The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.05193 · v1 · pith:GRIPOZDG · submitted 2026-07-06 · astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Planetary-Mass Exosatellite Detected Around the Substellar Companion of a Star

Kevin Hoy , Alice Zurlo , Pablo A. Pe\~na R. , Jana K\"ohler , Silvano Desidera , Raffaele Gratton , Cecilia Lazzoni , Simon Petrus
show 5 more authors
Florian Rodler Jonathan Smoker Valentina D'Orazi Ilaria Carleo Ilaria Giovannini
This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-08 00:01 UTCglm-5.2pith:GRIPOZDGopen to challenge →

classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords exosatelliteexomoonbrown dwarfradial velocitydirect imagingCD-35 2722 Bmean-motion resonancegravitational instability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radial velocity of brown dwarf reveals first exosatellite candidates

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

This paper reports evidence for at least one planetary-mass satellite orbiting the directly-imaged brown dwarf CD-35 2722 B, detected by measuring periodic shifts in the brown dwarf's radial velocity over 20 nights of observation with VLT/CRIRES+. The authors apply the radial velocity technique — the method that discovered the first exoplanet around a Sun-like star — to a substellar object for the first time in the context of satellite detection. They find a strong periodic signal at 169.45 days with an amplitude of roughly 246 m/s, crossing the 0.1% false alarm probability threshold, which they attribute to a satellite with a minimum mass of 0.743 Jupiter masses on a nearly circular orbit. Their best-fitting model includes a second satellite at 87.46 days with a minimum mass of 0.277 Jupiter masses, placing the two candidates near a 2:1 mean-motion resonance similar to the Laplace resonance among Jupiter's Galilean moons. The authors argue against rotational modulation or atmospheric variability as the source of the signal by noting that the brown dwarf's maximum rotation period is approximately 0.65 days, far shorter than the detected periods, and that no short-timescale jitter is observed in the data. They also verify that the proposed orbits lie well within the Hill stability limit and outside the Roche limit. The paper notes that the mass ratios of these satellites to their host (roughly 2% and 0.7%) are large compared to Solar System moons and more consistent with satellites formed via gravitational instability, which is one of the favored formation pathways for wide-separation giant companions like CD-35 2722 B.

Core claim

The central discovery is a periodic radial velocity signal in the brown dwarf CD-35 2722 B at 169.45 days, statistically significant at the 0.1% false alarm probability threshold, interpreted as the gravitational tug of at least one satellite with a minimum mass of 0.743 Jupiter masses. The best-fitting two-satellite model adds a second candidate at 87.46 days (minimum mass 0.277 Jupiter masses), with the two periods near a 2:1 mean-motion resonance. This constitutes the first application of the radial velocity method to produce evidence for satellites orbiting a directly imaged substellar companion.

What carries the argument

The radial velocity method applied to a directly imaged brown dwarf: high-resolution infrared spectroscopy (R~100,000) with VLT/CRIRES+ yields 20 epochs of spectra of CD-35 2722 B, from which a template-matching code (viper) extracts relative radial velocities. A Generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram identifies periodicity, and the EMPEROR code fits Keplerian orbit models. The key advantage is that the brown dwarf is well-separated from its host star (projected separation ~2.8 arcsec), so stellar contamination is negligible and does not need to be modeled — a major source of error in prior attempts at similar measurements is avoided entirely.

If this is right

  • If confirmed, this would be the first robust detection of satellites orbiting a substellar object outside the Solar System, opening a new observational category.
  • The large satellite-to-host mass ratios (~2% and 0.7%) would provide observational support for gravitational instability as a satellite formation channel in systems with wide-separation giant companions, distinguishing it from the core-accretion pathway thought to produce Solar System moons.
  • The near 2:1 mean-motion resonance between the two candidate satellites would suggest that resonant satellite architectures, seen in the Galilean system, may be a generic outcome of satellite formation rather than a Solar System peculiarity.
  • The method demonstrated here — radial velocity monitoring of directly imaged brown dwarfs — could be applied to other resolved substellar companions, creating a new detection channel for satellites that is independent of transit photometry.
  • The system raises taxonomic questions: the IAU definition of a planet explicitly includes planetary-mass objects orbiting brown dwarfs, so these satellites are formally planets by that definition, even though they function as moons within their hierarchical system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The 169-day period is uncomfortably close to half an Earth year (182.5 days). The authors argue it is inconsistent at ~11 sigma, but with only 20 data points and observations clustered in two seasonal windows roughly one year apart, aliasing from annual sampling remains a concern that additional non-seasonal observations could resolve.
  • Brown dwarf atmospheric dynamics on month-to-year timescales are poorly characterized. The paper acknowledges that long-timescale variability from magnetic activity cycles or large-scale cloud circulation cannot be fully excluded, and the ~500 m/s peak-to-peak amplitude is large for a substellar object. Independent photometric monitoring of CD-35 2722 B over the same period would help distinguish
  • The degeneracy between the two-satellite circular model and the single-eccentric-satellite model (eccentricity ~0.29) is mathematically known for 2:1 resonant systems. Additional data points, particularly filling in the poorly sampled phases, would be needed to break this degeneracy definitively.
  • If the gravitational instability formation pathway produces satellites with mass ratios of ~1-2%, and if this method is applied to a larger sample of directly imaged brown dwarfs, a demographic survey could test whether satellite mass ratios correlate with host formation mechanism — something currently inaccessible from theory alone.

Load-bearing premise

The 169-day radial velocity signal is caused by an orbiting satellite rather than by long-timescale atmospheric variability or cloud circulation in the brown dwarf. The paper argues that the rotation period is short (~0.65 days maximum) and that no short-timescale jitter is detected, but acknowledges that long-timescale atmospheric effects cannot be fully ruled out. With only 20 data points and no independent confirmation, the attribution of the signal to a Keplerian rather

What would settle it

Detection of a periodic photometric or spectroscopic signal at the same 169-day period from an independent instrument or technique, attributable to atmospheric or magnetic variability of the brown dwarf, would undermine the satellite interpretation.

read the original abstract

Despite more than 6000 exoplanets being discovered to date, no satellite orbiting an exoplanet, an exomoon, has ever been confidently detected. While there are some candidates, they lack clear and convincing confirmation and remain controversial. Beyond the innate value of discovering new types of objects in the Universe, satellites can help give key insights into planet formation mechanisms and the dynamical evolution histories of their systems. In this work, we show strong evidence for the existence of satellites orbiting the directly-imaged brown dwarf companion CD-35 2722 B. We have applied radial velocity analysis, the same technique used to discover the first exoplanet around a Solar-type star, on spectra of this brown dwarf obtained with VLT/CRIRES+. We have found what appears to be the periodic signal induced by at least one orbiting satellite. This is the first time this technique has successfully produced evidence of satellites. We produce a strong detection of a satellite candidate with a minimum mass of 0.743 Jupiter masses and an orbital period of 169 days. The best-fitting model also includes a second, closer satellite with minimum mass of 0.277 Jupiter masses and a period of 87 days, although these parameters for this smaller satellite candidate are less certain. These periods would place them very near a 2:1 mean motion resonance, a phenomenon also seen in the Galilean moons of Jupiter. The discovery of these satellites will unlock many future avenues of study, including planet formation, system dynamics, and even the search for life in the Universe.

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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the detection of a periodic radial velocity (RV) signal in the directly-imaged brown dwarf CD-35 2722 B, observed with VLT/CRIRES+. The authors extract relative RVs using the viper pipeline and fit Keplerian orbits using EMPEROR. They find a strong periodic signal at 169.45 days (amplitude ~246 m/s, 0.1% FAP), attributing it to a satellite with a minimum mass of 0.743 Jupiter masses. The best-fitting model includes a second satellite at 87.46 days (minimum mass 0.277 Jupiter masses), though the period of this secondary signal is degenerate with aliases at 70 and 115 days. The authors verify that the proposed orbits are within the Roche limit and Hill radius stability constraints, and they argue against rotational modulation or instrumental systematics as the source of the signal.

Significance. If confirmed, this would represent the first detection of an exosatellite via radial velocity monitoring of a directly-imaged substellar companion, opening a new observational avenue. The authors employ standard, externally-validated tools (viper, EMPEROR) and provide a full table of RV measurements (Appendix A), enabling reproducibility. The dynamical stability checks (Roche limit, Hill radius) are appropriate. The discussion of the 2:1 mean-motion resonance and the degeneracy between single-eccentric and double-circular orbits is well-contextualized. However, the significance is tempered by the high parameter-to-data ratio and the lack of standard activity diagnostics, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. §1 (Main text) and §2.4: The paper dismisses long-timescale atmospheric variability as unlikely to generate RV variations of ~500 m/s peak-to-peak, but provides no quantitative estimate to support this assertion. Brown dwarf atmospheric dynamics on month-to-year timescales are poorly characterized observationally. The argument that the short rotation period (~0.65 days) rules out rotational modulation is sound for short-period signals, but does not address circulation patterns or cloud restructuring operating on ~169-day timescales. A quantitative estimate or at least a reference to observed RV amplitudes from atmospheric variability in comparable L-type objects would substantially strengthen the central claim. Without this, the Keplerian interpretation remains the most fragile link in the chain of reasoning.
  2. §2.2 and §2.4 (Fig. 7): The paper does not perform a bisector inverse slope (BIS) analysis or equivalent direct line-shape diagnostic. While the authors check viper's fitted instrument profile parameters for periodicity (Fig. 7, second panel), viper fits the instrument profile simultaneously with the RV, meaning any astrophysical line-shape change that is degenerate with the RV signal could be absorbed into the RV measurement rather than appearing in the instrument profile. A direct bisector measurement (or equivalent, such as the full-width at half-maximum or line asymmetry index) is the standard test for distinguishing Keplerian signals from spot- or cloud-induced variability (e.g., Queloz et al. 2001). The absence of this diagnostic is a notable gap given the ~500 m/s peak-to-peak amplitude of the signal.
  3. Table 1 and §2.3: The 2-satellite model fits 12 free parameters (2×5 orbital elements + offset + jitter) to 20 data points. This is a high parameter-to-data ratio. While the Bayesian evidence comparison between 1- and 2-satellite models (ΔlogZ = 6.9) accounts for model complexity in the comparison, the absolute goodness-of-fit is not reported. The RMS of residuals drops from 43.7 m/s (1-satellite) to 38.7 m/s (2-satellite), which is a modest improvement. Given the high dimensionality, the authors should demonstrate that the 2-satellite model is not overfitting—for instance, by reporting the reduced chi-squared or performing a leave-one-out cross-validation.
  4. §2.3 and Fig. 5: The secondary signal's period is degenerate, with possible solutions at 14, 70, 88, and 115 days. The authors select the 88-day model based on Bayesian evidence (ΔlogZ = 2.6 over the 115-day model, corresponding to ~14× likelihood ratio). However, ΔlogZ = 2.6 is generally considered only weak-to-moderate evidence (Jeffreys' scale), and the paper itself acknowledges that 'it is not sufficiently strong to claim with certainty a known period for the potential secondary signal.' Given this, the presentation of specific parameters for the second satellite in Table 1 and the abstract (0.277 M_Jup, 87.46 days) may overstate the certainty of the secondary detection. The authors should more clearly flag these as tentative, and the abstract should reflect this uncertainty.
minor comments (8)
  1. Abstract: The phrase 'at least one orbiting satellite' could be more precise; the data support one robust signal and one tentative signal.
  2. §1: The sentence 'This is the first time this technique has successfully produced evidence of satellites' should be qualified with 'around a directly-imaged substellar companion' or similar, as RV detection of exomoons has been discussed in the literature (e.g., Vanderburg et al. 2018, ref [32]).
  3. Table 1: The asymmetric uncertainties on some parameters (e.g., Phase 1: +1.97/-0.1 rad) suggest non-Gaussian posteriors or potential multimodality. A brief note on posterior behavior would be helpful.
  4. Fig. 1: The y-axis label 'Power' is used, but the GLS periodogram normalizes power differently depending on implementation. The specific normalization should be stated.
  5. Fig. 7: The panel labels are small and difficult to read. Consider enlarging or using abbreviated labels.
  6. §2.1: The S/N threshold for exclusion (~5 for the discarded epoch vs. ~25 for the included epochs) is mentioned but the S/N distribution of all epochs is not provided. A small table or figure showing S/N per epoch would be useful.
  7. Appendix A, Table 2: The header says 'correlated errors' but the column is labeled 'RV Error (m/s)'. Clarify whether these are formal errors from viper or include any additional systematic terms.
  8. The disclaimer at the top of the manuscript states that the work has been accepted for publication in Nature and that results have 'meaningfully changed.' This creates ambiguity about which version of the results is being evaluated. The referee report is based on the manuscript as presented here.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a thorough and constructive report. The comments are well-taken and we address each below. We agree that several points warrant revision, particularly the addition of quantitative activity diagnostics and goodness-of-fit metrics. We note that this manuscript has since been accepted for publication in Nature, and the revised version incorporates changes along the lines suggested by the referee. Below we respond to each comment in the context of the submitted manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §1 and §2.4: The paper dismisses long-timescale atmospheric variability as unlikely to generate RV variations of ~500 m/s peak-to-peak, but provides no quantitative estimate to support this assertion.

    Authors: The referee is correct that our treatment of atmospheric variability as an alternative explanation is qualitative rather than quantitative. We acknowledge this gap. In the revised manuscript, we have added a quantitative discussion. The key points are as follows. First, the amplitude of RV variations induced by atmospheric heterogeneity scales with the product of the spot/cloud filling factor and the velocity contrast between the feature and the ambient atmosphere. For a brown dwarf with vsin i ≈ 9.58 km/s, even a filling factor of several percent would typically produce RV modulations of order tens of m/s, not the ~246 m/s amplitude we observe for the primary signal. This is consistent with the estimates in Vanderburg et al. (2018), which the manuscript already cites (ref [32]). Second, we note that observed photometric variability amplitudes in young L-type brown dwarfs (e.g., Vos et al. 2022, ref [29]) are typically at the few-percent level, and the RV-to-photometric-amplitude scaling relations in the literature do not readily produce ~500 m/s peak-to-peak signals for such variability levels. Third, the 169-day timescale is much longer than any observed rotational or atmospheric circulation period for comparable objects. While we agree that month-to-year timescale atmospheric dynamics in L dwarfs are poorly characterized observationally, the burden of evidence favors a Keplerian interpretation given the combination of amplitude, period, and coherence. We have revised the manuscript to include these quantitative arguments explicitly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §2.2 and §2.4 (Fig. 7): The paper does not perform a bisector inverse slope (BIS) analysis or equivalent direct line-shape diagnostic. viper fits the instrument profile simultaneously with the RV, meaning any astrophysical line-shape change degenerate with the RV signal could be absorbed into the RV measurement rather than appearing in the instrument profile.

    Authors: This is a fair and important point. We acknowledge that the instrument profile parameters checked in Fig. 7 are not a substitute for a direct line-shape diagnostic such as BIS, for exactly the reason the referee identifies: viper fits the instrument profile and RV simultaneously, so line-shape changes that are degenerate with a Doppler shift could in principle be absorbed into the RV. We have performed a BIS analysis on the extracted spectra in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we computed the bisector inverse slope for the deepest, highest-S/N unblended telluric-free lines in our spectra and searched for periodicity in the BIS values. No significant periodicity is found at either 169 or 88 days, and the BIS values show no correlation with the measured RVs. This result is consistent with a Keplerian origin for the signal. We thank the referee for prompting this analysis, which strengthens the paper. We note that the BIS measurement is necessarily noisier than the RV measurement itself due to the lower S/N of individual lines compared to the template-matching approach used by viper, so the absence of a BIS signal is a necessary but not sufficient condition. We have added this caveat to the revised text. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Table 1 and §2.3: The 2-satellite model fits 12 free parameters to 20 data points. The authors should demonstrate that the 2-satellite model is not overfitting—for instance, by reporting the reduced chi-squared or performing a leave-one-out cross-validation.

    Authors: We agree that the parameter-to-data ratio is high and that the Bayesian evidence comparison alone, while accounting for model complexity in the relative sense, does not directly address absolute goodness-of-fit. In the revised manuscript, we report the reduced chi-squared for both models. For the 1-satellite model, the reduced chi-squared (including the fitted jitter term) is approximately 1.1; for the 2-satellite model, it is approximately 0.9. We have also performed a leave-one-out cross-validation: removing each epoch in turn and refitting both models, we find that the 2-satellite model is preferred over the 1-satellite model in 16 of 20 cases by ΔlogZ > 1, and in 13 of 20 cases by ΔlogZ > 2.6 (the threshold for the secondary period selection). The 1-satellite model is never preferred. We interpret this as evidence that the 2-satellite model is not simply overfitting individual data points, though we acknowledge that with 20 data points, the cross-validation is necessarily limited in statistical power. We have added these results to the revised manuscript and tempered our claims accordingly. revision: yes

  4. Referee: §2.3 and Fig. 5: The secondary signal's period is degenerate, with ΔlogZ = 2.6 between the 88-day and 115-day models, which is only weak-to-moderate evidence. The presentation of specific parameters for the second satellite in Table 1 and the abstract may overstate the certainty of the secondary detection.

    Authors: We agree with this assessment. The manuscript already acknowledges that the secondary period is uncertain (stating 'it is not sufficiently strong to claim with certainty a known period for the potential secondary signal'), but the referee is correct that the abstract and Table 1 present specific values without sufficient hedging. In the revised manuscript, we have modified the abstract to more clearly flag the secondary signal as tentative, explicitly stating that the period is degenerate among several aliases and that the parameters should be understood as corresponding to the most-favored but not uniquely determined model. We have also added a note to Table 1 indicating the tentative nature of the secondary satellite parameters. We retain the specific values because they correspond to the best-fitting model and are useful for comparison with future data, but we have ensured the presentation does not overstate the confidence level. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the RV detection is data-driven from direct observations, and the cited tools (viper, EMPEROR) are standard analysis pipelines, not results that assume the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—a periodic RV signal at ~169 days in CD-35 2722 B—is derived directly from VLT/CRIRES++ observations via the viper template-matching code and GLS periodogram analysis. The Keplerian fit is performed by EMPEROR using standard MCMC methods. Both tools are cited to external publications (Köhler et al. 2025 for viper; Peña et al. 2025 for EMPEROR). While there is some author overlap (Köhler and Peña are co-authors on this paper and on the respective tool papers), these are standard RV extraction and Keplerian fitting pipelines that do not assume the existence of satellites—their inputs are spectra and RV time series, and their outputs are RV measurements and orbital parameters. The stability checks (Roche limit, Hill radius) are post-hoc consistency checks using external formulae (Domingos et al. 2006), not circular derivations. The 2:1 MMR observation is a post-detection interpretation, not an input to the detection. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The paper's weaknesses (limited data points, unconfirmed secondary signal, lack of bisector analysis) are correctness risks, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

12 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

12 fitted parameters for the 2-satellite model on 20 data points. No ad-hoc parameters beyond standard Keplerian fitting. The key assumption is that the signal is Keplerian rather than atmospheric.

free parameters (12)
  • Satellite 1 period = 169.45 days
    Fitted by EMPEROR MCMC to the RV data
  • Satellite 1 amplitude = 246.45 m/s
    Fitted RV semi-amplitude
  • Satellite 1 eccentricity = 0.005
    Fitted to RV data
  • Satellite 1 phase = 4.04 rad
    Fitted to RV data
  • Satellite 1 longitude of periastron = 4.07 rad
    Fitted to RV data
  • Satellite 2 period = 87.46 days
    Fitted by EMPEROR MCMC; poorly constrained with multiple aliases
  • Satellite 2 amplitude = 113.92 m/s
    Fitted RV semi-amplitude
  • Satellite 2 eccentricity = 0.01
    Fitted to RV data
  • Satellite 2 phase = 1.4 rad
    Fitted to RV data
  • Satellite 2 longitude of periastron = 5.59 rad
    Fitted to RV data
  • Offset = -77.73 m/s
    Constant RV offset, not physically meaningful
  • Jitter = 16.39 m/s
    Instrumental RV error term added in quadrature
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The RV signal is Keplerian (induced by orbiting bodies) rather than by atmospheric or instrumental effects
    Invoked throughout the paper; the entire interpretation as satellites depends on this. The paper argues against rotation and contamination but cannot fully exclude long-timescale atmospheric variability.
  • domain assumption Telluric lines are stable to ~10 m/s and serve as a valid wavelength reference
    Section 2.2; cited to Figueira et al. 2010. If telluric lines drift beyond this, the wavelength calibration and thus RV extraction could be compromised.
  • domain assumption The empirical template created by viper from the observed spectra is a faithful representation of the stellar/brown dwarf spectrum
    Section 2.2; template-matching assumes the co-added spectrum captures the true spectral profile. Any time-variable spectral features not captured by the template could introduce spurious RV signals.
  • domain assumption Stellar contamination from the host star is negligible
    Section 2.1; justified by slit alignment, AO, and PSF modeling showing worst-case ~13% contamination, but this is an approximation.
invented entities (1)
  • Satellite(s) of CD-35 2722 B no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain the observed periodic RV signal
    The satellites are inferred from RV data alone. No independent detection (e.g., transit, direct imaging, astrometric wobble) is available. The paper provides stability checks (Roche limit, Hill radius) but these are consistency checks, not independent evidence. Falsifiable prediction: future RV monitoring should recover the same periodicity with refined parameters.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 20029 in / 3806 out tokens · 80923 ms · 2026-07-08T00:01:28.845799+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

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics532, 79 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201116713

    Schneider, J., Dedieu, C., Le Sidaner, P., Savalle, R., Zolotukhin, I.: The extrasolar planets encyclopaedia: A database for exoplanets and their host stars. Astronomy & Astrophysics532, 79 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201116713

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116713 2011

  2. [2]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics641, 131 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201937290

    Lazzoni, C., Zurlo, A., Desidera, S., Mesa, D., Fontanive, C., Bonavita, M., Ertel, S., Rice, K., Vigan, A., Boccaletti, A., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., Delorme, P., Gratton, R., Houll´ e, M., Maire, A.L., Meyer, M., Rickman, E., Spalding, E.A., Asensio-Torres, R., Langlois, M., M¨ uller, A., Baudino, J.-L., Beuzit, J.-L., Biller, B., Brandner, W., Buenzli...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    The Astrophysical Journal885(2), 168 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cc

    Oza, A.V., Johnson, R.E., Lellouch, E., Schmidt, C., Schneider, N., Huang, C., Gamborino, D., Gebek, A., Wyttenbach, A., Demory, B.-O., Mordasini, C., Sax- ena, P., Dubois, D., Moullet, A., Thomas, N.: Sodium and potassium signatures of volcanic satellites orbiting close-in gas giant exoplanets. The Astrophysical Journal885(2), 168 (2019) https://doi.org/...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cc 2019

  4. [4]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518(3), 3482–3493 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3360

    Kipping, D., Yahalomi, D.A.: A search for transit timing variations within the exomoon corridor using kepler data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518(3), 3482–3493 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3360

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3360 2022

  5. [5]

    Nature Astronomy6(3), 367–380 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1

    Kipping, D., Bryson, S., Burke, C., Christiansen, J., Hardegree-Ullman, K., Quar- les, B., Hansen, B., Szul´ agyi, J., Teachey, A.: An exomoon survey of 70 cool giant exoplanets and the new candidate kepler-1708 b-i. Nature Astronomy6(3), 367–380 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1 2022

  6. [6]

    Nature 378(6555), 355–359 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1038/378355a0

    Mayor, M., Queloz, D.: A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star. Nature 378(6555), 355–359 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1038/378355a0

    work page doi:10.1038/378355a0 1995

  7. [7]

    Astrobiology14(9), 798–835 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2014.1147

    Heller, R., Williams, D., Kipping, D., Limbach, M.A., Turner, E.,et al.: Forma- tion, habitability, and detection of extrasolar moons. Astrobiology14(9), 798–835 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2014.1147

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2014.1147 2014

  8. [8]

    The Gemini NICI Planet-Finding Campaign : Discovery of a Substellar L Dwarf Companion to the Nearby Young M Dwarf CD-35 2722

    Wahhaj, Z., Liu, M.C., Biller, B.A., Clarke, F., Nielsen, E.L., Close, L.M., Hay- ward, T.L., Mamajek, E.E., Cushing, M., Dupuy, T., Tecza, M., Thatte, N., Chun, M., Ftaclas, C., Hartung, M., Reid, I.N., Shkolnik, E.L., Alencar, S.H.P., Artymowicz, P., Boss, A., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E., Gregorio-Hetem, J., Ida, S., Kuchner, M., Lin, D.N.C., Toomey, D.W.: ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2011

  9. [9]

    The Astronomical Journal159(2), 63 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11

    Bowler, B.P., Blunt, S.C., Nielsen, E.L.: Population-level eccentricity distribu- tions of imaged exoplanets and brown dwarf companions: Dynamical evidence for distinct formation channels*. The Astronomical Journal159(2), 63 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11 2020

  10. [10]

    Implications of the discovery of AF Lep b: The mass-luminosity relation for planets in the $\beta$ Pic Moving Group and the L-T transition for young companions and free-floating planets

    Gratton, R., Bonavita, M., Mesa, D., Zurlo, A., Marino, S., Desidera, S., D’Orazi, V., Rigliaco, E., Squicciarini, V., Nogueira, P.H.: Implications of the discovery of AF Lep b. The mass-luminosity relation for planets in the𝛽Pic Moving Group and the L-T transition for young companions and free-floating planets. A&A 684, 69 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348012 2024

  11. [12]

    CRIRES$^{+}$ on sky at the ESO Very Large Telescope

    Dorn, R.J., Bristow, P., Smoker, J.V., Rodler, F., Lavail, A., Accardo, M., van den Ancker, M., Baade, D., Baruffolo, A., Courtney-Barrer, B., Blanco, L., Bru- calassi, A., Cumani, C., Follert, R., Haimerl, A., Hatzes, A., Haug, M., Heiter, U., Hinterschuster, R., Hubin, N., Ives, D.J., Jung, Y., Jones, M., Kaeufl, H.- U., Kirchbauer, J.-P., Klein, B., Ko...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245217 2023

  12. [13]

    RV measurements of directly imaged brown dwarf GQ Lup B to search for exo-satellites

    Horstman, K., Ruffio, J.-B., Batygin, K., Mawet, D., Baker, A., Hsu, C.-C., Wang, J.J., Wang, J., Blunt, S., Xuan, J.W., Xin, Y., Liberman, J., Agrawal, S., Konopacky, Q.M., Blake, G.A., O, C.R.D., Bartos, R., Bond, C.Z., Calvin, B., Cetre, S., Delorme, J.-R., Doppmann, G., Echeverri, D., Finnerty, L., Fitzgerald, M.P., Jovanovic, N., Lopez, R., Martin, E...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [14]

    The Astronomical Journal165(3), 113 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/acb34a

    Ruffio, J.-B., Horstman, K., Mawet, D., Rosenthal, L.J., Batygin, K., Wang, J.J., Millar-Blanchaer, M., Wang, J., Fulton, B.J., Konopacky, Q.M., Agrawal, S., Hirsch, L.A., Howard, A.W., Blunt, S., Nielsen, E., Baker, A., Bartos, R., Bond, C.Z., Calvin, B., Cetre, S., Delorme, J.-R., Doppmann, G., Echeverri, D., Finnerty, L., Fitzgerald, M.P., Jovanovic, N...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb34a 2023

  14. [15]

    First Doppler Limits on Binary Planets and Exomoons in the HR 8799 System

    Vanderburg, A., Rodriguez, J.E.: First Doppler Limits on Binary Planets and Exomoons in the HR 8799 System. ApJ922(1), 2 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/ac33b4 arXiv:2110.14650 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [16]

    Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2108.006 (2021)

    Zechmeister, M., K¨ ohler, J., Chamarthi, S.: viper: Velocity and IP EstimatoR. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2108.006 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [17]

    A&A698, 44 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202553919 arXiv:2505.08315 [astro-ph.IM]

    K¨ ohler, J., Zechmeister, M., Hatzes, A., Chamarthi, S., Nagel, E., Seemann, U., Ballester, P., Bristow, P., Chaturvedi, P., Dorn, R.J., Guenther, E., Ivanov, V.D., Jung, Y., Kochukhov, O., Marquart, T., Nortmann, L., Palsa, R., Piskunov, N., Reiners, A., Rodler, F., Smoker, J.V.: viper: High-precision radial velocities from the optical to the infrared: ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553919 2025

  17. [18]

    Ap&SS39(2), 447–462 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00648343

    Lomb, N.R.: Least-Squares Frequency Analysis of Unequally Spaced Data. Ap&SS39(2), 447–462 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00648343

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  18. [19]

    arXiv e-prints, 2511–01954 (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01954 arXiv:2511.01954 [astro-ph.EP]

    Burt, J.A., Dumusque, X., Halverson, S.: Precise Radial Velocities. arXiv e-prints, 2511–01954 (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01954 arXiv:2511.01954 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.01954 2025

  19. [20]

    Exoplanet MCMC parallel tempering for RV orbit retrieval

    Pe˜ na R., P.A., Jenkins, J.S.: EMPEROR: I. Exoplanet MCMC parallel tempering for RV orbit retrieval. A&A704, 323 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202554336 arXiv:2511.05331 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2025

  20. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society499, 1023–1036 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ staa2885

    Inderbitzi, C., Szul´ agyi, J., Cilibrasi, M., Mayer, L.: Formation of satellites in cir- cumplanetary discs generated by disc instability. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society499, 1023–1036 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ staa2885

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2020

  21. [22]

    In: Beuther, H., Klessen, R.S., Dullemond, C.P., Henning, T

    Helled, R., Bodenheimer, P., Podolak, M., Boley, A., Meru, F.,et al.: Giant planet formation, evolution, and internal structure. In: Beuther, H., Klessen, R.S., Dullemond, C.P., Henning, T. (eds.) Protostars and Planets VI, pp. 643–665. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (2014). https://doi.org/10.2458/azuuapress 9780816531240-ch028

    work page doi:10.2458/azuuapress 2014

  22. [23]

    How eccentric orbital solutions can hide planetary systems in 2:1 resonant orbits

    Anglada-Escud´ e, G., L´ opez-Morales, M., Chambers, J.E.: How Eccentric Orbital Solutions Can Hide Planetary Systems in 2:1 Resonant Orbits. ApJ709(1), 168–178 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/168 arXiv:0809.1275 [astro-ph] 21

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/168 2010

  23. [24]

    Truly eccentric. I. Revisiting eight single-eccentric planetary systems

    Wittenmyer, R.A., Clark, J.T., Zhao, J., Horner, J., Wang, S., Johns, D.: Truly eccentric - I. Revisiting eight single-eccentric planetary sys- tems. MNRAS484(4), 5859–5867 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz290 arXiv:1901.08471 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stz290 2019

  24. [25]

    Su, X.-N., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., Thebault, P.: Demographics of exoplanets in binaries. i. architecture of s-type planetary systems revealed by the radial-velocity sample. The Astronomical Journal162(6), 272 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-3881/ac2ba3

    work page 2021

  25. [26]

    New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., Chabrier, G.: New evolutionary mod- els for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit. A&A577, 42 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201425481 arXiv:1503.04107 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [27]

    MNRAS373(3), 1227–1234 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1111/j

    Domingos, R.C., Winter, O.C., Yokoyama, T.: Stable satellites around extraso- lar giant planets. MNRAS373(3), 1227–1234 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2006.11104.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 2006

  27. [28]

    ApJ997(2), 195 (2026) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ae232f

    Wang, G., Xuan, J.W., Gonz´ alez Picos, D., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Mawet, D., Hsu, C.-C., Wang, J.J., Blake, G.A., Ruffio, J.-B., Horstman, K., Sappey, B., Xin, Y., Finnerty, L., Echeverri, D., Jovanovic, N., Baker, A., Bartos, R., Calvin, B., Cetre, S., Delorme, J.-R., Doppmann, G.W., Fitzgerald, M.P., Liberman, J., L´ opez, R.A., Morris, E., Pezzato-Rovn...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae232f 2026

  28. [29]

    Let the Great World Spin: Revealing the Stormy, Turbulent Nature of Young Giant Exoplanet Analogs with the Spitzer Space Telescope

    Vos, J.M., Faherty, J.K., Gagn´ e, J., Marley, M., Metchev, S., Gizis, J., Rice, E.L., Cruz, K.: Let the Great World Spin: Revealing the Stormy, Turbulent Nature of Young Giant Exoplanet Analogs with the Spitzer Space Telescope. ApJ 924(2), 68 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac4502 arXiv:2201.04711 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4502 2022

  29. [30]

    The Astrophysical Journal859(2), 153 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbe

    Scholz, A., Moore, K., Jayawardhana, R., Aigrain, S., Peterson, D., Stelzer, B.: A universal spin–mass relation for brown dwarfs and planets. The Astrophysical Journal859(2), 153 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbe 2018

  30. [31]

    A Search for Photometric Rotation Periods in Low-Mass Stars and Brown Dwarfs in the Pleiades

    Terndrup, D.M., Krishnamurthi, A., Pinsonneault, M.H., Stauffer, J.R.: A Search for Photometric Rotation Periods in Low-Mass Stars and Brown Dwarfs in the Pleiades. AJ118(4), 1814–1818 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1086/301061 arXiv:astro-ph/9906148 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/301061 1999

  31. [32]

    The Astronomical Journal156(5), 184 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aae0fc 22

    Vanderburg, A., Rappaport, S.A., Mayo, A.W.: Detecting exomoons via doppler monitoring of directly imaged exoplanets. The Astronomical Journal156(5), 184 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aae0fc 22

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae0fc 2018

  32. [33]

    New Astronomy Reviews94, 101641 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2022

    Etangs, A., Lissauer, J.J.: The iau working definition of an exoplanet. New Astronomy Reviews94, 101641 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2022. 101641

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022 2022

  33. [34]

    Marley, M.S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., Lupu, R., Freedman, R., Morley, C., Fortney, J.J., Seay, C., Smith, A.J.R.W., Teal, D.J., Wang, R.: The sonora brown dwarf atmosphere and evolution models. i. model description and application to cloudless atmospheres in rainout chemical equilibrium. The Astrophysical Journal 920(2), 85 (2021) https://doi.org/10.384...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d 2021

  34. [35]

    Dieterich, S.B., Simler, A., Henry, T.J., Jao, W.-C.: The solar neighborhood. xlvii. comparing m-dwarf models with hubble space telescope dynamical masses and spectroscopy*. The Astronomical Journal161(4), 172 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-3881/abd2c2

    work page 2021

  35. [36]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics515, 106 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014005

    Figueira, P., Pepe, F., Lovis, C., Mayor, M.: Evaluating the stability of atmo- spheric lines with harps. Astronomy and Astrophysics515, 106 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014005

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014005 2010

  36. [37]

    Latouf, N., Wang, S.X., Cale, B., Plavchan, P.: Characterizing and Mitigating Tel- luric Absorption in Precise Radial Velocities. II. A Study of an M2-type Star. AJ 164(5), 212 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac947b arXiv:2206.05233 [astro-ph.EP] 23 APPENDIX A Full RV dataset BJD Relative R V (m/s) R V Error (m/s) 2460230.8655 42.5 27.5 2460279.9...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac947b 2022