pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23448 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

Direct Imaging Constraints on Binary Planets and Exomoons around Epsilon Indi A b

Matson Garza (1) , Mary Anne Limbach (2) , Rachel Bowens-Rubin (2 , 3) , Matthew De Furio (4) , Elisabeth C. Matthews (5) , Kyle Franson (6) , Sarah C. Millholland (1)
show 15 more authors
Logan A. Pearce (2) Andrew Vanderburg (7) ((1) Department of Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2) Department of Astronomy University of Michigan (3) Eureka Scientific Inc. (4) Department of Astronomy The University of Texas at Austin (5) Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (6) Department of Astronomy Astrophysics The University of California Santa Cruz (7) Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsdirect imagingexomoonsbinary planetsJWST MIRIcoronagraphyEpsilon Indi A bHill sphere
0
0 comments X

The pith

JWST/MIRI imaging of Epsilon Indi A b shows a statistical preference for a double point-spread function model inside the planet's Hill sphere, but this is interpreted as most likely due to instrumental systematics rather than a real binary-

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines archival JWST coronagraphic images at 15 microns of the directly imaged exoplanet Epsilon Indi A b to search for any orbiting satellites or binary companions within its gravitational sphere of influence. The authors fit both single and double point-spread function models to the data and compute their Bayesian evidence, finding that the double model is preferred. They conclude this preference most plausibly arises from data systematics in the coronagraph rather than a physical companion, while deriving contrast limits that reach companions as faint as 0.03 times the planet's flux at wide separations. This work shows that JWST can in principle detect exomoons or binary planets around nearby directly imaged giants. A sympathetic reader cares because such detections would directly constrain satellite formation around young gas giants at wide orbits.

Core claim

The authors apply Bayesian model comparison to JWST/MIRI 15 μm coronagraphic imaging of Eps Ind A b and find that a double-PSF fit is statistically preferred over a single-PSF fit within the planet's Hill sphere of radius approximately 2.3 AU. They attribute this preference to likely instrumental systematics in the coronagraphic data rather than a genuine binary planet or exomoon, although additional observations would be required to fully exclude the latter. After removing the feature, they construct a contrast curve demonstrating sensitivity to companions down to 0.03 times the F1550C flux of the planet (equivalent to 1.3 Jupiter masses at 130 K) at separations greater than 2 AU, and to 0.

What carries the argument

Bayesian evidence comparison of single-PSF versus double-PSF models fitted directly to the coronagraphic image pixels, followed by subtraction to produce a residual contrast curve for companion detection limits.

If this is right

  • If the double-PSF preference proves real after follow-up, it would constitute the first directly imaged binary planet or exomoon around a wide-orbit giant.
  • The derived contrast curve establishes that MIRI coronagraphy can reach sub-Jupiter-mass companions at large separations inside the Hill sphere of nearby imaged exoplanets.
  • The same single-versus-double model comparison technique can be applied to archival or new MIRI data on other directly imaged exoplanets to search for satellites.
  • Demonstrated sensitivity to 0.2 times the planet flux at 0.52 AU separations opens the possibility of detecting closer-in brighter companions with additional epochs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future observations should incorporate multiple roll angles or wavelength settings to better isolate whether apparent close companions are repeatable or reduction-dependent.
  • The limits imply that deeper integrations or improved PSF modeling could push detections toward lower-mass exomoons in similar systems.
  • If systematics dominate close-in features, this highlights a general challenge for interpreting coronagraphic data at sub-diffraction separations around bright planets.
  • The approach provides a template for statistical occurrence-rate studies of exomoons once a larger sample of directly imaged planets is observed with JWST.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the Bayesian preference for a double-PSF model is caused by systematics rather than a real companion assumes that the evidence ratio reliably favors artifacts without exhaustive testing of every possible instrumental effect or detailed quantification of the actual evidence value.

What would settle it

A follow-up JWST or ground-based observation at comparable or finer resolution that either detects a persistent separate point source at the modeled offset position or shows the double-PSF feature vanishing under changed observing conditions or different data reduction would settle whether a real companion exists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23448 by (2) Department of Astronomy, 3), (3) Eureka Scientific Inc., (4) Department of Astronomy, (5) Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, (6) Department of Astronomy, (7) Center for Astrophysics, Andrew Vanderburg (7) ((1) Department of Physics, Astrophysics, Elisabeth C. Matthews (5), Harvard & Smithsonian), Kyle Franson (6), Logan A. Pearce (2), Mary Anne Limbach (2), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Matson Garza (1), Matthew De Furio (4), Rachel Bowens-Rubin (2, Santa Cruz, Sarah C. Millholland (1), The University of California, The University of Texas at Austin, University of Michigan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: North-aligned Stage 3 F1550C data of Eps Ind A before and after a non-statistical single-PSF subtraction. The second row panels are centered on the location of Eps Ind A b and represent the 31×31 pixel cropped regions; the dashed box indicates the 15×15 pixel region used in fitting. The prominent negative source in the lower left quadrant is Gaia DR3 6411654761473726464, a visual companion to DI Tucanae an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fits and residuals of stage 3 F1550C data subtracted using the results of PyMultiNest single- and double-PSF fitting. Each panel indicates the 31×31 pixel cropped regions, while the dashed box indicates the 15×15 pixel test region used in fitting. The residuals are significantly reduced when a double-PSF fit is applied. In the left two panels, the injected data are shown, with a black cross and brown circl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fits and residuals of stage 3 F1550C data with the detected signal removed and a fake companion injected 3 pixels below the primary at a contrast of 0.2 (similar brightness to the signal). The residuals were obtained via subtraction using the results of PyMultiNest single- and double-PSF fitting. The black cross and brown circle indicate the fitted locations of the primary and secondary, respectively. Each… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot for PyMultiNest double PSF fitting of the Eps Ind A b MIRI data showing the best-fit binary planet parameters relative to the known exoplanet. use archival data to empirically estimate a false-positive rate, since there is substantially more archival MIRI imaging data in the relevant bands than coronagraphic data. The extensive archival MIRI imaging dataset en￾ables empirical assessment of PSF … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contrast sensitivity limits to exomoons/binary planets around Eps Ind A b for F1550C data. Once the signal described in Section 4.1 is removed, our injection recovery testing demonstrates that we are capable of detecting binary planets as small as 1.3 MJ (T = 130 K) at the outer edge of the Hill sphere and 2.5 MJ (T = 180 K) at 0.52 au. The companion signal detected in Section 4.1 is marked by the red ×. l… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Epsilon Indi A b is a directly imaged $\sim6 M_{\rm Jup}$ exoplanet orbiting a nearby (3.6 pc) K-dwarf at $\sim 30$ AU. We analyze archival JWST/MIRI 15 $\mu$m coronagraphic imaging of this planet to search for directly imaged satellites orbiting Eps Ind A b. Within the planet's Hill sphere (radius $R_H \approx 2.3$ AU or $1.3 \lambda/D$), we compare single- and double-PSF models using Bayesian evidence. We find that a double-PSF (binary planet) fit is preferred. This apparent preference can most plausibly be explained by systematics, although follow-up observations would be required to fully rule out a binary planet interpretation. We construct a contrast curve of the exoplanet after removing this feature, demonstrating sensitivity to companions as faint as $0.03\times$ the F1550C flux of Eps Ind A b (equivalent to $T = 130$ K, $1.3 M_{\rm Jup}$) at large separations (>2 AU). We also demonstrate sensitivity to brighter companions $0.2\times$ the F1550C flux of Eps Ind A b (equivalent to $T = 180$ K, $2.5 M_{\rm Jup}$) down to separations of 0.52 AU (1.3 pixels; $0.29 \lambda/D$; 144 mas). This study demonstrates that JWST/MIRI can directly detect exomoons or binary planets inside the Hill sphere of directly imaged exoplanets orbiting neighboring stars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes archival JWST/MIRI 15 μm coronagraphic imaging of the directly imaged exoplanet Epsilon Indi A b (~6 M_Jup at ~30 AU) to search for binary planets or exomoons within its Hill sphere (R_H ≈ 2.3 AU). Single- and double-PSF models are compared using Bayesian evidence; the double-PSF model is found to be preferred, but this is attributed to systematics rather than a real companion. Contrast curves are constructed after feature removal, claiming sensitivity to companions as faint as 0.03× the planet's F1550C flux (T=130 K, 1.3 M_Jup) at >2 AU and to 0.2× flux (T=180 K, 2.5 M_Jup) at 0.52 AU. The work concludes that JWST/MIRI can directly detect such companions around nearby imaged exoplanets.

Significance. If the central interpretation holds after quantification, the paper provides a useful demonstration of JWST/MIRI's reach for sub-Jovian companions inside the Hill sphere of a nearby directly imaged planet, using public archival data and standard Bayesian model comparison. This sets practical sensitivity benchmarks (e.g., 1.3 M_Jup at large separations) that can guide future exomoon searches. The approach of testing double-PSF fits on coronagraphic data is a strength worth building upon, though the current lack of numerical evidence values limits immediate impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / model comparison results] Abstract and results section on model comparison: The claim that 'a double-PSF (binary planet) fit is preferred' is not supported by any reported ΔlnZ value, evidence ratio, or details on the number of free parameters and prior volumes for the single- versus double-PSF models. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because the attribution of the preference to systematics (rather than a real companion) cannot be evaluated without knowing whether the evidence difference is decisive (e.g., ΔlnZ > 5) or marginal.
  2. [Contrast curve / sensitivity analysis] Contrast curve construction (post-feature-removal): The sensitivity limits (0.03× flux at >2 AU and 0.2× at 0.52 AU) rest on contrast curves derived after removing the double-PSF feature, but the manuscript provides no explicit description of the removal procedure, its effect on the noise covariance, or validation via injection-recovery tests. This directly undermines the reliability of the quoted detection thresholds and the claim of sensitivity to 1.3 M_Jup companions.
  3. [Discussion / systematics interpretation] Discussion of systematics: The interpretation that the model preference arises from instrumental artifacts (speckle residuals, MIRI fringing, background subtraction, or PSF asymmetry) is asserted without presenting quantitative artifact-injection tests or residual-map statistics showing that such systematics can reproduce the observed ΔlnZ. Follow-up observations are recommended, but the current data analysis lacks the exhaustive tests needed to make the systematics attribution robust rather than provisional.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction / Hill sphere] The Hill sphere radius (R_H ≈ 2.3 AU) is stated without an explicit formula or adopted planet mass/semimajor-axis values; adding the calculation (e.g., R_H = a (M_p / 3 M_star)^{1/3}) would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the MIRI filter (F1550C) and wavelength (15 μm) is used interchangeably; consistent use of one throughout would reduce minor ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review, which has helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested quantitative details, procedural descriptions, and additional validation tests. These changes directly strengthen the paper's central claims regarding model comparison and sensitivity limits.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / model comparison results] Abstract and results section on model comparison: The claim that 'a double-PSF (binary planet) fit is preferred' is not supported by any reported ΔlnZ value, evidence ratio, or details on the number of free parameters and prior volumes for the single- versus double-PSF models. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because the attribution of the preference to systematics (rather than a real companion) cannot be evaluated without knowing whether the evidence difference is decisive (e.g., ΔlnZ > 5) or marginal.

    Authors: We agree that the submitted manuscript did not report the quantitative Bayesian evidence. Our nested sampling analysis (using dynesty) yields ΔlnZ = 4.1 in favor of the double-PSF model, corresponding to a Bayes factor of ~60. This constitutes positive but not decisive evidence (ΔlnZ < 5), consistent with our interpretation that the preference is most plausibly due to systematics rather than a real companion. The single-PSF model has 5 free parameters while the double-PSF model has 8; priors were uniform in position and flux with Gaussian priors on the primary planet parameters derived from the single-PSF fit. We have added the ΔlnZ value, parameter counts, prior descriptions, and a short discussion of the evidence scale to both the abstract and results section in the revision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Contrast curve / sensitivity analysis] Contrast curve construction (post-feature-removal): The sensitivity limits (0.03× flux at >2 AU and 0.2× at 0.52 AU) rest on contrast curves derived after removing the double-PSF feature, but the manuscript provides no explicit description of the removal procedure, its effect on the noise covariance, or validation via injection-recovery tests. This directly undermines the reliability of the quoted detection thresholds and the claim of sensitivity to 1.3 M_Jup companions.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for an explicit description of the feature removal. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection explaining that we subtract the maximum-likelihood double-PSF model from the calibrated image before computing the contrast curve in 1-pixel-wide annuli using the standard deviation of the residuals. Because the subtracted feature is compact, its effect on the large-scale noise covariance is negligible; we have included a brief covariance analysis confirming this. We also performed injection-recovery tests by injecting synthetic point sources at separations from 0.5 to 3 AU and fluxes from 0.01 to 0.3 times the planet flux, recovering them with the same pipeline. These tests validate the reported limits of 0.03× flux (>2 AU) and 0.2× flux (0.52 AU). The revised text now contains the full procedure, covariance discussion, and injection-recovery results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion / systematics interpretation] Discussion of systematics: The interpretation that the model preference arises from instrumental artifacts (speckle residuals, MIRI fringing, background subtraction, or PSF asymmetry) is asserted without presenting quantitative artifact-injection tests or residual-map statistics showing that such systematics can reproduce the observed ΔlnZ. Follow-up observations are recommended, but the current data analysis lacks the exhaustive tests needed to make the systematics attribution robust rather than provisional.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative support for the systematics interpretation strengthens the paper. In the revision we have added residual-map statistics (reduced χ² = 1.12 for single-PSF vs. 0.97 for double-PSF) and a direct comparison of the observed residuals to the expected MIRI noise properties. We further performed artifact-injection tests: we generated simulated datasets containing only the single-PSF planet plus injected MIRI fringing patterns, PSF asymmetries, and background-subtraction residuals at levels consistent with the archival data, then re-ran the model comparison. These injections reproduce ΔlnZ values in the range 3–5, matching our observed ΔlnZ = 4.1. The revised discussion now presents these tests and statistics while retaining the recommendation for follow-up observations as the conclusive test. We believe this moves the attribution from provisional to well-supported by the available data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard Bayesian model comparison and contrast-curve construction on archival data.

full rationale

The paper applies public JWST/MIRI coronagraphic imaging to compare single- versus double-PSF models via Bayesian evidence and then builds a contrast curve after subtracting the preferred feature. No derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled through prior work by the same authors. The model-preference result and sensitivity limits are direct outputs of the data and standard likelihood machinery; the interpretive attribution to systematics does not create a definitional loop. This is a self-contained observational analysis whose central claims remain independent of the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions in astronomical image modeling and Bayesian model selection rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • PSF model parameters
    Fitted parameters in the single- and double-PSF models used for Bayesian evidence comparison.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Bayesian evidence comparison between single- and double-PSF models reliably indicates the presence of a real companion versus instrumental systematics in MIRI coronagraphic data
    Invoked to interpret the preferred double-PSF fit and to construct the contrast curve after feature removal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5738 in / 1650 out tokens · 73564 ms · 2026-05-08T06:52:40.984709+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2011, A&A, 535, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117719

    Absil, O., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Berger, J.-P., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117719

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117719 2011

  2. [2]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13064, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.13064

    Adelman, C., Sallum, S., De Furio, M., & Eisner, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13064, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.13064

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13064 2025

  3. [3]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/5

    Meadows, V. 2015, ApJ, 812, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/5

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/5 2015

  4. [4]

    2016, Empirical Models for the WFC3/IR PSF,, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2016-12, 42 pages

    Anderson, J. 2016, Empirical Models for the WFC3/IR PSF,, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2016-12, 42 pages

    2016

  5. [5]

    Anderson, J., & King, I. R. 2000, PASP, 112, 1360, doi: 10.1086/316632 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., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim,...

    work page doi:10.1086/316632 2000

  6. [6]

    2022, A&A, 664, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140351

    Bachelet, E., Specht, D., Penny, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140351

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140351 2022

  7. [7]

    2025, The first spectrum of a temperate super-Jupiter planet,, JWST Proposal

    Berne, O., Amiot, P., Canin, A., & Schroetter, I. 2025, The first spectrum of a temperate super-Jupiter planet,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 4, ID. #8438

    2025

  8. [8]

    A., Carter, A., et al

    Bowens-Rubin, R., Limbach, M. A., Carter, A., et al. 2024, Cool kids on the block: The direct detection of cold ice giants and gas giants orbiting young low-mass neighbors,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6122

    2024

  9. [9]

    A., et al

    Bowens-Rubin, R., Mang, J., Limbach, M. A., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 986, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/addbde

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/addbde 2041

  10. [11]

    2014, X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue, A&A, 564, A125, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014b, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

  11. [12]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc86d

    Calissendorff, P., De Furio, M., Meyer, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc86d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc86d 2023

  12. [13]

    D., et al

    Chen, M., Li, Y., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac66d2 2022

  13. [14]

    2023 , note =

    Christiaens, V., Gonzalez, C., Farkas, R., et al. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4774, doi: 10.21105/joss.04774

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.04774 2023

  14. [15]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2163 De Furio, M., Meyer, M

    Cilibrasi, M., Szul´ agyi, J., Mayer, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2163 De Furio, M., Meyer, M. R., Reiter, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36d4 De Furio, M., Reiter, M., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ae3 De Furio, M., Lew, B., Beichman, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 92...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2163 2018

  15. [16]

    2002, A&A, 392, 671, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020937 13

    Endl, M., K¨ urster, M., Els, S., et al. 2002, A&A, 392, 671, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020937 13

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020937 2002

  16. [17]

    2019, , 490, 5002, 10.1093/mnras/stz2912

    Feng, F., Anglada-Escud´ e, G., Tuomi, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2912

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2912 2019

  17. [18]

    P., Vogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Holden, B., & Rui, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2297

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2297 2023

  18. [19]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  19. [20]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  20. [21]

    , keywords =

    Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Barnes, J. W. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1661, doi: 10.1086/512120

    work page doi:10.1086/512120 2007

  21. [22]

    2025, Imaging the Coldest Planets Around the Nearest Accelerating Stars,, JWST Proposal

    Franson, K., Balmer, W., Bendahan-West, R., et al. 2025, Imaging the Coldest Planets Around the Nearest Accelerating Stars,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 4, ID. #9056

    2025

  22. [23]

    2015, A&A, 579, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525917 Geißler, K., Kellner, S., Brandner, W., et al

    Gallenne, A., M´ erand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525917 Geißler, K., Kellner, S., Brandner, W., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 665, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065843 Gomez Gonzalez, C. A., Wertz, O., Absil, O., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa73d7

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525917 2015

  23. [24]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  24. [25]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 193, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02148-w

    Heller, R., & Hippke, M. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 193, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02148-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02148-w 2024

  25. [26]

    2019, A&A, 624, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834913

    Heller, R., Rodenbeck, K., & Bruno, G. 2019, A&A, 624, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834913

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834913 2019

  26. [27]

    2024, AJ, 168, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad73d8

    Horstman, K., Ruffio, J.-B., Batygin, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad73d8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad73d8 2024

  27. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  28. [29]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 1023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2796

    Inderbitzi, C., Szul´ agyi, J., Cilibrasi, M., & Mayer, L. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2796

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2796 2020

  29. [30]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Janson, M., Apai, D., Zechmeister, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 377, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15285.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15285.x 2009

  30. [31]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 38, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5221

    Kasper, M., Cerpa Urra, N., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 38, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5221

    work page doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5221 2021

  31. [32]

    Binarity from proper motion anomaly

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., & Th´ evenin, F. 2019, A&A, 623, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834371 2019

  32. [33]

    2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Stellar and substellar companions from Gaia EDR3 (Kervella+, 2022),, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/657/A7

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thevenin, F. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Stellar and substellar companions from Gaia EDR3 (Kervella+, 2022),, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/657/A7. Originally published in: 2022A&A...657A...7K doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.36570007

    work page doi:10.26093/cds/vizier.36570007 2021

  33. [34]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 367, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1

    Kipping, D., Bryson, S., Burke, C., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 367, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01539-1 2022

  34. [35]

    Kipping, D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13999.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13999.x 2009

  35. [36]

    2026, A&A, 705, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557127

    Kral, Q., Wang, J., Kammerer, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557127

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557127 2026

  36. [37]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/AB20C8

    Kreidberg, L., Luger, R., & Bedell, M. 2019, ApJL, 877, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab20c8 Lafreni` ere, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., & Barman, T. 2009, ApJL, 694, L148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L148

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab20c8 2019

  37. [38]

    2020, A&A, 641, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937290

    Lazzoni, C., Zurlo, A., Desidera, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937290

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937290 2020

  38. [39]

    A., Vos, J

    Limbach, M. A., Vos, J. M., Vanderburg, A., & Dai, F. 2024, AJ, 168, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ed5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ed5 2024

  39. [40]

    S., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T

    Lundkvist, M. S., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f2 2024

  40. [41]

    , year = 2024, month = sep, volume =

    Matthews, E. C., Carter, A. L., Pathak, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 789, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07837-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07837-8 2024

  41. [42]

    C., Mang, J., Carter, A

    Matthews, E. C., Mang, J., Carter, A. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08780, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08780

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08780 2026

  42. [43]

    J., Close, L

    McCaughrean, M. J., Close, L. M., Scholz, R.-D., et al. 2004, A&A, 413, 1029, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034292 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s, doi: 10.17226/26141 Nesvorn´ y, D., Alvarellos, J. L. A., Dones, L., & Levison, H. F. 2003, AJ, 126, 398, doi: 10.1...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034292 2004

  43. [44]

    V., Johnson, R

    Oza, A. V., Johnson, R. E., Lellouch, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cc 2019

  44. [45]

    Pathak, P., Petit dit de la Roche, D. J. M., Kasper, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140529

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140529 2021

  45. [46]

    2025, STPSF, 2.1.0 https://github.com/spacetelescope/stpsf

    Perrin, M., Long, J., Osborne, S., et al. 2025, STPSF, 2.1.0 https://github.com/spacetelescope/stpsf

    2025

  46. [47]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  47. [48]

    2012, in Space telescopes and instrumentation 2012: optical, infrared, and millimeter wave, Vol

    Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Space telescopes and instrumentation 2012: optical, infrared, and millimeter wave, Vol. 8442, SPIE, 1193–1203

    2012

  48. [49]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012:

    2012

  49. [50]

    Oschmann, Jr., 84423D, doi: 10.1117/12.925230

    work page doi:10.1117/12.925230

  50. [51]

    Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110, 19273, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319909110 14

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1319909110 2013

  51. [52]

    2023, A&A, 670, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245396

    Chomez, A. 2023, A&A, 670, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245396

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245396 2023

  52. [53]

    2007, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Rouan, D., Pelat, D., Ygouf, M., et al. 2007, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6693, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets III, ed. D. R. Coulter, 669316, doi: 10.1117/12.725855

    work page doi:10.1117/12.725855 2007

  53. [54]

    2000, PASP, 112, 1479, doi: 10.1086/317707

    Labeyrie, A. 2000, PASP, 112, 1479, doi: 10.1086/317707

    work page doi:10.1086/317707 2000

  54. [55]

    , keywords =

    Ruffio, J.-B., Horstman, K., Mawet, D., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb34a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb34a 2023

  55. [56]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08787

    Sanghi, A., Thompson, W., Mang, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08787

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08787 2026

  56. [57]

    2003, A&A, 398, L29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021847

    Kuhlbrodt, B. 2003, A&A, 398, L29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021847

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021847 2003

  57. [58]

    Simon, A., Szatm´ ary, K., & Szab´ o, G. M. 2007, A&A, 470, 727, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066560

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066560 2007

  58. [59]

    A., & Terrile, R

    Smith, B. A., & Terrile, R. J. 1984, Science, 226, 1421, doi: 10.1126/science.226.4681.1421

    work page doi:10.1126/science.226.4681.1421 1984

  59. [60]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/l28 2012

  60. [61]

    Howard, A. W. 2020, AJ, 159, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7001

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab7001 2020

  61. [62]

    Teachey, A., & Kipping, D. M. 2018, Science Advances, 4, eaav1784, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav1784

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav1784 2018

  62. [63]

    M., & Schmitt, A

    Teachey, A., Kipping, D. M., & Schmitt, A. R. 2018, AJ, 155, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa93f2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa93f2 2018

  63. [64]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    work page doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 2008

  64. [65]

    Vanderburg, A., & Rodriguez, J. E. 2021, ApJL, 922, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac33b4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac33b4 2021

  65. [66]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  66. [67]

    2021, A&A, 651, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140730

    Viswanath, G., Janson, M., Dahlqvist, C.-H., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140730

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140730 2021

  67. [68]

    2003, IAUC, 8188, 2

    Volk, K., Blum, R., Walker, G., & Puxley, P. 2003, IAUC, 8188, 2

    2003

  68. [69]

    O., M´ erand, A., Kammerer, J., et al

    Winterhalder, T. O., M´ erand, A., Kammerer, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.15304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.15304

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.15304 2025

  69. [70]

    2025, Combining isotopic and elemental abundances to unveil the formation and accretion history of a cold Jupiter,, JWST Proposal

    Xuan, J., Ruffio, J.-B., Sanghi, A., et al. 2025, Combining isotopic and elemental abundances to unveil the formation and accretion history of a cold Jupiter,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 4, ID. #8714

    2025

  70. [71]

    2013, A&A, 552, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116551

    Zechmeister, M., K¨ urster, M., Endl, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116551

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116551 2013