Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A New Brown Dwarf Orbiting an M star and An Investigation on the Eccentricity Distribution of Transiting Long-Period Brown Dwarfs

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 Transiting brown dwarfs share giant-planet eccentricity patterns.

desk verdict Solid TOI-5575b discovery, but the central population claim rests on error bars that omit finite-sample variance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09461 v1 pith:ERMB2XXR submitted 2025-07-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Tianjun Gan , Charles Cadieux , Shigeru Ida , Sharon X. Wang , Shude Mao , Zitao Lin , Keivan G. Stassun , Adam J. Burgasser
show 27 more authors
Steve B. Howell Catherine A. Clark Ivan A. Strakhov Paul Benni George R. Ricker Roland Vanderspek David W. Latham Sara Seager Joshua N. Winn Jon M. Jenkins Luc Arnold Étienne Artigau David Charbonneau Karen A. Collins Neil J. Cook Zoë L. de Beurs Sarah J. Deveny John P. Doty René Doyon Colin Littlefield Tyler Pritchard Gabrielle Ross Avi Shporer Christopher R. Theissen Benjamin M. Tofflemire Andrew Vanderburg David Watanabe
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords browndwarfsorbitaleccentricitytransitingexoplanetsTOI-5575bwarmJupiterslow-massstarsTESSmissionplanetarymigration
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 sets out to answer whether brown dwarfs are more like giant planets or stellar binaries by comparing the orbital eccentricities of transiting companions on 10-to-1000-day orbits. It reports the discovery of TOI-5575b, a 72.4-Jupiter-mass brown dwarf on a 32-day, mildly eccentric orbit around a 0.21-solar-mass M dwarf, and adds it to a sample of 19 brown dwarfs, 78 warm Jupiters, and 15 low-mass stars. The central finding is that long-period transiting brown dwarfs and giant planets have nearly identical eccentricity distributions, with circular orbits common and a long tail toward high eccentricity, while low-mass stars peak near $e=0.3$. If true, this distinguishes inner brown dwarfs from wide-orbit brown dwarfs seen by direct imaging and points to analogous dynamical histories for inner brown dwarfs and giant planets.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is the Beta distribution fit to measured eccentricities, with shape parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ defined on $e\in[0,1]$, combined with a Monte Carlo resampling that draws each system's eccentricity from a truncated Gaussian using its measurement uncertainty and refits 2000 synthetic datasets. The Beta distribution is used because it is naturally bounded between zero and one and can produce either peaked or monotone shapes with two parameters; comparing the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ pairs is what makes giant planets and brown dwarfs nearly identical and low-mass stars different. The sample itself, which uses true masses from transit measurements, a period cut of 10 to 1000 days to avoid tidal circularization, and exclusion of eccentricity upper limits for planets, is the supporting object that gives the comparison statistical weight.

What would settle it

Compile a transit-selected, completeness-corrected sample of long-period brown dwarfs, for instance from a uniform TESS survey or from Gaia astrometry, and recompute the eccentricity distribution with detection weights; if the corrected distribution peaks near $e\approx0.3$ or separates from the warm Jupiter distribution, then the claimed similarity is an observational selection effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that TOI-5575b is the third-highest-mass-ratio transiting brown dwarf system known, with mass ratio $q=0.329\pm0.037$, companion mass $72.4\pm4.1\,M_J$, radius $0.84\pm0.07\,R_J$, period $32.072$ days, and eccentricity $0.187\pm0.002$, orbiting an M5V star of $0.21$ solar masses. The population claim is that for transiting companions with $10\le P\lesssim1000$ days, brown dwarfs with $13.6$ to $80$ Jupiter masses and giant planets with $0.3$ to $13.6$ Jupiter masses follow essentially the same eccentricity distribution, fitted by Beta distributions with shape parameters $\alpha=0.78^{+0.08}_{-0.12}$, $\beta=1.80^{+0.15}_{-0.20}$ for brown dwarfs and $\alpha=0.64^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$, $\beta=1.55^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ for giant planets, overlapping within about $1\sigma$. Low-mass stars with $80$ to $150$ Jupiter masses are distinct, peaking near $e=0.3$. The paper contrasts this with direct-imaging results for cold companions at 5-100 AU, where brown dwarfs prefer high eccentricities and giant planets prefer low ones, and offers two scenarios: analogous inward dynamical evolution after different formation routes, or two sub-populations within each class whose superposition produces the matching distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the 19 brown dwarfs, 78 warm Jupiters, and 15 low-mass stars represent their true populations, even though no completeness correction is applied for how transits and radial-velocity eccentricity measurements select high- versus low-eccentricity systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inner brown dwarfs and warm Jupiters likely share a dominant dynamical evolution channel, such as scattering or disk-driven migration, rather than a star-like binary formation route.
  • The period and scaled-semi-major-axis cuts imply that tidal circularization has not erased the primordial eccentricity signal, so the measured distribution records formation and migration history.
  • The low-mass-star sample's peak near $e=0.3$ ties transiting low-mass stellar companions to the wider stellar binary population.
  • The contrast with direct-imaging cold companions means eccentricity behavior depends on orbital distance, so models must treat inner and outer substellar populations separately.
  • TOI-5575b itself, with a tidal circularization timescale far longer than the age of the Universe, becomes a preserved probe of the eccentricity pattern at 0.1-1.5 AU.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that if the two-subgroup scenario is right, the high-eccentricity tail of warm Jupiters and brown dwarfs should correlate with signs of dynamical heating, such as outer stellar companions or high stellar metallicity, which future samples can test.
  • Because the comparison is not corrected for transit detection sensitivity or radial-velocity eccentricity-measurement biases, a plausible extension is to repeat the analysis with survey completeness weights; the true underlying distributions could differ even though the observed ones match.
  • The paper's tentative enhancement of high-eccentricity objects at 42.5 to 110 Jupiter masses suggests a testable prediction: as Gaia astrometry supplies more unbiased orbits, the claimed giant-planet/brown-dwarf similarity should persist at other mass ratios if it is real and dissolve if it is a selection artifact.
  • If the similarity is genuine, the brown dwarf desert at short periods may be a dynamical outcome rather than a formation gap, because the eccentricity pattern implies migration from wider orbits.
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 paper reports the discovery and characterization of TOI-5575b, a transiting brown dwarf around an M5V star, with mass 72.4±4.1 M_J, radius 0.84±0.07 R_J, period 32.07 days, and eccentricity 0.187±0.002, based on TESS photometry, ground-based ASP photometry, 24 SPIRou radial velocities, NIRES spectroscopy, and speckle imaging. The authors then compile a sample of transiting long-period (10≤P≲1000 d) giant planets, brown dwarfs, and low-mass stars (78/19/15 systems), fit Beta distributions to the eccentricities via a Monte Carlo resampling, and claim that brown dwarfs and giant planets have nearly identical eccentricity distributions (a preference for circular orbits with a long high-eccentricity tail), while low-mass stars peak at e≈0.3. They discuss implications for formation channels and compare with direct-imaging samples.

Significance. The discovery analysis is careful and likely robust: the RV semi-amplitude (~11 km/s) and eccentricity are measured to high precision, dilution is modeled, and the secondary-eclipse and speckle/RUWE checks argue against a blended stellar binary. If the population comparison were as secure as the discovery, this would be a valuable contribution to the debate on brown-dwarf formation. However, the statistical support for the central population claim is currently incomplete: the resampling propagates only measurement errors, not finite-sample variance; the compiled samples are not demonstrated to be representative; and one of the secondary conclusions (the low-mass-star peak at e≈0.3) depends on the chosen cut. The paper is transparent about its sample construction and labels the formation scenarios as hypotheses, which is a strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.2] The Monte Carlo resampling in Section 4.2 draws each eccentricity from a truncated Gaussian TN(e_i, sigma_i^2, 0, 1) and refits the Beta distribution by least chi-square, but it never resamples the list of systems. This propagates only measurement noise; the finite-sample variance of having N=19, 78, and 15 objects drawn from the parent populations is absent. Because the median eccentricity uncertainties are tiny (0.006 for brown dwarfs, 0.023 for giant planets, 0.003 for low-mass stars), the 2,000 synthetic datasets are near-copies of the observed sample, and the alpha-beta contours in the right panel of Figure 4 are artificially narrow. The statement that the giant-planet and brown-dwarf parameters overlap within about 1 sigma therefore does not, by itself, establish that the underlying distributions are nearly identical. Please add a bootstrap over systems (or a hierarchical model) and a formal two-sample test that includes sampling variance, and report the result.
  2. [4.1] The compiled samples are not demonstrated to be representative of the underlying eccentricity distributions. The warm Jupiter sample excludes 11 systems with mass upper limits and 5 systems with eccentricity upper limits (Section 4.1), the brown-dwarf and low-mass-star samples are assembled from heterogeneous catalogs with different discovery biases, and no correction is applied for eccentricity-dependent transit detectability or for RV phase-coverage selection. The sentence in Section 4.1 that the excluded systems 'will not impact our conclusion significantly' is an assertion rather than a quantified test. At minimum, the population claim should be reframed as applying to transiting long-period systems with measured eccentricities, and a sensitivity check (e.g., including upper limits via survival analysis, or a Monte Carlo injection of eccentricity-dependent detection effects) should be added.
  3. [4.2 and Figure 5] The claimed peak at e≈0.3 for low-mass stars is not robust across the selection cuts used in the paper itself: Figure 5a shows that this peak disappears for the a/R*≥10 cut, and the paper attributes the disappearance to tidal circularization without demonstrating that the affected systems actually have short tidal circularization timescales. Please quantify the overlap between the period-selected and a/R*-selected samples, provide a tidal-circularization test for the systems with 10<a/R*<15, and state the low-mass-star conclusion as conditional on the adopted cut (a/R*≥15 or ≥20) if that is what the data support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a spurious space in 'Transiting'; please fix it.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The legend strings '(0.3 Mc < 13.6 MJup)' are ambiguous or mispunctuated; they should read with explicit inequalities, e.g., '0.3 ≤ Mc < 13.6 MJup'.
  3. [2.1] The sentence beginning 'Quick Look Pipeline (QLP; Huang et al. 2020a,b) produce light curves' has a subject-verb agreement error; it should be 'produces'.
  4. [4.2] The validation sentence 'we validate that these results match with observations' is vague; please specify the goodness-of-fit criterion used and how the 30 synthetic datasets were selected.
  5. [5.2] The phrase 'numerous of astrometric binary stars' should be 'numerous astrometric binary stars'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the eccentricity comparison is a descriptive fit of observed eccentricities, not a prediction derived from the fit parameters.

full rationale

The paper's two main products are the observational discovery of TOI-5575b and a population-level comparison of eccentricity distributions. Neither involves a claimed first-principles derivation that could reduce to its inputs. The Beta-distribution parameters in Section 4.2 are explicitly descriptive fits to measured eccentricities (Equation 1), and the paper does not present them as predictions or as consequences of a formation model. The formation scenarios in Section 5 are labeled hypotheses ('We put forward two possible hypotheses'), not derived conclusions. The comparison values for wide-orbit systems come from the independent work of Bowler et al. (2020). Sample construction uses external catalogs (Vowell et al. 2025; Barkaoui et al. 2025; NASA Exoplanet Archive) with explicit mass and period cuts justified by tidal circularization timescales from Jackson et al. (2008). Self-citations appear only in methodological contexts (e.g., Gan et al. 2023 photometry procedures; Lin et al. 2023 as a listed transiting brown dwarf; Gan 2023 in future prospects) and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper itself flags the main caveats: Section 4.1 acknowledges that excluding warm Jupiters with eccentricity upper limits could bias toward higher eccentricities, and Section 5.2 notes the sample sizes are still limited. The reviewer-style concern that the Section 4.2 Monte Carlo propagates only measurement noise rather than finite-sample variance is a statistical robustness limitation, not a circular identification of output with input, because the fitted parameters are not reused as inputs to any prediction. No circular step can be exhibited by quoting an equation in which the claimed result is equivalent by construction to the input data.

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

The central population claim rests on fitted Beta parameters, a hand-chosen period cutoff justified by a tidal model, and an unmodeled selection function for transiting eccentric systems. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Beta distribution shape parameters (alpha, beta) for three populations = GP: 0.64, 1.55; BD: 0.78, 1.80; LMS: 2.42, 5.12
    Fitted to resampled eccentricity data in Section 4.2; they define the reported distributions.
  • RV jitter sigma_SPIRou = 49.8 +/- 9.2 m/s
    Free parameter in the joint fit (Table 2); affects uncertainties but not the central population result.
  • TESS dilution factors = 0.997, 0.838, 0.905
    Free parameters in the joint fit (Table 2); adjust transit depth for contamination in each mission.
  • Scaled semi-major axis cuts a/R* = 10, 15, 20
    Thresholds chosen by hand in the robustness check; the low-mass-star peak appears only for a/R* >= 15, interpreted as tidal circularization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tidal circularization is negligible for P >= 10 days assuming Q_BD = Q* = 10^6.
    Used in Section 4.1 to define the long-period sample; if actual quality factors are smaller, circularized systems may contaminate the sample.
  • ad hoc to paper The compiled transiting catalogs are representative of the underlying eccentricity distribution without a selection-function correction.
    No completeness model is applied for transit detection, RV follow-up, or eccentricity measurability; this underpins the population comparison.
  • domain assumption A two-parameter Beta distribution adequately describes the eccentricity distribution of each population.
    Adopted in Section 4.2; the shape of the conclusions depends on this parametric choice.
  • standard math Truncated Gaussian resampling of each eccentricity with quoted errors captures measurement uncertainty.
    The Monte Carlo procedure in Section 4.2 assumes symmetric truncated Gaussian errors for every system.
  • domain assumption Empirical stellar relations by Mann et al. and Baraffe et al. isochrones are valid for TOI-5575.
    Stellar mass, radius, and age interpretations in Section 3 rest on these literature relations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Brown Dwarf Orbiting an M star and An Investigation on the Eccentricity Distribution of Transiting Long-Period Brown Dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERMB2XXR

@misc{pith2026250709461,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Brown Dwarf Orbiting an M star and An Investigation on the Eccentricity Distribution of Transiting Long-Period Brown Dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERMB2XXR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09461}
}
abstract

The orbital eccentricities of brown dwarfs encode valuable information of their formation and evolution history, providing insights into whether they resemble giant planets or stellar binaries. Here, we report the discovery of TOI-5575b, a long-period, massive brown dwarf orbiting a low-mass M5V star ($\rm 0.21\pm0.02\,M_\odot$) delivered by the TESS mission. The companion has a mass and radius of $\rm 72.4\pm4.1\,M_J$ and $\rm 0.84\pm0.07\,R_J$ on a 32-day moderately eccentric orbit ($e=0.187\pm0.002$), making it the third highest-mass-ratio transiting brown dwarf system known to date. Building on this discovery, we investigate the eccentricity distributions of a sample of transiting long-period ($10\leq P\lesssim 1000$ days, $\sim$0.1-1.5 AU) giant planets, brown dwarfs and low-mass stars. We find that brown dwarfs exhibit an eccentricity behavior nearly identical to that of giant planets: a preference for circular orbits with a long tail toward high eccentricities. Such a trend contrasts sharply with direct imaging findings, where cold (5-100 AU) brown dwarfs and giant planets display distinct eccentricity distributions. Our results suggest that transiting long-period brown dwarfs and giant planets probably 1) form in different routes at exterior orbits but undergo analogous dynamical evolution processes and migrate inwards; or 2) both contain two sub-groups, one with widely spread eccentricities while the other has circular orbits, that jointly sculpt the eccentricity distributions. The low-mass-star systems appear to be a distinctive population, showing a peak eccentricity at about 0.3, akin to more massive stellar binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09461 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: The TESS and ASP light curves folded in phase with the transit ephemeris from the joint analysis along with the best-fit transit models. Right panel: The full SPIRou RV timeseries and the phase-folded RVs. The error bars presenting here are the quadrature sum of the original RV uncertainties and the instrument jitter. The black solid line is the best-fit Keplerian model. The residuals are shown below eac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: The mass and radius diagram of all confirmed transiting brown dwarfs and low-mass stars. The colored dashed lines are the theoretical isochrones of cool brown dwarfs with different ages at solar metallicity from Baraffe et al. (2003). The vertical solid line marks the mass of 80 MJ. Right panel: The eccentricity vs. orbital periods of known transiting brown dwarfs (orange) and low-mass stars (red). The v… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: The eccentricity and mass diagram of all confirmed transiting brown dwarfs and low-mass stars colored by the orbital period. Two vertical black dashed lines mark the mass range (42.5 ≤ Mc ≤ 110 MJ) where the companions are more likely to have large eccentricities (see Section 3.3 for details). Right panel: Same to the left but for the companion-to-host mass ratio. In both panels, TOI-5575b is shown as a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: The best-fit eccentricity distributions of 2,000 randomly generated eccentricity data sets of transiting long-period (10 ≤ P ≲ 1000 days) giant planets (blue, Mc < 13.6 MJ), brown dwarfs (orange, 13.6 ≤ Mc < 80 MJ) and low-mass stars (red, 80 ≤ Mc ≤ 150 MJ)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On the Eccentricity Distribution and Tidal Evolution of Transiting Brown Dwarfs

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Short-period (P<16 d) transiting brown dwarfs are low-eccentricity while longer-period ones are more excited; assuming a shared primordial Beta distribution, tidal evolution constrains Q_BD ≈ 10^{7.1–8.1}.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf418 15 Figure A1

    Alqasim, A., Hirano, T., Hori, Y., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf418 15 Figure A1. The normalized TESS light curves of TOI-5575. The left, middle and right panels are data from Primary, First and Second Extended Missions. The light curve from the Primary Mission was extracted with a 3 × 3 pixel box aperture while the light curves from the Fir...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf418 2025

  3. [3]

    Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 696, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453508 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D

    Barkaoui, K., Sebastian, D., Z´ u˜ niga-Fern´ andez, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453508 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453508 2025

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  6. [6]

    F., Henry, T

    Benedict, G. F., Henry, T. J., Franz, O. G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/141

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/141 2016

  7. [7]

    Boss, A. P. 2000, ApJL, 536, L101, doi: 10.1086/312737

    work page doi:10.1086/312737 2000

  8. [8]

    P., Blunt, S

    Bowler, B. P., Blunt, S. C., & Nielsen, E. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11 16 T able B1.Radial velocities measurements for TOI-5575 from SPIRou. BJD R V (m s −1) σR V(m s−1) 2460065.995 -42867.1 16.8 2460066.009 -42881.0 17.5 2460067.997 -46980.4 25.2 2460068.012 -46946.8 39.8 2460072.960 -58244.1 16.7 2460072.974 -58238.5 17.0 2460074...

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11 2020

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    L., Stef´ ansson, G., et al

    Brady, M., Bean, J. L., Stef´ ansson, G., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9c66

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Kirkpatrick, J

    Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 512, doi: 10.1086/346263

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Irwin, J

    Carmichael, T. W., Irwin, J. M., Murgas, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1666

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    N., & Davies, M

    Carrera, D., Raymond, S. N., & Davies, M. B. 2019, A&A, 629, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935744

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Megeath, S

    Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 523, doi: 10.1086/429991

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    A., van Belle, G

    Clark, C. A., van Belle, G. T., Horch, E. P., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0bfd

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V. 2017, AJ, 153, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Artigau, ´E., Doyon, R., et al

    Cook, N. J., Artigau, ´E., Doyon, R., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114509, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9e74

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Rayner, J

    Cushing, M. C., Rayner, J. T., & Vacca, W. D. 2005, ApJ, 623, 1115, doi: 10.1086/428040

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources. 832 nmz Figure D1. Top panel: Secondary component detection limits obtained using speckle imaging obtained with speckle polarimeter on the SAI-2.5m telescope. Bottom panel: Gem- i...

    2003

  12. [20]

    I., & Johnson, J

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2012, ApJ, 756, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/122 —. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2013, ApJL, 767, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24 D ´ ıaz, R. F., Damiani, C., Deleuil, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321124 Do ´O, C. R., O’Neil, K. K., Konopacky, Q. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 48, doi: 10.384...

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    F., Kouach, D., Moutou, C., et al

    Donati, J. F., Kouach, D., Moutou, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2569

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    X., Dawson, R

    Dong, J., Huang, C. X., Dawson, R. I., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf73c 17

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    I., Libby-Roberts, J

    Doyle, L., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Libby-Roberts, J. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2819

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    1991, A&A, 248, 485

    Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485

    1991

  18. [26]

    P., & Kisseleva-Eggleton, L

    Eggleton, P. P., & Kisseleva-Eggleton, L. 2006, Ap&SS, 304, 75, doi: 10.1007/s10509-006-9078-z

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    B., van Roestel, J., & Rodriguez, A

    El-Badry, K., Burdge, K. B., van Roestel, J., & Rodriguez, A. C. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 33, doi: 10.21105/astro.2307.15729

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 209, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef38

    Espinoza, N. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 209, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef38

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702 Ferreira dos Santos, T., Rice, M., Wang, X.-Y., & Wang, S

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702 Ferreira dos Santos, T., Rice, M., Wang, X.-Y., & Wang, S. 2024, AJ, 168, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b7f

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    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

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., ...

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 226, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0643

    Gan, T. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 226, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0643

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, AJ, 166, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf56d

    Gan, T., Cadieux, C., Jahandar, F., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf56d

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    J., et al

    Giacalone, S., Dai, F., Zanazzi, J. J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad785a

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2003, ApJ, 585, 1024, doi: 10.1086/346202

    Goldreich, P., & Sari, R. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1024, doi: 10.1086/346202

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

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

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

    1966 doi

  31. [39]

    Grether, D., & Lineweaver, C. H. 2006, ApJ, 640, 1051, doi: 10.1086/500161

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    C., & Rasio, F

    Heggie, D. C., & Rasio, F. A. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.3.1064

    1996 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Casewell, S

    Henderson, B. A., Casewell, S. L., Jord´ an, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1940

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Myers, A

    Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2166

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, A&A, 674, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244161

    Holl, B., Sozzetti, A., Sahlmann, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244161

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    B., Everett, M

    Howell, S. B., Everett, M. E., Horch, E. P., et al. 2016, ApJL, 829, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L2

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Ciardi, D. R. 2011, AJ, 142, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/19

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e —. 2020b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 206, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

    doi

  40. [48]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Ida, S., Lin, D. N. C., & Nagasawa, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/42

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 5666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1073

    Ida, S., Muto, T., Matsumura, S., & Brasser, R. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1073

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 1396, doi: 10.1086/529187

    Jackson, B., Greenberg, R., & Barnes, R. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1396, doi: 10.1086/529187

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    Kratter, K., & Lodato, G. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5688

    Kunimoto, M., Daylan, T., Guerrero, N., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5688

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Lai, D., & Mu˜ noz, D. J. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-022933

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    N., Kobulnicky, H

    Larsen, A., Swaby, T. N., Kobulnicky, H. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adbb54

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Adams, F. C. 1997, ApJ, 482, 420, doi: 10.1086/304125 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M. a., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python. http://ascl.net/1812.013

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606, doi: 10.1038/380606a0

    1996 doi

  53. [61]

    X., et al

    Lin, Z., Gan, T., Wang, S. X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1745

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 2781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu134

    Ma, B., & Ge, J. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu134

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Deacon, N

    Mann, A. W., Deacon, N. R., Gaidos, E., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/160

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc 18

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    W., & Butler, R

    Marcy, G. W., & Butler, R. P. 2000, PASP, 112, 137, doi: 10.1086/316516

    2000 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    P., et al

    Nagpal, V., Blunt, S., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9fd2

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    Naoz, S., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2014, ApJ, 793, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/137

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

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

    Teyssandier, J. 2011, Nature, 473, 187, doi: 10.1038/nature10076

    2011 doi

  63. [71]

    R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al

    Newton, E. R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/20

    2014 doi

  64. [72]

    J., & Mamajek, E

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

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132

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

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  67. [75]

    2022, A&A, 664, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243454

    Psaridi, A., Bouchy, F., Lendl, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243454

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    A., & Ford, E

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

    1996 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    R., Muirhead, P

    Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 748, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/93

    2012 doi

  71. [79]

    J., Howell, S

    Scott, N. J., Howell, S. B., Gnilka, C. L., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 138, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.716560

    2021

  72. [80]

    J., Beatty, T

    Siverd, R. J., Beatty, T. G., Pepper, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/123

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    Siwek, M., Weinberger, R., & Hernquist, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    C., Stumpe, M

    Smith, J. C., Stumpe, M. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1000, doi: 10.1086/667697

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J

    Spiegel, D. S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J. A. 2011, ApJ, 727, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/57

    2011 doi

  77. [85]

    G., Collins, K

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

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    G., & Torres, G

    Stassun, K. G., & Torres, G. 2016, AJ, 152, 180, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/180 —. 2018, ApJ, 862, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacafc

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 Stef´ ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Winn, J. N., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada9e1

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    T., Haswell, C

    Stevenson, A. T., Haswell, C. A., Faria, J. P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf502

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

    A., Safonov, B

    Strakhov, I. A., Safonov, B. S., & Cheryasov, D. V. 2023, Astrophysical Bulletin, 78, 234, doi: 10.1134/S1990341323020104

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    C., Smith, J

    Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Catanzarite, J. H., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 100, doi: 10.1086/674989

    2014 doi

  83. [91]

    C., Smith, J

    Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 985, doi: 10.1086/667698

    2012 doi

  84. [92]

    C., Mahadevan, S., Bender, C

    Terrien, R. C., Mahadevan, S., Bender, C. F., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L38

    2012 doi

  85. [93]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1363

    Teyssandier, J., & Lai, D. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1363

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    Tokovinin, A., & Moe, M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J., Queloz, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911897

    2009 doi

  88. [96]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J., Hebb, L., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219643

    2013 doi

  89. [97]

    2023, A&A, 680, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347578

    Unger, N., S´ egransan, D., Barbato, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347578

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    D., Cushing, M

    Vacca, W. D., Cushing, M. C., & Rayner, J. T. 2003, PASP, 115, 389, doi: 10.1086/346193

    2003 doi

  91. [99]

    2024, A&A, 688, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449421 Van Eylen, V., Albrecht, S., Huang, X., et al

    Valli, R., Tiede, C., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449421 Van Eylen, V., Albrecht, S., Huang, X., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf22f

    2024 doi

  92. [100]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    E., Latham, D

    Vowell, N., Rodriguez, J. E., Latham, D. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09795, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09795

    2025 doi arXiv

  94. [102]

    C., Henderson, C

    Wilson, J. C., Henderson, C. P., Herter, T. L., et al. 2004, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1295–1305, doi: 10.1117/12.550925

    2004 doi

  95. [103]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  96. [104]

    Matzner, C. D. 2025, ApJL, 982, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb751

    2025 doi

  97. [105]

    Y., Carmichael, T

    Zhang, E. Y., Carmichael, T. W., Huber, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05115, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05115

    2025 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    ´A., Bayliss, D., et al

    Zhou, G., Bakos, G. ´A., Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf1bb

    2019 doi

  99. [107]

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

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

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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