Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 209 references

The Epoch of Giant Planet Migration Planet Search Program. III. The Occurrence Rate of Young Giant Planets Inside the Water Ice Line

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Young Sun-like stars have fewer giant planets inside 2.5 AU than old stars, favoring late inward migration.

desk verdict New demographic measurement of young giant planets inside the ice line, solid but the abstract oversells the exclusion of a decaying rate and the comparison assumes a metallicity match that isn't shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08078 v1 pith:EYU3MY5F submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.EP

Quang H. Tran , Brendan P. Bowler , William D. Cochran , Chad F. Bender , Samuel Halverson , Suvrath Mahadevan , Joe P. Ninan , Paul Robertson
show 3 more authors
Arpita Roy Gu{ḥmundur Stefánsson Ryan C. Terrien
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords giantplanetoccurrencerateyoungmovinggroupsradialvelocitysurveyhotJupitermigrationtimescaleswatericelinecompletenessnear-infraredspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks when giant planets arrive close to their stars, inside the water ice line at roughly 2.5 AU, by counting such planets around 85 young (20–200 Myr) G and K dwarfs. The survey used four years of near-infrared radial velocities, and the authors tested their detection efficiency by injecting and recovering artificial planet signals. They report a completeness-corrected occurrence rate of $1.9^{+2.6}_{-1.4}\%$ for planets with $0.3 < m \sin i < 13\,M_\mathrm{Jup}$ within 2.5 AU, based on one detection, the young hot Jupiter candidate HS Psc b. This sits below the field-age rate of $6.5\pm0.7\%$, which the authors read as evidence that the close-in giant planet population is still being built up over Gyr timescales, although a constant rate cannot be ruled out. A decaying occurrence rate is strongly excluded by the same data.

What carries the argument

The statistical engine is a per-star search completeness map $C(P,K)$, built by fitting circular Keplerian orbits to the RVs at 100 logarithmically spaced periods and converting velocity semi-amplitude to minimum mass with stellar masses from evolutionary models. Averaging this map over the chosen period and $K$ domain yields an effective number of trials, and the occurrence rate is drawn from a generalized binomial distribution in which factorials are replaced by Gamma functions. A second component is the candidate-validation pipeline, which uses GLS periodogram significance, TESS-measured rotation periods, and correlations between RVs and activity indicators to decide which periodic signals are planets rather than stellar spots. The comparison target is a field-age survey with the same $K>20\,\mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}$ and 2.5 AU boundary, making the two rates directly comparable.

What would settle it

A comparable RV survey of another set of roughly 200 young G and K dwarfs with the same per-star completeness that detects eight or more giant planets inside 2.5 AU would put the young rate near the field value and refute this paper's central claim. Repeating the measurement with a young sample and a field sample matched in metallicity and birth environment would separate the age effect from the environment effect directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that giant planets inside the water ice line are rarer at 20–200 Myr than at field age, so inward migration is still populating this region long after the protoplanetary disk has dispersed. Averaging the survey completeness over the domain $20<K<1500\,\mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}$ and $P<1461\,\mathrm{d}$ gives an effective sample of 56 stars and one detection, from which the authors infer $f_\mathrm{GP} = 1.9^{+2.6}_{-1.4}\%$. A power-law model anchored to the field-age value $6.5\pm0.7\%$ yields a positive slope $\alpha=0.23^{+0.14}_{-0.26}$, and the data exclude a young rate 1.3 times the field rate at 95% confidence and 1.9 times at 99% confidence. The same machinery gives a young hot Jupiter rate of $1.5^{+2.2}_{-1.1}\%$ and a 95% upper limit of $<3.6\%$ for brown dwarfs. The authors conclude that the close-in giant planet population is a mixture of planets formed in place or migrated early, plus planets scattered inward over $10^{8}$–$10^{9}$ yr.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the only systematic difference between the young moving-group stars and the older field stars is age; if their birth environments differ, the inferred rise in giant planet frequency could be environmental rather than temporal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the young rate is truly lower, most close-in giant planets around old stars must have arrived after about 200 Myr, making long-term dynamical processes like planet-planet scattering at least as important as disk migration.
  • The young hot Jupiter rate of about 1.5% already matches field values, so the shortest-period giants appear to be established early while the deficit appears at longer periods within 2.5 AU.
  • Excluding a decaying rate rules out efficient tidal engulfment or other loss of giant planets on timescales of $10^{8}$–$10^{9}$ yr.
  • With larger young-star samples, the same completeness-corrected analysis could either confirm the rise in giant planet frequency or show that the rate is actually constant.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the age interpretation is right, direct-imaging surveys of nearby young stars should find a reservoir of giant planets at a few AU that later feeds the close-in population; comparing the two populations would calibrate the migration efficiency.
  • The birth-environment caveat can be tested directly by measuring the occurrence rate inside one large young association and comparing it with field stars matched in metallicity and mass; a difference would point to environment rather than age.
  • Extending the same near-infrared RV approach to sub-Jupiter masses around young stars would show whether the deficit extends down the mass function, which would suggest a common migration timescale rather than a giant-planet-specific process.
  • A doubled sample with the same brown-dwarf sensitivity could either confirm the very low young brown dwarf rate or reveal a population whose later disappearance would itself be an evolutionary signal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the statistical results of the Epoch of Giant Planet Migration (EGPM) radial-velocity survey: 85 young (20-200 Myr) G and K dwarfs observed over about 4 years with the HPF spectrograph. The survey detects one young hot Jupiter candidate, HS Psc b, and uses per-star detection-limit completeness maps to infer a giant-planet occurrence rate of 1.9^{+2.6}_{-1.4}% for 0.3-13 M_Jup companions within 2.5 AU, together with a hot-Jupiter rate of 1.5^{+2.2}_{-1.1}% and a 95% upper limit of <3.6% for brown dwarfs within 5000 d. The authors compare the 1.9% rate with the 6.5±0.7% field-age rate from Johnson et al. (2010), model the evolution with a two-point power law, and conclude that the data favor an increase in giant-planet frequency with age while not ruling out a constant rate. The paper also includes a multi-instrument reanalysis of HD 130322 b and a detailed account of binary and field-age contaminants removed from the sample.

Significance. If the central rate holds, this is one of the most direct RV-based constraints on giant-planet demographics at intermediate ages and provides a valuable benchmark for migration theories: the comparison between young and field populations bears directly on whether close-in giants arrive early via disk migration or late via dynamical processes. The survey design is a genuine strength: a 4-year NIR RV campaign on young active stars, a clearly defined statistical sample, standard completeness methodology, and honestly quoted uncertainties. The detection of HS Psc b and the successful recovery of HD 130322 b with HPF demonstrate the survey's sensitivity. The paper is appropriately cautious in most of the body, but the central evolutionary interpretation is currently limited by a single detection and by an unverified assumption that the young and field samples are matched in metallicity; these issues, rather than the rate measurement itself, are what prevent the conclusions from being fully load-bearing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5.1] The abstract states that 'A decaying planet occurrence rate is, however, strongly excluded,' but this is stronger than the body supports. Section 5.1 explicitly says a constant frequency cannot be confidently excluded, and the quantitative statement is only that a young-age rate 1.3× and 1.9× the field-age rate is excluded at 95% and 99% confidence, respectively. This excludes decay factors of roughly 30% or more, not decay in general; mild decay is statistically indistinguishable from a constant rate given the stated posterior widths. Please revise the abstract and Section 6 to characterize the exclusion as a function of decay factor and remove the unqualified 'strongly excluded' claim.
  2. [§5.3 and Table 5] The evolutionary interpretation rests on comparing the 1.9% young rate with the 6.5% field rate of Johnson et al. (2010), and Section 5.3 asserts that the EGPM sample was 'assembled to match the stellar parameters of targets from Johnson et al. (2010)' to avoid known correlations with stellar metallicity and mass. However, Table 5 contains no [Fe/H] measurements, and no comparison of the metallicity distributions of the two samples is presented. Johnson et al. (2010) deliberately restricted their field sample to [Fe/H] = 0 dex, and giant-planet occurrence is a steep function of metallicity (Fischer & Valenti 2005). If the young moving-group stars are systematically subsolar, the entire difference between 1.9% and 6.5% could reflect metallicity rather than age evolution. The birth-environment caveat in Section 5.3 is a special case of this concern. Please provide [Fe/H] values for the 85 targets or a literature-based demonstration that the two samples have matched metallicity distributions, and discuss how plausible metallicity offsets would shift the inferred power-law index alpha.
  3. [§4.5 and Abstract] The abstract credits the survey with 'realistic injection-recovery tests,' but Section 4.5 does not describe an injection-recovery procedure. The text describes fitting circular Keplerian orbits with radvel over a grid of orbital periods and adopting the maximum K that matches the observed RVs as a detection threshold; there is no description of injecting synthetic planet signals into the data and recovering them, and no explicit treatment of how stellar activity jitter is folded into those limits. Since the occurrence rate in Equation (2) is directly normalized by the completeness function C(P,K), the completeness method is load-bearing for the 1.9% result. Please clarify whether injections were actually performed and describe them if so, or recast the abstract and Section 4.5 as maximum-K detection-limit completeness.
  4. [§4.4.1, §4.6, Table 2] HS Psc b is consistently described as a 'young giant planet candidate' in Section 4.4.1, but it is treated as a confirmed detection in the occurrence-rate calculation in Section 4.6 and in Table 2. Because the central 1.9% rate and the age-evolution conclusions are driven entirely by this one system, the manuscript should either clarify the confirmation status with an explicit reference to the evidence in Tran et al. (2024) or provide a sensitivity test in which HS Psc b is treated as a non-detection. Without this, the reader cannot assess how much of the conclusion depends on an unconfirmed candidate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D] The first sentence of Appendix D reads 'Throughout the EPGM survey'; the program name should be EGPM.
  2. [Section 3] The sentence 'but less in known about trends of RV jitter in the NIR' contains a typo; it should read 'but less is known'.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption reads '91% our targets have at least 7 epochs'; '91%' should be followed by 'of'.
  4. [Section 6] The summary bullet says the survey obtained 2666 spectra, but Section 2.2 reports 2654 spectra for 104 stars; please reconcile the two numbers.
  5. [Table 2 notes] The table footnote symbols (b, c, d, e) are defined, but the note for the brown-dwarf row citing Takarada et al. (2020) appears to use the same symbol as the hot-Jupiter row; please verify the footnote assignments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the occurrence rate is measured from independent detections and injection-recovery completeness, and the age comparison uses an external field-age measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity, the young giant planet occurrence rate of 1.9^{+2.6}_{-1.4}%, is derived from a self-contained statistical pipeline: injection-recovery tests define the survey completeness C(P,K) and C(P,m sin i), the effective number of trials is computed from that completeness, and the generalized binomial distribution converts one detected planet (HS Psc b) and n = 56.0 effective trials into the reported rate. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the completeness map is an empirical sensitivity characterization, not an occurrence-rate fit. The comparison to the field-age value of 6.5 ± 0.7% (Johnson et al. 2010) is an external, independent measurement, and the power-law coefficient alpha is a derived summary of the ratio between the two measured rates, not an input that forces the answer. Self-citations to Tran et al. (2021) for target selection and Tran et al. (2024) for the HS Psc b discovery are data sources and prior results, not unverified premises that determine the outcome; the paper independently analyzes the HPF RVs of HS Psc in Section 4.4.1. The manuscript's own Section 5.3 caveat about birth environment is an acknowledged limitation on the evolutionary interpretation, and the lack of [Fe/H] data in Table 5 is a potential confounder for the age comparison, but neither constitutes a circular step in the derivation of the occurrence rate itself. The central measurement and the young-versus-old comparison are therefore not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No hand-tuned free parameters enter the central occurrence rate. The completeness maps use the standard Howard et al. (2010) approach and the generalized binomial likelihood; stellar masses come from published isochrones. The main assumptions are the correctness of the young moving group sample, the single-rate binomial model, the comparability of the field-age sample, the planetary nature of HS Psc b, and the adopted stellar mass scale.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Young moving group memberships and ages of the 85 targets are correct as adopted.
    Section 2.1, Table 1. If membership or ages are wrong, the sample is not a clean 20-200 Myr population and the comparison with field stars is compromised.
  • domain assumption A single constant occurrence rate f applies across the surveyed P-K domain.
    Section 4.6. The generalized binomial method corrects the number of trials by average completeness and assumes the underlying occurrence rate is uniform over the domain.
  • domain assumption The Johnson et al. (2010) field-age sample is directly comparable except for age.
    Sections 5.1 and 5.3. The paper itself notes birth environment differences could mimic or mask time evolution.
  • domain assumption HS Psc b is a genuine planet rather than a stellar activity signal.
    Section 4.4.1. The 3.99 d signal differs from the 1.086 d rotation period and shows no correlation with activity indicators, but the paper still labels it a candidate.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses inferred from Baraffe et al. (1998) isochrones are accurate.
    Section 4.5. Mass enters the conversion from K to m sin i; the authors state a 20% mass change does not significantly alter the occurrence rate.
  • standard math Standard statistical machinery (GLS periodograms, generalized binomial with Gamma functions, Gaussian processes) is valid for this application.
    Sections 4.1 and 4.6. These are established tools; no new mathematics is introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Epoch of Giant Planet Migration Planet Search Program. III. The Occurrence Rate of Young Giant Planets Inside the Water Ice Line." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYU3MY5F

@misc{pith2026250608078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Epoch of Giant Planet Migration Planet Search Program. III. The Occurrence Rate of Young Giant Planets Inside the Water Ice Line},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYU3MY5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08078}
}
abstract

We present statistical results from the Epoch of Giant Planet Migration RV planet search program. This survey was designed to measure the occurrence rate of giant planets interior to the water ice line of young Sun-like stars, compare this to the prevalence of giant planets at older ages, and provide constraints on the timescale and dominant inward migration mechanism of giant planets. Our final sample amounts to 85 single young (20-200 Myr) G and K dwarfs which we target across a 4-year time baseline with the near-infrared Habitable-zone Planet Finder spectrograph at McDonald Observatory's Hobby-Eberly Telescope. As part of this survey, we discovered the young hot Jupiter HS Psc b. We characterize survey detection completeness with realistic injection-recovery tests and measure an occurrence rate of $1.9^{+2.6}_{-1.4}$% for intermediate-age giant planets ($0.3 < m \; sin \; i < 13$ $M_\mathrm{Jup}$) within 2.5 AU. This is lower than the field age occurrence rate for the same planet masses and separations and favors an increase in the prevalence of giant planets over time from $\sim$100 Myr to several Gyr, although our results cannot rule out a constant rate. A decaying planet occurrence rate is, however, strongly excluded. This suggests that giant planets located inside the water ice line originate from a combination of in situ formation or early migration coupled with longer-term inward scattering. The completeness-corrected prevalence of young hot Jupiters in our sample is $1.5^{+2.2}_{-1.1}$%--similar to the rate for field stars--and the 95% upper limit for young brown dwarfs within 5000 d is $<$3.6%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of RV observations for the EGPM statistical sample. 91% our targets have at least 7 epochs of RVs and a baseline of at least 4 years. 0 10 20 30 vsini (km s 1 ) 10 1 10 2 10 3 R V R M S ( m s 1 ) G0 G2 G5 G8 K1 K3 K5 K7 K9 Spectral Type 50 100 150 200 Age (Myr) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RV RMS, or intrinsic RV variability, as a function of projected rotational velocity, stellar spectral type, and stellar age for all stars in our sample. The objective of the EGPM program is to robustly measure the occurrence rate of giant planets located within the water ice line at young ages. To minimize po￾tential biases in this measurement introduced by human decision making, careful considerations must be made … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ratio of average RV measurement error (σRV) to the RV RMS measurement of targets in our sample. An RV error-to-RMS ratio less than one indicates that the ob￾served RV scatter is large and that activity or dynamical signals from a companion dominate over scatter associated with individual RV measurement precision. Objects with a low uncertainty ratio but high RV RMS value may be promis￾ing planet candidates. 2. T… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (28 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Search completeness function of the EGPM sur￾vey as a function of RV semi-amplitude (top) and minimum planetary mass (bottom). The 5%, 50%, and 95% complete￾ness contour lines are shown as dotted, dashed, and solid black lines, respectively. The yellow star represents …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The inferred occurrence rates of giant planets orbiting interior to the water ice line of Sun-like stars as a function of age. Schematic decreasing, consistent, and increasing giant planet frequency over time trends, resulting from different migration pathways, are als…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Constraints on the giant planet frequency inside the water ice line of Sun-like stars over time, assuming this evolution follows a power law functional form. Overplotted is the inferred occurrence rate of giant planets at young (blue circle) and old (orange squar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HPF RVs of excluded binary systems (2MASS J19224278-0515536, BD+05 4576, BD+21 418B, BD+25 430, Cl Melotte 22 102, HD 21845, HD 21845B, HD 240622, HD 26090, HD 285663, RX J0520.5+0616, V1084 Tau, V1168 Tau, V1274 Tau, and V1282 Tau). Pre- and post-maintenance HPF RVs a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HPF RVs of excluded binary (V1874 Ori, V366 Tau, and V395 Peg) and field-age (HD 130322) systems. Long-period orbital motion is evident for V1874 Ori [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RV curve of HD 130322 phased folded to the best-fit orbital period. The blue and orange points denote the pre￾and post-maintenance HPF RVs, respectively, and the best-fit Keplerian model is shown as the solid black line. The grey points represent RV measurements from o…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: HPF RV time series for the three standard stars, HD 221354, HD 116442, and HD 3765. Pre- and uncorrected post-maintenance RVs are shown as blue and grey circles, respectively. Post-maintenance RVs corrected with the empirically measured offset, −53.1 ± 2.7 m s−1 , are…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: RMS of various activity indicators as a function of projected rotational velocity, stellar spectral type, and stellar age for all stars in our sample without stellar companions. Beginning from the top, each row displays the differential line width (dLW, orange), the c…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the HPF RVs, GLS periodograms, and window functions of the three stars that have at least one significant periodic signal identified in Section 4.1.1 (HD 236717, HS Psc, and PW And). A description of the HPF RV measurements is provided in Section 2.2. The method…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: displays the TESS light curve, best-fit quasi-periodic Gaussian process model, and inferred posterior distributions of the stellar rotation period for the two stars that have a significant peak in their GLS periodograms and TESS light curves with persistent and strong…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Correlations between HPF RVs and various activity indicators for targets HD 236717, HS Psc, and PW And. From the top left to bottom right, each panel plots the correlations for the differential line width (dLW, orange), the chromatic index (CRX, yellow), and the Ca II…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets 2MASS J03402958+2333040, 2MASS J03433440+2345429, 2MASS J03444398+2413523, 2MASS J03445383+2355165, and 2MASS J03474811+2313053 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets 2MASS J03515733+2320219, 2MASS J05234246+0651581, ASAS J232157+0721.3, BD+11 1690, and BD+17 455 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets BD+17 641, BD+20 1790, BD+21 418, BD+21 504, and BD+22 548 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets BD+23 527, BD+25 610, BD+26 592, BD+41 4749, and BD+49 646 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets BD-03 5579, BD-05 1229, BD-08 1195, BD-08 995, and BD-09 1108 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets Cl* Melotte 22 DH 352, Cl* Melotte 22 DH 875, Cl Melotte 22 2126, Cl Melotte 22 248, and Cl Melotte 22 513 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets Cl Melotte 22 659, EX Cet, HD 147512, HD 16760B, and HD 189285 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets HD 20439, HD 221239, HD 22680, HD 23464, and HD 236717 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets HD 23975, HD 24194, HD 24463, HD 244945, and HD 24681 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets HD 26257, HD 282954, HD 282958, HD 283869, and HD 285367 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets HD 286693, HD 287167, HD 29621, HD 48370, and HS Psc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets HW Cet, IS Eri, LP 745-70, MR Tau, and NX Aqr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets OT Tau, PR Tau, PW And, Parenago 2752, and RX J0520.0+0612 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets StKM 1-382, StKM 1-543, TYC 1090-543-1, TYC 1853-1452-1, and TYC 3385-23-1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets V1169 Tau, V1173 Tau, V1174 Tau, V1841 Ori, and V370 Tau [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets V446 Tau, V623 Tau, V677 Tau, V700 Tau, and V810 Tau [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: HPF time series and corresponding completeness functions for targets V814 Tau, V815 Tau, V963 Tau, V966 Tau, and Wolf 1259 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_31.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

209 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    H Vsε( H Cs 9m;ӯR )ojK'zgʮ^

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Abt , H. A. 1988, , 331, 922, 10.1086/166609

    doi:10.1086/166609 1988

  5. [5]

    1954, Arkiv for Astronomi, 1, 425

    Adolfsson , T. 1954, Arkiv for Astronomi, 1, 425

    1954

  6. [6]

    2018, , 614, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732209

    Aguilera-G \'o mez , C., Ram \' rez , I., & Chanam \'e , J. 2018, , 614, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732209

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732209 2018

  7. [7]

    2012, , 419, 3147, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19960.x

    Aigrain , S., Pont , F., & Zucker , S. 2012, , 419, 3147, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19960.x

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    N., Johnson , J

    Albrecht , S., Winn , J. N., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2012, , 757, 18, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/18 2012

Show all 209 references
  1. [9]

    M., Terranegra , L., Wichmann , R., et al

    Alcala , J. M., Terranegra , L., Wichmann , R., et al. 1996, , 119, 7

    1996

  2. [10]

    R., & Lai , D

    Anderson , K. R., & Lai , D. 2017, , 472, 3692, 10.1093/mnras/stx2250

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    1964, The Gamma Function, Athena series (Holt, Rinehart and Winston)

    Artin, E. 1964, The Gamma Function, Athena series (Holt, Rinehart and Winston). https://books.google.com/books?id=NNc-AAAAIAAJ

    1964

  4. [12]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Blake , C

    Bailey , John I., I., White , R. J., Blake , C. H., et al. 2012, , 749, 16, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/16

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    I., Mateo , M., White , R

    Bailey , J. I., Mateo , M., White , R. J., Shectman , S. A., & Crane , J. D. 2018, , 475, 1609, 10.1093/mnras/stx3266

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. H. 1998, , 337, 403, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9805009

    1998 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    M., & Zicher , N

    Barrag \'a n , O., Aigrain , S., Rajpaul , V. M., & Zicher , N. 2022, , 509, 866, 10.1093/mnras/stab2889

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, , 482, 1017, 10.1093/mnras/sty2472

    Barrag \'a n , O., Gandolfi , D., & Antoniciello , G. 2019, , 482, 1017, 10.1093/mnras/sty2472

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Bell , C. P. M., Mamajek , E. E., & Naylor , T. 2015, , 454, 593, 10.1093/mnras/stv1981

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Bell , C. P. M., Murphy , S. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2017, , 468, 1198, 10.1093/mnras/stx535

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, , 496, 1922, 10.1093/mnras/staa1522

    Belokurov , V., Penoyre , Z., Oh , S., et al. 2020, , 496, 1922, 10.1093/mnras/staa1522

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Jeffries , R

    Binks , A. S., Jeffries , R. D., & Ward , J. L. 2018, , 473, 2465, 10.1093/mnras/stx2252

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Boisse , I., Bonfils , X., & Santos , N. C. 2012, , 545, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219115

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2011, , 528, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014354

    Boisse , I., Bouchy , F., H \'e brard , G., et al. 2011, , 528, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014354

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    F., H \'e brard , G., et al

    Bouchy , F., D \' az , R. F., H \'e brard , G., et al. 2013, , 549, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219979

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Liu , M

    Bowler , B. P., Liu , M. C., Shkolnik , E. L., & Tamura , M. 2015, , 216, 7, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/7

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Hinkley , S., Ziegler , C., et al

    Bowler , B. P., Hinkley , S., Ziegler , C., et al. 2019, , 877, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1018

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Cochran , W

    Bowler , B. P., Cochran , W. D., Endl , M., et al. 2021, , 161, 106, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd243

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    1984, , 57, 217

    Breger , M. 1984, , 57, 217

    1984

  24. [32]

    M., Fischer , D

    Brewer , J. M., Fischer , D. A., Valenti , J. A., & Piskunov , N. 2016, , 225, 32, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/32

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Latham , D

    Buchhave , L. A., Latham , D. W., Johansen , A., et al. 2012, , 486, 375, 10.1038/nature11121

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Wright , J

    Butler , R. P., Wright , J. T., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2006, , 646, 505, 10.1086/504701

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Vogt , S

    Butler , R. P., Vogt , S. S., Laughlin , G., et al. 2017, , 153, 208, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa66ca

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    L., Reefe , M., Plavchan , P., et al

    Cale , B. L., Reefe , M., Plavchan , P., et al. 2021, , 162, 295, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c80

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    J., & Pickering , E

    Cannon , A. J., & Pickering , E. C. 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Henry Draper Catalogue and Extension (Cannon+ 1918-1924; ADC 1989) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/135A. Originally published in: Harv. Ann. 91-100 (1918-1924)

    1993

  31. [39]

    F., et al

    Carleo , I., Malavolta , L., Lanza , A. F., et al. 2020, , 638, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937369

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.16712, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16712

    Carmona , A., Delfosse , X., Bellotti , S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.16712, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16712

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2001, , 373, 159, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010525

    Cayrel de Strobel , G., Soubiran , C., & Ralite , N. 2001, , 373, 159, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010525

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    B., Matsumura , S., & Rasio , F

    Chatterjee , S., Ford , E. B., Matsumura , S., & Rasio , F. A. 2008, , 686, 580, 10.1086/590227

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    A., et al

    Chubak , C., Marcy , G., Fischer , D. A., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1207.6212, 10.48550/arXiv.1207.6212

    2012 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    D., Hatzes , A

    Cochran , W. D., Hatzes , A. P., & Paulson , D. B. 2002, , 124, 565, 10.1086/341170

    2002 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Mahmud , N

    Crockett , C. J., Mahmud , N. I., Prato , L., et al. 2012, , 761, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/164

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  39. [47]

    J., Petigura , E

    David , T. J., Petigura , E. A., Luger , R., et al. 2019, , 885, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4c99

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Donahue , R. A. 1993, PhD thesis, New Mexico State University

    1993

  41. [49]

    F., Brown , S

    Donati , J. F., Brown , S. F., Semel , M., et al. 1992, , 265, 682

    1992

  42. [50]

    F., H \'e brard , E., Hussain , G., et al

    Donati , J. F., H \'e brard , E., Hussain , G., et al. 2014, , 444, 3220, 10.1093/mnras/stu1679

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Udry , S., Lovis , C., & Bonfils , X

    Dumusque , X., Santos , N. C., Udry , S., Lovis , C., & Bonfils , X. 2011, , 527, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015877

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    Elliott , P., Bayo , A., Melo , C. H. F., et al. 2016, , 590, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628253

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky , D., & Tremaine , S. 2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  47. [55]

    P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10, 10.21105/astro.1306.2144

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2010, , 139, 1338, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1338

    Findeisen , K., & Hillenbrand , L. 2010, , 139, 1338, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1338

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    A., & Valenti , J

    Fischer , D. A., & Valenti , J. 2005, , 622, 1102, 10.1086/428383

    2005 doi

  50. [58]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, 10.21105/joss.01864

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Farr , W., Sinha , M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, 10.21105/joss.01864

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    A., & Petrovich , C

    Frelikh , R., Jang , H., Murray-Clay , R. A., & Petrovich , C. 2019, , 884, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a7b

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    2013, , 766, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    Fressin , F., Torres , G., Charbonneau , D., et al. 2013, , 766, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., Petigura , E. A., Blunt , S., & Sinukoff , E. 2018, , 130, 044504, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    Gagn \'e , J., Fontaine , G., Simon , A., & Faherty , J. K. 2018 a , , 861, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aacdff

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Doyon , R., & Malo , L

    Gagn \'e , J., Roy-Loubier , O., Faherty , J. K., Doyon , R., & Malo , L. 2018 b , , 860, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2b8

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2016, , 822, 40, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/40

    Gagn \'e , J., Plavchan , P., Gao , P., et al. 2016, , 822, 40, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/40

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    E., Malo , L., et al

    Gagn \'e , J., Mamajek , E. E., Malo , L., et al. 2018 c , , 856, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae09

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 3

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 3. Non-single stars (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/357. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., in prep. (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    2018, , 616, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843

    Gaia Collaboration , Babusiaux , C., van Leeuwen , F., et al. 2018, , 616, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211, 10.48550/arXiv.2208.00211

    2022 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    J., Rebolo , R., & Zapaterio Osorio , M

    Garcia Lopez , R. J., Rebolo , R., & Zapaterio Osorio , M. R., eds. 2001, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 223, 11th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun

    2001

  63. [71]

    Gelman , A., & Rubin , D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  64. [72]

    M., Brasseur , C

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, , 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman , J., & Weare , J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Meunier , N., et al

    Grandjean , A., Lagrange , A. M., Meunier , N., et al. 2021, , 650, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039672

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    2023, , 669, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141235

    ---. 2023, , 669, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141235

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    Gray , D. F. 1992, The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres. , Vol. 20 (Cambridge University Press)

    1992

  69. [77]

    1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    ---. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 185, IAU Colloq. 170: Precise Stellar Radial Velocities, ed. J. B. Hearnshaw & C. D. Scarfe (Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 243

    1999

  70. [78]

    O., Corbally , C

    Gray , R. O., Corbally , C. J., Garrison , R. F., et al. 2006, , 132, 161, 10.1086/504637

    2006 doi

  71. [79]

    O., Corbally , C

    Gray , R. O., Corbally , C. J., Garrison , R. F., McFadden , M. T., & Robinson , P. E. 2003, , 126, 2048, 10.1086/378365

    2003 doi

  72. [80]

    Gregory , P. C. 2005, , 631, 1198, 10.1086/432594

    2005 doi

  73. [81]

    Griffin , R. F. 2001, The Observatory, 121, 244

    2001

  74. [82]

    A., & Lada , C

    Haisch , Karl E., J., Lada , E. A., & Lada , C. J. 2001, , 553, L153, 10.1086/320685

    2001 doi

  75. [83]

    1982, Boletin del Instituto de Tonantzintla, 3, 3

    Haro , G., Chavira , E., & Gonzalez , G. 1982, Boletin del Instituto de Tonantzintla, 3, 3

    1982

  76. [84]

    D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al

    Haywood , R. D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al. 2014, , 443, 2517, 10.1093/mnras/stu1320

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    J., & Desch , S

    Hester , J. J., & Desch , S. J. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 341, Chondrites and the Protoplanetary Disk, ed. A. N. Krot , E. R. D. Scott , & B. Reipurth , 107, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0506190

    2005 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    J., Lee , H., MacQueen , P

    Hill , G. J., Lee , H., MacQueen , P. J., et al. 2021, , 162, 298, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    J., & Schilt , J

    Hill , S. J., & Schilt , J. 1952, Contributions from the Rutherford Observatory of Columbia University New York, 32, 1

    1952

  80. [88]

    R., Kane , S

    Hinkel , N. R., Kane , S. R., Henry , G. W., et al. 2015, , 803, 8, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/8

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    1999, Michigan catalogue of two-dimensional spectral types for the HD Stars ; vol

    Houk , N., & Swift , C. 1999, Michigan catalogue of two-dimensional spectral types for the HD Stars ; vol. 5 , Vol. 5 (University of Michigan)

    1999

  82. [90]

    W., Marcy , G

    Howard , A. W., Marcy , G. W., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 653, 10.1126/science.1194854

    2010 doi

  83. [91]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  84. [92]

    J., Jeffries , R

    Jackson , R. J., Jeffries , R. D., & Maxted , P. F. L. 2009, , 399, L89, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00729.x

    2009

  85. [93]

    1984, , 34, 1

    Jahn , K., & Stepien , K. 1984, , 34, 1

    1984

  86. [94]

    M., McLane , J

    Johns-Krull , C. M., McLane , J. N., Prato , L., et al. 2016, , 826, 206, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/206

    2016 doi

  87. [95]

    A., Aller , K

    Johnson , J. A., Aller , K. M., Howard , A. W., & Crepp , J. R. 2010, , 122, 905, 10.1086/655775

    2010 doi

  88. [96]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    Kanodia , S., & Wright , J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    2018 doi

  89. [97]

    W., et al

    Kanodia , S., Mahadevan , S., Ramsey , L. W., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 107026Q, 10.1117/12.2313491

    2018 doi

  90. [98]

    F., Bender , C

    Kaplan , K. F., Bender , C. F., Terrien , R. C., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben , M. W. Pound , B. A. Thomas , & E. M. Warner , 567

    2019

  91. [99]

    C., & McNeil , R

    Keenan , P. C., & McNeil , R. C. 1989, , 71, 245, 10.1086/191373

    1989 doi

  92. [100]

    Kley , W., & Nelson , R. P. 2012, , 50, 211, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125523

    2012 doi

  93. [101]

    Kraft , R. P. 1967, , 150, 551, 10.1086/149359

    1967 doi

  94. [102]

    J., & Lada , E

    Lada , C. J., & Lada , E. A. 2003, , 41, 57, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  95. [103]

    M., Desort , M., & Meunier , N

    Lagrange , A. M., Desort , M., & Meunier , N. 2010, , 512, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913071

    2010 doi

  96. [104]

    M., Meunier , N., Chauvin , G., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Meunier , N., Chauvin , G., et al. 2013, , 559, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220770

    2013 doi

  97. [105]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1812.013

    2018

  98. [106]

    Lindegren, L. 2018. http://www.rssd.esa.int/doc_fetch.php?id=3757412

    2018

  99. [107]

    2021, , 654, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141339

    Llorente de Andr \'e s , F., Chavero , C., de la Reza , R., Roca-F \`a brega , S., & Cifuentes , C. 2021, , 654, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141339

    2021 doi

  100. [108]

    D., & Fortney , J

    Lopez , E. D., & Fortney , J. J. 2013, , 776, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/2

    2013 doi

  101. [109]

    C., et al

    Lovis , C., Dumusque , X., Santos , N. C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1107.5325, 10.48550/arXiv.1107.5325

    2011 doi arXiv

  102. [110]

    K., Wright , J

    Luhn , J. K., Wright , J. T., Howard , A. W., & Isaacson , H. 2020, , 159, 235, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab855a

    2020 doi

  103. [111]

    Lynden-Bell , D., & Pringle , J. E. 1974, , 168, 603, 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603

    1974 doi

  104. [112]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Mahadevan , S., Ramsey , L., Bender , C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 84461S, 10.1117/12.926102

    2012 doi

  105. [113]

    W., Terrien , R., et al

    Mahadevan , S., Ramsey , L. W., Terrien , R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay , I. S. McLean , & H. Takami , 91471G, 10.1117/12.2056417

    2014 doi

  106. [114]

    2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed

    Mahadevan, S., Anderson, T., Balderrama, E., et al. 2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, Vol. 10702, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1070214, 10.1117/12.2313835

    2018 doi

  107. [115]

    2014, , 788, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/81

    Malo , L., Artigau , \'E ., Doyon , R., et al. 2014, , 788, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/81

    2014 doi

  108. [116]

    2013, , 762, 88, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/88

    Malo , L., Doyon , R., Lafreni \`e re , D., et al. 2013, , 762, 88, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/88

    2013 doi

  109. [117]

    W., Brewer , J

    Mann , A. W., Brewer , J. M., Gaidos , E., L \'e pine , S., & Hilton , E. J. 2013, , 145, 52, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/52

    2013 doi

  110. [118]

    G., & Livio , M

    Martin , R. G., & Livio , M. 2012, , 425, L6, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01290.x

    2012

  111. [119]

    2019, , 625, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935065

    Marzari , F., & Nagasawa , M. 2019, , 625, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935065

    2019 doi

  112. [120]

    D., Wycoff , G

    Mason , B. D., Wycoff , G. L., Hartkopf , W. I., Douglass , G. G., & Worley , C. E. 2001, , 122, 3466, 10.1086/323920

    2001 doi

  113. [121]

    2021, TESS Light Curves - All Sectors, STScI/MAST, 10.17909/T9-NMC8-F686

    MAST Team . 2021, TESS Light Curves - All Sectors, STScI/MAST, 10.17909/T9-NMC8-F686

    2021 doi

  114. [122]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    M c K inney, W. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  115. [123]

    Mendoza V. , E. E. 1956, , 123, 54, 10.1086/146129

    1956 doi

  116. [124]

    J., Anderson , T., Bender , C

    Metcalf , A. J., Anderson , T., Bender , C. F., et al. 2019, Optica, 6, 233, 10.1364/OPTICA.6.000233

    2019 doi

  117. [125]

    Meunier , N., & Lagrange , A. M. 2013, , 551, A101, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219917

    2013 doi

  118. [126]

    M., Mbemba Kabuiku , L., et al

    Meunier , N., Lagrange , A. M., Mbemba Kabuiku , L., et al. 2017, , 597, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629052

    2017 doi

  119. [127]

    J., & G \'a lvez , M

    Montes , D., L \'o pez-Santiago , J., Fern \'a ndez-Figueroa , M. J., & G \'a lvez , M. C. 2001 a , , 379, 976, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011385

    2001 doi

  120. [128]

    C., et al

    Montes , D., L \'o pez-Santiago , J., G \'a lvez , M. C., et al. 2001 b , , 328, 45, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04781.x

    2001

  121. [129]

    M., Curtis , J

    Morris , B. M., Curtis , J. L., Sakari , C., Hawley , S. L., & Agol , E. 2019, , 158, 101, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2e04

    2019 doi

  122. [130]

    J., Davies , M

    Mustill , A. J., Davies , M. B., & Johansen , A. 2017, , 468, 3000, 10.1093/mnras/stx693

    2017 doi

  123. [131]

    V., Kuzmin , A

    Nesterov , V. V., Kuzmin , A. V., Ashimbaeva , N. T., et al. 1995, , 110, 367

    1995

  124. [132]

    L., Close , L

    Nielsen , E. L., Close , L. M., Biller , B. A., Masciadri , E., & Lenzen , R. 2008, , 674, 466, 10.1086/524344

    2008 doi

  125. [133]

    L., De Rosa , R

    Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., Macintosh , B., et al. 2019, , 158, 13, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9

    2019 doi

  126. [134]

    P., Bender , C

    Ninan , J. P., Bender , C. F., Mahadevan , S., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10709, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VIII, 107092U, 10.1117/12.2312787

    2018 doi

  127. [135]

    P., Mahadevan , S., Stefansson , G., et al

    Ninan , J. P., Mahadevan , S., Stefansson , G., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 041511, 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.4.041511

    2019 doi

  128. [136]

    E., & Wu , Y

    Owen , J. E., & Wu , Y. 2017, , 847, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a

    2017 doi

  129. [137]

    B., Saar , S

    Paulson , D. B., Saar , S. H., Cochran , W. D., & Henry , G. W. 2004, , 127, 1644, 10.1086/381948

    2004 doi

  130. [138]

    B., & Yelda , S

    Paulson , D. B., & Yelda , S. 2006, , 118, 706, 10.1086/504115

    2006 doi

  131. [139]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Pecaut , M. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2016, , 461, 794, 10.1093/mnras/stw1300

    2016 doi

  132. [140]

    \'A ., & Lindegren , L

    Perryman , M., Hartman , J., Bakos , G. \'A ., & Lindegren , L. 2014, , 797, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/14

    2014 doi

  133. [141]

    Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2016, , 457, 313, 10.1093/mnras/stv2831

    2016 doi

  134. [142]

    M., et al

    Prato , L., Huerta , M., Johns-Krull , C. M., et al. 2008, , 687, L103, 10.1086/593201

    2008 doi

  135. [143]

    F., Stauffer , J., & Kraft , R

    Prosser , C. F., Stauffer , J., & Kraft , R. P. 1991, , 101, 1361, 10.1086/115772

    1991 doi

  136. [144]

    W., Sivan , J

    Queloz , D., Henry , G. W., Sivan , J. P., et al. 2001, , 379, 279, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011308

    2001 doi

  137. [145]

    Quinn , S. N. 2016, PhD thesis, Georgia State University

    2016

  138. [146]

    R., Lambert , D

    Ram \' rez , I., Fish , J. R., Lambert , D. L., & Allende Prieto , C. 2012, , 756, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/46

    2012 doi

  139. [147]

    W., Adams , M

    Ramsey , L. W., Adams , M. T., Barnes , T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp , 34--42, 10.1117/12.319287

    1998 doi

  140. [148]

    N., Cruz , K

    Reid , I. N., Cruz , K. L., Allen , P., et al. 2004, , 128, 463, 10.1086/421374

    2004 doi

  141. [149]

    2014, Science, 345, 440, 10.1126/science.1253253

    Robertson , P., Mahadevan , S., Endl , M., & Roy , A. 2014, Science, 345, 440, 10.1126/science.1253253

    2014 doi

  142. [150]

    1988, , 74, 449

    Roeser , S., & Bastian , U. 1988, , 74, 449

    1988

  143. [151]

    J., Fulton , B

    Rosenthal , L. J., Fulton , B. J., Hirsch , L. A., et al. 2021, , 255, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  144. [152]

    H., Butler , R

    Saar , S. H., Butler , R. P., & Marcy , G. W. 1998, , 498, L153, 10.1086/311325

    1998 doi

  145. [153]

    H., & Donahue , R

    Saar , S. H., & Donahue , R. A. 1997, , 485, 319, 10.1086/304392

    1997 doi

  146. [154]

    C., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al

    Santos , N. C., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al. 2000, , 361, 265

    2000

  147. [155]

    Savitzky , A., & Golay , M. J. E. 1964, Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627

    1964

  148. [156]

    E., L \'e pine , S., & Simon , M

    Schlieder , J. E., L \'e pine , S., & Simon , M. 2010, , 140, 119, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/119

    2010 doi

  149. [157]

    K., & Stix , M

    Schuessler , M., Caligari , P., Ferriz-Mas , A., Solanki , S. K., & Stix , M. 1996, , 314, 503

    1996

  150. [158]

    2017, , 55, 213, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339

    Sharma , S. 2017, , 55, 213, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339

    2017 doi

  151. [159]

    E., Fowler , J

    Shetrone , M., Cornell , M. E., Fowler , J. R., et al. 2007, , 119, 556, 10.1086/519291

    2007 doi

  152. [160]

    J., Mamajek , E

    Shvonski , A. J., Mamajek , E. E., Kim , J. S., Meyer , M. R., & Pecaut , M. J. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.06924, 10.48550/arXiv.1612.06924

    2016 doi arXiv

  153. [161]

    Skiff , B. A. 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Catalogue of Stellar Spectral Classifications (Skiff, 2009- ) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: B/mk. Originally published in: Lowell Observatory (October 2014)

    2014

  154. [162]

    C., Stumpe , M

    Smith , J. C., Stumpe , M. C., Van Cleve , J. E., et al. 2012, , 124, 1000, 10.1086/667697

    2012 doi

  155. [163]

    R., Nelan , E., Benedict , G

    Soderblom , D. R., Nelan , E., Benedict , G. F., et al. 2005, , 129, 1616, 10.1086/427860

    2005 doi

  156. [164]

    R., Stauffer , J

    Soderblom , D. R., Stauffer , J. R., Hudon , J. D., & Jones , B. F. 1993, , 85, 315, 10.1086/191767

    1993 doi

  157. [165]

    A., Nielsen , E

    Stanford-Moore , S. A., Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., Macintosh , B., & Czekala , I. 2020, , 898, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a35

    2020 doi

  158. [166]

    R., Hartmann , L

    Stauffer , J. R., Hartmann , L. W., Fazio , G. G., et al. 2007, , 172, 663, 10.1086/518961

    2007 doi

  159. [167]

    2016, , 833, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/175

    Stefansson , G., Hearty , F., Robertson , P., et al. 2016, , 833, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/175

    2016 doi

  160. [168]

    2020 a , , 160, 192, 10.3847/1538-3881/abb13a

    Stefansson , G., Mahadevan , S., Maney , M., et al. 2020 a , , 160, 192, 10.3847/1538-3881/abb13a

    2020 doi

  161. [169]

    2020 b , , 159, 100, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f15

    Stefansson , G., Ca \ n as , C., Wisniewski , J., et al. 2020 b , , 159, 100, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f15

    2020 doi

  162. [170]

    Stephenson , C. B. 1986, , 91, 144, 10.1086/113994

    1986 doi

  163. [171]

    C., Smith , J

    Stumpe , M. C., Smith , J. C., Catanzarite , J. H., et al. 2014, , 126, 100, 10.1086/674989

    2014 doi

  164. [172]

    C., Smith , J

    Stumpe , M. C., Smith , J. C., Van Cleve , J. E., et al. 2012, , 124, 985, 10.1086/667698

    2012 doi

  165. [173]

    I., & Esposito , M

    Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o , A., Rebolo , R., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., & Esposito , M. 2017, , 468, 4772, 10.1093/mnras/stx771

    2017 doi

  166. [174]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 232, 10.1038/s41550-021-01533-7

    Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o , A., Damasso , M., Lodieu , N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 232, 10.1038/s41550-021-01533-7

    2021 doi

  167. [175]

    Takarada , T., Sato , B., Omiya , M., Hori , Y., & Fujii , M. S. 2020, , 72, 104, 10.1093/pasj/psaa105

    2020 doi

  168. [176]

    G., Prato , L., et al

    Tang , S.-Y., Stahl , A. G., Prato , L., et al. 2023, , 950, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58b

    2023 doi

  169. [177]

    X., Wolfgang , A., et al

    Teske , J., Wang , S. X., Wolfgang , A., et al. 2021, , 256, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0f0a

    2021 doi

  170. [178]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., da Silva , L., et al. 2006, , 460, 695, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065602

    2006 doi

  171. [179]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., Melo , C. H. F., & Sterzik , M. F. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth , Vol. 5 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 757, 10.48550/arXiv.0808.3362

    2008 doi arXiv

  172. [180]

    1999, , 111, 169, 10.1086/316313

    Torres , G. 1999, , 111, 169, 10.1086/316313

    1999 doi

  173. [181]

    W., & Quinn , S

    Torres , G., Latham , D. W., & Quinn , S. N. 2021, , 921, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1585

    2021 doi

  174. [182]

    L., et al

    Torres , G., Melis , C., Kraus , A. L., et al. 2020, , 898, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c20

    2020 doi

  175. [183]

    Torres , G., Neuh \"a user , R., & Guenther , E. W. 2002, , 123, 1701, 10.1086/339178

    2002 doi

  176. [184]

    H., Bowler , B

    Tran , Q. H., Bowler , B. P., Cochran , W. D., et al. 2021, , 161, 173, 10.3847/1538-3881/abe041

    2021 doi

  177. [185]

    2024, , 167, 193, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2eaf

    ---. 2024, , 167, 193, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2eaf

    2024 doi

  178. [186]

    Triaud , A. H. M. J., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al. 2010, , 524, A25, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014525

    2010 doi

  179. [187]

    2000, , 356, 590

    Udry , S., Mayor , M., Naef , D., et al. 2000, , 356, 590

    2000

  180. [188]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  181. [189]

    A., et al

    Vanderburg , A., Plavchan , P., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2016, , 459, 3565, 10.1093/mnras/stw863

    2016 doi

  182. [190]

    VanderPlas , J. T. 2018, , 236, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    2018 doi

  183. [191]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  184. [192]

    Ward , W. R. 1997, , 126, 261, 10.1006/icar.1996.5647

    1997

  185. [193]

    J., Gabor , J

    White , R. J., Gabor , J. M., & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2007, , 133, 2524, 10.1086/514336

    2007 doi

  186. [194]

    Wilson , O. C. 1963, , 138, 832, 10.1086/147689

    1963 doi

  187. [195]

    A., Endl , M., Cochran , W

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Endl , M., Cochran , W. D., Levison , H. F., & Henry , G. W. 2009, , 182, 97, 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/97

    2009 doi

  188. [196]

    T., Marcy , G

    Wright , J. T., Marcy , G. W., Butler , R. P., & Vogt , S. S. 2004, , 152, 261, 10.1086/386283

    2004 doi

  189. [197]

    T., Marcy , G

    Wright , J. T., Marcy , G. W., Howard , A. W., et al. 2012, , 753, 160, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/160

    2012 doi

  190. [198]

    2003, , 589, 605, 10.1086/374598

    Wu , Y., & Murray , N. 2003, , 589, 605, 10.1086/374598

    2003 doi

  191. [199]

    W., Petigura , E

    Yee , S. W., Petigura , E. A., & von Braun , K. 2017, , 836, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/77

    2017 doi

  192. [200]

    Yoss , K. M. 1961, , 134, 809, 10.1086/147209

    1961 doi

  193. [201]

    F., H \'e brard , E

    Yu , L., Donati , J. F., H \'e brard , E. M., et al. 2017, , 467, 1342, 10.1093/mnras/stx009

    2017 doi

  194. [202]

    V., Launhardt , R., M \"u ller , A., et al

    Zakhozhay , O. V., Launhardt , R., M \"u ller , A., et al. 2022, , 667, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244213

    2022 doi

  195. [203]

    2009, , 496, 577, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    Zechmeister , M., & K \"u rster , M. 2009, , 496, 577, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    2009 doi

  196. [204]

    J., et al

    Zechmeister , M., Reiners , A., Amado , P. J., et al. 2018, , 609, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731483

    2018 doi

  197. [205]

    2019, , 870, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee66

    Zuckerman , B. 2019, , 870, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee66

    2019 doi

  198. [206]

    S., Song , I., & Kim , S

    Zuckerman , B., Bessell , M. S., Song , I., & Kim , S. 2006, , 649, L115, 10.1086/508060

    2006 doi

  199. [207]

    H., Song , I., & Bessell , M

    Zuckerman , B., Rhee , J. H., Song , I., & Bessell , M. S. 2011, , 732, 61, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/61

    2011 doi

  200. [208]

    Zuckerman , B., Song , I., & Bessell , M. S. 2004, , 613, L65, 10.1086/425036

    2004 doi

  201. [209]

    2013, , 778, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/5

    Zuckerman , B., Vican , L., Song , I., & Schneider , A. 2013, , 778, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/5

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.