Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 97 references

Sub-Jupiter Gas Giants Orbiting Giant Stars Uncovered using a Bayesian Framework

T0 review · 3 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 Three Jupiter-scale gas giants orbit two bright evolved stars, found through Bayesian re-analysis of radial velocities.

desk verdict Two well-supported new planets around giant stars, wrapped in a population-level extrapolation that outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02507 v1 pith:2SQ5UTEB submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

J.S. Jenkins , M.I. Jones , J.I. Vines , R.I. Rubenstein , P.A. Pena Rojas , R. Wittenmyer , R. Brahm , M. Tala Pinto
show 1 more author
J. Carson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords radialvelocitiesgiantstarsexoplanetsBayesiananalysisMarkovchainMonteCarloplanetoccurrenceratemassfunctionHIP18606
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that two bright evolved stars, HIP18606 and HIP111909, host a total of three gas-giant planets whose radial-velocity signals sit near the limit of what previous analyses could detect. By combining more than a decade of data from three spectrographs and fitting them with a parallel-tempered Bayesian sampler, the authors find these planets have minimum masses between roughly 0.8 and 1.2 Jupiter masses and preferentially circular orbits. Re-running the same machinery on 11 previously known giant-star planetary systems confirms those planets and likewise favors circular solutions, leading the authors to conclude that roughly 25 to 30 percent of low-luminosity giant stars in their 37-star common sample host giant planets. The broader point is that careful posterior sampling opens a previously missed population of sub-Jupiter-mass planets around evolved stars, extending detection down to the super-Saturn regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is EMPEROR, a parallel-tempered MCMC radial-velocity fitter that models each star's velocities as instrument offsets, a linear trend, optional activity-index correlations, optional first-order moving-average noise, and one or more Keplerian signals. What carries the argument is a systematic grid of 18 model variants per star: three eccentricity priors (tight, constrained, and fixed-circular) crossed with six noise treatments. Bayes factors computed as $\Delta$BIC select both the number of planets and the preferred orbit, and the consistent preference for fixed-circular, white-noise models is what lets the paper claim circular orbits and simple noise for these giant-star systems.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to inject synthetic Keplerian signals with periods of 400 to 1000 days and semi-amplitudes of 5 to 20 m s$^{-1}$ into the actual UCLES, CHIRON, and FEROS time series for all 37 common stars, then recover them with EMPEROR under the same priors; if the recovery fraction drops steeply at the amplitudes of the newly claimed planets, the planet fraction and exponential mass function would need downward revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that HIP18606 hosts one gas giant with period $674.94^{+6.43}_{-6.28}$ days, semi-amplitude $16.07^{+1.12}_{-1.18}$ m s$^{-1}$, and minimum mass $0.77 \pm 0.07\,M_{\rm Jup}$ on a circular orbit, while HIP111909 hosts two gas giants with periods $487.08^{+3.81}_{-3.63}$ and $893.63^{+14.89}_{-16.03}$ days, minimum masses $1.21 \pm 0.10$ and $0.81 \pm 0.08\,M_{\rm Jup}$, also on circular orbits, with a period ratio of 1.84 that sits just over $3\sigma$ from the 5:3 resonance. Reanalysis of 11 published giant-star systems returns broadly similar parameters, but the statistically favored models place most of those planets on circular orbits, and four new candidate signals emerge around other stars. The paper further claims that the minimum-mass distribution of the resulting 20 candidates rises exponentially toward low masses, and a Hartigan-like dip test gives roughly 93 percent probability of a second population of $4$–$5\,M_{\rm Jup}$ planets that the authors attribute to gravitational collapse of fragmenting protoplanetary disks. It also finds that white-noise-only models beat moving-average correlated-noise models for these radial-velocity data.

Load-bearing premise

The 25 to 30 percent occurrence-rate estimate assumes that the 37-star joint survey sample has sufficiently uniform and known detection completeness across the radial-velocity parameter space, but the paper presents no injection-recovery or completeness correction to justify that uniformity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the circular-orbit preference holds, gas-giant planets around giant stars can be compared directly with main-sequence planet samples without an eccentricity-damping correction.
  • Detecting planets below the 20 m s$^{-1}$ sensitivity limit around evolved stars means radial-velocity surveys can probe the super-Saturn mass regime at separations beyond 1 AU.
  • If HIP111909b and c are near the 5:3 resonance, continued monitoring may confirm a resonant architecture that survived the star's evolution off the main sequence.
  • The claimed 93 percent probability of a second mass population above 4 Jupiter masses motivates a homogeneous Bayesian re-analysis of all stars in both surveys, as the paper itself recommends.
  • White-noise-only models being favored implies that future giant-star RV surveys can omit moving-average noise terms and still recover the same planetary signals.
  • A planet fraction near 25 to 30 percent for low-luminosity giant stars means roughly one in three or four such stars in this sample harbors at least one giant planet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: applying the same 18-model grid to other giant-star radial-velocity archives should uncover additional sub-Jupiter-mass planets from data already in hand, because the new detections sit below sensitivity limits previously assumed.
  • Editorial inference: if HIP111909's 5:3 period ratio is confirmed resonant by dynamical modeling, the system provides a testable constraint on how post-main-sequence mass loss shifts planets out of mean-motion resonance; the claimed $3\sigma$ offset from exact resonance is a concrete prediction.
  • Editorial inference: a completeness-correction study on this 37-star sample could either confirm the 25 to 30 percent planet fraction or reveal that the low-mass population is over-represented; until such a study exists, the exponential mass-function comparison to dwarf-star samples remains provisional.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Bayesian reanalysis of combined EXPRESS and PPPS radial-velocity data for low-luminosity giant stars, reporting two new planetary systems: a single sub-Jupiter planet around HIP18606 (P≈675 d, m sin i≈0.77 M_J, circular) and a two-planet system around HIP111909 (P≈487 d and 894 d, m sin i≈1.21 and 0.81 M_J, circular, near a 5:3 period ratio). The authors also reanalyze 11 previously known giant-star planetary systems, confirming the published signals but generally favoring circular orbits, and they report several new candidate signals. Activity diagnostics (S-index, NaD, Hα, BIS, ASAS, Hipparcos) are used to flag possible false positives, notably HIP24275c and HIP90988b. Population-level claims include a 25–30% occurrence fraction of low-luminosity giants hosting planets, an exponential mass function consistent with the dwarf-star relation, and a ~93% probability of a second population of super-Jupiters at 4–5 M_J. The noise analysis favors white-noise models over moving-average correlated-noise models for these data.

Significance. If the two headline detections hold, they are valuable additions to the small sample of sub-Jupiter gas giants orbiting evolved stars; the possible near-resonant pair around HIP111909 is particularly interesting and motivates follow-up. The paper's strengths include a systematic model grid (three eccentricity priors × six noise models), a clean activity-discrimination result for HIP18606 (17.9σ separation between the S-index signal and the Doppler signal), honest flagging of potentially activity-driven candidates, and public data release via Zenodo. The reanalysis of 11 known systems with new RVs is a useful methodological check. However, the population-level claims (25–30% occurrence and the ~93% second-population statement) are not yet supported at the level implied by the abstract, because the occurrence extrapolation lacks any completeness or injection-recovery correction and the statistical interpretation of the dip test is overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7 (General Analysis Results) and Abstract] The 25–30% occurrence fraction is derived from the raw counts 13/37 (or 11/37 after excluding two candidates) of the EXPRESS-PPPS common sample, with no detection-completeness or injection-recovery correction. The sample is the RV-stable subset selected by Jones et al. (2011), and the reported per-instrument jitter values (Table F.3) range from ~4 to ~14 m/s, so sensitivity is strongly heterogeneous across the sample. Since the text itself defers such statistical testing to future work ('it is necessary to apply our Bayesian methodology to a much larger sample... and then statistically test to what level the RV biases are affecting our results'), the raw fraction should not be presented as an extrapolated occurrence rate in the Abstract. Either add a completeness analysis or reframe this number as a raw detection fraction with clear caveats.
  2. [§8 (Discussion and Summary)] The derivation of the 25–30% value via the '12.5% (2/16) of Doppler candidates' correction is not numerically or conceptually transparent. If HIP24275c and HIP90988b are false positives, those stars still host other confirmed planets (HIP24275b and HIP90988c), so the fraction of planet-hosting stars would not obviously drop by 12.5%; the calculation conflates Doppler candidates with systems. The sentence 'dropping the fraction of giant planets orbiting low-luminosity giant stars by the same factor' needs a clearer derivation or a statement that the correction applies to the planet-candidate count, not the stellar host fraction.
  3. [§7 (Mass Function paragraph) and Abstract] The '~93% probability that a second population of super-Jupiters exists' is the complement of the p≈0.07 result from the Hartigan-like dip test, i.e., a frequentist tail probability, not a posterior probability for a second population. The text itself correctly cautions that this is 'not high enough to claim strong statistical significance,' but the Abstract presents the 93% value without that context. This should be rephrased, e.g., as 'a dip test provides only marginal evidence (p≈0.07) against a unimodal mass function.' Additionally, the test's treatment of the heavily incomplete lowest-mass bin and the inclusion of possibly activity-driven candidates (HIP24275b & d, HIP75092c, HIP90988b) should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2.2 (HIP111909)] The text says the third-signal amplitudes 'agree well' but then states the eF model finds an amplitude 'nearly 2.5× larger' than the eTC/eC models; the quoted values (~9 m/s vs ~10 m/s) are nearly equal, so this is likely a typo that should be corrected.
  2. [§5.2 (HIP111909)] The period ratio is described as 'strikingly close to the 5:3 orbital period ratio' in the Abstract and §5.2, but §5.2.2 later says the periods are 'relatively close to a 2:1 period ratio'; since the ratio 1.834 is about equally distant from 5:3 (1.667) and 2:1 (2.0), the wording should be made consistent.
  3. [§2.2 (Chiron data)] There is a duplicated article in 'and the the final velocities' which should be corrected.
  4. [Acknowledgements] The word 'greatfully' is a typo for 'gratefully'.
  5. [Table F.7] The columns for HIP8541b/c appear misaligned in places (e.g., the second '0.70' entry for HIP8541c under the γ column), which should be checked against the machine-readable table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: detections and mass-function comparison rest on independent model fits and external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained. The RV signal detection uses the explicit likelihood and Keplerian model in Eqs. (1)-(5), with priors listed in Table F.2, and the claimed detections of HIP18606b and HIP111909b/c are selected by Bayes factors/BIC comparisons among many model variants applied to the same measured RVs; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The mass-function comparison uses the Jenkins et al. (2017) exponential with parameters A=0.89 and B=0.030 fixed from a dwarf-star sample, overplotted on the giant-star histogram rather than refit to it, so it is an external benchmark rather than an input recycled as an output. The Hartigan dip test assumes that external exponential as the unimodal null and finds a possible second population; this is a statistical hypothesis test, not a definitional equivalence. The 25-30% occurrence estimate is a raw detection count divided by the 37-star common sample without an injection-recovery or completeness correction; that is a correctness and generalization weakness, not a circular reduction, because the paper does not fit a parameter to the same quantity and then claim to predict it. Self-citations to EMPEROR, SPECIES, and ARIADNE document the software used, and the relevant model equations and stellar fitting procedures are described in the text, so the load-bearing argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. Activity checks (S-index, NaD, H-alpha, ASAS, and Hipparcos periodograms) provide external, falsifiable diagnostics that can reject the Doppler interpretation, further supporting that the detections are not forced by construction. No step in the claimed derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by definition.

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

The central detections rest on standard Bayesian RV modeling, with priors and jitter parameters stated. The population-level claims additionally rest on completeness assumptions that are not quantified.

free parameters (5)
  • per-instrument RV jitter theta_jit = 3.93, 6.42, 9.06, 9.59 m/s for HIP18606 (varies by star)
    Fitted excess white noise for each instrument; dominates the noise budget.
  • instrument zero-point offsets gamma = per instrument per star (e.g., -3.54, -1.37, 1.59, 0.86 m/s for HIP18606)
    Fitted RV offsets between UCLES, CHIRON pre/post, and FEROS.
  • linear acceleration gamma_dot = e.g., 0.06 +0.56/-0.57 m/s/yr for HIP18606
    Fitted secular trend per star.
  • MA timescale tau = 5 days fixed
    Set by testing across timescales; affects correlated noise models, though those models are disfavored.
  • eccentricity prior widths = sigma = 0.1 (eTC) and 0.3 (eC)
    Chosen by hand to favor circular orbits while allowing eccentric solutions.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gaussian likelihood with independent errors (Eq. 5)
    Standard assumption for RV fitting.
  • domain assumption Priors listed in Table F.2 are adequate for the posterior sampling
    The paper tests multiple priors, but the fixed eccentricity and tau priors shape the results.
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters from SPECIES and ARIADNE are accurate enough for mass derivations
    Planet minimum masses depend on stellar mass, which is taken from previous pipelines.
  • domain assumption The EXPRESS/PPPS common sample of 37 stars is representative and detection completeness is sufficiently uniform for extrapolation
    The 25-30% planet fraction is extrapolated without injection-recovery completeness corrections.
  • domain assumption The Jenkins et al. (2017) exponential mass function for dwarf stars is the correct null model for giant-star planets
    The Hartigan dip test assumes this model to estimate the 93% second-population probability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sub-Jupiter Gas Giants Orbiting Giant Stars Uncovered using a Bayesian Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SQ5UTEB

@misc{pith2026250902507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sub-Jupiter Gas Giants Orbiting Giant Stars Uncovered using a Bayesian Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SQ5UTEB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02507}
}
read the original abstract

Giant stars have been shown to be rich hunting grounds for those aiming to detect giant planets orbiting beyond ~0.5 AU. Here we present two planetary systems around bright giant stars, found by combining the radial-velocity (RV) measurements from the EXPRESS and PPPS projects, and using a Bayesian framework. HIP18606 is a naked-eye (V=5.8 mags) K0III star and is found to host a planet with an orbital period of ~675 days, a minimum mass (Msini) of 0.8 MJ, and a circular orbit. HIP111909 is a bright (V=7.4 mags) K1III star, and hosts two giant planets on circular orbits with minimum masses of Msini=1.2 MJ and Msini=0.8 MJ, and orbital periods of ~490 d and ~890 d, for planets b and c respectively, strikingly close to the 5:3 orbital period ratio. Analysis of 11 known giant star planetary systems arrive at broadly similar parameters to those published, whilst adding a further two new worlds orbiting these stars. With these new discoveries, we have found a total of 13 planetary systems (including three multiple systems) within the 37 giant stars that comprise the EXPRESS and PPPS common sample. Periodogram analyses of stellar activity indicators present possible peaks at frequencies close to proposed Doppler signals in at least two planetary systems, HIP24275 and HIP90988, calling for more long-term activity studies of giant stars. Even disregarding these possible false-positives, extrapolation leads to a fraction of 25-30% of low-luminosity giant stars hosting planets. We find the mass-function exponentially rises towards the lowest planetary masses, however there exists a ~93% probability that a second population of giant planets with minimum masses between 4-5 MJ, is present, worlds that could have formed by the gravitational collapse of fragmenting proto-planetary disks. Finally, our noise modelling reveals a lack of statistical evidence for the presence of correlated noise...(Abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HR diagram showing the position of all 13 target stars in this work (filled circles). The solid evolutionary curves were computed within the ARIADNE processing using MIST models, running between 1.0 M⊙ and 2.0 M⊙ and at a fixed solar metallicity. The colours of each of the data points corresponds to the stellar metallicity, with the colour scale shown on the right hand side y-axis. 1993), and Phoenix v2 (Husser et a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the top panel we show the RV timeseries for data taken with UCLES (blue circles), FEROS (red tilted triangles), and the pre- (or￾ange triangles) and post-pandemic Chiron data (green triangles) for HIP18606. The best-fit Keplerian model is represented by the black curve. The lower panel shows the RVs phase folded to the period of the detected planet candidate. The symbols represent the same data, how￾ever the poin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Periodograms for four stellar activity indices that show peak powers close to a candidate planet signal detected for four of the stars in this sample. From top to bottom we show the S -activity index peri￾odograms for HIP18606 (top) and HIP24275 (second top), the Nai in￾dex for HIP90988 (second bottom), and the Hα index for HIP95124 (bottom). The green vertical lines mark the positions of candidate plan￾ets and the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The top panel of the upper plot shows the full timeseries RV data, including data from the UCLES (blue circles), FEROS (red tilted triangles), and Chiron pre- (orange triangles) and post-pandemic (green triangles), along with the joint best fit Keplerian model (black c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GLS periodograms of the cleaned ASAS timeseries photometry for the stars HIP18606, HIP24275, and HIP56640. The vertical lines mark the positions of the detected planet candidates in the RVs for each star, whereas the horizontal blue dashed lines represent the 0.1% FAP …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The top panel shows a violin plot that represents the distribu￾tions of the Bayes Factors, (∆BICs), when compared to the best fit for all models applied to each of the four realisations of the noise tested in this work. The blue curve represents the WNO models, the ora…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of eccentricities of the giant planets within the EXPRESS and PPPS overlapping samples, as a function of their or￾bital period. The filled green diamonds represent the newly discovered planets in this work, (including the possible candidates HIP24275d …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram showing the normalised frequency of giant planets orbiting low-luminosity giant stars, including those discovered in this work. The associated uncertainties are drawn from Poisson statistics based on the individual counts within each bin. The navy curve repr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., & Freytag , B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    2012

  2. [2]

    M., Rosenfeld , K

    Andrews , S. M., Rosenfeld , K. A., Kraus , A. L., & Wilner , D. J. 2013, , 771, 129

    2013

  3. [3]

    J., Barnes , J., & et al

    Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Amado , P. J., Barnes , J., & et al. 2016, Nature, 536, 437

    2016

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  5. [5]

    I., Zhao , J., et al

    Bergmann , C., Jones , M. I., Zhao , J., et al. 2021, 38, e019

    2021

  6. [6]

    2011, A&A, 528, A4

    Boisse , I., Bouchy , F., H \'e brard , G., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A4

    2011

  7. [7]

    Boss , A. P. 1998, ApJ, 503, 923

    1998

  8. [8]

    P., Blunt , S

    Bowler , B. P., Blunt , S. C., & Nielsen , E. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 63

    2020

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    2017, , 129, 034002

    Brahm , R., Jord \'a n , A., & Espinoza , N. 2017, , 129, 034002

    2017

  2. [10]

    P., Marcy , G

    Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., Williams , E., et al. 1996, , 108, 500

    1996

  3. [11]

    P., Wright , J

    Butler , R. P., Wright , J. T., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505

    2006

  4. [12]

    & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, xxx, 1

    2004

  5. [13]

    C., & Walker , D

    Diego , F., Charalambous , A., Fish , A. C., & Walker , D. D. 1990, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 1235, Instrumentation in Astronomy VII, ed. D. L. Crawford , 562--576

    1990

  6. [14]

    D \"o llinger , M. P. & Hartmann , M. 2021, ApJS, 256, 10

    2021

  7. [15]

    P., Hatzes , A

    D \"o llinger , M. P., Hatzes , A. P., Pasquini , L., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 935

    2009

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8

    Dotter , A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8

    2016

  9. [17]

    K., Vaughan , A

    Duncan , D. K., Vaughan , A. H., Wilson , O. C., et al. 1991, ApJS, 76, 383

    1991

  10. [18]

    P., Santos , N

    Faria , J. P., Santos , N. C., Figueira , P., & Brewer , B. J. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 487

    2018

  11. [19]

    T., & Hobson , M

    Feroz , F., Balan , S. T., & Hobson , M. P. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3462

    2011

  12. [20]

    Fischer , D. A. & Valenti , J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102

    2005

  13. [21]

    2025, A&A, 699, A38

    Fontanet , E., Udry , S., S \'e gransan , D., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A38

    2025

  14. [22]

    2017, , 154, 220

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Agol , E., Ambikasaran , S., & Angus , R. 2017, , 154, 220

    2017

  15. [23]

    Gregory , P. C. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1321

    2007

  16. [24]

    K., Huber , D., Gaidos , E

    Grunblatt , S. K., Huber , D., Gaidos , E. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 185

    2016

  17. [25]

    Haisch , B. M. 1999, in The many faces of the sun: a summary of the results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission., ed. K. T. Strong , J. L. R. Saba , B. M. Haisch , & J. T. Schmelz , 481

    1999

  18. [26]

    Hartigan , J. A. & Hartigan , P. M. 1985, The Annals of Statistics, 13, 70

    1985

  19. [27]

    P., Cochran , W

    Hatzes , A. P., Cochran , W. D., Endl , M., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A31

    2015

  20. [28]

    P., Endl , M., Cochran , W

    Hatzes , A. P., Endl , M., Cochran , W. D., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 120

    2018

  21. [29]

    2006, A&A, 454, 943

    Hekker , S., Reffert , S., Quirrenbach , A., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 943

    2006

  22. [30]

    W., Fekel , F

    Henry , G. W., Fekel , F. C., Henry , S. M., & Hall , D. S. 2000, ApJS, 130, 201

    2000

  23. [31]

    & Schroeder , K

    Huensch , M. & Schroeder , K. P. 1996, A&A, 309, L51

    1996

  24. [32]

    O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al

    Husser , T. O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6

    2013

  25. [33]

    S., Jones , H

    Jenkins , J. S., Jones , H. R. A., Tuomi , M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 443

    2017

  26. [34]

    S., Jones , H

    Jenkins , J. S., Jones , H. R. A., Tuomi , M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 67

    2013

  27. [35]

    Jenkins , J. S. & Tuomi , M. 2014, ApJ, 794, 110

    2014

  28. [36]

    A., Aller , K

    Johnson , J. A., Aller , K. M., Howard , A. W., & Crepp , J. R. 2010 a , , 122, 905

    2010

  29. [37]

    A., Fischer , D

    Johnson , J. A., Fischer , D. A., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

    2007

  30. [38]

    A., Howard , A

    Johnson , J. A., Howard , A. W., Bowler , B. P., et al. 2010 b , PASP, 122, 701

    2010

  31. [39]

    A., Marcy , G

    Johnson , J. A., Marcy , G. W., Fischer , D. A., et al. 2006, , 652, 1724

    2006

  32. [40]

    I., Brahm , R., Espinoza , N., et al

    Jones , M. I., Brahm , R., Espinoza , N., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A76

    2018

  33. [41]

    I., Brahm , R., Wittenmyer , R

    Jones , M. I., Brahm , R., Wittenmyer , R. A., et al. 2017, , 602, A58

    2017

  34. [42]

    I., Jenkins , J

    Jones , M. I., Jenkins , J. S., Bluhm , P., Rojo , P., & Melo , C. H. F. 2014, A&A, 566, A113

    2014

  35. [43]

    I., Jenkins , J

    Jones , M. I., Jenkins , J. S., Brahm , R., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A38

    2016

  36. [44]

    I., Jenkins , J

    Jones , M. I., Jenkins , J. S., Rojo , P., & Melo , C. H. F. 2011, A&A, 536, A71

    2011

  37. [45]

    I., Jenkins , J

    Jones , M. I., Jenkins , J. S., Rojo , P., Melo , C. H. F., & Bluhm , P. 2013, , 556, A78

    2013

  38. [46]

    I., Jenkins , J

    Jones , M. I., Jenkins , J. S., Rojo , P., Melo , C. H. F., & Bluhm , P. 2015 a , A&A, 573, A3

    2015

  39. [47]

    I., Jenkins , J

    Jones , M. I., Jenkins , J. S., Rojo , P., Olivares , F., & Melo , C. H. F. 2015 b , A&A, 580, A14

    2015

  40. [48]

    I., Wittenmyer , R., Aguilera-G \'o mez , C., et al

    Jones , M. I., Wittenmyer , R., Aguilera-G \'o mez , C., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A131

    2021

  41. [49]

    2001, A&A, 379, 992

    Jorissen , A., Mayor , M., & Udry , S. 2001, A&A, 379, 992

    2001

  42. [50]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    Kaufer , A., Stahl , O., Tubbesing , S., et al. 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    1999

  43. [51]

    & Bedding , T

    Kjeldsen , H. & Bedding , T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87

    1995

  44. [52]

    & Bedding , T

    Kjeldsen , H. & Bedding , T. R. 2011, A&A, 529, L8

    2011

  45. [53]

    1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid

    Kurucz , R. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge, 13

    1993

  46. [54]

    2014, , 562, A109

    Lillo-Box , J., Barrado , D., Moya , A., et al. 2014, , 562, A109

    2014

  47. [55]

    & Jenkins , J

    Lopez , S. & Jenkins , J. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 177

    2012

  48. [56]

    Morton , T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2015

  49. [57]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1354

    Niedzielski , A., Konacki , M., Wolszczan , A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1354

    2007

  50. [58]

    2022, A&A, 657, A87

    Ottoni , G., Udry , S., S \'e gransan , D., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A87

    2022

  51. [59]

    A., Henry , T

    Paredes , L. A., Henry , T. J., Quinn , S. N., et al. 2021, , 162, 176

    2021

  52. [60]

    J., et al

    Pascucci , I., Testi , L., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125

    2016

  53. [61]

    Pe\ na Rojas , P. A. & Jenkins , J. S. 2025, A&A, submitted

    2025

  54. [62]

    1997, , 47, 467

    Pojmanski , G. 1997, , 47, 467

    1997

  55. [63]

    W., Sivan , J

    Queloz , D., Henry , G. W., Sivan , J. P., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 279

    2001

  56. [64]

    2015, A&A, 574, A116

    Reffert , S., Bergmann , C., Quirrenbach , A., Trifonov , T., & K \"u nstler , A. 2015, A&A, 574, A116

    2015

  57. [65]

    2019, A&A, 625, A22

    Reichert , K., Reffert , S., Stock , S., Trifonov , T., & Quirrenbach , A. 2019, A&A, 625, A22

    2019

  58. [66]

    I., Jenkins , J., Peña , P., et al

    Rubenstein , R. I., Jenkins , J., Peña , P., et al. 2025, A&A, submitted

    2025

  59. [67]

    2007, A&A, 463, 297

    Samadi , R., Georgobiani , D., Trampedach , R., et al. 2007, A&A, 463, 297

    2007

  60. [68]

    C., Adibekyan , V., Figueira , P., et al

    Santos , N. C., Adibekyan , V., Figueira , P., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A30

    2017

  61. [69]

    C., Gomes da Silva , J., Lovis , C., & Melo , C

    Santos , N. C., Gomes da Silva , J., Lovis , C., & Melo , C. 2010, A&A, 511, A54

    2010

  62. [70]

    2008, , 60, 1317

    Sato , B., Toyota , E., Omiya , M., et al. 2008, , 60, 1317

    2008

  63. [71]

    K., Huber , D., et al

    Saunders , N., Grunblatt , S. K., Huber , D., et al. 2025, , 169, 75

    2025

  64. [72]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 737

    2011

  65. [73]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  66. [74]

    2011, A&A, 535, A54

    S \'e gransan , D., Mayor , M., Udry , S., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A54

    2011

  67. [75]

    Soto , M. G. & Jenkins , J. S. 2018, A&A, 615, A76

    2018

  68. [76]

    G., Jones , M

    Soto , M. G., Jones , M. I., & Jenkins , J. S. 2021, A&A, 647, A157

    2021

  69. [77]

    G., Santos , N

    Sousa , S. G., Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., Mayor , M., & Udry , S. 2011, A&A, 533, A141

    2011

  70. [78]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, MNRAS [ [arXiv] 1904.02180 ]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    2015, ApJL, 810, L11

    Stamatellos , D. 2015, ApJL, 810, L11

    2015

  72. [80]

    A., Bonati , M., et al

    Tokovinin , A., Fischer , D. A., Bonati , M., et al. 2013, , 125, 1336

    2013

  73. [81]

    Tuomi , M., Jones , H. R. A., Barnes , J. R., Anglada-Escud \'e , G., & Jenkins , J. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1545

    2014

  74. [82]

    Tuomi , M., Jones , H. R. A., Jenkins , J. S., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A79

    2013

  75. [83]

    & Kotiranta , S

    Tuomi , M. & Kotiranta , S. 2009, A&A, 496, L13

    2009

  76. [84]

    2007, A&A, 474, 653

    van Leeuwen , F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653

    2007

  77. [85]

    2021, A&A, 651, A72

    Vigan , A., Fontanive , C., Meyer , M., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A72

    2021

  78. [86]

    Vines , J. I. & Jenkins , J. S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2719

    2022

  79. [87]

    I., Jenkins , J

    Vines , J. I., Jenkins , J. S., Berdi \ n as , Z., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2627

    2023

  80. [88]

    A., Butler , R

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Butler , R. P., Horner , J., et al. 2020, , 491, 5248

    2020

  81. [89]

    A., Endl , M., Wang , L., et al

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Endl , M., Wang , L., et al. 2011, , 743, 184

    2011

  82. [90]

    A., Johnson , J

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Johnson , J. A., Butler , R. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 35

    2016

  83. [91]

    A., Jones , M

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Jones , M. I., Horner , J., et al. 2017 a , AJ, 154, 274

    2017

  84. [92]

    A., Jones , M

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Jones , M. I., Zhao , J., et al. 2017 b , AJ, 153, 51

    2017

  85. [93]

    A., Wang , L., Liu , F., et al

    Wittenmyer , R. A., Wang , L., Liu , F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 74

    2015

  86. [94]

    2022, , 661, A63

    Wolthoff , V., Reffert , S., Quirrenbach , A., et al. 2022, , 661, A63

    2022

  87. [95]

    & K \"u rster , M

    Zechmeister , M. & K \"u rster , M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577

    2009

  88. [96]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  89. [97]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

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