RedDots: Limits on habitable and undetected planets orbiting nearby stars GJ 832, GJ 674, and Ross 128
Le résumé fourni par la source
Aims. Using HARPS spectroscopic data obtained by the RedDots campaign, as well as archival data from HARPS and CARMENES, supplemented with ASH2 and T90 photometry, we aim to search for additional planets around the three M dwarfs GJ 832, GJ 674, and Ross 128. We also aim to determine limits on possible undetected, habitable planets. We investigate (i) the reliability of the recovered orbital eccentricities and (ii) the reliability of Bayesian evidence as a diagnostic for selecting the best model. Methods. We employed Markov-chain Monte Carlo, nested sampling, and Gaussian process (GP) analyses to fit a total of 20 different models. We used the residuals to create grids for injection-recovery simulations to obtain detection limits on potentially undiscovered planets. Results. Our refined orbital elements for GJ 832 b, GJ 674 b, and Ross 128 b confirm (GJ 832, GJ 674) or increase (Ross 128) prior eccentricity determinations. No additional planets were found in any of the systems. The detection limits obtained for all three systems are between 30 and 50 cm/s for orbital periods in the range of 1 to 10 000 days. Using N-body simulations, we find that undiscovered secondary planets are unlikely (Ross 128) or incapable (GJ 674) of having caused the observed eccentricities of the known planets. We find that the eccentricity of GJ 832 b is not significantly different from zero. Conclusions. GJ 832 b, GJ 674 b, and Ross 128 b retain their status as hosting lonely and (for the latter two) eccentric planets. Finally, our results show that Bayesian evidence, when used in conjunction with GP, is not a robust diagnostic for selecting the best model in cases of low-activity stars. In such cases, we advise an inspection of the shapes of the posterior distributions and to ensure that relevant simulations are performed to assess the validity of the perceived best model.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.