English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Recently, Heller & Hippke argued that the exomoon candidates Kepler-1625 b-iand Kepler-1708 b-i were allegedly 'refuted'. In this Matters Arising, weaddress these claims. For Kepler-1625 b, we show that their Hubble light curveis identical to that previously published by the same lead author, in which themoon-like dip was recovered. Indeed, our fits of their data again recover themoon-like dip with improved residuals than that obtained by Heller & Hippke.Their fits therefore appear to have somehow missed this deeper likelihoodmaximum, as well producing apparently unconverged posteriors. Consequently,their best-fitting moon is the same radius as the planet, Kepler-1625 b; aradically different signal from that which was originally claimed. The authorsthen inject this solution into the Kepler data and remark, as a point ofconcern, how retrievals obtain much higher significances than originallyreported. However, this issue stems from the injection of a fundamentallydifferent signal. We demonstrate that their Hubble light curve exhibits ~20%higher noise and discards 11% of the useful data, which compromises its abilityto recover the subtle signal of Kepler-1625 b-i. For Kepler-1708 b-i it wasclaimed that the exomoon model's Bayes factor is highly sensitive to detrendingchoices, yielding reduced evidence with a biweight filter versus the originalclaim. We use their own i) detrended light curve and ii) biweight filter codeto investigate these claims. For both, we recover the original moon signal, toeven higher confidence than before. The discrepancy is explained by comparingto their quoted fit metrics, where we again demonstrate that the Heller &Hippke regression definitively missed the deeper likelihood maximumcorresponding to Kepler-1708 b-i. We conclude that both candidates remainviable but certainly demand further observations.

A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b