pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03939 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

The Range of Cumulative XUV Flux on GJ 1132 b

Rory Barnes , Laura N. R. do Amaral , Jessica Birky , James R. A. Davenport , Scott Engle , Megan Gialluca , Evgenya L. Shkolnik
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 04:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords GJ 1132 bXUV fluxatmospheric escapeM dwarf starsflarescosmic shorelineexoplanet atmospherecumulative radiation
0
0 comments X

The pith

All models show GJ 1132 b has at least a 95% chance of receiving over 50 times modern Earth's XUV flux

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

The paper models the history of XUV radiation from the M dwarf GJ 1132 that reached its close-in planet b. It combines two quiescent XUV evolution models with flare rates drawn from the star's TESS data and a re-analysis of Kepler stars, while propagating the main observational uncertainties. Every model combination yields at least a 95% probability that the planet intercepted more than 50 times the XUV flux modern Earth has received. This exposure level is high enough to drive permanent atmospheric loss through hydrodynamic escape, placing the planet on the atmosphere-free side of the cosmic shoreline.

Core claim

Every model permutation for the star's XUV history, including flares, gives the planet at least a 95% probability of intercepting more than 50 times the cumulative XUV flux received by modern Earth. This places GJ 1132 b firmly on the atmosphere-free side of the cosmic shoreline.

What carries the argument

The cumulative XUV flux calculation that integrates two quiescent luminosity evolution models for M dwarfs with flare contributions derived from the star's TESS light curve and Kepler statistics.

If this is right

  • Flares contribute about 20% of the total XUV energy delivered to the planet.
  • The empirical M-dwarf XUV model predicts 2-3 times more total flux and a 2-3 times narrower distribution than the solar-twin scaling.
  • GJ 1132 b lies well beyond the threshold for permanent atmospheric loss.
  • Similar short-period planets around old M dwarfs are probable candidates for atmospheric stripping.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Atmospheric observations of GJ 1132 b could directly test the accuracy of the XUV history models.
  • The result suggests that many close-in Earth-sized planets around M dwarfs may have lost their atmospheres early in their lives.
  • Switching from solar-scaled to empirical M-dwarf XUV models changes predicted fluxes by a factor of 2-3 and could shift habitability assessments for other systems.
  • The star's low flare rate and long rotation period are consistent with it being several Gyr old.

Load-bearing premise

The quiescent XUV luminosity evolution models accurately represent the star's history and the flare rate extrapolated from limited TESS and Kepler data applies to this system over its lifetime.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing GJ 1132's current XUV output is much lower than the models assume, or a detection of a substantial atmosphere on GJ 1132 b, would falsify the high cumulative exposure claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03939 by Evgenya L. Shkolnik, James R. A. Davenport, Jessica Birky, Laura N. R. do Amaral, Megan Gialluca, Rory Barnes, Scott Engle.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Corner plot for the six-parameter fit for the Davenport et al. (2019) FFD model (Eqs. [4–6]). The contours denote the 16%, 50%, and 84% confidence intervals, with additional, lower-likelihood points shown by dots. The marginal posteriors along the diagonal include vertical dashed lines that denote the median and 1σ uncertainties in the model parameter distributions. Each sector’s lightcurve is first normal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the new FFD model (solid line) to the original Davenport et al. (2019) FFD model (dashed lines) for 4 different ages of a 0.5 M⊙ star. defined as MAD = median |Fi − Fe|  , (9) where Fe = median(Fi). The MAD is related to the stan￾dard deviation of a Gaussian distribution by the consis￾tency constant c = 1/Φ −1 (3/4) ≈ 1.4826, where Φ−1 is the quantile function of the standard normal distribu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Four flare candidates of GJ 1132 observed by TESS. The blue points indicate times that are labeled as flaring by our automated pipeline and used to compute the total energy of the flare. Note also that the baseline flux varies with an amplitude of about 1% suggesting that the star has a natural variability at this level on ∼2-minute timescales. 5 shows that the uncertainties are also well-represented by a … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GJ 1132’s FFD from TESS data (black points), a linear regression fit to the data (black line), and the 1σ uncertainty in the fit (grey shaded region). Additional FFDs are included for reference, including the average of several clusters (dashed red, dark blue, and orange lines) as well as the prediction of the flare model for GJ 1132 with an age of 8 Gyr (purple lines). The FFDs of two M dwarfs observed wi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The distribution of quiescent XUV luminosity of GJ 1132. Right: The distribution of the ratio of the quiescent XUV-to-bolometric luminosity of GJ 1132. 0 5 10 Age [Gyr] 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 Fraction view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of GJ 1132 ages predicted by the Engle (2024) model, truncated at 13 Gyr. prior for tsat, we find it is very likely to be less than 3 Gyr, and probably less than 1 Gyr. This result is driven largely by the relatively low current LXUV value (see view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot for the Ribas et al. (2005) model parameters. Pale blue curves are from dynesty, orange from emcee, purple from MultiNest, and dark blue from UltraNest. The grey curves are priors and the black dots and vertical lines in the marginal posteriors denote the maximum likelihood. TESS data, see view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example XUV evolutions for GJ 1132. Both panels include flares, but the left panel assumes the quiescent model of Engle (2024) and the right assumes the model from Ribas et al. (2005). 10 2 10 3 Normalized Cumulative XUV Flux 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Fraction Cosmic Shoreline Engle Only Engle w/Flares Ribas Only Ribas w/Flares Pass et al. (2025) Xue et al. (2024) 2 3 6 10 20 Escape Velocity [km/s] 10 … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Histograms of cumulative XUV fluxes planet b has received for different assumptions. The recently proposed values from Xue24 and Pass et al. (2025) are also shown for reference. Right: The distribution of XUV fluxes for GJ 1132 b in relation to the “cosmic shoreline” (Zahnle & Catling 2017). The uncertainties shown are two sigma. The GJ 1132 b points are offset slightly in the x-axis to improve reada… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of cumulative XUV flux distributions for the Engle (2024) model (left) and Ribas et al. (2005) model (right), but highlighting the different error sources. The red histograms only included uncertainties in the fundamental stellar parameters (mass and age); the purple histograms only included uncertainties in the model parameters; the black histogram includes both. The cosmic shoreline is shown … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized root mean squared error, see Eq. (B5), during active learning of Run #5 in view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the plausible history of the XUV luminosity evolution of the planet-hosting M4 star GJ 1132 (~0.2 solar masses) to infer the cumulative incident XUV flux intercepted by the short-period (~1.6 d) Earth-sized transiting planet GJ 1132 b. We include the dominant observational uncertainties, compare two quiescent XUV luminosity evolution models, and simulate the XUV luminosity evolution from flares based on TESS data and a re-analysis of Kepler stars. We find only 4 flares in GJ 1132's TESS 123 day lightcurve, which is relatively few for M dwarfs and, in conjunction with the ~125 day period, suggests that this star is many Gyr old. We find that all model permutations predict that the planet has at least a 95% chance of receiving more than 50 times as much XUV flux as modern Earth, confirming that this planet is a good candidate for permanent atmospheric loss. We also find that an empirical XUV model for M dwarfs predicts 2-3 times more total XUV flux than a commonly used solar twin model and that the empirical model's distribution is 2-3 times narrower. Flares contribute about 20% of the cumulative XUV flux on planet b, which, while modest, ensures the planet lies firmly on the atmosphere-free side of the "cosmic shoreline."

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 models the cumulative XUV flux received by the transiting Earth-sized planet GJ 1132 b over its lifetime by combining two quiescent XUV luminosity evolution prescriptions for its ~0.2 M⊙ M4 host with flare contributions simulated from four TESS detections in 123 days plus a re-analysis of Kepler M-dwarf flare statistics. All model permutations are reported to yield at least a 95% probability that the planet has intercepted more than 50 times the modern-Earth XUV fluence, placing it firmly on the atmosphere-free side of the cosmic shoreline; flares are stated to contribute ~20% of the total while an empirical M-dwarf XUV model produces 2–3 times higher fluence than a solar-twin scaling.

Significance. If the flare-rate extrapolation and model-combination procedure are robust, the work supplies a concrete, observationally anchored probability distribution for the high-energy irradiation history of a specific rocky exoplanet, directly informing atmospheric-escape calculations and target selection for transmission spectroscopy. The quantitative comparison between empirical M-dwarf and solar-twin scalings, together with the modest but non-negligible flare term, offers a useful benchmark for similar M-dwarf systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Flare modeling] Flare modeling section: the flare frequency distribution is constructed from only four TESS events and a Kepler M-dwarf sample and then integrated over the star’s full lifetime without an explicit mass-, rotation-, or age-dependent scaling. Because the quiescent models already differ by a factor of 2–3, even a modest systematic reduction in the flare rate for an old, slowly rotating 0.2 M⊙ star can shift the lower edge of the cumulative distribution relative to the 50× Earth threshold that underpins the 95% probability claim.
  2. [Results] Results and discussion: the statement that “all model permutations predict at least a 95% chance” is presented as the headline result, yet the manuscript does not show the sensitivity of the 5% tail to plausible variations in the flare-rate normalization or to the precise age prior inferred from the 125-day rotation period. A quantitative sensitivity table or Monte-Carlo re-sampling with varied flare scalings would be required to substantiate that the 95% threshold is stable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction should explicitly name the two quiescent XUV evolution models (e.g., the specific empirical M-dwarf relation and the solar-twin scaling) rather than referring to them generically.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and text should clarify how the 20% average flare contribution is computed (time-integrated fluence or instantaneous luminosity) and whether it is evaluated at the median or mean of the posterior.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of our work and for the constructive major comments on flare modeling and the robustness of our headline result. We address each point below and describe the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Flare modeling] Flare modeling section: the flare frequency distribution is constructed from only four TESS events and a Kepler M-dwarf sample and then integrated over the star’s full lifetime without an explicit mass-, rotation-, or age-dependent scaling. Because the quiescent models already differ by a factor of 2–3, even a modest systematic reduction in the flare rate for an old, slowly rotating 0.2 M⊙ star can shift the lower edge of the cumulative distribution relative to the 50× Earth threshold that underpins the 95% probability claim.

    Authors: We agree that the flare frequency distribution relies on a small number of TESS detections (four events) normalized to the Kepler M-dwarf sample and is integrated over the full stellar lifetime without an additional explicit scaling for mass, rotation rate, or age. The low observed flare rate is, however, itself consistent with the star being old and slowly rotating, as indicated by the ~125-day photometric period. The Kepler statistics supply the best available empirical shape for the FFD of M dwarfs, and our normalization is tied directly to the TESS observations of this specific star. While an age- or rotation-dependent flare scaling would be desirable, such scalings are not yet well constrained for old, low-mass M dwarfs in the literature. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised discussion section that explores the effect of a factor-of-two reduction in the flare contribution (a conservative adjustment for an old star) and will show that the lower edge of the cumulative XUV distribution remains above the 50× Earth threshold at high probability. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results and discussion: the statement that “all model permutations predict at least a 95% chance” is presented as the headline result, yet the manuscript does not show the sensitivity of the 5% tail to plausible variations in the flare-rate normalization or to the precise age prior inferred from the 125-day rotation period. A quantitative sensitivity table or Monte-Carlo re-sampling with varied flare scalings would be required to substantiate that the 95% threshold is stable.

    Authors: The model permutations already combine the two quiescent XUV evolution prescriptions with and without the flare component. We acknowledge that an explicit sensitivity analysis of the 5 % tail to variations in flare-rate normalization and the age prior derived from the rotation period is not presented. To address this, we will add a new subsection (and accompanying table) in the revised results section that reports Monte Carlo re-samplings. These will vary the flare normalization within the Poisson uncertainty implied by four detected events and will sample the age prior over the plausible range for a 0.2 M⊙ star with a 125-day rotation period. The table will list the resulting probabilities that the cumulative XUV fluence exceeds 50 times the modern-Earth value, thereby demonstrating the stability of the 95 % threshold under these variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: external models integrated with direct observations

full rationale

The derivation integrates two literature quiescent XUV evolution models with a flare simulation built from the paper's own TESS light curve (4 flares in 123 days) plus a re-analysis of independent Kepler M-dwarf data. Cumulative flux and the 95% probability threshold are computed forward from these inputs; no equation redefines a fitted quantity as its own prediction, no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, and the central claim does not reduce to a renaming or self-definition. The result remains falsifiable against external stellar-age and flare-rate benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim relies on the validity of the two XUV models and the extrapolation of flare activity from short-term observations.

free parameters (2)
  • quiescent XUV luminosity evolution parameters
    Parameters in the two models compared, likely fitted to stellar observations.
  • flare rate and contribution parameters
    Derived from TESS data (4 flares in 123 days) and Kepler re-analysis.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The star's age inferred from low flare rate and ~125 day period
    Suggests many Gyr old based on flare frequency.
  • domain assumption Applicability of Kepler flare statistics to GJ 1132 over its lifetime
    Used to simulate flares.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5580 in / 1369 out tokens · 52646 ms · 2026-05-07T04:10:13.640645+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

76 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022,Astrophys. J., 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  2. [2]

    New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astron. & Astrophys., 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  3. [3]

    2020, PASP, 132, 024502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8

    Barnes, R., Luger, R., Deitrick, R., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 024502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8 2020

  4. [4]

    K., Wachiraphan, P., & Murray, C

    Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Wachiraphan, P., & Murray, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.02136, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.02136

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.02136 2025

  5. [5]

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

    Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2015,Nature, 527, 204, doi: 10.1038/nature15762

    work page doi:10.1038/nature15762 2015

  6. [6]

    Bidelman, W. P. 1985,Astrophys. J. Supp., 59, 197, doi: 10.1086/191069

    work page doi:10.1086/191069 1985

  7. [7]

    2026,Proc

    Birky, J., & Barnes, R. 2026,Proc. Astron. Soc. Pac

    2026

  8. [8]

    Birky, J., Barnes, R., & Davenport, J. R. A. 2025, Astrophys. J., 992, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf4cf 18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf4cf 2025

  9. [9]

    Birky, J., Barnes, R., & Fleming, D. P. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 122, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac034c

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac034c 2021

  10. [10]

    M., Cloutier, R., et al

    Bonfils, X., Almenara, J. M., Cloutier, R., et al. 2018, Astron. & Astrophys., 618, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731884

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731884 2018

  11. [11]

    2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —

    Buchner, J. 2019,Proc. Astron. Soc. Pac., 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc 2019

  12. [12]

    2014, X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue, A&A, 564, A125, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, Astron. & Astrophys., 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  13. [13]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 16(5):1190--1208

    Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., & Zhu, C. 1995, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 16, 1190, doi: 10.1137/0916069

    work page doi:10.1137/0916069 1995

  14. [14]

    R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al

    Callingham, J. R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al. 2025,Nature, 647, 603, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09715-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09715-3 2025

  15. [15]

    D., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Chatterjee, R. D., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2026, Astrophys. J., 998, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ffa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ffa 2026

  16. [16]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Malik, M., Hill, M. L., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 937, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac886b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac886b 2022

  17. [17]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Covey, K. R., Clarke, R. W., et al. 2019,Astrophys. J., 871, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb76

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb76 2019

  18. [18]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Mendoza, G. T., & Hawley, S. L. 2020,Astron. J., 160, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9536

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9536 2020

  19. [19]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hawley, S. L., Hebb, L., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 797, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/122 do Amaral, L. N. R., Barnes, R., Segura, A., & Luger, R. 2022,Astrophys. J., 928, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53af

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/122 2014

  20. [20]

    2013,Icarus, 226, 1447, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.025

    Driscoll, P., & Bercovici, D. 2013,Icarus, 226, 1447, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.025 2013

  21. [21]

    E., & Barnes, R

    Driscoll, P. E., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 739, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1325

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1325 2015

  22. [22]

    Engle, S. G. 2024,Astrophys. J., 960, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0840

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0840 2024

  23. [23]

    G., & Guinan, E

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf472 2023

  24. [24]

    D., Montet, B

    Feinstein, A. D., Montet, B. T., Ansdell, M., et al. 2020, Astron. J., 160, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abac0a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abac0a 2020

  25. [25]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  26. [26]

    P., Cameron E., Pettitt A

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10, doi: 10.21105/astro.1306.2144

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.1306.2144 2019

  27. [27]

    P., Barnes, R., Luger, R., & VanderPlas, J

    Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Luger, R., & VanderPlas, J. T. 2020,Astrophys. J., 891, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab77ad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab77ad 2020

  28. [28]

    J., & Driscoll, P

    Foley, B. J., & Driscoll, P. E. 2016, Geochemistry,

    2016

  29. [29]

    Geophysics, Geosystems, 17, 1885, doi: 10.1002/2015GC006210

    work page doi:10.1002/2015gc006210

  30. [30]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  31. [31]

    S., et al

    France, K., Duvvuri, G., Froning, C. S., et al. 2025, Astron. J., 170, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adefdf

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

  32. [32]

    2026,Plan

    Gialluca, M. 2026,Plan. Sci. J

    2026

  33. [33]

    T., Barnes, R., Meadows, V

    Gialluca, M. T., Barnes, R., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2024, Plan. Sci. J., 5, 137, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad4454

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad4454 2024

  34. [34]

    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, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    work page doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010

  35. [35]

    2018, Astron

    Gunell, H., Maggiolo, R., Nilsson, H., et al. 2018, Astron. & Astrophys., 614, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832934 G¨ unther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, Astron. J., 159, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832934 2018

  36. [36]

    and Hobson, M

    Handley, W. J., Hobson, M. P., & Lasenby, A. N. 2015a, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 453, 4384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1911 —. 2015b,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 450, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv047

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1911

  37. [37]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Oliphant, T. E., Virtanen, P., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

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

  38. [38]

    <i>KEPLER</i>FLARES. I. ACTIVE AND INACTIVE M DWARFS

    Hawley, S. L., Davenport, J. R. A., Kowalski, A. F., et al. 2014,Astrophys. J., 797, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/121 2014

  39. [39]

    Statistics and Computing , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0 2019

  40. [40]

    M., Hilton, E

    Hunt-Walker, N. M., Hilton, E. J., Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., & Matthews, J. M. 2012,Proc. Astron. Soc. Pac., 124, 545, doi: 10.1086/666495

    work page doi:10.1086/666495 2012

  41. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  42. [42]

    M.-R., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al

    Ih, J., Kempton, E. M.-R., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.08253, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.08253

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.08253 2025

  43. [43]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834400 , keywords =

    Ilin, E., Schmidt, S. J., Davenport, J. R. A., & Strassmeier, K. G. 2019,Astron. & Astrophys., 622, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834400

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834400 2019

  44. [44]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039198 , keywords =

    Ilin, E., Schmidt, S. J., Poppenh¨ ager, K., et al. 2021, Astron. & Astrophys., 645, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039198 19

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039198 2021

  45. [45]

    M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9913, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016

  46. [46]

    D., Coy, B

    Ji, X., Chatterjee, R. D., Coy, B. P., & Kite, E. 2025, Astrophys. J., 992, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfe69

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfe69 2025

  47. [47]

    2015, Bayesian Active Learning for Posterior Estimation

    Kandasamy, K., Schneider, J., & Poczos, B. 2015, Bayesian Active Learning for Posterior Estimation

    2015

  48. [48]

    2017, Artificial Intelligence, 243, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2016.11.002

    Kandasamy, K., Schneider, J., & P´ oczos, B. 2017, Artificial Intelligence, 243, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2016.11.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.artint.2016.11.002 2017

  49. [49]

    Kreidberg, L., Koll, D. D. B., Morley, C., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 87, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1497-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1497-4 2019

  50. [50]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., & Fortney, J. J. 2022,Astrophys. J., 933, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac69cb 2022

  51. [51]

    J., & Owen, J

    Lee, E. J., & Owen, J. E. 2025,Astrophys. J. Lett., 980, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adafa3 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, ascl:1812.013. https://docs.lightkurve.org

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adafa3 2025

  52. [52]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Shkolnik, E. L., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2018,Astrophys. J., 867, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2ae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae2ae 2018

  53. [53]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231 Mat´ ern, B

    Luger, R., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231 Mat´ ern, B. 1986, Lecture Notes in Statistics, Vol. 36, Spatial Variation, 2nd edn. (New York: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-7892-5

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2014.1231 2015

  54. [54]

    J., & Schubert, G

    McGovern, P. J., & Schubert, G. 1989, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 96, 27, doi: 10.1016/0012-821X(89)90121-0 Morales-Calder´ on, M., Joyce, S. R. G., Pye, J. P., et al. 2024,Astron. & Astrophys., 688, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449832

    work page doi:10.1016/0012-821x(89)90121-0 1989

  55. [55]

    2020,Astron

    Mordasini, C. 2020,Astron. & Astrophys., 638, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935541

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935541 2020

  56. [56]

    2006, Earth Planet

    Olson, P., & Christensen, U. 2006, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 250, 561

    2006

  57. [57]

    A., & Wolk, S

    Osten, R. A., & Wolk, S. J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 79

    2015

  58. [58]

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

    Pass, E. K., Charbonneau, D., & Vanderburg, A. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 986, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adda39

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adda39 2025

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Peacock, S., Barman, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Hauschildt, P. H., & Baron, E. 2019,Astrophys. J., 871, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf891

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf891 2019

  60. [60]

    J., Richey-Yowell, T., et al

    Peacock, S., Wilson, D. J., Richey-Yowell, T., et al. 2025, Astron. J., 170, 293, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0a2f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae0a2f 2025

  61. [61]

    E., & Williams, C

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

    2006

  62. [62]

    F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M

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

    work page doi:10.1086/427977 2005

  63. [63]

    L., Loyd, R

    Richey-Yowell, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2022,Astrophys. J., 929, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f48 2022

  64. [64]

    J., & Croux, C

    Rousseeuw, P. J., & Croux, C. 1993, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1273, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476408

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10476408 1993

  65. [65]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Sanz-Forcada, J., L´ opez-Puertas, M., Lamp´ on, M., et al. 2025,Astron. & Astrophys., 693, A285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451680

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451680 2025

  66. [66]

    Savitzky, A., & Golay, M. J. E. 1964, Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627, doi: 10.1021/ac60214a047

    work page doi:10.1021/ac60214a047 1964

  67. [67]

    C., & Shkolnik, E

    Schneider, A. C., & Shkolnik, E. L. 2018,Astron. J., 155, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaa24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaaa24 2018

  68. [68]

    Nested Sampling,

    Skilling, J. 2004, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop, 395–405, doi: 10.1063/1.1835238

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1835238 2004

  69. [69]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  70. [70]

    Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces.Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4):341–359, 1997

    Storn, R., & Price, K. 1997, Journal of Global Optimization, 11, 341, doi: 10.1023/A:1008202821328

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1008202821328 1997

  71. [71]

    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

  72. [72]

    K., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al

    Wachiraphan, P., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025,Astron. J., 169, 311, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc990

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc990 2025

  73. [73]

    Neural Computation , volume=

    Wang, H., & Li, J. 2018, Neural Computation, 30, 3072, doi: 10.1162/neco a 01127 Weiner Mansfield, M., Xue, Q., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 975, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8161

    work page doi:10.1162/neco 2018

  74. [74]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13340

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.13340 2024

  75. [75]

    B., & Kasting, J

    Zahnle, K., Pollack, J. B., & Kasting, J. F. 1990, Icarus, 84, 502

    1990

  76. [76]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017,Astrophys. J., 843, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846 20 APPENDIX A.ALABI KERNEL AND SCALING Bayesian inference requires evaluating the likelihood function at thousands to millions of points in parameter space. When each likelihood evaluation demands a forward-model simulation that takes seconds to minutes, direct sam...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846 2017