Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Lessons learned from the detection of wide companions by radial velocity and astrometry

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the disputed orbital solutions for wide companions are explained by differences in data, conventions, and sampling rather than by a flawed astrometric method, and that the F19/F23 and orvara pipelines are physically…

desk verdict A solid reanalysis with a genuine out-of-sample check, but the 'methodology vs data' conclusion is broader than the evidence; referee it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14542 v2 pith:A7GHIDDO submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Fabo Feng , Guang-Yao Xiao , Hugh R. A. Jones , James S. Jenkins , Pablo Pena , Qinghui Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords radialvelocityastrometrywide-orbitcompanionsorbitalfittingHipparcos-GaiaparallaxmodelingposteriorsamplingepsIndAb
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

Disagreements between published orbital solutions for wide-orbit giant planets have been taken as evidence that one fitting pipeline is unreliable. This paper argues the opposite: the disputed solutions differ mainly because the studies used different radial-velocity datasets, different orbital conventions, different amounts of posterior sampling, and different assumptions about additional companions, not because the underlying astrometric methods are physically different. It demonstrates that the F19/F23 approach of directly modeling Hipparcos and Gaia catalog data and the orvara approach based on calibrated proper motions are equivalent in physical content, differing only in parameterization. The reanalysis of nine systems, with HD 28185 as the worked example, is meant to show that once data and conventions are aligned the methods converge. If the paper is right, previously reported conflicts do not undermine the astrometry-plus-RV route to detecting and characterizing long-period planets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the F19/F23 astrometric model: it fits barycentric motion (reference position and proper motion) plus reflex-motion terms, astrometric jitter, and catalog offsets directly to Hipparcos and Gaia catalog data, and in the F23 version fits Hipparcos plus Gaia DR2 and DR3 simultaneously with parallax contributions to GOST-generated abscissae. Its equivalence to orvara rests on the identity $\hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{HG} \equiv (\boldsymbol{r}_G - \boldsymbol{r}_H)/\Delta T = \boldsymbol{\mu}_b + \boldsymbol{\mu}_{HG}$, which shows that a position-based fit and a proper-motion-based fit contain the same physical information. The second key mechanism is the fitted parallax offset $\Delta\varpi$ in the HD 28185 model, which absorbs the annual astrometric signal of the inner planet and converts it into a concrete, testable contribution to the Hipparcos versus Gaia parallax difference. Together these mechanisms let the paper separate genuine physical signals from apparent disagreements caused by conventions, data selection, sampling, and companion modeling.

What would settle it

Fit the HD 28185 system with the F23 model but replace the constant parallax offset $\Delta\varpi$ by an explicit Keplerian orbit for the inner planet evaluated at the individual Hipparcos epoch abscissae and Gaia scan times, keeping the same RV data. If the log-likelihood gain of 8.4 relative to the model without the inner planet vanishes, or if the fitted $\Delta\varpi$ goes to zero while the orbit parameters stay fixed, the claim that the inner planet's annual signal acts as a measurable parallax-like bias would be falsified. A second test: run F23 and orvara on the same synthetic wide-companion dataset with known injected parameters and identical conventions; disagreement beyond the quoted uncertainties would contradict the 'solely parameterization' equivalence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the discrepancies between its earlier wide-companion solutions and those of a competing analysis are primarily data-related rather than methodology-related. Concretely, the authors assert that the difference between F19 and orvara lies solely in the parameterization and not in the physical content: both solve for the same reflex motion of the host star, one by fitting Hipparcos/Gaia catalog positions and proper motions together with astrometric jitter and offsets, the other by fitting the calibrated Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion accelerations, with the identity $\hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{HG} = \boldsymbol{\mu}_b + \boldsymbol{\mu}_{HG}$ connecting the two. For HD 28185 they show that including the astrometric signal of the year-long inner planet, modeled through a fitted parallax-like offset, improves the fit by a log-likelihood of 8.4 (ΔBIC = 12) and resolves the roughly 2–3σ Hipparcos/Gaia parallax discrepancy, and that without this signal their solution matches the competing one. Across the other targets the disagreements are attributed to four named causes: a 180-degree convention difference in the longitude of ascending node, incomplete sampling of the two inclination modes, unmodeled inner companions, and radial-velocity baselines too short to cover the orbital turn-over of decades-long companions. The eps Ind A b case is used to show that with a roughly 29-year RV baseline, F23 and orvara produce consistent orbits and a position matching the JWST/MIRI image.

Load-bearing premise

The worked example for HD 28185 assumes that the astrometric wobble from the inner, roughly one-year planet can be adequately captured by a single constant offset in parallax across the combined Hipparcos and Gaia data; if that shortcut is wrong, the claimed improvement in fit and the explanation of the parallax discrepancy would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The F19/F23 pipeline can be used with confidence on the same data as orvara; reported differences for HD 28185, HD 38529, 14 Her, GJ 229, HD 62364, HD 211847, GJ 680, and HD 111031 are not signs of a methodological flaw.
  • For long-period companions, a radial-velocity baseline that does not cover the orbital turn-over leaves a mass-period degeneracy; adding relative astrometry from imaging or extending the baseline is required to break it.
  • Multi-modal inclination posteriors are expected for astrometric orbits, so convergence diagnostics like $\hat{R}<1.1$ alone do not guarantee that all modes were found; multiple samplers or chains with different starting points are needed.
  • Year-long inner companions can bias parallax measurements at the level of the Hipparcos/Gaia discrepancies, so multi-companion fits should model their astrometric signal rather than averaging it away.
  • The longitude of ascending node reported by different studies can differ by 180 degrees purely from convention, so apparent node discrepancies should be checked against the adopted convention before being interpreted physically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the HD 28185 mechanism is general, stars with inner planets on roughly one-year orbits should show systematic Hipparcos-versus-Gaia parallax offsets of order 0.1–0.4 mas; Gaia DR4 epoch astrometry could test this by fitting the annual signal explicitly instead of as a constant offset.
  • The equivalence between position-based and proper-motion-based astrometric fits suggests a practical diagnostic: whenever two pipelines disagree on the same epochs and weights, the disagreement is a flag for a data or sampling problem, not a reason to discard one method.
  • The eps Ind A b result implies that some previously published shorter-period solutions for other long-period companions may be artifacts of short RV baselines, and that reanalysis with a longer baseline or imaging constraints could shift their periods and masses upward.
  • Some RV-plus-astrometry-only classifications of wide companions as brown dwarfs may need revisiting with relative astrometry, since without it the mass-period degeneracy allows low-mass stellar companions to be underestimated.
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 manuscript reanalyzes a set of wide-orbit systems (HD 28185, GJ 229, HD 62364, HD 38529, 14 Her, eps Ind A, HD 211847, HD 111031, and GJ 680) to address discrepancies between the F19/F22/F23 astrometry-plus-RV pipeline and the orvara/HGCA-based analyses reported by Venner et al. (2024). It argues that the F19 and orvara methods are equivalent (Section 2), that the HD 28185 discrepancy is driven by RV dataset differences and by the astrometric signal of the inner year-long companion (Section 3), and that other discrepancies arise from conventions, posterior sampling, inner companions, and RV baseline coverage (Sections 4 and 5). It also presents an out-of-sample prediction for eps Ind A b's position that is matched by JWST/MIRI imaging (Section 5).

Significance. The paper provides a useful collection of case studies and a clear list of pitfalls for wide-orbit fitting, and it demonstrates that several apparent F22 discrepancies disappear when the same data and conventions are used. The eps Ind A b prediction without imaging data is a genuine, falsifiable out-of-sample test, and the many side-by-side F23/orvara comparisons on real targets are a practical strength. However, the central claim that discrepancies are 'primarily data-related rather than methodology-related' is not fully established: the Section 2 equivalence argument is incomplete, and the paper's own list of causes includes methodological items such as conventions and posterior sampling. A controlled injection test or a more carefully qualified claim would be needed to justify the headline.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] The equality hat-mu_HG = mu_b + mu_HG shows that the mean proper motion modeled by F19 matches the HGCA definition, but it does not establish that the two fitting pipelines are inferentially equivalent. F19/F23 fit catalog positions and proper motions with free astrometric jitter, barycentric offsets, and Gaia error-inflation factors (Table 1), while orvara uses calibrated HGCA proper motions without equivalent freedom; F23 additionally fits GOST epoch data and multiple Gaia releases. Free nuisance parameters can absorb real astrometric signal, so the statement that 'the difference between F19 and orvara lies solely in the parameterization and not in the physical content' is not supported by the derivation alone. The real-data agreements in Sections 4-5 are suggestive but are not a controlled test; the paper should either soften this claim or add a blind injected-signal comparison of the two pipelines on identical data.
  2. [Abstract / Section 6] The abstract's claim that 'the discrepancies are primarily data-related rather than methodology-related' is in tension with the manuscript's own list of causes, which includes 'clear definitions of conventions' and 'efficient posterior sampling' (abstract, and the first two reasons listed in Section 6). Conventions and posterior sampling are methodological. The categorization should be clarified, or the claim should be qualified so that the headline matches the evidence presented in the paper.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1 and Figs. 3-4] The claim that the inner companion of HD 28185 induces a 'significant parallax offset' and improves the fit by Delta log-likelihood 8.4 (Delta BIC 12) depends on modeling the year-long companion's astrometric signal as a constant parallax-like offset Delta-vari in the combined Hipparcos/Gaia data. Since the 385.9-day orbital period is not exactly commensurate with the annual parallax cycle, this is an approximation, and the paper does not verify its adequacy (for example, by injecting a synthetic signal at the fitted orbit and checking recovery). Given that Delta-vari is already a fitted parameter and that jitter and error-inflation freedom are present, the BIC improvement alone is not a fully robust demonstration; this point should be checked, or the wording of the 'importance of parallax modeling' lesson should be moderated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption states that the vectors AD and AF 'denote the observed proper motions at the Gaia and Hipparcos reference epochs,' but AF is labeled r_H,o, which is a reference position; it should presumably be mu_H,o.
  2. [Section 4.4] The text says 'we added 51 HARPS RVs from the ESO archive' without giving the program IDs or a precise data source; please provide this information for reproducibility.
  3. [Section 5, paragraph 2] The sentence 'The dataset of HARPSpost2 were released by Barbieri (2023)' has a subject-verb agreement error and should read 'The dataset ... was released.'
  4. [Figure 8 caption] The phrase 'The shade regions of Panel (a)' should be 'The shaded regions of Panel (a)'.
  5. [Section 6, final paragraph] The sentence 'First, the use different conventions' should read 'First, the use of different conventions.'
  6. [References] The Venner et al. (2024) bibliography entry lacks a volume and page range; please complete the reference.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in the Section 2 equivalence claim; the data-related conclusion is otherwise supported by external orvara comparisons and out-of-sample MIRI data.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eq. (4)]
    "By setting 𝝁𝐻𝐺 ≡ (𝒓𝑟𝐺 − 𝒓𝑟𝐻)/Δ𝑇, we obtain: ˆ𝝁𝐻𝐺 = 𝝁𝑏 + 𝝁𝐻𝐺 (4), matching the model for observed mean proper motion 𝜇𝐻𝐺,𝑜 as defined by Brandt et al. (2021a). ... Thus, the difference between F19 and orvara lies solely in the parameterization and not in the physical content."

    The equality between F19's predicted mean proper motion and orvara's is produced by defining 𝝁𝐻𝐺 as the reflex-motion position difference divided by Δ𝑇, i.e., the same composite quantity orvara uses. The match in Eq. (4) therefore holds by construction and cannot by itself establish that the two pipelines have identical physical content, especially since F19/F23 add free jitter and barycentric offsets that orvara does not. The conclusion that the difference 'lies solely in parameterization' is asserted from a definition rather than derived from independent content. However, the paper's later direct comparisons of F23 and orvara on real targets, and the eps Ind A b MIRI prediction, provide independent support, so this step is only mildly circular.

full rationale

I find no significant circularity overall. The paper's central claim that the discrepancies are 'primarily data-related rather than methodology-related' is supported by reanalyzing the targets with both the authors' F23 pipeline and the independent orvara code, which is an external benchmark written by other groups. The eps Ind A b case is a genuine out-of-sample test: Solution A, made without direct-imaging data, predicts a location that is then compared with the observed JWST/MIRI position. The HD 28185 data-related conclusion is also load-bearingly supported by Model 2, which excludes the inner companion's astrometric signal and reproduces V24's outer orbit when the same RV baseline is used; thus it does not depend on the interpretation of the fitted Δϖ offset. The only constructed step is Section 2's equivalence argument: Eq. (4) matches orvara's mean-proper-motion model by defining 𝝁𝐻𝐺 in the F19 model to be exactly the position-difference quantity orvara uses. That makes the identity true by definition and not a proof of full physical equivalence, but the paper does not rely solely on this identity — it also shows consistent F23/orvara solutions for multiple systems. Self-citations to Feng et al. (2019a, 2019b, 2022, 2023) are used for conventions and methodology, but they are checked against external code and data rather than being the sole justification. A blind injected-signal comparison would strengthen the equivalence claim, but its absence is a methodological limitation, not circularity. Score 2 reflects the mild definitional step in Section 2, while the central conclusions retain independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are standard Keplerian reflex-motion modeling, the adequacy of the F23 jitter/offset parameterization, and two specific modeling choices: the parallax-offset representation of the HD 28185 inner companion and the reliability of the extended eps Ind A RV baseline.

free parameters (5)
  • Parallax offset Delta-vari (HD 28185) = 0.280+0.090 mas (Model 1)
    Fitted offset that the paper attributes to the inner companion's astrometric signal; load-bearing for the HD 28185 worked example.
  • Hipparcos astrometric jitter J_hip = 2.01+0.52-0.54 mas
    Fitted to absorb Hipparcos catalog systematics; part of the F23 method.
  • Gaia error inflation factor S_gaia = 1.079+0.076-0.054 (Model 1)
    Fitted multiplier on Gaia uncertainties; affects model comparison and uncertainty estimates.
  • Barycentric offsets and proper-motion offsets = per system
    Fitted offsets (Delta-alpha*, Delta-delta, Delta-mu-alpha*, Delta-mu-delta) for each target to account for catalog biases.
  • Instrumental RV zero-points and jitters = per instrument per system
    Standard fitted nuisance parameters for each radial velocity dataset; numerous but not central to the scientific claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The astrometric signature of a companion is fully described by stellar reflex motion sharing the same Keplerian parameters as the RV signal.
    Used throughout the F19/F23 and orvara models; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption Hipparcos and Gaia catalog astrometry are unbiased except for the fitted offsets, jitter, and error inflation factors.
    The F23 method assumes residual systematics can be absorbed by these parameters; Section 2 and Table 1.
  • ad hoc to paper A year-long inner companion's astrometric effect can be represented as a constant parallax-like offset in the combined Hipparcos/Gaia data.
    The HD 28185 conclusion relies on this modeling choice; the fitted Delta-vari offset is interpreted as the inner companion's contribution to the parallax discrepancy.
  • domain assumption The HARPSpost2 and perspective-corrected LC/VLC RV data accurately extend the eps Ind A baseline to about 29 years.
    The eps Ind A b period and mass shift depend on these data being correct; see Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lessons learned from the detection of wide companions by radial velocity and astrometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7GHIDDO

@misc{pith2026241214542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lessons learned from the detection of wide companions by radial velocity and astrometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7GHIDDO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14542}
}
read the original abstract

The detection and constraint of the orbits of long-period giant planets is essential for enabling their further study through direct imaging. Recently, it has been highlighted that there are discrepancies between different orbital fitting solutions. We address these concerns by reanalyzing the data for HD 28185, GJ 229, HD 62364, HD 38529, 14 Her, eps Ind A, HD 211847, HD 111031, and GJ 680, offering explanations for these discrepancies. Based on the comparison between our direct modeling of the astrometric catalog data and the orvara code, we find the discrepancies are primarily data-related rather than methodology-related. Our re-analysis of HD 28185 highlights many of the data-related issues and particularly the importance of parallax modeling for year-long companions. The case of eps Ind A b is instructive to emphasize the value of an extended RV baseline for accurately determining orbits of long period companions. Our orbital solutions highlight other causes for discrepancies between solutions including the combination of absolute and relative astrometry, clear definitions of conventions, and efficient posterior sampling for the detection of wide-orbit giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic view of the two orbital solutions in proper motion space. The black and blue circles with directed arrows represent two equivalent orbital solutions. Grey and green vectors denote the proper motion vectors associated with stellar reflex motion, constrained by the observed proper motion vectors shown in orange. Point 𝐴 marks the origin of the coordinate system, while 𝐵 and 𝐶 represent the barycenters for th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RV+HG23 fits to HD 28185 RVs from Model 1. Panel (a) shows the best-fit Keplerian orbit (thick black line) to the RV measurements and Panel (b) show their residuals. Panel (c) shows the phase-folded orbit of the inner planet HD 28185 b, with the signal of the outer planet HD 28185 c being subtracted. Likewise, Panel (d) shows the phase-folded orbit of HD 28185 c after correcting the signal of HD 28185 b. 4.2 Insuffi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing the five-parameter astrometry of the model 1 prediction to GDR2 and GDR3 astrometry. The barycentric motion of the HD 28185 system has been subtracted for both catalog Gaia data (square) and the predictions (boxplot). The inner thick line, edge of box, and whisker respectively denote the median, 1 𝜎 uncertainty and 3 𝜎 uncertainty. The uncertainty is the product of the observed uncertainty and the error in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing the five-parameter astrometry of the model 2 prediction to GDR2 and GDR3 astrometry. Symbols are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginalized posteriors of inclination 𝐼, longitude of ascending node Ω and mass 𝑚 for HD 38529 c using orvara HGCA DR2 (gray; Brandt 2018) and EDR3 (blue; Brandt 2021), respectively. Their median and 1𝜎 confidence intervals are shown with the corresponding colors in e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginalized posteriors of inclination 𝐼 and longitude of ascending node Ω for 14 Her b and c using orvara (EDR3 version). The posteriors are separately displayed based on the inclination of 14 Her b, i.e., 𝐼b < 90◦ (blue) and 𝐼b > 90◦ (gray). The results of Bardalez G…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RV+HG23 fits to the RVs, Hipparcos, and Gaia astrometry of eps Ind A (Solution B). Panel (a) shows the RV curve, with the best-fit Keplerian orbit indicated by the thick black line. Residuals (O-C) between the observed RVs and the model are depicted below. Panel (b) pl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the position of 𝜖 Ind A b as predicted by F23 with a 24.8-year RV baseline, Solution A, and Solution B, with the observed position from JWST/MIRI. The shade regions of Panel (a) denote the predicted location of the planet (1𝜎 uncertainty) on July 3, 2023.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. JWST Coronagraphic Images of 14 Her c: a Cold Giant Planet in a Dynamically Hot, Multi-planet System

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JWST/NIRCam imaging detects 14 Her c at 5.7 sigma and revises the system's orbits, supporting a dynamically hot architecture with a possible cold cloudy atmosphere.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    arXiv:2312.06586

    Barbieri M., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231206586B p. arXiv:2312.06586

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.06586 2023

  2. [2]

    C., Faherty J

    Bardalez Gagliuffi D. C., Faherty J. K., Li Y., Brandt T. D., Williams L., Brandt G. M., Gelino C. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac382c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922L..43B 922, L43

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac382c 2021

  3. [3]

    F., McArthur B

    Benedict G. F., McArthur B. E., Bean J. L., Barnes R., Harrison T. E., Hatzes A., Martioli E., Nelan E. P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.1844B 139, 1844

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1844 2010

  4. [4]

    F., McArthur B

    Benedict G. F., McArthur B. E., Nelan E. P., Wittenmyer R., Barnes R., Smotherman H., Horner J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6ac8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..295B 163, 295

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6ac8 2022

  5. [5]

    F., McArthur B

    Benedict G. F., McArthur B. E., Nelan E. P., Bean J. L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acd93a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166...27B 166, 27

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd93a 2023

  6. [6]

    A., Gunnels S

    Bernstein R., Shectman S. A., Gunnels S. M., Mochnacki S., Athey A. E., 2003, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. pp 1694--1704, @doi 10.1117/12.461502

    doi:10.1117/12.461502 2003

  7. [7]

    D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...31B 239, 31

    Brandt T. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...31B 239, 31

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 2018

  8. [8]

    D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...42B 254, 42

    Brandt T. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...42B 254, 42

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c 2021

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    D., Dupuy T

    Brandt T. D., Dupuy T. J., Bowler B. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab04a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..140B 158, 140

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Dupuy T

    Brandt T. D., Dupuy T. J., Bowler B. P., Bardalez Gagliuffi D. C., Faherty J., Brandt G. M., Michalik D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abb45e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..196B 160, 196

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Dupuy T

    Brandt T. D., Dupuy T. J., Li Y., Brandt G. M., Zeng Y., Michalik D., Bardalez Gagliuffi D. C., Raposo-Pulido V., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac042e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..186B 162, 186

    doi

  4. [12]

    M., Michalik D., Brandt T

    Brandt G. M., Michalik D., Brandt T. D., Li Y., Dupuy T. J., Zeng Y., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac12d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..230B 162, 230

    doi

  5. [13]

    M., et al., 2021c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..301B 162, 301

    Brandt G. M., et al., 2021c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..301B 162, 301

    doi

  6. [14]

    D., Shectman S

    Crane J. D., Shectman S. A., Butler R. P., Thompson I. B., Birk C., Jones P., Burley G. S., 2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773553, @doi 10.1117/12.857792

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    Currie T., et al., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abo6192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...380..198C 380, 198

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd6ed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..123D 161, 123

    Dalba P. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd6ed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..123D 161, 123

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    F., eds, Vol

    Dekker H., D'Odorico S., Kaufer A., Delabre B., Kotzlowski H., 2000, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F., eds, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors. pp 534--545, @doi 10.1117/12.395512

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    arXiv:2407.16746

    El Morsy M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240716746E p. arXiv:2407.16746

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    u rster M., Els S., Hatzes A. P., Cochran W. D., Dennerl K., D \

    Endl M., K \"u rster M., Els S., Hatzes A. P., Cochran W. D., Dennerl K., D \"o bereiner S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...392..671E 392, 671

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    Feng F., Lisogorskyi M., Jones H. R. A., Kopeikin S. M., Butler R. P., Anglada-Escud \' e G., Boss A. P., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab40b6 , 244, 39

    doi

  13. [21]

    Feng F., Anglada-Escud \'e G., Tuomi M., Jones H. R. A., Chanam \'e J., Butler P. R., Janson M., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.5002F 490, 5002

    doi

  14. [22]

    Feng F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5e7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..246...11F 246, 11

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Feng F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...21F 262, 21

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Vogt S

    Feng F., Butler R. P., Vogt S. S., Holden B., Rui Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..607F 525, 607

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Franson K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950L..19F 950, L19

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Frensch Y. G. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A.173F 675, A173

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    B., 1992, Statistical science, pp 457--472

    Gelman A., Rubin D. B., 1992, Statistical science, pp 457--472

    1992

  20. [28]

    J., Crepp J

    Gonzales E. J., Crepp J. R., Bechter E. B., Wood C. M., Johnson J. A., Montet B. T., Isaacson H., Howard A. W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab71fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...27G 893, 27

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    O., Corbally C

    Gray R. O., Corbally C. J., Garrison R. F., McFadden M. T., Bubar E. J., McGahee C. E., O'Donoghue A. A., Knox E. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..161G 132, 161

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    I., Mason B

    Hartkopf W. I., Mason B. D., Worley C. E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.3472H 122, 3472

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    Janson M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15285.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..377J 399, 377

    2009

  24. [32]

    Jin S., Jiang W., Wu D.-H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..274...10J 274, 10

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Kervella P., Arenou F., Mignard F., Th \'e venin F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..72K 623, A72

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Kervella P., Arenou F., Th \'e venin F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...657A...7K 657, A7

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    arXiv:2409.16992

    Kiefer F., Lagrange A.-M., Rubini P., Philipot F., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240916992K p. arXiv:2409.16992

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Li Y., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac27ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..266L 162, 266

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07837-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.633..789M 633, 789

    Matthews E. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07837-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.633..789M 633, 789

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Mawet D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaef8a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157...33M 157, 33

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Mesa D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A..93M 672, A93

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    P., L \'o pez-Morales M., Shectman S

    Minniti D., Butler R. P., L \'o pez-Morales M., Shectman S. A., Adams F. C., Arriagada P., Boss A. P., Chambers J. E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1424M 693, 1424

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Moutou C., Vigan A., Mesa D., Desidera S., Th \'e bault P., Zurlo A., Salter G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A..87M 602, A87

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Pathak P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...652A.121P 652, A121

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Pepe F., et al., 2000, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors. pp 582--592, @doi 10.1117/12.395516

    2000 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Rubini P., Kiefer F., Chomez A., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..65P 670, A65

    Philipot F., Lagrange A. M., Rubini P., Kiefer F., Chomez A., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..65P 670, A65

    doi

  37. [45]

    M., Kiefer F., Rubini P., Delorme P., Chomez A., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.107P 678, A107

    Philipot F., Lagrange A. M., Kiefer F., Rubini P., Delorme P., Chomez A., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.107P 678, A107

    doi

  38. [46]

    W., et al., 1998, in Stepp L

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

    1998 doi

  39. [47]

    H., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/682252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127..584R 127, 584

    Rieke G. H., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/682252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127..584R 127, 584

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255....8R 255, 8

    Rosenthal L. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255....8R 255, 8

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Sahlmann J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...525A..95S 525, A95

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Mayor M., Naef D., Pepe F., Queloz D., Udry S., Burnet M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...379..999S 379, 999

    Santos N. C., Mayor M., Naef D., Pepe F., Queloz D., Udry S., Burnet M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...379..999S 379, 999

    2001 doi

  43. [51]

    Snellen I. A. G., Brown A. G. A., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0561-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..883S 2, 883

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    G., Collins K

    Stassun K. G., Collins K. A., Gaudi B. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153..136S 153, 136

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Thompson W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..164T 166, 164

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    G., 1998, in D'Odorico S., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tull R. G., 1998, in D'Odorico S., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 3355, Optical Astronomical Instrumentation. pp 387--398, @doi 10.1117/12.316774

    1998 doi

  47. [55]

    Udry S., Mayor M., Queloz D., Naef D., Santos N., 2000, in Bergeron J., Renzini A., eds, From Extrasolar Planets to Cosmology: The VLT Opening Symposium. p. 571, @doi 10.1007/10720961\_83

    2000 doi

  48. [56]

    X., Brandt T

    Venner A., An Q., Huang C. X., Brandt T. D., Wittenmyer R. A., Vanderburg A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp.2278V

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Viswanath G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A..89V 651, A89

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Farr W

    Vousden W. D., Farr W. M., Mandel I., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.1919V 455, 1919

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Ward-Duong K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2618W 449, 2618

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    A., Endl M., Cochran W

    Wittenmyer R. A., Endl M., Cochran W. D., Levison H. F., Henry G. W., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182...97W 182, 97

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    Xiao G.-Y., et al., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/accb7e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23e5022X 23, 055022

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Xiao G.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2858X 534, 2858

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Kennedy G

    Xuan J. W., Kennedy G. M., Wyatt M. C., Yelverton B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5059X 499, 5059

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.634.1070X 634, 1070

    Xuan J. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.634.1070X 634, 1070

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Zechmeister M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...552A..78Z 552, A78

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.