Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Red Dots: A temperate 1.5 Earth-mass planet in a compact multi-terrestrial planet system around GJ1061

T0 review · 1 major / 5 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 GJ 1061, the 20th nearest star, hosts three Earth-mass planets with the outermost in the habitable zone.

desk verdict Genuine three-planet detection around a very close M dwarf, with an honestly disclosed but unresolved alias on the habitable-zone planet's period that the abstract oversells; a solid, reviewable paper. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04717 v1 pith:2DPE7TC7 submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

S. Dreizler , S.V. , Jeffers , E. Rodríguez , M. Zechmeister , J.R. Barnes , C.A. Haswell , G. Coleman
show 12 more authors
S. Lalitha D. Hidalgo Soto J.B.P. Strachan F.-J. Hambsch M.J. López-González N. Morales C. Rodríguez López Z.M. Berdiñas I. Ribas E. Pallé A. Reiners G. Anglada-Escudé
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanetsradialvelocityMdwarfstarshabitablezoneresonantchainGJ1061super-Earthsplanetformation
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

This paper reports that GJ 1061, the 20th nearest star to the Sun, is orbited by at least three planets with orbital periods of about 3.2, 6.7, and 13 days, with minimum masses between 1.4 and 1.8 Earth masses. The periods form a close 1:2:4 ratio, a common outcome of migration in planet-formation simulations. The outermost planet receives about as much starlight as Earth receives from the Sun, placing it inside the liquid-water habitable zone. The authors argue that the signals are genuine planets rather than stellar activity, because they stay phase-coherent over two observing seasons, do not appear in the activity indices at the same periods, and the system is long-term dynamically stable. If correct, this is one of the nearest known compact systems of rocky planets, offering a rare opportunity for detailed follow-up.

What carries the argument

The signal-detection machinery has three parts: (1) iterative likelihood periodograms with an alias-discrimination rule requiring the best period solution to be at least $e^5 \approx 150$ times more probable than any competitor ($\Delta\ln L > 5$); (2) a Gaussian-process model of correlated noise using a stochastically driven damped harmonic oscillator kernel, fit jointly with the Keplerian signals; and (3) a battery of activity diagnostics — H$\alpha$ and sodium equivalent widths, differential line width, plus ground- and space-based photometry — used to test whether a candidate period also appears in stellar activity. The same tools identify a ~130-day photometric period as the stellar rotation period, which is then used to explain the fourth RV signal. This combination defines the paper's central mechanism for separating planets from activity-induced signals.

What would settle it

A dedicated radial-velocity campaign of roughly five months with dense sampling should settle two tests: whether the 51–57-day signal stays phase-coherent like a planet or decorrelates like stellar activity, and whether the 13.0-day or the 12.4-day period gives a better fit as the baseline grows. In addition, a transit search with space-based or high-precision ground-based photometry should either detect shallow transits at the expected depths (roughly 3–40 millimagnitudes, depending on composition) or set upper limits that constrain the planets' radii and orbital inclinations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the M5.5 dwarf GJ 1061 at 3.67 pc hosts three planet candidates with minimum masses $1.38 \pm 0.16$, $1.75 \pm 0.23$, and $1.68 \pm 0.25$ Earth masses, on nearly circular orbits of 3.204, 6.689, and 13.03 days. The three periods are close to a 1:2:4 commensurability, and the system is dynamically stable over at least $10^8$ years for the adopted small eccentricities. Planet d, with $m \sin i = 1.68\pm0.25$ Earth masses, receives about 0.6 times the insolation of Earth and lies within the optimistic and conservative liquid-water habitable zone, with an equilibrium temperature similar to Earth's. A fourth radial-velocity signal at about 53 days is statistically significant but cannot be uniquely assigned: it may be a planet or stellar activity, and the authors favor activity (rotation period near 130 days) on the basis of photometric and H$\alpha$ periodicities and the lack of coherence. The detections rest on 98 nightly averaged radial velocities from a dedicated three-month campaign combined with archival data.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed 13.0-day period for the habitable-zone planet d is not uniquely determined — the data accept a 12.4-day alias with nearly equal likelihood ($\Delta\ln L \approx 2.5$) — and the paper's resonance and habitability picture would shift if the alias is correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The near-1:2:4 period ratios make this system a small-scale analogue of the resonant chains predicted by migration simulations, supporting the picture of inward-migrating rocky planets around low-mass stars.
  • Planet d, at a distance of 3.67 pc with low host activity, becomes one of the nearest known temperate terrestrial planets, a priority target for future high-contrast imaging or transit spectroscopy if it transits.
  • The measured linear radial-velocity trend of about 1.8 m/s per year indicates a possible long-period companion, which longer observational baselines could confirm or rule out.
  • The exclusion of a planetary origin for the 53-day signal shows how correlated-noise modeling plus activity indicators can suppress rotation-related false positives in radial-velocity searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 12.4-day alias for planet d were correct, the period chain would be 1:2:1.86 rather than a clean 1:2:4 resonance; the insolation and habitability verdict would barely change, but the dynamical argument from resonant migration would weaken.
  • The paper's computed false-alarm rate of about 16% for the 51–57-day signal under correlated noise is a useful calibration: other radial-velocity 'planet' candidates with periods near the stellar rotation period and modest $\Delta\ln L$ should be treated with similar skepticism.
  • A direct test of whether the 53-day signal is a planet or activity could come from line-shape diagnostics across many nights: a planet leaves line profiles unchanged, while stellar activity distorts them in a way that the radial-velocity rms alone cannot reveal.
  • The absence of transits in the available space-based photometry, combined with the minimum masses, suggests either slightly inclined orbits or relatively dense rocky or iron-rich compositions for the three planets — a prediction testable with further transit searches.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HARPS radial-velocity observations of the nearby M dwarf GJ 1061 from the Red Dots 2018 campaign, combined with archival data. A sequential periodogram analysis yields three periodic signals at 3.204, 6.689, and 13.03 days with semi-amplitudes of about 2.4, 2.4, and 1.9 m/s, which the authors interpret as three planet candidates with minimum masses 1.38-1.75 Earth masses. A fourth signal near 53 days, aliased with a 130-day period, is interpreted as most likely due to stellar activity based on photometry and activity indicators, though a planetary origin is not excluded. The paper also discusses the habitable-zone status of planet d, the near-1:2:4 period commensurability, dynamical stability of the system, and possible planetary compositions.

Significance. If the planet interpretation holds, GJ 1061 becomes one of the closest known multi-planet systems of terrestrial-mass planets, with a temperate planet d similar to Proxima b but orbiting a less active star. The detection is strengthened by the coherence of the first three signals across two seasons, very low false-alarm probabilities, and consistency checks against H-alpha, differential line width, and photometry. The system would be a valuable benchmark for formation and habitability studies of low-mass stars. The main caveat is the unresolved 13.0/12.4-day alias for planet d, which must be transparently reported or resolved before the headline period and architecture claims can be accepted as established.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 3, Abstract] The period of planet d is not uniquely determined by the data under the paper's own criterion. Section 4.1 requires ΔlnL > 5 between the best and second-best period solutions, yet the 13.0-day and 12.4-day solutions differ by only ΔlnL ≈ 2.5, and the text explicitly states that the period 'could be either 13.0 d or 12.4 d.' Despite this, the abstract quotes 13.03 ± 0.03 d and m sin i = 1.68 ± 0.25 M⊕ without qualification, and the title's '1.5 Earth-mass planet' is tied to this branch. The alternative 12.434-day solution (Table 3, planet d*) has m sin i = 1.57 ± 0.25 M⊕ and changes the c-to-d period ratio from about 1.95 to about 1.86, weakening the advertised near-1:2:4 commensurability. The authors should either break the alias with additional analysis (for example, a joint fit including the window function or a separate analysis of the 2017 and 2018 seasons) or present both solutions symmetrically in the abstract and conclusions and refrain from claiming the 13.0-day period and the 1:2:4 architecture as established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'Further observations can to pin-down the precise period' should read 'Further observations can pin down the precise period.'
  2. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'is consisten with v sini < 5 km/s' contains a typo and should read 'is consistent with'; the following clause 'who as well reported' is awkward and should be reworded.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states 'for the 4-signal fit,' but the plotted model consists of three Keplerian signals plus a Gaussian-process noise term; this should be reworded to avoid implying a fourth Keplerian signal is fitted.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'small low-mass stars' is redundant; 'low-mass stars' suffices.
  5. [Title and Abstract] The paper uses 'planet candidates' in the abstract but 'planet' in the title; given the unresolved alias for planet d, the title should either include 'candidate' or the abstract should be more explicit about the two possible period solutions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the planet periods, masses, and activity interpretation are fitted to independent RV, photometric, and spectroscopic data, not re-statements of the model inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (three planet candidates, periods, minimum masses, and habitable-zone placement) are empirical results obtained by fitting Keplerian signals to HARPS radial velocities. No equation defines an output in terms of an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 13.03 d versus 12.4 d ambiguity for planet d is explicitly reported in Section 4.1 with both solutions listed in Table 3; although the paper adopts the 13.03 d branch despite its own ΔlnL > 5 uniqueness criterion not being met (ΔlnL ≈ 2.5), this is an unresolved alias and a correctness/robustness concern, not a circular reduction. The activity interpretation of the fourth signal is supported by independent Hα, photometric, and differential line-width data, and the authors quantify false-alarm probabilities. Self-citations to Red Dots strategy and formation simulations are contextual and are not used as load-bearing evidence for the detections. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the data; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard RV modeling choices, adopted stellar parameters from the literature, and a Gaussian-process activity model. All are disclosed in the paper, and no new ad hoc physical entities are introduced. The fitted jitter, trend, and kernel parameters are data-analysis ingredients rather than hidden free parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • RV white noise jitter (HARPS post-upgrade) = 1.06 +0.18/-0.17 m/s
    Added in quadrature to radial velocity uncertainties to absorb stellar and instrumental white noise; fitted simultaneously in the MCMC.
  • RV white noise jitter (HARPS pre-upgrade) = 1.0 m/s (fixed)
    Fixed to 1 m/s because only 7 pre-upgrade points; the authors state this has no impact on the results.
  • GP SHO kernel parameters for RV correlated noise = ln S0 = 1.57, ln Q = 4.90, ln omega0 = 2.14
    The stochastically driven damped harmonic oscillator models correlated noise, primarily stellar activity; its parameters are fitted and are essential for treating the fourth signal.
  • Global linear trend = 0.006 +0.001/-0.001 m/s per day (about 1.8 m/s per year)
    Fitted as a linear drift and interpreted as evidence for a possible long-period companion.
  • Photometric SHO kernel parameters = P ~ 130 d, damping time ~ 20 d
    Used to model photometric variability and identify the stellar rotation period; supports the interpretation of the fourth RV signal as activity.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Baluev (2009) false-alarm probability formalism is valid for this multi-signal periodogram search.
    Used in Section 4.1 to evaluate the significance of each detected signal.
  • domain assumption The celerite SHO Gaussian-process kernel adequately represents stellar activity-induced correlated noise in the RVs.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to model the fourth signal and define the favored 3-planet model; if this kernel is misspecified, the planetary signals could be affected.
  • domain assumption Adopted stellar parameters (Teff, luminosity, radius, mass) from Stassun et al. (2018) and Gaidos et al. (2014) are correct.
    These values determine planetary masses and insolation; the two sets differ and the paper propagates both.
  • domain assumption Kopparapu et al. (2014) habitable-zone limits apply to this star and planet.
    Used in Section 5 to place planet d inside the liquid-water habitable zone.
  • standard math Mercury6 numerical integrations correctly capture the long-term stability of the system.
    Used in Section 4.3 with minimum masses and near-circular orbits to claim 100 million year stability.
  • domain assumption The 130-day signal seen in photometry and H-alpha is the stellar rotation period.
    This identification in Section 4.2.2 is the basis for attributing the 53-day RV signal to correlated noise rather than a planet.
  • domain assumption Excluding the single 5.5-sigma RV outlier is justified.
    Section 4.1 removes one outlier with no spectral anomaly; if this point were physical, it could affect the fits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Red Dots: A temperate 1.5 Earth-mass planet in a compact multi-terrestrial planet system around GJ1061." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2DPE7TC7

@misc{pith2026190804717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Red Dots: A temperate 1.5 Earth-mass planet in a compact multi-terrestrial planet system around GJ1061},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2DPE7TC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04717}
}
abstract

Small low-mass stars are favourable targets for the detection of rocky habitable planets. In particular, planetary systems in the solar neighbourhood are interesting and suitable for precise characterisation. The Red Dots campaigns seek to discover rocky planets orbiting nearby low-mass stars. The 2018 campaign targeted GJ 1061, which is the 20$^{\rm th}$ nearest star to the Sun. For three consecutive months we obtained nightly, high-precision radial velocity measurements with the HARPS spectrograph. We analysed these data together with archival HARPS data. We report the detection of three planet candidates with periods of $3.204\pm 0.001$, $6.689\pm 0.005$ and $13.03\pm 0.03$ days, which is close to 1:2:4 period commensurability. After several considerations related to the properties of the noise and sampling, we conclude that a 4$^{\rm th}$ signal is most likely explained by stellar rotation, although it may be due to a planet. The proposed three-planet system (and the potential four-planet solution) is long-term dynamically stable. Planet-planet gravitational interactions are below our current detection threshold. The minimum masses of the three planets range from $1.4\pm 0.2$ to $1.8\pm 0.3$ M$_\oplus$. Planet d, with $m \sin i = 1.68\pm0.25$ M$_\oplus$, receives a similar amount of energy as Earth receives from the Sun. Consequently it lies within the liquid-water habitable zone of the star and has a similar equilibrium temperature to Earth. GJ 1061 has very similar properties to Proxima Centauri but activity indices point to lower levels of stellar activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Periodograms of HARPS pre-, post-upgrade data with consecutively removed signals. The periodograms of the in￾dividual signals are shown in the Appendix in Fig. D1. Each CCD frame was corrected in a standard way for bias and/or dark, and flat field by instrument specific pipelines. From a number of nearby and relatively bright stars within the frames, the best sets were selected as reference stars. MNRAS 000, 1–… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HARPS public and Red Dots data (from BJD 2458300 on) measurements with our favoured model with 3-planet model (red). The blue line includes the modeling of the correleated noise using the SHO kernel from celerite. 4 DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Signal detection in the radial velocities, and model parameters The RV analysis incorporates all measurements listed in Ta￾bles A1 and A2, except for one outlier7 . The first step of th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phased HARPS Red Dots data for the 4-signal fit for the 3 planets. Top panels are for planets b and c, and bottom panels are for the two possible solutions for planet d with periods of 13.0 and 12.4 d. The fourth signal is modeled using the SHO￾kernel. The color indicates the time of observation (chronological order from blue to red) to illustrate the coherence and of the signals along the campaigns. Probabilistic a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass-radius-relation for various compositions (Zeng et al. 2016). The range of masses up to 90% cumulative probabil￾ity of planet d is shaded in light blue. The region of less extreme compositions between 25 % H2O and 50 % Fe is additionally high￾lighted. Stellar param…

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. Super-Earth masses sculpted by pebble isolation around stars of different masses

    astro-ph.EP 2019-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The characteristic mass of super-Earths is set by the pebble isolation mass, giving roughly 1 Earth mass around a 0.08-solar-mass star and about 20 Earth masses around a solar-mass star.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alibert Y., Benz W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629671 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629671 2017

  2. [2]

    P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..200...15A 200, 15

    Anglada-Escud \'e G., Butler R. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..200...15A 200, 15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/15 2012

  3. [3]

    Anglada-Escud \'e G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature19106 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.536..437A 536, 437

    doi:10.1038/nature19106 2016

  4. [4]

    Astudillo-Defru N., Delfosse X., Bonfils X., Forveille T., Lovis C., Rameau J., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527078 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A..13A 600, A13

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527078

  5. [5]

    Astudillo-Defru N., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630153 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630153

  6. [6]

    Astudillo-Defru N., et al., 2017c, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731581 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731581

  7. [7]

    M., Meyer M

    Avenhaus H., Schmid H. M., Meyer M. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219783 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2012A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219783 2012

  8. [8]

    V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14217.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..969B 393, 969

    Baluev R. V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14217.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..969B 393, 969

    arXiv 2009

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.3094B 439, 3094

    Barnes J. R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.3094B 439, 3094

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Jeffers S

    Barnes J. R., Jeffers S. V., Haswell C. A., Jones H. R. A., Shulyak D., Pavlenko Y. V., Jenkins J. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1482 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017MNRAS.471..811B 471, 811

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Burke C

    Berta Z. K., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Burke C. J., Falco E. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/145 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144..145B 144, 145

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Bixel A., Apai D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5f51 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836L..31B 836, L31

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Boro Saikia S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629518 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa66ca , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153..208B 153, 208

    Butler R. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa66ca , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153..208B 153, 208

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..793C 304, 793

    Chambers J. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..793C 304, 793

    1999

  8. [16]

    Coleman G. A. L., Nelson R. P., Paardekooper S. J., Dreizler S., Giesers B., Anglada-Escud \'e G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx169 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..996C 467, 996

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Coleman G. A. L., Leleu A., Alibert Y., Benz W., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190804166C p. arXiv:1908.04166

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Damasso M., Del Sordo F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A.126D 599, A126

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Foreman-Mackey D., 2016, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00024 , 24

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Foreman-Mackey D., Agol E., Ambikasaran S., Angus R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..220F 154, 220

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Gaidos E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1313 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2014MNRAS.443.2561G 443, 2561

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Gillon M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature21360 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.542..456G 542, 456

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    Grimm S. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Hambsch F.-J., 2012, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012SASS...31...75H 31, 75

    2012

  19. [27]

    J., Walkowicz L

    Henry T. J., Walkowicz L. M., Barto T. C., Golimowski D. A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339315 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.2002H 123, 2002

    2002 doi

  20. [29]

    V., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629599 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    Jeffers S. V., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629599 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    doi

  21. [30]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    Kochanek C. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    K., Ramirez R

    Kopparapu R. K., Ramirez R. M., SchottelKotte J., Kasting J. F., Domagal-Goldman S., Eymet V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787L..29K 787, L29

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    Lo Curto G., et al., 2015, The Messenger, http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2015Msngr.162....9L 162, 9

    2015

  24. [33]

    arXiv:1904.12818

    Luque R., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190412818L p. arXiv:1904.12818

    2019 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Mayor M., et al., 2003, The Messenger, http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2003Msngr.114...20M 114, 20

    2003

  26. [35]

    S., Rivera E., Laughlin G., Vogt S., Butler P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/605730 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121.1016M 121, 1016

    Meschiari S., Wolf A. S., Rivera E., Laughlin G., Vogt S., Butler P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/605730 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121.1016M 121, 1016

    2009 doi

  27. [36]

    Mortier A., Collier Cameron A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...601A.110M 601, A110

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    P., Correia C

    Mortier A., Faria J. P., Correia C. M., Santerne A., Santos N. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424908 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A.101M 573, A101

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    C., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Allard F., Udry S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424139 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Neves V., Bonfils X., Santos N. C., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Allard F., Udry S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424139 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M

    Newton E. R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M. L., Mink J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/85 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...85N 834, 85

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    Pizzolato N., Maggio A., Micela G., Sciortino S., Ventura P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  32. [41]

    Reiners A., Joshi N., Goldman B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/4/93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012AJ....143...93R 143, 93

    2012 doi

  33. [42]

    M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/144 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..144R 794, 144

    Reiners A., Sch \"u ssler M., Passegger V. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/144 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..144R 794, 144

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    Ribas I., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0677-y , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563..365R 563, 365

    2018 doi

  35. [45]

    R., et al., 2015b, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015b, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    doi

  36. [46]

    J., Laughlin G., Butler R

    Rivera E. J., Laughlin G., Butler R. P., Vogt S. S., Haghighipour N., Meschiari S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/890 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2010ApJ...719..890R 719, 890

    2010 doi

  37. [47]

    W., Eggen O

    Rodgers A. W., Eggen O. J., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/129670 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PASP...86..742R 86, 742

    1974 doi

  38. [48]

    R., Duch \^e ne G., Tom H., Kennedy G

    Rodriguez D. R., Duch \^e ne G., Tom H., Kennedy G. M., Matthews B., Greaves J., Butner H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv483 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3160R 449, 3160

    2015 doi

  39. [49]

    Schmitt J. H. M. M., Liefke C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030495 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  40. [50]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  41. [51]

    G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..102S 156, 102

    Stassun K. G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..102S 156, 102

    2018 doi

  42. [52]

    I., Esposito M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2745S 452, 2745

    Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o A., Rebolo R., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez J. I., Esposito M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2745S 452, 2745

    2015 doi

  43. [53]

    A., Hawley S

    West A. A., Hawley S. L., Bochanski J. J., Covey K. R., Reid I. N., Dhital S., Hilton E. J., Masuda M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/3/785 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..785W 135, 785

    2008 doi

  44. [54]

    J., Drake J

    Wright N. J., Drake J. J., Mamajek E. E., Henry G. W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743...48W 743, 48

    2011 doi

  45. [55]

    J., Wittenmyer R

    Wright D. J., Wittenmyer R. A., Tinney C. G., Bentley J. S., Zhao J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L20 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2016ApJ...817L..20W 817, L20

    2016 doi

  46. [56]

    Zechmeister M., K \"u rster M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  47. [57]

    Zechmeister M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731483 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  48. [58]

    Zechmeister M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...627A..49Z 627, A49

    2019 doi

  49. [59]

    D., Jacobsen S

    Zeng L., Sasselov D. D., Jacobsen S. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..127Z 819, 127

    2016 doi

  50. [60]

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