Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Filling the Gap: Calibrating Gyrochronology at 1.3 Gyr with the Benchmark Cluster NGC-752

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes NGC-752 as a benchmark gyrochronology cluster at ~1.3 Gyr, showing its slow-rotator sequence is intermediate between the 1 Gyr and 2.5 Gyr calibrators and that existing empirical models overestimate ages of G and…

desk verdict First full rotation sequence for NGC-752, with a real but age-dependent bias claim against existing gyrochronology models. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10077 v1 pith:WK74ULC6 submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Andrew W. Boyle , Andrew W. Mann This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords gyrochronologystellarrotationNGC-752openclusterspin-downTESSGdwarfsK
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to establish NGC-752, an open cluster at an adopted age of about 1.3 Gyr, as a benchmark for calibrating gyrochronology—the method of inferring stellar ages from rotation periods and temperature. Using Gaia-based membership and rotation periods from TESS and the literature, the authors map the cluster's slow-rotator sequence for G and early-K dwarfs for the first time, placing it between the 1 Gyr and 2.5 Gyr reference clusters. They argue that existing empirical gyrochronology models, lacking a calibration cluster in this age interval, overestimate the ages of many G and early-K dwarfs by 20 to 50 percent. If correct, this provides a new anchor at a previously undersampled age and sharpens the empirical basis for large-scale rotational age surveys.

What carries the argument

The key object is the slow-rotator sequence: the set of rotation periods versus effective temperature for cluster members on the magnetically braked, slowly rotating main sequence. The paper constructs it by combining a Gaia-based membership list with rotation periods from the TESS all-sky survey and literature measurements, then applying strict binary and quality cuts. The central comparison is the position of this sequence relative to neighboring clusters, since the gap between the 1 Gyr and 2.5 Gyr benchmarks is what leaves existing empirical models unconstrained at intermediate ages.

What would settle it

A precise independent age for NGC-752, for example from detached eclipsing binaries or asteroseismology, that places the cluster at ~1.75 Gyr would falsify the headline calibration claim; conversely, a well-dated ~1.3 Gyr cluster with a matching rotation sequence would strongly support it. A simpler check is whether retraining empirical gyrochronology models with this new sequence removes the temperature-dependent bias shown in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that NGC-752's slow-rotator sequence lies at rotation periods of roughly 15 days for effective temperatures between 4000 K and 6000 K, intermediate between the sequences of NGC-6811 and NGC-6819. For stars near 4500 K, the sequence is displaced to longer periods than in NGC-6811, showing that stars that were stalled at about 1 Gyr have resumed appreciable spin-down by 1.3 Gyr. The paper further argues that because no benchmark cluster with a well-populated rotation sequence existed between 1 Gyr and 2.5 Gyr, both currently available empirical gyrochronology models overestimate ages for stars hotter than about 5000 K by 20 to 50 percent, causing temperature-dependent systematic biases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the adopted cluster age of 1.3 Gyr; published estimates for NGC-752 range from about 1.2 to 1.75 Gyr, and if the true age is near the upper end, the claimed 20–50% model overestimate decreases or vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, NGC-752 becomes a standard anchor for gyrochronology at roughly 1.3 Gyr, filling the gap between the 1 and 2.5 Gyr reference clusters.
  • The result implies that stalled spin-down has ended for stars near 4500–5000 K by 1.3 Gyr, so field stars at that temperature and rotation period can be assigned ages near this benchmark rather than extrapolated from older clusters.
  • It predicts that adding an intermediate-age cluster to empirical gyrochronology training removes a 20–50% overestimate for many G and early-K dwarfs, so future age catalogs in this range will shift to younger values.
  • The sequence provides a template for recognizing similarly useful intermediate-age clusters in the era of large rotation-period surveys from Gaia, Roman, and PLATO.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If NGC-752's true age turns out to be near the upper end of published estimates (~1.75 Gyr), the claimed overestimate would shrink or disappear; an independent precise age is the most direct test of the calibration.
  • The flat rotation–temperature morphology suggests the stalled-spin-down boundary migrates to cooler stars over time; measuring the sequence below 4400 K in NGC-752 or in a similar-age cluster would test this migration directly.
  • A correction of 20–50% in gyrochronological ages for G and early-K dwarfs would alter derived ages of many exoplanet host stars, so the result has implications beyond cluster studies if it survives improved age anchoring.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compiles TESS and literature rotation periods to define, for the first time, the G- and early-K dwarf slow-rotator sequence of the intermediate-age open cluster NGC-752, at an adopted age of 1.3 Gyr. Combining the Hunt & Reffert (2023) membership list with a regenerated TARS catalog and the eight secure Agüeros et al. (2018) periods yields a 25-star benchmark sample after binarity and quality cuts. The authors report that the NGC-752 slow sequence lies between the 1 Gyr NGC-6811 and 2.5 Gyr NGC-6819 sequences, supporting the interpretation that stalled spin-down has resumed for stars near 4500–5000 K by ~1.3 Gyr. They further claim that existing empirical gyrochronology models, gyro-interp and ChronoFlow, overestimate ages of G and early-K dwarfs by 20–50% because they lack intermediate-age calibration data. The paper also validates TARS periods against K2, ZTF, and open-cluster samples (82–94% agreement) and discusses three rapid rotators interpreted as unresolved binaries.

Significance. If the intermediate sequence result holds, the paper provides a genuinely needed benchmark anchor in the 1–2.5 Gyr gap in empirical gyrochronology calibration, directly relevant to upcoming large-scale surveys. The relative-sequence claim (NGC-752 between NGC-6811 and NGC-6819, with resumed spin-down above the stalled plateau) is a physically interesting and falsifiable observational statement, and its comparison with literature sequences is clearly presented. The period-validation experiment against independent surveys is a strength, as is the machine-readable catalog of quality flags. However, the headline quantitative age-bias claim (20–50% overestimate) is partially degenerated with the adopted cluster age and requires additional quantitative support before it can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 4] The central quantitative claim that gyro-interp and ChronoFlow overestimate ages by 20–50% is computed relative to the adopted 1.3 Gyr age, but the manuscript itself lists independent age estimates from 1176 Myr to 1750 Myr and states that the offset in Figure 4 could reflect an underestimated cluster age, unmodeled rotational evolution, or both. Since the model ages of these stars are roughly 1.6–2.0 Gyr, adopting the upper end of the published age range would shrink the reported overestimate nearly to zero for the hottest stars. The paper does not propagate the full published age range through the bias calculation or quantify what fraction of the offset is age error versus model bias; this is required for the headline claim to be robust.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 3] The 20–50% overestimate claim for ChronoFlow is weakened by a training-set overlap that the paper itself identifies: ChronoFlow's NGC-752 training data are the eight Agüeros et al. (2018) periods, all for stars cooler than about 4500 K, while the claimed bias is for stars hotter than ~5000 K. The overlap is therefore not directly circular for the hot-star claim, but the manuscript does not state how many of the 25 benchmark stars lie in the Teff > 5000 K range used to compute the bias, how the quoted 20–50% range is derived from the age-difference distributions, or whether the quoted overestimate is a median, a fitted gradient, or an envelope. Please state the sample size, the statistic, and the uncertainty on the quoted percentage range.
  3. [Sec. 3 and Fig. 1] The benchmark sample of 25 stars is small and its temperature coverage in the hot-star regime is not quantified. In particular, the claim that the sequence is flat and well-defined between 4000 and 6000 K rests on the plotted points, but the number of stars in bins such as 5000–5600 K vs 4500–5000 K, and the associated period uncertainties, are not reported numerically. Since Figure 3's bias calculation depends on the same small sample, a table or count of benchmark stars per Teff bin (with median period and scatter) is needed to assess the leverage of individual points.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3] The text states 'seven stars from Agüeros et al. (2018), with one star in common' giving 25 total from 19 TARS plus 7 literature; please verify the arithmetic (19+7-1=25) is explicitly explained, since the text says 'eight of the twelve' earlier and then 'seven' after cuts.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The external validation experiment is applied to a regenerated TARS catalog at a systematics-threshold of 0.5, but the comparison samples (K2, ZTF, open clusters) are not described in terms of their sky overlap, magnitude ranges, or how 'agreement' was defined (e.g., criterion for period match). Please state the matching tolerance.
  3. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 is dense with 11 cluster sequences; the NGC-752 slow sequence would be easier to assess if its members were plotted with error bars or a shaded envelope, and if the three rapid (binary) stars were marked distinctly.
  4. [Sec. 3, Table 1] The description of period uncertainties for TARS periods is not given; please specify whether the quoted uncertainty is the half-width of the Lomb-Scargle peak, a bootstrap spread, or another definition, and whether the same definition applies for the Agüeros et al. (2018) periods.
  5. [Sec. 4] The temperature range '4000 < Teff < 6000 K' at the end of Sec. 4 should be consistent with the caption and text describing the sequence, since the paper elsewhere uses Teff ~ 4500–5000 K for the resumed spin-down claim; please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; a minor ChronoFlow training-set overlap appears in a supporting comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 and Figure 3 (right panel), with the benchmark sample defined in Section 3]
    "ChronoFlow includes NGC-752, but its training sample contains only the eight rotation periods for stars with Teff ≲ 4500 K reported by M. A. Agüeros et al. (2018) ... Right: The same as the left panel but with ChronoFlow-derived ages."

    The benchmark sample used for the ChronoFlow comparison retains the seven Agüeros et al. (2018) stars that passed the quality cuts, and those stars' periods were part of ChronoFlow's NGC-752 training set. For those stars, the model-derived ages are outputs from training labels rather than genuinely independent predictions. However, the paper's main bias claim is about stars hotter than roughly 5000 K, which are new TESS/TARS periods outside ChronoFlow's NGC-752 training sample, so this overlap is not load-bearing for the central result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained with respect to its main claim: it measures the NGC-752 slow-rotator sequence from TESS/TARS periods and Agüeros et al. (2018) periods, assigns membership via Gaia-based catalogs, and compares the measured sequence against external empirical frameworks. No parameter is fitted to the target quantity and then renamed a prediction; gyro-interp contains no NGC-752 calibration at all, and the stars driving the 20-50% overestimate claim (Teff > 5000 K) are new periods outside ChronoFlow's NGC-752 training set. The adopted 1.3 Gyr age is an external input, and the paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 4.1 and Figure 4 that independent age estimates ranging from 1176 to 1750 Myr could account for part of the offset; this is a stated limitation rather than a circular step. The only mild issue is that the ChronoFlow comparison evaluates some NGC-752 stars that were in that model's training set, but the conclusion does not depend on those cool stars. Overall, the central sequence and bias claim are empirically grounded and not circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on an adopted cluster age that the paper itself shows ranges from 1.18 to 1.75 Gyr, on the Hunt and Reffert membership list, and on binary-rejection criteria that classify some fast rotators as unresolved binaries. The paper does not fit any new model parameters; the only hand-set numerical choices are the adopted age and the lowered TARS classifier threshold. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • adopted NGC-752 age = 1.3 Gyr (literature range 1.18 to 1.75 Gyr)
    Chosen by hand from published isochrone, lithium, and eclipsing-binary estimates; the age-bias claim is computed against it, so the result depends on this input.
  • TARS systematics classifier threshold = 0.5
    Lowered from the default TARS threshold to recover faint and slow rotators in NGC-752; affects which stars enter the sample.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Hunt and Reffert Gaia DR3 membership list is complete and clean for NGC-752.
    All 25 benchmark rotators are drawn from this list; other catalogs are rejected with qualitative arguments rather than quantitative comparison.
  • domain assumption The adopted absolute age of NGC-752 is 1.3 Gyr.
    Central to the overestimate claim; Section 4.1 lists conflicting ages from 1176 to 1750 Myr.
  • domain assumption Binary removal criteria remove true binaries without removing single stars.
    Section 3; the three rapid rotators are classified as unresolved binaries without direct detection of companions.
  • domain assumption Rotation periods from TARS and Agueros 2018 are reliable after vetting.
    External comparison supports typical recovery rates, but the NGC-752 sample is small and partly measured with a lowered classifier threshold.
  • domain assumption NGC-752 is co-eval and approximately solar metallicity, so rotation period differences across the sequence track mass and spin-down history.
    Standard gyrochronology premise; the paper adopts literature metallicity and membership but does not re-derive them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Filling the Gap: Calibrating Gyrochronology at 1.3 Gyr with the Benchmark Cluster NGC-752." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WK74ULC6

@misc{pith2026260810077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Filling the Gap: Calibrating Gyrochronology at 1.3 Gyr with the Benchmark Cluster NGC-752},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WK74ULC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10077}
}
read the original abstract

Empirical gyrochronology relies on co-eval stellar associations to map stellar rotation as a function of mass and age. The accuracy of its age predictions is therefore limited by the number and quality of benchmark rotation sequences. The well-characterized clusters NGC-6811 (t ~ 1 Gyr) and NGC-6819 (t ~ 2.5 Gyr) bracket an intermediate-age interval in which stellar spin-down remains poorly constrained due to lack of available rotation data. At t ~ 1.3 Gyr, NGC-752 provides a critical benchmark within this gap, but previous measurements could not define the G- and K-dwarf rotation sequence needed for calibration. Here, we combine Gaia-based NGC-752 membership lists with literature rotation periods to map NGC-752's slow-rotator sequence for the first time. We identify a well-defined sequence intermediate between those of NGC-6811 and NGC-6819. Stars near Teff ~ 4500 K rotate more slowly than their counterparts in NGC-6811, indicating that stars experiencing stalled spin-down at ~1 Gyr have resumed appreciable spin-down by the age of NGC-752. Adopting an age of 1.3 Gyr for NGC-752, we further show that existing empirical gyrochronology models overestimate the ages of many G and early-K dwarfs by 20--50% because they lack intermediate-age calibration data, although uncertainty in the absolute age of NGC-752 may account for part of this offset. NGC-752 therefore provides a necessary anchor for improving rotational age estimates. This calibration is especially timely because Gaia DR4, Roman, and PLATO are expected to yield rotation periods for tens of millions of stars, making the age coverage of benchmark sequences a principal limitation on large-scale gyrochronology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gaia color-magnitude diagram of members of NGC-752 from E. L. Hunt & S. Reffert (2023). Circles indi￾cate catalog stars, red ‘X’s are stars we excluded because of evidence of binarity or concerns about reliability (e.g., high RUWE, inconsistent periods between TESS sectors, high CMD position), and blue squares are stars with rotation pe￾riods used in this analysis. Approximate Teff is shown on the top for reference.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The NGC-752 rotation-effective temperature sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Empirical gyrochronology models overestimate stellar ages around 1.3 Gyr due to lack of training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rotational evolution of a 5500 K star. Adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Bowsher, E

    Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Bowsher, E. C., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6ed 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 Co...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac6ed 2018

  2. [2]

    Barnes, S. A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 464, doi: 10.1086/367639

    doi:10.1086/367639 2003

  3. [3]

    A., Weingrill, J., Fritzewski, D., Strassmeier, K

    Barnes, S. A., Weingrill, J., Fritzewski, D., Strassmeier, K. G., & Platais, I. 2016, ApJ, 823, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/16

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/16 2016

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 9

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  5. [5]

    K., & Vaidya, K

    Bhattacharya, S., Agarwal, M., Rao, K. K., & Vaidya, K. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1404

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1404 2021

  6. [6]

    M., Lum, M

    Boesgaard, A. M., Lum, M. G., Chontos, A., & Deliyannis, C. P. 2022, ApJ, 927, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4eef

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4eef 2022

  7. [7]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

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

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  8. [8]

    G., Palumbo, E

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc589 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    W., & Bouma, L

    Boyle, A. W., & Bouma, L. G. 2023, AJ, 166, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd3e8

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Bouma, L

    Boyle, A. W., Bouma, L. G., & Mann, A. W. 2025, ApJ, 994, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0724

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Bouma, L

    Boyle, A. W., Bouma, L. G., & Mann, A. W. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05586. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05586

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Douglas, S. T., & Meibom, S. 2019a, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2393

    doi

  5. [13]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Mamajek, E. E., Wright, J. T., & Cummings, J. D. 2019b, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899

    doi

  6. [14]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Matt, S. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    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

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Curtis, J

    Douglas, S. T., Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2468

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Miller, L

    Feiden, G. A., & Miller, L. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 161, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acebd2

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Strassmeier, K. G. 2021, A&A, 652, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140894

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Fu, X., Bragaglia, A., Liu, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, ...

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Barrado, D., Bouy, H., et al

    Galindo-Guil, F. J., Barrado, D., Bouy, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141114

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Hodgkin, S

    Gillen, E., Briegal, J. T., Hodgkin, S. T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3251

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.13424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.13424

    2023 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  18. [26]

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., & Stassun, K. G. 2020, AJ, 160, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc0e6

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af

    Long, L., Bi, S., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y. L., Curtis, J. L., Angus, R., David, T. J., & Hattori, S. 2022a, AJ, 164, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9bee

    doi

  22. [30]

    2026, A&A, 706, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557529

    Malhotra, S., Castro-Ginard, A., Anders, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557529

    2026 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Platais, I., et al

    Meibom, S., Barnes, S. A., Platais, I., et al. 2015, Nature, 517, 589, doi: 10.1038/nature14118

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Latham, D

    Meibom, S., Barnes, S. A., Latham, D. W., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/733/1/L9

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, A&A, 657, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142276 pandas development team, T

    Messina, S., Nardiello, D., Desidera, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142276 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    H., van Saders, J

    Pinsonneault, M. H., van Saders, J. L., Cao, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25792, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.25792

    2026 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Curtis, J

    Rampalli, R., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Curtis, J. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c1e

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Stauffer, J

    Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Bouvier, J., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 114, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/114

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936887

    Reinhold, T., & Hekker, S. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936887

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    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

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Buckner, A

    Sandquist, E. L., Buckner, A. J., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9c59

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Bouma, L

    Sha, L., Vanderburg, A. M., Bouma, L. G., & Huang, C. X. 2024, ApJ, 977, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad89a7

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Simonian, G. V. A., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Terndrup, D. M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf97c

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310 10

    Skumanich, A. 1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310 10

    1972 doi

  36. [44]

    S., Curtis, J

    Stafford, M. S., Curtis, J. L., & Ag¨ ueros, M. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17116 TESS Team. 2022, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: All

    2026 doi

  37. [45]

    Sectors, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/0CP4-2J79

    doi

  38. [46]

    R., Speagle, J

    Van-Lane, P. R., Speagle, J. S., Eadie, G. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcd73 van Saders, J. L., Ceillier, T., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 181, doi: 10.1038/nature16168

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N

    Vergely, J. L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 664, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243319

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad960a Wes McKinney

    Wang, F., Fang, M., Fu, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad960a Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Mann, A

    Wood, M. L., Mann, A. W., & Kraus, A. L. 2021, AJ, 162, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0ae9

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 692, A212, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450726

    Zhang, R., Wang, G.-J., Lu, Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A212, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450726

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.