Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A third star in the HAT-P-7 system, and a new dynamical pathway to misaligned hot Jupiters

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HAT-P-7 hosts a third star, and a newly identified 'eccentricity cascade' can turn a cold Jupiter into the observed retrograde hot Jupiter.

desk verdict Credible detection of an inner M-dwarf companion in HAT-P-7 plus a genuinely new eccentricity-cascade route to hot Jupiters, though the dynamical demonstration rests on assumed initial conditions rather than a unique reconstruction. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07927 v1 pith:WDIVH45B submitted 2025-05-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Eritas Yang , Yubo Su , Joshua N. Winn This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords hotJupitershigh-eccentricitymigrationvonZeipel-Lidov-KozaimechanismeccentricitycascadestellarcompanionstransittimingvariationsradialvelocityHAT-P-7
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 claims that the HAT-P-7 system contains a third star, an M dwarf on a very eccentric orbit a few tens of AU from the host, and that this star supplies the missing dynamical link that turned a cold Jupiter into the observed retrograde hot Jupiter HAT-P-7b. The evidence is a joint fit of 15 years of radial-velocity data and a decade of transit-timing measurements, which together reveal the companion's orbit where either dataset alone could not. The paper then identifies a route it calls an eccentricity cascade: the distant outer companion drives von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai oscillations in the inner companion's eccentricity, and during each high-eccentricity phase the inner companion delivers repeated weak gravitational kicks to the planet, growing its eccentricity until tidal migration circularizes it close to the star. If the claim holds, HAT-P-7b becomes one of the few hot Jupiters whose high-eccentricity migration can be simulated using only the bodies observed in the system today, with no fine-tuned initial geometry and no vanished planets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inner companion's orbit, and the load-bearing mechanism is the eccentricity cascade: the outer companion's von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai (ZLK) cycles, the gravitational push-pull that can trade a body's inclination for eccentricity, periodically swing the inner companion's eccentricity to high values. The cascade works because the planet and inner companion are strongly coupled secularly: the ratio $\Omega_{12}/\omega_{p1} \sim 10^{-3}$ keeps the planet's orbital plane following the inner companion, so the outer companion cannot simply tilt the planet away, but when the inner companion's eccentricity peaks it comes close enough to the planet to deliver impulsive kicks to the planet's free eccentricity vector. Those kicks ratchet the planet's eccentricity upward until high-eccentricity tidal migration begins.

What would settle it

High-precision astrometry from Gaia or a successor mission would settle it: the paper predicts a host-star proper-motion change of roughly $0.13^{+0.10}_{-0.07}$ mas/yr between the beginning and end of the Gaia mission, tied to the claimed inner companion's orbit. If the measured astrometric acceleration is consistent with zero, or if a recovered astrometric orbit disagrees with the radial-velocity and transit-timing solution, the third-star interpretation and the cascade pathway built on it collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a third stellar companion to HAT-P-7: an M dwarf with minimum mass $m_1\sin i_1 = 0.19^{+0.11}_{-0.06}\,M_\odot$, semi-major axis $a_1 = 32^{+16}_{-11}$ AU, and eccentricity $e_1 = 0.76^{+0.12}_{-0.26}$, obtained by jointly modeling the host's long-term radial-velocity trend and the gradual lengthening of the planet's transit interval. The accompanying dynamical claim is that this inner companion opens a new migration path: when the outer companion, at a projected separation of roughly a thousand AU, is sufficiently inclined, its von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai cycles periodically excite the inner companion's eccentricity; at each high-eccentricity phase the inner companion makes weak close encounters with a cold Jupiter initially at about 3 AU, impulsively raising the planet's free eccentricity until tidal dissipation takes over and drags the planet inward into a retrograde, circularized hot Jupiter. N-body simulations demonstrate that this mechanism can produce retrograde hot Jupiters over a wide range of the outer companion's inclination, even when the planet and inner companion start nearly coplanar.

Load-bearing premise

The entire migration story assumes the planet started as a cold Jupiter on a circular orbit at about 3 AU; if it formed farther out or on a different orbit, the stability cuts applied to the inner companion's orbit would change and the eccentricity cascade might not produce HAT-P-7b.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HAT-P-7 becomes a hierarchical triple-star system, and at least some hot Jupiter hosts with seemingly useless distant companions actually have an intermediate star doing the dynamical work.
  • High-eccentricity migration no longer needs the planet's initial orbit to be almost perpendicular to a stellar companion, because the eccentricity cascade can operate from a nearly coplanar starting configuration.
  • The mechanism makes previously puzzling hot Jupiter systems, such as those with only very distant stellar companions, plausible products of ZLK-style migration and extends that logic to the HD 80606 and TIC 241249530 systems, where analogous inner companions are worth searching for.
  • The predicted astrometric acceleration of the host star should be measurable in future Gaia data releases, giving an independent test of the inferred inner companion's orbit.
  • The simulated retrograde hot Jupiters settle about 25% closer in than the observed HAT-P-7b, a gap the paper attributes to tidal radius inflation and chaotic tides, so a more complete tidal treatment is the natural next step for refining the prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the cascade implies that surveys of hot Jupiter companions that only count stars close enough to act on the planet directly may systematically underestimate the rate of ZLK-style migration; a statistical test would compare the frequency of long-term radial-velocity trends among hot Jupiter hosts with wide stellar companions against matched stars without hot Jupiters.
  • Editorial inference: because the cascade's efficiency depends on the cold Jupiter's starting radius, the mechanism carries a compositional fingerprint, so measuring HAT-P-7b's atmospheric C/O ratio could test whether it indeed formed near the ice line as assumed, a link the paper does not draw.
  • Editorial inference: the same bridging logic should apply when the intermediate body is a brown dwarf instead of an M dwarf, and could extend to systems where the intermediate companion is currently below detection limits, broadening the hidden parameter space for hot Jupiter migration.
  • Editorial inference: the K2-290 mechanism cited in the paper shows that a distant companion plus an intermediate body can transfer angular momentum inward even without close encounters, suggesting the eccentricity cascade may be one member of a family of coupled-timescale processes that channel wide-binary angular momentum into inner systems.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a joint analysis of 15 years of Keck/HIRES radial velocities and Kepler/TESS transit-timing data for HAT-P-7, finding evidence for an inner stellar companion with m1 sin i1 = 0.19+0.11-0.06 Msun, a1 = 32+16-11 AU, and e1 = 0.76+0.12-0.26. It then uses N-body simulations to argue that this companion, together with the previously known outer M dwarf at ~1000 AU, can explain the retrograde hot Jupiter HAT-P-7b through high-eccentricity migration. Two pathways are investigated: direct octupole ZLK migration driven by the inner companion, and a novel four-body 'eccentricity cascade' in which the outer companion excites the inner companion's eccentricity and the inner companion then impulsively pumps the planet's eccentricity. The paper concludes that HAT-P-7b is one of the few hot Jupiters whose migration history can be simulated using only observed bodies, without finely tuned initial conditions.

Significance. The RV+TTV characterization of a ~0.2 Msun companion at a few tens of AU is a valuable observational result in itself, and the paper makes a concrete, falsifiable astrometric prediction for future Gaia data releases. The proposed eccentricity cascade is a genuinely new dynamical mechanism: a very distant stellar companion can act through an intermediate companion to excite a planet's eccentricity even when the planet and the intermediate companion are initially well aligned. If the mechanism survives robustness testing, it would broaden the class of stellar binaries that can produce misaligned hot Jupiters and would provide one of the few complete, observationally anchored migration histories. The dynamical claims, however, currently depend on several condition choices that are not yet shown to be representative of the measured parameter posteriors, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (4)] The Holman-Wiegert stability cut is load-bearing: it changes the adopted inner companion parameters from the RV+TTV best fit (e1 = 0.76, a1 = 32 AU) to the filtered fiducial values (e1 ~ 0.5, a1 ~ 28 AU, m1 sin i1 ~ 0.15 Msun), and all subsequent simulations use these filtered values. The cut is applied after assuming the planet formed on a circular orbit at 3 AU, and the paper itself notes that a larger formation radius would lower the allowed e1 and reduce the cascade efficiency. Since the central claim is that the migration history can be simulated from observed bodies, the assumed ap = 3 AU is an unobserved initial condition that drives the results. The paper should vary ap over plausible values (e.g., 3-8 AU, the disk-truncation radius) and resample from the full posterior rather than a single fiducial point to demonstrate that the mechanism's viability is not a selected configuration.
  2. [Appendix A and Section 3.1] The adopted inner companion mass m1 = 0.21 Msun is derived from an inclination distribution that assumes the inner companion must be misaligned with the proto-planet by more than ~48 degrees, i.e., the ZLK hypothesis. But the four-body eccentricity cascade scenario explicitly starts with ip1,0 = 10 degrees and does not require such a misalignment; for that scenario, the mass prior should not be conditioned on the ZLK requirement. This is a circular element for the four-body pathway, and it also propagates the present-day spin-orbit geometry onto the initial planet orbit. A cleaner approach would be to give separate mass estimates for the aligned and misaligned scenarios, or to marginalize over the inclination with a prior that does not presuppose the mechanism under investigation.
  3. [Section 3.3.1 and Table 2] The dynamical simulations are run for one hand-picked fiducial parameter set, even though the filtered posterior remains broad (e1 = 0.52+0.17-0.16, a1 = 29+15-8 AU, m1 sin i1 = 0.15+0.07-0.05), and the outer companion's e2 = 0.7 and a2 = 730 AU are assumed from an eccentricity distribution and an apocenter assumption rather than measured. The 1000 simulations in Figure 8 vary only the outer companion's initial mutual inclination. To support the claim that the eccentricity cascade is a robust pathway without fine tuning, the authors should sample the inner and outer companion parameters from their respective distributions and show the hot-Jupiter formation probability over that sampled ensemble.
  4. [Section 4.3 and Figure 8] The median final semimajor axis of retrograde hot Jupiters formed in the four-body simulations is 0.0266 AU, whereas the observed semimajor axis of HAT-P-7b is 0.0367 AU, an offset of about 25 percent. The paper attributes this to radius inflation and chaotic tides, but no simulation with an inflated radius or a stochastic tide model is presented; instead, the planet tidal quality factor is set to Qp = 10^4, which is already chosen to be low. As presented, the pathway systematically over-shrinks the orbit, and the match to HAT-P-7b's present-day semimajor axis is not demonstrated. A quantitative demonstration of the inflation/tide correction, or a parameter study in Qp, is needed before the paper can claim a complete migration history.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The paper reports chi2 = 696 for 689 degrees of freedom but does not quantify the detection significance of the eccentric companion relative to a simpler constant-acceleration model; a delta-chi2 or model-comparison statement would strengthen the evidence claim.
  2. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'To our knowledge, the only confirmed hot Jupiter system with a stellar companion within 50 AU is WASP-11' is confusing in a paper that has just characterized an inner companion at 28-32 AU in HAT-P-7; please rephrase to refer to previously known systems.
  3. [Figure 16] The caption refers to an 'orange line' as the projected-separation constraint, but that line is not labeled in the figure; please add a label or describe it in the caption.
  4. [Equation (1)] The statement that a purely sinusoidal trend would have first and third coefficients of opposite signs is only true for a sinusoid of a particular phase; consider clarifying the intended comparison.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says the residuals are relative to a 'best-fitting constant-period model', but the parameters of that model are not specified; please state the fitted period and epoch or refer to the joint model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Companion detection is independent, but the companion mass input for the migration simulations is mildly conditioned on the very ZLK hypothesis being tested.

  1. other [Appendix A and Section 3.1 (inclination prior leading to m1 in Table 2)]
    "the inner companion must be misaligned with the planet's orbit by more than ~48° for the octupole-order ZLK mechanism to be effective ... Based on these considerations, we adopt <sin i1> = 0.7 as a representative value. [Section 3.1:] Following a geometric argument outlined in Appendix A, we assumed sin i1 = 0.7, yielding m1 = 0.21 M_sun."

    The simulation input m1 is not drawn from an isotropic inclination prior; it is inferred by conditioning on the requirement that the octupole ZLK mechanism be active (mutual inclination >48°). The simulations then use that same ZLK mechanism to explain the retrograde hot Jupiter, so the hypothesis partly sets the mass of the actor that is invoked to test the hypothesis. This is a mild self-referential conditioning rather than an independent measurement of m1. The authors state that 'small variations in m1 do not significantly affect our conclusions', which keeps the step from being the central load-bearing part of the paper.

full rationale

The observational detection of the inner companion in Section 2.3 is self-contained: the RV and TTV data are fit jointly, and the resulting posterior (m1 sin i1, a1, e1) is not fitted against the final retrograde state of HAT-P-7b. The dynamical simulations in Section 3 are scenario explorations with explicitly stated assumptions (planet formed on a circular orbit at 3 AU, outer-companion eccentricity 0.7, Qp = 10^4, etc.), and the paper openly reports that the simulated final semi-major axes are on average ~25% smaller than observed rather than tuning that quantity away. The 3 AU formation radius and the Holman-Wiegert stability filter alter the companion parameters used in the simulations, but this is model sensitivity and assumption-dependence, not circularity: the input posterior is not defined by the output hot-Jupiter outcome. The only quasi-circular element is the Appendix A inclination prior, which uses the ZLK activity threshold to set sin i1 = 0.7 and hence m1 = 0.21 M_sun for the simulations; this conditions the simulation input on the mechanism being tested. Because the authors explicitly state that small variations in m1 do not change the conclusions, this step is minor rather than load-bearing. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-by-citation is used to force the central claim.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the inner companion is an observed body inferred from RV and TTV. The central dynamical conclusions rest on several hand-selected parameters (Qp, initial a_p, inclination priors, outer companion orbit) and standard celestial mechanics assumptions, all documented. The free parameter count is moderate for a dynamical plausibility study.

free parameters (7)
  • Qp (planet tidal quality factor) = 1e4
    Set lower than Jupiter's inferred value (Goldreich & Soter 1966) to approximately account for radius inflation and chaotic tides; directly affects the circularization radius and final semi-major axis. Table 2, Section 4.3.
  • Initial planet semi-major axis a_p,0 = 3 AU
    Assumed formation location of the cold Jupiter near the ice line, used to apply the stability cut and run all simulations. Section 3.1.
  • sin i1 for the inner companion = 0.7
    Derived in Appendix A from the assumption that the inner companion must have been misaligned with the proto-planet by >48 degrees for ZLK migration, combined with the planet's orbit normal near the sky plane. Converts m1 sin i1 to m1 = 0.21 Msun.
  • Outer companion eccentricity e2 and semi-major axis a2 = e2 = 0.7, a2 = 730 AU
    Adopted from the observed projected separation of 1240 AU assuming the companion is observed near apocenter and drawing e2 from the Hwang et al. (2022) eccentricity distribution. Section 3.1.
  • Fiducial inner companion eccentricity e1 and semi-major axis a1 = e1 = 0.5, a1 = 28 AU
    Chosen as representative values from the posterior after applying the Holman-Wiegert stability cut; differ from the headline best-fit values (e1=0.76, a1=32 AU). Section 3.1.
  • Outer companion mass m2 = 0.15 Msun
    Assumed from the M5.5 spectral type reported by Narita et al. (2012) and the Pecaut & Mamajek (2013) mass scale. Section 3.1.
  • Initial planet-inner companion mutual inclination ip1,0 = 10 deg
    Fixed in the four-body simulations to represent a well-aligned primordial configuration. Section 3.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Holman-Wiegert stability criterion (Eq. 4) for a planet in a binary system
    Used to discard posterior samples of the inner companion's orbit that would be unstable with a cold Jupiter at 3 AU; shifts the adopted parameters. Section 3.1.
  • standard math von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai (ZLK) oscillations with octupole-order terms
    Assumed to drive eccentricity excitation between the stellar companions and between the inner companion and the planet; standard celestial mechanics. Sections 3.2, 3.3.
  • domain assumption Constant time-lag tidal dissipation model with specified quality factors
    Used in REBOUNDx tides spin module; the choice of Qp=1e4 and Qstar=1e7 are assumptions that strongly affect migration outcomes. Section 3.1, Table 2.
  • domain assumption The host star's spin axis is nearly aligned with the line of sight, and the planet's orbit normal lies near the sky plane
    Invoked in Appendix A to derive the inclination prior sin i1 = 0.7; based on the observed small rotational line broadening and the large spin-orbit misalignment. Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Giant planet formation can occur in a disk truncated by a companion at ~30 AU
    Needed for the cold Jupiter to exist at 3 AU in the presence of the inner M dwarf; cites gamma Cephei as an example. Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A third star in the HAT-P-7 system, and a new dynamical pathway to misaligned hot Jupiters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDIVH45B

@misc{pith2026250507927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A third star in the HAT-P-7 system, and a new dynamical pathway to misaligned hot Jupiters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDIVH45B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07927}
}
abstract

The retrograde orbit of the hot Jupiter HAT-P-7b is suggestive of high-eccentricity migration caused by dynamical interactions with a massive companion. However, the only other known body in the system is an M dwarf located $\sim$10$^3$~AU away, too distant to cause high-eccentricity migration without fine tuning. Here we present transit-timing and radial-velocity evidence for an additional stellar companion with semi-major axis $32^{+16}_{-11}$~AU, eccentricity $0.76^{+0.12}_{-0.26}$, and minimum mass $0.19^{+0.11}_{-0.06}$~$\rm M_\odot$. We investigate several dynamical routes by which this nearby companion star could have played a role in converting a cold Jupiter into the retrograde hot Jupiter that is observed today. Of particular interest is a novel "eccentricity cascade" mechanism involving both of the companion stars: the outer companion periodically excites the eccentricity of the inner companion through von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai (ZLK) cycles, and this eccentricity excitation is slowly transferred to the cold Jupiter via successive close encounters, eventually triggering its high-eccentricity migration. The plausibility of this mechanism in explaining HAT-P-7b shows that stellar companions traditionally considered too distant to cause hot Jupiter formation might nevertheless be responsible, with the aid of closer-orbiting massive companions. With these developments, HAT-P-7b is one of the few hot Jupiters for which a complete high-eccentricity migration history can be simulated based only on observed bodies, rather than invoking bodies that are beneath detection limits or that are no longer in the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Radial velocity variation of HAT-P-7 observed with Keck/HIRES from 2007 to 2022. (b) Residuals after subtracting the best-fit sinusoidal model. The residual trend is well-fit by a cubic function of time (solid line). The dashed line represents a linear fit to the data between 2007 and 2010, and is consistent with the radial accelerations measured by Winn et al. (2009) and Narita et al. (2010). 0 500 1000 1500 20… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transit timing residuals between the data and the best-fitting constant-period model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Residuals from the best-fit solution to the RV and TTV data. The combined fit has a χ 2 value of 696 with 689 degrees of freedom. (a) Residuals from the RV fit, which has χ 2 = 52 and 46 degrees of freedom. (b) Residuals from the TTV fit, which has χ 2 = 644 and 636 degrees of freedom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the inner companion’s orbital parameters, derived from the RV and TTV data. The contours indicate 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2-σ confidence level, enclos￾ing 11.8%, 39.3%, 67.5%, and 86.4% of the samples. m1 sin i1 [M ] = 0.15+0.07 −0.05 15 30 45 60 75…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints on the inner companion’s orbital pa￾rameters, after assuming that the planet formed at 3 AU and applying the long-term stability requirements specified in Equation (4) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Outcomes of three-body simulations. (Top) Cat￾egorization of the state of the system after 50 Myr, as a func￾tion of the initial mutual inclination between the orbits of the planet and the inner companion. The colors convey the frac￾tion of systems in which the planet …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Outcomes of four-body simulations. The initial mutual inclination between the orbits of the inner compan￾ion and the planet was fixed at 10◦ . (Top) Categorization of the state of the system after 400 Myr, as a function of the initial mutual inclination between the orb…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of times at which the planet be￾comes a hot Jupiter, is tidally disrupted, collides, or escapes the system. The dashed line marks the end of the simula￾tion runtime (400 Myr). Most hot Jupiter formation occurs within the first few million years. 3.3.1. Str…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Formation of a retrograde hot Jupiter via the eccentricity cascade migration process. The planet (blue) and the inner companion (gray) initially have a mutual inclination of 10◦ , while the inner and outer companions start with a mutual inclination of 138◦ . The eccen…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: To leading order in eccentricity, the evolution of ep can be decomposed into a fixed mode eforced and a circulating mode efree in the kˆ-hˆ plane. into the sum of a forced eccentricity induced by the perturbing body, eforced, and a freely precessing eccen￾tricity, efr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Close encounters between the planet and the inner companion produce impulsive changes in the planet’s inclination. The mutual inclination exceeds the critical angle for ZLK oscillations at ∼21 Myr, triggering the planet’s high-e migration via the ZLK mechansim. Jupite…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A novel two-step process for “stimulated” high-e migration that was observed when the outer companion was assigned an initial eccentricity of 0.9. A close encounter between the inner and outer companions misaligned the planet and the inner companion at a time of ∼0.26…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Dependence of ⟨sin i1⟩ on imin,ZLK. The fiducial value of imin,ZLK = 48◦ is denoted with the vertical blue dashed line, and the two asymptotic limits of imin,ZLK = 0◦ andimin,ZLK = 90◦ are shown in the horizontal black dashed and dash-dotted lines, respectively. is no…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Suppression of ZLK oscillations due to the quadrupole moment of the planet’s orbit, as a function of the semi-major axis and eccentricity of the outer compan￾ion. The blue dot shows the configuration we adopt in our simulations. Any configurations to the left of the o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. 10,000 Resolved Triples from Gaia: Empirical Constraints on Triple Star Populations

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A high-purity Gaia catalog of 9,767 resolved triples shows inner binary properties mirror isolated binaries, and the intrinsic triple fraction rises from 5% at 0.5 Msun to 35% at 2 Msun.

  2. A Hot Jupiter with a Retrograde Orbit around a Sun-like Star and a Toy Model of Hot Jupiters in Wide Binary Star Systems

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

    KELT-23A b orbits its cool, Sun-like host star on a retrograde or near-polar path, making it one of the few cool-star hot Jupiters with a highly misaligned orbit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    H., Dawson, R

    Albrecht, S. H., Dawson, R. I., & Winn, J. N. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac6c09 2022

  2. [2]

    M., Brandt, T

    An, Q., Lu, T., Brandt, G. M., Brandt, T. D., & Li, G. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad90b4

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad90b4 2024

  3. [3]

    R., Collier Cameron, A., Delrez, L., et al

    Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., Delrez, L., et al. 2017a, A&A, 604, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730439

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730439

  4. [4]

    D., Esposito, P

    Anderson, J. D., Esposito, P. B., Martin, W., Thornton, C. L., & Muhleman, D. O. 1975, ApJ, 200, 221, doi: 10.1086/153779

    doi:10.1086/153779 1975

  5. [5]

    R., Lai, D., & Storch, N

    Anderson, K. R., Lai, D., & Storch, N. I. 2017b, MNRAS, 467, 3066, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx293

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx293

  6. [6]

    R., Storch, N

    Anderson, K. R., Storch, N. I., & Lai, D. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 3671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2906

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2906 2016

  7. [7]

    Antognini, J. M. O. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1552

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1552 2015

  8. [8]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651, doi: 10.1086/173679

    doi:10.1086/173679 1994

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    ´A., Kov´ acs, G., Torres, G., et al

    Bakos, G. ´A., Kov´ acs, G., Torres, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 826, doi: 10.1086/521866

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    ´A., Torres, G., P´ al, A., et al

    Bakos, G. ´A., Torres, G., P´ al, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1724, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1724

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    H., & Laughlin, G

    Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ, 829, 114, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/114 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu069

    Benomar, O., Masuda, K., Shibahashi, H., & Suto, Y. 2014, PASJ, 66, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu069

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac49e9

    Best, S., & Petrovich, C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac49e9

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    C., & White, R

    Beyer, A. C., & White, R. J. 2024, The Kraft Break Sharply Divides Low Mass and Intermediate Mass Stars. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02638

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Mardling, R. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 466, doi: 10.1086/318667

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac517f —

    Christian, S., Vanderburg, A., Becker, J., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac517f —. 2024, Wide Binary Orbits are Preferentially Aligned with the Orbits of Small Planets, but Probably Not Hot Jupiters. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10379

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dai, F., & Winn, J. N. 2017, AJ, 153, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa65d1

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    I., & Chiang, E

    Dawson, R. I., & Chiang, E. 2014, Science, 346, 212, doi: 10.1126/science.1256943

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    I., & Johnson, J

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 17 de Beurs, Z. L., de Wit, J., Venner, A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acedf1

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    X., Zhou, G., et al

    Dong, J., Huang, C. X., Zhou, G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2600

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Kraus, A

    Dupuy, T. J., Kraus, A. L., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac306

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Kiseleva, L

    Eggleton, P. P., Kiseleva, L. G., & Hut, P. 1998, ApJ, 499, 853, doi: 10.1086/305670

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    1966 doi

  19. [27]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/74

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/74

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol

    Gupta, A., Millholland, S., Im, H., et al. 2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol. 56, AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, 615.05

    2024

  21. [29]

    S., Antonini, F., Lithwick, Y., Perets, H

    Hamers, A. S., Antonini, F., Lithwick, Y., Perets, H. B., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2370 H´ ebrard, G., Bouchy, F., Pont, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 763, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810056 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al....

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 9, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    Holczer, T., Mazeh, T., Nachmani, G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 9, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    J., & Wiegert, P

    Holman, M. J., & Wiegert, P. A. 1999, AJ, 117, 621, doi: 10.1086/300695

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 616, 567, doi: 10.1086/424830

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    S., & Winn, J

    Ivshina, E. S., & Winn, J. N. 2022, ApJS, 259, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac545b

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/147

    Jang-Condell, H. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/147

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Fulton, B

    Knutson, H. A., Fulton, B. J., Montet, B. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/126

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Dupuy, T. J. 2016, AJ, 152, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/8

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/42

    Lai, D., & Pu, B. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/42

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    H., & Peale, S

    Lee, M. H., & Peale, S. J. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1201, doi: 10.1086/375857

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    K., Knutson, H

    Lewis, N. K., Knutson, H. A., Showman, A. P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/95

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2014, ApJ, 791, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/86

    Li, G., Naoz, S., Holman, M., & Loeb, A. 2014, ApJ, 791, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/86

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    J., & Lai, D

    Liu, B., Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2396

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79

    Lu, T., An, Q., Li, G., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc06d

    Lu, T., Rein, H., Tamayo, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc06d

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    N., Lundkvist, M., Silva Aguirre, V., et al

    Lund, M. N., Lundkvist, M., Silva Aguirre, V., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424326

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171, doi: 10.1086/345520

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    A., & Mandel, I

    Mangipudi, A., Grishin, E., Trani, A. A., & Mandel, I. 2022, ApJ, 934, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7958

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/28

    Masuda, K. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/28

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    2004, SoPh, 222, 191, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000043563.96766.21

    Berthomieu, G. 2004, SoPh, 222, 191, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000043563.96766.21

    2004

  42. [50]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 2000, Secular Perturbations (Cambridge University Press), 274–320 Mu˜ noz, D. J., Lai, D., & Liu, B. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw983

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    W., Mayor, M., et al

    Naef, D., Latham, D. W., Mayor, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 375, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010853

    2001 doi

  44. [52]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 498, doi: 10.1086/529369

    Nagasawa, M., Ida, S., & Bessho, T. 2008, ApJ, 678, 498, doi: 10.1086/529369

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    2011, Nature, 473, 187, doi: 10.1038/nature10076 —

    Teyssandier, J. 2011, Nature, 473, 187, doi: 10.1038/nature10076 —. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt302

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, PASJ, 61, L35, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.L35

    Narita, N., Sato, B., Hirano, T., & Tamura, M. 2009, PASJ, 61, L35, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.L35

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    2010, PASJ, 62, 779, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.3.779

    Narita, N., Kudo, T., Bergfors, C., et al. 2010, PASJ, 62, 779, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.3.779

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    H., Kuzuhara, M., et al

    Narita, N., Takahashi, Y. H., Kuzuhara, M., et al. 2012, PASJ, 64, L7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/64.6.L7

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Hinkley, S., et al

    Ngo, H., Knutson, H. A., Hinkley, S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/138

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Hinkley, S., et al

    Ngo, H., Knutson, H. A., Hinkley, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/8 18 P´ al, A., Bakos, G.´A., Torres, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 1450, doi: 10.1086/588010

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27

    Petrovich, C. 2015, ApJ, 799, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132

    Petrovich, C., & Tremaine, S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    A., et al

    Piaulet, C., Benneke, B., Rubenzahl, R. A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd3c

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    Rafikov, R. R. 2005, ApJL, 621, L69, doi: 10.1086/428899 —. 2006, ApJ, 648, 666, doi: 10.1086/505695

    2005 doi

  56. [64]

    A., & Ford, E

    Rasio, F. A., & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954, doi: 10.1126/science.274.5289.954

    1996 doi

  57. [65]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  58. [66]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2164

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 926, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac502d

    Rice, M., Wang, S., & Laughlin, G. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 926, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac502d

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Dai, F., Howard, A

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Dai, F., Howard, A. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd177

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    G., Collins, K

    Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, AJ, 153, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1011

    Teyssandier, J., Lai, D., & Vick, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1011

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Fortney, J

    Thorngren, D. P., Fortney, J. J., Lopez, E. D., Berger, T. A., & Huber, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 909, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe86d

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J., Collier Cameron, A., Queloz, D., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014525

    2010 doi

  68. [76]

    Vick, M., Lai, D., & Anderson, K. R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 5645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz354

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    2023, ApJL, 943, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaea6

    Vick, M., Su, Y., & Lai, D. 2023, ApJL, 943, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaea6

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    S., Allen, S

    Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362, doi: 10.1117/12.176725

    1994 doi

  71. [79]

    A., Horch, E

    Wang, J., Fischer, D. A., Horch, E. P., & Xie, J.-W. 2015, ApJ, 806, 248, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/248

    2015 doi

  72. [80]

    A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D

    Wang, J., Fischer, D. A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D. R. 2014, ApJ, 791, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/111

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

    A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D

    Wang, J., Fischer, D. A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D. R. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/130

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    J., Beatty, T

    Welbanks, L., Bell, T. J., Beatty, T. G., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 836, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07514-w

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 718, L145, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L145

    2010 doi

  76. [84]

    N., Johnson, J

    Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., Albrecht, S., et al. 2009, ApJL, 703, L99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/L99

    2009 doi

  77. [85]

    A., Kataria, T., et al

    Wong, I., Knutson, H. A., Kataria, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 122, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/122

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    2018, AJ, 155, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa970

    Wu, Y. 2018, AJ, 155, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa970

    2018 doi

  79. [87]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    Wu, Y., & Lithwick, Y. 2011, ApJ, 735, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/109

    2011 doi

  80. [88]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    Wu, Y., & Murray, N. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 605, doi: 10.1086/374598

    2003 doi

  81. [89]

    W., & Ramsahai, J

    Wu, Y., Murray, N. W., & Ramsahai, J. M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 670, 820, doi: 10.1086/521996

    2007 doi

  82. [90]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ffb

    Yu, H., & Dai, F. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ffb

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    2020, AJ, 159, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab55e9

    Ziegler, C., Tokovinin, A., Brice˜ no, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab55e9

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.