Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 81 references

Consistent radial velocities of classical Cepheids from the cross-correlation technique

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cepheid radial velocities shift with every cross-correlation choice, and centroid velocities from deep, broad-line templates are the most consistent.

desk verdict A methodologically solid, large-sample study confirming that Cepheid RVs are strongly method-dependent; the practical recommendation to favor centroid RVs is under-supported by a missing scatter analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02059 v1 pith:2WOV2GXV submitted 2019-08-06 astro-ph.SR

Simon Borgniet , Pierre Kervella , Nicolas Nardetto , Alexandre Gallenne , Antoine Mérand , Richard I. Anderson , Jason Aufdenberg , Louise Breuval
show 6 more authors
Wolfgang Gieren Vincent Hocdé Benham Javanmardi Eric Lagadec Grzegorz Pietrzyński Boris Trahin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Cepheidsradialvelocitiescross-correlationfunctionbinarycorrelationtemplatesBaade-Wesselinktechniquelineasymmetrypulsatingstars
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

Using 3919 high-resolution spectra of 64 Milky Way Cepheids, the paper argues that every step of the cross-correlation pipeline changes the measured radial velocity: the wavelength range, the template's mean line depth and line width, and the method used to read a velocity off the cross-correlation function. A sympathetic reading of the results is that published Cepheid v_rad values are strongly method-dependent, and that the same star can yield different pulsation amplitudes, and therefore different Baade-Wesselink distances, depending on those choices. The paper's recommendation follows from its own observables: centroid (first-moment) velocities show smaller scatter than Gaussian or biGaussian fits, and templates built from stronger and broader lines reduce the CCF asymmetry that biases velocity measurements. This matters because Cepheid v_rad feed directly into projection factors and distance estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cross-correlation function (CCF), a single average line profile obtained by sliding a binary correlation template across the spectrum. The templates are built from a synthetic PHOENIX Cepheid spectrum with Teff = 5250 K, log g = 1, and solar metallicity, by selecting un-blended lines in three depth bins (weak, medium, deep), plus an all-line depth-weighted template on the green range and medium-depth templates on blue and red ranges. The CCF is characterized by depth, width, equivalent width, bisector inverse span (BIS) for asymmetry, a quality factor Q, and a signal-to-noise proxy; velocities are then extracted three ways: centroid, Gaussian, and biGaussian fits. This machinery isolates the effect of each choice because only one ingredient changes at a time across otherwise identical spectra.

What would settle it

Rebuild the weak, medium, and deep templates from synthetic spectra at the hot and cool ends of the sample, for example Teff near 6000 K and 4500 K, and re-derive the depth-dependent v_rad offsets on the same spectra. If the offsets change sign or disappear for the extreme stars, the single-reference template, not a physical velocity gradient, produced the reported trend; a check of whether the selected unblended lines are actually unblended in observed spectra of the hottest and coolest Cepheids would settle the same question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Cepheid radial velocity is not a single number but a function of the measurement recipe. Cross-correlating the same spectra with six tailored templates, weak, medium, and deep lines on a green range, an all-line depth-weighted template, and medium templates on blue and red ranges, and then extracting velocities by centroid, Gaussian, and biGaussian fits, the paper finds significant offsets and amplitude changes in every comparison. Gaussian velocities run about 1% larger than centroid velocities, biGaussian velocities about 3-4% larger, and the differences grow for shallower lines and shorter periods. Deeper lines produce less asymmetric CCFs and more robust velocities; wider template lines reduce wing noise and asymmetry at the cost of a shallower core. The paper concludes that consistent Cepheid v_rad time series should favor centroid velocities and templates made of stronger, broader lines, and that any Baade-Wesselink study should specify these choices because each implies a different projection factor and distance.

Load-bearing premise

The single synthetic spectrum used to choose template lines is assumed to represent all 64 Cepheids; if real spectra of hotter or cooler stars differ, the depth-dependent velocity differences could be an artifact of that template choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Published Cepheid v_rad values are method-dependent: the same star can show different pulsation amplitudes, and hence different projection factors and Baade-Wesselink distances, depending on template and estimator.
  • Centroid v_rad should be favored for distance work: despite slightly smaller amplitudes, their scatter is significantly smaller than Gaussian or biGaussian v_rad.
  • Templates built from deeper and broader lines are more robust: they reduce CCF asymmetry and yield more consistent v_rad time series.
  • Any v_rad publication for Cepheids should report the wavelength range, template line selection, line width, and v_rad estimator, because each materially changes the result.
  • The published catalogue of templates, CCFs, observables, and v_rad time series enables homogeneous studies of Cepheid binarity, period-luminosity relations, and p-factor calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same line-selection logic could be applied to other pulsating stars, such as RR Lyrae, whose data-reduction templates are similarly built from dwarf spectra and may carry the same method-dependent bias.
  • Beyond the paper: building the weak, medium, and deep templates from synthetic spectra spanning the sample's full effective-temperature range would directly test whether the depth-dependent v_rad offsets persist or are partly an artifact of the single 5250 K reference spectrum.
  • Beyond the paper: the released CCFs could be used to check whether centroid-v_rad based p-factors actually reduce the scatter of Baade-Wesselink distances across the 64-star sample, a test the paper does not run.
  • Beyond the paper: the observed decrease in v_rad amplitude from blue to red wavelengths, if confirmed on more targets, could be used as a spectroscopic probe of the Cepheid atmospheric velocity gradient rather than treated as noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a large homogeneous spectroscopic survey of 64 Classical Milky Way Cepheids, based on 3919 high-resolution spectra from seven echelle spectrographs. The authors standardise all spectra through a single processing chain, cross-correlate them with six tailored binary correlation templates that select unblended lines of different depths on three wavelength ranges, and derive from each CCF a set of line-profile observables plus three radial-velocity measurements: centroid (RVcc-c), Gaussian (RVcc-g), and biGaussian (RVcc-2g). They then compare the resulting v_rad time series as functions of the v_rad computation method, template wavelength range, template line width, and template line depth. The central claimed result, stated in the Abstract and in Section 5, is that each of these steps significantly impacts the derived v_rad, and that centroid v_rad, which show slightly smaller amplitudes but 'significantly smaller scatter' than Gaussian or biGaussian v_rad, should be favoured, together with stronger lines and somewhat broader template lines, to obtain more consistent Cepheid v_rad for Baade-Wesselink distance determinations.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides a large, consistently processed catalogue of Cepheid CCFs and v_rad time series, demonstrates quantitatively that v_rad depends on template depth, width, wavelength range, and measurement method, and validates the s1d-based pipeline against the HARPS-North DRS with Pearson correlation coefficients between 0.99 and 1 (Appendix B.4). The decision to compute linear regressions over all measurements rather than comparing only extrema is a methodological improvement over earlier studies. The recommendation that authors specify their template and v_rad method is well motivated. However, the paper's most actionable claim, that centroid v_rad should be favoured because of significantly smaller scatter, is not quantitatively supported in the present text; this is a load-bearing gap that requires additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §4.3, §5] The central recommendation, stated in the Abstract and reiterated in Section 5, is that centroid v_rad (RVcc-c) should be favoured because they exhibit 'significantly smaller scatter' than Gaussian or biGaussian v_rad. No quantitative scatter comparison is presented anywhere in the manuscript. Section 4.3 reports only linear-regression slopes (RVcc-g ~1.01, RVcc-2g ~1.03-1.04 relative to RVcc-c) and dispersions of those slopes across targets (Fig. 9). No per-target RMS residual, scatter around a common phased pulsation curve, or statistical test is given for the three methods. This is load-bearing: the practical recommendation rests on this claim. In addition, RVcc-c is a first-moment integral over the CCF core, so a smaller scatter could partly reflect the smoothing effect of the integration window rather than a genuine improvement in consistency. The authors should provide a direct scatter comparison (e.g., RMS of residuals around a spline fit to the phased v_rad curve for each method and target) and a statistical test (e.g., paired F-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test on per-target scatter).
  2. [§3.5 vs Abstract and §5] Section 3.5 states: 'We did not try to definitively assess which method is to be preferred.' This is in direct tension with the Abstract and Section 5, which explicitly recommend centroid v_rad over Gaussian and biGaussian v_rad. This internal inconsistency suggests that the scatter-based recommendation may not have been fully analysed or validated. The authors should either remove the disclaimer in §3.5 or qualify the conclusions to match the available evidence, which currently supports method-dependence but not a definitive ranking of the three methods.
  3. [§3.3 and §4.6] The template line selection is based on a single synthetic PHOENIX Cepheid spectrum (Teff = 5250 K, log g = 1, solar metallicity), while the sample spans spectral types F8-G5 and periods from roughly 2 to 68 days. The manuscript does not quantify how template mismatch would affect the selection of 'un-blended' lines for stars with different Teff/log g, and hence how it would affect the depth-dependent comparisons in Section 4.6. If the reference spectrum is not representative, the weak/medium/deep template comparisons could partly reflect template mismatch (blended or absent lines in real spectra) rather than cleanly probing line-formation depth. The authors should test the robustness of their line selection and of the Section 4.6 conclusions by repeating the selection with one or two additional PHOENIX models spanning the sample's parameter range (e.g., Teff = 6000 K, log g = 2; Teff = 5000 K, log g = 1) and verifying that the trends in CCF quality, asymmetry, and v_rad persist.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1] In the last full paragraph of Section 4.1, 'which we will show latter' should read 'which we will show later'.
  2. [Appendix B.3] The uncertainty formula for RVcc-c, epsilon_cc-c = W/SNRCCF, is described in the text as 'arbitrary'. Consequently, the comparison of uncertainty magnitudes among RVcc-c, RVcc-g, and RVcc-2g in Fig. B.1 is not informative for ranking the methods and should be explicitly labelled as such in the main text.
  3. [§4.5.2] The comparison with the G2 HARPS DRS template is performed only for δ Cep (103 HARPS-North spectra); this should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than only in the caption of Fig. 12.
  4. [Fig. 9] The left panel of Fig. 9 would benefit from a direct statement in the text or the caption of the median and 1σ dispersion of the slope distributions for RVcc-g vs RVcc-c and RVcc-2g vs RVcc-c, since these values are quoted in the text.
  5. [Table 2] For the last row (G2/HARPS template), the values N_l = 1725 and sigma_l = 0.08 Å are valid over the green range only; this should be stated explicitly in the table caption or column header to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [§4.4] In the discussion of the red versus blue v_rad comparison, the sentence 'Such studies would need to be extended to infrared (IR) wavelengths in order to be confirmed' is vague; the authors could indicate which specific infrared wavelengths or instruments would be relevant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the method-dependence claim is grounded in new measured comparisons and an external DRS benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that template wavelength range, line depth/width, and vrad method affect measured Cepheid vrad. This is established by cross-correlating observed spectra with six templates deliberately differing in these properties and by regressing the resulting vrad time series against each other; the regression slopes and zero-points are descriptive measurements, not fits to a pre-chosen conclusion. The templates are constructed from an external PHOENIX synthetic spectrum, and the pipeline is validated against the HARPS-North DRS in Appendix B.4 with Pearson coefficients of 0.99-1, providing an independent benchmark. Citations to Anderson 2016 and Nardetto et al. 2006 are used for interpretation and agreement, but the supporting slopes, dispersions, zero-points, BIS, and quality proxies come from the new catalogue, so self-citation is not load-bearing. Two caveats are noted but are not circularity: the abstract's 'significantly smaller scatter' for centroid vrad is not quantified in the text, and the single Teff=5250 K synthetic template may not represent the full sample; these are support and assumption concerns, not input-output equivalences.

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

The paper's quantitative results are the product of a specific set of methodological choices (template atmosphere, line selection windows, line width, wavelength ranges, quality thresholds). These choices are transparently described but none is derived from first principles or from an external benchmark, so they function as free parameters of the pipeline. The pipeline then produces the v_rad comparisons that ground the recommendations.

free parameters (5)
  • PHOENIX template atmosphere parameters = Teff = 5250 K, log g = 1, solar metallicity
    Hand-selected compromise values to obtain a synthetic Cepheid spectrum with enough unblended lines of different depths (Section 3.3). All correlation templates derive from this single model.
  • Line-depth selection windows = weak [0.25-0.45], medium [0.45-0.65], deep [0.65-0.95] (relative depth)
    Hand-specified ranges defining the depth-stratified templates; the central v_rad-versus-depth comparison in Section 4.6 depends on these boundaries.
  • Template line widths = 0.35-0.51 A (90% continuum width of PHOENIX lines)
    Chosen to reduce CCF wing noise; the authors test a range and select values where SNR_CCF is high, which directly affects the amplitude of the depth-dependent v_rad differences (Section 4.5).
  • Wavelength ranges = green 4500-6800 A, blue 3900-4980 A, red 5700-8800 A
    Predefined to match spectrograph coverage; the wavelength comparison in Section 4.4 is only defined across these ranges.
  • S/N and Q thresholds = S/N = 30; Q = 4
    Empirical acceptance thresholds for including spectra and judging CCF quality; weak-template CCFs fall below Q = 4 and are still used with caveats, so the thresholds shape which data are considered robust (Sections 3.2, 4.4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The cross-correlation function computed from a binary template is a valid proxy for the spectrum mean line profile.
    Standard Cepheid practice (Baranne et al. 1979; Queloz 1995); the paper uses this proxy throughout to derive all observables.
  • ad hoc to paper The adopted PHOENIX synthetic spectrum (Teff = 5250 K, log g = 1, solar metallicity) is representative enough of the 64 Cepheids for selecting unblended lines.
    The model parameters are selected as a compromise to obtain templates with enough unblended lines of different depths; the paper does not test sensitivity to this choice (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption The linear regression slope is a valid statistic to compare v_rad time series, treating the relationship between methods as linear with a zero-point offset.
    Used in Sections 4.3-4.6; this assumes any nonlinearity in the method differences is negligible across the pulsation cycle.
  • standard math Gaussian and biGaussian fits converge and the covariance-matrix 1-sigma uncertainties are representative.
    Applied via scipy.optimize.curve_fit (Section 3.5, Appendix B.3).
  • domain assumption Spectrograph-to-spectrograph v_rad offsets are negligible compared to the Cepheid variability (of order 100 m/s or below).
    Section 4.1; used to combine measurements from seven instruments without relative calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consistent radial velocities of classical Cepheids from the cross-correlation technique." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WOV2GXV

@misc{pith2026190802059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consistent radial velocities of classical Cepheids from the cross-correlation technique},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WOV2GXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02059}
}
abstract

Accurate radial velocities ($v_{\rm rad}$) of Cepheids are mandatory within the context of distance measurements via the Baade-Wesselink technique. The most common $v_{\rm rad}$ derivation method consists in cross-correlating the observed spectrum with a binary template and measuring a velocity on the resulting profile. Yet for Cepheids, the spectral lines selected within the template as well as the way of fitting the cross-correlation function (CCF) have a significant impact on the measured $v_{\rm rad}$. We detail the steps to compute consistent Cepheid CCFs and $v_{\rm rad}$, and we characterise the impact of Cepheid spectral properties and $v_{\rm rad}$ computation method on the resulting line profiles. We collected more than 3900 high-resolution spectra from seven different spectrographs of 64 classical Cepheids. These spectra were standardised through a single process on pre-defined wavelength ranges. We built six correlation templates selecting un-blended lines of different depths from a synthetic Cepheid spectrum, on three different wavelength ranges from 390 to 800 nm. Each spectrum was cross-correlated with these templates to build the corresponding CCFs. We derived a set of line profile observables as well as three different $v_{\rm rad}$ measurements from each CCF. This study confirms that both the template wavelength range, its mean line depth and width, and the $v_{\rm rad}$ computation method significantly impact the $v_{\rm rad}$. Deriving more robust Cepheid $v_{\rm rad}$ time series require to minimise the asymmetry of the line profile and its impact on the $v_{\rm rad}$. Centroid $v_{\rm rad}$, that exhibit slightly smaller amplitudes but significantly smaller scatter than Gaussian or biGaussian $v_{\rm rad}$, should thus be favoured. Stronger lines are also less asymmetric and lead to more robust $v_{\rm rad}$ than weaker lines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pulsation period (P) distribution of our Cepheid sample. the principles of our framework and the main outputs in Sect. 3. We then apply our method to derive a consistent set of CCFs, ob￾servables and vrad for our full Cepheid sample. We discuss and characterise the results of the survey in Sect. 4. We finally con￾clude on the perspectives and possible applications of this survey in Sect. 5. 2. Survey description 2.1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Typical input observed spectrum. Top: input HARPS β Dor 1D spectrum (black solid line) on the green wavelength range. The continuum interpolation is displayed in red. Broad deep lines that are excluded from the continuum interpolation are highlighted in grey, and wavelength ranges with strong tel￾lurics are highlighted in orange. Bottom: normalised spectrum. The red solid line is normalised to unity. On both plots, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Building tailored correlation templates. Top: reference synthetic PHOENIX spectrum (solid black line), with assumed limit on the continuum (solid red line). Line depth ranges corresponding to the weak, medium and deep templates are highlighted (in blue, green and purple shades, respectively). Comparison with three observed Cepheid spectra, shifted in flux for clarity: δ Cep with HARPS-North (φ = 0.37, cyan line), β … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation template transparency T (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CCF, main line profile observables and vrad (based on a δ Cep HARPS-North spectrum cross-correlated with our medium tem￾plate on the green range, see text). From left to right and top to bottom: CCF, normalised CCF, normalised CCF Gaussian fit, nor￾malised CCF biGaussi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalised δ Cep CCFs (top left plot) and main observables phased along the pulsation period, colour-coded with the phase φ. Based on δ Cep HARPS-North spectra cross-correlated with our all template on our green range. On the bottom left plot, δRV denotes the differenc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of vrad computation methods for FM Aql SOPHIE vrad (green range, medium template). The x-axis cor￾responds to RVcc−c. RVcc−g and RVcc−2g are displayed as blue diamonds and red dots, respectively. We point out that the un￾certainties on all vrad are displayed…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Combined vrad of FF Aql. Top: centroid vrad (RVcc−c) ob￾tained with the all template on the green range for four spectro￾graphs, phased (φ) along the Cepheid pulsation period and not binary-corrected. Bottom: the same, but the vrad have been cor￾rected from the Kepleri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: slope distribution for the RVcc−g vs RVcc−c and RVcc−2g vs RVcc−c linear regressions (in blue and red shades, respectively). Right, the sames slope values versus the pulsation period for each target. Computation made based on our all template on our green range. …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CCF quality vs. wavelength range. Left (top, solid lines): comparison of a green and a red CCF of UZ Sct based on the same FEROS spectrum; comparison of a blue and a red CCF of BG Cru (bottom; dashed lines) based on UVES spectra acquired at the same observation epoch …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: CCF vrad vs. wavelength range. Top: red vs. green linear regression for our six targets (see text): the regression slope is plotted vs. the regression zero-point with green diamonds for HERMES targets and green dots for FEROS targets (left). Histogram of red vs. blue …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: CCF and vrad vs. template average line width σ` . On the left are displayed the CCFs resulting from the cross-correlation of one observed δ Cep spectrum (see text) with the all template built with a variable σ` within the range 0.02 to 0.62 Å (y-axis). The CCFs tested…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: HARPS ` Car CCFs computed with our four depth-dependent correlation templates on the green λ range. Left: example of the four CCFs corresponding to a same spectrum and our four respective templates. Middle: CCF quality factor Q of ` Car vs. pulsation phase (φ) for CCF…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: CCF quality and asymmetry vs. correlation template. Left: histograms of the CCF Q factor averaged over the pulsation phase for each target, for our four line depth-dependent templates. Middle: the same, for our CCF SNRCCF proxy (same colour code). Right: amplitude of …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of centroid vrad computed with our respec￾tive correlation templates on the green range. The figure represents the slope vs. zero-point distribu￾tion of the linear regression of the weak (blue), medium (green) and deep (purple) vrad vs. the all vrad, re￾spe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson , R. I. 2014, , 566, L10

    2014

  2. [2]

    Anderson , R. I. 2016, , 463, 1707

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Anderson , R. I. 2018, in The RR Lyrae 2017 Conference. Revival of the Classical Pulsators: from Galactic Structure to Stellar Interior Diagnostics, ed. R. Smolec , K. Kinemuchi , & R. I. Anderson , Vol. 6, 193--200

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Anderson , R. I. 2019, , 623, A146

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    I., Casertano , S., Riess , A

    Anderson , R. I., Casertano , S., Riess , A. G., et al. 2016, , 226, 18

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    I., Sahlmann , J., Holl , B., et al

    Anderson , R. I., Sahlmann , J., Holl , B., et al. 2015, , 804, 144

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    2013

  8. [8]

    1926, Astronomische Nachrichten, 228, 359

    Baade , W. 1926, Astronomische Nachrichten, 228, 359

    work page 1926

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Baranne , A., Mayor , M., & Poncet , J. L. 1979, Vistas in Astronomy, 23, 279

    1979

  2. [10]

    1996, , 119, 373

    Baranne , A., Queloz , D., Mayor , M., et al. 1996, , 119, 373

    1996

  3. [11]

    Borra , E. F. & Deschatelets , D. 2017, , 470, 4732

    2017

  4. [12]

    & Sophie Team

    Bouchy , F. & Sophie Team . 2006, in Tenth Anniversary of 51 Peg-b: Status of and prospects for hot Jupiter studies, ed. L. Arnold , F. Bouchy , & C. Moutou , 319--325

    2006

  5. [13]

    2017, , 129, 034002

    Brahm , R., Jord \'a n , A., & Espinoza , N. 2017, , 129, 034002

    2017

  6. [14]

    2016, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 105, 105

    Britavskiy , N., Pancino , E., Tsymbal , V., et al. 2016, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 105, 105

    2016

  7. [15]

    2018, , 474, 3344

    Britavskiy , N., Pancino , E., Tsymbal , V., Romano , D., & Fossati , L. 2018, , 474, 3344

    2018

  8. [16]

    1982, , 109, 258

    Burki , G., Mayor , M., & Benz , W. 1982, , 109, 258

    1982

  9. [17]

    2012, in , Vol

    Cosentino , R., Lovis , C., Pepe , F., et al. 2012, in , Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, 84461V

    2012

  10. [18]

    2018, , 616, A5

    Cropper , M., Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., et al. 2018, , 616, A5

    2018

  11. [19]

    2000, in , Vol

    Dekker , H., D'Odorico , S., Kaufer , A., Delabre , B., & Kotzlowski , H. 2000, in , Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood , 534--545

    2000

  12. [20]

    R., Berdnikov , L., Lauer , J., et al

    Evans , N. R., Berdnikov , L., Lauer , J., et al. 2015, , 150, 13

    2015

  13. [21]

    Freedman , W. L. & Madore , B. F. 2010, , 48, 673

    2010

  14. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  15. [23]

    2005, , 444, L21

    Galland , F., Lagrange , A.-M., Udry , S., et al. 2005, , 444, L21

    2005

  16. [24]

    2019, , 622, A164

    Gallenne , A., Kervella , P., Borgniet , S., et al. 2019, , 622, A164

    2019

  17. [25]

    R., et al

    Gallenne , A., Kervella , P., Evans , N. R., et al. 2018, , 867, 121

    2018

  18. [26]

    2012, , 541, A87

    Gallenne , A., Kervella , P., M \'e rand , A., et al. 2012, , 541, A87

    2012

  19. [27]

    2017, , 608, A18

    Gallenne , A., Kervella , P., M \'e rand , A., et al. 2017, , 608, A18

    2017

  20. [28]

    2015, , 579, A68

    Gallenne , A., M \'e rand , A., Kervella , P., et al. 2015, , 579, A68

    2015

  21. [29]

    D., M \'e rand , A., et al

    Gallenne , A., Monnier , J. D., M \'e rand , A., et al. 2013, , 552, A21

    2013

  22. [30]

    A., Samus' , N

    Gorynya , N. A., Samus' , N. N., Sachkov , M. E., et al. 1998, Astronomy Letters, 24, 815

    1998

  23. [31]

    Groenewegen , M. A. T. 2013, , 550, A70

    2013

  24. [32]

    H., Allard , F., Ferguson , J., Baron , E., & Alexander , D

    Hauschildt , P. H., Allard , F., Ferguson , J., Baron , E., & Alexander , D. R. 1999, , 525, 871

    1999

  25. [33]

    Hauschildt , P. H. & Baron , E. 1999, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 109, 41

    1999

  26. [34]

    Hauschildt , P. H. & Baron , E. 2010, , 509, A36

    2010

  27. [35]

    & Bell , R

    Hindsley , R. & Bell , R. A. 1986, , 98, 881

    1986

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  29. [37]

    2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , online guide

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , online guide

    2001

  30. [38]

    2019, , 622, A205

    Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., Cropper , M., et al. 2019, , 622, A205

    2019

  31. [39]

    & Pasquini , L

    Kaufer , A. & Pasquini , L. 1998, in , Vol. 3355, Optical Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. S. D'Odorico , 844--854

    1998

  32. [40]

    2019, , 623, A116

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

    2019

  33. [41]

    2004, , 416, 941

    Kervella , P., Nardetto , N., Bersier , D., Mourard , D., & Coud \'e du Foresto , V. 2004, , 416, 941

    2004

  34. [42]

    V., Andrievsky , S

    Kovtyukh , V. V., Andrievsky , S. M., Belik , S. I., & Luck , R. E. 2005, , 129, 433

    2005

  35. [43]

    Kovtyukh , V. V. & Gorlova , N. I. 2000, , 358, 587

    2000

  36. [44]

    Leavitt , H. S. & Pickering , E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1

    1912

  37. [45]

    & Dravins , D

    Lindegren , L. & Dravins , D. 2003, , 401, 1185

    2003

  38. [46]

    Lindemann , F. A. 1918, , 78, 639

    1918

  39. [47]

    Luck , R. E. 2018, , 156, 171

    2018

  40. [48]

    2017, , 469, 3965

    Malavolta , L., Lovis , C., Pepe , F., Sneden , C., & Udry , S. 2017, , 469, 3965

    2017

  41. [49]

    2015, , 584, A80

    M \'e rand , A., Kervella , P., Breitfelder , J., et al. 2015, , 584, A80

    2015

  42. [50]

    M., Mbemba Kabuiku , L., et al

    Meunier , N., Lagrange , A. M., Mbemba Kabuiku , L., et al. 2017, , 597, A52

    2017

  43. [51]

    A., Monai , S., et al

    Molaro , P., Levshakov , S. A., Monai , S., et al. 2008, , 481, 559

    2008

  44. [52]

    2018, arXiv e-print:1801.04158, habilitation Thesis

    Nardetto , N. 2018, arXiv e-print:1801.04158, habilitation Thesis

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2009, , 502, 951

    Nardetto , N., Gieren , W., Kervella , P., et al. 2009, , 502, 951

    2009

  46. [54]

    2006, , 453, 309

    Nardetto , N., Mourard , D., Kervella , P., et al. 2006, , 453, 309

    2006

  47. [55]

    2007, , 471, 661

    Nardetto , N., Mourard , D., Mathias , P., Fokin , A., & Gillet , D. 2007, , 471, 661

    2007

  48. [56]

    2018, , 616, A92

    Nardetto , N., Poretti , E., Gallenne , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A92

    2018

  49. [57]

    2017, , 597, A73

    Nardetto , N., Poretti , E., Rainer , M., et al. 2017, , 597, A73

    2017

  50. [58]

    Nardetto , N., Stoekl , A., Bersier , D., & Barnes , T. G. 2008, , 489, 1255

    2008

  51. [59]

    2018, High-Precision Spectrographs for Exoplanet Research: CORAVEL, ELODIE, CORALIE, SOPHIE and HARPS , 190

    Pepe , F., Bouchy , F., Mayor , M., & Udry , S. 2018, High-Precision Spectrographs for Exoplanet Research: CORAVEL, ELODIE, CORALIE, SOPHIE and HARPS , 190

    2018

  52. [60]

    2002, The Messenger, 110, 9

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

    2002

  53. [61]

    1995, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Queloz , D. 1995, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 167, New Developments in Array Technology and Applications, ed. A. G. D. Philip , K. Janes , & A. R. Upgren , 221

    1995

  54. [62]

    W., Sivan , J

    Queloz , D., Henry , G. W., Sivan , J. P., et al. 2001 a , , 379, 279

    2001

  55. [63]

    2001 b , The Messenger, 105, 1

    Queloz , D., Mayor , M., Udry , S., et al. 2001 b , The Messenger, 105, 1

    2001

  56. [64]

    2011, , 526, A69

    Raskin , G., van Winckel , H., Hensberge , H., et al. 2011, , 526, A69

    2011

  57. [65]

    2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Riess , A. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts 231, 117.01

    2018

  58. [66]

    G., Macri , L., Casertano , S., et al

    Riess , A. G., Macri , L., Casertano , S., et al. 2011, , 730, 119

    2011

  59. [67]

    G., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Macri , L. M., Hoffmann , S. L., et al. 2016, , 826, 56

    2016

  60. [68]

    1995, Python Reference Manual (Tech

    Rossum , G. 1995, Python Reference Manual (Tech. rep. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

    1995

  61. [69]

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

    Rucinski , S. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 185, IAU Colloq. 170: Precise Stellar Radial Velocities, ed. J. B. Hearnshaw & C. D. Scarfe , 82

    1999

  62. [70]

    Rucinski , S. M. 1992, , 104, 1968

    1992

  63. [71]

    N., Sasselov , D

    Sabbey , C. N., Sasselov , D. D., Fieldus , M. S., et al. 1995, , 446, 250

    1995

  64. [72]

    2018, , 616, A6

    Sartoretti , P., Katz , D., Cropper , M., et al. 2018, , 616, A6

    2018

  65. [73]

    2011, , 535, A54

    S \'e gransan , D., Mayor , M., Udry , S., et al. 2011, , 535, A54

    2011

  66. [74]

    2015, , 576, A77

    Smette , A., Sana , H., Noll , S., et al. 2015, , 576, A77

    2015

  67. [75]

    2013, , 552, A64

    Soubiran , C., Jasniewicz , G., Chemin , L., et al. 2013, , 552, A64

    2013

  68. [76]

    G., Alapini , A., Israelian , G., & Santos , N

    Sousa , S. G., Alapini , A., Israelian , G., & Santos , N. C. 2010, , 512, A13

    2010

  69. [77]

    2011, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 353

    Storm , J., Gieren , W., Fouque , P., et al. 2011, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 353

    2011

  70. [78]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

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

    2011

  71. [79]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 474, 653

    van Leeuwen , F. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 474, 653

    2007

  72. [80]

    2017, , 606, A140

    Vasilyev , V., Ludwig , H.-G., Freytag , B., Lemasle , B., & Marconi , M. 2017, , 606, A140

    2017

  73. [81]

    Wesselink , A. J. 1946, , 10, 91

    1946

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.