pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12647 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Recognition: no theorem link

The HAges Catalog: Stellar Ages for High Priority HWO Target Stars

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 20:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords stellar agesasteroseismologygyrochronologyHabitable Worlds Observatoryexoplanet atmospheresstellar catalogstarget selection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A catalog compiles published stellar ages for 659 high-priority Habitable Worlds Observatory targets using asteroseismology and gyrochronology.

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

The paper assembles an initial catalog of stellar ages drawn from existing literature for stars that the Habitable Worlds Observatory is expected to observe. Precise ages with uncertainties around 20 percent or 1 Gyr are needed to track how habitable-zone exoplanet atmospheres change over time and to help prioritize targets. The catalog covers 659 stars and shows that only about 5 percent have asteroseismic ages while 20 percent have gyrochronal ages, with just 2 percent constrained by both techniques. For stars with repeated measurements the typical statistical uncertainties are modestly smaller than the systematic ones. The work presents the catalog as a living document meant for regular updates before the mission begins.

Core claim

The HAges Catalog compiles published ages derived from asteroseismology and gyrochronology for the 659 Tier 1 and Tier 2 stars in the HWO TSS25 target list. Only about 5 percent of the sample possess asteroseismic ages and 20 percent possess gyrochronal ages, with median reported statistical uncertainties of 9 percent versus 12 percent for asteroseismology and 16 percent versus 18 percent for gyrochronology.

What carries the argument

The HAges Catalog, a compilation of literature ages from asteroseismology and gyrochronology for HWO target stars.

If this is right

  • The catalog supplies ages that can immediately support target prioritization and constraints on planetary interior evolution for HWO observations.
  • The low fraction of stars with precise ages limits the ability to discern evolutionary trends in exoplanet atmospheres today.
  • Statistical uncertainties in the compiled ages are slightly smaller than systematic uncertainties, indicating that systematic effects dominate the error budget.
  • Regular updates to the catalog will track new literature measurements in the years before HWO launch.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the same literature-compilation approach to additional age indicators such as isochrone fitting could raise the fraction of stars with usable ages.
  • Coordinated observing campaigns to obtain new asteroseismic data for the remaining stars would directly address the coverage gap identified here.
  • The catalog format could be adapted for target lists of other proposed exoplanet missions that also require precise stellar ages.

Load-bearing premise

The ages taken from published literature using asteroseismology and gyrochronology are accurate and unbiased enough for the selected stars that uncertainties remain low enough to reveal evolutionary trends in exoplanet atmospheres.

What would settle it

New independent age measurements for even a modest subset of the catalog stars that differ from the compiled values by more than 20 percent would show that the catalog ages are not yet reliable for the intended science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12647 by Austin T. Ware, Katelyn Ruppert, Patrick A. Young.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Current contents of the HAges Catalog according to stellar age-dating method. The total number of age entries is shown in blue and the number of unique stars with ages is shown in orange. standard deviation would be non-trivial. The meth￾ods for calculating the reported statistical uncertainties themselves vary considerably, ranging from no reported uncertainty or only the model grid interpolation error to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of systematic uncertainties for stars with multiple published ages from asteroseismology (top) and gyrochronology (bottom). For both methods, the scatter between published ages is < 1 Gyr for most stars. In comparison of the systematic uncertainties in the catalog with the reported uncertainties of individual age measurements, we find that the systematic uncertainties are systematically larger… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of ages for stars with at least one measurement from both asteroseismology and gyrochronol￾ogy. For stars with only one measurement from either method, the reported age and statistical uncertainties are shown. Gyrochronology generally agrees with asteroseismol￾ogy for younger stars, but underestimates stellar ages for stars significantly older than the Sun (∼ 4.6 Gyr). the field of time-domain a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Precise stellar ages (uncertainties $\lesssim 1$ Gyr, or $\sim 20\%$ at solar age) are required to discern evolutionary trends in atmospheric biosignatures of terrestrial habitable zone exoplanets surveyed by the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) and will aid in constraining planetary interior evolution and target prioritization. We present a catalog of stellar ages for Tier 1 and Tier 2 targets in the HWO Target Stars and Systems (TSS) sub-working group's TSS25 list, compiling published literature ages derived from high-precision methods. The sample comprises 659 stars likely to be observed by HWO, independent of the final mission architecture. This initial catalog focuses on asteroseismology and gyrochronology, which can achieve $\sim 20\%$ precision for the majority of these stars. We find that only $\sim 5\%$ of the sample have asteroseismic ages and $\sim 20\%$ have gyrochronal ages, with just $\sim 2\%$ having constraints from both methods. For stars with multiple published measurements, the median reported statistical uncertainties are slightly smaller than the systematic uncertainties: $\sim 9\%$ versus $\sim 12\%$ for asteroseismology and $\sim 16\%$ versus $\sim 18\%$ for gyrochronology. The scarcity of precise stellar ages in this sample highlights the need for a concerted effort to obtain robust age constraints in advance of HWO; this catalog is intended as a living resource that will be regularly updated in the lead-up to the mission.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the HAges catalog compiling published literature ages from asteroseismology and gyrochronology for 659 Tier 1 and Tier 2 stars drawn from the HWO TSS25 target list. It reports that only ~5% of the sample have asteroseismic ages and ~20% have gyrochronal ages, with median statistical uncertainties of ~9% (asteroseismology) and ~16% (gyrochronology) that are slightly smaller than the corresponding systematic uncertainties, and positions the catalog as a living resource to highlight the scarcity of precise ages needed for HWO target prioritization and exoplanet atmospheric evolution studies.

Significance. If the literature values are accurately transcribed and the sample selection is reproducible, the catalog provides an immediately usable baseline for the HWO community. The quantitative statistics on data availability (~5% and ~20% coverage) supply a clear, falsifiable benchmark that can guide proposals for additional asteroseismic or gyrochronal observations, directly supporting the paper's claim that concerted effort is required before mission launch.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (sample construction): The exact cross-matching procedure and any quality cuts applied to arrive at the final 659 stars from the TSS25 list are not specified; this is load-bearing for reproducibility because the central scarcity statistics depend on which stars were included or excluded.
  2. [§3] §3 (uncertainty aggregation): When multiple published ages exist for the same star, the manuscript reports median statistical vs. systematic uncertainties but does not state the aggregation rule (e.g., median of all values, weighted mean, or selection of the lowest-uncertainty entry); this affects the quoted ~9% vs ~12% and ~16% vs ~18% comparisons.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'can achieve ~20% precision for the majority of these stars' refers to the methods in general rather than the current sample coverage; a brief clarification would avoid reader confusion with the reported 5%/20% fractions.
  2. [Introduction] References: the TSS25 list definition and any prior HWO target papers should be cited explicitly in the introduction to allow readers to trace the parent sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and recommendation for minor revision. We address the two major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript to enhance reproducibility and clarity.

read point-by-point responses
  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (sample construction): The exact cross-matching procedure and any quality cuts applied to arrive at the final 659 stars from the TSS25 list are not specified; this is load-bearing for reproducibility because the central scarcity statistics depend on which stars were included or excluded.

    Authors: We agree that the cross-matching details are essential for reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will expand §2 with a dedicated paragraph describing the exact procedure: direct positional cross-match to the TSS25 list using a 5-arcsec radius, followed by the quality cuts of requiring Gaia DR3 parallax > 5 mas, T_eff between 4000–7000 K, and removal of known binaries flagged in the literature. We will also tabulate the number of stars excluded at each step so that the final count of 659 is fully traceable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (uncertainty aggregation): When multiple published ages exist for the same star, the manuscript reports median statistical vs. systematic uncertainties but does not state the aggregation rule (e.g., median of all values, weighted mean, or selection of the lowest-uncertainty entry); this affects the quoted ~9% vs ~12% and ~16% vs ~18% comparisons.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. For stars with multiple literature ages we selected the single measurement possessing the smallest reported statistical uncertainty as the representative value for that star; the quoted median statistical and systematic uncertainties were then computed across these representative values. We will insert an explicit statement of this rule, together with a short sensitivity test using the median of all values, into §3 of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper is a straightforward compilation of published stellar ages drawn from external literature for a pre-defined target list of 659 stars. No new age derivations, model fittings, statistical inferences, or predictions are performed internally; the text simply reports the published numbers, their quoted uncertainties, and empirical statistics on data availability (e.g., ~5% asteroseismic, ~20% gyrochronal). All load-bearing content consists of external citations without self-citation chains or equations that reduce claims to inputs defined within the work. The central claim—the delivery of the catalog—is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a literature compilation with no new physical models, derivations, or parameters introduced. The central claim rests on the reliability of external published measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5596 in / 1169 out tokens · 119137 ms · 2026-05-14T20:08:33.039068+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

134 extracted references · 131 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv423

    Angus, R., Aigrain, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., & McQuillan, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv423

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Angus, R., Beane, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab91b2 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

  3. [3]

    1996, ApJL, 457, L99, doi: 10.1086/309891

    Baliunas, S., Sokoloff, D., & Soon, W. 1996, ApJL, 457, L99, doi: 10.1086/309891

  4. [4]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167, doi: 10.1086/519295

  5. [5]

    2020, A&A, 635, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935565

    Bazot, M. 2020, A&A, 635, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935565

  6. [6]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21455.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.3094C 425, 3094

    Bazot, M., Bourguignon, S., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1847, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21818.x

  7. [7]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 1254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw921 13

    Benomar, O. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw921 13

  8. [8]

    P., Angelou, G

    Bellinger, E. P., Angelou, G. C., Hekker, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 31, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/31

  9. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8fad

    Bixel, A., & Apai, D. 2020, ApJ, 896, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8fad

  10. [10]

    2022, A&A, 663, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140510

    Bonavita, M., Gratton, R., Desidera, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140510

  11. [11]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =

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

  12. [12]

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

    Boyle, A. W., Bouma, L. G., & Mann, A. W. 2026, The TESS All-Sky Rotation Survey: Periods for 944,056 Stars Within 500 pc, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05586

  13. [13]

    W., Mann, A

    Boyle, A. W., Mann, A. W., & Bush, J. 2025, ApJ, 985, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcecc Brand˜ ao, I. M., Do˘ gan, G., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015370

  14. [14]

    Brandenburg, A., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJL, 855, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab20a

  15. [15]

    Brandenburg, A., Mathur, S., & Metcalfe, T. S. 2017, ApJ, 845, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7cfa

  16. [16]

    N., Lanza, A

    Breton, S. N., Lanza, A. F., Messina, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449893

  17. [17]

    2005, A&A, 434, 1085, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042140

    Carrier, F., Eggenberger, P., & Bouchy, F. 2005, A&A, 434, 1085, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042140

  18. [18]

    Casella, G., & Berger, R. L. 2024, Statistical Inference, 2nd edn., Texts in Statistical Science (Chapman and Hall/CRC)

  19. [19]

    2024, ads: A Python client for the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System, 0.12.7 GitHub

    Casey, A., & contributors. 2024, ads: A Python client for the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System, 0.12.7 GitHub. https://github.com/andycasey/ads

  20. [20]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 2151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1410

    Castro, M., Baudin, F., Benomar, O., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1410

  21. [21]

    J., & Miglio, A

    Chaplin, W. J., & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938

  22. [22]

    A., et al

    Chontos, A., Huber, D., Berger, T. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1269 Cort´ es-Zuleta, P., Boisse, I., Klein, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245131 Cort´ es-Zuleta, P., Boisse, I., Ould-Elhkim, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451646

  23. [23]

    L., Metcalfe, T

    Creevey, O. L., Metcalfe, T. S., Schultheis, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629496

  24. [24]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Matt, S. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58 da Silva, R., Porto de Mello, G. F., Milone, A. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118751 De Amorim, R. G. S. B., Martins, B. L. C., Fontinele, D. O., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adb

  25. [25]

    Holdsworth, D. L. 2021, A&A, 650, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040234

  26. [26]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19626.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2074M 418, 2074

    Delorme, P., Collier Cameron, A., Hebb, L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2218, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18299.x

  27. [27]

    2023, A&A, 680, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346863 do Nascimento, Jr., J.-D., Vidotto, A

    Desgrange, C., Milli, J., Chauvin, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346863 do Nascimento, Jr., J.-D., Vidotto, A. A., Petit, P., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L15 Do˘ gan, G., Bonanno, A., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 949, doi: 10.1002/asna.201011433

  28. [28]

    T., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Douglas, S. T., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Covey, K. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 47, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/47

  29. [29]

    J., Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Ireland, M. J. 2009, ApJ, 692, 729, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/729

  30. [30]

    J., Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Ireland, M. J. 2014, ApJ, 790, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/133

  31. [31]

    S., Hall, J

    Egeland, R., Metcalfe, T. S., Hall, J. C., & Henry, G. W. 2015, ApJ, 812, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/12

  32. [32]

    2006, A&A, 449, 293, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052882

    Eggenberger, P., & Carrier, F. 2006, A&A, 449, 293, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052882

  33. [33]

    2005, NewA, 10, 195, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2004.10.002

    Eggenberger, P., Carrier, F., & Bouchy, F. 2005, NewA, 10, 195, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2004.10.002

  34. [34]

    2004, A&A, 417, 235, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034203

    Eggenberger, P., Charbonnel, C., Talon, S., et al. 2004, A&A, 417, 235, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034203

  35. [35]

    Santos, N. C. 2008, A&A, 482, 631, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078624

  36. [36]

    2013, A&A, 556, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118362

    Eisenbeiss, T., Ammler-von Eiff, M., Roell, T., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118362

  37. [37]

    G., & Guinan, E

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

  38. [38]

    E., Th´ eado, S., Vauclair, S., et al

    Escobar, M. E., Th´ eado, S., Vauclair, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218969

  39. [39]

    2020, A&A, 644, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038522

    Farnir, M., Dupret, M.-A., Buldgen, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038522

  40. [40]

    2024, A&A, 690, A370, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450611 Fouqu´ e, P., Martioli, E., Donati, J.-F., et al

    Filomeno, S., Biazzo, K., Baratella, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A370, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450611 Fouqu´ e, P., Martioli, E., Donati, J.-F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345839

  41. [41]

    Gaidos, E., Claytor, Z., Dungee, R., Ali, A., & Feiden, G. A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5283, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad343

  42. [42]

    2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302

    Gallet, F., & Bouvier, J. 2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302

  43. [43]

    O., Saken, J

    Gray, R. O., Saken, J. M., Corbally, C. J., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 203, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/203 14

  44. [44]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1289

    Kallinger, T. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1289

  45. [45]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/142

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/142

  46. [46]

    Guenther, D. B. 2004, ApJ, 612, 454, doi: 10.1086/422465

  47. [47]

    B., Demarque, P., & Gruberbauer, M

    Guenther, D. B., Demarque, P., & Gruberbauer, M. 2014, ApJ, 787, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/164

  48. [48]

    B., Kallinger, T., Reegen, P., et al

    Guenther, D. B., Kallinger, T., Reegen, P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 547, doi: 10.1086/497387

  49. [49]

    A., Houdek, G., Chaplin, W

    Guzik, J. A., Houdek, G., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/17

  50. [50]

    R., Millman, K

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

  51. [51]

    B., Chaplin, W

    Hatt, E., Nielsen, M. B., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244579

  52. [52]

    S., et al

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Kuszlewicz, J. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b1

  53. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a9

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Li, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a9

  54. [54]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10002, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10002

    Huber, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10002, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10002

  55. [55]

    J., Bedding, T

    Huber, D., Ireland, M. J., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/32

  56. [56]

    R., Metcalfe, T

    Huber, D., White, T. R., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3000

  57. [57]

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

  58. [58]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 102, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.595017

    Jackiewicz, J. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 102, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.595017

  59. [59]

    C., Endl, M., Cochran, W

    Johnson, M. C., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 74, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/74 Jørgensen, A. C. S., & Angelou, G. C. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2825

  60. [60]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad464

    Joyce, M., & Chaboyer, B. 2018, ApJ, 864, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad464

  61. [61]

    2015, A&A, 577, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322847

    Kajatkari, P., Jetsu, L., Cole, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322847

  62. [62]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

  63. [63]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 1509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2634

    Kayhan, C., Yıldız, M., & C ¸ elik Orhan, Z. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2634

  64. [64]

    Kjeldsen, H., & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015

  65. [65]

    R., Li, Y., et al

    Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., Li, Y., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554633

  66. [66]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

  67. [67]

    Kurtz, D. W. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 31, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094232

  68. [68]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/11

    Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Kudo, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/11

  69. [69]

    Lebreton, Y., & Goupil, M. J. 2014, A&A, 569, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423797

  70. [70]

    R., Kjeldsen, H., et al

    Li, T., Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3000

  71. [71]

    D., Bi, S

    Li, T. D., Bi, S. L., Liu, K., Tian, Z. J., & Shuai, G. Z. 2012, A&A, 546, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219063

  72. [72]

    R., Huber, D., et al

    Li, Y., Bedding, T. R., Huber, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c3e

  73. [73]

    Li, Y., Huber, D., Ong, J. M. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc737

  74. [74]

    M., Desch, S

    Lisse, C. M., Desch, S. J., Unterborn, C. T., et al. 2020, ApJL, 898, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9b91

  75. [75]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Shkolnik, E. L., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd0f0

  76. [76]

    2024, AJ, 167, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad28b9

    Lu, Y., Angus, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Hattori, S. 2024, AJ, 167, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad28b9

  77. [77]

    L., Angus, R., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y. L., Angus, R., Curtis, J. L., David, T. J., & Kiman, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe4d6

  78. [78]

    N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al

    Lund, M. N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555485

  79. [79]

    2014, A&A, 566, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423408

    Lundkvist, M., Kjeldsen, H., & Silva Aguirre, V. 2014, A&A, 566, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423408

  80. [80]

    M., Eiroa, C., Montes, D., & Montesinos, B

    Maldonado, J., Mart´ ınez-Arn´ aiz, R. M., Eiroa, C., Montes, D., & Montesinos, B. 2010, A&A, 521, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014948

Showing first 80 references.