Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Searching for substellar companion candidates with Gaia. III. Search for companions to members of young associations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Absolute astrometry from Gaia, combined with radial-velocity and direct-imaging data, uncovers a giant planet around the young M star G80-21 and produces the first well-constrained orbits for AB Pic c and HD 14082B b.

desk verdict A genuinely useful survey paper with solid validation and honest limits, but the flagship G80-21 planet rests on a 3.5-sigma excess whose activity treatment is not convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10488 v1 pith:J5JQFO3S submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

A.-M. Lagrange , F. Kiefer , P. Rubini , V. Squicciarini , A. Chomez , J. Milli , A. Zurlo , J. Bouvier
show 8 more authors
P. Delorme H. Beust J. Mazoyer O. Flasseur N. Meunier L. Mignon G. Chauvin P. Palma-Bifani
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanetdetectionabsoluteastrometryGaiapropermotionanomalyyoungmovinggroupsbrowndwarfssubstellarcompanionsradialvelocities
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

The paper applies a Gaia-only astrometric search to 328 members of nearby young associations, aiming to find close-in substellar companions that radial-velocity surveys alone would miss or mischaracterize. It claims that a 3.5-sigma astrometric excess around the M-type star G80-21 is a giant planet of roughly 2-6 Jupiter masses on a 0.5-2 au orbit, making it one of the few young planets known around a low-mass star. For the previously suspected inner companions AB Pic c and HD 14082B b, the paper combines Gaia-Hipparcos astrometry with high-contrast imaging and, for AB Pic, radial-velocity data to narrow their mass and semi-major axis ranges to 2.5-9 Jupiter masses at 2.5-6 au and 8-20 Jupiter masses at 3-5 au, respectively. Its re-analysis of the noise in the proper-motion anomaly finds no evidence at the 2-sigma level for two previously announced planets, HD 45270 b and HD 164249 b, attributing the earlier claims to neglected instrumental noise. The payoff is a quantitative map of where absolute astrometry, spectroscopy, and direct imaging each detect companions across separations from 0.01 to 100 au, with detection limits published for every target.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is GaiaPMEX, which converts two numbers from the Gaia DR3 astrometric solution into a companion diagnostic: the astrometric signature $\alpha_{\rm ruwe}$ (the photocenter wander beyond proper motion, parallax and noise, derived from the renormalised unit weight error) and, when Hipparcos data exist, $\alpha_{\rm PMa}$ (the excess in the Gaia-Hipparcos proper-motion anomaly). A grid of Keplerian models with random orbital elements, parallaxes and stellar masses is used to compute the likelihood of the observed signatures, and Bayesian inversion then gives confidence regions in companion mass and semi-major axis; when no companion is detected, the same maps become exclusion limits. The second load-bearing element is the multi-technique characterization: long-baseline HARPS radial-velocity series and SPHERE/GPI direct-imaging detection limits are superimposed on the GaiaPMEX maps, with an MCMC including a stellar-jitter term for G80-21, so that the activity of young stars and the inclination degeneracy of astrometry are handled explicitly.

What would settle it

Extend HARPS/ESPRESSO RV monitoring of G80-21 across at least two years while modeling the 3.8-day activity signal: a remaining Keplerian signal with period and semi-amplitude matching a 2-6 $M_{\rm Jup}$ companion on a 0.5-2 au orbit would confirm the planet, whereas a flat residual after activity correction would falsify it, and Gaia DR4 astrometry should independently show the same periodic wobble.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Gaia astrometric excess, quantified by the renormalised unit weight error and by the Gaia-Hipparcos proper-motion anomaly, can be turned into a companion census for young moving groups once the noise budget is handled correctly. Applying this to 328 non-accreting members of eight nearby associations, the paper reports a new giant planet around the M3 star G80-21 ($N$-$\sigma_{\rm ruwe}=3.5$, no significant PMa excess), with a most likely mass of 2-6 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and semi-major axis 0.5-2 au from an MCMC analysis that combines ruwe, PMa, and activity-dominated HARPS radial velocities. For AB Pic and HD 14082B, it confirms the inner companions AB Pic c ($2.5$-$9\,M_{\rm Jup}$, $2.5$-$6$ au) and HD 14082B b ($8$-$20\,M_{\rm Jup}$, $3$-$5$ au for moderate inclinations) by adding SPHERE/GPI imaging and, for AB Pic, RV data to the astrometric solution, lifting the degeneracies that Gaia data alone leave. Finally, the paper argues that the previously announced planets HD 45270 b and HD 164249 b are not supported at the 2-$\sigma$ level once instrumental noise is included in the PMa. The survey also provides (sma, mass) detection limits for every target, showing that absolute astrometry detects all stellar-mass companions with 0.1-10 au separations and has excellent sensitivity to brown dwarfs and good sensitivity to giant planets in the 0.5-5 au range.

Load-bearing premise

The entire survey assumes that a 2-sigma excess in Gaia's astrometric noise or in the Gaia-Hipparcos proper-motion anomaly is caused by exactly one companion, and that the noise levels calibrated on the general Gaia catalog describe these young, magnetically active stars; if the true noise is larger or if spots and accretion shift photocenters near 0.05 mas, the detections, especially the 3.5-sigma signal around G80-21 whose radial-velocity signature looks like activity, could be spurious or misattributed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • G80-21 b would become one of the few young giant planets with a measured semi-major axis around an M dwarf, a direct probe of giant-planet formation and early disk evolution at low stellar masses.
  • For AB Pic, a less massive inner planet with no more massive companion out to AB Pic b's separation disfavours the ejection scenario for AB Pic b and points instead to formation by gravitational instability or collapse.
  • For HD 14082B, a giant planet at 3-5 au between the system's two suggested debris belts would provide a nearby laboratory for studying disk-planet interactions and would be a prime target for VLTI/Gravity and future ELT imaging.
  • The published detection limits allow future RV and imaging surveys to skip targets where absolute astrometry already excludes companions, improving the efficiency of low-mass companion searches.
  • With Gaia DR4, the same combination of astrometry plus RV and imaging will still be needed to break degeneracies for long-period companions, so the multi-technique route demonstrated here remains the path forward for characterizing astrometric planets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If G80-21 b is real, two to three years of dense RV monitoring after modelling the 3.8-day spot signal should reveal a Keplerian residual at the claimed 0.5-2 au period; a null residual would instead point to spots or to an unmodeled long-period signal.
  • The non-detections of HD 45270 b and HD 164249 b suggest that other planet candidates built on the same proper-motion-anomaly method without an instrumental-noise term should be re-checked with the noise treatment used here, and some may not survive.
  • The survey's detection limits, once corrected for the RV-friendly sample selection, could be combined with population synthesis to place model-independent constraints on companion occurrence between 0.1 and 10 au in young associations.
  • For AB Pic, measuring the mutual inclination between the inner and outer companions would directly test the Kozai-Lidov timescale argument the paper uses to explain why only the outer planet was ejected.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper applies the GaiaPMEX tool (Kiefer et al. 2024) to 328 members of young associations from the ZF21 RV sample, combining Gaia DR3 ruwe/AEN with Gaia-Hipparcos PMa to diagnose binarity, derive (sma, mass) detection limits, and characterize substellar companions. The survey recovers known binaries and benchmarks (HD 3221, HD 139084, PZ Tel, AF Lep), reports new or improved solutions for G80-21 b (2-6 M_Jup, 0.5-2 au), AB Pic c (2.5-9 M_Jup, 2.5-6 au), and HD 14082B b (8-20 M_Jup, 3-5 au), and argues that HD 45270 b and HD 164249 b are not supported at the 2-sigma level once instrumental noise is accounted for. The central new detection is G80-21 b, based on a 3.5-sigma ruwe excess with no significant PMa and activity-dominated RVs.

Significance. The paper is a useful survey product: detection limits for 328 targets, validation against several literature companions, and a quantitative comparison of Gaia absolute astrometry with RV sensitivity are valuable. If G80-21 b is real, it would be a rare young giant planet around a 0.46 M_sun M dwarf, and the AB Pic/HD 14082B solutions improve on earlier PMa-only estimates. However, the main new result rests on a single astrometric indicator whose noise model is calibrated on the general field population, and the paper's own activity-jitter estimate is internally inconsistent; this limits confidence in the flagship claim as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4.1, §6.1.1] The activity-jitter rejection is internally inconsistent. The paper quotes AJ(µas) = 0.2 × RVSA(m/s) for spots/faculae; G80-21's HARPS data show ~0.4 km/s peak-to-peak variations on the ~3.8 d rotation timescale, i.e., RVSA ≈ 200 m/s, which via this scaling gives AJ ≈ 0.04 mas. The paper then uses a single-spot geometric model (5% flux deficit, 0.05 R* shift) to obtain ~0.003 mas and concludes activity is negligible because 'all αruwe are larger than 0.05 mas'. For G80-21 the αruwe excess is only marginally above 0.05 mas (N-σruwe = 3.5; Table C.1), so a ~0.04 mas activity-induced jitter is a substantial fraction of the claimed excess. Since the K24 noise calibration is derived from the general G<16 population and is not validated for young, active M dwarfs, the 3.5σ detection is not secure. The MCMC posterior (§6.1.1, Fig. 9) is dominated by the ruwe likelihood, with the RVs absorbed by a 200 m/s jitter (Appendix E.4), so it does not independently corroborate the companion. I request either a dedicated spot/facula photocenter model for G80-21 using its measured photometric amplitude and rotation period, or a demonstration that the K24 noise distribution holds for this stellar type; until then the planet claim should be downgraded.
  2. [§2.2, Table 3] The 2-sigma detection threshold is not corrected for multiple comparisons across 328 targets. Under the null hypothesis of single stars, roughly 16 targets are expected to exceed 2σ in at least one of the two indicators; Table 3 reports many 2-3σ astrometric binaries without a false-positive budget, and the binary rates in §4.3 (29-43%) are presented without such a correction. The paper notes that some 2-3σ cases are known binaries, but this does not quantify contamination among the newly identified candidates (e.g., the 'promising candidates' of §5.2). Please add a false-positive estimate or explicitly state that the rates and candidate lists are upper limits pending confirmation.
  3. [§6.2.2, §6.3.1] The characterization of HD 14082B b is described as a 'robust solution' but uses no RV data: the 8-20 M_Jup, 3-5 au range is derived by overlaying GaiaPMEX (ruwe + PMa) solutions on SPHERE detection limits under three assumed inclinations (§6.3.1, Fig. 17). Given the sensitivity of the allowed mass interval to the assumed inclination and the absence of any dynamical confirmation, the term 'robust' overstates what the current data can deliver; the abstract's claim should be tempered or supported by a sensitivity analysis over the full inclination prior rather than three discrete values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains typographical and grammatical errors: 'adaptIn' is truncated, 'planers' should be 'planets', 'we provides' should be 'we provide', and the sentence beginning 'Combining GaiaPMEX and RV data is therefore perfectly adapt' is incomplete.
  2. [Table C.1] The RUWE column appears to have lost decimal points (e.g., 1913.0, 1806.0 instead of 1.913, 1.806); please reformat so the values can be read correctly.
  3. [§6.1.1, Fig. 9] The axes are labeled 'smab' and 'mb'; use consistent notation with units (au and M_Jup) and include the corner plot or posterior quantiles, since the MCMC section cites Appendix E.4 for details.
  4. [References] The reference list contains an orphan entry ('2023, AJ, 165, 246'), and several in-text citations (e.g., the BANYAN reference in §2.1 and the 'Z24' mention in §2.2) do not appear in the reference list in the provided text; please complete them.
  5. [§4.3] The binary rates are computed as N_det/N_total with sqrt(N_det)/N_total uncertainties; state explicitly that this ignores completeness and false positives, since the text already cautions that accurate rates are beyond scope.
  6. [General] The paper relies on GaiaPMEX from K24 (in press) and does not release the code; given the load-bearing noise calibration, a public implementation or detailed validation would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GaiaPMEX detections are forward-modeled and benchmarked externally; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central detections do not reduce to their inputs by construction. GaiaPMEX forward-models the ruwe and PMa distributions for assumed companion masses and semi-major axes, then inverts them with a Bayesian likelihood; the companion parameters are not defined as the detection statistic itself. The noise calibration is empirical, derived from the whole Gaia G<16 database (K24) rather than fitted to the present targets, and it is applied uniformly. The method is benchmarked against independently known companions (PZ Tel b, AF Lep b, HD 139084 SB1), which provides external anchoring. The new candidates, especially G80-21 b, are cross-checked against HARPS RVs and high-contrast imaging, and the paper explicitly attributes most RV variability to stellar activity rather than claiming a planetary RV signal. The MCMC posterior for G80-21 is driven by the astrometric excess and uses RV limits only to constrain the allowed mass/sma region; this is a model-dependent interpretation, not a circular one. The activity-jitter discussion in Section 2.4.1 may be internally debatable, and the K24 noise calibration may under-predict young-star systematics, but those are correctness risks, not cases where the output equals the input by definition. Several references are self-citations (K24, PB23, Meunier & Lagrange 2022), but none of them supplies the load-bearing conclusion: the detections are supported by the paper's own forward modeling and by independent observational benchmarks. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the required evidence standard is found.

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

The central detections depend on a chain of model assumptions inherited from K24 (noise calibration and the single-companion null model) plus literature membership and age inputs. The only hand-set numbers in this paper are the 200 m/s jitter and the detection thresholds and priors. No new physical entities are introduced; the companion candidates are ordinary planets, brown dwarfs, or stars.

free parameters (4)
  • Stellar jitter for G80-21 MCMC = 200 m/s
    Adopted in §E.4 to absorb activity-induced RV scatter; directly widens the mass/sma posterior and is not derived from a noise model.
  • Binarity detection threshold = 2-sigma (p = 0.046)
    Chosen in §2.2; with 328 targets the null expectation is about 16 false positives, yet the binary rates in Table 3 are not multiple-comparison corrected.
  • Inclination prior for companion orbits = uniform or sin i over 0-90 deg (Table 2)
    Reported companion masses for AB Pic c and HD 14082B b vary by factors of 2-3 between i=10, 45, and 90 deg (Figs. 13 and 17); the choice of prior is a modeling input.
  • Eccentricity prior = uniform 0-0.9 (Table 2)
    Eccentricity affects the fraction of orbit sampled by Gaia epochs and the derived sma/mass contours; it is chosen by hand for the model grid.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A N-sigma_ruwe>=2 or N-sigma_PMa>=2 indicates the presence of exactly one companion
    Explicitly stated in §2.4 as an assumption for parsimony; multiple companions, activity, or accretion can also produce excess astrometric signals, and the paper does not model these jointly.
  • domain assumption Noise levels (calibration and AL-scan measurement noise) from K24, calibrated on G<16 Gaia sources and assumed constant in time, apply to all targets
    Stated in §2.3 as a limitation; if systematic, time-variable, or non-Gaussian noise is underestimated, the computed significance levels (2-3.5 sigma) shrink.
  • domain assumption Stellar activity and spots produce negligible photocenter shifts for these targets
    §2.4.1 estimates a median induced shift of 0.003 mas versus alpha_ruwe larger than 0.05 mas using an AU Mic-like 5 percent spot model; this scaling argument overrides more complex spot distributions and flares, and is load-bearing for the G80-21 detection.
  • domain assumption Accreting and disk-bearing stars do not contaminate the sample; stars used in the analysis have no significant IR excess
    §2.4.2 excludes DX Cha, MP Mus, T Cha, TW Hya, HD 98800, and others based on IR excess; if accretion or dipper variability affects other targets, their astrometric signals could be misattributed to companions.
  • domain assumption Literature membership classifications (SACY/BANYAN) and moving group ages (Table 1) are correct
    §2.1 builds the sample on ZF21; ages set the AMES-Cond isochrone conversions for companion masses in direct imaging, and membership errors propagate into the binary rate estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for substellar companion candidates with Gaia. III. Search for companions to members of young associations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5JQFO3S

@misc{pith2026250110488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for substellar companion candidates with Gaia. III. Search for companions to members of young associations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5JQFO3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10488}
}
read the original abstract

Absolute astrometry with Gaia is expected to detect and characterize the orbits of thousands of exoplanets in the coming years. A tool, GaiaPMEX, was recently developed to characterize multiple systems based on Gaia-only data, and, when possible, the Gaia-Hipparcos proper motion anomaly. We compare the detection capabilities of absolute astrometry and spectroscopy (RV), and to detect and characterize planetary-mass companions, combining the astrometric data with direct imaging and RV data. For companion masses possibly in the planetary range, we use direct imaging and when possible, RV data as well, to further constrain their nature and orbital properties. For each target, a diagnosis on its binarity based on absolute astrometry is given. When no binary is detected, we provides detection limits in the (sma, mass) space. We identify several companions with possible masses down to the brown dwarfs (BD; 50+) or planetary masses (13). We detect a new giant planet at less than 1-2 au from the M-type star G80-21. For AB Pic and HD 14082 B, we confirm the presence of substellar companions, and provide robust solutions for their mass and orbital properties. We further identify 9 planetary mass companions candidates. Finally, a detailed treatment of noises in Gaia astrometric measurements shows that there are no evidence at a 2-sigma level of two exoplanet detections previously announced. Combining GaiaPMEX and RV data is therefore perfectly adaptIn the 0.5 to 5 au domain, GaiaPMEX has an excellent sensitivity to BDs, and a good sensitivity to planetary mass planets for this sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10488 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histogram of the sample stars masses and distances. 2.2. Absolute astrometry analysis GaiaPMEX (for Gaia DR3 Proper Motion anomaly and astro￾metric noise EXcess) uses the Gaia DR3 database to characterize the properties of companions around any star that was observed with Gaia (K24). Starting from the Renormalised Unit Weight Error (ruwe), it calculates the astrometric signature αruwe, that is the angular wandering … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HD 138084 (left) and PZ Tel or AF Lep (middle). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GaiaPMEX (sma, mass) solutions for potential companions. Constraints from ruwe only (Left), constraints from PMa only (Middle), and constraints from ruwe + PMa (Right). Each row, from Top to Bottom: 1/ No detection: AU Mic. 2/ Star with a "small" sma or BD companion: HD 3221. 3/ Star with a well constrained sma companion: HD 139084. 4/ Star with a "large" sma or BD companion: PZ Tel. 5/ Star with a "large" sma or BD… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Impact of the star masses on the Gaia alone sensitivity domain. Left: CD-351167 (0.7 M⊙) and Right: HD 13246 (1.2 M⊙). Both stars have parallaxes of ≃ 22 mas. Note that the y-axes cover different mass ranges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of the distance on the Gaia alone sensitivity domain. Top, Left: HD 23208 (0.9 M⊙, π = 17.6 mas) and Right: TYC 7066-1037-1 (0.8 M⊙, π = 7.4 mas). Bottom, Left: HD 105 (1.1 M⊙, π = 25 mas) and Right: HD 47875 (1.1 M⊙, π = 14 mas). Note that the y-axes cover diff…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GaiaPMEX maps for stars listed as SB by ZF21 and not classified as binaries according to GaiaPMEX results (see text). Article number, page 18 of 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Targets having companions with masses possibly in the planetary regimes (see text). From top to bottom and left to right: HD3221, G80-21, HD40216, HD 178085, HD 222259, CD-561032, HD 53842, PZ Tel, AF Lep, HD 41071, HD 23208, AB Pic, and HD 14082B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: From Left to Right: Gaia excess, PMa and combined maps for G80-21. Article number, page 19 of 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Limits on the masses of the potential planets around G80-21, using RV and GAIPMEX. Article number, page 20 of 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Possible sma and mass of G80-21 b. Superimposition of the RV detection limits and the GaiaPMEX (sma,mass) solutions. The black￾lines limiting the blue regions correspond to the RV detection limits (90 and 98 % probabilities). From Top to Bottom: an inclination between …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Detection limits for AB Pic obtained using SPHERE high contrast imaging data obtained in Dec. 2015 (First row) and the same data plus SPHERE data obtained in Oct. 2023, as well as GPI high contrast imaging data obtained in 2018 (see Appendix). We assume, from Left to …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: From Left to Right: Gaia excess, PMa and combined maps for AB Pic. No constraint on the inclination of the orbital plane of companions. Article number, page 21 of 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: AB Pic. Superimposition of the (sma,mass) solutions from the MCMC considering the PMEX and RV constraints, and the GPI+SPHERE detection limits.The blacklines limiting the blue regions correspond to the RV detection limits (90 and 98 % probabilities). From Top to Botto…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: From Left to Right: Detection limits for AB Pic combining RV, GaiaPMEX, and HCI data. From Left to Right: i = 0, 45, and 90 degrees [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: From Left to Right: Gaia excess, PMa, and combined maps for HD 14082 B. No constraints on the orbital plane inclination. 20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0.02 4 8 12 16 2 1" [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: SPHERE image of HD 14082B as reduced with PACO. A faint source (indicated by an arrow) is observed at 7.7” from the star (indicated by a yellow circle, at the center of the image). Article number, page 23 of 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: HD 14082B. Superimposition of the GaiaPMEX (sma,mass) solutions and the SPHERE detection limits. The blue region corre￾sponds to sma and masses that are not excluded by the high contrast imaging data. From Top to Bottom: an inclination between 10 and 90 deg is assumed…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: From Left to Right: Detection limits for HD14082B combining GaiaPMEX and HCI data. From Left to Right: i = 0, 45, and 90 degrees [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: GaiaPMEX results on HD 45270 (top), and HD 164249 (bottom). From left to right: Gaia, PMA, and Gaia+PMa. Article number, page 25 of 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_19.png]

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. The planetary-mass-limit VLT/SINFONI library: Spectral extraction and atmospheric characterization via forward modeling

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A homogeneous reanalysis of 21 archival SINFONI K-band spectra yields new C/O ratios for three companions and a model-dependent 500 K temperature drop at the M/L transition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    M., Gangi , M., Biazzo , K., et al

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Gangi , M., Biazzo , K., et al. 2021, , 652, A72

    2021

  4. [4]

    Bell , C. P. M., Mamajek , E. E., & Naylor , T. 2015, , 454, 593

    2015

  5. [5]

    Berdyugina , S. V. & J \"a rvinen , S. P. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 283

    2005

  6. [6]

    & Dutrey , A

    Beust , H. & Dutrey , A. 2006, , 446, 137

    2006

  7. [7]

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

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

    2019

  8. [8]

    A., Liu , M

    Biller , B. A., Liu , M. C., Wahhaj , Z., et al. 2010, , 720, L82

    2010

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    2022, , 663, A144

    Bonavita , M., Gratton , R., Desidera , S., et al. 2022, , 663, A144

    2022

  2. [10]

    Booth , M., del Burgo , C., & Hambaryan , V. V. 2021, , 500, 5552

    2021

  3. [11]

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

    2021

  4. [12]

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

    2021

  5. [13]

    M., Bonavita , M., et al

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., Bonavita , M., et al. 2010, , 509, A52

    2010

  6. [14]

    M., Zuckerman , B., et al

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., Zuckerman , B., et al. 2005, , 438, L29

    2005

  7. [15]

    2015, , 573, A127

    Chauvin , G., Vigan , A., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2015, , 573, A127

    2015

  8. [16]

    M., Delorme , P., et al

    Chomez , A., Lagrange , A. M., Delorme , P., et al. 2023, , 675, A205

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cotten , T. H. & Song , I. 2016, , 225, 15

    2016

  10. [18]

    2002, , 384, 491

    Cutispoto , G., Pastori , L., Pasquini , L., et al. 2002, , 384, 491

    2002

  11. [19]

    M., Wright , E

    Cutri , R. M., Wright , E. L., Conrow , T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328

    2021

  12. [20]

    H., Milli , J., Absil , O., et al

    Dahlqvist , C. H., Milli , J., Absil , O., et al. 2022, , 666, A33

    2022

  13. [21]

    J., Nielsen , E

    De Rosa , R. J., Nielsen , E. L., Wahhaj , Z., et al. 2023, , 672, A94

    2023

  14. [22]

    A., Wilson , E

    Dickson-Vandervelde , D. A., Wilson , E. C., & Kastner , J. H. 2021, , 161, 87

    2021

  15. [23]

    & Bayo , A

    Elliott , P. & Bayo , A. 2016, , 459, 4499

    2016

  16. [24]

    Elliott , P., Bayo , A., Melo , C. H. F., et al. 2014, , 568, A26

    2014

  17. [25]

    Elliott , P., Bayo , A., Melo , C. H. F., et al. 2016, , 590, A13

    2016

  18. [26]

    2020 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A2

    Flasseur, O., Denis, L., Thi \'e baut, \'E ., & Langlois, M. 2020 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A2

    2020

  19. [27]

    2020 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A9

    Flasseur, O., Denis, L., Thiébaut, E., & Langlois, M. 2020 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A9

    2020

  20. [28]

    B., Kozinsky , B., & Rasio , F

    Ford , E. B., Kozinsky , B., & Rasio , F. A. 2000, , 535, 385

    2000

  21. [29]

    P., Zhou , Y., et al

    Franson , K., Bowler , B. P., Zhou , Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.05420

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E., Malo , L., et al

    Gagn \'e , J., Mamajek , E. E., Malo , L., et al. 2018, , 856, 23

    2018

  23. [31]

    2023 a , , 674, A34

    Gaia Collaboration , Arenou , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A34

    2023

  24. [32]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A1

    2023

  25. [33]

    2018, , 615, A92

    Galicher , R., Boccaletti , A., Mesa , D., et al. 2018, , 615, A92

    2018

  26. [34]

    2016, , 594, A63

    Galicher , R., Marois , C., Macintosh , B., et al. 2016, , 594, A63

    2016

  27. [35]

    M., Udry , S., et al

    Galland , F., Lagrange , A. M., Udry , S., et al. 2005, , 443, 337

    2005

  28. [36]

    2022, , 667, A124

    Gangi , M., Antoniucci , S., Biazzo , K., et al. 2022, , 667, A124

    2022

  29. [37]

    M., Keppler , M., et al

    Grandjean , A., Lagrange , A. M., Keppler , M., et al. 2020, , 633, A44

    2020

  30. [38]

    2024, , 685, A119

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

    2024

  31. [39]

    Griffin , R. F. 2010, The Observatory, 130, 125

    2010

  32. [40]

    2020, , 643, A98

    Hagelberg , J., Engler , N., Fontanive , C., et al. 2020, , 643, A98

    2020

  33. [41]

    S., De Gregorio-Monsalvo , I., Montesinos , B., et al

    Hales , A. S., De Gregorio-Monsalvo , I., Montesinos , B., et al. 2014, , 148, 47

    2014

  34. [42]

    C., Lockwood , G

    Hall , J. C., Lockwood , G. W., & Skiff , B. A. 2007, , 133, 862

    2007

  35. [43]

    2022, , 661, A151

    Holl , B., Perryman , M., Lindegren , L., Segransan , D., & Raimbault , M. 2022, , 661, A151

    2022

  36. [44]

    2023, , 674, A10

    Holl , B., Sozzetti , A., Sahlmann , J., et al. 2023, , 674, A10

    2023

  37. [45]

    J., Aarnio , A

    James , D. J., Aarnio , A. N., Richert , A. J. W., et al. 2016, , 459, 1363

    2016

  38. [46]

    J., Melo , C., Santos , N

    James , D. J., Melo , C., Santos , N. C., & Bouvier , J. 2006, , 446, 971

    2006

  39. [47]

    H., Hily-Blant , P., Sacco , G

    Kastner , J. H., Hily-Blant , P., Sacco , G. G., Forveille , T., & Zuckerman , B. 2010, , 723, L248

    2010

  40. [48]

    Kastner , J. H. & Principe , D. A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 49

    2022

  41. [49]

    2019 a , , 623, A72

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

    2019

  42. [50]

    2019 b , , 623, A72

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

    2019

  43. [51]

    2022, , 657, A7

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

    2022

  44. [52]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, A&A, in press, arXiv:2409.16992

    Kiefer , F., Lagrange , A.-M., Rubini , P., & Philipot , F. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, A&A, in press, arXiv:2409.16992

    2024

  45. [53]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, A&A, in press, arXiv:2409.16993

    Kiefer , F., Lagrange , A.-M., Rubini , P., & Philipot , F. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, A&A, in press, arXiv:2409.16993

    2024

  46. [54]

    1962, , 67, 591

    Kozai , Y. 1962, , 67, 591

    1962

  47. [55]

    L., Shkolnik , E

    Kraus , A. L., Shkolnik , E. L., Allers , K. N., & Liu , M. C. 2014, , 147, 146

    2014

  48. [56]

    & Mazeh , T

    Krymolowski , Y. & Mazeh , T. 1999, , 304, 720

    1999

  49. [57]

    M., Meunier , N., Desort , M., & Malbet , F

    Lagrange , A. M., Meunier , N., Desort , M., & Malbet , F. 2011, , 528, L9

    2011

  50. [58]

    M., et al

    Lannier , J., Delorme , P., Lagrange , A. M., et al. 2016, , 596, A83

    2016

  51. [59]

    M., Bonavita , M., et al

    Lannier , J., Lagrange , A. M., Bonavita , M., et al. 2017, , 603, A54

    2017

  52. [60]

    W., Skiff , B

    Lockwood , G. W., Skiff , B. A., Henry , G. W., et al. 2007, , 171, 260

    2007

  53. [61]

    2013, , 551, A46

    Lopez Mart \' , B., Jimenez Esteban , F., Bayo , A., et al. 2013, , 551, A46

    2013

  54. [62]

    Luhman , K. L. 2023, , 165, 269

    2023

  55. [63]

    R., Ingraham , P., et al

    Macintosh , B., Graham , J. R., Ingraham , P., et al. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12661

    2014

  56. [64]

    Y., Oblak , E., Snegireva , E

    Malkov , O. Y., Oblak , E., Snegireva , E. A., & Torra , J. 2006, , 446, 785

    2006

  57. [65]

    Mamajek , E. E. & Bell , C. P. M. 2014, , 445, 2169

    2014

  58. [66]

    Martioli , E., H \'e brard , G., Correia , A. C. M., Laskar , J., & Lecavelier des Etangs , A. 2021, , 649, A177

    2021

  59. [67]

    T., Alencar , S

    McGinnis , P. T., Alencar , S. H. P., Guimar \ a es , M. M., et al. 2015, , 577, A11

    2015

  60. [68]

    2023 a , , 672, A93

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

    2023

  61. [69]

    2023 b , , 672, A93

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

    2023

  62. [70]

    Metchev , S. A. & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2009, , 181, 62

    2009

  63. [71]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.06072

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

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    & Lagrange , A

    Meunier , N. & Lagrange , A. M. 2022, , 659, A104

    2022

  65. [73]

    2023, , 675, A168

    Mignon , L., Meunier , N., Delfosse , X., et al. 2023, , 675, A168

    2023

  66. [74]

    Mugrauer , M., Vogt , N., Neuh \"a user , R., & Schmidt , T. O. B. 2010, , 523, L1

    2010

  67. [75]

    Murphy , S. J. & Lawson , W. A. 2015, , 447, 1267

    2015

  68. [76]

    R., Mann , A

    Newton , E. R., Mann , A. W., Tofflemire , B. M., et al. 2019, , 880, L17

    2019

  69. [77]

    T., Costa , G., Girardi , L., et al

    Nguyen , C. T., Costa , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2022, , 665, A126

    2022

  70. [78]

    Offner , S. S. R., Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 275

    2023

  71. [79]

    2023, , 670, A90

    Palma-Bifani , P., Chauvin , G., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2023, , 670, A90

    2023

  72. [80]

    A., Kraus , A

    Pearce , L. A., Kraus , A. L., Dupuy , T. J., et al. 2020, , 894, 115

    2020

  73. [81]

    D., Ingraham, P., Follette, K

    Perrin, M. D., Ingraham, P., Follette, K. B., et al. 2016, in , Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 990837

    2016

  74. [82]

    D., Maire, J., Ingraham, P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Maire, J., Ingraham, P., et al. 2014, in , 91473J, arXiv:1407.2301 [astro-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    \'A ., & Lindegren , L

    Perryman , M., Hartman , J., Bakos , G. \'A ., & Lindegren , L. 2014, , 797, 14

    2014

  76. [84]

    2014, , 565, A68

    Riviere-Marichalar , P., Barrado , D., Montesinos , B., et al. 2014, , 565, A68

    2014

  77. [85]

    2019, , 631, A139

    Rodet , L., Beust , H., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2019, , 631, A139

    2019

  78. [86]

    2017, , 602, A12

    Rodet , L., Beust , H., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2017, , 602, A12

    2017

  79. [87]

    G., Kastner , J

    Sacco , G. G., Kastner , J. H., Forveille , T., et al. 2014, , 561, A42

    2014

  80. [88]

    Sahlmann , J., Triaud , A. H. M. J., & Martin , D. V. 2015, , 447, 287

    2015

  81. [89]

    L., et al

    Shan , Y., Revilla , D., Skrzypinski , S. L., et al. 2024, , 684, A9

    2024

  82. [90]

    L., Allers , K

    Shkolnik , E. L., Allers , K. N., Kraus , A. L., Liu , M. C., & Flagg , L. 2017, , 154, 69

    2017

  83. [91]

    M., Rieke , G

    Sierchio , J. M., Rieke , G. H., Su , K. Y. L., & G \'a sp \'a r , A. 2014, , 785, 33

    2014

  84. [92]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  85. [93]

    Song , I., Zuckerman , B., & Bessell , M. S. 2003, , 599, 342

    2003

  86. [94]

    & Bonavita , M

    Squicciarini , V. & Bonavita , M. 2022, , 666, A15

    2022

  87. [95]

    G., Oelkers , R

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

    2019

  88. [96]

    D., Nielsen , E

    Thomas , A. D., Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., et al. 2023, , 166, 246

    2023

  89. [97]

    2016, , 152, 11

    Tokovinin , A. 2016, , 152, 11

    2016

  90. [98]

    & Horch , E

    Tokovinin , A. & Horch , E. P. 2016, , 152, 116

    2016

  91. [99]

    & Kiyaeva , O

    Tokovinin , A. & Kiyaeva , O. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/456/2070

    2016

  92. [100]

    D., Mendez , R

    Tokovinin , A., Mason , B. D., Mendez , R. A., Costa , E., & Horch , E. P. 2020, , 160, 7

    2020

  93. [101]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., da Silva , L., et al. 2006, , 460, 695

    2006

  94. [102]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., Melo , C. H. F., & Sterzik , M. F. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth , Vol. 5, 757

    2008

  95. [103]

    2020, , 636, A74

    Trifonov , T., Tal-Or , L., Zechmeister , M., et al. 2020, , 636, A74

    2020

  96. [104]

    2007, , 474, 653

    van Leeuwen , F. 2007, , 474, 653

    2007

  97. [105]

    M., et al

    Venuti , L., Stelzer , B., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2019, , 632, A46

    2019

  98. [106]

    2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 97

    Vogt , N., Mugrauer , M., Neuh \"a user , R., et al. 2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 97

    2015

  99. [107]

    W., et al

    Wahhaj , Z., Cieza , L., Koerner , D. W., et al. 2010, , 724, 835

    2010

  100. [108]

    J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R

    Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2015, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1506.001, aDS Bibcode: 2015ascl.soft06001W

    2015

  101. [109]

    2023, , 75, 368

    Wang , X., Xia , F., & Fu , Y. 2023, , 75, 368

    2023

  102. [110]

    G., Henry , T

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

    2019

  103. [111]

    P., Huang , C

    Zhou , G., Wirth , C. P., Huang , C. X., et al. 2022, , 163, 289

    2022

  104. [112]

    2022, , 512, 3060

    Zicher , N., Barrag \'a n , O., Klein , B., et al. 2022, , 512, 3060

    2022

  105. [113]

    2021, , 645, A30

    Z \'u \ n iga-Fern \'a ndez , S., Bayo , A., Elliott , P., et al. 2021, , 645, A30

    2021

  106. [114]

    2019, , 870, 27

    Zuckerman , B. 2019, , 870, 27

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.