arxiv: 2605.05068 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

The NUV transit of XO-3 b

Akihiko Fukui, George W. King, James T. Sikora, Jiayin Dong, Juliette Becker, Kohei Miayakawa, Lia Corrales, Lisa Dang, Raven Cilley, Robert Frazier, Teruyuki Hirano

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP

keywords exoplanet transitnear-ultravioletXO-3bhot Jupiteratmospheric escapeplanetary magnetic fieldbow shockXMM-Newton

0 comments

The pith

NUV transit of hot Jupiter XO-3b is 30-70% deeper than optical and arrives 22 minutes late.

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

The paper presents a 2024 XMM-Newton NUV observation of the transit of XO-3b combined with simultaneous ground-based optical data and all TESS transits. It reports a substantially larger planet-to-star radius ratio in the NUV and a transit center offset late by roughly 22 minutes relative to the optical ephemeris. The authors derive an X-ray luminosity for the host star and convert it to a mass-loss rate of only about 10^4 g/s, which is far too low to explain the extra NUV absorption through atmospheric escape. An analytic bow-shock model tied to the planet's magnetic field can produce timing offsets of tens of minutes but predicts an early rather than late transit. The work therefore concludes that neither mechanism fully accounts for the observed NUV properties and calls for magnetohydrodynamic simulations.

Core claim

We find a NUV transit depth of Rp,NUV/R⋆ = 0.1371+0.016−0.019, which is 30-70% deeper than the optical transit. Although the optical transits show no transit timing variations, the NUV transit center is 22+13−11 minutes late compared to the optical ephemeris. The X-ray data yield an extremely small mass-loss rate of ∼10^4 g/s, and the analytic magnetic bow-shock model predicts an early rather than late transit.

What carries the argument

Joint fitting of the NUV light curve from the XMM-Newton Optical Monitor against concurrent optical and TESS photometry, followed by X-ray luminosity conversion to mass-loss rate and analytic estimation of bow-shock geometry from planetary magnetic field strength.

If this is right

The planet possesses an extended layer that absorbs NUV light at radii larger than the optical photosphere.
Atmospheric escape contributes negligibly to the observed NUV absorption given the low mass-loss rate.
Planetary magnetic fields can shift the apparent transit timing by tens of minutes through bow-shock effects.
Standard analytic bow-shock models are insufficient and require full MHD treatment to match the observed late timing.
Optical ephemerides remain stable while NUV timing deviates, indicating the offset is wavelength-specific.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar NUV offsets may appear in other eccentric hot Jupiters if bow shocks or asymmetric atmospheres are common.
Multi-wavelength transit campaigns could map the vertical structure of the absorbing layer by measuring how depth changes with wavelength.
If MHD simulations reproduce a late transit, the same geometry could be tested against existing UV observations of other planets.
The low mass-loss rate implies that any extended NUV absorber must be static or slowly replenished rather than outflowing.

Load-bearing premise

That the deeper NUV depth and late timing offset are produced by atmospheric escape or a magnetic bow shock.

What would settle it

A repeat NUV observation that measures a transit depth consistent with the optical value or a timing offset earlier than the optical ephemeris would undermine the claim of an anomalously extended NUV-absorbing region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05068 by Akihiko Fukui, George W. King, James T. Sikora, Jiayin Dong, Juliette Becker, Kohei Miayakawa, Lia Corrales, Lisa Dang, Raven Cilley, Robert Frazier, Teruyuki Hirano.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Detrended (GP removed) TESS light curves, with the best-fit models and mid-transit times fitted individually to each transit overplotted. 2.2. Results The best-fit transit models along with detrended TESS data are shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Transit timing analysis results. (Left) The best-fit mid-transit time for each of the TESS transits compared to the transit number are overlaid with the best-fit line (gray), where the slope gives the orbital period. (Right) The difference between the observed mid-transit time and the expected mid-transit time calculated from the best-fit orbital period from the TESS dataset. Overlaid are the Spitzer resul… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Results of our analysis of XMM-Newton OM data. The top panel shows the normalized data and expected duration of the NUV transit, using our ephemeris fitted to optical TESS data. The bottom panel shows the detrended data, which is equal to the normalized data divided by the GP model. The bottom panel additionally provides a comparison between a forward-propagated optical transit model and the NUV transit model view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Left) Posterior distribution for the optical transit fit parameters, including both the ground-based ISAS data and TESS data. The optical limb darkening coefficients were also a free parameter in this fit, but are not shown (see view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Second panel of view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Near-UV (NUV) measurements of exoplanet transits offer a means to probe atmospheric escape, cloud formation, and planetary magnetic fields. We examine a 2024 XMM-Newton Optical Monitor NUV observation of the transit of XO-3~b, a massive hot Jupiter on an eccentric orbit with a previously observed abnormally large NUV-absorbing atmosphere. We analyze this NUV data jointly with a concurrent ground-based optical observation and all TESS transit observations, and find a NUV transit depth of $R_{p,NUV}/R_{\star} = 0.1371^{+0.016}_{-0.019}$, which is 30-70% deeper than the optical transit. Although the optical transits do not show signs of transit timing variations, the transit center in the NUV is $22^{+13}_{-11}$ minutes late compared to the optical ephemeris. We investigate atmospheric escape as a potential explanation of the properties of this NUV transit by examining X-ray data from XMM-Newton, characterizing the X-ray luminosity of XO-3 for the first time and estimating an extremely small mass-loss rate of $\sim10^4$ g/s ($\sim10^{-19}$ M$_{\text{jup}}$/yr). Finally, we investigate the likelihood of an NUV-absorbent bow-shock by estimating the magnetic field of the planet. While such a mechanism is capable of producing NUV transit offsets on the order of tens of minutes, our analytic approximations predict an early rather than late transit, indicating a need for further magnetohydrodynamic simulations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

XO-3b shows a 30-70% deeper NUV transit and 22-minute late timing offset, but the low mass-loss rate and bow-shock model mismatch leave the physical cause unclear.

read the letter

The paper's core contribution is a new NUV transit measurement for XO-3b from XMM-Newton, giving Rp,NUV/R* = 0.1371 +0.016/-0.019 and a transit center 22 +13/-11 minutes later than the optical ephemeris. They fold in concurrent ground optical data plus all TESS transits for a joint fit, and add the first X-ray luminosity for the host star to derive a mass-loss rate of ~10^4 g/s. That dataset is the actual new result and it is presented with reported uncertainties from the light-curve modeling. The work is transparent about running the numbers on atmospheric escape and an analytic bow-shock scenario. The authors themselves note that the bow-shock timing comes out early rather than late and that the mass-loss rate looks too small to inflate the atmosphere enough for the observed depth increase, which is a fair flag. The soft spot is exactly there: the measurements stand on their own, but the proposed mechanisms do not close the loop without additional assumptions or full MHD runs that are left for future work. No circularity in the radius ratio or timing themselves, but the interpretation section rests on external scaling relations whose applicability here is not demonstrated. This is useful for anyone compiling multi-wavelength transit depths on known hot Jupiters or testing escape models on eccentric planets. A reader who needs the specific NUV number or the X-ray constraint will cite it; most others will not. It is solid enough on the data side to go to peer review, though referees will probably press on whether the timing offset is robust to the joint ephemeris choice and on alternative explanations for the depth difference.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a joint analysis of XMM-Newton NUV transit data for the hot Jupiter XO-3b together with concurrent ground-based optical photometry and all available TESS transits. It reports a NUV radius ratio Rp,NUV/R⋆ = 0.1371+0.016−0.019 (30–70 % deeper than the optical value) and a transit center delayed by 22+13−11 min relative to the optical ephemeris. The paper also reports the first X-ray luminosity measurement of the host star, derives an extremely low mass-loss rate of ∼10^4 g s^−1 (∼10^−19 Mjup yr^−1), and explores an NUV-absorbing bow shock via analytic magnetic-field estimates, while noting that the model predicts an early rather than late transit.

Significance. The multi-band transit measurement and first X-ray detection of XO-3 constitute useful observational additions to the study of extended atmospheres around massive hot Jupiters. The joint light-curve modeling and direct reporting of the low mass-loss rate are strengths. However, because the paper’s own calculations show that neither atmospheric escape nor the analytic bow-shock geometry can account for the reported depth increase and late timing, the physical implications remain limited unless the interpretation is substantially revised or additional modeling is supplied.

major comments (2)

[X-ray luminosity and mass-loss estimates] X-ray luminosity and mass-loss section: the derived mass-loss rate of ∼10^4 g s^−1 is orders of magnitude below the values required by standard hydrodynamic escape models to inflate an NUV-absorbing envelope large enough to produce a 30–70 % deeper transit. This internal result directly undermines the atmospheric-escape interpretation offered for the observed NUV depth.
[Bow-shock timing prediction] Bow-shock and magnetic-field discussion: the analytic approximations for the planetary magnetic field and bow-shock geometry are stated to predict an early transit, yet the data show a late offset of 22 min. This sign mismatch is load-bearing for any claim that the timing offset arises from a bow shock and requires either revised modeling or substantially stronger caveats.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and §5] The abstract and conclusions should explicitly note that the proposed mechanisms fail to reproduce the observed timing direction and that the mass-loss rate is too low to explain the depth, rather than presenting the mechanisms as viable explanations.
[Results section and figures] Figure captions and text should clarify whether the reported NUV depth and timing uncertainties already incorporate the joint fit with TESS and optical data or are derived from the NUV data alone.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. Their feedback has helped us clarify the limitations of the proposed physical interpretations for the NUV depth and timing offset. We have revised the manuscript to more explicitly state that neither atmospheric escape nor the analytic bow-shock model accounts for the observations, framing the work as providing new constraints that challenge existing models. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [X-ray luminosity and mass-loss estimates] X-ray luminosity and mass-loss section: the derived mass-loss rate of ∼10^4 g s^−1 is orders of magnitude below the values required by standard hydrodynamic escape models to inflate an NUV-absorbing envelope large enough to produce a 30–70 % deeper transit. This internal result directly undermines the atmospheric-escape interpretation offered for the observed NUV depth.

Authors: We agree that the mass-loss rate of ∼10^4 g s^−1 derived from the new X-ray luminosity measurement is far too low to inflate an extended NUV-absorbing envelope via hydrodynamic escape. The manuscript reports this rate as a direct observational result and does not claim that escape explains the 30–70% deeper NUV transit; rather, the low value is presented to demonstrate that escape is insufficient. We have revised the X-ray and mass-loss section to state explicitly that this rate rules out standard hydrodynamic escape as the cause of the depth increase. This change strengthens the paper by positioning the result as a quantitative upper limit on escape for this massive hot Jupiter, highlighting the need for alternative explanations such as high-altitude clouds or other absorbers. revision: yes
Referee: [Bow-shock timing prediction] Bow-shock and magnetic-field discussion: the analytic approximations for the planetary magnetic field and bow-shock geometry are stated to predict an early transit, yet the data show a late offset of 22 min. This sign mismatch is load-bearing for any claim that the timing offset arises from a bow shock and requires either revised modeling or substantially stronger caveats.

Authors: The referee is correct that our analytic bow-shock model predicts an early transit, opposite to the observed 22-minute late offset. The manuscript already notes this sign mismatch and concludes that further magnetohydrodynamic simulations are required. In the revised version, we have strengthened the caveats in the bow-shock discussion to emphasize that the simple analytic geometry cannot reproduce the late timing and that the offset's physical origin remains unexplained by this mechanism. We do not assert that the bow shock accounts for the data but explore it as one candidate whose current implementation fails to match the observations, thereby underscoring the need for more advanced modeling. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; core results are independent observational fits

full rationale

The paper's central results (NUV radius ratio 0.1371^{+0.016}_{-0.019} and 22 min late timing offset) are obtained directly from joint modeling of XMM-Newton NUV data, concurrent ground-based optical photometry, and all TESS transits. The X-ray luminosity is a new measurement from the same XMM-Newton dataset, converted to mass-loss rate via external scaling relations (not defined or fitted within the paper). The bow-shock timing offset is computed from an analytic magnetic model using planetary parameters and standard assumptions; the model output (early transit) is reported as mismatched to the data rather than forced to agree. No equations reduce by construction to the fitted transit parameters, no self-citations are load-bearing for the measurements, and no ansatz or uniqueness claim is smuggled in. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard transit-modeling assumptions and X-ray-to-mass-loss scaling relations drawn from prior literature; no new free parameters beyond the fitted transit depth are introduced.

free parameters (1)

NUV radius ratio = 0.1371
Fitted parameter from joint transit modeling of the XMM-Newton light curve.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The optical ephemeris from TESS and ground data accurately represents the true transit times in the absence of significant transit timing variations.
Invoked when declaring the NUV center 22 minutes late.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5628 in / 1350 out tokens · 49099 ms · 2026-05-08T15:51:05.092287+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

[1]

, author Andreani, V

Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V., Carroll, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516

work page doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1516 2023
[2]

2020, AJ, 159, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 15

Agol, E., Luger, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2020, AJ, 159, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 15

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4fee 2020
[3]

N., Johnson, J

Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/18 2012
[4]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

1996
[5]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 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

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009
[6]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.27093

Badman, S. T., Stevens, M. L., Bale, S. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.17149. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17149 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/119 2025
[7]

Bodenheimer, P., Hubickyj, O., & Lissauer, J. J. 2000, Icarus, 143, 2, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6246

work page doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6246 2000
[8]

S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al

Bonomo, A. S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629882 2017
[9]

2021, A&A, 655, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141497 —

Caldiroli, A., Haardt, F., Gallo, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141497 —. 2022, A&A, 663, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142763

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141497 2021
[10]

Cash, Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio.ApJ 228, 939–947 (1979), doi:10.1086/156922

Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

work page doi:10.1086/156922 1979
[11]

R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A

Christensen, U. R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A. 2009, Nature, 457, 167, doi: 10.1038/nature07626

work page doi:10.1038/nature07626 2009
[12]

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

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

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629705 2017
[13]

W., et al

Corrales, L., Ravi, S., King, G. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 287, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c67

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c67 2021
[14]

J., Cowan, N

Dang, L., Bell, T. J., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac365f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac365f 2022
[15]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 2018
[16]

2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

Dong, J., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace105 2023
[17]

Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

Duann, Y., Lai, S.-H., Hoeijmakers, H. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556404

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556404 2025
[18]

J., et al

Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature14501

work page doi:10.1038/nature14501 2015
[19]

, keywords =

Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2688 2019
[20]

M., Sing, D

Evans-Soma, T. M., Sing, D. K., Barstow, J. K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 845, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02513-x

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02513-x 2025
[21]

B., Havlickova, M., & Rasio, F

Ford, E. B., Havlickova, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2001, Icarus, 150, 303, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6588

work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6588 2001
[22]

B., & Rasio, F

Ford, E. B., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 621, doi: 10.1086/590926

work page doi:10.1086/590926 2008
[23]

2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c 2018
[24]

AJ , volume =

Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017a, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332
[25]

AJ , volume =

Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Angus, R., & Ambikasaran, S. 2017b, ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09710

work page arXiv
[26]

2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994

Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Agol, E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.01994

work page arXiv 2021
[27]

2021b, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447

Foreman-Mackey, D., Savel, A., Luger, R., et al. 2021, exoplanet-dev/exoplanet v0.5.1, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1998447 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1998447 2021
[28]

M., Barstow, J

Gapp, C., Evans-Soma, T. M., Barstow, J. K., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 341, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9c6e

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9c6e 2025
[29]

, volume =

Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425, doi: 10.1086/158356 H´ ebrard, G., Bouchy, F., Pont, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 763, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810056

work page doi:10.1086/158356 1980
[30]

S., & Winn, J

Ivshina, E. S., & Winn, J. N. 2022, ApJS, 259, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac545b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac545b 2022
[31]

Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV , year = 2016, editor =

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

work page doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016
[32]

M., McCullough, P

Johns-Krull, C. M., McCullough, P. R., Burke, C. J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 657, doi: 10.1086/528950

work page doi:10.1086/528950 2008
[33]

, keywords =

Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 2021
[34]

W., Corrales, L

King, G. W., Corrales, L. R., Fern´ andez Fern´ andez, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1054

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1054 2024
[35]

W., Wheatley, P

King, G. W., Wheatley, P. J., Salz, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1110

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1110 2018
[36]

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

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013
[37]

A., Fulton, B

Knutson, H. A., Fulton, B. J., Montet, B. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/126

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/126 2014
[38]

2022, ApJS, 258, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10 —

Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10 —. 2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4 16

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10 2022
[39]

P., Burrows, D

Kraft, R. P., Burrows, D. N., & Nousek, J. A. 1991, ApJ, 374, 344, doi: 10.1086/170124

work page doi:10.1086/170124 1991
[40]

2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

work page doi:10.1086/683602 2015
[41]

Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. A. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

work page doi:10.21105/joss.01143 2019
[42]

, keywords =

Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., et al. 2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815 Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Vidal-Madjar, A., McConnell, J. C., & H´ ebrard, G. 2004, A&A, 418, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040106 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913347 Lightkurve Collabor...

work page doi:10.1086/380815 2003
[43]

D., Fu, G., Sing, D

Lothringer, J. D., Fu, G., Sing, D. K., & Barman, T. S. 2020, ApJL, 898, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba265

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba265 2020
[44]

D., Sing, D

Lothringer, J. D., Sing, D. K., Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2022, Nature, 604, 49, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04453-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04453-2 2022
[45]

D., Bennett, K

Lothringer, J. D., Bennett, K. A., Sing, D. K., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 274, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc117

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc117 2025
[46]

2019, AJ, 157, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

Luger, R., Agol, E., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5 2019
[47]

2017, ApJ, 835, 283, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/283

Marin, F., & Grosso, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 283, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/283

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/283 2017
[48]

, keywords =

Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000044

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000044 2001
[49]

R., & Rosner, R

Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Kashyap, V., Harnden, Jr., F. R., & Rosner, R. 1996, ApJS, 102, 75, doi: 10.1086/192252

work page doi:10.1086/192252 1996
[50]

2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857 19

Parviainen, H., & Aigrain, S. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1857 2015
[51]

A., & Espinoza, N

Patel, J. A., & Espinoza, N. 2022, AJ, 163, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55 2022
[52]

2019, A&A, 628, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731674

Pizzocaro, D., Stelzer, B., Poretti, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731674

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731674 2019
[53]

R., Winn, J

Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

work page Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015
[54]

2025, ApJL, 983, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc129

Rusznak, J., Wang, X.-Y., Rice, M., & Wang, S. 2025, ApJL, 983, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc129

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc129 2025
[55]

C., Fossati, L., et al

Salz, M., Schneider, P. C., Fossati, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732419

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732419 2019
[56]

M., Marsden, S

Seach, J. M., Marsden, S. C., Carter, B. D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1107

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1107 2020
[57]

2023, ApJS, 264, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca65f

Shan, S.-S., Yang, F., Lu, Y.-J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca65f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca65f 2023
[58]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18677

Shimura, T., Mitsuishi, I., Kunitomo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18677

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.18677 2025
[59]

K., Lavvas, P., Ballester, G

Sing, D. K., Lavvas, P., Ballester, G. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2986

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2986 2019
[60]

Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91, doi: 10.1086/322992

work page doi:10.1086/322992 2001
[61]

J., Lucas, P

Southworth, J. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1689, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17231.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17231.x 2010
[62]

Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020
[63]

S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J

Spiegel, D. S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J. A. 2011, ApJ, 727, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/57

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/1/57 2011
[64]

G., Collins, K

Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, AJ, 153, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3 2017
[65]

1982, ApJ, 259, 677, doi: 10.1086/160204

Topka, K., Golub, L., Gorenstein, P., et al. 1982, ApJ, 259, 677, doi: 10.1086/160204

work page doi:10.1086/160204 1982
[66]

G., Santos, N

Tsantaki, M., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424257

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424257 2014
[67]

D., Leiter, R

Turner, J. D., Leiter, R. M., Biddle, L. I., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 3871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2221

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2221 2017
[68]

Vidotto, A. A. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 299, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021225-030604

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-021225-030604 2025
[69]

A., Jardine, M., & Helling, C

Vidotto, A. A., Jardine, M., & Helling, C. 2010, ApJL, 722, L168, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L168 —. 2011a, MNRAS, 411, L46, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00991.x —. 2011b, MNRAS, 414, 1573, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18491.x

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/l168 2010
[70]

2024, ApJS, 270, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847

Wang, W., Zhang, Z., Chen, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad0847 2024
[71]

Williams, D. M. 2003, American Journal of Physics, 71, 1198, doi: 10.1119/1.1578073

work page doi:10.1119/1.1578073 2003
[72]

and Allen, A

Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

work page Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000
[73]

N., Holman, M

Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., Torres, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 1076, doi: 10.1086/589737

work page doi:10.1086/589737 2008
[74]

N., Johnson, J

Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., Fabrycky, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 302, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/302

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/302 2009
[75]

A., Cowan, N

Wong, I., Knutson, H. A., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/134

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/134 2014
[76]

2022, AJ, 163, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4e1a

Worku, K., Wang, S., Burt, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4e1a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4e1a 2022
[77]

, keywords =

Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/160

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/160 2012
[78]

2003, ApJ, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

Wu, Y., & Murray, N. 2003, ApJ, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598 17

work page doi:10.1086/374598 2003
[79]

K., & Thorngren, D

Yadav, R. K., & Thorngren, D. P. 2017, ApJL, 849, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa93fd

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa93fd 2017
[80]

2022, PASP, 134, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a

Yang, F., & Wei, X. 2022, PASP, 134, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac495a 2022

Showing first 80 references.