Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 160 references

Constraining nearby substellar companion architectures using High Contrast Imaging, Radial Velocity and Astrometry data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining three detection techniques can raise the detectable fraction of substellar companions around nearby M dwarfs by up to roughly 60 percent, even when no new companion is found.

desk verdict Useful, traceable extension of the Boehle et al. framework to include PMa astrometry; headline completeness numbers are optimistic because the astrometry detection threshold ignores the PMa uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02455 v1 pith:KCFDUWU6 submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

L. F. Sartori , M. J. Bonse , Y. Li , F. A. Dannert , S. P. Quanz , A. Boehle This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR PACS 97.82.-k
keywords substellarcompanionshigh-contrastimagingradialvelocityastrometrypropermotionanomalysurveycompletenessMdwarfstarsbrowndwarfs
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

Seven nearby M-dwarf stars were observed with SPHERE high-contrast imaging and re-examined with archival radial-velocity and Hipparcos–Gaia astrometry to test a claim about method synergy: that the three techniques, used together, detect a larger fraction of possible substellar companions than any one of them alone. The paper quantifies the gain with a Monte Carlo completeness calculation over companion mass and semi-major axis ($a < 100\,\mathrm{AU}$, $m_c < 50\,M_{\rm Jup}$), finding increases of up to $\sim$60% over radial velocity alone, $\sim$50% over imaging alone, and $\sim$12% over astrometry alone, depending on the star. No new companion is detected, and the paper argues this null result is consistent with known giant-planet and brown-dwarf occurrence rates for a seven-star sample. The broader point a sympathetic reader should take is that non-detections from archival data, combined properly, can sharply reduce the range of architectures a nearby system can hide, which matters for choosing targets for future habitable-planet missions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a Monte Carlo completeness calculation that converts three heterogeneous non-detection datasets into a single detectability map. For every cell of a grid in companion mass and semi-major axis ($0 < a < 100\,\mathrm{AU}$, $0 < m_p < 55\,M_{\rm Jup}$), the code draws 10,000 circular Keplerian orbits with random inclination and argument of periastron, then evaluates each orbit against three detection thresholds: the simulated radial-velocity curve must vary by more than five times the observed RV scatter; the companion mass must exceed the imaging mass limit at its projected separation; and the induced tangential proper-motion anomaly must equal or exceed the value reported in the Hipparcos–Gaia catalogue. The astrometric mass constraint comes from the proper-motion-anomaly sensitivity relation $m_p(r) = \frac{\sqrt{r}}{\gamma[P(r)/\delta t_{\mathrm{GDR3}}]}\sqrt{\frac{M_\star}{G}}\frac{\Delta v_{T,\mathrm{GDR3}}}{\eta\zeta}$, with corrections for orbital inclination and Gaia observing-window smearing. The output is a per-star completeness map, and averaging over the seven stars yields the survey depth and mean completeness that anchor the paper's conclusions.

What would settle it

Re-apply the same Monte Carlo completeness pipeline to a volume-limited, unselected set of M dwarfs with comparable archival data: if the combined method's improvement over radial velocity alone falls well below the ~50–60% reported here, the claimed gains are an artifact of target selection rather than a property of the method. A second test: take a star with a confirmed companion whose mass and semi-major axis fall in a grid cell where the paper's combined map predicts near-100% detectability, and verify that the archival data would indeed have revealed it; if a predicted-detectable cell contains an undetected real companion, the detection thresholds are too optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the fraction of detectable companions in the parameter space $a < 100\,\mathrm{AU}$ and $m_c < 50\,M_{\rm Jup}$ around seven nearby M dwarfs is substantially larger when high-contrast imaging, radial velocity, and astrometry are analysed jointly than when any one technique is used on its own, and that the method is a proof of concept for larger samples. Concretely, the combined approach raises the fraction of detectable companions by up to $\sim$60% over radial velocity alone (GJ 3325), $\sim$50% over high-contrast imaging alone (GJ 3325), and $\sim$12% over astrometry alone (GJ 367), with combined detectability ranging from $\sim$50% to $\sim$94% across the sample. For five of the seven targets astrometry provides the largest exclusive contribution, detecting $\sim$34–43% of simulated companions that the other two methods miss, while for GJ 1125 and GJ 367 imaging contributes the most exclusive detections. The authors also establish that their null detection is unsurprising: population statistics predict fewer than one giant companion in this sample, and their parametric model predicts about 0.26 brown dwarfs and 0.01 giant planets within the imaging sensitivity, consistent with finding nothing.

Load-bearing premise

The headline improvement numbers rest on how the seven stars were chosen: the sample was deliberately selected so that the new SPHERE imaging would be sensitive to companions that archival radial-velocity data miss, so the ~60% gain over RV alone is conditional on this selection and would not automatically hold for a volume-limited, unselected sample of M dwarfs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Archival radial-velocity and astrometric non-detections carry quantitative information: the combined completeness maps convert them into upper limits on substellar-companion mass across semi-major axes up to 100 AU for all seven targets.
  • Astrometry is the strongest single technique for five of the seven targets (detecting 81–94% of simulated companions), so wide-orbit substellar-companion programs around nearby M dwarfs should prioritise astrometric monitoring.
  • Because the techniques cover mostly disjoint regions of parameter space, with the 'detected by all three' fraction only about 12–40% per star, combining methods genuinely widens the searched volume rather than merely repeating it.
  • For the parameter space probed here, the non-detection of any companion is the expected outcome given published giant-planet and brown-dwarf occurrence statistics, so the value of the work lies in the upper limits, not in a detection.
  • Extending the same procedure to larger samples and lower-mass companions will help define the target lists of future missions searching for habitable or inhabited worlds around nearby stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The completeness machinery could be inverted into a target-selection tool: instead of choosing stars with exposure-time calculators, a survey could pick the targets that maximise combined completeness in the mass and separation region a given mission cares about, since the paper selects its sample ad hoc but nothing prevents using the full Monte Carlo as the selector.
  • The reported percentages depend on the grid boundaries and the uniform prior over mass and semi-major axis, so shifting the grid inward toward the RV-sensitive regime would shrink the quoted gains over RV alone, making the headline numbers design-dependent rather than intrinsic to the method.
  • Future Gaia data releases will sharpen the proper-motion-anomaly constraint in the 1–2 AU region where window smearing currently makes the astrometric sensitivity curves difficult to interpret, likely pushing the astrometry-only contribution above the ~12% improvement quoted for GJ 367.
  • Systematically including prior knowledge of system architecture, such as the known inclination of GJ 367's transiting planets, would change per-technique detectability by double-digit percentages in either direction, so a fully Bayesian version of the completeness calculation is an obvious next step.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines new SPHERE/H2 high-contrast imaging with archival radial-velocity and Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion-anomaly astrometry for seven nearby M dwarfs. For each method the authors compute mass limits as a function of semi-major axis, then run a Monte Carlo completeness simulation at fixed (mass, semi-major axis) grid points by drawing orbital inclinations and arguments of periastron under the assumption of circular orbits. Detectability is decided per method, and the combined constraint is the OR of the three per-method maps. The main quantitative results are that no new companion is detected but the combined approach increases the detectable companion fraction by up to about 60% over RV alone (GJ 3325), about 50% over HCI alone (GJ 3325), and about 12% over astrometry alone (GJ 367). The paper also compares the survey depth and completeness with a parametric population model and finds that the non-detections are statistically unsurprising.

Significance. If the completeness numbers are robust, this is a useful proof-of-concept for combining archival data sets to constrain the absence of substellar companions around nearby M dwarfs. The per-method mass limits follow traceable and partly machine-checkable procedures: applefy contrast curves with a 5-sigma FPF threshold, a Bonfils-style bootstrap for RV limits, and Kervella et al. proper-motion-anomaly curves for astrometry. The Monte Carlo scheme is described in enough detail to be reproduced, and the combined map is a straightforward union of independently computed maps, so there is no circular fitting of the final claim. The main risk to the headline percentages is the simplified astrometric detectability criterion, which I discuss below; this is fixable and should not overturn the qualitative conclusion that the three methods are complementary.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (2), Table 4] The astrometry detection criterion compares the simulated Delta-v_T,GDR3 with the measured point estimate reported in Kervella et al. (2021) and does not include the measurement uncertainty. For five of the seven targets the PMa is consistent with zero at roughly 1 sigma or less (e.g., GJ 3325: 1.2 +/- 3.5 m/s; GJ 402: 2.9 +/- 4.1; GJ 465: 2.1 +/- 4.0; GJ 357: 1.6 +/- 3.2; GJ 382: 3.78 +/- 2.33). A simulated companion producing a PMa slightly above these central values is therefore counted as detectable even though it would not be a statistically significant astrometric detection. Since astrometry alone reaches 84-94% completeness for five of the seven targets and dominates the combined 'detected in at least one' panels in Figs. B.2-B.6, this systematically inflates both the astrometry-only and the combined completeness, and with them the reported improvement percentages. Please use a threshold based on the measurement uncertainty (for example, predicted Delta-v_T > measured Delta-v_T + k*sigma with k = 1, 3, or 5, or draw the threshold from the quoted uncertainty in the Monte Carlo), and ideally a two-dimensional chi-square statistic on the PMa vector using its covariance instead of a scalar norm.
  2. [Section 2.1] The target sample was deliberately constructed so that the new SPHERE observations would be sensitive to substellar companions that are currently missed by the archival RV data. The headline improvements over RV alone (up to about 60% for GJ 3325) are therefore conditional on this selection and should not be read as typical for a volume-limited M-dwarf sample. The abstract and Section 5 quote these improvements without that caveat; please add an explicit statement wherever the quantitative improvement is reported that the figures apply to this selected sample, not to a representative sample of nearby M dwarfs.
  3. [Section 3.4] The RV detectability criterion used in the Monte Carlo simulation is RV_max - RV_min > 5*sigma_RV. This is a different statistic from the periodogram FAP criterion used in Section 3.2, and the footnote justifies it only for periods longer than the RV time baseline. The grid, however, extends to small semi-major axes where the orbital period is shorter than the typical 4000-7000 day baselines (roughly a < 4 AU for these stellar masses). For those inner grid points a periodogram detection can be sensitive to signals with semi-amplitudes well below 2.5 sigma, so the peak-to-peak criterion is substantially more conservative and likely depresses the RV-only completeness, which in turn inflates the reported improvement over RV alone. Please either apply the Section 3.2 periodogram criterion inside the baseline or validate the peak-to-peak threshold with injection-recovery tests on the actual RV epoch sampling.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3, Fig. 9] The expected-detection calculation relies on an unpublished parametric model (Meyer et al., in prep.) as well as a custom sub-Jupiter extrapolation. Since the text states that the non-detection is consistent with the model, the model details should either be made available in an appendix or the calculation should be described as an illustrative estimate rather than a quantitative validation.
  2. [Table 3 caption and Table 4 caption] The captions say 'four of the five targets' and 'four targets', but the sample contains seven targets in both tables; please correct the wording.
  3. [Section 3.4 vs Section 4.2] The Monte Carlo description in Section 3.4 says 10,000 Keplerian orbits are generated per grid point, while Section 4.2 refers to 'the 1000 simulated companions'; please make the numbers consistent.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption quotes 'mp sin(i) = 1-30 M_sun', while the text in Section 3.2 gives 3-30 M_Earth; the units in the caption should be Earth masses, not solar masses.
  5. [Section 3.4 and Fig. 4] The text defines the grid as 0 < a < 100 AU and 0 < m_p < 55 M_Jup with 25 x 17 points, but the completeness panels show only a = 20-80 AU and m_p = 10-40 M_Jup. Please state explicitly that the panels are cropped and define the integration region used for the 'Tot' percentages, because the headline numbers depend on that region.
  6. [Table 1] GJ 357 lists no stellar age and no uncertainty on the stellar mass (the quoted 0.346 +/- 0.20 M_sun appears to have an implausibly large error); please clarify the assumed age used for the HCI mass limits and re-check the mass uncertainty.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Astrometry detectability is defined as simulated PMa exceeding the measured PMa, so the dominant astrometry completeness map restates the input measurement and inflates the headline gains.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4, 'Combining the constraints' (astrometry detection criterion); Table 4 astrometry inputs]
    "Finally, for astrometry a planet is considered as detectable if the derived ∆vT,GDR3, including the statistical and systematic corrections described in Section 3.3, is equal or higher than the one reported in Kervella et al. (2021)."

    The astrometry-only completeness map is generated by thresholding each simulated companion's induced ∆v_T,GDR3 against the measured Kervella et al. (2021) PMa value — the same input used to build the astrometry mass limits. No significance cut or PMa uncertainty is applied. For five of seven targets the measured PMa is consistent with zero at ~1σ (Table 4: GJ 3325 1.2±3.5, GJ 402 2.9±4.1, GJ 465 2.1±4.0, GJ 357 1.6±3.2 m/s), so virtually any small simulated PMa counts as 'detected'. The resulting astrometry-alone fractions (up to 93.8%) and the combined map, which for several stars equals the astrometry map (e.g., GJ 3325 and GJ 382 combined = 93.6%), are therefore restatements of the measured PMa threshold rather than independent sensitivity predictions.

full rationale

The Monte Carlo framework is otherwise self-contained: the RV map uses a 5×RV-scatter threshold, the HCI map uses 5σ FPF contrast limits from applefy injection-recovery experiments, and the combined map is the OR of the three independently constructed maps, so the union operation itself is not circular and no parameter is fitted to the final detection fractions. The Section 4.3 population-model comparison relies on the unpublished Meyer et al. (in prep.) model co-authored by Y. Li, but it is a secondary consistency check that does not feed back into the completeness claims. The circular element is concentrated in the astrometry leg: 'detectable' is defined by construction as producing a PMa at least as large as the measured PMa, which is an input quantity. Because astrometry is the dominant technique for five of the seven targets and the combined map often coincides with the astrometry-only map, the headline improvements are partially forced by this definitional threshold rather than by an independent significance criterion. This is partial, not total, circularity: the RV and HCI components retain independent content, and the OR combination could in principle degrade rather than improve if the individual maps were statistically valid.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Keplerian physics, published evolutionary models, the PMa formalism of Kervella et al., and a set of chosen thresholds and sample-selection choices. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential inputs are the simplified detection thresholds and the deliberately biased star sample.

free parameters (5)
  • Assumed stellar age for GJ 1125 and GJ 465 = 5 +/- 0.5 Gyr
    Used with AMES-Cond evolutionary models to convert H2 contrast curves to mass limits; older or younger ages change the HCI mass limits.
  • Contrast curve FPF threshold = 2.87e-7 (5 sigma)
    Detection threshold for the t-test contrast curves; sets the HCI mass sensitivity.
  • RV detectability threshold in completeness simulation = 5 * sigma_RV (peak-to-peak)
    A simulated companion is counted as detected if RVmax - RVmin exceeds 5 times the measured RV scatter; this simplified criterion replaces the periodogram FAP used in Section 3.2.
  • Astrometric inclination normalization eta = 87 +12/-32 %
    Adopted from Kervella et al. (2019a) to correct the PMa sensitivity curve for unknown orbital inclination.
  • Meyer et al. (in prep.) population-model parameters = ln(AGP) = -5.52, ln(sigmaGP) = 0.53, ln(muGP) = -1.32, alphaGP = 1.43, ln(ABD) = -3.78, betaBD = 0.36
    Six parameters adopted from an unpublished model fitted to 50 literature estimates; used only for the expected detection rates in Section 4.3, not for the central completeness claim.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Companions follow Keplerian orbits and the RV semi-amplitude is K = (2*pi*G/P)^(1/3) m_p sin(i) / M_star^(2/3) in the low-mass limit
    Used to convert RV mass limits and to simulate RV signals in the Monte Carlo (Sections 3.2 and 3.4).
  • domain assumption AMES-Cond evolutionary models (Baraffe et al. 2003) map H-band flux to companion mass
    Section 3.1; the HCI mass limits depend on this model choice.
  • domain assumption The Kervella et al. (2019a, 2021) PMa formalism (Eq. 2) correctly converts proper motion anomaly to companion mass sensitivity
    Section 3.3; the entire astrometric constraint rests on this published method and its correction functions.
  • domain assumption All simulated companions are on circular orbits (e = 0)
    Section 3.4, footnote 7; justified as conservative for RV, but it systematically affects projected separations (HCI) and PMa statistics (astrometry).
  • domain assumption The targets are single stars and the RVs contain no unmodeled signals after subtracting the known planets in GJ 367 and GJ 357
    Sections 2.3 and 2.4; unmodeled activity or an additional companion would bias the mass limits and completeness maps.
  • domain assumption Literature stellar masses, distances, and ages in Table 1 are accurate
    These enter the RV mass limits, HCI physical-scale and mass conversions, and the PMa orbital radius conversions; uncertain masses directly propagate into all three sensitivity curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining nearby substellar companion architectures using High Contrast Imaging, Radial Velocity and Astrometry data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KCFDUWU6

@misc{pith2026250702455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining nearby substellar companion architectures using High Contrast Imaging, Radial Velocity and Astrometry data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KCFDUWU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02455}
}
read the original abstract

Nearby stars offer prime opportunities for exoplanet discovery and characterization through various detection methods. By combining HCI, RV, and astrometry, it is possible to better constrain the presence of substellar companions, as each method probes different regions of their parameter space. A detailed census of planets around nearby stars is essential to guide the selection of targets for future space missions seeking to identify Earth-like planets and potentially habitable worlds. In addition, the detection and characterisation of giant planets and brown dwarfs is crucial for understanding the formation and evolution of planetary systems. We aim to constrain the possible presence of substellar companions for 7 nearby M-dwarf stars using a combination of new SPHERE/H2 HCI and archival RV and astrometric data. We investigate how combining these techniques improves the detection constraints for giant planets and brown dwarfs compared to using each method individually. For each star and each data set, we compute the mass limits as a function of semi-major axis or projected separation using standard techniques. We then use a Monte Carlo approach to assess the completeness of the companion mass / semi-major axis parameter space probed by the combination of the three methods, as well as by the three methods independently. Our combined approach significantly increases the fraction of detectable companions. Although no new companion was detected, we could place stronger constraints on potential substellar companions. The combination of HCI, RV and astrometry provides significant improvements in the detection of substellar companions over a wider parameter space. Applying this approach to larger samples and lower-mass companions will help constraining the search space for future space missions aimed at finding potentially habitable or even inhabited planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Contrast curves computed from the SPHERE H2 high contrast images. The rise in most contrast curves at around 1 arcsec (converted to physical scale) corresponds to the limit of the AO correction (0.8 arcsec, Fusco et al. 2006, 2016). The reached contrast in the H2 band and H3 band (not plotted here) is almost identical. Right: Mass limits derived from the SPHERE H2 contrast curves in above using the AMES-Cond e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass limits computed from the archival RV data using a bootstrap method (straight lines, following Bonfils et al. 2013 and references therein). The shadowed regions indicate the habitable zones (HZ, same color coding as for the mass limits). The targets have been split into two plots for ease of reading. The available RV data would allow us to detect planets in the HZ with minumum mass mp sin(i) = 1−30 M⊙, depending… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PMa sensitivity limits (gray) computed for the seven targets present in both the Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 catalogues (see Section 3.3 for details). The shaded region corresponds to the 1σ uncertainty. The blue dashed line indicates the semi-major axis correspondent to the observing window for the Gaia DR3 mission δtGDR3 = 1038d. of projection effects), at distances where we cannot compute the contrast curves. We expa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on companion mass and semi-major axis for GJ1125 (example source, see Appendix B for the whole sample). Top row (green): Percentage of companions that can be detected by radial velocity, SPHERE high contrast imaging (H2) and astrometry data alone. Middle ro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fraction of planets that could be detected as a function of semi-major axis by the three methods (HCI, RV and astrometry) separately. For each star we project the results obtained by the three methods separately ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Depth of search for the three detection methods separately (top) and combined (bottom). The 2D survey depth (or depth of search of the survey) gives the number of stars around which the survey is sensitive for a given companion mass and semi-major axis. See Section 4.3…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Survey mean completeness for the three detection methods separately (top) and combined (bottom). The 2D survey (mean) completeness is computed as the average of the detection maps obtained for the individual targets. See Section 4.3 for details. Article number, page 11…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Frequency distribution for models. The semi-major axis distribution for generated companions follow a lognormal distribution for the giant planet model from Meyer et al. in prep., a lognormal joint with a log-uniform distribution beyond 10 AU for the sub-Jupiter model,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the depth of search of the SPHERE H2 survey for the presented 7 M dwarf sample ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

160 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2005, , 359, 567

    Agol , E., Steffen , J., Sari , R., & Clarkson , W. 2005, , 359, 567

    2005

  4. [4]

    & Quanz , S

    Amara , A. & Quanz , S. P. 2012, , 427, 948

    2012

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  7. [7]

    S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P

    Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Barman , T. S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2003, , 402, 701

    2003

  8. [8]

    2025, , 693, A81

    Barbato , D., Mesa , D., D'Orazi , V., et al. 2025, , 693, A81

    2025

Show all 160 references
  1. [9]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.06586

    Barbieri , M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.06586

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J., Pascucci , I., Mulders , G

    Bergsten , G. J., Pascucci , I., Mulders , G. D., Fernandes , R. B., & Koskinen , T. T. 2022, , 164, 190

    2022

  3. [11]

    L., Vigan , A., Mouillet , D., et al

    Beuzit , J. L., Vigan , A., Mouillet , D., et al. 2019, , 631, A155

    2019

  4. [12]

    2015, , 582, A112

    Bitsch , B., Lambrechts , M., & Johansen , A. 2015, , 582, A112

    2015

  5. [13]

    S., et al

    Boehle , A., Doelman , D., Konrad , B. S., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 045001

    2021

  6. [14]

    P., Lovis , C., et al

    Boehle , A., Quanz , S. P., Lovis , C., et al. 2019, , 630, A50

    2019

  7. [15]

    2022, , 513, 5588

    Bonavita , M., Fontanive , C., Gratton , R., et al. 2022, , 513, 5588

    2022

  8. [16]

    2013, , 549, A109

    Bonfils , X., Delfosse , X., Udry , S., et al. 2013, , 549, A109

    2013

  9. [17]

    M., et al

    Bonnefoy , M., Perraut , K., Lagrange , A. M., et al. 2018, , 618, A63

    2018

  10. [18]

    J., Garvin , E

    Bonse , M. J., Garvin , E. O., Gebhard , T. D., et al. 2023, , 166, 71

    2023

  11. [19]

    J., Gebhard , T

    Bonse , M. J., Gebhard , T. D., Dannert , F. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01809

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599, A57

    Borgniet, S., Lagrange, A.-M., Meunier, N., & Galland, F. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599, A57

    2017

  13. [21]

    J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  14. [22]

    Boss , A. P. 1998, , 503, 923

    1998

  15. [23]

    Boss , A. P. 2006, , 641, 1148

    2006

  16. [24]

    2017, The Messenger, 169, 21

    Bouchy , F., Doyon , R., Artigau , \'E ., et al. 2017, The Messenger, 169, 21

    2017

  17. [25]

    Bowler , B. P. 2016, , 128, 102001

    2016

  18. [26]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 22

    Brandl , B., Bettonvil , F., van Boekel , R., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 22

    2021

  19. [27]

    Brandt , T. D. 2018, , 239, 31

    2018

  20. [28]

    Brandt , T. D. 2019, , 241, 39

    2019

  21. [29]

    Brandt , T. D. & Huang , C. X. 2015, , 807, 58

    2015

  22. [30]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699

    Braun , R., Bonaldi , A., Bourke , T., Keane , E., & Wagg , J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    & Janson , M

    Calissendorff , P. & Janson , M. 2018, , 615, A149

    2018

  24. [32]

    L., Bowens-Rubin, R., Calissendorff, P., et al

    Carter, A. L., Bowens-Rubin, R., Calissendorff, P., et al. 2024, Investing in the Unrivaled Potential of Wide-Separation Sub-Jupiter Exoplanet Detection and Characterisation with JWST -- Strategic Exoplanet Initiatives with HST and JWST White Paper

    2024

  25. [33]

    U., Turatto , M., Gratton , R

    Claudi , R. U., Turatto , M., Gratton , R. G., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali , 70143E

    2008

  26. [34]

    P., Marcy , G

    Cumming , A., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2008, , 120, 531

    2008

  27. [35]

    2023, , 674, A207

    Davies , R., Absil , O., Agapito , G., et al. 2023, , 674, A207

    2023

  28. [36]

    M., et al

    Davies , R., Esposito , S., Schmid , H. M., 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 , 1070209

    2018

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06300

    Dietrich , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06300

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Dohlen , K., Langlois , M., Saisse , M., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali , 70143L

    2008

  31. [39]

    2022, , 515, 5629

    Dubber , S., Biller , B., Bonavita , M., et al. 2022, , 515, 5629

    2022

  32. [40]

    D., Plavchan , P., Crepp , J

    Dulz , S. D., Plavchan , P., Crepp , J. R., et al. 2020, , 893, 122

    2020

  33. [41]

    & Mayor , M

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

    1991

  34. [42]

    2014, CPL: Common Pipeline Library , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1402.010

    ESO CPL Development Team . 2014, CPL: Common Pipeline Library , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1402.010

    2014

  35. [43]

    Follette , K. B. 2023, , 135, 093001

    2023

  36. [44]

    J., Rosenthal, L

    Fulton, B. J., Rosenthal, L. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 255, 14

    2021

  37. [45]

    2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Fusco , T., Petit , C., Rousset , G., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6272, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. B. L. Ellerbroek & D. Bonaccini Calia , 62720K

    2006

  38. [46]

    F., Mouillet , D., et al

    Fusco , T., Sauvage , J. F., Mouillet , D., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9909, Adaptive Optics Systems V, ed. E. Marchetti , L. M. Close , & J.-P. V \'e ran , 99090U

    2016

  39. [47]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    2020

  40. [48]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021 a , , 649, A1

    2021

  41. [49]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  42. [50]

    L., Sarro , L

    Gaia Collaboration , Smart , R. L., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2021 b , , 649, A6

    2021

  43. [51]

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

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Clampin , M., et al. 2006, , 123, 485

    2006

  45. [53]

    S., Seager , S., Mennesson , B., et al

    Gaudi , B. S., Seager , S., Mennesson , B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06683

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H., Bauwens , E., et al

    Glasse , A., Rieke , G. H., Bauwens , E., et al. 2015, , 127, 686

    2015

  47. [55]

    A., et al

    Goffo , E., Gandolfi , D., Egger , J. A., et al. 2023, , 955, L3

    2023

  48. [56]

    & Ward , W

    Goldreich , P. & Ward , W. R. 1973, , 183, 1051

    1973

  49. [57]

    I., Pepe , F., Molaro , P., & Santos , N

    Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., Pepe , F., Molaro , P., & Santos , N. C. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte , 157

    2018

  50. [58]

    S., et al

    Gould , A., Dong , S., Gaudi , B. S., et al. 2010, , 720, 1073

    2010

  51. [59]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A12

    Grandjean, A., Lagrange, A.-M., Meunier, N., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A12

    2022

  52. [60]

    2024, , 685, A119

    Gratton , R., Bonavita , M., Mesa , D., et al. 2024, , 685, A119

    2024

  53. [61]

    2025, , 694, A175

    Gratton , R., Bonavita , M., Mesa , D., et al. 2025, , 694, A175

    2025

  54. [62]

    O., Corbally , C

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

    2006

  55. [63]

    Habets , G. M. H. J. & Heintze , J. R. W. 1981, , 46, 193

    1981

  56. [64]

    J., Walkowicz , L

    Henry , T. J., Walkowicz , L. M., Barto , T. C., & Golimowski , D. A. 2002, , 123, 2002

    2002

  57. [65]

    D., et al

    Hinkley , S., Lacour , S., Marleau , G. D., et al. 2023, , 671, L5

    2023

  58. [66]

    W., Myers, A

    Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 2166

    2010

  59. [67]

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

    2007

  60. [68]

    A., Quinn , S

    Hurt , S. A., Quinn , S. N., Latham , D. W., et al. 2021, , 161, 157

    2021

  61. [69]

    & Lin , D

    Ida , S. & Lin , D. N. C. 2004, , 616, 567

    2004

  62. [70]

    & Fischer , D

    Isaacson , H. & Fischer , D. 2010, , 725, 875

    2010

  63. [71]

    N., et al

    Ivezic , Z., Axelrod , T., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2008, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 176, 1

    2008

  64. [72]

    N., Morbidelli , A., Hersant , F., & Pierens , A

    Izidoro , A., Raymond , S. N., Morbidelli , A., Hersant , F., & Pierens , A. 2015, , 800, L22

    2015

  65. [73]

    2011, , 736, 89

    Janson , M., Bonavita , M., Klahr , H., et al. 2011, , 736, 89

    2011

  66. [74]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Jurgenson , C., Fischer , D., McCracken , T., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 99086T

    2016

  67. [75]

    2021, Published in The Messenger vol

    Kasper, M., Cerpa Urra, N., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, Published in The Messenger vol. 182, pp. 38-43, March 2021

    2021

  68. [76]

    Kasting , J. F. 1996, in Circumstellar Habitable Zones, ed. L. R. Doyle , 17

    1996

  69. [77]

    F., Whitmire , D

    Kasting , J. F., Whitmire , D. P., & Reynolds , R. T. 1993, , 101, 108

    1993

  70. [78]

    2019 a , , 623, A72

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., Mignard , F., & Th \'e venin , F. 2019 a , , 623, A72

    2019

  71. [79]

    2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/A+A/657/A7

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., & Thevenin , F. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/A+A/657/A7

    2021

  72. [80]

    2022, , 657, A7

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., & Th \'e venin , F. 2022, , 657, A7

    2022

  73. [81]

    2019 b , , 623, A116

    Kervella , P., Gallenne , A., Remage Evans , N., et al. 2019 b , , 623, A116

    2019

  74. [82]

    2012, , 62, 67

    Kiraga , M. 2012, , 62, 67

    2012

  75. [83]

    D., Henry , T

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Henry , T. J., & McCarthy , Donald W., J. 1991, , 77, 417

    1991

  76. [84]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1707.07148

    Kley , W. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1707.07148

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    2010, , 403, 1949

    Koen , C., Kilkenny , D., van Wyk , F., & Marang , F. 2010, , 403, 1949

    2010

  78. [86]

    M., Marois , C., Macintosh , B

    Konopacky , Q. M., Marois , C., Macintosh , B. A., et al. 2016, , 152, 28

    2016

  79. [87]

    M., Rubini , P., Nowak , M., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Rubini , P., Nowak , M., et al. 2020, , 642, A18

    2020

  80. [88]

    Lam , K. W. F., Csizmadia , S., Astudillo-Defru , N., et al. 2021, Science, 374, 1271

    2021

  81. [89]

    Landolt , A. U. 1992, , 104, 340

    1992

  82. [90]

    2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Lenzen , R., Hartung , M., Brandner , W., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood , 944--952

    2003

  83. [91]

    J., Mann , A

    L \'e pine , S., Hilton , E. J., Mann , A. W., et al. 2013, , 145, 102

    2013

  84. [92]

    2018, , 616, A2

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2

    2018

  85. [93]

    F., Mordasini, C., Molli \`e re, P., et al

    Linder, E. F., Mordasini, C., Molli \`e re, P., et al. 2019, Evolutionary models of cold and low-mass planets: Cooling curves, magnitudes, and detectability

    2019

  86. [94]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 0912.0201 ]

    2009 arXiv

  87. [95]

    2024, , 167, 159

    Lu , Y., Angus , R., Foreman-Mackey , D., & Hattori , S. 2024, , 167, 159

    2024

  88. [96]

    2019, , 628, A39

    Luque , R., Pall \'e , E., Kossakowski , D., et al. 2019, , 628, A39

    2019

  89. [97]

    2020, , 644, A68

    Maldonado , J., Micela , G., Baratella , M., et al. 2020, , 644, A68

    2020

  90. [98]

    2006, , 641, 556

    Marois , C., Lafreni \`e re , D., Doyon , R., Macintosh , B., & Nadeau , D. 2006, , 641, 556

    2006

  91. [99]

    I., Hosokawa , T., & Guedel , M

    Matsukoba , R., Vorobyov , E. I., Hosokawa , T., & Guedel , M. 2023, , 526, 3933

    2023

  92. [100]

    2014, , 792, 97

    Mawet , D., Milli , J., Wahhaj , Z., et al. 2014, , 792, 97

    2014

  93. [101]

    2002, Science, 298, 1756

    Mayer , L., Quinn , T., Wadsley , J., & Stadel , J. 2002, Science, 298, 1756

    2002

  94. [102]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor , M., Pepe , F., Queloz , D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  95. [103]

    2024, The LIFE Target Star Database LIFETD

    Menti , F., Quanz , S., Alei , E., et al. 2024, The LIFE Target Star Database LIFETD

    2024

  96. [104]

    2022, , 665, A73

    Mesa , D., Bonavita , M., Benatti , S., et al. 2022, , 665, A73

    2022

  97. [105]

    2023, , 672, A93

    Mesa , D., Gratton , R., Kervella , P., et al. 2023, , 672, A93

    2023

  98. [106]

    2015, , 576, A121

    Mesa , D., Gratton , R., Zurlo , A., et al. 2015, , 576, A121

    2015

  99. [107]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.06072

    Meunier , N. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.06072

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    R., Amara , A., Reggiani , M., & Quanz , S

    Meyer , M. R., Amara , A., Reggiani , M., & Quanz , S. P. 2018, , 612, L3

    2018

  101. [109]

    2009, , 501, 1139

    Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., & Benz , W. 2009, , 501, 1139

    2009

  102. [110]

    2012, , 547, A111

    Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., Klahr , H., & Henning , T. 2012, , 547, A111

    2012

  103. [111]

    D., & Molli \`e re , P

    Mordasini , C., Marleau , G. D., & Molli \`e re , P. 2017, , 608, A72

    2017

  104. [112]

    & Medicine

    National Academies of Sciences , E. & Medicine. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s

    2021

  105. [113]

    2019, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol

    Nielsen , E., De Rosa , R., Macintosh , B., et al. 2019, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol. 51, AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, 100.02

    2019

  106. [114]

    L., De Rosa , R

    Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., Wang , J. J., et al. 2020, , 159, 71

    2020

  107. [115]

    M., et al

    Nowak , M., Lacour , S., Lagrange , A. M., et al. 2020, , 642, L2

    2020

  108. [116]

    L., Komossa , S., Kollatschny , W., et al

    Parker , M. L., Komossa , S., Kollatschny , W., et al. 2016, , 461, 1927

    2016

  109. [117]

    2021, , 645, A96

    Pepe , F., Cristiani , S., Rebolo , R., et al. 2021, , 645, A96

    2021

  110. [118]

    2002, The Messenger, 110, 9

    Pepe , F., Mayor , M., Rupprecht , G., et al. 2002, The Messenger, 110, 9

    2002

  111. [119]

    2018, The Exoplanet Handbook

    Perryman , M. 2018, The Exoplanet Handbook

    2018

  112. [120]

    Perryman , M. A. C., Lindegren , L., Kovalevsky , J., et al. 1997, , 323, L49

    1997

  113. [121]

    W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al

    Phillips, M. W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A38

    2020

  114. [122]

    B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al

    Pollack , J. B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al. 1996, , 124, 62

    1996

  115. [123]

    P., Crossfield , I., Meyer , M

    Quanz , S. P., Crossfield , I., Meyer , M. R., Schmalzl , E., & Held , J. 2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 279

    2015

  116. [124]

    P., Kammerer , J., Defr \`e re , D., et al

    Quanz , S. P., Kammerer , J., Defr \`e re , D., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10701, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VI, ed. M. J. Creech-Eakman , P. G. Tuthill , & A. M \'e rand , 107011I

    2018

  117. [125]

    P., Ottiger , M., Fontanet , E., et al

    Quanz , S. P., Ottiger , M., Fontanet , E., et al. 2022, , 664, A21

    2022

  118. [126]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A155

    2023

  119. [127]

    M., et al

    Rameau , J., Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., et al. 2013, , 553, A60

    2013

  120. [128]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  121. [129]

    J., Kelly , D., & Horner , S

    Rieke , M. J., Kelly , D., & Horner , S. 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5904, Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI, ed. J. B. Heaney & L. G. Burriesci , 1--8

    2005

  122. [130]

    2023, , 135, 048001

    Rigby , J., Perrin , M., McElwain , M., et al. 2023, , 135, 048001

    2023

  123. [131]

    2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Rousset , G., Lacombe , F., Puget , P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4839, Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, ed. P. L. Wizinowich & D. Bonaccini , 140--149

    2003

  124. [132]

    B., de El \' a , G

    S \'a nchez , M. B., de El \' a , G. C., & Darriba , L. A. 2018, , 481, 1281

    2018

  125. [133]

    F., Lovis , C., Delisle , J.-B., et al

    Sartori , L. F., Lovis , C., Delisle , J.-B., et al. 2023, , 670, A42

    2023

  126. [134]

    M., Cifuentes , C., et al

    Schweitzer , A., Passegger , V. M., Cifuentes , C., et al. 2019, , 625, A68

    2019

  127. [135]

    2005, , 618, L161

    Soummer , R. 2005, , 618, L161

    2005

  128. [136]

    2012, , 755, L28

    Soummer , R., Pueyo , L., & Larkin , J. 2012, , 755, L28

    2012

  129. [137]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Paegert , M., et al. 2019, , 158, 138

    2019

  130. [138]

    J., Quanz , S

    Stolker , T., Bonse , M. J., Quanz , S. P., et al. 2019, , 621, A59

    2019

  131. [139]

    P., Todorov , K

    Stolker , T., Quanz , S. P., Todorov , K. O., et al. 2020, , 635, A182

    2020

  132. [140]

    & Meyer , M

    Susemiehl , N. & Meyer , M. R. 2022, , 657, A48

    2022

  133. [141]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219

    The LUVOIR Team . 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219

    2019 arXiv

  134. [142]

    W., Stark , C

    Tuchow , N. W., Stark , C. C., & Mamajek , E. 2024, , 167, 139

    2024

  135. [143]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 132

    van Boekel, R., Henning, T., Menu, J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 132

    2017

  136. [144]

    2007, Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data , Vol

    van Leeuwen , F. 2007, Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data , Vol. 350

    2007

  137. [145]

    2020, vlt-sphere: Automatic VLT/SPHERE data reduction and analysis , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.002

    Vigan , A. 2020, vlt-sphere: Automatic VLT/SPHERE data reduction and analysis , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.002

    2020

  138. [146]

    2021, , 651, A72

    Vigan , A., Fontanive , C., Meyer , M., et al. 2021, , 651, A72

    2021

  139. [147]

    2010, , 407, 71

    Vigan , A., Moutou , C., Langlois , M., et al. 2010, , 407, 71

    2010

  140. [148]

    S., Allen , S

    Vogt , S. S., Allen , S. L., Bigelow , B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine , 362

    1994

  141. [149]

    Vorobyov , E. I. 2013, , 552, A129

    2013

  142. [150]

    J., Graham , J

    Wang , J. J., Graham , J. R., Dawson , R., et al. 2018, , 156, 192

    2018

  143. [151]

    Whitmire , D. P. & Reynolds , R. T. 1996, in Circumstellar Habitable Zones, ed. L. R. Doyle , 117

    1996

  144. [152]

    2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Wildi , F., Blind , N., Reshetov , V., et al. 2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10400, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. S. Shaklan , 1040018

    2017

  145. [153]

    G., Charbonneau , D., Henry , T

    Winters , J. G., Charbonneau , D., Henry , T. J., et al. 2021, , 161, 63

    2021

  146. [154]

    G., Henry, T

    Winters, J. G., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 216

    2019

  147. [155]

    A., Butler, R

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Butler, R. P., Tinney, C. G., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 28

    2016

  148. [156]

    L., Mann , A

    Wood , M. L., Mann , A. W., & Kraus , A. L. 2021, , 162, 128

    2021

  149. [157]

    S., Rieke , G

    Wright , G. S., Rieke , G. H., Glasse , A., et al. 2023, , 135, 048003

    2023

  150. [158]

    W., Petigura , E

    Yee , S. W., Petigura , E. A., & von Braun , K. 2017, , 836, 77

    2017

  151. [159]

    S., de El \' a , G

    Zain , P. S., de El \' a , G. C., Ronco , M. P., & Guilera , O. M. 2018, , 609, A76

    2018

  152. [160]

    & K \"u rster , M

    Zechmeister , M. & K \"u rster , M. 2009, , 496, 577

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.