pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.11202 · v1 · pith:W27EKJA3new · submitted 2026-03-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

Cold giant discoveries from a joint radial-velocity and astrometry framework

Pablo A. Pe\~na , James S. Jenkins , Fabo Feng , Douglas R. Alves , Florence de Almeida , Fr\'ed\'eric Dux , Guang-Yao Xiao , Joanne M. Rojas M.
show 6 more authors
Jose I. Vines Rafael I. Rubenstein R. Ram\'irez Reyes Suman Saha Connor J. Cheverall Mat\'ias R. D\'iaz
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 11:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanetscold giantsradial velocityastrometryHipparcosGaiaplanetary detectionCHEPS survey
0
0 comments X

The pith

Joint radial-velocity and astrometry analysis detects five new cold giant planets and tightens their orbital parameters by factors of 3 to 10.

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

The paper extends the CHEPS radial-velocity survey by jointly modeling up to 16 years of RV data with absolute astrometry from Hipparcos and Gaia for five metal-rich FGK stars. This combined fit detects two previously known planets and five new ones, including one warm Jupiter and four longer-period Jupiter analogues. Adding the astrometric measurements sharply reduces uncertainties in period and mass while raising the Bayes factor for the planetary models by as much as 60. A reader would care because the method turns minimum masses into true masses and supplies a concrete route to characterize the cold-giant population that shapes outer planetary systems.

Core claim

Upgrading the EMPEROR framework to include astrometric differencing allows simultaneous Bayesian fitting of long-baseline RVs and absolute astrometry; model comparison then shows that the added astrometric data improves period and mass precisions by factors of 3–10, raises detection Bayes factors by up to 60, and converts minimum masses into true masses for the newly discovered cold giants around HIP 8923, HIP 10090, HIP 39330 and HIP 98599.

What carries the argument

Joint Keplerian modeling of radial velocities and absolute astrometry via astrometric differencing inside the upgraded EMPEROR code, which simultaneously constrains inclination and breaks the sin-i degeneracy.

If this is right

  • Minimum masses from radial velocities are converted into true masses once astrometry supplies the inclination.
  • Detection significance rises markedly, with Bayes factors increasing by up to a factor of 60.
  • Period and mass uncertainties shrink by factors between 3 and 10, enabling reliable characterization of planets with periods of 7–14 years.
  • The approach scales to upcoming Gaia data releases for routine vetting of long-period RV candidates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Existing radial-velocity archives could be reprocessed with public astrometry to uncover additional long-period companions without new telescope time.
  • True-mass measurements for cold giants may help distinguish between core-accretion and disk-instability formation channels at wide separations.
  • The same joint framework could be tested on stars with both RV trends and Gaia proper-motion anomalies to confirm or refute planetary interpretations.

Load-bearing premise

The astrometric wobbles must be produced by exactly the same Keplerian orbits that explain the radial velocities, with no significant contamination from stellar activity, unseen companions or instrumental effects.

What would settle it

High-precision future astrometric positions or independent mass measurements that deviate from the predicted orbital solutions at the level reported in the joint fits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11202 by Connor J. Cheverall, Douglas R. Alves, Fabo Feng, Florence de Almeida, Fr\'ed\'eric Dux, Guang-Yao Xiao, James S. Jenkins, Joanne M. Rojas M., Jose I. Vines, Mat\'ias R. D\'iaz, Pablo A. Pe\~na, Rafael I. Rubenstein, R. Ram\'irez Reyes, Suman Saha.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: HIP 21850 correlogram. Each panel displays the pairwise relation between RVs, full-width half-maximum (FWHM), CCF bisector inverse slope (BIS), and formal RV uncertainty (RVe). Pearson correlation coef￾ficient is denoted by ρ, with the linear trend as a black line. W17 and F22, considering that with the addition of the CHEPS RV data, we extend the baseline from ∼6 000 d to 9 070 d. The RV part of the joint… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: HIP 21850 RVs as circles coloured per instrument with the 2K model imposed as a black line. At the bottom, RV residuals, and at the right of each plot, RV distribution histograms. 1.2 0.4 0.4 1.2 * [mas] 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 [ m a s ] (a) Barycentre Hipp IAD GOST model Hipp Data 0.3 0.6 0.9 * [mas] 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 [ m a s ] (b) Gaia GDR2 Model GDR3 Model GDR2 Data GDR3 Data 1990 1991 1992 1993 E… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HIP 21850 astrometry best-fit for the 2K model. Displaying (a) the best-fit astrometric orbit, (b) zoom-in for Gaia and GOST model, gray rectangle in panel (a), and (c) residuals for Hipparcos abscissa. spikes, and survives in between when moving onto 2K, and even when including astrometry to the fit. 4.2. HIP 8923 Also known as HD 11731, the GLS periodogram (see Fig.A.1) shows three highly significant pea… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: HIP 8923 RVs phase-folded at P = 5160+150 −240 d as circles coloured per instrument with the 1K model imposed as a black line. Bottom, RV residuals. Right, RVs histograms. 0.8 0.0 0.8 * [mas] 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 [ m a s ] (a) Barycentre Hipp IAD GOST model Hipp Data 1.0 0.5 0.0 * [mas] 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 [ m a s ] (b) Gaia GDR2 Model GDR3 Model GDR2 Data GDR3 Data 1990 1991 1992 1993 Epoch [year]… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HIP 8923 best-fit for the 1K model. Displaying for panel (a) the best-fit astrometric orbit, (b) zoom-in for Gaia and GOST model, gray rectangle in panel (a), and (c) residuals for Hipparcos abscissa. drives to a precise mass estimation m sin i1 = 1.53+0.12 −0.14 7→ M1 = 3.87−0.60 MJ , and m sin i2 = 0.39+0.02 −0.03 7→ M2 = 0.85+0.03 −0.12 MJ . Hipparcos relatively high proper motion (red ellipse in Fig.8)… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HIP 10090 RVs as circles coloured per instrument with the 2K model imposed as a black line. Bottom, RV residuals. Right of each plot, RVs histograms. 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 * [mas] 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 [ m a s ] (a) Barycentre Hipp IAD GOST model Hipp Data 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 * [mas] 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 [ m a s ] (b) Gaia GDR2 Model GDR3 Model GDR2 Data GDR3 Data 1990 1991 1992 1993 Epoch [year] 10 0 10 O - C … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HIP 10090 best-fit for the 2K model. Displaying for panel (a) the best-fit astrometric orbit, (b) zoom-in for Gaia and GOST model, gray rectangle in panel (a), and (c) residuals for Hipparcos abscissa. third and second highest RV-periodogram peaks at 403.8 d (possi￾bly corresponding to the yearly alias with P1) and 57.7 d, which subsequently disappear in the residuals of 1K and 2K. 4.5. HIP 98599 For HIP 9… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: HIP 98599 RVs phase-folded at P1 = 2656+40 −16 d as circles coloured per instrument with the 1K model imposed as a black line. Bottom, residuals. Right of each plot, RVs histograms. 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 * [mas] 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 [ m a s ] (a) Barycentre Hipp IAD GOST model Hipp Data 0.00 0.25 0.50 * [mas] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 [ m a s ] (b) Gaia GDR2 Model GDR3 Model GDR2 Data GDR3 Data 1991 19… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: HIP 98599 best-fit for the 1K model. Displaying for panel (a) the best-fit astrometric orbit, (b) zoom-in for Gaia and GOST model, gray rectangle in panel (a), and (c) residuals for Hipparcos abscissa. 5. Discussion The EMPEROR framework, with the addition of astrometric differ￾encing modelling (Feng et al. 2019, 2021) introduced in Section 2.1, proves to be a useful tool for identifying and characterisin… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: True mass vs semi-major axis of the confirmed exoplanet pop￾ulation from the NASA Exoplanet Archive (Christiansen et al. 2025), coloured by discovery method. The approximate sensitivity curve for GDR4 is shown in dashed red, assuming a Sun-like star at 20 pc and a 3σ detection criterion. CHEPS targets in this study are placed as solid black squares. Solar-System planets are placed as icons. 6. Conclusions… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The population of long-period giant planets shapes planetary system architectures and formation pathways, but these cold Jupiters remain relatively unexplored. Radial velocity (RV) surveys lose sensitivity at multi-AU separations, while transit surveys have poor detection probability at long periods. Absolute astrometry from the Hipparcos and Gaia missions offer an additional source for stellar motion that can break the orbital inclination degeneracy and strengthen detection confidence. This is especially timely ahead Gaia DR4/DR5, expected to enable routine astrometric vetting and true-mass measurements for long-period RV planets. Extending the Chile-Hertfordshire ExoPlanet Survey (CHEPS) by combining RVs spanning up to 16 years with absolute astrometry, we search for and characterise cold giants around metal-rich FGK stars. We upgrade the EMPEROR framework, incorporating astrometric differencing to jointly fit RVs and astrometry for five CHEPS targets, performing Bayesian model comparison and quantify the astrometric contribution. Our analysis characterises orbital parameters for two known planets in HIP 21850 and detects five new: a warm Jupiter--HIP 10090c, orbital period $P=321.8 \pm 0.5$ d and mass $M=0.85 \pm 0.08$ $M_J$, and four Jupiter analogues--HIP 8923b, with $P=14.1 \pm 0.06$ yr and $M=9.98\pm 0.47 M_J$, HIP 10090b with $P=8.1\pm 0.3$ yr and $M=3.87\pm 0.63$ $M_J$, HIP 39330b with $P=12.7\pm 0.7$ yr and $M=1.68\pm 0.15$ $M_J$, and HIP 98599b with $P=7.3\pm 0.1$ yr and $M=6.85\pm 0.16$ $M_J$. Adding astrometry reduces period and mass uncertainties by factors between 3 and 10 and increases the Bayes factor by up to 60. The synergy of long-baseline RVs and absolute astrometry provides a robust pathway to discover and characterise cold giant planets. Our results demonstrate that astrometry meaningfully improves detection confidence and converts minimum masses into true masses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the CHEPS RV survey by jointly fitting up to 16 years of radial-velocity data with Hipparcos/Gaia absolute astrometry for five metal-rich FGK stars. Using an upgraded EMPEROR framework with astrometric differencing, it reports orbital solutions for two known planets and five new cold giants (one warm Jupiter at P=321.8 d and four Jupiter analogues with P=7.3–14.1 yr), claiming that the addition of astrometry reduces period and mass uncertainties by factors of 3–10 and increases Bayes factors by up to 60.

Significance. If the joint modeling is shown to be robust, the work demonstrates a practical route to convert minimum masses to true masses and to strengthen detections of long-period giants ahead of Gaia DR4/DR5. The quantified improvement factors provide a concrete benchmark for future combined RV–astrometry analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and astrometric modeling section] Abstract and § on astrometric framework: the central claim that astrometry reduces period and mass uncertainties by factors of 3–10 rests on the assumption that the Hipparcos–Gaia baseline (~25 yr) does not absorb orbital curvature for the reported planets (P=7.3–14.1 yr). The description of “astrometric differencing” must be shown to implement a full joint Keplerian + linear proper-motion model on the position time series rather than a simple differencing step; otherwise part of the Keplerian signal is absorbed into the fitted proper motion and the quoted uncertainty shrinkage and Bayes-factor gains are overstated.
  2. [Results (model comparison)] Results section on model comparison: the reported Bayes-factor increases (up to 60) and the conversion of minimum to true masses are load-bearing for the synergy claim, yet the abstract provides no residual plots, covariance matrices, or explicit likelihood functions. Without these it is impossible to verify that the astrometric signals are produced by the same Keplerian orbits inferred from the RVs and are free from stellar activity or instrumental systematics at the level that would mimic the detections.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Ensure that all reported periods, masses, and uncertainties are presented with consistent significant figures and units across the abstract, tables, and text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below, clarifying the joint modeling approach and providing additional diagnostic information where appropriate. We have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the astrometric framework and model diagnostics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and astrometric modeling section] Abstract and § on astrometric framework: the central claim that astrometry reduces period and mass uncertainties by factors of 3–10 rests on the assumption that the Hipparcos–Gaia baseline (~25 yr) does not absorb orbital curvature for the reported planets (P=7.3–14.1 yr). The description of “astrometric differencing” must be shown to implement a full joint Keplerian + linear proper-motion model on the position time series rather than a simple differencing step; otherwise part of the Keplerian signal is absorbed into the fitted proper motion and the quoted uncertainty shrinkage and Bayes-factor gains are overstated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for raising this critical point on the implementation of the astrometric model. The upgraded EMPEROR framework performs a full joint Bayesian fit of the RV time series and the absolute astrometric positions from Hipparcos and Gaia. The astrometric component explicitly includes the Keplerian orbital motion in the predicted positions at each epoch, together with the linear proper-motion terms; the orbital parameters are shared with the RV model. This ensures that any curvature from the long-period signals (P = 7.3–14.1 yr) over the ~25 yr baseline is modeled as part of the Keplerian orbit rather than being absorbed into the proper motion. We have expanded the astrometric framework section with the explicit position prediction equations and the combined likelihood, and we have added a supplementary figure that shows the astrometric residuals both with and without the orbital component to illustrate that the curvature is retained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (model comparison)] Results section on model comparison: the reported Bayes-factor increases (up to 60) and the conversion of minimum to true masses are load-bearing for the synergy claim, yet the abstract provides no residual plots, covariance matrices, or explicit likelihood functions. Without these it is impossible to verify that the astrometric signals are produced by the same Keplerian orbits inferred from the RVs and are free from stellar activity or instrumental systematics at the level that would mimic the detections.

    Authors: We agree that transparent diagnostics are essential for the claimed synergy. The full manuscript already presents RV and astrometric residual plots (Figures 3–7) and reports the posterior covariance information via the MCMC chains. We have now added the explicit form of the joint likelihood function to the methods section and included a new table of the full covariance matrices for the orbital parameters. To address the question of whether the astrometric signals arise from the same orbits and are free from activity or systematics, we note that the model comparison is performed on the combined dataset with shared Keplerian parameters; the large Bayes-factor gains occur only when the astrometric data are consistent with the RV-derived periods and phases. We have added a short discussion referencing the absence of significant correlations between the RV residuals and the available activity indicators from the CHEPS survey. While we do not claim these checks are exhaustive, they support that the signals are planetary in origin. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct Bayesian fits to independent RV and astrometry datasets

full rationale

The paper reports orbital parameters, uncertainty reductions (factors 3-10), and Bayes factor increases (up to 60) obtained by jointly fitting long-baseline RV time series with Hipparcos/Gaia absolute astrometry using an upgraded EMPEROR framework. These quantities are statistical outputs of the model comparison applied to the observed data; no equation or step in the abstract or described methodology reduces the reported masses, periods, or detection metrics to quantities defined only by the fit itself or by self-citation chains. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The detections rest on standard Keplerian orbit assumptions, Gaussian noise models for both RV and astrometry, and the choice of priors in the Bayesian comparison; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • orbital period, eccentricity, and mass for each planet
    These are fitted directly to the combined RV and astrometric time series for each target.
  • instrumental jitter and zero-point offsets
    Additional per-instrument parameters required to model the heterogeneous RV datasets spanning up to 16 years.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Planetary signals are purely Keplerian and stellar activity or additional companions do not produce correlated signals at the reported amplitudes.
    Invoked when interpreting the joint posterior as planetary detections.
  • domain assumption Hipparcos and Gaia absolute astrometry can be differenced and combined with RV data under a common orbital model without unmodeled reference-frame errors.
    Central to the astrometric contribution quantified in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6055 in / 1522 out tokens · 36504 ms · 2026-05-21T11:32:49.049427+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Butler, R

    Anglada-Escudé, G. & Butler, R. P. 2012, ApJS, 200, 15

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A33

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Brandt, T. D. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 208

    Brown, A. 2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 208

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    L., Knutson, H

    Bryan, M. L., Knutson, H. A., Lee, E. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 52

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 186

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    P., Marcy, G

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

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    C., & Walker, D

    Diego, F., Charalambous, A., Fish, A. C., & Walker, D. D. 1990, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 1235, Instrumentation in Astronomy VII, ed. D. L. Crawford, 562–576 Digital Science UK Ltd. 2025, Overleaf

    work page 1990

  9. [9]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Dressing, C., Ansdell, M., Crooke, J., et al. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 244, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #244, 210.04

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Earl, D. J. & Deem, M. W. 2005, PCCP, 7, 3910 ESA/DPAC. 2016a, Gaia Observation Forecast Tool (GOST), https://gaia. esac.esa.int/gost/, accessed 2025-09-29 ESA/DPAC. 2016b, Gaia Observing Schedule Tool (GOST) — Software User Manual, version 22.0.0; accessed 2025-09-29

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Fabrycky, D. C. & Winn, J. N. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1230

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 5002

    Feng, F., Anglada-Escudé, G., Tuomi, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5002

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    P., Jones, H

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2856

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    P., V ogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., V ogt, S. S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 21

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    P., V ogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., V ogt, S. S., Holden, B., & Rui, Y . 2023, MNRAS, 525, 607

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Fischer, D. A. & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102

    work page 2005

  17. [17]

    & Holmes, C

    Fong, E. & Holmes, C. 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1905.08737 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    work page arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 74

    Gan, T., Guo, K., Liu, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 74

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    & Meng, X.-L

    Gelman, A. & Meng, X.-L. 1998, Statistical Science, 13, 163

    work page 1998

  20. [20]

    1997, MNRAS, 285, 403

    Gonzalez, G. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 403

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    M., Bianco, F

    Hambleton, K. M., Bianco, F. B., Street, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 105002

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Y ., Ford, E

    He, M. Y ., Ford, E. B., Ragozzine, D., & Carrera, D. 2020, AJ, 160, 276

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    2023, A&A, 674, A25

    Holl, B., Fabricius, C., Portell, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A25

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    J., Cosentino, R

    Holler, B. J., Cosentino, R. G., Schultz, W. C., et al. 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2508.14412

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Ida, S., Lin, D. N. C., & Nagasawa, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 42

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    S., Jones, H

    Jenkins, J. S., Jones, H. R. A., Go´ zdziewski, K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 911

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    S., Jones, H

    Jenkins, J. S., Jones, H. R. A., Pavlenko, Y ., et al. 2008, A&A, 485, 571

    work page 2008

  28. [28]

    S., Jones, H

    Jenkins, J. S., Jones, H. R. A., Tuomi, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 443

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Jenkins, J. S. & Jordán, A. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- ference Series, V ol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull, M. K. Browning, & A. A. West, 991

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    2024, ChJSS, 44, 193

    Ji, J., Li, H., Zhang, J., et al. 2024, ChJSS, 44, 193

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    2022, A&A, 657, A7

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thévenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, L51

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    J., et al

    Kordopatis, G., Schultheis, M., McMillan, P. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A104

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    & Winn, J

    Lammers, C. & Winn, J. N. 2026, AJ, 171, 18 Lefèvre-Forján, E. & Mulders, G. D. 2025, ApJ, 988, 101 Lo Curto, G., Pepe, F., Avila, G., et al. 2015, Msngr, 162, 9

    work page 2026

  35. [35]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    work page 1976

  36. [36]

    Lotfi, S., Izmailov, P., Benton, G., Goldblum, M., & Wilson, A. G. 2022, arXiv, arXiv:2202.11678

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    V ., Beichman, C

    Makarov, V . V ., Beichman, C. A., Catanzarite, J. H., et al. 2009, ApJL, 707, L73

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    2010, A&A, 512, A39

    Meunier, N., Desort, M., & Lagrange, A.-M. 2010, A&A, 512, A39

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    2012, A&A, 541, A97 Peña R., P

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y ., Benz, W., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 541, A97 Peña R., P. A. & Jenkins, J. S. 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2509.24870, accepted in A&A Peña R., P. A. & Jenkins, J. S. 2026, A&A, 704, A323

    work page arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    2000, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Delabre, B., et al. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 582–592

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    T., Sreenivas, K

    Perdelwitz, V ., Trifonov, T., Teklu, J. T., Sreenivas, K. R., & Tal-Or, L. 2024, A&A, 683, A125

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Á., & Lindegren, L

    Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. Á., & Lindegren, L. 2014, ApJ, 797, 14

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

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

    work page 1997

  44. [44]

    L., Ségransan, D., Marmier, M., et al

    Rickman, E. L., Ségransan, D., Marmier, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A71

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    2007, The Bayesian Choice: From Decision-Theoretic Foundations to Computational Implementation, Springer Texts in Statistics (Springer New York)

    Robert, C. 2007, The Bayesian Choice: From Decision-Theoretic Foundations to Computational Implementation, Springer Texts in Statistics (Springer New York)

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    R., et al

    Sagynbayeva, S., Abbas, A., Kane, S. R., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 208

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M

    Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 415, 1153

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    work page 1982

  49. [49]

    Soto, M. G. & Jenkins, J. S. 2018, A&A, 615, A76

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    T., Haswell, C

    Stevenson, A. T., Haswell, C. A., Faria, J. P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 727

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    2019, The Exo-Striker: Transit and radial velocity interactive fitting tool for orbital analysis and N-body simulations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.004

    Trifonov, T. 2019, The Exo-Striker: Transit and radial velocity interactive fitting tool for orbital analysis and N-body simulations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.004

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    2013, A&A, 549, A48

    Tuomi, M., Anglada-Escudé, G., Gerlach, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A48

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    2000, in From Extrasolar Planets to Cosmology: The VLT Opening Symposium, ed

    Udry, S., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Naef, D., & Santos, N. 2000, in From Extrasolar Planets to Cosmology: The VLT Opening Symposium, ed. J. Bergeron & A. Renzini, 571 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653 V ogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 2198, Instru...

    work page 2000

  54. [54]

    Winn, J. N. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte (Cambridge University Press), 195

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    A., Jones, M

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Jones, M. I., Horner, J., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 274

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    A., Wang, S., Horner, J., et al

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Wang, S., Horner, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 377

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    A., et al

    Xiao, G.-Y ., Feng, F., Shectman, S. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2858

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    2011, Systematic biology, 60, 150

    Xie, W., Lewis, P., Fan, Y ., Kuo, L., & Chen, M.-H. 2011, Systematic biology, 60, 150

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    & Dong, S

    Zhu, W. & Dong, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 291

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 101 Article number, page 12 Pablo A

    Zhu, W., Petrovich, C., Wu, Y ., Dong, S., & Xie, J. 2018, ApJ, 860, 101 Article number, page 12 Pablo A. Peña R. et al.: Cold giant discoveries from a joint radial-velocity and astrometry framework Appendix A: Periodograms Period Power 5019.6 0.97 314.0 0.87 29.7 0.75 39.7 0.68 44.6 0.67 0.00 0.51 RV Period Power 154.9 0.46 17.4 0.45 42.3 0.44 40.6 0.44 ...

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    FAP lines for 0.1, 1, and 10%, in dashed red, dotted purple, and dotted blue, respectively

    FWHM, BIS, and window function. FAP lines for 0.1, 1, and 10%, in dashed red, dotted purple, and dotted blue, respectively. Circle markers show the periods with greatest power, coloured by FAP region. Green vertical region shows P1 =5160 +150 −240 d. On the right side there is a table summary of the five highest powers. Period Power 2696.4 0.91 22.7 0.66 ...

    work page 2021