Paper · S7763
A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b
Kipping and nine coauthors dispute reductions and inference in the Kepler1625/1708 exomoon controversy using shared archival products. They retain that both candidates may not be real and need further observations; noise, detrending, injection geometry, limb-darkening and conditional false-positive assumptions limit inference. No independent moon or UAP detection follows.
Read the paper at arxiv.orgWhat we checked
Specialists completed the received49-page manuscript as extracted text and whole native layouts:81,301 LF-normalized characters. Root reviewed entire analytical packets and exact file pins. The final17 pages add19,710 characters, references14–37, equation1, data/code availability, two tables and three Extended Data figures. Tiny figure48 glyphs remain unreadable. Completion covers this received manuscript; physical/journal authenticity and replication remain unverified. No independent moon or UAP detection.
Received manuscript text and layouts reviewed; originals and data gaps retained
How we check sources
Not checked yet
- The authors reanalyse shared Kepler/Hubble products and concede both candidate moons may not be real. Noise, detrending, limb-darkening, injection radii and conditional model choices limit inference. Page21 lowers the Kepler1625 dip statistic to2logBMZ1.64±.32. Approximate Savage–Dickey tails, nonphysical-radius variants and22 injection tests are qualifications. False-positive rates are not probabilities that a moon exists; occurrence priors remain subjective.
- Kepler1708 reconstruction uses385 vector-extracted points versus an inferred386th point. Missing time/flux and some processing choices are guessed; a probable endpoint is extrapolated. It is not received original data. The authors report unanswered scientific requests; individual senders/recipients, dates and original emails are unknown. These may be one contact family, with no separate count or government approach inferred.
- Retain361/362/429 intra-orbit versus fitted422/459/426ppm denominators, discarded26 exposures versus196/220 counts, average/median and photon-floor/red-noise wording conflicts. Page24’s428.5.0 literal is unresolved. Page28 prose2logBmp6.90 differs from Figure2’s12.97, and TK18 appears in Kepler1708 context. RSS/RMS units and clipped labels remain unaudited. No silent numerical correction, replication or final-journal collation occurred.
- Native v1/official submission are January18,2024; HTTP/PDF metadata are January22. Received27,819,529bytes differs from official history19,309KB; server ETag differs from received hash. These layers do not establish version equivalence or original authenticity. Historical journal consideration is not current status. Cited bodies, raw observations/code/posteriors and original scientific emails remain unreviewed in this lane.
- NASA80NSSC21K0960 supports Kipping/Yahalomi; LSSTC/NSF1829740, Brinson/Moore support Yahalomi; ERC948467 supports Szulágyi. PLEIADES, Kepler and HST/STScI credits are public research support. Award dates, initiators and agreements remain unknown. Forty-two donor tokens include unverified RandCorp and TheQueenRdFndInc identities. These credits and a correspondence address establish no secret approach, private briefing, custody or programme invitation.
- Noise-test p-values do not prove white noise or a real moon. Conditional false-positive rates are not moon-existence probabilities. Stellar variability and the relayed800ppm dip remain ordinary alternatives. Estimated82%/95% instability and5% observability depend on hypothetical injection, initial orbit/spin and host-age assumptions; they are not observed populations.
- The authors report a1,000-sample LUNA/pandora benchmark ratio1.33; no code was run here. Equation1 defines posterior-mean minus maximum-likelihood chi-squared. Missing H19 posterior samples prevent direct validation; TK18 complexity22.8 versus22 dimensions is an illustration. Cofiam weighting/jump/order differences and posterior versus maximum likelihood retain model dependencies.
- Tables1–2 compare reductions of shared Hubble/Kepler data, including excluded orbits1/7/18, joint trend fitting and fixed/free baseline assumptions. They supply no independent detection and do not resolve earlier6.90 versus12.97 Bayes factors. Figure49 caption initial0.11 Hill radii conflicts with the plotted start near0.30; tiny figure48 parameters remain UNKNOWN. No silent repair or original-figure collation.
- References14–37 are bibliography metadata; literal Foodman and Gongjie,L. remain unrepaired. Data/code links and a reasonable-request offer are not received datasets, code inspection or actual correspondence. No new agency approach is explicit in this terminal scope. Earlier funding, donors and scientific contacts retain their original limits without duplicate credit.
Cite this record
David Kipping, Alex Teachey, Daniel A. Yahalomi, Ben Cassese, Billy Quarles, Steve Bryson, Brad Hansen, Judit Szulágyi, Chris Burke, Kevin Hardegree-Ullman. A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b. January 18, 2024. BioParity S7763. https://bioparity.io/sources/S7763Record data (JSON)