Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

A multi-technique detection of an eccentric giant planet around accelerating star HD 57625

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Archival radial velocities and Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion data jointly reveal a giant planet, HD 57625 b, with a true mass of 8.4 Jupiter masses on a 5.7 AU eccentric orbit.

desk verdict A genuine multi-technique detection of a wide-orbit giant planet, whose true mass is conditional on a single-companion attribution of the proper-motion anomaly. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06404 v1 pith:ZWQXMKVU submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

D. Barbato , D. Mesa , V. D'Orazi , S. Desidera , A. Ruggieri , J. Farinato , L. Marafatto , E. Carolo
show 37 more authors
D. Vassallo S. Ertel J. Hom R.M. Anche F. Battaini A. Becker M. Bergomi F. Biondi A. Cardwell P. Cerpelloni G. Chauvin S. Chinellato C. Desgrange S. Di Filippo M. Dima T.S. Gomes Machado R. Gratton D. Greggio Th. Henning M. Kenworthy F. Laudisio C. Lazzoni J. Leisenring L. Lessio A. Lorenzetto L. Mohr M. Montoya G. Rodeghiero J. Patience J. Power D. Ricci K.K.R. Santhakumari A. Sozzetti G. Umbriaco M. Vega Pallauta V. Viotto K. Wagner
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanetsradialvelocityastrometrypropermotionanomalydirectimaginggiantplanetseccentricorbitsHD57625
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

HD 57625, an F8 star 44 parsecs away, has been hiding a giant planet that neither radial velocities nor astrometry could identify on their own. By combining 13 years of archival radial-velocity measurements with the discrepancy between Hipparcos and Gaia proper motions, the paper detects HD 57625 b: a planet of about 8.4 Jupiter masses on a 5.7 au orbit with eccentricity 0.52. The astrometric signal breaks the usual inclination degeneracy, so the mass is a true dynamical mass rather than a minimum mass. A high-contrast imaging campaign detected nothing, which independently rules out stellar and brown-dwarf companions at the relevant separations. This matters because true-mass outer giant planets are rare and are needed to test how such systems form and evolve.

What carries the argument

The proper motion anomaly (PMa) - the statistically significant difference between a star's long-term proper motion, measured by comparing Hipparcos and Gaia, and its short-term proper motion - is the astrometric signal that reveals the star is accelerating. The paper's central mechanism is a joint Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit that models the radial velocities and the PMa with the same single Keplerian orbit, producing orbital elements and a true mass rather than a minimum mass. The imaging contrast curves contribute a second, independent constraint by showing that no stellar or high-mass brown-dwarf companion could have escaped detection, leaving only the substellar-mass interpretation.

What would settle it

Measure one full radial-velocity orbit (the fitted period is roughly 4,850 days while the available data span 4,708 days) and obtain an independent astrometric orbit from future Gaia data. The single-Keplerian model predicts a specific position-angle track on the sky and a 43.8-degree inclination; if the new data require a different period, a second companion, or a different inclination, the claimed true mass of 8.4 Jupiter masses is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the accelerating star HD 57625 hosts a genuine planetary-mass companion, HD 57625 b, with a dynamical mass of $8.43^{+1.10}_{-0.91}$ $M_{\rm Jup}$, a semimajor axis of $5.70^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ au, and an eccentricity of $0.52^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$. The companion is responsible for both the long-term Keplerian trend visible in the archival radial velocities and the significant proper motion anomaly between Hipparcos and Gaia. Jointly fitting the two datasets yields an orbital inclination of $43.8^{+14.3}_{-7.2}$ degrees, which converts the radial-velocity minimum mass into a true mass and places the object firmly below the roughly 13 $M_{\rm Jup}$ deuterium-burning limit. The imaging non-detection sets contrast limits that exclude stellar and massive brown-dwarf companions, so the substellar interpretation is confirmed by three independent datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The detection assumes that the measured wobble in the star's radial velocity and the change in its motion across the sky are produced by one and the same unseen planet, and not by a second companion or by systematic errors in the merged star catalogs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HD 57625 b becomes one of the few dozen outer giant planets with a true dynamical mass, so population studies can use it without the sin i degeneracy.
  • Because the imaging observations rule out stellar and brown-dwarf companions at separations beyond about 5 au, the planetary interpretation of the RV and PMa signals is independently supported.
  • The multi-technique completeness maps show that additional inner low-mass planets and wide-orbit giant planets could still be present, defining the discovery space for future observations.
  • The estimated Kozai timescale, between about 2 and 39 million years, is much shorter than the star's 4.8-billion-year age, so the distant stellar companion is a plausible driver of the planet's high eccentricity if the mutual inclination exceeds about 39 degrees.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same joint RV-plus-PMa analysis is applied to other accelerating stars with archival RV trends, the sample of outer giant planets with true masses could grow substantially without waiting for full-orbit RV coverage.
  • The published relative astrometric orbit predicts where HD 57625 b should appear on the sky; an imaging observation with a smaller inner working angle, timed near the predicted position, could test the orbital solution directly.
  • The moderately eccentric orbit and the presence of a wide stellar companion suggest that similar systems with PMa-detected giants may preferentially show Kozai-excited eccentricities; this is a testable prediction for the survey sample.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first result of an ongoing SHARK-NIR high-contrast imaging survey of stars with significant proper-motion anomalies. For the F8 star HD 57625, the authors combine SHARK-NIR H-band and LBTI/LMIRCam L'-band imaging non-detections with archival SOPHIE radial velocities and the Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion anomaly, modeled jointly with the orvara MCMC code. They report the detection of HD 57625 b, a giant planet with true mass 8.43(+1.10,-0.91) M_Jup, semi-major axis 5.70(+0.14,-0.13) au, and eccentricity 0.52(+0.04,-0.03). The imaging non-detection is used to exclude stellar and massive brown-dwarf companions, and a multi-technique injection-recovery completeness analysis is presented. The paper explicitly acknowledges the limited RV phase coverage and the resulting uncertainties in the RV-only orbital solution.

Significance. If the inferred parameters are correct, HD 57625 b is a useful addition to the small sample of wide-orbit giant planets with true masses determined by combining radial velocities and astrometry, and it demonstrates the scientific return of the SHARK-NIR survey. The paper's strengths are its explicit use of public datasets (SOPHIE, Hipparcos, Gaia), its quantitative MCMC treatment with orvara, and its injection-recovery completeness maps that combine imaging, RV, and astrometric data. The main weakness is that the true-mass and inclination claims rest on the untested assumption that the full proper-motion anomaly is produced by the single Keplerian companion detected in the RVs; the paper does not present a two-companion or extra-acceleration alternative model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 4] The conversion of the RV-only minimum mass (5.79 M_Jup, Table 3) into the true mass (8.43 M_Jup) and inclination (43.8 deg) is entirely driven by the assumption in the joint orvara fit that the Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion anomaly is produced by the same single Keplerian companion seen in the SOPHIE RVs. This assumption is not tested. The astrometric constraint is only an epoch-difference proper motion (Fig. 6), not a resolved orbit, so it cannot by itself distinguish one companion from two or from catalog systematics. Given that the RV baseline (4708 d) is shorter than the fitted period (~4843 d), that the RV-only K upper uncertainty is about 25%, and that the residual periodogram shows a 1300 d peak at 6% FAP (Section 4), a second companion or an additional acceleration contributing to the PMa is not excluded. Please add an explicit two-companion or extra-acceleration model comparison, or at least a quantitative bound on a possible second contribution, and state how the quoted M_b and i_b would change under such a model.
  2. [Section 5 and Table 1] The astrometric input used in the joint fit is not stated precisely enough. The paper initially quotes the Kervella et al. (2022) PMa with SNR 11.04 and uses that catalog for the sensitivity curve in Fig. 5, but it then says that orvara is designed to use the PMa from the Hipparcos-Gaia Catalog of Accelerations (HGCA, Brandt 2018, 2021). These catalogs have different cross-calibration treatments, and the adopted PMa values, uncertainties, and covariances directly affect the fitted inclination and true mass. Please state explicitly which PMa dataset was input to orvara and confirm that the Table 4 results are unchanged when the other catalog is used.
  3. [Section 4, Table 3] The RV-only posterior for the orbital period may be weakly constrained by the prior choice U(2000, 10000) d because the baseline is only 4708 d, close to the fitted period. The paper acknowledges the incomplete phase coverage, but it should also show that the quoted period uncertainty is not prior-dominated, for example by reporting the prior and posterior probability density functions for P_b or by testing a wider period prior. This is important because the joint solution's period and semi-major axis inherit the RV period information.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] The caption labels the green circles as the reference epochs for Hipparcos and Gaia DR3 (1991 and 2024), but the Gaia DR3 reference epoch is approximately 2016, while 2024 is the epoch of the imaging observation. Please correct this labeling.
  2. [Table 4] The prior line for inclination reads 'cos i, U(0, 180)', which is ambiguous. Please clarify whether the prior is uniform in cos i over [-1, 1] or uniform in i over [0, 180] degrees.
  3. [Section 5] In the discussion of the distant stellar companion, the statement that a 0.2 M_sun companion would produce the reported acceleration only at ~70 au appears to assume a circular orbit; please state this assumption explicitly.
  4. [Section 4] The residual periodogram peak at ~1300 d with FAP = 6% is described as non-significant, but given the paper's reliance on a single-Keplerian model, a sentence explaining why this peak cannot be due to a second companion would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the true-mass result is a joint fit to independent external RV and astrometric datasets, not a quantity defined by its own inputs.

full rationale

The central claim, a true mass of 8.43 MJup for HD 57625 b, is obtained by fitting public SOPHIE radial velocities and the Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion anomaly with the orvara code (Brandt et al. 2021). The RV-only analysis independently yields a Keplerian with P = 4851 d, K = 78.94 m/s, e = 0.52, and a minimum mass of 5.79 MJup, and the joint RV+PMa fit adds the inclination and true mass. The PMa data are taken from external catalogs (Kervella et al. 2022; HGCA), not from an assumed value of the planet's mass, and the RV period and semi-amplitude are not constructed from the PMa. The imaging non-detection is used only to place upper limits and to support a substellar interpretation; it does not define the planet parameters. Self-citations in the paper concern instrument early-science results and a detection-completeness code used for the completeness maps, and they are not load-bearing for the detection or mass determination. The single-companion attribution of the PMa is a modeling premise, not a circular reduction: the paper contains no equation in which the predicted mass is an input to the same prediction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. A second companion or catalog systematic could bias the derived inclination and true mass, but that is an ordinary assumption/risk and does not make the derivation circular. Therefore no circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass and orbital solution rest on standard Keplerian fitting plus the assumption that a single companion explains both the RV and PMa signals, and on externally calibrated data products (SOPHIE archive, HGCA/Kervella et al. 2022, MIST/AMES-COND models). The paper introduces no new particles or forces.

free parameters (8)
  • Orbital period P_b = 4843 +306/-167 d (joint fit)
    Fitted with PyORBIT and orvara; close to the 4708 d RV baseline, so the value is partly constrained by the PMa data.
  • Planet mass M_b = 8.43 +1.10/-0.91 MJup
    Primary fitted output of the joint RV and PMa fit; true mass depends on inclination and stellar mass.
  • Orbital eccentricity e_b = 0.52 +0.04/-0.03
    Fitted via sqrt(e_b) sin(omega_b) and sqrt(e_b) cos(omega_b) parameters.
  • Orbital inclination i_b = 43.82 +14.30/-7.22 deg
    Fitted in the orvara joint fit; converts minimum mass to true mass.
  • RV semi-amplitude K_b = 78.94 +19.87/-5.85 m/s (RV-only)
    Fitted to SOPHIE RVs; upper limit is poorly constrained due to incomplete phase coverage.
  • Stellar mass M_star = 1.040 +0.078/-0.080 Msun
    Derived from SED and MIST isochrone fit with EXOFASTv2; adopted in mass and semi-major axis calculations.
  • Stellar age = 4.8 +3.7/-2.9 Ga
    Isochrone fit; used for imaging mass limits and completeness, not for the dynamical mass.
  • RV zero-points and jitters (gamma, j for SOPHIE and SOPHIE+) = gamma about 14.4 and 22.6 m/s; j about 9.5 and 6.9 m/s
    Nuisance parameters in the RV fit accounting for instrumental offsets and stellar jitter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A single Keplerian companion produces both the radial velocity variation and the Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion anomaly.
    orvara fits one orbit to both datasets (Sect. 5); no multi-companion model is tested.
  • domain assumption The Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion anomaly reported by Kervella et al. (2022) is an accurate measure of the star's astrometric acceleration.
    The PMa and its uncertainty are taken from the catalog and used as input for the joint fit (Sect. 5, Table 1).
  • domain assumption The RV variations are not driven by stellar activity; the moderate correlations with FWHM and S_MW are unrelated periodicities.
    Sections 2 and 4 argue from activity index periodograms and correlations; a long-period activity cycle is excluded by lack of correlation, not by physical modeling.
  • domain assumption MIST stellar evolution models and AMES-COND atmospheric models provide valid conversions from photometry, isochrones, and contrasts to stellar and companion masses.
    Used to derive stellar mass and age (Sect. 2) and imaging mass limits (Sect. 3); external model grids, not independently tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption The wide, roughly 0.2 Msun stellar companion at about 440 au does not contribute significantly to the observed RV or PMa signals.
    Sect. 4 uses Eq. (1) to estimate a maximum acceleration of about 0.19 m/s from the wide binary, concluding it cannot explain the 151 m/s RV variation.
  • standard math Keplerian two-body orbital mechanics is the correct dynamical model for the RV and PMa fit.
    Used throughout Sects. 4 and 5; no general relativistic or multi-body corrections are needed at these separations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A multi-technique detection of an eccentric giant planet around accelerating star HD 57625." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWQXMKVU

@misc{pith2026241206404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A multi-technique detection of an eccentric giant planet around accelerating star HD 57625},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWQXMKVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06404}
}
abstract

The synergy between different detection methods is a key asset in exoplanetology, allowing for both precise characterization of detected exoplanets and robust constraints even in the case of non-detection. Recently, the interplay between imaging, radial velocities and astrometry has produced significant advancements in exoplanetary science. We report a first result of an ongoing survey performed with SHARK-NIR, the new high-contrast near-infrared imaging camera at the Large Binocular Telescope, in parallel with LBTI/LMIRCam in order to detect planetary companions around stars with significant proper motion anomaly. In this work we focus on HD 57625, a F8 star for which we determine a $4.8^{+3.7}_{-2.9}$Ga age, exhibiting significant astrometric acceleration and for which archival radial velocities hint at the presence of a previously undetected massive long-period companion. We analyse the imaging data we collected with SHARK-NIR and LMIRCam in synergy with the available public SOPHIE radial velocity time series and Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion anomaly. With this joint multi-technique analysis, we aim at characterizing the companion responsible for the astrometric and radial velocity signals. The imaging observations result in a non-detection, indicating the companion to be in the substellar regime. This is confirmed by the synergic analysis of archival radial velocity and astrometric measurements resulting in the detection of HD 57625 b, a ${8.43}_{-0.91}^{+1.10}$M$_{\rm Jup}$ planetary companion with an orbital separation of ${5.70}_{-0.13}^{+0.14}$au and ${0.52}_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ eccentricity. HD 57625 b joins the small but growing population of giant planets in outer orbits with true mass determination provided by the synergic usage of multiple detection methods, proving once again the importance of multi-technique analysis in providing robust characterization of planetary companions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Final SNR map of the inner region around HD 57625 obtained using the SHARK-NIR H-band (left panel) and the LMIRCam L′ -band data (right panel), a white cross marking the position of the central star. In both cases the images were obtained using a PCA technique subtracting 10 principal components. 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 c o ntra st ( H mag) IWA IWA SHARK-NIR LMIRCam 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 separation (au) 20 4… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: contrast curve for the imaging observation of HD 57625 conducted on the night of February 24th 2024 UT. Bottom panel: mass limits derived using the AMES-COND models, the thick curve corresponding to the nominal 4.8 Ga stellar age, the shaded re￾gion corresponding to the age uncertainty. In both panels, the blue solid curves refer to the SHARK-NIR H-band observations and the cyan dashed lines refer to the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Radial velocity orbital fit for planet HD 57625 b. Top panel: best-fit single-Keplerian solution is shown as a black curve over the SOPHIE (orange triangles) and SOPHIE+ (red circles) archival data. Bottom panel: post-fit residual radial velocities. uncertainty of 2.5 m s−1 . In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panels: time series for the SOPHIE (orange triangles) and SOPHIE+ (red circles) radial velocity data of HD 57625, residual time series obtained after removing the detected Keplerian signal and activ￾ity indexes. For the activity indexes time series, the Pearson co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proper motion anomaly sensitivity curve for HD 57625. The dark green curve shows the PMa-compatible companion masses as a function of orbital separations, the shaded region corresponding to the 1σ uncer￾tainty range. The blue and cyan curves represent the SHARK-NIR and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative astrometric orbit and selected predicted position for HD 57625 b. The position of the host star is marked by a yellow star, with a dashed line representing the line of nodes and a dotted line con￾necting the host star to periastron. Coloured circles mark the p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observed and fitted proper motions in right ascension (top panel) and declination (bottom panel). The best-fit orbit obtained by the joint RV and PMa fit is shown as a black curve, with the proper motion mea￾surements from Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 shown as green circles…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Detection completeness maps for the imaging (blue, top row), radial velocity (red, middle left panel), proper motion anomaly data (green, middle right panel) discussed in this work, as well as the multi-technique global map (purple, bottom panel). In all panels, the so…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2003, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Allard, F., Guillot, T., Ludwig, H.-G., et al. 2003, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 211, Brown Dwarfs, ed. E. Martín, 325

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    & Quanz, S

    Amara, A. & Quanz, S. P. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 948

    2012

  3. [3]

    2024, in Ground-based and Air- borne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed

    Barbato, D., Farinato, J., Baru ffolo, A., et al. 2024, in Ground-based and Air- borne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, V ol. 13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130961W

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    2023, A&A, 674, A114

    Barbato, D., Ségransan, D., Udry, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A114

    2023

  5. [5]

    2019, A&A, 621, A110

    Barbato, D., Sozzetti, A., Biazzo, K., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A110

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2018, A&A, 615, A175

    Barbato, D., Sozzetti, A., Desidera, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A175

    2018

  7. [7]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5588

    Bonavita, M., Fontanive, C., Gratton, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5588

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    F., Hébrard, G., et al

    Bouchy, F., Díaz, R. F., Hébrard, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A49

    work page 2013

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Brandt, T. D. 2018, ApJS, 239, 31

    2018

  2. [10]

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

    2021

  3. [11]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y ., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 186

    2021

  4. [12]

    L., Knutson, H

    Bryan, M. L., Knutson, H. A., Lee, E. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 52

    2019

  5. [13]

    & Janson, M

    Calissendorff, P. & Janson, M. 2018, A&A, 615, A149

    2018

  6. [14]

    Cannon, A. J. & Pickering, E. C. 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Henry Draper Catalogue and Extension (Cannon + 1918-1924; ADC 1989), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/135A. Originally published in: Harv. Ann. 91-100 (1918-1924)

    1993

  7. [15]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Carolo, E., Vassallo, D., Farinato, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10701, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VI, ed. M. J. Creech-Eakman, P. G. Tuthill, & A. Mérand, 107012B

    2018

  8. [16]

    E., Wetherill, G

    Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., & Boss, A. P. 1996, Icarus, 119, 261

    1996

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    2016

  10. [18]

    D., Kuzuhara, M., et al

    Currie, T., Brandt, T. D., Kuzuhara, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, L25

    2020

  11. [19]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri + 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: 2003yCat.2246....0C

    2003

  12. [20]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328 De Rosa, R. J., Nielsen, E. L., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A94

    2021

  13. [21]

    S., Snik, F., Por, E

    Doelman, D. S., Snik, F., Por, E. H., et al. 2021, Appl. Opt., 60, D52

    2021

  14. [22]

    D., Rodriguez, J

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    Farinato, J., Baruffolo, A., Bergomi, M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, ed. L. Schreiber, D. Schmidt, & E. Vernet, 1218522

    2022

  16. [24]

    2023, in Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes (AO4ELT7), 68

    Farinato, J., Di Filippo, S., Baru ffolo, A., et al. 2023, in Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes (AO4ELT7), 68

    2023

  17. [25]

    B., Kozinsky, B., & Rasio, F

    Ford, E. B., Kozinsky, B., & Rasio, F. A. 2000, ApJ, 535, 385

    2000

  18. [26]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  19. [27]

    P., Zhou, Y ., et al

    Franson, K., Bowler, B. P., Zhou, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, L19 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al...

    2023

  20. [28]

    2016, A&A, 594, A63 Głe ¸bocki, R

    Galicher, R., Marois, C., Macintosh, B., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A63 Głe ¸bocki, R. & Gnaci´nski, P. 2005, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 560, 13th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun, ed. F. Fa- vata, G. A. J. Hussain, & B. Battrick, 571 Gomes da S...

    2016

  21. [29]

    2024, A&A, 685, A119

    Gratton, R., Bonavita, M., Mesa, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A119

    2024

  22. [30]

    Y ., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y ., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749

    2019

  23. [31]

    D., et al

    Hinkley, S., Lacour, S., Marleau, G. D., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L5 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V . V ., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27

    2023

  24. [32]

    A., Zheng, J

    Innanen, K. A., Zheng, J. Q., Mikkola, S., & Valtonen, M. J. 1997, AJ, 113, 1915

    1997

  25. [33]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., Müller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44

    2018

  26. [34]

    2022, A&A, 657, A7

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thévenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7

    2022

  27. [35]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 11

    Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Kudo, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 11

    2013

  28. [36]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Leisenring, J. M., Skrutskie, M. F., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2012, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ram- say, & H. Takami, V ol. 8446, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 84464F

    2012

  29. [37]

    & Ezzeddine, R

    Li, Y . & Ezzeddine, R. 2023, AJ, 165, 145

    2023

  30. [38]

    R., Barman, T., et al

    Macintosh, B., Graham, J. R., Barman, T., et al. 2015, Science, 350, 64

    2015

  31. [39]

    W., Louden, T., et al

    Malavolta, L., Mayo, A. W., Louden, T., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 107

    2018

  32. [40]

    2016, A&A, 588, A118

    Malavolta, L., Nascimbeni, V ., Piotto, G., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A118

    2016

  33. [41]

    Mamajek, E. E. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1264

    2008

  34. [42]

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

    Marafatto, L., Carolo, E., Umbriaco, G., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12184, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121843V

    2022

  35. [43]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556

    Marois, C., Lafrenière, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., & Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556

    2006

  36. [44]

    2008, Science, 322, 1348

    Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1348

    2008

  37. [45]

    M., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T

    Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T. 2010, Nature, 468, 1080

    2010

  38. [46]

    C., Bonnefoy, M., Xie, C., et al

    Matthews, E. C., Bonnefoy, M., Xie, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A58

    2023

  39. [47]

    C., Carter, A

    Matthews, E. C., Carter, A. L., Pathak, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 789

    2024

  40. [48]

    2022, A&A, 665, A73

    Mesa, D., Bonavita, M., Benatti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A73

    2022

  41. [49]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04171

    Mesa, D., Gratton, R., D’Orazi, V ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04171

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2023, A&A, 672, A93

    Mesa, D., Gratton, R., Kervella, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A93

    2023

  43. [51]

    R., Amara, A., Reggiani, M., & Quanz, S

    Meyer, M. R., Amara, A., Reggiani, M., & Quanz, S. P. 2018, A&A, 612, L3

    2018

  44. [52]

    A., Prugniel, P., & Soubiran, C

    Moultaka, J., Ilovaisky, S. A., Prugniel, P., & Soubiran, C. 2004, PASP, 116, 693 Müller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, L2

    2004

  45. [53]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Macintosh, B., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 13

    2019

  46. [54]

    M., et al

    Nowak, M., Lacour, S., Lagrange, A. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, L2

    2020

  47. [55]

    W., Hartmann, L

    Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763

    1984

  48. [56]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9

    2013

  49. [57]

    2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, ed

    Pedichini, F., Piazzesi, R., Viavattene, G., et al. 2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, ed. L. Schreiber, D. Schmidt, & E. Vernet, V ol. 12185, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121856Q

    2022

  50. [58]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Perruchot, S., Kohler, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70140J

    2008

  51. [59]

    2016, in Adaptive Optics Systems V , ed

    Pinna, E., Esposito, S., Hinz, P., et al. 2016, in Adaptive Optics Systems V , ed. E. Marchetti, L. M. Close, & J.-P. Véran, V ol. 9909, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 99093V

    2016

  52. [60]

    2023, in Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes (AO4ELT7), 80

    Pinna, E., Rossi, F., Agapito, G., et al. 2023, in Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes (AO4ELT7), 80

    2023

  53. [61]

    N., Barnes, R., Veras, D., et al

    Raymond, S. N., Barnes, R., Veras, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, L98

    2009

  54. [62]

    J., Knutson, H

    Rosenthal, L. J., Knutson, H. A., Chachan, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 1

    2022

  55. [63]

    F., Jones, T., Hinz, P., et al

    Skrutskie, M. F., Jones, T., Hinz, P., et al. 2010, in Ground-based and Air- borne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, V ol. 7735, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 77353H

    2010

  56. [64]

    2018, A&A, 616, A7

    Soubiran, C., Jasniewicz, G., Chemin, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A7

    2018

  57. [65]

    2012, ApJ, 755, L28

    Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJ, 755, L28

    2012

  58. [66]

    & Price, K

    Storn, R. & Price, K. 1997, Journal of Global Optimization, 11, 341

    1997

  59. [67]

    & Rasio, F

    Takeda, G. & Rasio, F. A. 2005, ApJ, 627, 1001

    2005

  60. [68]

    1999, PASP, 111, 169 van Leeuwen, F

    Torres, G. 1999, PASP, 111, 169 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653

    1999

  61. [69]

    2021, A&A, 651, A72 V oges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al

    Vigan, A., Fontanive, C., Meyer, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A72 V oges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389 V oges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 2000, IAU Circ., 7432, 3

    2021

  62. [70]

    Weidenschilling, S. J. & Marzari, F. 1996, Nature, 384, 619

    1996

  63. [71]

    & Murray, N

    Wu, Y . & Murray, N. 2003, ApJ, 589, 605

    2003

  64. [72]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Cata- log, I/322A Article number, page 12 of 12

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.