Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 221 references

The 1365-day radial-velocity wobble of red supergiant HD 216946 tracks chromospheric activity, not an orbiting companion.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 11:37 UTC pith:SVLK6ZLQ

load-bearing objection A useful 22-year single-star case for activity-driven long-period RV in a red supergiant, with a plausible but not fully proven activity-origin claim. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19812 v1 pith:SVLK6ZLQ submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.SR

Origin of the Long-Period Radial Velocity Variation in the Red Supergiant HD 216946 (V424 Lac)

Byeong-Cheol Lee , Myeong-Gu Park This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords HD 216946V424 Lacred supergiantradial velocitychromospheric activityline-profile variationslong-period variabilitystellar companions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

HD 216946, a K-type red supergiant, shows a strong 1,365-day radial-velocity (RV) period in 22 years of high-resolution spectra. The paper asks whether this signal comes from an orbiting companion or from the star itself. It finds that line-profile diagnostics oscillate on periods of 1,370–1,380 days, the Na D lines on about 1,355 days, and the hydrogen lines on 2,730–2,800 days, roughly twice the RV period. Because these activity-related indicators share periodicity with the RV signal, the authors conclude that the RV variation is primarily intrinsic – chromospheric activity and extended atmospheric dynamics – and they reclassify the star as a multiperiodic red supergiant. A Keplerian companion of 170–208 Jupiter masses is not ruled out but is treated as a tentative alternative; the result cautions that periodicity alone is not enough to claim a companion around an evolved supergiant.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the 1,365-day RV periodicity in HD 216946 is mirrored by comparable periodicities in photospheric line-profile diagnostics (bisector span and curvature, line depth, equivalent width) and in the Na D chromospheric lines, while the Balmer lines vary on roughly twice the period. The authors take this pattern as evidence that the RV signal originates in the star's extended atmosphere rather than in a Keplerian orbit. They also note that standard radial pulsation cannot produce the observed amplitude and period, that the projected rotation period (~2,850 days) is close to the doubled hydrogen-line period, and that archival photometry contains several non-identical lo

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is period coincidence testing across diagnostics. The generalized Lomb–Scargle periodogram is applied to RV, line-profile, chromospheric, and photometric time series; a Markov chain Monte Carlo Keplerian fit establishes that the RV signal can be modelled with P=1365 d, K=723 m/s, low eccentricity, and a residual scatter of 203 m/s. The decisive comparison is that the RV peak overlaps with the 1,370–1,380 d line-profile peaks and the ~1,355 d Na D peak, while the H-alpha/H-beta peaks sit at 2,730–2,800 d, near the estimated rotation period of ~2,850 days. This near-doubling is read as a sign that the hydrogen lines respond to a different (slower) atmospheric layer or to

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the periodogram coincidences – the roughly 1,355-day Na D period and the 1,370–1,380-day line-profile periods – are physically linked to the 1,365-day RV period and not chance alignments among the many periods searched.

What would settle it

Compute the cross-correlation function between the RV time series and the Na D or line-profile time series. If the correlation is statistically insignificant or the phase lag is inconsistent with a common driver, the activity interpretation loses support. Alternatively, if a multi-year high-cadence campaign shows the hydrogen-line period equals the RV period (rather than twice it), or if astrometry detects the predicted 170–208 Jupiter-mass companion at 5–5.5 AU, the intrinsic interpretation would be refuted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Long-period RV detections in red supergiants should be cross-checked with line-profile and chromospheric diagnostics before a companion is claimed.
  • If the intrinsic interpretation holds, the 1,365-day RV signal does not indicate a 170–208 Jupiter-mass companion, and similar claims for other evolved supergiants need re-examination.
  • HD 216946 becomes a case study of multiperiodic variability in evolved massive stars, where rotation, convection, chromospheric activity, and long secondary periods coexist.
  • The residual scatter after the 1,365-day fit (203 m/s) is itself a signature of additional unresolved intrinsic variability, not just measurement noise.
  • The 2,730–2,800 day hydrogen-line period, if tied to rotation, makes the star's rotation period measurable from activity cycles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive quantitative test the paper does not perform is a cross-correlation between the RV time series and the Na D equivalent-width series; if the two are coherent with a constant phase lag, the activity link would be much stronger than period coincidences alone.
  • The near-doubling of the hydrogen-line period suggests a possible two-cycle-per-rotation pattern (e.g., two active longitudes), which would predict that the RV period remains fixed while the H-line period stays near 2,800 days; this is testable with continued monitoring.
  • If the activity interpretation is correct, the star's RV jitter should itself vary on the 1,365-day cycle in spectral lines formed at different depths – a prediction that a multi-line, depth-resolved analysis could verify.
  • The coexistence of ~1,100-day, ~1,365-day, ~1,600-day, and ~2,800-day timescales resembles the period landscape of semi-regular variables; connecting them to pulsation modes would require a seismic model that the authors do not build.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 48 BOES echelle spectra of the K-type red supergiant HD 216946 obtained over ~22 years, identifies a 1365-day radial-velocity period, and fits a Keplerian orbit with semi-amplitude K ~723 m/s. To test whether this signal is intrinsic or companion-induced, the authors examine bisector velocity span/curvature, line-profile variations in Fe I and Ca I lines, H-alpha/H-beta equivalent widths and depths, Na D equivalent widths, and Hipparcos photometry. GLS periodograms show LPV periods of 1370–1380 days, Na D periods near 1355 days, H-line periods of 2730–2800 days, and a 1098-day Hipparcos period. Based mainly on the period agreement between the RV and the Na D/LPV diagnostics, the paper concludes that the 1365-day RV signal is most likely due to chromospheric activity and extended atmospheric variability rather than a Keplerian companion, while noting that a low-mass companion cannot be completely excluded.

Significance. If the conclusion is upheld, the paper provides a valuable cautionary case for long-period RV variations in red supergiants: a signal that could be fit as a 170–208 Jupiter-mass companion would instead be attributed to intrinsic stellar processes, with implications for similar RV surveys of evolved stars. The strengths of the paper are its long baseline, the use of several independent activity and line-profile diagnostics, and the explicit discussion of multiple physical mechanisms. The activity diagnostics are genuinely independent of the RV fit, so the central conclusion is not circular. However, the current evidence for the activity origin is only a period coincidence between separately computed periodograms; no phase relationship or joint coherence test is presented. The paper also contains an internal inconsistency in the noise model of the orbital fit. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on strengthening the statistical and phase-coherence evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, §5.4, §6.3, Abstract] The central claim that the 1365-day RV signal is 'primarily linked to chromospheric activity and extended atmospheric variability' rests on the detection of similar periods in separate GLS periodograms: 1370–1380 d in LPV diagnostics and ~1355 d in Na D EWs. This is necessary but not sufficient. The paper does not show that the diagnostics vary coherently on the 1365-day ephemeris (e.g., phase-folded EWs/BVS/BVC, a direct cross-correlation, or a two-signal model), and it does not state whether the 1–2% period differences (1355 vs. 1365 vs. 1370–1380 d) are within the frequency resolution of the 22-year baseline. Since roughly ten diagnostic periodograms are searched with 48 spectra, the displayed per-periodogram FAP values do not account for the look-elsewhere effect. I request a trial-corrected FAP or a direct phase-coherence test; without it, the abstract and §6.3 overstate the strengt
  2. [Table 3 and §4] The MCMC orbital solution quotes an RV jitter of 2.8 m/s while the post-fit residual rms is 203 m/s. This is internally inconsistent. The quoted uncertainties on P (1365.0 ± 0.1 d), K (722.9 ± 0.3 m/s), and the other parameters are therefore not meaningful, because the noise model does not include the observed excess variance. The paper should re-fit with a proper jitter term (or equivalent) before reporting tight orbital parameters or using them to derive the companion mass range in §6.4.
  3. [§5.1 and §5.2] The Fe I 6219 Å bisector diagnostics (BVS/BVC) show no significant periodicity, while the Fe I 6265 Å and Ca I 6439 Å LPV diagnostics show 1370–1380 d periods. Both sets of lines are photospheric and are used as LPV proxies, so the line-to-line inconsistency needs an explanation. If the 6265/6439 periodicity is physically related to the RV signal, a similar signal would be expected in 6219 Å unless a specific argument about line formation, blending, or sensitivity is provided. Without such an argument, the LPV-RV link is weaker than presented.
  4. [§5.3 and §6.2] The paper first reports a prominent 1098-day period in the Hipparcos photometry, then in §6.2 states that the baseline is insufficient to determine a unique period and interprets the same data only as a broad excess at timescales longer than ~1100 d. These statements are contradictory. If the 1098-d peak is not secure, it should not be used as evidence for multiperiodicity; if it is secure, the §6.2 reinterpretation should be corrected. This matters because the photometric variability is cited as supporting the multiperiodic, intrinsic-origin interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§7] The discussion states that Na D lines show a periodicity near 1340 days, while §5.4 and the abstract give ~1355 days. Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Figure 4] The caption for panel (d) says 'H line bisector indicators', but the text and panel labels indicate H-alpha/H-beta EW and line depth. The caption should be aligned with the panels.
  3. [§5.2, §5.4] No uncertainties or numerical FAP values are reported for the diagnostic periods (1370, 1380, 1371, 1355, 2730–2800 d). Please provide period uncertainties and the actual FAPs, not only a 1% FAP threshold line.
  4. [§6.4] The comparison with the Kervella et al. (2022) astrometric companion mass would be clearer if the same assumed stellar mass were used in both estimates; the current 'broadly compatible' statement mixes different adopted masses and inclination assumptions.
  5. [§5.4] The section title 'H & D lines behaviors' appears to be meant as 'H and Na D lines behaviors'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity; the activity-origin conclusion rests on independent diagnostics, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The RV period (1365 d) is obtained from a GLS periodogram and an MCMC Keplerian fit to the iodine-cell RVs (Section 4, Table 3). The activity-related periods — Na D EWs near 1355 d, LPV diagnostics at 1370–1380 d, and H-line EWs/depths at 2730–2800 d — come from separate GLS periodograms of independent line measurements (Sections 5.2 and 5.4, Figure 4). None of these diagnostics is defined in terms of the RV solution, and no parameter is fitted to the RV ephemeris and then renamed as a prediction. The conclusion that the RV signal is activity-related is an inference from period coincidence and amplitude considerations, not a result forced by construction. Self-citations (e.g., Lee et al. 2014 for the initial detection, Lee et al. 2013 for RV stability) provide context and prior measurements but do not carry the central claim. The paper explicitly acknowledges the large residual scatter (rms 203 m/s) and frames the activity interpretation as suggestive rather than definitive. The main weakness — that the activity link rests on periodogram agreement without cross-correlation or trial-corrected significance — is a statistical-evidence concern, not a circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on adopted stellar parameters and on the assumption that period coincidences in independent diagnostics share a physical cause. The paper fits several periods and trends, but these are descriptors of the data rather than a predictive model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • RV period P = 1365.0 ± 0.1 d
    GLS periodogram peak and MCMC orbital solution (Table 3); defines the signal whose origin is debated.
  • RV semi-amplitude K = 722.9 ± 0.3 m/s
    MCMC fit; used for the companion minimum-mass estimate and compared with predicted pulsation amplitude.
  • RV trend coefficients = slope = -0.183 m/s/d, quadratic = -4.08e-5 m/s/d^2
    Fitted linear and quadratic terms in the RV model; they affect the period and residual scatter.
  • RV jitter (MCMC) = 2.8 m/s
    Reported in Table 3 but inconsistent with the rms residual of 203 m/s, indicating the noise model is not credible.
  • LPV and activity periods = 1370, 1380, 1371, 1355, 2730, 2800 d
    GLS peaks in BVC/BVS, line depth, EW, Na D, and H lines; used as evidence for the activity origin, with no uncertainties given.
  • Projected rotation period Prot/sini = 2850 ± 250 d
    Computed from adopted radius (265 Rsun) and vrot sini (4.7 km/s); used to associate the H-line period with rotation.
axioms (6)
  • standard math GLS periodogram with bootstrap FAP is valid for unevenly sampled time series.
    Used throughout §4–§5 to identify periods in RV, LPV, and activity indicators.
  • domain assumption Adopted stellar parameters (Teff, log g, R*, M*) are accurate.
    Used to derive rotation period, pulsation timescales, and companion mass; taken from Hipparcos, Gaia, Taniguchi et al. (2025), and TGVIT analysis.
  • domain assumption BVS/BVC, line depth, and EW of selected Fe I/Ca I lines trace photospheric velocity fields.
    Central to the LPV diagnostics in §5.2; line-profile variations are interpreted as atmospheric motions.
  • domain assumption H-alpha/H-beta and Na D EW variations trace chromospheric activity in distinct atmospheric layers.
    Basis for the activity interpretation in §6.3; if these lines do not respond to activity, the main diagnostic link weakens.
  • domain assumption Empirical scaling relations (Kjeldsen & Bedding 2011; Hekker & Meléndez 2007) apply to HD 216946.
    Used to estimate pulsation amplitude and macroturbulent broadening; extrapolation to a K-type red supergiant is uncertain.
  • ad hoc to paper Period coincidence between independent diagnostics implies a shared physical origin.
    This interpretive assumption converts the periodogram matches into the activity-origin claim; it is not demonstrated by cross-correlation or phase analysis.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12219 in / 13218 out tokens · 133856 ms · 2026-08-01T11:37:35.433944+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present precise radial-velocity (RV) observations of the K-type red supergiant HD~216946 (V424 Lac) obtained over approximately 22 years with the Bohyunsan Optical Astronomy Observatory Echelle Spectrograph (BOES). The RV measurements reveal a significant long-period variability with a period of 1365 days. To investigate its origin, we analyzed the RV data together with line-profile variations (LPVs), chromospheric activity indicators, and published photometric variability. The LPVs exhibit periods of approximately 1370--1380 days, while the Na~D lines show a similar periodicity near 1355 days, both comparable to the RV period. In contrast, the H-line indicators display longer periods of 2730--2800 days, approximately twice the RV period. The close correspondence between the RV variations and the activity-related diagnostics strongly suggests that the 1365-day RV signal is primarily linked to chromospheric activity and extended atmospheric variability rather than arising from purely Keplerian motion. Published photometric studies also report additional long-period variability, including a 1601-day long secondary-period (LSP)-like variation. The coexistence of multiple non-identical periods indicates that the observed variability of HD~216946 is unlikely to originate from a single physical mechanism. We therefore interpret HD~216946 as a multiperiodic red supergiant in which several intrinsic stellar processes coexist. The observed variability is most likely dominated by chromospheric activity and large-scale atmospheric dynamics, possibly accompanied by rotational modulation and LSP-like variability, although the presence of a low-mass stellar companion cannot be completely excluded.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19812 by Byeong-Cheol Lee, Myeong-Gu Park.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The GLS periodograms for RV variations of HD 216946. The strongest peak occurs at 1365 days and the periodogram for the residual RVs (dashed line) after subtracting the signal. The horizontal line corresponds to a 0.1% FAP. -1 000 -500 0 500 1 000 1 500 R V (m / s) σ = 203 (m/s) 53000 54000 55000 56000 57000 58000 59000 60000 61 000 -600 -300 0 300 600 O-C (m / s) JD-2400000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The RV curve for HD 216946 is shown by the solid line. The RV measurements and RV residuals are plotted in the upper and lower panels, respectively. data. The GLS periodogram reveals a significant peak at ap￾proximately 1365 days ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The phase-folded RV curve with an orbital period of 1365 days and RV residuals are plotted in the upper and lower panels, respectively. Although the residual scatter is relatively large, such RV variability is not unexpected for a luminous evolved star. Hekker et al. (2006) showed that RV residuals in K giants tend to increase toward later spectral types and higher luminosities, supporting the interpretati… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GLS periodograms of various diagnostic indicators for HD 216946. Panels show the periodograms of (a) the line-bisector indicators of the reference photospheric line, (b) the LPV bisector indicators, (c) the EW and line depth of the LPV diagnostic lines, (d) the H line bisector indicators, (e) the H-line EW and depth indicators, (f) the Sodium line bisector indicators, and (g) the HIPPARCOS photometric data… view at source ↗

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

221 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 669, A49

    Ahmad, A., Freytag, B., & H \"o fner, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A49

    2023

  2. [2]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 3147

    Aigrain, S., Pont, F., & Zucker, S. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3147

    2012

  3. [3]

    P., Johnson, J

    Bowler, B. P., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Henry, G. W., Peek, K. M. G., Fischer, D. A., Isaacson, H., Howard, A. W., Saar, S. H., & Wright, J. T. 2010, ApJ, 709, 396

    2010

  4. [4]

    2011, A&A, 528, A120

    Chiavassa, A., Pasquato, E., Jorissen, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A120

    2011

  5. [5]

    F., & Mauas, P

    Cincunegui, C., D \'i az, R. F., & Mauas, P. J. D. 2007, A&A, 469, 309

    2007

  6. [6]

    2020, A&A, 633, A76

    Cretignier, M., Dumusque, X., Allart, R., & Pepe, F. 2020, A&A, 633, A76

    2020

  7. [7]

    ESA 1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1239, 0

    1997

  8. [8]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari A., Brown A. G. A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Arenou F., Babusiaux C., et al., 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2023

  9. [9]

    Gray, D. F. 1989, ApJ, 347, 1021

    1989

  10. [10]

    Gray, D. F. 2008, AJ, 135, 1450

    2008

  11. [11]

    C., & Ford, E

    Hara, N. C., & Ford, E. B. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 15

    2023

  12. [12]

    M., Brown, A., & Guinan, E

    Harper, G. M., Brown, A., & Guinan, E. F. 2009, AJ, 135, 1430

    2009

  13. [13]

    P., & Cochran, W

    Hatzes, A. P., & Cochran, W. D. 1998, MNRAS, 293, 469

    1998

  14. [14]

    P., & Cochran, W

    Hatzes, A. P., & Cochran, W. D. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 109

    1999

  15. [15]

    P., Guenther, E

    Hatzes, A. P., Guenther, E. W., Endl, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 743

    2005

  16. [16]

    P., Cochran, W

    Hatzes, A. P., Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 335

    2006

  17. [17]

    P., Cochran, W

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

    2015

  18. [18]

    2006, A&A, 454, 943

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

    2006

  19. [19]

    A., Butler, R

    Johnson, J. A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Vogt, S. S., Wright, J. T., & Peek, K. M. G. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

    2007

  20. [20]

    2007, A&A, 469, 671

    Josselin, E., & Plez, B. 2007, A&A, 469, 671

    2007

  21. [21]

    2013, PASJ, 65, 15

    Kambe, E., Yoshida, M., Izumiura, H., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 15

    2013

  22. [22]

    1997, A&A, 320, 273

    Kaufer, A., Stahl, O., Wolf, B., et al. 1997, A&A, 320, 273

    1997

  23. [23]

    2022, A&A, 657, A7

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., & Th\'evenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7

    2022

  24. [24]

    G., et al

    Kim, K.-M., Han, I., Valyavin, G. G., et al. 2007, PASP, 119, 1052

    2007

  25. [25]

    L., Szab \'o , G

    Kiss, L. L., Szab \'o , G. M., & Bedding, T. R. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1721

    2006

  26. [26]

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

    1995

  27. [27]

    & Bedding, T

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

    2011

  28. [28]

    2019, A&A, 632, A28

    Kravchenko, K., Jorissen, A., Chiavassa, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A28

    2019

  29. [29]

    K \"u rster, M., Endl, M., Rouesnel, F., et al.\ 2003, , 403, 1077

    2003

  30. [30]

    F., Boisse, I., Bouchy, F., et al

    Lanza, A. F., Boisse, I., Bouchy, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A44

    2011

  31. [31]

    E., et al

    Lee, B.-C., Han, I., Park, M.-G., Mkrtichian, D. E., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A37

    2012

  32. [32]

    2013, A&A, 549, A2

    Lee, B.-C., Han, I., Park, M.-G., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A2

    2013

  33. [33]

    Lee, B.-C., Han, I., Park, M.-G., et al.\ 2014, , 566, A124

    2014

  34. [34]

    2016, AJ, 151, 9

    Lee, B.-C., Han, I., Park, M.-G., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 9

    2016

  35. [35]

    2023, JKAS, 56, 101

    Lee, Y.-S., Chun, M.-Y., & Kim, J.-H. 2023, JKAS, 56, 101

    2023

  36. [36]

    Lyra, W., & Porto de Mello, G. F. 2005, A&A, 431, 329

    2005

  37. [37]

    2019, A&A, 627, A56

    Meunier, N., Lagrange, A.-M., & Borgniet, S. 2019, A&A, 627, A56

    2019

  38. [38]

    2021, A&A, 650, A131

    Meunier, N., Lagrange, A.-M., Borgniet, S., & Rieutord, M. 2021, A&A, 650, A131

    2021

  39. [39]

    2007, NewA, 12, 557

    Messina, S. 2007, NewA, 12, 557

    2007

  40. [40]

    J., De Castro, E., & Cornide, M

    Montes, D., Fernandez-Figueroa, M. J., De Castro, E., & Cornide, M. 1997, A&AS, 125, 263

    1997

  41. [41]

    R., Lennon, D

    Patrick, L. R., Lennon, D. J., Evans, C. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A129

    2019

  42. [42]

    W., Sivan, J

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

    2001

  43. [43]

    2015, A&A, 574, A116

    Reffert, S., Bergmann, C., Quirrenbach, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A116

    2015

  44. [44]

    R., & Takayama, M

    Saio, H., Wood, P. R., & Takayama, M. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3863

    2015

  45. [45]

    A., Henry, G

    Sato, B., Fischer, D. A., Henry, G. W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 465

    2005

  46. [46]

    2005, PASJ, 57, 27

    Takeda, Y., Ohkubo, M., Sato, B., Kambe, E., Sadakane, K., & Masuda, S. 2005, PASJ, 57, 27

    2005

  47. [47]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 781

    Takeda, Y., Sato, B., & Murata, D. 2008, PASJ, 60, 781

    2008

  48. [48]

    Taniguchi, D., Matsunaga, N., Kobayashi, N., et al.\ 2025, , 693, A163

    2025

  49. [49]

    R., Montalb\'an, J., et al

    Trabucchi, M., Wood, P. R., Montalb\'an, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1575

    2021

  50. [50]

    2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1906.004

    Trifonov, T. 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1906.004

    2019

  51. [51]

    Tsujimoto, T., Park, C., Taniguchi, D., & Kim, Y. K. 2025, A&A, 693, A163

    2025

  52. [52]

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al.\ 2000, , 143, 9

    2000

  53. [53]

    R., Alcock, C., Allsman, R

    Wood, P. R., Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., et al. 1999, IAU Symp., 191, 151

    1999

  54. [54]

    R., & Deng, L

    Xiong, D. R., & Deng, L. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1270

    2007

  55. [55]

    2009, A&A, 496, 577

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

    2009

  56. [56]

    2007, A&A, 475, 1003

    Hekker, S., & Mel \'e ndez, J. 2007, A&A, 475, 1003

    2007

  57. [57]

    C., Anderson K

    Adams F. C., Anderson K. R., Bloch A. M., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 438

    2013

  58. [58]

    G., & Byrne, P

    Andretta, V., Doyle, J. G., & Byrne, P. B.\ 1997, , 322, 266

    1997

  59. [59]

    hui ., et al.\ 2018, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 51, 17

    Bang, T.-Y., Lee, B.-C., Jeong, G.-. hui ., et al.\ 2018, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 51, 17. doi:10.5303/JKAS.2018

    work page doi:10.5303/jkas.2018 2018

  60. [60]

    Bang, T.-Y., Lee, B.-C., Perdelwitz, V., et al.\ 2020, , 638, A148

    2020

  61. [61]

    Basri, G., Wilcots, E., & Stout, N.\ 1989, , 101, 528

    1989

  62. [62]

    V., Goncharov G

    Bobylev V. V., Goncharov G. A., Bajkova A. T., 2006, ARep, 50, 733

    2006

  63. [63]

    D., 2021, ApJS, 254, 42

    Brandt T. D., 2021, ApJS, 254, 42

    2021

  64. [64]

    P., Marcy, G

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

    1996

  65. [65]

    S., Plez B., Josselin E., Perrin G., Freytag B., 2010, A&A, 515, A12

    Chiavassa A., Haubois X., Young J. S., Plez B., Josselin E., Perrin G., Freytag B., 2010, A&A, 515, A12

    2010

  66. [66]

    D., 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    2016

  67. [67]

    F., Mauas P

    Cincunegui C., D \' az R. F., Mauas P. J. D., 2007, A&A, 469, 309

    2007

  68. [68]

    Decin L., Richards A. M. S., Danilovich T., Homan W., Nuth J. A., 2018, A&A, 615, A28

    2018

  69. [69]

    F., Cincunegui C., Mauas P

    D \' az R. F., Cincunegui C., Mauas P. J. D., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1007

    2007

  70. [70]

    P., Hatzes A

    D \"o llinger M. P., Hatzes A. P., Pasquini L., Guenther E. W., Hartmann M., Girardi L., Esposito M., 2007, A&A, 472, 649

    2007

  71. [71]

    C., et al.\ 2018, , 619, A2

    Delgado Mena, E., Lovis, C., Santos, N. C., et al.\ 2018, , 619, A2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833152

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833152 2018

  72. [73]

    J., Levison, H

    Duncan, M. J., Levison, H. F., & Lee, M. H.\ 1998, , 116, 2067

    1998

  73. [74]

    Endl, M., K \"u rster, M., & Els, S.\ 2000, , 362, 585

    2000

  74. [75]

    Esa, 1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/239

    1997

  75. [76]

    Famaey, B., Jorissen, A., Luri, X., et al.\ 2005, , 430, 165

    2005

  76. [77]

    Fehrenbach C., Duflot M., Genty V., Amieux G., 1996, yCat, 3192. III/192

    1996

  77. [78]

    R., Mo c nik T., English J

    Fetherolf T., Pepper J., Simpson E., Kane S. R., Mo c nik T., English J. E., Antoci V., et al., 2023, ApJS, 268, 4

    2023

  78. [79]

    S., Quirrenbach A., Fischer D

    Frink S., Mitchell D. S., Quirrenbach A., Fischer D. A., Marcy G. W., Butler R. P., 2002, ApJ, 576, 478

    2002

  79. [80]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Mignard F., Drimmel R., et al., 2016, A&A, 595, A2

    2016

  80. [81]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Babusiaux C., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., et al., 2018, A&A, 616, A1

    2018

Showing first 80 references.