pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16499 · v1 · pith:ODLDJBNJnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

A Revised Mass and Period for the Habitable Zone super-Earth GJ 3378b: A Planet Straddling the Cosmic Shoreline

Paul Robertson , Michael Endl , William D. Cochran , Gudmundur Stef\'ansson , Suvrath Mahadevan , Caleb I. Ca\~nas , Gogod James , Roan Arendtsz
show 13 more authors
Ryan C. Terrien Chad F. Bender Scott A. Diddams Mark R. Giovinazzi Arvind F. Gupta Samuel Halverson Shubham Kanodia Daniel M. Krolikowski Sarah E. Logsdon Joe P. Ninan Claire J. Rogers Arpita Roy Christian Schwab
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 21:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsradial velocityhabitable zoneM dwarfssuper-Earthcosmic shorelineGJ 3378atmospheric escape
0
0 comments X

The pith

Joint radial velocity analysis revises the super-Earth GJ 3378b to an orbital period of 21.45 days and a minimum mass of 2.3 Earth masses while keeping it inside the habitable zone.

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

The paper combines new radial velocity measurements from the HPF and NEID spectrometers with previously published data from CARMENES and SPIRou to re-fit the orbit of the planet around the nearby M4V star GJ 3378. The resulting solution shortens the period from 24.73 days to 21.45 days and lowers the minimum mass from 5.26 Earth masses to 2.3 Earth masses. These changes leave the planet still within the conservative liquid-water habitable zone but increase the chance that it is a rocky world rather than a mini-Neptune. The revised location places the planet close to the cosmic shoreline, the boundary at which M-dwarf planets are expected to lose their atmospheres through stellar radiation and wind. A reader cares because precise masses and orbits determine whether such planets can retain atmospheres long enough for life to develop.

Core claim

The joint RV model reduces the orbital period to P = 21.45 ± 0.01 d and the minimum mass to m sin i = 2.3 ± 0.4 M⊕. The shortened orbital distance remains within the conservative circumstellar liquid-water habitable zone, while the reduced mass increases the likelihood that the planet has a terrestrial composition. The revised planet properties place it near the cosmic shoreline, where planets in the HZs of M dwarfs may lose their atmospheres due to radiative stripping.

What carries the argument

The joint orbital fit applied to the combined radial-velocity time series from the HPF, NEID, CARMENES, and SPIRou instruments.

If this is right

  • The lower mass makes a rocky, terrestrial composition more probable than a gaseous envelope.
  • The planet remains inside the conservative habitable zone for liquid water.
  • Its position near the cosmic shoreline implies that atmospheric loss through stellar radiation may have occurred or may still be occurring.
  • Similar joint analyses of multi-instrument radial velocity data could revise other M-dwarf planet candidates announced from single telescopes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Atmospheric escape models for M-dwarf planets could be tested by searching for remaining hydrogen or helium envelopes around this world.
  • Future transit observations might reveal whether the planet has retained any atmosphere despite its proximity to the shoreline.
  • Reanalysis of other single-instrument detections around fully convective M dwarfs may shift additional planets relative to the cosmic shoreline.

Load-bearing premise

The combined radial velocity measurements contain no significant stellar activity signals or instrumental systematics that could mimic or shift the 21.45-day Keplerian signature.

What would settle it

An independent radial velocity data set that recovers a strong periodic signal at the original 24.73-day period, or that shows stellar activity indicators correlating with that period instead of 21.45 days, would falsify the revised solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16499 by Arpita Roy, Arvind F. Gupta, Caleb I. Ca\~nas, Chad F. Bender, Christian Schwab, Claire J. Rogers, Daniel M. Krolikowski, Gogod James, Gudmundur Stef\'ansson, Joe P. Ninan, Mark R. Giovinazzi, Michael Endl, Paul Robertson, Roan Arendtsz, Ryan C. Terrien, Samuel Halverson, Sarah E. Logsdon, Scott A. Diddams, Shubham Kanodia, Suvrath Mahadevan, William D. Cochran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radial velocity data for GJ 3378. Top: the combined RV time series. The orbit model is shown as a dashed line. Middle: RV residuals to a 1-planet model. Bottom: RVs phase-folded to the period of the exoplanet. Phase-binned RVs are shown as squares. These new observations confirm the previously-identified planet candidate, but we find a significantly different orbital solution. Specifically, our model indic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: RV periodograms for GJ 3378. Top: rvsearch peri￾odogram of all RVs. Middle: rvsearch periodgram of the RVs after removing the 21.5-day planet candidate. The dashed hori￾zontal lines in both RV periodograms indicate the FAP = 0.1% threshold as determined by rvsearch. Bottom: window function of the RV sampling, as determined by the GLS algorithm. GJ 3378 is a bright, nearby star, which allows for highly prec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: GLS periodograms of spectral activity indica￾tors from the spectrometers used in this study. From top to bottom, we show periodograms of the KI EW from HPF, the CARMENES dLW line shape parameter, and the SPIRou dET metric. Vertical lines indicate the period of the planet can￾didate, as well as stellar rotation periods as determined by J. F. Donati et al. (2023) and J. Kemmer et al. (2025). All instru￾ments… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: rvsearch periodogram power of GJ 3378 RVs, showing the evolu￾tion of power as data are added. The top panel shows power at the 21.5-day period. The solid curve shows power for the data, and the dashed curve shows the average results for 100 injections of a synthetic planet with orbital parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TESS photometry of GJ 3378, detailing our search for a transit of planet b. The top four panels show individual TESS sectors of GJ 3378, while the lower-left panel shows all TESS photometry binned and phase-folded to the period of planet b. Overplotted on the phase-folded data are transit models of the planet for a range of impact parameters, conservatively assuming a planetary radius R = 1R⊕. In the lower… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Angular extents of the optimistic HZ (R. K. Kopparapu et al. 2013) for nearby stars hosting exoplanets. The inner and outer HZ limits are marked with circles colored by stellar effective temperature (in K), and known exoplanets are indicated as diamonds at their projected angular separations. The green shaded region indicates where planets might be accessible to imaging facilities on 30 m-class telescopes,… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: rvsearch periodograms of GJ 3378, using all combinations of spectrometers. Dashed horizontal lines indicate the FAP = 0.1% threshold as determined by rvsearch. Vertical lines show the 24.7-day period for planet c proposed by C. Moutou et al. (2024), and the 21.5-day period found by our analysis. The shorter period is preferred by all sets of at least 3 instruments, and by combinations of 2 instruments that… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stacked rvsearch periodogram power of GJ 3378 RVs at the period of the 21.5d signal, showing the evolution of power as data are added. Here, the data are added in order of largest to smallest errorbar size, rather than in time order. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stacked rvsearch periodogram of all GJ 3378 RVs, showing the evolution of the power spectrum as data are added. We show here the period space containing the exoplanet signal. The 21.5-day period remains consistent over the baseline of the data and increases in signal-to-noise. The 24.7-day signal does not appear distinct in the stacked periodogram of all RVs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The nearby ($d = 7.7$ pc) M4V star GJ~3378 is a target of our radial velocity (RV) exoplanet survey of fully convective stars in the Solar neighborhood with the near-infrared spectrograph HPF on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) at McDonald Observatory. Recently, Moutou et al.~(2024) announced the discovery of an $m\sin i = 5.26^{+0.94}_{-0.97} M_\oplus$ planet, GJ 3378b, with an orbital period of $24.73 \pm 0.06$ days, based on SPIRou RV data. Here, we present our HPF RVs for GJ 3378, as well as additional Doppler spectroscopy from the extreme precision NEID Spectrometer on the WIYN telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory. We have analyzed the HPF+NEID RVs jointly with the published RVs from the CARMENES and SPIRou spectrometers. We present an orbital model for GJ 3378b that differs significantly from the Moutou et al.~solution. The joint RV model reduces the orbital period to $P = 21.45 \pm 0.01$d and the minimum mass to $m \sin i = 2.3 \pm 0.4 M_\oplus$. The shortened orbital distance remains within the conservative circumstellar liquid-water habitable zone (HZ), while the reduced mass increases the likelihood that the planet has a terrestrial composition. The revised planet properties place it near the ``cosmic shoreline," where planets in the HZs of M dwarfs may lose their atmospheres due to radiative stripping.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports new HPF and NEID radial-velocity observations of the M4V star GJ 3378, combines them with published CARMENES and SPIRou data, and performs a joint Keplerian fit that revises the orbital period of GJ 3378b from 24.73 d to 21.45 ± 0.01 d and the minimum mass from ~5.3 M⊕ to 2.3 ± 0.4 M⊕. The authors conclude that the planet remains inside the conservative habitable zone but now has a lower mass favoring a terrestrial composition and lies near the cosmic shoreline for atmospheric loss.

Significance. If the revised parameters hold, the result updates the properties of a nearby HZ planet and strengthens the case for terrestrial composition, with direct relevance to atmospheric-retention models around M dwarfs. The multi-instrument dataset is a methodological strength that allows cross-validation, but the scientific impact depends on demonstrating that the 21.45 d signal is not an artifact of unmodeled stellar activity or instrument systematics.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3 (RV analysis and orbital modeling)] §3 (RV analysis and orbital modeling): The joint least-squares Keplerian fit to the combined HPF+NEID+CARMENES+SPIRou time series yields the revised P = 21.45 ± 0.01 d and m sin i = 2.3 ± 0.4 M⊕ without an explicit description of activity mitigation (e.g., inclusion of activity indicators, Gaussian-process kernels, or covariance tests between the 21–25 d window and stellar rotation). For an M4V star this period range overlaps possible spot-induced or rotation-harmonic signals, so the assumption that all power at 21.45 d is planetary is load-bearing for the central claim of revised parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: A one-sentence summary of activity or covariance checks performed would help readers immediately assess the robustness of the revised solution.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 or equivalent periodogram panel: Clarify whether the displayed power spectrum includes or excludes activity-indicator correlations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The major comment identifies a legitimate need for greater transparency in our treatment of stellar activity, which we address below through targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (RV analysis and orbital modeling)] §3 (RV analysis and orbital modeling): The joint least-squares Keplerian fit to the combined HPF+NEID+CARMENES+SPIRou time series yields the revised P = 21.45 ± 0.01 d and m sin i = 2.3 ± 0.4 M⊕ without an explicit description of activity mitigation (e.g., inclusion of activity indicators, Gaussian-process kernels, or covariance tests between the 21–25 d window and stellar rotation). For an M4V star this period range overlaps possible spot-induced or rotation-harmonic signals, so the assumption that all power at 21.45 d is planetary is load-bearing for the central claim of revised parameters.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript would benefit from an explicit description of activity checks, particularly for an M4V star where the revised period lies near plausible rotation harmonics. In the revised manuscript we have expanded §3 with a new subsection on activity mitigation. We report periodogram analyses of activity indicators (Hα, Na I D, Ca II IRT) extracted from all four instruments, none of which show significant power between 21–25 d. We also present covariance tests between the RV time series and the activity indicators, as well as an alternative model that includes a quasi-periodic Gaussian-process kernel; the planetary parameters remain consistent within 1σ. These additions directly address the referee’s concern and strengthen the case that the 21.45 d signal is not activity-induced. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: revised parameters from direct multi-instrument RV Keplerian fit

full rationale

The paper's central result (P = 21.45 ± 0.01 d, m sin i = 2.3 ± 0.4 M⊕) is obtained by joint least-squares fitting of observed HPF+NEID+CARMENES+SPIRou radial velocities to a standard Keplerian orbital model. This is a conventional data-driven estimation step with no reduction to any quantity defined by the authors' own prior equations, no fitted input relabeled as prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation remains self-contained against external RV datasets and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from the same author group to force the outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the observed radial-velocity variations are produced by a single Keplerian orbit plus uncorrelated noise, with no additional free parameters introduced for stellar activity or instrument offsets beyond those implicit in the joint fit.

free parameters (2)
  • orbital period = 21.45 d
    Fitted directly to the combined radial-velocity time series.
  • minimum mass = 2.3 M⊕
    Derived from the fitted RV semi-amplitude and stellar mass.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Radial-velocity variations are dominated by a single planetary Keplerian signal
    Standard modeling choice invoked when combining multi-instrument RV datasets without explicit activity indicators in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5969 in / 1379 out tokens · 57142 ms · 2026-05-19T21:42:43.251674+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    W., & O’Neil, M

    Hogg, D. W., & O’Neil, M. 2015, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 38, 252, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2448083 Artigau, ´E., Cadieux, C., Cook, N. J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7b30 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:10.1109/tpami.2015.2448083 2015

  2. [2]

    Estimating distances from parallaxes. V: Geometric and photogeometric distances to 1.47 billion stars in Gaia Early Data Release 3

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  3. [3]

    1996, A&AS, 119, 373

    Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., et al. 1996, A&AS, 119, 373

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    R., Smartt, S

    Barnes, J. R., Collier Cameron, A., Donati, J.-F., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 357, L1, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.08587.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.08587.x 2005

  5. [5]

    L., et al

    Basant, R., Luque, R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb8d5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb8d5 2025

  6. [6]

    2025, AJ, 170, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0e20

    Beard, C., Robertson, P., Lubin, J., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0e20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae0e20 2025

  7. [7]

    2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Bender, C., Ninan, J., Terrien, R., et al. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 240, American Astronomical Society Meeting #240, 401.01

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    P., Vogt, S

    Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Laughlin, G., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa66ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa66ca 2017

  9. [9]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 , year = 2016, month =

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 16

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

  10. [10]

    2016 , keywords =

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  11. [11]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hebb, L., & Hawley, S. L. 2015, ApJ, 806, 212, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/212

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/212 2015

  12. [12]

    F., Kouach, D., Moutou, C., et al

    Donati, J. F., Kouach, D., Moutou, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2569

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2569 2020

  13. [13]

    F., Lehmann, L

    Donati, J. F., Lehmann, L. T., Cristofari, P. I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2301

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2301 2023

  14. [14]

    2017, ApJL, 837, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6438

    Dong, C., Lingam, M., Ma, Y., & Cohen, O. 2017, ApJL, 837, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6438

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6438 2017

  15. [15]

    2016 , note =

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  16. [16]

    Dumusque, X., Boisse, I., & Santos, N. C. 2014, ApJ, 796, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/132 2014

  17. [17]

    EXOFASTv2: A public, generalized, publication-quality exoplanet modeling code

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09480

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab323 2021

  19. [19]

    P., Su´ arez Mascare˜ no, A., Figueira, P., et al

    Faria, J. P., Su´ arez Mascare˜ no, A., Figueira, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142337

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142337 2022

  20. [20]

    Ford, E. B. 2006, ApJ, 642, 505, doi: 10.1086/500802

    work page doi:10.1086/500802 2006

  21. [21]

    Bayesian Model Selection and Extrasolar Planet Detection

    Ford, E. B., & Gregory, P. C. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 371, Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy IV, ed. G. J. Babu & E. D. Feigelson, 189, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0608328

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0608328 2007

  22. [22]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A.G.A., Prusti, T., & et al. 2022, A&A, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 Gaia Collaboratio...

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 2018

  23. [23]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.06683

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.06683 2020

  24. [24]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990870, doi: 10.1117/12.2233334 Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Su´ arez Mascare˜ no, A., Silva, A. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451311

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233334 2024

  26. [26]

    F., Wright, J

    Gupta, A. F., Wright, J. T., Robertson, P., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd79e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd79e 2021

  27. [27]

    F., Fitzmaurice, E., Mahadevan, S., et al

    Gupta, A. F., Fitzmaurice, E., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23704, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23704

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.23704 2025

  28. [28]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/61

    Halverson, S., Roy, A., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/61

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/61 2015

  29. [29]

    R.et al.Array programming with NumPy.Nature585, 357–362, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 (2020)

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

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

  30. [30]

    D., Collier Cameron, A., Queloz, D., et al

    Haywood, R. D., Collier Cameron, A., Queloz, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1320

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1320 2014

  31. [31]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac262

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac262 2018

  32. [32]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02 2021

  33. [33]

    2019, A&A, 623, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834672

    Hippke, M., & Heller, R. 2019, A&A, 623, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834672

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834672 2019

  34. [34]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  35. [35]

    M., Twicken, J

    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

  36. [36]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Johns, M., McCarthy, P., Raybould, K., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, ed. L. M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 84441H, doi: 10.1117/12.926716

    work page doi:10.1117/12.926716 2012

  37. [37]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Jurgenson, C., Fischer, D., McCracken, T., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99086T, doi: 10.1117/12.2233002

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233002

  39. [39]

    R., & Burt, J

    Kane, S. R., & Burt, J. A. 2024, AJ, 168, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8a68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8a68 2024

  40. [40]

    Harada, C. K. 2024, AJ, 168, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6a50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6a50 2024

  41. [41]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    Kanodia, S., & Wright, J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7 2018

  42. [42]

    P., et al

    Kanodia, S., Halverson, S., Ninan, J. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec83 2021

  43. [43]

    Kanodia, S., Lin, A. S. J., Lubar, E., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acea60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acea60 2023

  44. [44]

    F., Bender, C

    Kaplan, K. F., Bender, C. F., Terrien, R. C., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 567 17

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 1995

  46. [46]

    F., Whitmire, D

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

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1010 1993

  47. [47]

    2025, A&A, 697, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347056

    Kemmer, J., Lafarga, M., Fuhrmeister, B., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347056

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347056 2025

  48. [48]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/131 2013

  49. [49]

    batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602 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 http://ascl.net/1812.013

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/683602 2015

  50. [50]

    2021, AJ, 162, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0057

    Lubin, J., Robertson, P., Stefansson, G., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0057

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0057 2021

  51. [51]

    W., Terrien, R., et al

    Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., Terrien, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471G, doi: 10.1117/12.2056417

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056417

  53. [53]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Malo, L., Baron, F., Poulin-Girard, A.-S., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Motohara, & J

    Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 1309646, doi: 10.1117/12.3020168

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3020168

  55. [55]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/64 2015

  56. [56]

    2024, A&A, 687, A205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449865

    Mas-Buitrago, P., Gonz´ alez-Marcos, A., Solano, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449865

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449865 2024

  57. [57]

    J., Anderson, T., Bender, C

    Metcalf, A. J., Anderson, T., Bender, C. F., et al. 2019, Optica, 6, 233, doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.6.000233

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.6.000233 2019

  58. [58]

    G., Levine, S

    Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984, doi: 10.1086/345888

    work page doi:10.1086/345888 2003

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Morin, J., Donati, J.-F., Forveille, T., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 77, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12709.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12709.x 2008

  60. [60]

    2017, A&A, 601, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630201

    Mortier, A., & Collier Cameron, A. 2017, A&A, 601, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630201

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630201 2017

  61. [61]

    F., et al

    Moutou, C., Ould-Elhkim, M., Donati, J. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450466 National Academies of Sciences, & Medicine, E. 2023,

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450466 2024

  62. [62]

    Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032, doi: 10.17226/26522

    work page doi:10.17226/26522 2023

  63. [63]

    P., Bender, C

    Ninan, J. P., Bender, C. F., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10709, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VIII, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 107092U, doi: 10.1117/12.2312787

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2312787 2018

  64. [64]

    P., Mahadevan, S., Stefansson, G., et al

    Ninan, J. P., Mahadevan, S., Stefansson, G., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 041511, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.4.041511

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.5.4.041511 2019

  65. [65]

    F., et al

    Ould-Elhkim, M., Moutou, C., Donati, J. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346472 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346472 2023

  66. [66]

    2024, A&A, 688, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449911

    Parc, L., Bouchy, F., Venturini, J., Dorn, C., & Helled, R. 2024, A&A, 688, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449911

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449911 2024

  67. [67]

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

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

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

  68. [68]

    and Cristiani, S

    Pepe, F., Cristiani, S., Rebolo, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038306 2021

  69. [69]

    S., Lubin, J., Beard, C., et al

    Polanski, A. S., Lubin, J., Beard, C., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4484

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad4484 2024

  70. [70]

    2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 279, doi: 10.1017/S1473550414000135

    Held, J. 2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 279, doi: 10.1017/S1473550414000135

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550414000135 2015

  71. [71]

    P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al

    Quanz, S. P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140366

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140366 2022

  72. [72]

    Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , year = 2014, editor =

    Quirrenbach, A., Amado, P. J., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471F, doi: 10.1117/12.2056453

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056453 2014

  73. [73]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., Barnes, T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, 34–42, doi: 10.1117/12.319287

    work page doi:10.1117/12.319287 1998

  74. [74]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab609f

    Reiners, A., & Zechmeister, M. 2020, ApJS, 247, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab609f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab609f 2020

  75. [75]

    2013, A&A, 560, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321970

    Reinhold, T., Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2013, A&A, 560, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321970

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321970 2013

  76. [76]

    2016, A&A, 596, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629576

    Ribas, I., Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629576

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629576 2016

  77. [77]

    2023, A&A, 670, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244879

    Ribas, I., Reiners, A., Zechmeister, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244879

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244879 2023

  78. [78]

    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 internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  79. [79]

    2014, Science, 345, 440, doi: 10.1126/science.1253253 18

    Robertson, P., Mahadevan, S., Endl, M., & Roy, A. 2014, Science, 345, 440, doi: 10.1126/science.1253253 18

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1253253 2014

  80. [80]

    2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.1.015003

    Robertson, P., Anderson, T., Stefansson, G., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.1.015003

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.5.1.015003 2019

Showing first 80 references.