Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

The NEID Earth Twin Survey. III. Survey Performance After Three Years on Sky

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With just three years of NEID observations, the survey independently recovers nearly all known short-period planets and concludes that its sensitivity is now limited by observing baseline, not by RV precision or stellar variability.

desk verdict A useful survey status report whose data release and zero-point offset analysis are solid; the 'baseline-limited' sensitivity claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23704 v2 pith:HQFZSTLG submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Arvind F. Gupta , Evan Fitzmaurice , Suvrath Mahadevan , Paul Robertson , Jacob K. Luhn , Jason T. Wright , Sarah E. Logsdon , Daniel M. Krolikowski
show 17 more authors
Leonardo A. Paredes Chad F. Bender Mark R. Giovinazzi Andrea S. Lin Cullen H. Blake Caleb I. Cañas Eric B. Ford Samuel P. Halverson Shubham Kanodia Michael W. McElwain Andrew Monson Joe P. Ninan Jayadev Rajagopal Arpita Roy Christian Schwab Gu{ḥmundur Stefánsson Ryan C. Terrien
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords radialvelocityexoplanetsurveyNEIDDopplerspectroscopystellaractivityzeropointoffsetperiodogramsearchHabitableWorldsObservatory
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 the status of the NEID Earth Twin Survey after its first three years, and argues that the survey has already reached a milestone: for its 41 bright, quiet target stars, three years of NEID measurements alone recover nearly every known planet with an orbital period shorter than half the observing baseline. Ten of twelve such planets are detected blindly, including several with radial-velocity semi-amplitudes below 2 m/s, without any activity mitigation. The paper concludes that current survey sensitivity is set by the length of the observing baseline, not by the instrument's precision or by stellar variability. It also documents two instrumental zero-point breaks in the NEID RV time series, one previously known (the 2022 Contreras-fire shutdown) and one new, unexplained break in 2021, and measures their size across the target sample.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a uniform observing strategy paired with an iterative periodogram search. The RVSearch algorithm steps through a frequency grid, fits a fixed-period sinusoid at each trial period, and uses a Bayesian Information Criterion (ΔBIC) threshold calibrated to a 0.1% false-alarm level to decide whether to add a Keplerian to the model, repeating until no significant peaks remain. The analysis treats the three NEID 'RV eras' (Run 0.5, Run 1, Run 2) as separate time series with freely fitted zero-point offsets, so that the search is blind to instrumental breaks including the newly identified August 2021 offset. To diagnose those breaks, the paper uses residual cross-correlation function (CCF) line-profile shapes for a standard star, revealing two sharp transitions in the average line profile, and then fits per-star zero-point offsets after subtracting known companion orbits. The recovery statistics of known planets are the diagnostic that ties the machinery to the sensitivity claim.

What would settle it

Re-run the RVSearch analysis on the public NEID RVs for a target such as HD190360 but combine all three runs into a single time series with no zero-point offsets; if the 17-day planet HD190360c is no longer recovered, or if a long-period false positive appears, the paper's conclusion that the survey is baseline-limited rather than offset- or method-limited would be undercut. More directly, if a future blind search of the same data with a different algorithm (e.g., a full Bayesian multi-planet model including activity) fails to recover the same 10 of 12 short-period planets, the recovery claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a purpose-built, uniformly scheduled extreme-precision radial-velocity survey can match the cumulative sensitivity of decades of heterogeneous RV monitoring in a fraction of the time. Using the NEID spectrograph on 41 RV-quiet stars, the NETS data set independently and blindly recovers 10 of the 12 known planets with periods shorter than half the three-year baseline, including signals as weak as K ~ 1-2 m/s, using raw pipeline RVs and no stellar activity modeling. The two missed short-period planets (HD143761d and HD115617d) are either low-amplitude or disputed. None of the five longer-period planets are recovered, consistent with the baseline being shorter than their orbits. The paper further shows that the RV zero point of NEID shifted twice: once between August and September 2021 for an unknown reason, and once after the 2022 instrument thermal cycle, with the latter offset showing a chromatic structure tied to the ThAr calibration orders. The authors argue that these results imply the survey's sensitivity is baseline-limited rather than precision-limited.

Load-bearing premise

The published orbital parameters of the known companion stars and planets are accurate enough that subtracting them from the NEID RVs does not leave correlated residuals large enough to bias the zero-point offset fits, the RMS diagnostics, or the planet-recovery statistics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the baseline-limited interpretation is correct, extending the survey should push sensitivity to planets with K ~ 1-2 m/s out to periods of several hundred days.
  • The measured zero-point offsets, including the chromatic ThAr versus LFC difference, provide priors that will tighten future multi-era fits for long-period signals.
  • The public release of NEID RVs and activity indicators for 41 stars enables independent re-analysis and direct comparison with archival RV data sets.
  • Because 23 NETS targets are high-priority targets for the Habitable Worlds Observatory, the continued baseline will help build the census needed for target selection and mass measurements.
  • Several new candidate signals (e.g., around HD10700, HD10780, HD146233, HD68017) are reported without classification, so follow-up is the next step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own diagnostic logic implies that an unexplained zero-point break may lurk in other EPRV spectra; the CCF-residual method could be applied to other instruments' archives to hunt for similar undocumented breaks.
  • The chromatic offset between ThAr- and LFC-anchored orders suggests that M-dwarf RV analyses with NEID (which draw most information from red orders) may be nearly immune to the Run 1-2 offset, a consequence the paper flags but does not fully quantify.
  • The successful blind recovery of sub-m/s signals without activity filtering implies that for the most quiescent FGK dwarfs, simple white-noise models may suffice in period searches, which would simplify planet-retrieval pipelines for other surveys.
  • If the survey's sensitivity continues to be baseline-limited, then the expected yield of new planets from NETS should scale roughly with baseline; the marginal detections (e.g., HD168009b without a trend) become a testable forecast for the next year of data.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the three-year status of the NEID Earth Twin Survey (NETS): the execution of the observing strategy, the public release of RV and activity-indicator time series, calibration of two RV zero-point offsets, per-star RMS diagnostics, an RVSearch blind/informed search for periodic signals, and a set of new candidate RV signals. The paper's headline claim is that NETS independently recovers 10 of 12 known short-period planets (P <= tau/2) and that the present survey sensitivity is limited by the observing baseline rather than by RV precision or intrinsic stellar variability.

Significance. If the baseline-limited claim holds, this is a valuable survey status report with a public data release, careful characterization of two instrumental zero-point breaks, and a uniform RVSearch analysis of a well-defined sample. Strengths include the transparent treatment of instrumental discontinuities, the explicit caveats about spurious eccentric signals and about HD115617d's disputed reality, and the use of literature orbits as out-of-sample benchmarks rather than as fitted targets. The missing completeness analysis leaves the strongest claim under-supported, but the core data products and the recovery statistics are reproducible in principle and will be useful to the EPRV and HWO communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Figure 12] The claim that the survey is 'limited by the observing baseline, not by the RV precision or the intrinsic variability' is not quantitatively established. The two missed short-period planets, HD143761d (P ~ 282 d, K ~ 2.2 m/s) and HD115617d (P ~ 123 d, K ~ 1.44 m/s, itself disputed in the literature), have periods well within tau/2, so their non-recovery points to amplitude/precision or sampling limitations rather than baseline. Reporting RMS statistics and recovery of 10 of 12 known signals shows that many signals are recovered, but it does not map the detection boundary in the P-K plane. The paper needs an injection-recovery simulation over period and semi-amplitude for representative NETS cadences and noise levels, or the conclusion should be restated as an interpretation of a small, biased known-planet sample rather than a demonstrated completeness property.
  2. [Section 6.1] The comparison with 'all cumulative RV monitoring of these same target stars over the past few decades' is qualitative. No quantitative metric--for example, the median detectable semi-amplitude at a given period, or a completeness fraction as a function of P and K--is provided for either the NETS data or the archival data sets. As written, the comparison cannot be checked or falsified. Please provide a concrete sensitivity metric for both data sets or weaken the claim to the specific statement that NETS recovers most known short-period signals without reference to archival RVs.
  3. [Section 5.1.2 and Table 2] HD115617d is treated as a known planet in the recovery statistics and in the residual subtraction of Section 3.1, but Section 5.1.2 reports that the 124-day signal is accompanied by harmonics and may be a yearly systematic, and the authors explicitly note disagreement about its reality. Because the central recovery count (10 of 12) depends on including this disputed planet, the paper should state how the conclusions change if HD115617d is removed from the known-planet list, and should avoid presenting the 10-of-12 statistic as robust to this ambiguity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3.13] There is a typo in 'saerches' in the HD68017 paragraph; it should read 'searches'.
  2. [Title and Abstract] The title contains a typo: 'T win' should be 'Twin'.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4] The detected-signal parameters are listed without uncertainties. The authors state that these are not updated orbit measurements, but for the new candidate signals a statement of the expected parameter uncertainties (or a note that they are omitted deliberately) would help readers assess significance.
  4. [Section 5.3.8] There is a spacing issue in 'A502-daysignal'; it should be 'A 502-day signal'.
  5. [Figure 12] The figure would be easier to interpret if the tau/2 boundary were drawn for a representative baseline and if the missed low-amplitude signals were annotated with their K values, since the current symbols make the amplitude dimension of the two misses less visible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the recovery benchmark has a minor self-citation contamination but no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are an empirical survey status report: the RV zero point offsets are fit offsets between NEID RV eras after subtracting external companion models (Section 3.3), and the sensitivity claim is supported by blind RVSearch recoveries of published orbits computed from NEID RVs, not by fitting to a target result. The two missed short-period planets (HD143761d and HD115617d) are explicitly reported as non-detections, and the 'baseline-limited, not precision-limited' conclusion is an interpretation of a 12-planet sample rather than an injection-recovery completeness map; this is a robustness and correctness concern, not circularity. Self-citations (Gupta et al. 2021, Gupta et al. 2025, Giovinazzi et al. 2025) define the survey strategy and supply some companion orbits, including HD86728b, whose confirmation used NETS NEID data; counting that planet among independently recovered signals modestly weakens the independence of the benchmark, but the detection is produced by a blind periodogram search with free parameters and compared to, not defined by, the published orbit. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are calibration constants and fitted offsets, not theoretical inputs. The key assumptions are standard domain assumptions for RV surveys: external orbit accuracy, a detection threshold, and the interpretation of CCF changes as instrument drifts.

free parameters (2)
  • SHK,MW conversion coefficients = slope 1.177, intercept 0.004
    Linear fit between NEID DRP Ca II H&K values and Mount Wilson S-values for 27 FGK stars (Section 2.3). Calibrates activity indicators, not the central RV claims.
  • Mean RV zero point offsets = Δγ(Run1-Run0.5) = 0.71 ± 1.51 m/s, Δγ(Run1-Run2) = 1.58 ± 0.99 m/s
    Fitted per-star offsets then averaged across the sample (Section 3.3). These are central to the survey diagnostics.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Published orbital parameters for known companions are accurate to better than the survey RMS.
    Subtraction of known signals in Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 4 depends on this; stale ephemerides are flagged as a possible cause of high RMS.
  • domain assumption The 0.1% false alarm threshold from RVSearch is a valid detection criterion for NEID data.
    Adopted from Rosenthal et al. 2021 and used for all recovery statistics; not independently recalibrated on NEID.
  • domain assumption The CCF line shape transitions correspond to instrument zero point offsets rather than stellar activity.
    Defines Run 0.5, Section 3.3; supported by uniformity across stars but the cause of the 2021 transition is unknown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The NEID Earth Twin Survey. III. Survey Performance After Three Years on Sky." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQFZSTLG

@misc{pith2026250623704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The NEID Earth Twin Survey. III. Survey Performance After Three Years on Sky},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQFZSTLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23704}
}
read the original abstract

The NEID Earth Twin Survey (NETS) has been delivering a rich set of precise radial velocity (RV) measurements for 41 bright, nearby main sequence stars. Here, we describe the status of the survey after three years on sky and we present the full set of RV measurements and accompanying stellar activity indicators. We discuss intermediate survey diagnostics, including calibration of the known RV zero point offset introduced following the Contreras fire in 2022 and the identification of an undiagnosed and previously unknown zero point offset in 2021. An analysis of our data set using RVSearch demonstrates that for these target stars, NEID is independently sensitive to nearly all known planets with periods shorter than the NETS observing baseline. We also highlight a number of newly detected RV signals, which present exciting opportunities for future investigations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Representative seasonal observing schedule for NEID Earth Twin Survey target stars. We schedule sets of time-sensitive observations (red; P0) to bracket the observing season, high cadence observations (blue; P1) in the middle of each season to sample rotationally-modulated stellar signals, and long baseline observations (yellow; P2) to improve phase coverage. Lower panels: Enacted schedules for each of the firs… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NEID activity indicator time series measurements and GLS periodograms for HD 143761. We adopt a 0.1% FAP threshold to evaluate the significance of any detected signals; this is shown as a horizontal dashed line in each panel. We do not show the FWHM or BIS, the interpretation of which would be clouded by the line profile changes described in Section 3.3. For this star, no significant activity signals are detected. E… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Time series of relative FWHM measurements for all NETS stars with multiple nights of data collected prior to August 2021. We observe a sharp decrease in FWHM in August 2021 for all Solar-type stars, and we interpret this as a break in the RV time series necessitating the definition of a new NEID RV era prior to this date. A sharp FWHM change is also observed for HD 95735, an M-dwarf, but this change does not follow … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NEID RV zero point change between Run 0.5 and Run 1. We show the zero point change as a function of spec￾tral echelle order (a) and as a function of stellar temperature (b). No significant chromatic trends emerge. FWHM and BIS are likely to be affected by the same chan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Run 1 (blue) and Run 2 (red) RMS RV for all NETS target stars after removing RV signals from known companions. We use ⋆ to indicate systems for which we subtracted signals from known stellar companions and • to indicate those for which we subtracted signals from known …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RVSearch results for HD 143761 for the case in which no goodness-of-fit trend test was allowed and the pe￾riod search was restricted to P < τ /2. (a) Full orbit model and NEID RV time series, (b) residuals to the orbit model, (c) ∆BIC periodogram of the RV residuals, (…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RVSearch results for HD 190360 for the case in which the long-period signal from the known planet HD 190360 was accounted for via a fitted trend. See the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: RVSearch results for HD 146233 for the case in which a goodness-of-fit trend test was allowed and the period search was restricted to P < τ . See the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbital periods and semi-amplitudes for all known exoplanets discovered via the RV method. Planetary companions to FGK host stars are shown as green circles and companions to M-dwarfs are shown as gray squares. Planets orbiting to NETS targets stars that are successfu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    1996, A&As, 119, 373

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

    1996

  3. [3]

    E., Lewis, T., Fortney, J

    Batalha, N. E., Lewis, T., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4909

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4909 2019

  4. [4]

    C., Wright, J

    Baum, A. C., Wright, J. T., Luhn, J. K., & Isaacson, H. 2022, AJ, 163, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5683 26 Gupta et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5683 2022

  5. [5]

    T., Fischer, D

    Blackman, R. T., Fischer, D. A., Jurgenson, C. A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab811d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab811d 2020

  6. [6]

    H., Halverson, S., & Roy, A

    Blake, C. H., Halverson, S., & Roy, A. 2017, Journal of Instrumentation, 12, C04003, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/12/04/C04003

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/04/c04003 2017

  7. [7]

    2001, A&A, 374, 733, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010730

    Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., & Queloz, D. 2001, A&A, 374, 733, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010730

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010730 2001

  8. [8]

    Brandenburg, A., Mathur, S., & Metcalfe, T. S. 2017, ApJ, 845, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7cfa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7cfa 2017

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    M., Zhao, L

    Brewer, J. M., Zhao, L. L., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdd6f

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Burrows, A., Halverson, S., Siegel, J. C., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad34d5

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Burt, J., Holden, B., Wolfgang, A., & Bouma, L. G. 2018, AJ, 156, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae697

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Cegla, H

    Chaplin, W. J., Cegla, H. M., Watson, C. A., Davies, G. R., & Ball, W. H. 2019, AJ, 157, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0c01

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Hatzes, A

    Cochran, W. D., Hatzes, A. P., Butler, R. P., & Marcy, G. W. 1997, ApJ, 483, 457, doi: 10.1086/304245

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Leifer, S., et al

    Crass, J., Gaudi, B. S., Leifer, S., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2107.14291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2107.14291

    2021 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Crass, J., Sadagopan, N., Misch, M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

    2022

  8. [16]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121844X, doi: 10.1117/12.2630199

    doi

  9. [17]

    R., Johnson, J

    Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/39

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, A&A, 678, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347232

    Cretignier, M., Dumusque, X., Aigrain, S., & Pepe, F. 2023, A&A, 678, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347232

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2025, AJ, 169, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada610 Díaz, M

    Damiano, M., Burr, Z., Hu, R., Burt, J., & Kataria, T. 2025, AJ, 169, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada610 Díaz, M. R., Jenkins, J. S., Tuomi, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa896 Díaz, R. F., Delfosse, X., Hobson, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A17, doi: 1...

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G. 2011, A&A, 525, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014097

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Vaughan, A

    Duncan, D. K., Vaughan, A. H., Wilson, O. C., et al. 1991, ApJS, 76, 383, doi: 10.1086/191572

    1991 doi

  14. [22]

    Feng, F., Tuomi, M., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa83b4

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    1999, PASP, 111, 50, doi: 10.1086/316304

    Apps, K. 1999, PASP, 111, 50, doi: 10.1086/316304

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Jaque Arancibia, M., et al

    Flores, M., González, J. F., Jaque Arancibia, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833330

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Bender, C

    Ford, E. B., Bender, C. F., Blake, C. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13318, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13318

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Howard, A

    Fulton, B. J., Howard, A. W., Weiss, L. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/46 Gaia Collaboration, Creevey, O. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243800

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Halverson, S., et al

    Gilbertson, C., Ford, E. B., Halverson, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17289, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17289

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2025, markgiovinazzi/binary_mc: binary_mcmc v1.0.0, 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15352084

    Giovinazzi, M. 2025, markgiovinazzi/binary_mc: binary_mcmc v1.0.0, 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15352084

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Blake, C

    Giovinazzi, M. R., Blake, C. H., Robertson, P., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add922

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Burgasser, A. J. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 385, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03060.x Gomes da Silva, J., Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039765

    2000

  24. [32]

    F., & Bedell, M

    Gupta, A. F., & Bedell, M. 2024, AJ, 168, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ce6

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Wright, J

    Gupta, A. F., Wright, J. T., Robertson, P., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd79e

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Luhn, J

    Gupta, A. F., Luhn, J. K., Wright, J. T., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad89bf

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Thompson, S

    Hall, R. D., Thompson, S. J., Handley, W., & Queloz, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1464

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Halverson, S., Terrien, R., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

  29. [37]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99086P, doi: 10.1117/12.2232761

    doi

  30. [38]

    K., Dressing, C

    Harada, C. K., Dressing, C. D., Kane, S. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10679, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10679

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Vanderburg, A., Mortier, A., et al

    Haywood, R. D., Vanderburg, A., Mortier, A., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab8f3

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    N., et al

    Hempelmann, A., Mittag, M., Gonzalez-Perez, J. N., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526972

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Rosenthal, L., Fulton, B

    Hirsch, L. A., Rosenthal, L., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd639

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 NETS Three Year Status 27

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Fulton, B., Isaacson, H., et al

    Hurt, S. A., Fulton, B., Isaacson, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5c47

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Fulton, B., et al

    Isaacson, H., Howard, A. W., Fulton, B., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad676c

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Harada, C. K. 2024, AJ, 168, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6a50

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    Kanodia, S., & Wright, J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 4, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa4b7

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Kanodia, S., Lin, A. S. J., Lubar, E., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acea60

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Matrà, L., Marmier, M., et al

    Kennedy, G. M., Matrà, L., Marmier, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv511

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Fischer, D

    Korolik, M., Roettenbacher, R. M., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace906

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    K., Fredrick, C., Diddams, S

    Kreider, M. K., Fredrick, C., Diddams, S. A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 589, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02486-x

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Mamajek, E

    Laliotis, K., Burt, J. A., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc067

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    F., Collier Cameron, A., & Haywood, R

    Lanza, A. F., Collier Cameron, A., & Haywood, R. D. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1055

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Lin, A. S. J., Monson, A., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5622

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    C., et al

    Lovis, C., Dumusque, X., Santos, N. C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1107.5325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1107.5325

    2011 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    K., Wright, J

    Luhn, J. K., Wright, J. T., & Isaacson, H. 2020, AJ, 159, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab775c

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1933

    Ma, B., Ge, J., Muterspaugh, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1933

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    Mamajek, E., & Stapelfeldt, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    2024 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    D., Hartkopf, W

    Mason, B. D., Hartkopf, W. I., & Miles, K. N. 2017, AJ, 154, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa803e

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.2497

    Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.2497

    2011 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 021220, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.021220

    Morgan, R., Savransky, D., Turmon, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 021220, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.021220

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    G., et al

    Naef, D., Mayor, M., Korzennik, S. G., et al. 2003, A&A, 410, 1051, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031341 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (NASEM), doi: 10.17226/26141

    2003 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Jha, S., Korzennik, S

    Noyes, R. W., Jha, S., Korzennik, S. G., et al. 1997, ApJL, 483, L111, doi: 10.1086/310754

    1997 doi

  56. [64]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 10, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  57. [65]

    V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 853, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2019, AJ, 157, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf892

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1428

    Roberts, S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1428

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.1.015003

    Robertson, P., Anderson, T., Stefansson, G., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.1.015003

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Schwab, C., Rakich, A., Gong, Q., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99087H, doi: 10.1117/12.2234411

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    C., Halverson, S., Luhn, J

    Siegel, J. C., Halverson, S., Luhn, J. K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6768

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/175

    Stefansson, G., Hearty, F., Robertson, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/175

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    S., Butler, R

    Vogt, S. S., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 638, doi: 10.1086/432901

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    S., Wittenmyer, R

    Vogt, S. S., Wittenmyer, R. A., Butler, R. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1366, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1366

    2010 doi

  67. [75]

    Wright, J. T. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.08384, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1603.08384

    2016 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    T., Marcy, G

    Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., et al. 2008, ApJL, 683, L63, doi: 10.1086/587461

    2008 doi

  69. [77]

    T., Marcy, G

    Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 533, doi: 10.1086/510553

    2007 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 055022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/accb7e

    Xiao, G.-Y., Liu, Y.-J., Teng, H.-Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 055022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/accb7e

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2421

    Yu, H., Aigrain, S., Klein, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2421

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    Zechmeister, M., & Kürster, M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    2009 doi

  73. [81]

    2018, GLS: Generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1807.019 http://ascl.net/1807.019

    Zechmeister, M., & Kürster, M. 2018, GLS: Generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1807.019 http://ascl.net/1807.019

    2018

  74. [82]

    L., Fischer, D

    Zhao, L. L., Fischer, D. A., Ford, E. B., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5176

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.