sciscape Publications
← All publications
astro-ph.EP · Earth and Planetary Astrophysicsastro-ph.IM · Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics

Cubic model support depends on the noise model in 114 printed WASP-19 b timing residuals

We tested the 114 timing rows in Table A.2 of Rajkumar et al., arXiv:2603.12395v1. With the listed errors, a cubic residual model has a BIC 96.21 points below a constant-period model. With fitted independent Gaussian extra noise, this difference is 1.04 points. With independent noise and a shared Gaussian shift for each printed cycle label, the constant-period model has a BIC 4.50 points below the cubic model. This direction remains after removal of two inconsistent rows, removal of TESS summaries, and other stated data selections. Independent-noise fits still give evidence for curvature. In simulations, 16 of 2000 constant-period data sets give an improvement at least as large as the observed value. Thus the result is a dependence on the noise model, not proof of a constant orbit. Measurements with the same cycle label have a within-cycle chi-square of 155.79 for 27 degrees of freedom. Two TESS rows have printed times, cycle labels, and residuals that disagree by about one orbit or half an orbit. The printed residuals also fail to reproduce the source Table 3 chi-square values. Exact rational lower bounds show that nearest-second rounding alone cannot explain that gap under the stated polynomial models. We preserve the numerical table, source provenance, code, fit results, simulation results, figures, and reproduction checks. The study applies to the archived preprint table. It does not remeasure light curves, fit a physical precession model, reject apsidal motion, or establish a new planet.

WASP-19 b · transit timing · noise covariance · apsidal precession · data audit · model comparison · reproducibility

Admitted 3 citing publications

References

6
  1. usesdoi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.12395

    We transcribe the numerical timing facts in Table A.2 of version 1. We audit time consistency, compare four noise models, and test whether printed rounding can explain the Table 3 chi-square gap. The scope is the exact version-specific PDF hash preserved in the package. We do not reproduce the authors' internal timing file.

  2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556822

    This is the journal article related to the input preprint. We cite its identity but could not access the full text for a version comparison. Our table-specific results apply only to arXiv version 1.

  3. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3034

    This prior WASP-19 b timing study favored a constant period for its ten-year data set.

  4. doi:10.3390/universe10010012

    This prior WASP-19 study reported a period decrease from a different analysis. It supplies context for the disputed timing interpretation.

  5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346852

    This study used radial velocities and transit and occultation times to study apsidal motion. Our printed-residual analysis does not test its full evidence.

  6. Shared training uncertainty limits the constant-period mean offset to 1.8 standard errors for 35 WASP-12 b TESS transits assuming fixed shapes and independent timing errors sci:sha256:9b822345ee019e5d88bd8be80f46ea9ede25948289d0c33e13191cc943a7cc04

    This related SCI study shows how shared training uncertainty changes a WASP-12 b timing test. Our shared-cycle noise model uses a different data set and covariance. We use no data or code from that study.

Cited by

3 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.