ner_tags: O O B-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Telescope B-Dataset O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-CelestialObject O O B-Instrument B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Telescope O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O B-Telescope O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Instrument O O O B-Observatory I-Observatory I-Observatory O B-Location B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Telescope B-Dataset O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: from the MIST isochrones, that is, only using the SED of the star, its parallax from Gaia DR2, and the light curves and radial velocities. The uncertainties from this analysis are 35% for the planetary mass, surface gravity, and density, and 3.3% for the radius. These are consistent with the uncertainties derived from the analysis using the MIST evolutionary tracks as constraints. The fractional uncertainties from the original paper and the analysis without constraints are shown in sky blue (with constraints) and green (without) in Figure 1 . We conclude that the inferred parameters of the system derived using purely empirical constraints are as precise (and likely more accurate) than those inferred using theoretical evolutionary tracks. Therefore, at least for systems similar to KELT-26, we see no need to invoke theoretical priors. 4.3. Kepler-93b Kepler-93b is a terrestrial exoplanet with a 4.7 day period discovered by Ballard et al. ( 2014 ). It has a mass of M p = 4.02 ± 0.68 M ⊕ and radius of R p = 1.483 ± 0.019 R ⊕ . With a radius uncertainty of only 1.2%, it is one of the most precisely characterized exoplanets to date. Ballard et al. ( 2014 ) used asteroseismology to precisely constrain the stellar density, and then used it as a prior in their MCMC analysis, leading to the remarkably precise planet radius. Their analysis did not use external constraints from stellar evolutionary models, however. Dressing et al. ( 2015 ) revisited Kepler-93 and collected HARPS-N (Mayor et al. 2003 ) spectra, which they combined with archival Keck/HIRES spectra to improve upon the planet’s mass estimate. They thus reduced the uncertainty in the mass of Kepler-93b from ∼40% (Ballard et al. 2014 ) to ∼17%. We used the photometric parameters ( T , τ , and δ ) from Ballard et al. ( 2014 ) and the semi-amplitude K ⋆ from Dressing et al. ( 2015 ) to test our analytic estimates. We compared our results to the reported uncertainties in M p , g p , and ρ p from Dressing et al. ( 2015 ), since they provide slightly more precise properties. The uncertainties in the properties of Kepler-93b are all ∼17%, and 1.2% for the radius, which are in excellent agreement with our analytic estimates, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1 . Interestingly, this implies that the asteroseismological constraint on ρ ⋆ does not significantly improve the overall constraints on the system. 4.4. HD 21749b HD 21749b is a warm sub-Neptune on a 36 day orbit transiting a K4.5 dwarf discovered by Dragomir et al. ( 2019 ). The planet has a radius of determined from TESS data, and a mass of constrained from high-precision, RV data from the HARPS spectrograph at the La Silla Observatory in Chile. Dragomir et al. ( 2019 ) performed an SED fit combined with a parallax from Gaia DR2 to constrain the host star’s radius to R ⋆ = 0.695 ± 0.030 R ⊙ . They then used the relations of Torres et al. ( 2010 ) to derive a stellar mass of M ⋆ = 0.73 ± 0.07 M ⊙ , although they do not specify what values of T