pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31523 · v1 · pith:42DUZ2HBnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Mind the Companion : Demographics of Transiting S-type Exoplanets

Lina Y. Messamah , Fran\c{c}ois Bouchy , Julia Venturini , L\'ena Parc , Ariana Nigioni This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 19:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanet demographicsS-type planetsbinary starstransiting exoplanetsGaia DR3giant planetsM-dwarfsplanet formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Giant planets in binary systems tend to be more massive and orbit closer to their hosts than those around single stars.

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

The paper builds a vetted catalog of transiting exoplanets by using Gaia DR3 to identify bound stellar companions in a deliberately conservative way. It separates 133 S-type planets from a larger set of 860 transiting worlds and creates a matched control sample of single-star hosts to limit selection effects. The comparison shows clear differences only in the giant-planet regime: binary-hosted giants are heavier, sit at smaller orbital distances, and therefore display larger radii from inflation. A tentative excess of these giants appears around M-dwarf hosts in binaries closer than 1000 AU. The work supplies a cleaner reference sample for future studies of how stellar multiplicity shapes planet formation and evolution.

Core claim

Adopting a conservative classification of gravitationally bound companions from Gaia DR3 on the PlanetS catalog, the authors identify 133 S-type transiting exoplanets among 860 total systems and construct a matched single-star control sample. They measure a binary fraction of 19.4 percent and report that giant planets in binaries are systematically more massive, orbit at smaller separations, and exhibit inflated radii relative to their single-star counterparts, with a possible overabundance around M-dwarfs in binaries separated by less than 1000 AU.

What carries the argument

A curated catalog of 860 transiting exoplanets with conservative Gaia DR3 companion classification and a matched single-star control sample used to compare planetary properties by host multiplicity.

If this is right

  • Giant planets in binaries are more massive than single-star counterparts.
  • These planets orbit at smaller separations, producing more inflated radii.
  • A tentative excess of giant planets appears around M-dwarfs in binaries with separations below 1000 AU.
  • The binary fraction among planet hosts is 19.4 percent relative to the control sample.
  • Demographic conclusions about planet formation require explicit accounting for stellar multiplicity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Binary companions may alter the available disk mass or migration pathways that allow giant planets to reach higher masses at smaller orbits.
  • Targeted observations of M-dwarfs in binaries under 1000 AU could confirm whether the reported excess is real.
  • The same conservative vetting approach could be applied to radial-velocity planet samples to test whether the trends extend beyond transiting detections.
  • Models of giant-planet formation should incorporate binary separation as a variable when predicting final masses and orbital distances.

Load-bearing premise

The conservative Gaia DR3 companion cuts plus the matched single-star control sample together remove all relevant selection and observational biases between the two populations.

What would settle it

Repeating the mass and separation comparison on an expanded sample after relaxing the conservative companion cuts or after independent confirmation of companionship via radial-velocity monitoring or high-resolution imaging shows no difference between binary and single-star hosts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31523 by Ariana Nigioni, Fran\c{c}ois Bouchy, Julia Venturini, L\'ena Parc, Lina Y. Messamah.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of angular separations (top panel) and projected separations (bottom panel) of the binaries sample in the PlanetS catalog. samples. Furthermore, this boundary corresponds to the upper limit of binaries separation impacting planet formation Wang et al. (2014). 3.2. Observational and Selection Biases Our sample consists of transiting exoplanets with masses de￾rived from RV follow-up, or Timing T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of distances to the sun in pc for binaries (orange), and single stars (blue) 4. Demographic Comparison: Single vs. Binary Hosts 4.1. Control Sample and Global Comparison In order to compare the population of exoplanets in binaries to that around single stars accurately, we aimed to build a control sample of single stars as a sub-sample of the full population of single host stars. The purpose o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stellar effective temperature, metallicity, mass, and distance dis￾tribution for the binaries sample and the control sample of single stars. of the matching by comparing the resulting normalised distri￾butions of the four parameters for both samples. The resulting distributions show consistent medians and variances, confirming that the selected control sample presents a statistically represen￾tative baseli… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass-Radius diagram of the population of transiting exoplanets in binary systems color coded with projected separation (AU), and the control population of transiting exoplanets in single-star systems (gray). The blue rectangle delimits the regime of giant planets (Radius ≥ 0.6 RJup and Mass ≥ 0.1 MJup), from the rest of the populations. indicates a relatively low incidence of binarity in our sample, it sho… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distributions of planetary properties in binary systems (blue) and single stars (grey), with the planet masses distribution shown on the left given in Jupiter Masses, and the planet radii distributions on the right given in Jupiter Radii. The dashed lines correspond to regions where the main differences in the distributions arise, as discussed in Section 4.1 of the planets in that region. This m… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of giant planets in binary systems as a function of stellar mass [M⊙] (blue line). The shaded region shows the 1-σ binomial uncertainty on the weighted fraction. Vertical dashed lines mark boundaries between spectral types F, G, K, and M, as given in Pecaut & Mamajek (2013). The red dots represent the known multiplicity fraction of field stars as computed from Gaia DR3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CDFs of giant planet radius for close binaries ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Insolation flux distribution for giant planets in binary sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of planets at short periods (< 10 days) in binary systems as a function of planetary mass [MJup]. The shaded regions show the 1- σ binomial uncertainties on the weighted fractions. 4.3. Small and Intermediate Planets We extended our analysis to small and intermediate planets to investigate whether stellar binarity influences their distribution in mass and radius ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fraction of intermediate-size planets in binary systems as a function of stellar mass [M⊙].The shaded region shows the 1-σ binomial uncertainty on the weighted fraction. Vertical dashed lines mark boundaries between spectral types F, G, K, and M, as given in Pecaut & Mamajek (2013). The red dots represent the known multiplicity fraction of field stars as computed from Gaia DR3. the observed paucity is app… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of host-star metallicities [dex] available in Gaia DR3 as a function of planet mass [MJup]. Binary systems are color￾coded by projected separation, while grey points correspond to single￾star systems. The solid line shows the best-fit linear relation between stellar metallicity and planet mass, and the shaded region indicates the 1σ intrinsic scatter around the fit. The horizontal line marks … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Difference in stellar metallicity between the two components of binaries with respect to planetary masses for the 59 available values in the catalog. The horizontal line represents equal metallicity binaries. The two vertical lines delimit small to intermediate planets < 0.1 MJup, giant planets > 0.1 MJup, and Jupiter-like planets > 3 MJup. HD 23472 the stellar companions are likely late M-dwarfs or early… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Exoplanet demographic studies rely on large and homogeneous catalogs, yet stellar multiplicity remains incompletely characterised in many planet samples. Misidentified stellar companions can bias both stellar and planetary parameters, leading to ambiguous and incomplete conclusions about planet formation and evolution. We aim to construct a robust and reliable reference catalog of S-type exoplanets for future investigations of planet formation and evolution in multiple-star environments, and to reassess exoplanet demographics by comparing planets hosted by single-stars and binary systems in a statistically consistent framework. We update the PlanetS catalog of transiting exoplanets by systematically identifying gravitationally bound stellar companions using Gaia DR3. Adopting a deliberately conservative classification, we distinguish binary and single-star systems and constructed a matched control sample of single hosts to mitigate selection and observational biases. Using this curated dataset of 860 transiting exoplanets including 133 S-type planets, we performed a comparative demographic analysis of planetary properties as a function of host multiplicity, stellar mass, and binary separation. We find a binary fraction of 19.4% relative to the control sample (15.5% relative to the full single-star sample), consistent with previous estimates but derived from a larger and more homogeneous dataset. Significant demographic differences emerge in the giant planet regime, less affected by observational biases. We find that giant planets in binaries tend to be more massive than their single-star counterparts and to orbit closer to their host stars, making their radius more inflated. In particular, we identify a tentative excess of giant planets orbiting M-dwarfs in binaries with separations < 1000 AU, suggesting a potentially informative regime for future demographic studies.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper updates the PlanetS catalog of 860 transiting exoplanets by identifying bound stellar companions via a conservative Gaia DR3 classification, yielding 133 S-type planets. It constructs a matched single-star control sample and performs a comparative demographic analysis, reporting a binary fraction of 19.4% (vs. 15.5% in the full single-star sample) and claiming that giant planets in binaries are more massive, orbit closer-in, and show inflated radii, with a tentative excess of such planets around M-dwarfs in binaries with separations <1000 AU.

Significance. If the bias mitigation holds, the work supplies a larger homogeneous reference catalog of S-type transiting planets and identifies potentially informative trends in the giant-planet regime that could constrain formation pathways in binaries; the conservative classification approach is a strength, but the absence of quantitative error bars, statistical tests, and explicit residual-bias checks limits the immediate impact of the demographic claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods (companion classification and control-sample construction): the manuscript asserts that the conservative Gaia DR3 cuts plus matching on host mass, magnitude, and spectral type fully remove selection and observational biases, yet provides no quantitative assessment (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics or dilution-correction residuals) of how well the matching mitigates effects from unresolved companions on transit depths, radii, or RV amplitudes; this directly underpins the central claim of intrinsic demographic differences.
  2. [Results] Results (giant-planet demographic comparison): the statements that giant planets in binaries "tend to be more massive," "orbit closer," and have "more inflated" radii are presented without reported error bars, median values with uncertainties, or any statistical significance test (e.g., Mann-Whitney U or bootstrap p-values) comparing the binary and control samples; the same holds for the reported binary fraction of 19.4% versus 15.5%.
  3. [Results] Results (M-dwarf excess): the "tentative excess" of giant planets around M-dwarfs in binaries with separations <1000 AU is stated without the supporting counts, occurrence rates, or any formal test against the control sample, rendering the claim unverifiable from the given information and load-bearing for the suggestion of a "potentially informative regime."
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and text: the phrase "making their radius more inflated" is imprecise; clarify whether this refers to observed radius or radius relative to an expected mass-radius relation.
  2. [Methods] Catalog description: the total of 860 planets and 133 S-type planets should be accompanied by a brief statement of the final sample sizes after all cuts and matching.
  3. [Abstract] Notation: ensure consistent use of "S-type" versus "binary-hosted" throughout; the current abstract mixes both.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We agree that adding quantitative bias checks and statistical tests will strengthen the presentation of our demographic results and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (companion classification and control-sample construction): the manuscript asserts that the conservative Gaia DR3 cuts plus matching on host mass, magnitude, and spectral type fully remove selection and observational biases, yet provides no quantitative assessment (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics or dilution-correction residuals) of how well the matching mitigates effects from unresolved companions on transit depths, radii, or RV amplitudes; this directly underpins the central claim of intrinsic demographic differences.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative validation strengthens the methods section. In the revised manuscript we will add Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on the matched distributions of host mass, magnitude and spectral type, together with a direct comparison of planetary radii and masses before versus after dilution corrections to quantify any residual bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (giant-planet demographic comparison): the statements that giant planets in binaries "tend to be more massive," "orbit closer," and have "more inflated" radii are presented without reported error bars, median values with uncertainties, or any statistical significance test (e.g., Mann-Whitney U or bootstrap p-values) comparing the binary and control samples; the same holds for the reported binary fraction of 19.4% versus 15.5%.

    Authors: We accept that the demographic claims require statistical support. The revised text will report median values with 16-84 percentile uncertainties for mass, semi-major axis and radius in the giant-planet subset, together with Mann-Whitney U p-values and bootstrap confidence intervals. Binomial uncertainties will also be added to the binary-fraction comparison. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results (M-dwarf excess): the "tentative excess" of giant planets around M-dwarfs in binaries with separations <1000 AU is stated without the supporting counts, occurrence rates, or any formal test against the control sample, rendering the claim unverifiable from the given information and load-bearing for the suggestion of a "potentially informative regime."

    Authors: We will add the raw counts of M-dwarf giant-planet hosts in the binary (<1000 AU) and control samples and include a formal test (Fisher's exact or chi-squared) of the excess. Our analysis concerns demographic trends within the known transiting sample rather than occurrence rates, which would require separate completeness modeling; the added counts and test make the claim directly verifiable. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: demographic claims derived from external Gaia and PlanetS data

full rationale

The paper updates the PlanetS catalog using Gaia DR3 astrometry for companion identification, applies conservative cuts, builds a matched single-star control sample, and reports direct statistical comparisons of planet properties. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions reduce by construction to the inputs; the binary fraction and demographic trends (e.g., giant-planet mass and separation differences) are computed from the curated external dataset rather than from any self-referential definition or self-citation chain. The analysis is therefore self-contained against independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of Gaia DR3 for identifying bound companions and on the assumption that the PlanetS catalog plus the constructed control sample are free of residual selection bias after the conservative cut.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry are sufficient to distinguish gravitationally bound companions from chance alignments at the separations considered
    Invoked when the authors adopt a conservative classification of binary versus single systems

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5849 in / 1279 out tokens · 21050 ms · 2026-06-28T19:55:05.512993+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics

    Almendros-Abad, V ., Manara, C., Testi, L., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics

    2024

  2. [2]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771

    Andrews, S., Rosenfeld, K., Kraus, A., & Wilner, D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771

    2013

  3. [3]

    & Lubow, S

    Artymowicz, P. & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651

    1994

  4. [4]

    Á., Hartman, J

    Bakos, G. Á., Hartman, J. D., Torres, G., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 19

    2012

  5. [5]

    Á., Pál, A., Torres, G., et al

    Bakos, G. Á., Pál, A., Torres, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1950

    2009

  6. [6]

    S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A107

    2017

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 700, A10

    Bouchy, F., Doyon, R., Pepe, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A10

    2025

  8. [8]

    2023, A&A, 669, A63

    Bourrier, V ., Attia, M., Mallonn, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A63

    2023

  9. [9]

    M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V . 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3663 Castro-González, A., Bourrier, V ., Lillo-Box, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A250

    2023

  10. [10]

    R., Beichman, C

    Ciardi, D. R., Beichman, C. A., Horch, E. P., & Howell, S. B. 2015, ApJ, 805, 16

    2015

  11. [11]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., & Stassun, K. G. 2017, AJ, 153, 78

    2017

  12. [12]

    & Barbieri, M

    Desidera, S. & Barbieri, M. 2007, A&A, 462, 345

    2007

  13. [13]

    & Mayor, M

    Duquennoy, A. & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485

    1991

  14. [14]

    D., Beatty, T

    Eastman, J. D., Beatty, T. G., Siverd, R. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 45

    2016

  15. [15]

    & Armstrong, D

    Eeles-Nolle, F. & Armstrong, D. J. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1419

    2025

  16. [16]

    2004, A&A, 417, 353

    Eggenberger, A., Udry, S., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 417, 353

    2004

  17. [17]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269

    2021

  18. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10016

    Flores, M., Yana Galarza, J., Miquelarena, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10016

    2024

  19. [19]

    & Bardalez Gagliuffi, D

    Fontanive, C. & Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 16

    2021

  20. [20]

    Frensch, Y . G. C., Bouchy, F., Lo Curto, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11703 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    I., Cañas, C

    Glusman, R. I., Cañas, C. I., Kanodia, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08773

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 393

    Gonzalez, G. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 393

    2014

  23. [23]

    Grishin, E., Winter, J., & Alvarado-Montes, J. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.13773

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    D., et al

    Han, T., Robertson, P., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, L4

    2025

  25. [25]

    B., Hirano, T., et al

    Hjorth, M., Justesen, A. B., Hirano, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3522 Jofré, E., Petrucci, R., Maqueo Chew, Y . G., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 291

    2019

  26. [26]

    2023, A&A, 673, A69

    Lavie, B., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A69

    2023

  27. [27]

    V ., Howell, S

    Lester, K. V ., Howell, S. B., Matson, R. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 166

    2023

  28. [28]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2

    Lindegren, L., Hernández, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2

    2018

  29. [29]

    A., Hernández, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2

    2021

  30. [30]

    F., Tazzari, M., Long, F., et al

    Manara, C. F., Tazzari, M., Long, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A95

    2019

  31. [31]

    2016, A&A, 589, A75

    Mazeh, T., Holczer, T., & Faigler, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A75

    2016

  32. [32]

    & Mugrauer, M

    Michel, K.-U. & Mugrauer, M. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sci- ences, 8, 14

    2021

  33. [33]

    & Mugrauer, M

    Michel, K.-U. & Mugrauer, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3183

    2024

  34. [34]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    2017

  35. [35]

    & Kratter, K

    Moe, M. & Kratter, K. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3593

    2021

  36. [36]

    2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed

    Mordasini, C. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Bel- monte, 143

    2018

  37. [37]

    2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20230055

    Mugrauer, M., Rück, J., & Michel, K.-U. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20230055

    2023

  38. [38]

    2026, A&A, 708, A38

    Nigioni, A., Venturini, J., Bolmont, E., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A38

    2026

  39. [39]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275

    2023

  40. [40]

    F., Bouchy, F., & Helled, R

    Otegi, J. F., Bouchy, F., & Helled, R. 2020, A&A, 634, A43

    2020

  41. [41]

    & Pringle, J

    Papaloizou, J. & Pringle, J. E. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 441

    1977

  42. [42]

    2024, A&A, 688, A59

    Parc, L., Bouchy, F., Venturini, J., Dorn, C., & Helled, R. 2024, A&A, 688, A59

    2024

  43. [43]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9

    2013

  44. [44]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  45. [45]

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2437

    2022

  46. [46]

    A., Sinukoff, E., Lopez, E

    Petigura, E. A., Sinukoff, E., Lopez, E. D., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 142

    2017

  47. [47]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1

    2010

  48. [48]

    E., Quinn, S

    Rodriguez, J. E., Quinn, S. N., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2765

    2023

  49. [49]

    2012, A&A, 542, A92

    Roell, T., Neuhäuser, R., Seifahrt, A., & Mugrauer, M. 2012, A&A, 542, A92

    2012

  50. [50]

    C., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., et al

    Santos, N. C., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 426, L19

    2004

  51. [51]

    2022, A&A, 664, A180

    Schlecker, M., Burn, R., Sabotta, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A180

    2022

  52. [52]

    P., Thorngren, D

    Schmidt, S. P., Thorngren, D. P., & Schlaufman, K. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.08932

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    G., Knutson, H

    Shporer, A., O’Rourke, J. G., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 92

    2014

  54. [54]

    K., Pollacco, D., Hébrard, G., et al

    Simpson, E. K., Pollacco, D., Hébrard, G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1867

    2010

  55. [55]

    L., Berger, T

    Sullivan, K., Kraus, A. L., Berger, T. A., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 129

    2024

  56. [56]

    L., Huber, D., et al

    Sullivan, K., Kraus, A. L., Huber, D., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 177

    2023

  57. [57]

    K., Khanal, S., & Ramírez, I

    Teske, J. K., Khanal, S., & Ramírez, I. 2016, ApJ, 819, 19

    2016

  58. [58]

    & Bonanni, D

    Thebault, P. & Bonanni, D. 2025, A&A, 700, A106

    2025

  59. [59]

    Thorngren, D. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.05307

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    D., Pearson, K

    Turner, J. D., Pearson, K. A., Biddle, L. I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 789

    2016

  61. [61]

    P., Jungo, N., & Emsenhuber, A

    Venturini, J., Nigioni, A., Ronco, M. P., Jungo, N., & Emsenhuber, A. 2026, A&A, 708, A37

    2026

  62. [62]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261 Šubjak, J., Latham, D. W., Quinn, S. N., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A120

    2020

  63. [63]

    A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D

    Wang, J., Fischer, D. A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D. R. 2014, ApJ, 791, 111

    2014

  64. [64]

    G., Cloutier, R., Medina, A

    Winters, J. G., Cloutier, R., Medina, A. A., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 168

    2022

  65. [65]

    P., & Lodato, G

    Zagaria, F., Rosotti, G. P., & Lodato, G. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2531

    2021

  66. [66]

    2026, AJ, 171, 77

    Zhang, J., Huber, D., Bottom, M., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 77

    2026

  67. [67]

    M., Huber, D., et al

    Zhang, J., Weiss, L. M., Huber, D., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 89

    2024

  68. [68]

    & Mazeh, T

    Zucker, S. & Mazeh, T. 2002, ApJ, 568, L113 Article number, page 12 of 14 L. Y . Messamah et al.: Mind the Companion Appendix A: Reassessment of Triple Systems in thePlanetSCatalog The original version of thePlanetScatalog included 15 sys- tems classified as triple stellar systems. We reassessed each of these systems using Gaia DR3 astrometry, and availab...

    2002