Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 84 references

BEBOP VII. SOPHIE discovery of BEBOP-3b, a circumbinary giant planet on an eccentric orbit

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 547-day radial-velocity wobble of the binary BEBOP-3 is caused by a circumbinary giant planet of about half a Jupiter mass, making this the first radial-velocity detection of a previously unknown circumbinary system.

desk verdict BEBOP-3b is a convincing, well-documented RV discovery of a circumbinary giant planet; the main weakness is the usual activity-null-model caveat, not the detection itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14615 v2 pith:OHNUS475 submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Thomas A. Baycroft , Alexandre Santerne , Amaury H.M.J. Triaud , Neda Heidari , Daniel Sebastian , Yasmin T. Davis , Alexandre C.M. Correia , Lalitha Sairam
show 16 more authors
Alix V. Freckelton Aleyna Adamson Isabelle Boisse Gavin A.L. Coleman Georgina Dransfield João Faria Salomé Grouffal Nathan Hara Guillaume Hébrard Vedad Kunovac David V. Martin Pierre F.L. Maxted Richard P. Nelson Madison G. Scott Owen J. Scutt Matthew R. Standing
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords circumbinaryplanetsradialvelocitymethodeclipsingbinariesgiantplanetorbitaleccentricitydynamicalmassesstabilityhigh-resolutioncross-correlationspectroscopy
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

The paper claims that the 547-day periodic wobble in the radial velocities of the eclipsing binary BEBOP-3 is caused by a circumbinary giant planet, BEBOP-3b, with a mass of about $0.56\ M_{\rm Jup}$ on a moderately eccentric orbit ($e \approx 0.25$). If correct, this is the first radial-velocity detection of a previously unknown circumbinary system, and a rare example of a circumbinary planet orbiting well beyond the stability pile-up region where most known cases sit. The claim matters because circumbinary planets are direct tests of how planets form and migrate in the disc around a binary, and the sample with measured masses is still small. The paper also derives model-independent dynamical masses for both stars in the binary and shows that an undetected inner planet near the stability limit could be hiding below the current detection threshold.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Doppler reflex motion: the planet pulls the binary's center of mass, producing an 11.8 m/s sinusoidal variation in the radial velocities of the primary star. The detection rests on the BINARIES model in the kima nested-sampling code, which fits the binary's Keplerian orbit (including apsidal precession and general relativity) and simultaneously treats the number of additional Keplerian signals as a free parameter, reporting Bayes factors between models. The False Inclusion Probability periodogram and the activity indices H$\alpha$ and Na D serve as the filters that separate a planetary signal from stellar noise. High-resolution cross-correlation spectroscopy supplies the secondary's velocity semi-amplitude, converting the single-lined binary into an effectively double-lined one to give model-independent masses.

What would settle it

If a stellar activity tracer with a period near 547 days is found in the same spectra—e.g. in the Ca II H&K S-index, line bisectors, or the CCF full-width-at-half-maximum—the planetary interpretation fails. Alternatively, if a further three to five years of radial velocities do not preserve a coherent Keplerian phase at 547 days, with the period locked to better than a few days, the signal is not a planet.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

From 141 high-resolution spectra obtained over six years, the authors model the binary orbit and search the residuals for additional Keplerian signals with a nested-sampling algorithm that lets the number of planets float. The evidence for one planet over none is overwhelming (Bayes factor $3.4 \times 10^{13}$), with a signal at $P = 547^{+6.2}_{-7.6}$ days, semi-amplitude $K = 11.8 \pm 1.1$ m/s, eccentricity $e = 0.247^{+0.077}_{-0.089}$, and a mass of $0.558^{+0.051}_{-0.048}\ M_{\rm Jup}$ if the orbit is coplanar with the binary. Because the chromospheric activity indices H$\alpha$ and Na D show no significant periodicity near 547 days, they interpret the wobble as planetary. A second signal near 1400 days is reported only as a candidate. By applying high-resolution cross-correlation spectroscopy to the same spectra, they recover the secondary star's absorption at $5.5\sigma$, obtaining dynamical masses of $1.083 \pm 0.026\ M_\odot$ and $0.2615 \pm 0.0039\ M_\odot$ for the primary and secondary. Stability integrations show stable orbits exist for a hypothetical inner planet near the boundary where the Kepler circumbinary planets are found.

Load-bearing premise

The planet interpretation assumes that the 547-day wobble is not produced by a stellar activity signal that leaves no detectable periodicity in the H-alpha and Na D indices, which are the only activity tracers precise enough to use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BEBOP-3b becomes the first previously unknown circumbinary system found by radial velocities, showing that the method can discover planets in configurations transits would miss: long-period and eccentric.
  • The system's scaled semi-major axis $a_{\rm sc} \approx 4.85$ places it far beyond the pile-up region occupied by almost all other circumbinary planets, joining Kepler-1647 as an outlier that formation and migration models will need to reproduce.
  • The stability analysis implies that an inner planet of roughly ten Earth masses near the stability limit would be stable and would have escaped detection in the present data, so the apparent absence of such planets in RV surveys may be a sensitivity limit rather than a real scarcity.
  • The HRCCS result demonstrates that dynamical masses for both binary components can be extracted from a ground-based échelle spectrograph with 141 spectra, independent of stellar models.
  • If the ~1400-day candidate signal is confirmed with further data, BEBOP-3 would contain a second, lower-mass planet ($M \sin i \approx 0.2\ M_{\rm Jup}$), making it a multi-planet circumbinary system with widely separated orbits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If wide-orbit eccentric circumbinary giants like BEBOP-3b are common, the apparent pile-up near the stability limit is likely inflated by the transit method's bias toward short periods; RV surveys with long baselines should be able to test this by measuring the orbital-separation distribution of a larger sample.
  • The 11.8 m/s amplitude is only about twice the 6.7 m/s jitter, so the signal would be vulnerable to a slowly varying stellar activity cycle; computing line-bisector or full CCF shape indicators from the same spectra would provide an immediate, low-cost check.
  • The period ratio between the 1400-day candidate and BEBOP-3b is close to 5:2; if confirmed, resonant dynamics would link this system to the period-ratio structure seen among giant planets around single stars, and would favor migration rather than in-situ formation.
  • Eccentric circumbinary orbits beyond the stability limit are a natural outcome if the planet was scattered by a companion or if the circumbinary disc was eccentric; comparing the eccentricity--$a_{\rm sc}$ distribution across all known circumbinary planets could distinguish these pathways.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of BEBOP-3b, a circumbinary giant planet detected with SOPHIE radial velocities. Using 141 spectra spanning 2197 days, the authors fit the binary orbit and planetary signals with the trans-dimensional Bayesian tool kima, finding strong evidence for a 547-day Keplerian signal with K = 11.8 m/s, a planet mass of 0.558 M_Jup, and a moderately eccentric orbit (e = 0.247). They validate the signal against stellar activity using H-alpha and Na D indices, present a marginal 1400-day outer candidate, perform stability simulations for putative inner planets, derive dynamical stellar masses via HRCCS, and compare those with a joint photometric and RV analysis.

Significance. If correct, this is the first radial-velocity detection of a previously unknown circumbinary system and the first RV-discovered circumbinary planet with a significant eccentricity. The paper also strengthens the empirical population of circumbinary planets by adding a long-period, moderately eccentric member outside the usual "pile-up" region. The analysis is thorough: the RV dataset is large and homogeneous, the detection is supported by both a Bayes factor and a FIP periodogram, the HRCCS mass measurement is an independent cross-check, and the stability maps address whether the system is dynamically plausible. The authors are appropriately cautious about the eccentricity and the outer candidate. The main limitation, that the RV null model does not include a correlated-activity component, is real but is mitigated by the lack of significant activity-index periodicity near the planet period and is acknowledged in the text; it does not undermine the central detection claim.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Table A4] The BEBOP-3 b row lists the secondary stellar mass as 0.3615(39) M_sun, which is inconsistent with Table 1 and Table 2, where M_sec = 0.2615 +/- 0.0039 M_sun. One of these values is a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Table A3] The marginalised time of periastron is reported as T_peri = 59633(+45,-62) BJD, which is inconsistent with Table 3, where T_peri = 9633(+31,-36) BJD. Please verify and correct this entry.
  3. [Section 4.3] The text states that "the highest activity signal is found at ~1000 days," but Section 4.4 identifies only a 55.57-day H-alpha peak and an 84.07-day Na D peak, with no 1000-day periodicity described. This apparent contradiction should be resolved, as it bears on the discussion of the candidate outer signal.
  4. [Section 4.4] The activity validation would be more quantitative if the authors estimated what amplitude of a 550-day RV signal could be produced by stellar activity given the measured H-alpha and Na D variations. As written, the conclusion that the signal is "unlikely" to be activity is reasonable, but an explicit upper limit would strengthen the planetary interpretation.
  5. [Abstract / Section 5.2] The abstract states an eccentricity of 0.25 without qualification, while Section 5.2 calls the eccentricity detection "marginal." The abstract should reflect this uncertainty, for example by giving the uncertainty or using language such as "moderately eccentric."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the radial-velocity detection is the measurement itself, and the activity check, HRCCS masses, and stability maps are independent or self-contained.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The planet's orbital and physical parameters (P=547 d, K=11.8 m/s, e=0.247, M=0.558 MJup) are obtained by fitting Keplerian signals to the SOPHIE radial velocities in the kima trans-dimensional analysis (Sections 3.4 and 4.2); this is the measurement itself, not a prediction from a fitted input. The planetary interpretation is checked against H-alpha and Na D activity indicator periodograms (Section 4.4), which are independent spectral diagnostics and show no significant 550-day power; this evidence is weak but not circular. The stellar masses used to convert K to M_pl come either from HRCCS (Section 3.2), an independent cross-correlation analysis of the secondary, or from the joint RV+photometry fit; neither is derived from the planet signal. Stability maps (Section 5.1) are forward integrations that do not assume the conclusion. The candidate 1400-day signal is explicitly not claimed as a detection. Self-citations to kima (Faria et al. 2018; Baycroft et al. 2023a), FIP (Hara et al. 2022, 2024), and HRCCS (Sebastian et al. 2024b, 2025) are to published, code-released methods with independent validation; none is an unverified assertion that forces the detection. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a model fit to external observational data. The only fitted nuisance parameters are the RV jitter and Student's t shape parameter. The main assumptions are standard domain assumptions for exoplanet RV surveys: activity indices trace stellar activity, coplanarity gives the true mass, and the eccentricity prior from single-star exoplanets transfers to circumbinary planets. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced; the 1400-day candidate signal is explicitly not claimed as a detection.

free parameters (2)
  • Radial velocity jitter = 6.73 (+1.08, -0.93) m/s
    Fitted white-noise term in kima that absorbs unmodeled stellar and instrumental scatter. It does not drive the 547-day signal but sets the uncertainty scale.
  • Student's t shape parameter nu = 7.9 (+29.0, -3.6)
    Fitted to down-weight outlier points in the RV likelihood; the wide posterior shows the data do not strongly constrain the tail shape.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption H-alpha and Na D indices, despite lacking significant periodicity, are sufficient to rule out stellar activity as the source of the 547-day RV signal.
    Section 4.4: the activity peaks are below the 10% FAP threshold and other indicators were too noisy; the paper uses the absence of a significant peak to infer the RV signal is planetary.
  • domain assumption The planet's quoted true mass assumes exact coplanarity with the binary orbit at i = 88.7488 degrees.
    Table 3 note (a): mass is 'under the assumption it is exactly coplanar with the binary'; without this assumption the measured quantity is M sin i.
  • domain assumption The Kipping (2013) eccentricity prior is appropriate for the circumbinary planet.
    Table A2 uses e_pl drawn from K(0.867, 3.03); Section 5.2 caveat says this prior is 'tailored to planets around single-stars and may not be suitable for circumbinary planets.'
  • domain assumption The HRCCS K2 measurement of 80.22 km/s is unaffected by SVD detrending and line-mask choice.
    Section 3.2: the secondary signal is detected at 5.5 sigma and systematic uncertainties are estimated by bootstrap resampling, but residual detrending biases are assumed small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BEBOP VII. SOPHIE discovery of BEBOP-3b, a circumbinary giant planet on an eccentric orbit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHNUS475

@misc{pith2026250614615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BEBOP VII. SOPHIE discovery of BEBOP-3b, a circumbinary giant planet on an eccentric orbit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHNUS475}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14615}
}
abstract

Planetary systems orbiting close binaries are valuable testing grounds for planet formation and migration models. More detections with good mass measurements are needed. We present a new planet discovered during the BEBOP survey for circumbinary exoplanets using radial velocities. We use data taken with the SOPHIE spectrograph at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence, and perform a spectroscopic analysis to obtain high precision radial velocities. This planet is the first radial velocity detection of a previously unknown circumbinary system. The planet has a mass of $0.56$ $M_{Jup}$ and orbits its host binary in 550 days with an eccentricity of 0.25. Compared to most of the previously known circumbinary planets, BEBOP-3b has a long period (relative to the binary) and a high eccentricity. There also is a candidate outer planet with a $\sim1400$ day orbital period. We test the stability of potential further candidate signals inside the orbit of BEBOP-3b, and demonstrate that there are stable orbital solutions for planets near the instability region which is where the Kepler circumbinary planets are located. We also use our data to obtain independent dynamical masses for the two stellar components of the eclipsing binary using High Resolution Cross-Correlation Spectroscopy (HRCCS), and compare those results to a more traditional approach, finding them compatible with one another.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HRCCS 5.5-𝜎 detection of the secondary. Upper panel: Cross￾correlation map and Saltire model for SOPHIE data. White dotted lines show the positions of slices (a,b). Lower panel: Slices a & b through CCF map at maximum significance. Red line: best-fitting Saltire model, red shaded area: 1𝜎 Uncertainties from the MCMC. Errorbars represent the MCMC jitter term (𝜎jit) from the two dimensional fit. draw 50 % of the data … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. False Inclusion Probability (FIP) periodogram. The dashed purple line is at a 1% false inclusion probability. computation time is not wasted. For further discussion of the use of Bayesian model comparison with kima as a detection metric for planet signals see e.g. Standing et al. (2022); Triaud et al. (2022); Standing et al. (2023); Baycroft et al. (2023b). While the model comparison favours a 1-Keplerian model, thi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phased RV plot of BEBOP-3 b, with the residuals below. The parameters for the planet shown are the maximum-likelihood solution. The binned RV data are shown to guide the eye [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detection limit for BEBOP-3. In blue, the posterior density of the kima run forced to fit a signal, with planet b removed. The posterior distribution from the kima radial velocity analysis is shown in green for planet-b (𝑁𝑝 = 1 model) and that for the candidate outer s…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orbital configuration of BEBOP-3 showing the orbits of each star and the planet for 600 posterior draws. The stability limit is shown as a dashed line, this was calculated given the binary orbital parameters from the maximum-likelihood solution. 4.3 Further signals As …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Periodograms of the activity indicators H-alpha and NaD are pre￾sented in orange and green, respectively with the periodogram of the radial velocities (with the binary solution removed) plotted in grey. Grey dotted vertical lines denote the binary period and planetary …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stability analysis of an inner planet in the BEBOP-3 system assuming 𝑚inner ∼ 10 M⊕ and coplanar orbits. For fixed initial conditions (Tabs. 4.1 and 4.2), the parameter space of the system is explored by varying the orbital period 𝑃inner and the eccentricity 𝑒inner of …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Eccentricity distribution of the population of currently known Circumbinary exoplanets. The x-axis is the semi-major axis of the planets scaled by the Holman-Wiegert stability radius for each binary. The green point represents BEBOP-3 b. The red curve is an indicative …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of potential transitability of BEBOP-3 b from the radial velocity fit. The TESS sectors in which BEBOP-3 was observed are shown, along with the range of time over which the radial velocities were taken. REFERENCES Anglada-Escudé G., López-Morales M., Cham…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/168 , 709, 168

    Anglada-Escudé G., López-Morales M., Chambers J. E., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/168 , 709, 168

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/168 2010

  2. [2]

    Baranne A., et al., 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, v.119, p.373-390, 119, 373

    1996

  3. [3]

    A., Triaud A

    Baycroft T. A., Triaud A. H. M. J., Faria J., Correia A. C. M., Standing M. R., 2023a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad607 , 521, 1871

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad607

  4. [4]

    A., Triaud A

    Baycroft T. A., Triaud A. H. M. J., Kervella P., 2023b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2794 , 526, 2241

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2794

  5. [5]

    F., Harrison T

    Benedict G. F., Harrison T. E., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d59 , 153, 258

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d59 2017

  6. [6]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/125 , 152, 125

    Bennett D. P., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/125 , 152, 125

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/125 2016

  7. [7]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz549 , 486, 2075

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  8. [8]

    Bouchy F., Isambert J., Lovis C., Boisse I., Figueira P., Hébrard G., Pepe F., 2009a, @doi [EAS Publications Series] 10.1051/eas/0937031 , 37, 247

    work page arXiv

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Bouchy F., et al., 2009b, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912427 , 505, 853

    doi

  2. [10]

    J., Foreman-Mackey D., 2018, @doi [Journal of Statistical Software] 10.18637/jss.v086.i07 , 86, 1

    Brewer B. J., Foreman-Mackey D., 2018, @doi [Journal of Statistical Software] 10.18637/jss.v086.i07 , 86, 1

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Coleman G. A. L., Nelson R. P., Triaud A. H. M. J., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad833 , 522, 4352

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Coleman G. A. L., Nelson R. P., Triaud A. H. M. J., Standing M. R., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3216 , 527, 414

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae582 , 156, 234

    Collins K. A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae582 , 156, 234

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Correia A. C. M., Udry S., Mayor M., Laskar J., Naef D., Pepe F., Queloz D., Santos N. C., 2005, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042376 , 440, 751

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    Correia A. C. M., Boué G., Laskar J., 2016, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/s10569-016-9709-9 , 126, 189

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Courcol B., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526329 , 581, A38

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae842 , 530, 2565

    Davis Y. T., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae842 , 530, 2565

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    M., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19657.x , 418, 2656

    Doolin S., Blundell K. M., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19657.x , 418, 2656

    2011

  11. [19]

    R., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1210923 , 333, 1602

    Doyle L. R., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1210923 , 333, 1602

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Santos N

    Faria J. P., Santos N. C., Figueira P., Brewer B. J., 2018, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00487 , 3, 487

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    V., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , 531, 4085

    Freckelton A. V., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , 531, 4085

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    V., Albrecht S., Deeg H

    Goldberg M., Fabrycky D., Martin D. V., Albrecht S., Deeg H. J., Nowak G., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2568 , 525, 4628

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    O., Corbally C

    Gray R. O., Corbally C. J., 1994, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/116893 , 107, 742

    1994 doi

  16. [24]

    N., Daylan T., 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p

    Günther M. N., Daylan T., 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1903.003

    2019

  17. [25]

    N., Daylan T., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe70e , 254, 13

    Günther M. N., Daylan T., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe70e , 254, 13

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Boué G., Laskar J., Delisle J.-B., Unger N., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 489, Issue 1, p.738-762] 10.1093/mnras/stz1849 , 489, 738

    Hara N. C., Boué G., Laskar J., Delisle J.-B., Unger N., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 489, Issue 1, p.738-762] 10.1093/mnras/stz1849 , 489, 738

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Unger N., Delisle J.-B., Díaz R

    Hara N. C., Unger N., Delisle J.-B., Díaz R. F., Ségransan D., 2022, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140543 , 663, A14

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    C., de Poyferré T., Delisle J.-B., Hoffmann M., 2024, @doi [Annals of Applied Statistics] 10.1214/23-AOAS1810 , 18, 749

    Hara N. C., de Poyferré T., Delisle J.-B., Hoffmann M., 2024, @doi [Annals of Applied Statistics] 10.1214/23-AOAS1810 , 18, 749

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Heidari N., 2022, PhD Thesis , Universit 'e C ote d'Azur; Shahid Beheshti University (Tehran)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Heidari N., et al., 2024, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347897 , 681, A55

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Wiegert P

    Holman M. J., Wiegert P. A., 1999, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/300695 , 117, 621

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [Proceedings of the SPIE] 10.1117/12.2233418 , 9913, 99133E

    Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, @doi [Proceedings of the SPIE] 10.1117/12.2233418 , 9913, 99133E

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Kalman D., 1996, @doi [The College Mathematics Journal] 10.1080/07468342.1996.11973744 , 27, 2

    1996

  26. [34]

    M., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075 , 434, L51

    Kipping D. M., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075 , 434, L51

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    B., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/86 , 827, 86

    Kostov V. B., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/86 , 827, 86

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    B., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8a48 , 159, 253

    Kostov V. B., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8a48 , 159, 253

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac223a , 162, 234

    Kostov V. B., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac223a , 162, 234

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    L., 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 14

    Kurucz R. L., 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 14

    2005

  31. [39]

    Laskar J., 1990, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90084-M , 88, 266

    1990 doi

  32. [40]

    Laskar J., 1993, @doi [Physica D Nonlinear Phenomena] 10.1016/0167-2789(93)90210-R , 67, 257

    1993 doi

  33. [41]

    Laskar J., Robutel P., 2001, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1023/A:1012098603882 , 80, 39

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Tao M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/96 , 831, 96

    Li G., Holman M. J., Tao M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/96 , 831, 96

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    ascl:1812.013

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1812.013

    2018

  36. [44]

    V., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2851 , 465, 3235

    Martin D. V., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2851 , 465, 3235

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    V., Triaud A

    Martin D. V., Triaud A. H. M. J., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323112 , 570, A91

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    V., Triaud A

    Martin D. V., Triaud A. H. M. J., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv121 , 449, 781

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    V., Mazeh T., Fabrycky D

    Martin D. V., Mazeh T., Fabrycky D. C., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1870 , 453, 3554

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    V., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833669 , 624, A68

    Martin D. V., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833669 , 624, A68

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    Maxted P. F. L., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628579 , 591, A111

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Maxted P. F. L., Triaud A. H. M. J., Martin D. V., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9120498 , 9, 498

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Meschiari S., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/761/1/L7 , 761, L7

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Moriwaki K., Nakagawa Y., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/421342 , 609, 1065

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Lai D., 2015, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1505671112 , 112, 9264

    Muñoz D. J., Lai D., 2015, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1505671112 , 112, 9264

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1228380 , 337, 1511

    Orosz J. A., et al., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1228380 , 337, 1511

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca0 , 157, 174

    Orosz J. A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca0 , 157, 174

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Thébault P., Baruteau C., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/L16 , 754, L16

    Paardekooper S.-J., Leinhardt Z. M., Thébault P., Baruteau C., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/L16 , 754, L16

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Penzlin A. B. T., Kley W., Nelson R. P., 2021, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039319 , 645, A68

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Udry S., Burnet M., 2002, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020433 , 388, 632

    Pepe F., Mayor M., Galland F., Naef D., Queloz D., Santos N. C., Udry S., Burnet M., 2002, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020433 , 388, 632

    2002 doi

  51. [59]

    Pepper J., et al., 2007, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/521836 , 119, 923

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    Perruchot S., et al., 2008, @doi [Proceedings of the SPIE] 10.1117/12.787379 , 7014, 70140J

    2008 doi

  53. [61]

    P., 2008, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809453 , 483, 633

    Pierens A., Nelson R. P., 2008, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809453 , 483, 633

    2008 doi

  54. [62]

    P., McNally C

    Pierens A., Nelson R. P., McNally C. P., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2853 , 508, 4806

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    L., et al., 2006, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/508556 , 118, 1407

    Pollacco D. L., et al., 2006, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/508556 , 118, 1407

    2006 doi

  56. [64]

    Pollacco D., et al., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12939.x , 385, 1576

    2008

  57. [65]

    B., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01045.x , 414, L16

    Qian S. B., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01045.x , 414, L16

    2011

  58. [66]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    Roy O., Vetterli M., 2007, 15th European Signal Processing Conference, pp 606--610

    2007

  60. [68]

    Sairam L., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3136 , 527, 2261

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    L., 2004, @doi [Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406268 , 5, 93

    Sbordone L., Bonifacio P., Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2004, @doi [Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406268 , 5, 93

    2004 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    Sebastian D., Triaud A. H. M. J., Brogi M., 2024a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3765 , 527, 10921

    doi

  63. [71]

    Sebastian D., et al., 2024b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae459 , 530, 2572

    doi

  64. [72]

    Sebastian D., et al., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf863 , 540, 2914

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    Snellen I. A. G., de Kok R. J., de Mooij E. J. W., Albrecht S., 2010, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature09111 , 465, 1049

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    S., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac113 , 511, 3571

    Standing M. R., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac113 , 511, 3571

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01948-4 , 7, 702

    Standing M. R., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01948-4 , 7, 702

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., 2011, Ph. D . thesis, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhDT........22T

    2011

  70. [78]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219643 , 549, A18

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730993 , 608, A129

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3712 , 511, 3561

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    Trotta R., 2008, @doi [Contemporary Physics] 10.1080/00107510802066753 , 49, 71

    2008 doi

  74. [82]

    Wang M.-T., Liu H.-G., 2024, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4a60 , 168, 31

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    F., et al., 2012, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature10768 , 481, 475

    Welsh W. F., et al., 2012, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature10768 , 481, 475

    2012 doi

  76. [84]

    N., Fabrycky D

    Winn J. N., Fabrycky D. C., 2015, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 53, p.409-447] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246 , 53, 409

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.