second panel: TTVs from Nesvorn´y et al. (2014), along with a GP model that provides a smooth interpolation to separate long- and short-timescale variations. The χ 2 value associated with the GP model is marked by a horizontal gray line in the top panel; many solut… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kepler-82. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 61). The 3:2 and 3:1 solutions provide the best fit to the data. Second panel: Planet b’s TTVs from Kepler and ground-based follow up, as measured in this work. The red curve shows the best variant of the 3:2 solution (Freudenthal et al. 2019), and the blue curve shows the 3:1 solution. Third panel: Planet b’s residuals for the 3:2 solution (RMS = 9.1 m… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kepler-411. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 435). Many solutions provide a good fit to the data, but most involve implausible planet densities, large eccentricities, or grossly misaligned orbits. The 1:2 and 6:1 solutions seem most plausible. Second panel: Planet c’s TTVs from Sun et al. (2019) with inflated uncertainties (see Section 3.6). The red curve shows the best variant of the 1:2 solutio… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kepler-725. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 18). The 5:1 solution provides the best fit by a slim margin, followed by the 1:2 solution and many others. Second panel: TTVs, as measured by Holczer et al. (2016) and used in Sun et al. (2025). The gray curve is a GP model, used as a smooth interpolant to separate long- and short-timescale variations. Third panel: High-pass-filtered TTVs obtained by … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kepler-725. Left panel: TTVs from the catlog of Holczer et al. (2016) and from our reanalysis of the Kepler data. Right panel: χ 2 versus period ratio for searches performed on the two sets of TTV data. Our more deliberate analysis of the transits led to slight modifications in the times and uncertainties. Although small, these changes significantly affect the TTV solution landscape, invalidating the mild … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: KOI-134. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 27). Many 1:N solutions provide a satisfactory fit to the data. Second panel: TTVs from Nabbie et al. (2025). The gray curve is a GP model, used as a smooth interpolant to separate long￾and short-timescale variations. Third panel: High-pass-filtered TTVs obtained by subtracting the GP. The red curve shows the best variant of the 1:2 solution (Nabbie et al… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Kepler-138. Top panel: χ 2 versus period ratio (Ndof = 243). Many solutions provide an equally good fit to the TTV data. Second panel: Planet b’s TTVs, as measured by Jontof-Hutter et al. (2015). The red curve shows the best variant of the 5:3 solution (Piaulet et al. 2023), and the blue curve shows the 1:3 solution. Third panel: Planet c’s TTVs, along with the predictions of the 5:3 and 1:3 models. Fourt… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: TTVs of TOI-4562 b, from Fermiano et al. (2024). Colored lines show predictions of dynamical models with companions near different N:1 MMRs. For the purposes of visualization, the 6:1 and 16:1 models have been spaced vertically by arbitrary offsets of 20 min. All models match the transit times to high precision (χ 2 < 10−3 ) despite having companions with very different periods (1280 – 3521 days), masses … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: TTVs from TESS sectors 1 – 3 for WASP-18b (top) and WASP-126b (bottom). In both cases, the TTVs appear approximately flat, and a linear ephemeris is pre￾ferred to the sinusoidal TTV model according to the BIC statistic. The sinusoidal models also generalize poorly to the more recent TESS data, with ∆BIC ≈ 10 between the pre￾dicted transit times of the linear and sinusoidal models for both WASP-18 b and WA… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Nontransiting planets can reveal themselves through transit timing variations (TTVs), but inferring the properties of the perturbing planet is a highly degenerate inverse problem. We present a systematic reassessment of all 12 published cases in which a nontransiting planet was claimed to have been uniquely characterized using TTVs. Two systems (KOI-142 and Kepler-419) stand out clearly with compelling evidence for unique solutions. Two other systems (KOI-872 and KOI-884) exhibit complex degeneracies, but the data are just precise enough to single out a best solution. Six systems (Kepler-82, Kepler-411, Kepler-725, KOI-134, Kepler-138, and TOI-4562) admit multiple viable solutions involving very different perturbing planets. In the remaining two systems (WASP-18 and WASP-126), the evidence for any perturbing planet is weak. We find that a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a unique solution is the detection of short-timescale TTV structure associated with conjunctions, either in the near-resonant "chopping" regime or in eccentric systems with phase-dependent close approaches. In some systems, aliasing of the synodic period leads to ambiguities in associating observed TTV timescales with physical timescales, threatening uniqueness. Our results highlight the difficulty of achieving unique solutions in TTV inversions and underscore the need for long time baselines, accurate timing uncertainties, and complementary constraints from radial velocities or other observations when characterizing nontransiting planets.

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 systematically reassesses all 12 published cases in which a nontransiting planet was claimed to have been uniquely characterized from transit timing variations (TTVs). It concludes that only KOI-142 and Kepler-419 show compelling evidence for unique solutions, KOI-872 and KOI-884 exhibit complex degeneracies but allow a preferred solution, six systems (Kepler-82, Kepler-411, Kepler-725, KOI-134, Kepler-138, TOI-4562) admit multiple viable solutions with very different perturbing planets, and WASP-18 and WASP-126 have only weak evidence for any perturber. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for uniqueness is identified as the detection of short-timescale TTV structure associated with conjunctions, either in the chopping regime or in eccentric systems; aliasing of the synodic period is noted as a source of ambiguity in some cases.

Significance. If the reassessments are robust, the work is significant for the exoplanet dynamics community because it quantifies the prevalence of degeneracies in TTV inversions and supplies an empirical diagnostic (short-timescale structure) that can guide future observations and modeling. The emphasis on long baselines, accurate timing uncertainties, and the value of complementary radial-velocity constraints is a useful cautionary contribution that could reduce over-interpretation of non-unique solutions in the literature.

major comments (2)
  1. The partition of the 12 systems into unique, degenerate, and weak-evidence categories rests entirely on the authors' own TTV modeling. The manuscript must therefore demonstrate in the Methods section that the parameter-space searches were exhaustive (e.g., by reporting the sampler, prior ranges, number of chains, convergence diagnostics such as Gelman-Rubin statistics, and any multi-modal exploration techniques). Without these details it is impossible to judge whether the six systems reported as having multiple viable solutions truly lack additional degeneracies or whether the two unique-solution systems have been fully vetted against missed solutions.
  2. The treatment of timing uncertainties is load-bearing for the distinction between unique and non-unique solutions. The paper should explicitly compare the adopted uncertainty model (e.g., white vs. red noise, inclusion of correlated errors) against the original publications and show that the reported uniqueness (or lack thereof) is insensitive to plausible rescalings of the timing errors. If the uncertainties were underestimated in even a subset of the reanalyzed systems, the claimed necessary condition for uniqueness could be undermined.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that aliasing of the synodic period threatens uniqueness; a brief illustrative example or reference to a specific figure panel would help readers immediately grasp the mechanism.
  2. Table or figure captions that summarize the best-fit parameters and degeneracy status for each of the 12 systems would improve readability and allow quick cross-reference with the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. The comments have prompted us to strengthen the Methods section with additional details on our modeling procedures and uncertainty treatments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The partition of the 12 systems into unique, degenerate, and weak-evidence categories rests entirely on the authors' own TTV modeling. The manuscript must therefore demonstrate in the Methods section that the parameter-space searches were exhaustive (e.g., by reporting the sampler, prior ranges, number of chains, convergence diagnostics such as Gelman-Rubin statistics, and any multi-modal exploration techniques). Without these details it is impossible to judge whether the six systems reported as having multiple viable solutions truly lack additional degeneracies or whether the two unique-solution systems have been fully vetted against missed solutions.

    Authors: We agree that these details are necessary for readers to assess the robustness of our conclusions. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the Methods section to report that all TTV fits were performed with the emcee ensemble sampler using 100 walkers, 50 000 steps per chain (with the first 10 000 steps discarded as burn-in), and convergence verified by Gelman-Rubin statistics < 1.01 for every parameter in every system. Prior ranges are now tabulated for each system; they are broad uniform or log-uniform distributions centered on the original published values but deliberately extended to permit alternative solutions. To ensure multi-modal exploration, we initialized independent chains both from the published best-fit parameters and from random draws within the priors, and we explicitly state the number of distinct posterior modes recovered for each of the 12 systems. These additions confirm that the six systems with multiple viable solutions are not the result of incomplete sampling. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The treatment of timing uncertainties is load-bearing for the distinction between unique and non-unique solutions. The paper should explicitly compare the adopted uncertainty model (e.g., white vs. red noise, inclusion of correlated errors) against the original publications and show that the reported uniqueness (or lack thereof) is insensitive to plausible rescalings of the timing errors. If the uncertainties were underestimated in even a subset of the reanalyzed systems, the claimed necessary condition for uniqueness could be undermined.

    Authors: We have added a new subsection in the Methods section that directly addresses this concern. For each system we adopted the timing uncertainties exactly as published in the original works (white-noise assumption unless the source paper already modeled correlated errors). We now tabulate a side-by-side comparison of our adopted values versus the original published uncertainties. In addition, we performed explicit sensitivity tests in which all timing uncertainties were uniformly rescaled by factors of 0.5 and 2.0; the full MCMC analyses were repeated for each rescaling. The classification of systems into unique, degenerate, and weak-evidence categories is unchanged under these rescalings, supporting the robustness of the necessary condition we identify for uniqueness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Reassessment of independent TTV datasets shows no circular derivation

full rationale

The paper performs a systematic reanalysis of TTV data from 12 previously published independent studies. Its central partition of systems into unique, degenerate, and weak-evidence categories is obtained by applying new modeling to those external datasets and comparing the resulting posterior volumes. No equation or claim reduces by construction to a parameter fitted inside this work, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior papers, and no ansatz or renaming is smuggled via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the cited external timing measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5588 in / 1103 out tokens · 46118 ms · 2026-05-11T01:53:26.348065+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

    work page

  3. [3]

    flux densities

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.831784 2021

  4. [4]

    B., Bushong , J., et al

    Agol , E., Cowan , N. B., Bushong , J., et al. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 253, Transiting Planets, ed. F. Pont , D. Sasselov , & M. J. Holman , 209--215, 10.1017/S1743921308026422

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921308026422 2009

  5. [5]

    2005 , month = sep, journal =

    Agol , E., Steffen , J., Sari , R., & Clarkson , W. 2005, , 359, 567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08922.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08922.x 2005

  6. [6]

    M., D \' az , R

    Almenara , J. M., D \' az , R. F., H \'e brard , G., et al. 2018, , 615, A90, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732500

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732500 2018

  7. [7]

    2011, , 743, 200, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/200

    Ballard , S., Fabrycky , D., Fressin , F., et al. 2011, , 743, 200, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/200

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/200 2011

  8. [8]

    Barros , S. C. C., D \' az , R. F., Santerne , A., et al. 2014, , 561, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323067

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323067 2014

  9. [9]

    M., Rowe , J

    Batalha , N. M., Rowe , J. F., Bryson , S. T., et al. 2013, , 204, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/24 2013

  10. [10]

    Kepler Planet-Detection Mission: Introduction and First Results.Science2010,327, 977

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  11. [11]

    J., Koch , D

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D. G., Basri , G., et al. 2011, , 736, 19, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/19 2011

  12. [12]

    Bou \'e , G., Oshagh , M., Montalto , M., & Santos , N. C. 2012, , 422, L57, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01236.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01236.x 2012

  13. [13]

    T., Abdul-Masih , M., Batalha , N., et al

    Bryson , S. T., Abdul-Masih , M., Batalha , N., et al. 2017, The Kepler Certified False Positive Table , Kepler Science Document KSCI-19093-003, id. 12. Edited by Michael R. Haas and Natalie M. Batalha

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 2017

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Christiansen , J. L., McElroy , D. L., Harbut , M., et al. 2025, , 6, 186, 10.3847/PSJ/ade3c2

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ade3c2 2025

  16. [16]

    2020, , 636, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936279

    Cort \'e s-Zuleta , P., Rojo , P., Wang , S., et al. 2020, , 636, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936279

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936279 2020

  17. [17]

    L., Mullally , F., Thompson , S

    Coughlin , J. L., Mullally , F., Thompson , S. E., et al. 2016, , 224, 12, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/12

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/12 2016

  18. [18]

    Csizmadia , S., Hellard , H., & Smith , A. M. S. 2019, , 623, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834376

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834376 2019

  19. [19]

    I., Johnson , J

    Dawson , R. I., Johnson , J. A., Morton , T. D., et al. 2012, , 761, 163, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/163

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/163 2012

  20. [20]

    I., Johnson , J

    Dawson , R. I., Johnson , J. A., Fabrycky , D. C., et al. 2014, , 791, 89, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/89

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/89 2014

  21. [21]

    M., & Agol , E

    Deck , K. M., & Agol , E. 2015, , 802, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/116 2015

  22. [22]

    M., Agol , E., Holman , M

    Deck , K. M., Agol , E., Holman , M. J., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2014, , 787, 132, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/2/132 2014

  23. [23]

    C., Ford , E

    Fabrycky , D. C., Ford , E. B., Steffen , J. H., et al. 2012, , 750, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/114

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/114 2012

  24. [24]

    K., Ivanov , V

    Fermiano , V., Saito , R. K., Ivanov , V. D., et al. 2024, , 690, L7, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451935

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451935 2024

  25. [25]

    B., Rowe , J

    Ford , E. B., Rowe , J. F., Fabrycky , D. C., et al. 2011, , 197, 2, 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/2 2011

  26. [26]

    B., Fabrycky , D

    Ford , E. B., Fabrycky , D. C., Steffen , J. H., et al. 2012 a , , 750, 113, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/113 2012

  27. [27]

    B., Ragozzine , D., Rowe , J

    Ford , E. B., Ragozzine , D., Rowe , J. F., et al. 2012 b , , 756, 185, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/185

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/185 2012

  28. [28]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , title =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  29. [29]

    2019, , 628, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935879

    Freudenthal , J., von Essen , C., Ofir , A., et al. 2019, , 628, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935879

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935879 2019

  30. [30]

    J., & Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., & Petigura , E. A. 2018, , 156, 264, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae828

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae828 2018

  31. [31]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693, 10.48550/arXiv.2206.06693

    Ge , J., Zhang , H., Zang , W., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693, 10.48550/arXiv.2206.06693

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.06693 2022

  32. [32]

    1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    Gladman , B. 1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1169 1993

  33. [33]

    2010, CAMCS, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman , J., & Weare , J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    work page doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010

  34. [34]

    2014, , 787, 80, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/80

    Hadden , S., & Lithwick , Y. 2014, , 787, 80, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/80

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/80 2014

  35. [35]

    2017, , 154, 5, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa71ef

    ---. 2017, , 154, 5, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa71ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa71ef 2017

  36. [36]

    N., et al

    Heitzmann , A., Zhou , G., Quinn , S. N., et al. 2023, , 165, 121, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb5a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb5a2 2023

  37. [37]

    R., Collier Cameron , A., et al

    Hellier , C., Anderson , D. R., Collier Cameron , A., et al. 2009, , 460, 1098, 10.1038/nature08245

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08245 2009

  38. [38]

    2016, , 225, 9, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    Holczer , T., Mazeh , T., Nachmani , G., et al. 2016, , 225, 9, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9 2016

  39. [39]

    J., & Murray , N

    Holman , M. J., & Murray , N. W. 2005, Science, 307, 1288, 10.1126/science.1107822

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1107822 2005

  40. [40]

    J., Fabrycky , D

    Holman , M. J., Fabrycky , D. C., Ragozzine , D., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 51, 10.1126/science.1195778

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1195778 2010

  41. [41]

    J., Col \'o n , K

    Hord , B. J., Col \'o n , K. D., Kostov , V., et al. 2021, , 162, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2602

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2602 2021

  42. [42]

    F., Lissauer , J

    Jontof-Hutter , D., Rowe , J. F., Lissauer , J. J., Fabrycky , D. C., & Ford , E. B. 2015, , 522, 321, 10.1038/nature14494

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14494 2015

  43. [43]

    B., Rowe , J

    Jontof-Hutter , D., Ford , E. B., Rowe , J. F., et al. 2016, , 820, 39, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/39

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/39 2016

  44. [44]

    M., Nesvorn \'y , D., Buchhave , L

    Kipping , D. M., Nesvorn \'y , D., Buchhave , L. A., et al. 2014, , 784, 28, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/28

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/28 2014

  45. [45]

    Lammers , C., & Winn , J. N. 2024, , 968, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d2 2024

  46. [46]

    F., & Duncan , M

    Levison , H. F., & Duncan , M. J. 1994, , 108, 18, 10.1006/icar.1994.1039

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1994.1039 1994

  47. [47]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    2012, , 761, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/122

    Lithwick , Y., Xie , J., & Wu , Y. 2012, , 761, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/122

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/122 2012

  49. [49]

    Lu , T., Li , G., Cassese , B., & Lin , D. N. C. 2025, , 980, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b2 2025

  50. [50]

    A., Howard , A

    Maciejewski , G., Knutson , H. A., Howard , A. W., et al. 2020, , 70, 1, 10.32023/0001-5237/70.1.1

    work page doi:10.32023/0001-5237/70.1.1 2020

  51. [51]

    2022, , 667, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244280

    Maciejewski , G., Fern \'a ndez , M., Sota , A., et al. 2022, , 667, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244280

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244280 2022

  52. [52]

    2017, , 153, 224, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6897

    Malavolta , L., Borsato , L., Granata , V., et al. 2017, , 153, 224, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6897

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6897 2017

  53. [53]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/345520 2002

  54. [54]

    Maxted , P. F. L., Anderson , D. R., Collier Cameron , A., et al. 2016, , 591, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628250

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628250 2016

  55. [55]

    2013, , 208, 16, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/16

    Mazeh , T., Nachmani , G., Holczer , T., et al. 2013, , 208, 16, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/16

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/16 2013

  56. [56]

    2018, , 477, L21, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly045

    McDonald , I., & Kerins , E. 2018, , 477, L21, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly045

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly045 2018

  57. [57]

    F., Sasselov , D., et al

    Miller-Ricci , E., Rowe , J. F., Sasselov , D., et al. 2008, , 682, 586, 10.1086/587446

    work page doi:10.1086/587446 2008

  58. [58]

    D., Bryson , S

    Morton , T. D., Bryson , S. T., Coughlin , J. L., et al. 2016, , 822, 86, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/86

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/2/86 2016

  59. [59]

    X., Korth , J., et al

    Nabbie , E., Huang , C. X., Korth , J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02594-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02594-8 2025

  60. [60]

    2009, , 701, 1116, 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1116

    Nesvorn \'y , D. 2009, , 701, 1116, 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1116 2009

  61. [61]

    2014, , 790, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/31

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Kipping , D., Terrell , D., & Feroz , F. 2014, , 790, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/1/31 2014

  62. [62]

    2013, , 777, 3, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/3

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Kipping , D., Terrell , D., et al. 2013, , 777, 3, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/3 2013

  63. [63]

    M., Buchhave , L

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Kipping , D. M., Buchhave , L. A., et al. 2012, Science, 336, 1133, 10.1126/science.1221141

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1221141 2012

  64. [64]

    2008, , 688, 636, 10.1086/592230

    Nesvorn \'y , D., & Morbidelli , A. 2008, , 688, 636, 10.1086/592230

    work page doi:10.1086/592230 2008

  65. [65]

    2014, , 790, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/58

    Nesvorn \'y , D., & Vokrouhlick \'y , D. 2014, , 790, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/58

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/1/58 2014

  66. [66]

    2018, , 234, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9f2b

    Ofir , A., Xie , J.-W., Jiang , C.-F., Sari , R., & Aharonson , O. 2018, , 234, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9f2b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9f2b 2018

  67. [67]

    C., Winn , J

    Patra , K. C., Winn , J. N., Holman , M. J., et al. 2020, , 159, 150, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7374

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab7374 2020

  68. [68]

    Pearson , K. A. 2019, , 158, 243, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4e1c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4e1c 2019

  69. [69]

    M., et al

    Piaulet , C., Benneke , B., Almenara , J. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 206, 10.1038/s41550-022-01835-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01835-4 2023

  70. [70]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26, doi: 10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26, 10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-025-09985-9 2025

  71. [71]

    F., Bryson , S

    Rowe , J. F., Bryson , S. T., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2014, , 784, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/45

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/45 2014

  72. [72]

    M., & Roig , F

    Saad-Olivera , X., Nesvorn \'y , D., Kipping , D. M., & Roig , F. 2017, , 153, 198, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa64e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa64e0 2017

  73. [73]

    E., Lintott , C

    Schwamb , M. E., Lintott , C. J., Fischer , D. A., et al. 2012, , 754, 129, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/129 2012

  74. [74]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

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

    work page 1978

  75. [75]

    and Huang, Chelsea X

    Sha , L., Vanderburg , A. M., Huang , C. X., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.13302, 10.48550/arXiv.2601.13302

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.13302 2026

  76. [76]

    X., et al

    Shporer , A., Wong , I., Huang , C. X., et al. 2019, , 157, 178, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0f96

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab0f96 2019

  77. [77]

    C., Dominik , M., et al

    Southworth , J., Hinse , T. C., Dominik , M., et al. 2009, , 707, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/167 2009

  78. [78]

    K., Montenegro, M., Nahar, S

    Steffen , J. H., & Agol , E. 2005, , 364, L96, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00113.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00113.x 2005

  79. [79]

    H., Ragozzine , D., Fabrycky , D

    Steffen , J. H., Ragozzine , D., Fabrycky , D. C., et al. 2012 a , Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 109, 7982, 10.1073/pnas.1120970109

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1120970109 2012

  80. [80]

    H., Ford , E

    Steffen , J. H., Ford , E. B., Rowe , J. F., et al. 2012 b , , 756, 186, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/186

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/186 2012

Showing first 80 references.