The BEBOP radial-velocity survey for circumbinary planets

Astronomy&Astrophysics

A&A 624, A68 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833669© ESO 2019

The BEBOP radial-velocity survey for circumbinary planets

I. Eight years of CORALIE observations of 47 single-line eclipsing binaries andabundance constraints on the masses of circumbinary planets?,??

David V. Martin1,2,???, Amaury H. M. J. Triaud3, Stéphane Udry1, Maxime Marmier1, Pierre F. L. Maxted4,Andrew Collier Cameron5, Coel Hellier4, Francesco Pepe1, Don Pollacco6, Damien Ségransan1, and Richard West6

1 Observatoire Astronomique de l’Université de Genève, Chemin des Maillettes 51, 1290 Sauverny, Switzerlande-mail: [email protected]

2 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA3 School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK4 Astrophysics Group, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK5 SUPA, School of Physics & Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, KY16 9SS St Andrews, Fife, UK6 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

Received 18 June 2018 / Accepted 8 January 2019

ABSTRACT

We introduce the BEBOP radial velocity survey for circumbinary planets. We initiated this survey using the CORALIE spectrographon the Swiss Euler Telescope at La Silla, Chile. An intensive four-year observation campaign commenced in 2013, targeting 47single-lined eclipsing binaries drawn from the EBLM survey for low mass eclipsing binaries. Our specific use of binaries with faintM dwarf companions avoids spectral contamination, providing observing conditions akin to single stars. By combining new BEBOPobservations with existing ones from the EBLM programme, we report on the results of 1519 radial velocity measurements overtimespans as long as eight years. For the best targets we are sensitive to planets down to 0.1 MJup, and our median sensitivity is0.4 MJup. In this initial survey we do not detect any planetary mass companions. Nonetheless, we present the first constraints on theabundance of circumbinary companions, as a function of mass and period. A comparison of our results to Kepler’s detections indicatesa dispersion of planetary orbital inclinations less than ∼10◦.

Key words. binaries: eclipsing – planets and satellites: detection – techniques: radial velocities – techniques: photometric –stars: statistics – stars: low-mass

1. IntroductionThe progression of the field of exoplanets has led to moreand more diverse discoveries. A particular example is planetsorbniting around both stars of a tight binary, known as cir-cumbinary planets. These planets provide insight into planetformation in different, perturbative environments (Meschiari2012; Paardekooper et al. 2012; Rafikov 2013; Lines et al.2014) and of planetary migration in a protoplanetary disc thatis sculpted by the inner binary (Artymowicz & Lubow 1994;Pierens & Nelson 2013, 2018; Martin et al. 2013; Kley &Haghighipour 2014). Studying the abundance of circumbinaryplanets ellicits comparisons to that around single stars (Martin &Triaud 2014; Armstrong et al. 2014; Bonavita et al. 2016;Klagyivik et al. 2017), and the presence or even absenceof planets sheds light on the formation of their host binary? Based on photometric observations with the SuperWASP and

SuperWASP-South instruments and radial velocity measurement fromthe CORALIE spectrograph, mounted on the Swiss 1.2 m EulerTelescope, located at ESO, La Silla, Chile.?? The radial velocities are available at the CDS via anony-

mous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or viahttp://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/qcat?J/A+A/624/A68,and on request to the main author.??? Fellow of the Swiss National Science Foundation.

(Muñoz & Lai 2015; Martin et al. 2015; Hamers et al. 2016; Xu &Lai 2016). Furthermore, circumbinary planets have increasedtransit probabilities (Borucki & Summers 1984; Schneider 1994;Martin & Triaud 2015; Li et al. 2016; Martin 2017), mak-ing them often found in the habitable zone (Kane & Hinkel2013; Haghighipour & Kaltenegger 2013) and potentially aidingthe use of transmission and emission spectroscopy (Deming &Seager 2017).

Roughly two dozen circumbinary planets have been discov-ered to date, with the majority coming from only two tech-niques: observing the planet transit in front of one or both ofits host stars (e.g. Kepler 16; Doyle et al. 2011) or inferringits existence by the measurement of eclipse timing variations(ETVs) of the binary (e.g. NN Serpentis; Qian et al. 2009;Beuermann et al. 2010). Only a handful of discoveries have comefrom other methods: gravitational microlensing (OGLE-2007-BLG-349; Bennett et al. 2016), direct imaging (e.g. HD 106906;Bailey et al. 2014; Lagrange et al. 2016) and pulsar timing (PSRB1620-26; Backer et al. 1993; Thorsett et al. 1993; Sigurdssonet al. 2003). Furthermore, out of the two dominant techniquesonly the transit discoveries are completely reliable, as the valid-ity of the ETV planets is debated, particularly for post-commonenvelope binaries (Zorotovic & Schreiber 2013; Bear & Soker2014; Hardy et al. 2016; Bours et al. 2016).

Article published by EDP Sciences A68, page 1 of 45

https://www.aanda.org

https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833669

mailto:[email protected]

http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr

ftp://130.79.128.5

http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/qcat?J/A+A/624/A68

http://www.edpsciences.org

A&A 624, A68 (2019)

Our knowledge of circumbinary planets is largely based ona sample of transiting planets that is both small in number, 11,and impacted by observational biases. Preliminary insights intotheir formation and distribution have been obtained (reviewedin Welsh & Orosz 2017; Martin 2018) but a more comprehen-sive understanding demands not only more discoveries, but onesmade with complementary observing techniques with differentsensitivities.

Radial velocities (RVs) led to the first discovered exoplanetaround a Sun-like star (51 Peg; Mayor & Queloz 1995) and hun-dreds more since. Radial velocities have also yielded dozensof circumstellar planets orbiting one component of a widerbinary, for instance 16 Cygni Bb (Cochran et al. 1997), andWASP-94Ab & Bb (Neveu-VanMalle et al. 2014). There is, how-ever, no bonafide circumbinary planet discovered by RVs. Thisis in spite of attempts stretching back many years, for examplethe TATOOINE survey of double-lined spectroscopic binaries(SB2s; Konacki et al. 2009, 2010; Hełminiak et al. 2012). Therewas a potential RV discovery of a circumbinary planet in theHD 202206 system by Correia et al. (2005), but astrometric datahas since revealed it to be a 17.9+2.9

−1.8 MJup circumbinary browndwarf (Benedict & Harrison 2017).

Despite these past difficulties, RVs still have the ability toexpand our knowledge of circumbinaries. The sensitivity of RVspartially overlaps with that of transits. This means that we mayuse transit discoveries as a guide and motivation, but radialvelocities push into new parameter spaces, with a weaker depen-dence on period and inclination and also having detections thatare mass-dependent, rather than radius-dependent.

In 2013 we intiated a radial velocity survey named BinariesEscorted By Orbiting Planets, henceforth (BEBOP). The pro-gramme was initiated on the 1.2 m Swiss Euler Telescope usingthe CORALIE spectrograph. We targeted 47 known single-linedeclipsing binaries (SB1s) drawn from the EBLM programme(Triaud et al. 2017a and see Sect. 3.1), which consist of F/G/Kprimaries and M-dwarf secondaries. The BEBOP observationsreach a precision of a few metres per second. This permits a pre-cise characterisation of the binary orbit, such that by subtractingit from the RV signal we may then search the residuals for anorders of magnitude smaller signal of a circumbinary gas giantplanet.

A fundamental design element of BEBOP is to solelyobserve SB1s. This means that instead of trying to solve theproblem of deconvolving the two spectra in SB2s, such as in theTATOOINE survey, our approach avoids it.

This paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 we brieflyreview the present understanding of circumbinary planets, anduse this to motivate a radial velocity survey. Second, in Sect. 3the birth and construction of the BEBOP sample is described,including its roots in the EBLM survey. We then describe theobservational strategy in Sect. 4. The subsequent treatment ofthe data, including the reduction of the spectroscopic data, fit-ting of radial velocity orbits and model selection is covered inSect. 5. In Sect. 6 we discuss the calculation of primary and sec-ondary masses, as well as the constraints placed on undetectedorbital parameters. In Sect. 7 we present the results of the surveyand the characterisation of tertiary Keplerian signals. In Sect. 8we analyse the results and compute detection limits for each ofour systems. From these detection limits, in Sect. 9 we calculatethe completeness of this programme and use it to calculate abun-dances of circumbinary planets, circumbinary brown dwarfs andtight triple star systems. We compare these values to other sur-veys for gas giants around single and binary stars in Sect. 10.Finally, in Sect. 11 we briefly outline the future of the BEBOP

1 3 10 30 100 300 1000Binary period (days)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

enta

ge o

f sam

ple

BEBOPKeplerKnown Circumbinary Hosts

Fig. 1. In dark blue, a histogram of the Kepler eclipsing binary cata-logue for all periods longer than 1 day. Data is taken from http://keplerebs.villanova.edu/ as of May 2017, based on a cataloguethat is first outlined in Prsa et al. (2011). Red dashed lines correspond tothe nine binaries known to host transiting circumbinary planets. In lightblue, a histogram of the 47 BEBOP binaries.

survey, including its recent upgrade to the HARPS spectrograph,before concluding in Sect. 12.

2. Trends seen in transiting circumbinary planets

With not even a dozen confirmed transiting circumbinary planetsto date, we only have a cursory knowledge of their population. Toprovide context for the BEBOP survey we briefly review some ofthe trends. For a more in depth discussion of the circumbinaryplanets discovered to date, the reader is directed to the reviewsin Welsh & Orosz (2017) and Martin (2018).

2.1. Binary orbital periods

All circumbinary planets found as part of the Kepler missiontransit eclipsing binaries. Owing to geometry, the Kepler eclips-ing binary catalogue is expectedly biased towards short periods,with a median orbital period of 2.7 days. Planets have onlybeen found around relatively long-period binaries though, withPbin > 7 days. This is shown in Fig. 1, with a distribution ofthe Kepler eclipsing binary catalogue and the binary periodsknown to host circumbinary planets. For comparison, we over-lay the distribution of the BEBOP eclipsing binary catalogue,the construction of which we discuss in Sect. 3.2.

Tighter binaries are typically accompanied by a third star(Tokovinin et al. 2006). This third star is suspected to either dis-rupt circumbinary planet formation (Muñoz & Lai 2015; Martinet al. 2015; Hamers et al. 2016; Xu & Lai 2016) or bias the planetsample to long-period, misaligned orbits, both of which wouldhave been missed by the Kepler transit survey. Alternate explana-tions for the dearth of planets around the tightest binaries, whichdo not invoke the presence of a third star, have also been pro-posed: tidal expansion of the binary orbit, causing the planet tobecome unstable (Fleming et al. 2018) and UV evaporation ofexoplanet atmospheres, shrinking them to an undetectable size(Sanz-Forcada et al. 2014).

2.2. Planet orbital periods

Out of the nine known transiting circumbinary systems, eightcontain a planet with a period less than ten times the binary

A68, page 2 of 45

http://dexter.edpsciences.org/applet.php?DOI=10.1051/0004-6361/201833669&pdf_id=0

http://keplerebs.villanova.edu/

http://keplerebs.villanova.edu/

D. V. Martin et al.: BEBOP circumbinary RV survey

0 10 20 30 40 50Pbin (days)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pp (d

ays)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4abin(1+ebin) (AU)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

a p(1-e

p) (AU

)

Pp/Pbi

n = 5

020

10

75

rmin =

10

54

32.5

0 10 20 30 40 50Pbin (days)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pp (d

ays)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4abin(1+ebin) (AU)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

a p(1-e

p) (AU

)

0 10 20 30 40 50Pbin (days)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pp (d

ays)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4abin(1+ebin) (AU)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

a p(1-e

p) (AU

)0 10 20 30 40 50

Pbin (days)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pp (d

ays)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4abin(1+ebin) (AU)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

a p(1-e

p) (AU

)0 10 20 30 40 50

Pbin (days)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pp (d

ays)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4abin(1+ebin) (AU)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

a p(1-e

p) (AU

)

Fig. 2. Left panel: planet andbinary orbital periods, with dashedlines of constant period ratio. Rightpanel: planet periapse distanceand binary apoapse distance, withdashed lines of constant scaledminimum distance, rmin = [ap(1 −ep)]/[abin(1 + ebin)]. Systems witha single detected planet are shownas blue squares, whereas the three-planet Kepler-47 system is shownas grey circles.

period (plotted in Fig 2, left). The scaled minimum distancebetween orbits is defined as rmin = [ap(1 − ep)]/[abin(1 + ebin)].Seven of the nine systems contain a planet with rmin betweena narrow range of 2.5 and 3.0, and hence align diagonally in aplot of planet periapse against binary apoapse in Fig. 2, right. Aplanet cannot orbit too close to the binary lest its orbit becomesunstable through resonant overlap (Mudryk & Wu 2006), andthese seven planets all orbit within a relative distance of 50%to the stability limit (Dvorak 1986; Holman & Wiegert 1999;Chavez et al. 2015; Quarles et al. 2018)1. The over-density ofplanets near the stability limit is not believed to be an obser-vational bias (Martin & Triaud 2014; Li et al. 2016), althoughimproved statistics are needed to draw strong conclusions.

The stability limit coincides closely with where the proto-planetary disc would have been truncated by the inner binary(Artymowicz & Lubow 1994). Planet formation is believed to behindered this close to the binary (Meschiari 2012; Paardekooperet al. 2012; Rafikov 2013; Lines et al. 2014). Instead, the favouredexplanation for a heightened frequency of planets near the stabil-ity limit is formation in the farther regions of the disc, followedby an inwards migration and then parking near the disc edge(Pierens & Nelson 2013, 2018; Kley & Haghighipour 2014).

2.3. Orbital alignment

The known transiting circumbinary planets exist on orbitsthat are coplanar with the binary to within ∼4◦. Li et al.(2016) concludes that this is indicative of the true underlyingdistribution and not an observational bias. However, the statis-tics are presently poor, and Martin & Triaud (2014) demonstratedthat highly misaligned systems (more than just a few degrees)have a sparse, hard-to-identify transit signature, and hence couldremain hidden in the Kepler data.

A nearly coplanar distribution would be indicative of eithera primordially flat environment, or a re-alignment over time ofthe circumbinary disc (Foucart & Lai 2013) or the planet itself(Correia et al. 2016). On the other hand, misalignment maybe produced by disc-warping (Facchini et al. 2013; Lodato &Facchini 2013), planet-planet scattering (Smullen et al. 2016) andtertiary star interactions (Muñoz & Lai 2015; Martin et al. 2015;Hamers et al. 2016).

1 In reality the stability limit is not a sharp function of orbital width andeccentricity, but it also has subtle dependencies on the binary mass ratioand the mutual inclination, as well as various islands of (in)stabilityshaped by mean motion resonances.

2.4. Planet size and abundance

Only circumbinary planets larger than 3 R⊕ have been found todate. Some of the larger planets have measured masses fromETVs, but for most no ETVs are detectable and hence only anupper limit may be placed. The most massive measured massis 1.52 MJup (Kepler-1647; Kostov et al. 2016), but the majorityare Saturn mass or smaller. The lack of Earth and super-Earthcircumbinary planets is however likely to be an observationalbias, owing to the unique challenges of capturing shallow plan-etary transits with irregular transit depths, timing and durations(Armstrong et al. 2013).

For circumbinary gas giants the studies by Martin & Triaud(2014) and Armstrong et al. (2014) provided two importantresults. First, it was demonstrated that the true abundance wasdegenerate with the mutual inclination distribution; comparing acoplanar and highly misaligned population, to produce the samenumber of detections the misaligned population must have ahigher planetary abundance as its transit detection rate would besmaller. Second, the minimum abundance of transiting circumbi-nary gas giants, corresponding to a near-coplanar distribution,was found to be surprisingly similar to that around single stars(Howard et al. 2010; Mayor et al. 2011; Santerne et al. 2016). Ona similar note, the imaging survey of Bonavita et al. (2016) deter-mined that the abundance of sub-stellar companions on wideorbits did not differ significantly between single and binary stars.Overall though, these results all require verification due to thepresently poor statistics, one of the primary objectives of oursurvey.

2.5. Binary mass ratios

In Fig. 3 we show the mass ratios of the known transiting cir-cumbinary planets (red dashed lines). For comparison, the bluehistogram shows the host mass ratios in the BEBOP sample.Planets have been found around binaries of essentially all massratios. Whether the abundance of circumbinary planets dependson binary mass ratio remains an open question due primarily tosmall number statistics2, but for now it is simply re-assuring thatthe planets known to date are just as commonly found aroundsmall mass ratio binaries, like those probed by BEBOP. Finally,we also remind that the circumbinary brown dwarf HD 202206c2 An upcoming paper (Martin, in prep.) investigates Kepler circumbi-nary planet population as a function of the mass ratio, although giventhe small number statistics any inference is only preliminary at thispoint.

A68, page 3 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Binary mass ratio mB/mA

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

enta

ge o

f sam

ple

BEBOPKnown Circumbinary Hosts

Fig. 3. In light blue, a histogram of the mass ratio of the 47 BEBOPbinaries. The vertical red dashed lines correspond to the mass ratios ofthe Kepler binaries known to host transiting circumbinary planets.

orbits a binary with q = 0.08 (Correia et al. 2005; Benedict &Harrison 2017).

3. Overview of BEBOP

The targets for the BEBOP survey were first discovered andcharacterised as part of the older EBLM survey for low masseclipsing binaries. It is for this reason that they are all designatedby their EBLM name. This survey has been detailed in a seriesof papers (Triaud et al. 2013, 2017a; Gómez Maqueo Chew et al.2014; von Boetticher et al. 2017), so in Sect. 3.1 it is just brieflyreviewed. We then in Sect. 3.2 discuss how the BEBOP surveyand its target list was constructed.

3.1. A brief description of the EBLM survey for low-masseclipsing binaries

Since 2004 the Wide Angle Search for Planets (WASP; Pollaccoet al. 2006; Collier Cameron et al. 2007a,b) has been conductinga ground-based photometric survey of several million stars.Observations span both hemispheres, with sites in La Palma andthe South African Astronomical Observatory. The photometricprecision and observing baseline are amenable to the detectionof Jupiter-sized bodies on orbits of typically less than 10 days,although some are found with periods up to 40 days. Detect-ing hot- and warm-Jupiter planets is the primary objective ofWASP.

However, the WASP survey has also netted a large quantityof astrophysical false-positives. An ever-present challenge is theambiguity between the transit of a giant exoplanet and the eclipseof a low-mass star. Theoretical and observational studies havedemonstrated that the vast range in mass between giant plan-ets (∼0.1 MJup) and small stars (∼100 MJup), including the browndwarfs in between, only corresponds to a narrow range in radiusof ∼0.7−2 RJup, in spite of the very different physical processestaking place (Baraffe et al. 1998, 2003, 2015; Chabrier et al.2009; Chen & Kipping 2017). When using the humble precisionof WASP (compared with Hubble, Kepler, etc.), it is thereforealmost impossible to distinguish between a giant exoplanet and asmall star using photometry alone; spectroscopic reconnaissanceis required.

It is typical for most exoplanet surveys to discard candi-dates that display RV amplitudes in excess of a few km s−1,

and to consider those as false positives. However, this is not thecase for the southern (Dec < +10◦) WASP candidates, whichare monitored spectroscopically by the Swiss Euler Telescopein La Silla, Chile, using the CORALIE spectrograph (Quelozet al. 2001a; Wilson et al. 2008; Triaud et al. 2017b). Sys-tems with semi-amplitudes less than 50 km s−1 enter the EBLM(Eclipsing Binary Low Mass) project. The project started in 2010as an observational probe of eclipsing binaries with low-mass,M-dwarf secondary stars. The cut of 50 km s−1 is designed toconcentrate our observational efforts on fully convective sec-ondaries (<0.35 M�), for which empirical mass and radiusmeasurements are in short supply. In other words, the EBLMproject is a survey of eclipsing SB1s.

An outline of the EBLM project, and some initial resultswere published in Triaud et al. (2013) and Gómez MaqueoChew et al. (2014). The spectroscopic orbits of an ensemble of118 binaries appeared in Triaud et al. (2017a), with this sam-ple due to double in the coming year. The most recent resultof the survey is the binary EBLM J0555-57, whose secondarystar comes close to the hydrogen-burning limit with a massof 85 ± 4 MJup while having a radius of only 0.84+0.14

−0.04 RJup,comparable to Saturn (von Boetticher et al. 2017).

3.2. The birth of the BEBOP survey for circumbinary planets

A spectroscopic exoplanet survey is complementary to the workalready done using transits. This can be seen in the equation forthe RV semi-amplitude, defined by

Kc =(2πG)1/3√

1 − e2c

mc sin Ic

(mA + mB + mc)2/3

1

P1/3c

, (1)

where G is Newton’s gravitational constant, P denotes the orbitalperiod, e is the eccentricity, I the inclination compared to theplane of the sky, and m the mass. The sub-scripts stand for theprimary (A), the secondary (B), and the planet (c)3. We notethat the mass of the secondary star appears in the above equa-tion because the gravitational force of the planet perturbs thebarycentre of the inner binary, rather than the primary star alone.Compared to transit surveys, RVs are sensitive to a wider rangeof planetary orbits, with a shallower dependence on the planet’speriod and inclination.

Furthermore, RVs are sensitive to mass rather than radius.The majority of the Kepler circumbinary planets do not havemasses measured from ETVs, and the faintness of most Keplerstars makes them unamenable to spectroscopic follow-up. Therealso remains some general tension in the community betweenmasses derived photodynamically and spectroscopically (Steffen2016; Rajpaul et al. 2017).

Past radial-velocity surveys have not yielded any confirmedcircumbinary planets. The TATOOINE survey of non-eclipsingSB2s (Konacki et al. 2009, 2010; Hełminiak et al. 2012) wasthe most expansive effort. One of its major successes wasan improvement in the precision of radial velocity measure-ments of double-lined binaries by at least an order of mag-nitude. Nevertheless, Konacki et al. (2009) reveal a meanrms across their sample of nearly 20 m s−1, which exceeds

3 The language throughout this paper typically refers to tertiary orbit-ing objects as circumbinary planets, as they are the main goal of thesurvey. However, we are also sensitive to more massive circumbinaryobjects such as circumbinary brown dwarfs and tertiary stars. We there-fore use a “c” sub-script rather than a “p” sub-script to refer to the outerorbit.

A68, page 4 of 45



the formal uncertainties by a factor of a few, and hides mostgas giants from identification. We suspect the excess noiseoriginates from an imperfect radial-velocity extraction, as theprocedure gets affected by the presence of two sets of lines.Similar effects are seen in ELODIE data (Eggenberger et al.2004).

Konacki et al. (2010) write that maximal precision can beachieved by monitoring “single stars, or at best single-lined spec-troscopic binaries where the influence of the secondary spectrumcan be neglected”. However, a suitable sample of bright, short-period SB1s was not available when TATOOINE was firstconstructed.

The BEBOP survey started when we realised that such abinary sample did now exist: the EBLM survey. By construc-tion, the EBLM sample is solely composed of SB1s. Indeed,thanks to their eclipsing configuration we calculate the true (notminimum) mass of the secondary and its radius. Together wecan robustly estimate the level of contamination produced by thesecondary (Triaud et al. 2017a). Instead of attempting to buildupon the pioneering work of TATOOINE to solve the double-line binary problem, we decided to circumvent it by focusing onsingle-line binaries.

By avoiding the contaminating effect of a secondary setof lines, the identification of a circumbinary planet becomesequivalent to identifying a multi-planet system whose innermostobject happens to have a few 100 MJup. We note that hot-Jupitershave dayside temperatures ranging from ∼800 to 4600 K (Triaudet al. 2015; Gaudi et al. 2017), and consequently M-dwarfs andhot-Jupiters are similarly located on colour-magnitude diagrams(Triaud 2014; Triaud et al. 2014). Surveys for outer companionsto hot-Jupiters are common in the literature (e.g. Knutson et al.2014; Bryan et al. 2016; Neveu-VanMalle et al. 2016), and theBEBOP survey is conceptually similar.

In addition to being SB1s, the EBLM targets also have thefollowing beneficial attributes:– Consistency of the sample: the EBLM targets were all dis-covered and characterised using only WASP photometry andCORALIE spectroscopy, with a consistent set of procedures andsensitivities.– Past EBLM RVs were available to be combined with new mea-surements taken for BEBOP, which roughly doubles our timebaseline, and therefore improves our sensitivity to long-periodouter companions.– Some EBLM targets already had identified stellar activity, andhence could be avoided.– The radial velocity amplitude of the planet (Eq. (1)) isa decreasing function of the sum of the primary and sec-ondary masses. Having a low-mass secondary star is thereforebeneficial.– All of our binaries eclipse, which biases the orbital orientationof any planets to maximise the RV signal.– Another advantage of eclipsing binaries is a positive bias ofthe transit probability of any discovered circumbinary planet(Borucki & Summers 1984; Schneider 1994; Martin & Triaud2014, 2015; Li et al. 2016; Martin 2017). This bias is particularlystrong for small mass ratio binaries, which must have inclinationsvery close to 90◦ (further investigation in Martin, in prep.).– The distribution of EBLM binary periods and mass ratioshas significant overlap with the Kepler binaries known to hostcircumbinary planets (shown in Fig. 1).– The BEBOP binaries have an average Vmag = 11, which isroughly 3.3 magnitudes brighter than the Kepler circumbinarysystems.

3.3. Sample construction

The BEBOP binaries are selected from the EBLM sample, withthe following protocol:– The BEBOP binaries comply with a difference of fourvisual magnitudes between the primary and secondary stars,such that we avoid secondary contamination of the primary’sspectrum4. Almost all of the EBLM binaries naturally fulfill thiscriterion.– We only keep binaries on whose primary we reach a preci-sion of 70 m s−1 or better during a 30 min observation, whichis the typical exposure time used for the WASP planet survey(Triaud 2011). This is sufficient to reach the planetary domain.For instance, a hypothetical 3 MJup planet at Pc = 50 days arounda mA + mB = 1.2 M� binary produces a detectable radial velocitysignal with semi-amplitude Kc = 146 m s−1.– We exclude systems that display signs of stellar activity, asseen in an abnormal variation of the span of the bisector (Quelozet al. 2001b; Figueira et al. 2013). While stellar activity doesnot prevent the large-amplitude binary orbit to be characterised,it becomes a hindrance for detecting small-amplitude planets,sometimes mimicking their signal. The identification of stellaractivity in the EBLM binaries is outlined in Triaud et al. (2017a).Some of the EBLM binaries were already known to exist insidea triple star system. Outer stellar companions are thought totruncate and shorten the lifetime of the protoplanetary disc(Kraus et al. 2012; Daemgen et al. 2013; Cheetham et al. 2015),and generally be detrimental for the formation and survivalof circumbinary planets (Muñoz & Lai 2015; Martin et al.2015; Hamers et al. 2016; Xu & Lai 2016). However, suchtriple systems are kept in our sample for two reasons. First, thesearches for circumbinary planets around the Kepler eclipsingbinaries were done so without any a priori knowledge of atertiary companion. Indeed, one example is known of Kepler-64(Schwamb et al. 2013; Kostov et al. 2013)5 which has an outerstellar companion, which is itself a binary, albeit at a largeseparation of ∼1000 AU. The second reason to keep triple starsystems is to avoid introducing a confirmation bias into oursurvey.

The BEBOP binaries are typically longer period than theEBLM sample from which they were chosen. This was not cho-sen to match the trend seen in the Kepler results that the tightestbinaries do not host planets (Fig. 1), as this would also intro-duce a confirmation bias. Instead, this long-period selection isa function of the obtainable RV precision. Our binaries are all(or close to it) tidally synchronised (or pseudo-synchronisedif eccentric), and hence the rotation period equals the orbitalperiod. Consequently, the tightest binaries are also the fastestrotators, which have the worst RV precision due to broadenedspectral lines. An example of this can be seen by comparingEBLM J1146-42 and EBLM J1525+03. The two targets have asimilar visual magnitude (Vmag = 10.29 and 10.74) and primarymass (MA = 1.35 M� and 1.23 M�). However, the RV precisionis significantly different (σ1800s = 9 and 48 m s−1), which weattribute to different orbital periods (Pbin = 10.5 and 3.82 days).

4 There was one slight exception to this cut: EBLM J0425-46, forwhich the difference in visual magnitudes is only 3.85. However, evenwith the a slightly heightened threat of spectral contamination, the 30CORALIE observations yielded an eccentric k1 fit, with a χ2

red = 0.73statistic, indicating a perfect fit. Evidently there was not wide-spreadspectral contamination in this target. This target is discussed further inSect. 8.15 Also known as PH-1 (Schwamb et al. 2013).

A68, page 5 of 45

A&A 624, A68 (2019)

In fact, this 3.82-day period for EBLM J1525+03 is the short-est in the sample, and also corresponds to one of our worstprecisions.

The BEBOP sample tallies 47 binaries, which we presentin this paper. In Table A.1 we list some of the fundamentalobservational and physical parameters of these binaries. Thecalculation of the primary and secondary masses is discussedin Sect. 5.4. The primary visual magnitudes are all taken forthe NOMAD survey, except for EBLM J1934-42 which didnot have available data. For this exceptional case the Baraffeet al. (2015) models were used at an age of 1 Gyr. For the sec-ondary visual magnitudes Baraffe et al. (2015) models were usedin all cases. The mid-times of primary and secondary eclipse(Tpri and Tsec), are calculated based on the CORALIE spec-troscopy alone and not the WASP photometry. The differentσ values are the observational precisions, and are discussed inSect. 5.3.

4. Observational strategyAll spectroscopic observations were taken at the Swiss EulerTelescope in La Silla, Chile, using the CORALIE spectrograph.CORALIE (Queloz et al. 2001a; Marmier et al. 2013) is a ther-mally stabilised, fibre-fed echelle spectrograph with a resolvingpower of R = 55 000.

The goal was to collect 20 observations of 30 min length oneach binary. The flexible observing schedule of the Swiss Tele-scope allows for observations to be spread out over the year. Thisis important for probing long-period planets, like the ones weexpect to find. The Kepler-discovered circumbinary planets haveperiods between 49.5 and 1107 days, with a median of 184 days.

Observations were instructed to be separated by at least halfthe binary’s orbital period. This means that the 20 observationswould span at least 10Pbin, which would be long enough to coverat least one orbital revolution of a planet in eight of the nineKepler circumbinary systems. Typically though, the observationswere spaced over a longer timespan.

Other constraints on the observations were as follows:– Separation between the target star and the Moon by at least 70◦.This conservative criterion avoids contamination of the spectrumby the gentle Sun’s light reflected off the delicate Lunar surface.– Avoidance of primary eclipses of the binary. When thesecondary M dwarf passes in front of the primary star the radialvelocity signal is slightly distorted by the Rossiter–McLaughlineffect (Holt 1893; Rossiter 1924; McLaughlin 1924; Quelozet al. 2000; Triaud et al. 2013). We did not instruct observersto avoid secondary eclipses of the binary, as the faintness of thesecondary stars makes these phenomena negligible.– Generally good, clear observing conditions were required. Thismeant an airmass of the target better than 1.5 and a seeing betterthan 2.0 arcsec.Since the BEBOP sample was constructed from the existingEBLM programme, we included all available radial velocity dataexcept those likely affected by the Rossiter–McLaughlin effect.Measurements from the EBLM programme were also removedif deemed outliers, which is explained in Sect. 5.2.

In Fig. 4 we show the calendar of observations on the 47eclipsing binaries. The red diamonds correspond to long obser-vations (1700+ s). These typically correspond to the BEBOPprogramme since late 2013, and a couple of initial observa-tions dating back as far as 2008. The blue squares are forshorter observations, which in most cases were taken under theguise of the EBLM programme. A small number of BEBOPtargets did not receive a full quota of 20 long observations, owing

to limitations in available observing time, but most exceededthis.

5. Radial velocity data treatment

The radial velocity data was treated in the same way as in Triaudet al. (2017a). We therefore only provide a summary of the meth-ods used here, and refer the reader to that paper for a morethorough discussion.

5.1. Reduction of spectroscopic data

The CORALIE Data Reduction Software (DRS) is similar tothat used with the HARPS, HARPS-North and SOPHIE instru-ments. A cross correlation function (CCF) is created between theobserved spectrum and a numerical mask (Baranne et al. 1996).The CCF is a weighted average spectral line, which containscharacteristics of individual absorption lines such as their widthand asymmetries, but with a heightened signal to noise. The CCFis binned in 0.5 km s−1 increments, owing to the R = 55 000resolving power of the spectrograph. Two different spectral typemasks were used: G2 and K5. These were chosen based on thespectral type of the primary star, which in our sample rangesbetween K2 and F0. Dumusque et al. (2012) demonstrated thatthe closeness of the spectral type mask largely affects only theabsolute radial velocity and not the radial velocity variations.Only having two spectral type masks therefore does not hinderour analysis.

The CCF of each measurement was compared with aThorium-Argon spectrum, which was used as a wavelength-calibration reference (Lovis & Pepe 2007). This accounted forvariations in the instrument which would otherwise impose adrift on the measured radial velocity of the star. The main sourceof variation was the pressure of the spectrograph, which fol-lowed the ambient atmospheric pressure because CORALIE,unlike HARPS and HARPS-North, is not pressurised. In 2014a Fabry-Pérot unit was added to provide even more precisecalibrations.

5.2. Outlier removal

For each CCF, which is approximately Gaussian, we measurethe span of the bisector slope. The bisector is calculated bytracing vertically the midpoint of the CCF at each value offlux intensity. The span of the bisector slope is the differencebetween the bisector at the top and bottom of the CCF (Quelozet al. 2001b). The bisector therefore reflects any asymmetries inthe absorption lines. We remove any observations with bisec-tor positions more than three interquartile ranges below the firstquartile or above the third quartile. Such outliers may be from thewrong star being observed accidentally, or an abnormally lowsignal to noise observation. A visual inspection was also doneof the data to outliers in the CCF’s Full Width Half Maximum(FWHM).

5.3. Calculation of radial velocity uncertainties

In Table A.1 three different σ radial velocity uncertaintiesare listed. The first value, σ1800s, is mean the photon noiseuncertainty for all observations of 1800 s, which was the typ-ical observation length during the BEBOP programme. Thevalue σmedian is the median photon noise precision for allobservations, that is both the 1800 s observations taken for

A68, page 6 of 45


2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

EBLM J0008+02EBLM J0035−69EBLM J0040+01EBLM J0055−00EBLM J0104−38EBLM J0218−31EBLM J0228+05EBLM J0310−31EBLM J0345−10EBLM J0353+05EBLM J0353−16EBLM J0418−53EBLM J0425−46EBLM J0500−46EBLM J0526−34EBLM J0540−17EBLM J0543−57EBLM J0608−59EBLM J0621−50EBLM J0659−61EBLM J0948−08EBLM J0954−23EBLM J0954−45EBLM J1014−07EBLM J1037−25EBLM J1038−37EBLM J1141−37EBLM J1146−42EBLM J1201−36EBLM J1219−39EBLM J1305−31EBLM J1328+05EBLM J1403−32EBLM J1446+05EBLM J1525+03EBLM J1540−09EBLM J1630+10EBLM J1928−38EBLM J1934−42EBLM J2011−71EBLM J2040−41EBLM J2046−40EBLM J2046+06EBLM J2101−45EBLM J2122−32EBLM J2207−41EBLM J2217−04

YearsFig. 4. Time-series of 1519 radial velocity observations of the 47 eclipsing binaries in the BEBOP programme. Red diamonds are observationsfor 1700 s or longer. Blue squares are for shorter observations. It is seen that all binaries typically receive two long observations initially before aseries of short observations as part of the EBLM programme. A series of long observations typically commenced near the end of 2013 as part ofthe BEBOP survey.

BEBOP and earlier, shorter observations taken in the EBLMprogramme.

After removing observations with significant outlier bisec-tor values there may still remain some variation in the bisector.We consider such asymmetries to be a source of error, which isshown in Table A.1 as σadd. This value is calculated by

σadd =

√δ2

bis

4−

⟨σ2γ

⟩, (2)

where δbis is the root mean square of the variation of the bisectormeasurements around their mean and

⟨σγ

⟩is the mean photon

noise error. If⟨σγ

⟩> δ2

bis/4 then we take σadd = 0, which wasthe case for 30 of the 47 binaries. Otherwise, we add σadd inquadrature to the radial velocity measurements.

Finally, the CORALIE spectrograph was historically stableto a precision of 6 m s−1 (Marmier 2014). A recent change of the

optical fibres from circular to hexagonal improved the stability to3 m s−1 (Triaud et al. 2017b). To each data point we add 6 m s−1 ofGaussian noise in quadrature. Choosing 6 m s−1 and not 3 m s−1

was considered conservative, and also reasonable since most ofthe observations occurred before the fibre upgrade.

5.4. Orbit fitting

To fit orbits to the spectroscopic data we use the YORBIT geneticalgorithm, which has been developed over the years at the Uni-versity of Geneva and implemented in numerous radial velocitiesusing CORALIE and HARPS (e.g. Bonfils et al. 2013; Mayoret al. 2011; Marmier et al. 2013). Only static Keplerian orbits arefitted, that is orbital variations induced by gravitational interac-tions between orbits are ignored. This is a reasonable assumptionexcept for very tight triple star systems, and in Sect. 8.4 webriefly discuss one such example. More details on YORBIT maybe found in Bouchy et al. (2016).

A68, page 7 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)

When YORBIT is run to search for a single Keplerian orbitit will inevitably first fit that of the inner binary, as its signalis orders of magnitude higher than any potential circumbinaryorbit. This binary orbit is characterised by six parameters: theperiod, P, semi-amplitude, K, eccentricity, e, time of periapsispassage, T0, mass function f (m) and the argument of periap-sis, ω. Error bars are calculated for each of these parameters byrunning 5000 Monte Carlo simulations.

5.5. Model selection

For each target we fitted five different types of model to the spec-troscopic data. These are listed below, along with the number ofparameters shown in parenthesis.1. k1: a single Keplerian (6)2. k1d1: a single Keplerian plus a linear drift (7)3. k1d2: a single Keplerian plus a quadratic drift (8)4. k1d3: a single Keplerian plus a cubic drift (9)5. k2: a pair of Keplerians (12)

Models more complex than a single Keplerian are likely indica-tive of a tertiary companion. This tertiary companion will haveits own Keplerian orbit, but if the observational timespan onlycovers a small fraction of this outer period then the orbit willbe sufficiently modelled by a drift. A drift could alternativelybe explained by an instrumental variation, but for CORALIE thetemperature stabilization and nightly pressure calibrations havehistorically avoided this. A third explanation would be long-termstellar activity, although the binaries were all vetted for height-ened activity, as described in Triaud et al. (2017a) based on theproceedures of Queloz et al. (2001b) and Figueira et al. (2013).

When attempting to fit a two-Keplerian model the geneticalgorithm was restricted to searching for periods greater thanfour times the inner binary period. Numerous stability studies(e.g. Dvorak 1986; Holman & Wiegert 1999; Chavez et al. 2015;Quarles et al. 2018) show that circumbinary planets would beunstable with shorter orbits. Aside from this minimum period,no further restrictions are applied to the fitting. In particular, wesearch for and are sensitive to binaries and planets of all eccen-tricities. Upon the discovery of any candidate triple systems theorbital stability is then tested more carefully.

All targets in the BEBOP programme have been observed atleast 16 times, with a median count of 32, which is more thanthere are free parameters in any of the models.

YORBIT will always retain small eccentricities like most fit-ting procedures (Lucy & Sweeney 1971). Therefore, for each ofthe above types of model we also test a fit where eccentricity isforced to zero. This allows us to test if the eccentricity fitted byYORBIT is significant. We are therefore left with a total of tentested models, where the number of parameters for the forcedcircular model is always two less than the corresponding eccen-tric model, as both e and ω are removed. Throughout this paperwe use “(circ)” and “(ecc)” to distinguish between forced circularand freely eccentric models. Note that when testing the k2 (circ)model only the binary eccentricity is forced to zero, not that ofthe planet.

For all ten models YORBIT outputs a χ2 statistic, which isa weighted sum of the square of the residuals. The reduced χ2

statistic is calculated by normalising over the number of freeparameters:

χ2red =

χ2

nobs − k, (3)

where nobs is the number of spectroscopic observations and kis the number of model parameters. A value of χ2

red = 1 isindicative of an optimal fit.

To choose the most appropriate model between the ten pos-sibilities we follow the same procedure as in Triaud et al.(2017a). For this we calculate the Bayesian information criterion(Schwarz 1978; Kass & Raftery 1995), henceforth referred to asthe BIC, according to

BIC = χ2 + k ln (nobs) . (4)

The BIC is defined such that it naturally punishes complexmodels (large k), and hence has an inbuilt Ockham’s razor, inselecting the most parsimonious explanation possible.

In our process of model selection we start with the simplestmodel, which is k1 (circ) with only four parameters, and cal-culate the BIC. We then calculate the BIC for other models inorder of complexity. To choose the next most complex model wedemand that the BIC improves (decreases) by at least six. Thisis believed to be strong evidence for the more complex model(Kass & Raftery 1995).

We allow the model selection to “jump” levels of complexityif the BIC improves by n × 6, where n is the number of ranksof complexity moved through. For example, if BIC = 40 for k1(circ) with four parameters, BIC = 38 for k1d1 (circ) with fiveparameters and BIC = 25 for k1d2 (circ) with six parameters,then the chosen model would be k1d2 (circ), even though therewas only a marginal BIC improvement between k1 (circ) andk1d1 (circ).

This process is done for k1, k1d1 and k1d2 models, in bothcircular and eccentric flavours. These were deemed the “base”models. The k1d3 and k2 models were deemed “complex” mod-els. Complex models are only tested if χ2

red > 2 for the bestbase model. This criterion was an additional means of penal-ising overly complex models. Since the aim of the survey isto find circumbinary planets, that is k2 models, this cautiousapproach minimises false discoveries. We note that sometimescomplex models were tested but ultimately a base model waschosen.

6. Calculating physical parameters

6.1. Primary and secondary masses

Because the BEBOP sample only contains single-lined binariesthe primary and secondary masses are not directly measured,but rather only the mass function is directly measured. Primarymasses are calculated the same way as in Triaud et al. (2017a),based on photometric colour fitting methodology outlined inMaxted et al. (2014).

Knowing both the primary mass and the mass function, thesecondary mass is calculated by solving numerically

f (m) =(mB sin Ibin)3

(mA + mB)2 =PbinK3

pri

2πG. (5)

The error in mB is calculated as

δmB

mB=

13

(δ f (m)f (m)

+ 2δmA

mA+ 3

δ sin Ibin

sin Ibin

), (6)

where δ indicates a 1σ uncertainty and δ f (m) is a direct out-put from YORBIT and δmA is calculated based on Torres et al.(2010) and Maxted et al. (2014). The uncertainty in the binaryinclination is calculated as δ sin Ibin = RA/apri, where apri is thesemi-major axis of the binary and RA is the radius of the primarystar, as calculated based on Gray (2008). When mB is calcu-lated in Eq. (5) we take Ibin = 90◦ because of the existence of

A68, page 8 of 45


the binary eclipses. By adding this small inclination uncertaintywe reflect our ignorance of the impact parameter of the eclipse.This typically adds 20% or less to the error in mB. Based on theprimary and secondary masses the semi-major axis is calculatedusing Kepler’s third law.

6.2. Calculating upper limits on undetected orbitalparameters

We follow the same methodology as for the EBLM survey(Triaud et al. 2017a) to constrain upper limits on orbital parame-ters which we do not have the precision to directly measure. Forall binaries where a forced circular solution was chosen by theBIC model selection we constrain the eccentricity to within zeroand an upper limit. This upper limit is calculated by adding thefitted eccentricity for that model to the 1σ uncertainty on thateccentricity. The same procedure is done for drifts in the radialvelocity, for example if k1 (ecc) was the chosen model then theupper limit on the coefficient of linear drift was taken as the fittedvalue in k1d1 (ecc) plus its 1σ uncertainty.

7. Spectroscopic results

7.1. Chosen models

Table A.2 shows all of the information pertaining to the modelselection. The BIC for the selected model is highlighted in boldfont. In Table 1 we count how many binaries were fitted by eachof the ten possible models. The same table appears in Triaudet al. (2017a, Table 2 in that paper) for the EBLM survey. Themost noticeable difference is that here we report 6 binaries fit-ted with k1 (circ) and 25 with k1 (ecc). Contrastingly, for theEBLM paper 58 binaries were fitted with k1 (circ) and 39 withk1 (ecc). The heightened percentage of binaries fitted with k1(ecc) in the BEBOP survey reflects the additional long-exposureradial velocity measurements, which heighten our sensitivity toeccentricities as small as 0.001.

7.2. Inner binary parameters

The orbital parameters and masses for the inner binary are alllisted in Table A.3, all taken from the chosen model indicatedin Table A.2. The 1σ uncertainty for each parameter is givenin parenthesis, corresponding to the last two digits of the mea-sured value. For example, for EBLM J0008+02 the period isPbin = 4.7222824(48) days, which can be otherwise written asPbin = 4.7222824 ± 0.0000048 days. For some systems upperlimits are provided for the eccentricity and coefficients of driftaccording to Sect. 6.2. The quantity ωbin is undefined when aforced circular model is chosen.

7.3. Discovered or potential tertiary bodies

For five of our binaries the selected model is a pair of Keplerianorbits. Unfortunately from a planetary perspective, all of thecharacterised tertiary orbits are within the stellar regime. Thesmallest characterised tertiary mass is mc sin Ic = 0.1207 M� forEBLM J2011-71.

In Table A.4 we provide parameters for all five characterisedtriple star systems. Compared with the EBLM release in Triaudet al. (2017a), there is an additional system: EBLM J1038-37.This system was included in Triaud et al. (2017a) but the BICselection criteria characterised it as a single, eccentric binaryplus a cubic drift. That prior characterisation was based on 13

Table 1. Number of binaries fitted with each model.

Name Count

Base models

k1 (circ) 6k1 (ecc) 25

k1d1 (circ) 0k1d1 (ecc) 4k1d2 (circ) 2k1d2 (ecc) 2

Complex models

k1d3 (circ) 1k1d3 (ecc) 2k2 (circ) 2k2 (ecc) 3

observations taken over 3.89 yr, with a median precision of131 m s−1. The double Keplerian characterisation presented inthis paper is based on 33 observations taken over 5.01 yr, with amedian precision of 74 m s−1. This is an example of the improvedorbital fits provided by the BEBOP survey in comparison withthe original EBLM survey.

It is interesting to note that all of the minimum masses ofthe tertiary stars are all significantly smaller than the primarymasses. However, we caution drawing too much from this resultas a more massive tertiary would have diluted the already shal-low WASP eclipse depth of the secondary star, and hence suchsystems may not have been detected in the first place. None ofthe tertiary stars are bright enough for us to directly observe theirflux.

8. Analysis

8.1. Residuals as a function of orbital phase – a test forspectral contamination

The BEBOP binary sample was constructed to avoid cross con-tamination between two sets of stellar spectral lines by onlychoosing binaries with faint secondary stars. However, if therewere spectral contamination then it would only be expected toaffect the observations at certain binary orbital phases. The vul-nerable orbital phases correspond to the primary star’s radialvelocity equalling the system’s systemic velocity, as it will bealso equal to the secondary star’s radial velocity (which we donot directly measure). At this point the primary and secondaryspectral lines overlap, and hence the chance of contamination ismaximised. It was said in Sect. 4 that observations were takenat orbital phases that avoid the primary eclipse, such that we donot observe a Rossiter–McLaughlin effect which would skew theradial velocities. This fortuitously helps us avoid spectral con-tamination, as the eclipse corresponds to an overlapping of theprimary and secondary radial velocity signals.

The width of the spectral lines, quantified by the full widthhalf maximum (FWHM), demarcates the range of radial velocityvalues that may be contaminated. A larger FWHM means thatspectral contamination may occur at a greater difference in theprimary and secondary radial velocities.

To test if there is wide-spread spectral contamination in oursample we analyse the residuals of the best-fitting model to eachbinary as a function of a scaled radial velocity value, for all 47binaries. This scaled radial velocity value, which we denote by

A68, page 9 of 45

A&A 624, A68 (2019)

-20 -10 0 10 20

Scaled radial velocity,

-500

-250

0

250

500

O -

C (

m/s

)

Fig. 5. Radial velocity residuals (“Observed minus Calculated” or O–Cfor short) of the best-fitting model to all BEBOP binaries for all 1519observations, stacked on top of each other as a function of the scaledradial velocity value δ, defined according to Eq. (7). The δ value sayshow far the observed radial velocity observation was from the systemicvelocity, scaled by the average FWHM for that target. The two roughlyhorizontal dark blue lines are the root mean squared (RMS) values of theresiduals, split into positive and negative values. If the RMS were max-imised near δ = 0 then this would be indicative of wide-spread spectralcontamination from the secondary star, but this is evidently not the case.

δ, is calculated by

δ =RV − RV0

FWHMmA

mB, (7)

where RV is an individual radial velocity measurement on theprimary star and RV0 is the systemic radial velocity mid-pointfor the system. The mass ratio factor mA/mB converts the radialvelocities from the measured values on the primary star tothe larger but not directly measured values on the secondarystar. The δ value denotes how far the potentially contaminantsecondary star radial velocity signal is away from RV0.

The results are plotted in Fig. 5. In blue we plot the residuals(O–C) of all 1519 data points for the 47 BEBOP targets on topof each other as a function of δ. The two dark blue lines arethe root mean squared (RMS) values at ten different values of δ,calculated separately for positive and negative values of O–C.If our sample were affected by stellar contamination then therewould be a significant increase in the residuals near δ = 0, andhence the red RMS curves would deviate significantly from zero.This is not the case.

It was noted in Sect. 3.2 in the construction of the BEBOPsample that one target – EBLM J0425-46 – has a visual magni-tude difference of 3.85 between the primary and secondary stars,which is slightly smaller than the threshold of 4. Its mass ratio isthe highest of the sample: mB/mA = 0.527. This may put it at riskof spectral contamination from the relatively “bright” secondarystar.

In Fig. 6 we plot the 30 radial velocity measurements overthe and their residuals to the fitted eccentric k1 model. This isthe model that was chosen as the most appropriate by the BICselection method, with χ2

red = 0.73. We highlight with blue boxesin this plot two very marginal outliers of the fit, showing that theycorrespond to the two radial velocity measurements closest to thesystemic velocity (0 m s−1 on this plot). Having outliers here isconsistent with spectral contamination. However, each value isless than two standard deviations away from the fit, and hencenot statistically significant, and the fit is overall very good to thedata (χ2

red < 1).

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.10+4

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−50

0

50

RV

[m/s]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−C

[m/s]

.N : 30 T : 1151 [days] or 3.15 [yr] V : 70332 [m/s]

beboppaper/042532S461308

Fig. 6. Top panel: radial velocities of the target EBLM J0425-46 over3.15 yr and the selected eccentric single Keplerian model. Error bars aretypically 10–20 m s−1 and too small to see at this scale. Bottom panel:residuals to the fitted model, with 1σ error bars. Blue boxes highlighttwo marginal outliers, with a dashed line connecting the radial velocitymeasurement, which is near 0 m s−1, and the residual. Both outliers areless than 2σ from the model.

8.2. Calculating detection limits

There are two main factors that determine the detectability of aputative planet: its minimum mass, mc sin Ic, and its period, Pc.Not only are these the main contributors to the amplitude of theradial velocity signal, but the observational timespan needs tocover a significant portion of the planetary period. The eccen-tricity of a planet also increases Kc, but Endl et al. (2002)demonstrate that it has a minimum effect on detectability forec . 0.5. Therefore, whilst our search for circumbinary planets issensitive to any eccentricity, when quantifying the detectabilitywe only consider circular planetary orbits.

To calculate detection limits for each binary we introduce andattempt to retrieve artificial Doppler signals. We follow a similarprocedure to that described in Konacki et al. (2009), which isbased on methods that are regularly employed to calculate theoccurrence rates of planets by long-term Doppler surveys on sin-gle stars (e.g. Cumming et al. 2008; Mayor et al. 2011; Bonfilset al. 2013).

We first start by defining what makes a hypothetical planetdetectable. For this, we use the Generalised Lomb Scargle(GLS) periodogram, which identifies periodic signals of varyingstrengths within data. We define a putative planet as “detectable”when a GLS periodogram displays a signal with a strength risingabove a False Alarm Probability (FAP) of 1%.

Importantly, the injection of the synthetic Keplerian sinusoidmust be done to data that has already been cleansed of any exist-ing periodic signals. To do so, the main signal which we removeis that of the binary, which is multiple orders of magnitude largerthan that from any planet. Additionally, in some systems we haveevidence for an outer stellar companion. These additional signalscan add power to the GLS periodogram and need to be removedas well. Therefore, for calculating detection limits we use theresiduals to the best-fitting models, as determined in Sect. 7.On these residuals no periodic signal with a period longer than

A68, page 10 of 45




4Pbin (the rough stability limit; Holman & Wiegert 1999) wasdiscovered above a 1% FAP.

On the cleansed data for each of the 47 binaries we insert andretrieve artificial circumbinary signals in the following way. Wecreate a grid of planet periods that is uniform in log nc, wherenc = 2π/Pc is the orbital frequency of the planet. The minimumperiod tested is 4Pbin, as shorter period planets would be unsta-ble. The maximum period tested is equal to 4∆T , where ∆T is theobserving timespan of the observations for a given binary. Wenote that for EBLM J2046-40 the outer triple star has a period of5557 days, which was discovered using a timespan of 1801 days,which is roughly a third in length.

For each period we insert Keplerian sinusoids with increas-ing radial velocity semi-amplitudes, Kc. Following that, weattempt to retrieve the artificial signal using the periodogram.The value of Kc is directly correlated to mc sin Ic, and this takesinto account our calculated values of mA and mB. As soon as theinjected sinusoid produces a signal above a 1% FAP we definethis as the minimum detectable mass for the binary at that period.For each period this process is repeated for 20 different planetaryorbital phases, equally spaced between 0◦ and 360◦, since somephases may be better illuminated by the observations than others.

In Fig. 7 we show example detection limit curves for one ofthe most precise BEBOP targets: EBLM J2011-71. This systemis known to contain a tertiary M dwarf star, which is demarcatedon the plot well above the detection limit curve. In Appendix Bof this paper detection limit curves are provided for all BEBOPtargets.

8.3. Genetic algorithm detection of n-body simulated radialvelocity signals

Tests are run to verify that this periodogram-based defini-tion of detectability matches our ability to detect planets withthe YORBIT genetic algorithm. For two targets, J0035-69 andJ0310-31, we construct a coarse grid of circumbinary planetperiods and minimum masses. The grids are chosen to straddleeither side of the detection limit curves which were calculated inSect. 8.2. All other planetary parameters are set to zero, exceptthe inclination which is taken at 90◦. The binary parameters arethe measured values. The reason for choosing these two targets inparticular is that they have different binary parameters (includ-ing the mass ratio, period and eccentricity) and also precisionsat either extreme of our programme (5–6 m s−1 for J0310-31 and50–60 m s−1 for J0035-69).

At each grid point an n-body code6 is run to simulate theradial velocity signal of the hypothetical circumbinary system,including both the large-amplitude binary signal and the muchsmaller planetary signal. The radial velocity measurements aresimulated at the same epochs as the actual observations were foreach target, and are given the same uncertainty. Importantly, then-body simulation does not assume static Keplerians, and henceany dynamical perturbations by the binary on the planet’s orbitare naturally included. Contrastingly, the periodogram analysisassumes static orbits.

The YORBIT code is then run on the simulated radial veloc-ities to search for a two-Keplerian solution. Owing to its largeamplitude, the binary signal is always found easily. A secondsignal will always be fitted but we only consider the detection ofthe simulated planet to be successful if the YORBIT-found orbithas a period within 10% of the n-body simulated planet period.

6 A fourth order Runge-Kutta code with a fixed 0.05 h time step, whichmeant that any non-conservation of energy was negligible.

30 100 300 1000 3000

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

30

100

Mpsin

I p (

MJu

p)

Pp (days)

Fig. 7. Example of the detection limits calculated for EBLM J2011-71,which is one of the BEBOP targets with the highest precision. Eachline represents the smallest detectable minimum circumbinary planetmass (mc sin Ic) as a function of the planet’s period (Pc) for a differentorbital phase of the planet. There are 20 orbital phases tested, all equallyspaced. The blue square near the top of the plot is the detected circumbi-nary object in the EBLM J2011-71, which is in fact not a circumbinaryplanet but rather a low-mass tertiary star.

The threshold of 10% is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, but feltto be sufficient for this simple demonstration. A more thoroughstudy of the effects of n-body interactions on RV detectability isbeyond the scope of this paper.

In Fig. 8 we show the results of these tests. There is aclose connection between the YORBIT detectability and the peri-odogram detectability. Recall that the range in the periodogramdetectability is a result of testing 20 different orbital phases,whereas for YORBIT only a single phase is tested. There are a fewexceptional cases where the YORBIT detectability is not a mono-tonic function of mc sin Ic. There are two explanations for this.First, there is an element of randomness in any genetic algorithm.Second, the observational errors are redrawn from a normal dis-tribution for each n-body test, and hence will randomly impactsome simulations more than others.

Based on these tests, we conclude that the periodogrammeans of determining detectability sufficiently replicates howwe actually detect circumbinary planets using YORBIT. Non-Keplerian effects, even near the stability limit for one of ourmost precise targets, are seemingly a negligible hindrance ondetectability.

8.4. Evidence for n-body interactions

Only in one of our targets do we see likely evidence ofn-body interactions: EBLM J1146-42. As seen in Table A.2 andin the orbit plots in Appendix B, there are significant residu-als to the double Keplerian orbital fit: a scatter of ∼ ± 200 m s−1

and χ2red = 77.96. In Fig. 9a we show the periodogram of the

residuals to the k2 fit, which demonstrates a lack of any signif-icant periodicities in the data. Indeed, attempts were made tofit additional orbits and drift parameters but none resulted in asignificant improvement to the fit.

Stellar activity cannot produce residuals of that magnitude7,and this target shows no signs of such activity (Triaud et al.2017a). In Fig. 9b we show a constant bisector of the radial veloc-ity measurements. Figure 9c plots the residuals to the k2 fit as afunction of the bisector. The classic indicator of activity is a neg-ative correlation on this plot (Queloz et al. 2001b; Figueira et al.2013), which is not apparent here. Furthermore, our spectra show

7 Stellar activity: it’s a trap that can easily be mistaken for a planetaryorbit, however seemingly not in this case.

A68, page 11 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)

30 100 300 10000.01

0.1

1

10

Mpsin

I p (

MJu

p)

Pp (days)

EBLM J0035−69

30 100 300 10000.01

0.1

1

10

Mpsin

I p (

MJup)

Pp (days)

EBLM J0310−31

Fig. 8. Detection limit curves in black for two targets in the BEBOP programme: J0035-69 (left panel) and J0310-31 (right panel). Each curverepresents the smallest mc sin Ic for a putative circumbinary planet at a given period, according to the periodogram measure of detectabilitydescribed in Sect. 8.2. For each target there are 20 black curves, one for each of the tested orbital phases of the injected planet. At seven discreteperiods a series of tests were run to recover n-body simulated circumbinary planets with the YORBIT genetic algorithm. At these periods a greencircle indicates a successful recovery, whereas a red diamond indicates a failure.

no sign of contamination. This is expected since there is a 5.14magnitude difference between the primary and secondary starflux. The tertiary body is even less massive than the secondaryunless its orbital plane is misaligned by more than 55◦.

Alternatively, the large residuals may be products of n-bodyinteractions between the inner and outer orbits. Such interactionsare not accounted for in the YORBIT-determined orbits, whichare assumed to be static Keplerians. It is a future study to analysesuch interactions in a means similar to Correia et al. (2010). Thiswill hopefully yield a direct measurement of additional parame-ters such as the mutual inclination between the inner and outerorbits.

9. Abundance of circumbinary objects

9.1. Calculating the completeness of the programme

We define the completeness of our programme as a function ofplanet period and minimum mass, C(Pc,mc sin Ic), as the frac-tion of target binaries for which a planet with such parametersis detectable. This is calculated using all of the detection limitscurves calculated based on Sect. 8.2. For every binary 20 detec-tion limit curves were calculated, each corresponding to differentplanetary phases. In calculating C(Pc,mc sin Ic) these 20 curvesare treated as if they were 20 individual targets. This is the sameapproach as was used in earlier studies such as Cumming et al.(2008) and Mayor et al. (2011).

The completeness of our programme is shown in Fig. 10.White corresponds to 0% completeness, meaning that none ofour targets are sensitive to planets of such minimum mass andperiod. We then use red gradient contours to denote increasingcompleteness, with dark red corresponding to 100%, meaningthat all of our targets at all 20 planetary phases are sensitive toplanets at such a period and minimum mass.

Our program lacks completeness at short periods less than50 days. This is a consequence of the stability limit restric-tion Pc & 4Pbin, although we can alternatively say that we arecomplete down to the stability limit. At longer periods thereis a drop in completeness due to the observational timespan,which varies between targets. For periods between roughly 50and 3000 days the completeness contours follow a rough powerlaw mc sin Ic ∝ P1/3

c . This is expected based on the radial velocitysemi-amplitude equation (Eq. (1)).

In Fig. 11 we calculate for all 47 eclipsing binaries the small-est detectable planet mass. The solid navy line is calculated

across all planet phases and periods, whereas the red dashed lineis calculated across all phases but assumes a period of 2 yr. Itis seen that for all 47 targets we have the ability to detect a cir-cumbinary object less massive than 2.5 MJup. At smaller masses,for 30/47 of the targets we are sensitive down to 0.5 MJup. If weconsider planets with periods up to 2 yr, then 25/47 of our targetsare sensitive to 0.5 MJup mass planets.

The smallest detectable planet across the entire survey is0.082 MJup, corresponding to EBLM J2011-07. However, wenote that this system contains a tertiary stellar companion at aclose period of 663 days. This third star does not hinder thedetectability of interior planets, but may have inhibited any fromforming in the first place (Muñoz & Lai 2015; Martin et al.2015; Hamers et al. 2016; Xu & Lai 2016). The next smallestdetectable mass is 0.110 MJup for EBLM J0310-31, for which notertiary star has been found. For each target’s detectability curvein Appendix B we identify the smallest detectable planet massand the corresponding orbital period, denoting it with a yellowstar.

For more massive objects, that is circumbinary brown dwarfsand triple star systems, Fig. 10 shows that we have essentially100% completeness, aside for very short and very long orbitalperiods. We impose an upper limit of 500 MJup on the complete-ness of tertiary star masses. This is because more massive starswould likely be bright enough to produce detectable spectrallines, whereas our entire sample consists of solely single-linedbinaries. A smaller effect would be that brighter stars woulddilute the already small eclipse depths of the M-dwarf sec-ondary stars, potentially hindering the initial discovery of theinner binary in the EBLM programme. We elaborate uponcircumbinary brown dwarfs and triple stars in Sect. 9.3.

9.2. Constraining the abundance of circumbinary planets

Since we do not have any confirmed discoveries of tertiaryobjects in the planetary domain, we can only place upper lim-its on their abundance. For this we use the same process asHe et al. (2017). They conducted a survey of planets transitingbrown dwarfs, and similarly had no confirmed detections witha comparable number of targets. The upper limit is calculatedas

ηCBP =1 − (1 − κ)1/nstars

C(Pc,mc sin Ic), (8)

A68, page 12 of 45



(a)

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.2. 20. 200.5. 50. 500.0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Period [days]

Nor

mal

ized

pow

er

(b)

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

100

150

200

250

300

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

CC

F BI

S [m

/s]

.

. (c)

−200 0 200

0

200

400

6000 6500 7000 7500

BJD−2450000 [day]

O−C [m/s]

CC

F BI

S [m

/s]

Fig. 9. Data for the EBLM J1146-42 triple star system. Panel a: peri-odogram of the residuals to a double Keplerian fit. The dash-dottedhorizontal line at the top of the plot corresponds to a false alarm prob-ability of 1%. The dotted line below is for 10%. There is therefore nostatistically significant periodicity within the residuals. See Appendix Bfor more plots for this system. Panel b: bisector for each radial velocitymeasurement. Panel c: radial velocity residuals to a double Keplerian fitas a function of the bisector. A negative correlation would be a markerof stellar activity, but is not apparent here.

where nstars = 47 is the number of stars in the BEBOP surveyand κ is the desired confidence interval, for example κ = 0.95 fora 2σ confidence interval.

This upper limit is calculated within various parameterspaces, demarcated by the lower six white boxes in Fig. 10. Theperiod bounds are roughly evenly separated in log space: 50, 245,1200 and 6000 days. The first periods are chosen to illicit aneasy comparison with the work of Santerne et al. (2016) for sin-gle stars, which we do in Sect. 10.3. The planet minimum massbounds are chosen to span sub-Jupiter masses up to the deu-terium burning limit, which marks the lower bound of the browndwarf regime. The values are 0.5, 1.5, 4.5 and 13.5 MJup, whichhave roughly even log spacings.

Within each parameter space the completenessC(Pc,mc sin Ic) is taken as the mean value within the box.In Table 2 we show the abundance constraints at 50, 1σ and 2σconfidence for each of these planet parameter spaces. In Fig. 10to be conservative we only show the 2σ constraint.

A promising result is that the abundance constraints are onlya weak function of orbital period. For example, we place a <6.6%2σ constraint on super-Jupiter circumbinary planets between 50and 245 days, and only a marginally inferior constraint of <8.9%2σ for planets of the same mass but periods between 1200and 6000 days. This is in contrast to the transit method, whichmore strictly favours short orbital periods, and consequently noabundance constraints have been made for periods greater than300 days (Armstrong et al. 2014). It was predicted by Pierens &Nelson (2013) that the most massive circumbinary planets wouldbe far from the stability limit, not close like the sub-Jupiter plan-ets (see Fig. 2). Kepler-1647 (the top right upwards triangle inFig. 10) follows this trend, and indeed would have been the easi-est planet to detect in our programme (see Sect. 10.1). Whilst ourresults at present are unable to confirm the predictions of Pierens& Nelson (2013), it is apparent that a radial velocity survey iswell-suited for such a task.

9.3. Circumbinary brown dwarfs and tight triple star systems

Figure 10 shows that whilst the BEBOP survey only has partialcompleteness within the circumbinary planetary mass domain,it has practically 100% completeness for circumbinary browndwarfs and tertiary stars with moderately long periods. We there-fore use this information to calculate the abundances of suchobjects. Since we have not detected any circumbinary browndwarfs, we can only place an upper limit. For triple stars thoughwe have five well-characterised systems, and hence can calculatean actual abundance.

The top two boxes in Fig. 10 correspond to the abundancecalculations for closely-orbiting low-mass triple star systems andcircumbinary brown dwarfs. These results are also included inTable 2.

We define brown dwarfs as bodies with masses withinthe deuterium-burning regime: 13.5–80 MJup. Our BEBOP sur-vey has almost 100% completeness for such objects on orbitsbetween 50 and 6000 days, but with no confirmed discover-ies. Using the same method as for the cirucmbinary planets,we constrain the abundance within this period range to beηBD < 6.5% to 2σ confidence. The known circumbinary browndwarf HD 202206 (Correia et al. 2005; Benedict & Harrison2017) interestingly falls within this parameter space, with theplanet just above the deuterium burning limit.

Our result here should be considered preliminary on accountof the size of the BEBOP sample. Brown dwarfs companionsto single Sun-like stars are inherently rare, at a rate of <1%.

A68, page 13 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)

0 25 50 75 100

0255075100

hydrogen burning

deuterium burning

< 19.0

< 7.8

< 6.6

< 10.5

< 6.4 < 8.9

< 6.5

12.1 +/− 5.4

. .

. . Orbital period, Pc [day]

Min

imum

mas

s, m

c sin

i c [M

jup]

10 100 1,000 10,000

0.1

1.0

10

100

Sur

vey

com

plet

enes

s

0

25

50

75

100

Fig. 10. Completeness of the BEBOP radial velocity survey of 47 low-mass eclipsing binaries, as a function of the circumbinary minimum massand period. Six different colour contours indicate the programme completeness between 0% (white) and 100% (dark red). The green circles near thetop of the plot correspond to the five BEBOP triples, that is binaries with well-characterised tertiary stellar companions. The upright blue trianglesin the bottom half of the plot represent the four Kepler transiting circumbinary planets with published masses: Kepler-16, -34, -35 and -1647. Theinverted blue triangle represents the circumbinary brown dwarf HD 202206 (mc = 17.9 MJup, Pc = 1261 days) discovered using a combination ofRVs and astrometry (Correia et al. 2005; Benedict & Harrison 2017). There are eight white boxes covering different parameter spaces within whichwe constrain the abundance of tertiary objects. The number in each box is the 2σ upper limit to the circumbinary abundance, given as a per cent.An exception is the top box which covers triple star systems. Since we have detections in this box, we derive an actual value for the abundance andits 1σ uncertainty.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Min. detectable mass (MJup)

0

5

10

15

Cou

nt

OverallPp = 2 years

Fig. 11. Histogram of the smallest detectable planet mass for the 47eclipsing binaries in the BEBOP survey. The navy blue solid line calcu-lates the minimum across all possible circumbinary periods and phases.The red dashed line calculates across all possible phases but has a fixedorbital period of 2 yr. We note that one target, EBLM J0500-46, isexcluded in the histogram for Pp = 2 yr because its observing timespanis too short to be sensitive to planets at this period.

This has led to the coining of the phrase “brown dwarf desert”to represent the paucity of companion masses in between theplanetary and stellar domains (Marcy & Butler 2000; Grether &Lineweaver 2006; Sahlmann et al. 2011; Kraus et al. 2011;Cheetham et al. 2015). If this rarity extends to brown dwarfsaround binary stars, then to have not discovered one in a sampleof 47 binaries is not surprising.

Beyond the brown dwarf regime we use our five charac-terised triple star systems to calculate the tertiary abundancebetween 50 and 6000 days for minimum masses between 80and 475 MJup. This period range corresponds to the rough lim-its of detectability of our program, as tighter triples would beunstable and wider triples would not be well-characterised byour observational timespan. The mass range is chosen to beequal in log space to that for the brown dwarfs, whilst remainingless than the 500 MJup upper limit which we impose on theprogramme.

We follow the work of Mayor et al. (2011) to calculate theabundance as

ηtriple =1

nstars

ndet∑i=1

1Ci(Pc,mc sin Ic)

, (9)

where ndet = 5 is the number of detected triple stars,Ci(Pc,mc sin Ic) is the completeness level in the parameter spacefor each of the five triples. Using Poisson statistics the 1σuncertainty is calculated as

σ = 2ηtriple√

ndet. (10)

The fraction of 50–6000 day tertiary stellar companions(between 80 and 475 MJup) is calculated to be 12.1 ± 5.4, withina 1σ confidence interval.

A68, page 14 of 45




Table 2. Constraints on the abundances of circumbinary planets within different minimum mass and period parameter spaces.

Pc,min Pc,max mc,min sin Ic mc,max sin Ic Average % η %(days) (days) (MJup) (MJup) completeness 50% conf. 1σ conf. 2σ conf.

50 245 0.5 1.5 19.0 <4.5 <6.4 <19.050 245 1.5 4.5 81.1 <1.8 <2.6 <7.850 245 4.5 13.5 94.2 <1.6 <2.2 <6.6

245 1200 1.5 4.5 59.0 <2.5 <3.6 <10.5245 1200 4.5 13.5 96.5 <1.5 <2.2 <6.41200 6000 4.5 13.5 69.4 <2.1 <3.0 <8.950 6000 13.5 80 95.0 <1.5 <2.2 <6.550 6000 80 475 95.0 12.1 ± 5.4 (1σ conf.)

It is a future task to compare our work with complemen-tary surveys of triple star systems. These include the work byTokovinin et al. (2006) to directly image distant stellar compan-ions to tight spectroscopic binaries, the studies of eclipse timingvariations observed by Kepler (Borkovits et al. 2015) and theimaging survey for sub-stellar companions around binaries byBonavita et al. (2016). A goal is to construct a mass distributionof tertiary objects, that can ultimately be compared with that ofsecondary objects (e.g. Grether & Lineweaver 2006; Triaud et al.2017a).

Our results for circumbinary brown dwarfs and triple starswill be improved in the future by analysing the entire EBLM pro-gramme, for which 118 binaries have been published in Triaudet al. (2017a) and the entire sample numbers over 220. Whilstthe measurements on the binaries not selected for BEBOP aretoo imprecise to aid the abundance calculations for circumbi-nary planets, almost all of these binaries permit the detection ofcircumbinary brown dwarfs and triple star systems.

For many binaries the observational baseline of a few yearsonly permits us to see a drift in the radial velocity residuals toa single Keplerian fit. For these targets we will take new obser-vations in the coming years to extend this baseline and betterconstrain the period and mass of the outer body.

10. Comparisons with other surveys

10.1. Detectability of known Kepler planets

Masses can be derived for transiting circumbinary planets if theyinduce detectable eclipse timing variations in their host binary.This has been done for four of the discovered systems: Kepler-16,-34, -35 and -1647. These planets are shown in Fig. 10 as uprightblue triangles. Three of the planets are just below our limits ofdetectability. Furthermore, the other circumbinary planets with-out measured masses are most likely smaller, and hence wouldhave been even tougher to find.

Only a planet with Kepler-1647’s properties (1.27 MJup,1108 day period) falls within the completeness of the BEBOPCORALIE programme (14.1% for these parameters). We esti-mate the probability that we would have found such a planet inour survey using the equation

D = 1 − 0.9nstarsC(Pc,mc sin Ic), (11)

where we assume that around each binary there is a 10% chanceof a gas giant planet existing, according to the abundance stud-ies of Martin & Triaud (2014) and Armstrong et al. (2014). ForKepler-1647 D = 50%.

Overall, we have demonstrated the ability of our survey todetect planetary-mass circumbinary objects, typically smallerthan 1 MJup. However, the masses of the known Kepler transit-ing planets are almost all sub-Saturn, unfortunately placing themslightly below the detection threshold for most of our targets.

10.2. Comparison with Armstrong et al. (2014) circumbinaryabundance calculations

Using different approaches, Armstrong et al. (2014) andMartin & Triaud (2014) estimated that the abundance of cir-cumbinary gas giants is roughly 10%. This is compatible withthe upper limits we derive at the end of our BEBOP surveywith CORALIE. Armstrong et al. (2014) remarked that no cir-cumbinary planets >1 RJup were detected8, with the authorsimplying a low abundance for masses greater than Jupiter’s.However, the mass-radius relation is roughly flat within a rangeof approximately 1–100 MJup (Baraffe et al. 2015). This meansthat Armstrong et al. (2014), based on radius, were not partic-ularly sensitive to the frequency of circumbinary gas giants asa function of mass, something that can instead be tested thanksto radial-velocities. Our constrained abundances from Sect. 9.2are consistent with a ∼10% gas giant abundance, although givenour limited sensitivity to Kepler-like circumbinary planets, ourcomparisons can only be preliminary at this time.

The limits we place on planet occurence rates have impli-cations on the distribution of planetary orbital inclination withrespect to their binary host. Kepler is mostly sensitive to coplanarconfiguration. Should planetary orbital planes follow a distribu-tion with mutual inclinations with the binary of several degrees,most planets would go undetected. Each Kepler detection wouldtherefore imply a much more abundant population than if allcircumbinary systems were coplanar.

Armstrong et al. (2014) derived circumbinary abundanceswithin various radius bins. Since we are typically sensitive toplanets more massive than Jupiter, we choose to compare withtheir results for >10 R⊕. We convert the lower bound to massusing a Jupiter density: 0.76 MJup. We take the upper bound to be13.5 MJup, so we are considering all massive planetary objects.We use a period range of 50–300 days to match Armstrong et al.(2014).

Within this parameter space we calculate upper limits onthe abundance of circumbinary planets as a function of σ∆I ,the standard deviation of the mutual inclination distribution. Wecalculate those following Armstrong et al. (2014), where the

8 The largest transiting circumbinary, Kepler-1647, had not been dis-covered at that time.

A68, page 15 of 45

A&A 624, A68 (2019)

402010501 mutual inclination spread (deg)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Circ

umbi

nary

pla

net a

bund

ance

(%

)

Arm

stro

ng e

t al.

(201

4)

BE

BO

P C

OR

ALI

E

50%

con

f.2

con

f.

402010501 mutual inclination spread (deg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Circ

umbi

nary

pla

net a

bund

ance

(%

)

Arm

stro

ng e

t al.

(201

4)

BE

BO

P C

OR

ALI

E

Fig. 12. Percentage abundance of massive circumbinary planets with periods between 50 and 300 days, as a function of the underlying spread ofplanetary inclinations according to a Gaussian distribution convolved with an isotropic distribution of cos ∆I. In all cases the thick, shorter linesare limits at a 50% confidence interval and longer, thinner lines are for a 2σ confidence interval. At each value of ∆I there are two lines: BEBOP inred on the left and Armstrong et al. (2014) in blue on the right. The lower mass limit is 0.76 MJup, which corresponds to 10 R⊕, assuming a Jupiterdensity (so we can roughly compare between our RV survey and the transit survey of Armstrong et al. 2014). The upper limit is the deuterium-burning limit of 13.5 MJup. The plot on the right is the same as the left but zoomed in the vertical axis, better showing how the BEBOP abundanceconstraints are nearly independent on the inclination.

Gaussian distribution of ∆I is convolved with a uniform distribu-tion in cos ∆I. For each value of σ∆I the abundance is calculatedby increasing the mass limits by a factor sinσ∆I . The results areshown in Fig. 12.

The radial velocity-derived abundances are significantly lessaffected by mutual inclinations than the transit results fromArmstrong et al. (2014). Whilst the detectability of transits is asensitive function of the misalignment (Martin & Triaud 2015;Martin 2017), the radial velocity detectability is a more shallowKc ∝ sin ∆I (Eq. (1) and knowing Ibin ≈ 90◦). The comparison inFig. 12 shows that within this parameter space the upper limitsplaced by Armstrong et al. (2014) are only more constraining fora strictly coplanar system. For 5◦ and above the BEBOP resultsplace tighter constraints on the presence of planets more massivethan Jupiter.

Based on a preliminary comparison with the work ofArmstrong et al. (2014) in Fig. 12, it appears that there does notexist a numerous population of misaligned giant circumbinaryplanets, which would have evaded transit detection but have beenspotted by BEBOP. We estimate that the spread of the mutualinclination is less than 10◦, as otherwise the high planetary abun-dance would have practically guaranteed a BEBOP discovery.This result is compatible with the Kepler analysis by Li et al.(2016).

For smaller planets, between 0.5 and 1 MJup and periodsbetween 50 and 300 days, we can only place a rudimentary 2σabundance constraint of <29%. In Sect. 11 we briefly discuss therecent upgrade of the BEBOP survey to the HARPS instrumenton the 3.6 m ESO telescope, and the SOPHIE instrument on the1.93 m OHP telescope, and how this will advance our constraintson circumbinary abundances.

10.3. Comparison with Santerne et al. (2016) single starabundance calculations

The Santerne et al. (2016) SOPHIE radial velocity survey ofKepler transit candidates is one of the most comprehensiveworks in the literature on gas giant abundances around singlestars. A comparison between the populations of planets orbitingone and two stars would shed light on the fundamental processof planet formation and evolution.

Santerne et al. (2016) calculates the gas giant abundancebetween 50 and 245 days to be 3.69 ± 0.84%. In this work theyalso re-analyse the data from Mayor et al. (2011) within theseperiod ranges, calculating a remarkably similar gas giant abun-dance of 3.85 ± 0.85%. The sample in Santerne et al. (2016) hasplanets with masses between ∼0.3 and 9.3 MJup. If we compareour work over the mass range 0.5−13.5 MJup, that is includingall planetary mass bodies down to our rough sensitivity limit, wecalculated a 2σ constrained circumbinary abundance of <9% for50−245 day planets. This value is compatible with the Mayoret al. (2011) and Santerne et al. (2016) results, but we currentlylack the precision to know whether the circumbinary abundanceis truly greater or smaller.

11. Future prospects

This initial CORALIE survey had the capacity to detect Jupiter-mass planets on two-year orbital periods for roughly half ofour sample of binary stars. Our preliminary understanding oftypical circumbinary masses, based on the Kepler results, wasinsufficient to know whether high-mass circumbinary planetswere particularly abundant. Our results imply that such high-mass circumbinaries planets are indeed not frequent. Further-more, constrained circumbinary abundances are compatible withhigh-mass planets orbiting single stars, but our detection capa-bilities inhibit a statistically strong comparison. The results ofthis initial survey are primarily limited by the stability of theCORALIE instrument, which is pressurised but not thermalised,and the photon noise typical to a one metre class telescope.

We sought to extend the BEBOP survey to the HARPS spec-trograph on the ESO 3.6 m telescope. We first conducted ashort pilot programme that demonstrated that HARPS can reachradial-velocities with ∼1−2 m s−1 rms on single-line eclipsingbinaries, implying a sensitivity to planets with masses as low asNeptune’s. Those results are due to be published shortly. Build-ing on this, we proposed and were awarded a large programmeon HARPS, with the first data being collected in April 2018.An extension has also been granted to the northern hemisphere,with a three-year large programme using the OHP 1.93 m tele-scope with the SOPHIE spectrograph. These new observationswill enhance the survey described in these pages, reaching an

A68, page 16 of 45



order of magnitude deeper in mass, extending the period range,and covering a greater number of systems. Our future observa-tions will enable proper comparisons between the properties ofplanets orbiting single stars, to planets orbiting binary stars. Wewill report our results in a series of BEBOP papers, of which thisis the first installment.

Despite concentrating our current efforts on single-line bina-ries, we are also motivated in observing double-line binaries.This is important as it would provide a larger and brighter sam-ple of binaries, but also a greater range in mass ratio. Measuringplanet abundances as function of inner binary mass ratio wouldbe insightful (Martin, in prep.). In Sect. 8.1 we showed no strongevidence that our secondary stars contaminate the measurementof radial-velocities. Our target most at risk of spectral con-tamination, EBLM J0425-46 (q = 0.527), which has a visualmagnitude difference of 3.85, still produced a statistically per-fect fit (χ2

red = 0.73). In the future, we will investigate at whichflux ratios contamination becomes an issue. We will then learnhow to deal with it.

12. Conclusion

Our BEBOP radial velocity survey for circumbinary planets hasstarted by using the CORALIE spectrograph. Such planets pos-sess significant intrigue, yet the statistics of a mere dozen or soconfirmed cases mean that our insights to date are only pre-liminary. This first paper reports the results from eight yearsmonitoring 47 single-lined eclipsing binaries. We had two pri-mary intentions. The first was to verify whether high-mass(&1 MJup) circumbinary planets were abundant, potentiallyowing to an unknown misaligned population, and to make anopportunistic discovery. Whilst we made no planetary detec-tion, we have succeeded to place constraints on the presenceof giant circumbinary planets out to orbital periods of a fewyears. The precision of our upper limits indicates that most mas-sive circumbinary planets likely occupy orbits close to coplanar,with a standard deviation on the mutual inclination likely lessthan ∼10◦. In the process of planet-hunting, we also characterisefive triple star systems. Two of these have orbits tighter than2 AU, including one with evidence for non-Keplerian dynamicalinteractions.

Our second main goal was to test whether single-line bina-ries were amenable to circumbinary planet detection, a change indirection from the classically-observed double-line systems. Wesuccessfully demonstrated that the light from the faint secondarystar can be ignored without inducing spectral contamination.This enabled statistically perfect binary orbital fits with a pre-cision as small as 5 m s−1, and a sensitivity to circumbinaryplanets down to 0.1 MJup in the best cases. Our initial pro-gramme is opening opportunities to seek smaller planets withmore sensitive equipment.

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to attract attention to the help andkind attention of the ESO staff at La Silla and to the dedication of the manytechnicians and observers from the University of Geneva and EPFL, to upkeepthe telescope, acquire the data that we present here, and bring the fondue cheeseall the way from Switzerland. We would also like to acknowledge that the EulerSwiss Telescope at La Silla is a project funded by the Swiss National ScienceFoundation (SNSF). Over the time required to collect and analyse the data,DVM was supported by the SNSF, the University of Chicago and the Universitéde Gèneve. A.H.M.J.T. has received funding from the SNSF, the University ofToronto and the University of Cambridge. P.M. gratefully acknowledges supportprovided by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council through grantnumber ST/M001040/1. This project has received funding from the EuropeanResearch Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 researchand innovation programme (grant agreement no 803193/BEBOP). We also thank

François Bouchy, Dan Fabrycky and Rosemary Mardling for reviewing an ear-lier version of this work that appeared in D.V.M.’s PhD thesis. Finally, wekindly thank our editor and anonymous referees for reading our paper and mak-ing comments that led to significant improvements. This publication makes useof data products from two projects, which were obtained through the Simbadand VizieR services hosted at the CDS-Strasbourg: the Two Micron All SkySurvey (2MASS), which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts andthe Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology,funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the NationalScience Foundation (Skrutskie et al. 2006); the Naval Observatory MergedAstrometric Dataset (NOMAD), which is project of the US Naval Observatory(Monet et al. 2003).

Note added to the proof. We used the Barycentric Julian Datesin our analysis. Our results are based on the equatorial solarand jovian radii and masses taken from Allen’s AstrophysicalQuantities (Cox 2000).

ReferencesArmstrong, D., Martin, D., Brown, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3047Armstrong, D. J., Osborn, H. P., Brown, D. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1873Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651Backer, D. C., Foster, R. S., & Sallmen, S. 1993, Nature, 365, 817Bailey, V., Meshkat, T., Reiter, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, L4Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 1998, A&A, 337, 403Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2003, A&A,

402, 701Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., et al. 1996, A&AS, 119, 373Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1698Benedict, G. F., & Harrison, T. E. 2017, AJ, 153, 258Bennett, D. P., Rhie, S. H., Udalski, A., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 125Beuermann, K., Hessman, F., Dreizler, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, L60Bonavita, M., Desidera, S., Thalmann, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A38Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A109Borkovits, T., Rappaport, S., Hajdu, T., & Sztakovics, J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 946Borucki, W. J., & Summers, A. L. 1984, Icarus, 58, 121Bouchy, F., Ségransan, D., Díaz, R. F., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A46Bours, M. C. P., Marsh, T. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3873Bryan, M., Knutson, H., Howard, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 89Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Leconte, J., et al. 2009, AIP Conf. Proc., 102Chavez, C., Georgakarakos, N., Prodan, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1283Cheetham, A. C., Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17Cochran, W. D., Hatzes, A. P., Butler, R. P., & Marcy, G. W. 1997, ApJ, 483, 457Collier Cameron, A., Bouchy, F., Hébrard, G., et al. 2007a, MNRAS, 375, 951Collier Cameron, A., Wilson, D., West, R., et al. 2007b, MNRAS, 380, 1230Correia, A., Udry, S., Mayor, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 751Correia, A., Couetdic, J., Laskar, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A21Correia, A. C., Boué, G., & Laskar, J. 2016, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 126,

189Cox, A. 2000, Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities (New York: Springer)Cumming, A., Butler, R., Marcy, G., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 531Daemgen, S., Petr-Gotzens, M. G., Correia, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A43Deming, L. D., & Seager, S. 2017, J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 122, 53Doyle, L., Carter, J., Fabrycky, D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1602Dumusque, X., Pepe, F., Lovis, C., et al. 2012, Nature, 491, 207Dvorak, R. 1986, A&A, 167, 379Eggenberger, A., Udry, S., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 417, 353Endl, M., Kürster, M., Els, S., et al. 2002, A&A, 392, 671Facchini, S., Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2142Figueira, P., Santos, N., Pepe, F., Lovis, C., & Nardetto, N. 2013, A&A, 557, A93Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Graham, D. E., Luger, R., & Quinn, T. R. 2018, ApJ,

858, 86Foucart, F., & Lai, D. 2013, ApJ, 764, 106Gaudi, B. S., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 546, 514Gómez Maqueo Chew, Y., Morales, J., Faedi, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A50Gray, D. 2008, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres (Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)Grether, D., & Lineweaver, C. 2006, ApJ, 640, 1051Haghighipour, N., & Kaltenegger, L. 2013, ApJ, 777, 166Hamers, A. S., Perets, H. B., & Zwart, S. F. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3180Hardy, A., Schreiber, M. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4518He, M., Triaud, A., & Gillon, M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2687Hełminiak, K., Konacki, M., Muterspaugh, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1285

A68, page 17 of 45

https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:96325

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/

http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR

http://cds.u-strasbg.fr

http://linker.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833669/1























































A&A 624, A68 (2019)

Holman, M., & Wiegert, P. 1999, AJ, 117, 621Holt, J. 1893, Astro-Physics, XII, 646Howard, A., Marcy, G., Johnson, J., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 653Kane, S. R., & Hinkel, N. R. 2013, ApJ, 762, 7Kass, R., & Raftery, A. 1995, JASA, 90, 773Klagyivik, P., Deeg, H. J., Cabrera, J., Csizmadia, S., & Almenara, J. M. 2017,

A&A, 602, A117Kley, W., & Haghighipour, N. 2014, A&A, 564, A72Knutson, H., Fulton, B., Montet, B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 126Konacki, M., Muterspaugh, M., Kulkarni, S., & Hełminiak, K. 2009, ApJ, 704,

513Konacki, M., Muterspaugh, M. W., Kulkarni, S. R., & Hełminiak, K. G. 2010,

ApJ, 719, 1293Kostov, V., McCullough, P., Hinse, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 52Kostov, V., Orosz, J., Welsh, W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 86Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, ApJ,

731Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., & Martinache, F. 2012, ApJ,

745Lagrange, A.-M., Langlois, M., Gratton, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, L8Li, G., Holman, M. J., & Tao, M. 2016, ApJ, 831, 96Lines, S., Leinhardt, Z. M., Paardekooper, S., Baruteau, C., & Thebault, P. 2014,

ApJ, 782, L11Lodato, G., & Facchini, S. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2157Lovis, C., & Pepe, F. 2007, A&A, 468, 1115Lucy, L., & Sweeney, M. 1971, AJ, 76, 544Marcy, G., & Butler, R. 2000, PASP, 112, 137Marmier, M. 2014, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Geneva, GenevaMarmier, M., Ségransan, D., Udry, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A90Martin, D. V. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3235Martin, D. V. 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets (Cham: Springer International

Publishing), 1Martin, D., & Triaud, A. 2014, A&A, 570, A91Martin, D., & Triaud, A. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 781Martin, R. G., Armitage, P. J., & Alexander, R. D. 2013, ApJ, 773, 74Martin, D. V., Mazeh, T., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3554Maxted, P. F. L., Bloemen, S., Heber, U., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1681Mayor, M., & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, ArXiv e-prints

[arXiv:1109.2497]McLaughlin, D. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22Meschiari, S. 2012, ApJ, 752, 71Monet, D., Levine, S., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984Mudryk, L. R., & Wu, Y. 2006, ApJ, 639, 423Muñoz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2015, PNAS, I, 9264

Neveu-VanMalle, M., Queloz, D., Anderson, D., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A49Neveu-VanMalle, M., Queloz, D., Anderson, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A93Paardekooper, S.-J., Leinhardt, Z., Thébault, P., & Baruteau, C. 2012, ApJ, 754,

L16Pierens, A., & Nelson, R. 2013, A&A, 556, A134Pierens, A., & Nelson, R. P. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2547Pollacco, D., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1407Prsa, A., Batalha, N., Slawson, R. W., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 83Qian, S. B., Dai, Z. B., Liao, W. P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 96Quarles, B., Satyal, S., Kostov, V., Kaib, N., & Haghighipour, N. 2018, ApJ, 856,

150Queloz, D., Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., et al. 2000, A&A, 359, L13Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Udry, S., et al. 2001a, The Messenger, 105, 1Queloz, D., Henry, G., Sivan, J., et al. 2001b, A&A, 379, 279Rafikov, R. 2013, ApJ, 764, L16Rajpaul, V., Buchhave, L. A., & Aigrain, S. 2017, MNRAS, 471, L125Rossiter, R. A. 1924, ApJ, 60, 15Sahlmann, J., Ségransan, D., Queloz, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A95Santerne, A., Moutou, C., Tsantaki, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A64Sanz-Forcada, J., Desidera, S., & Micela, G. 2014, A&A, 570, A50Schneider, J. 1994, PLANSS, 42, 539Schwamb, M., Orosz, J., Carter, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 127Schwarz, G. 1978, Ann. Stat., 6, 461Sigurdsson, S., Richer, H. B., Hansen, B. M., Stairs, I. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 2003,

Science, 301, 193Skrutskie, M., Cutri, R., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163Smullen, R. A., Kratter, K. M., & Shannon, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1288Steffen, J. H. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4384Thorsett, S. E., Arzoumanian, Z., & Taylor, J. H. 1993, ApJ, 412, L33Tokovinin, A., Thomas, S., Sterzik, M., & Udry, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 681Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Giménez, A. 2010, A&ARv, 18, 67Triaud, A. 2011, Ph.D. Thesis, Observatoire Astronomique de l’Université de

Genève, http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:18065Triaud, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, L61Triaud, A., Hebb, L., Anderson, D., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A18Triaud, A., Lanotte, A., Smalley, B., & Gillon, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 711Triaud, A., Gillon, M., Ehrenreich, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2279Triaud, A., Martin, D., Ségransan, D., et al. 2017a, A&A, 608, A129Triaud, A. H., Neveu-VanMalle, M., Lendl, M., et al. 2017b, MNRAS, 467, 1714von Boetticher, A., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Queloz, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, L6Welsh, W. F., & Orosz, J. A. 2017, Handbook of Exoplanets (Cham: Springer

International Publishing), 1Wilson, D., Gillon, M., Hellier, C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, L113Xu, W., & Lai, D. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2925Zorotovic, M., & Schreiber, M. R. 2013, A&A, 549, A95

A68, page 18 of 45


































https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2497




































http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:18065













App

endi

xA

:D

ata

tabl

esof

the

BE

BO

Pta

rget

list,

mod

else

lect

ion

and

deri

ved

orbi

talp

aram

eter

s

Tabl

eA

.1.O

bser

vatio

nala

ndca

lcul

ated

para

met

ers

ofth

ein

nerb

inar

ies.

Nam

eR

AD

ecP

bin

mA

Vm

agm

BV

mag

T pri

T sec

Tota

lσ

1800

sσ

med

ian

σad

dTi

mes

pan

(deg

)(d

eg)

(day

s)(M�)

(A)

(M�)

(B)

(BJD

–245

500

0)(B

JD–2

455

000)

obse

rvat

ions

(ms−

1 )(m

s−1 )

(ms−

1 )(y

r)

EB

LM

J000

8+02

0008

57.9

7+0

256

42.0

4.72

1.6

10.0

60.

183

20.3

918

08.2

212

1806

.328

529

1519

105.

23E

BL

MJ0

035-

6900

3540

.39

−69

4852

.28.

411.

1712

.38

0.19

820

.19

2082

.113

2079

.178

338

5268

05.

02E

BL

MJ0

040+

0100

4001

.50

+01

0540

.37.

230.

8111

.40.

102

21.3

517

33.7

657

1730

.468

139

1118

84.

85E

BL

MJ0

055-

0000

5513

.72

−00

0754

.011

.41.

1210

.96

0.27

918

.34

2555

.833

925

50.5

422

2412

100

2.46

EB

LM

J010

4-38

0104

19.1

3−3

818

30.7

8.26

1.38

11.2

60.

274

19.4

813

19.6

732

1323

.796

236

2535

08.

26E

BL

MJ0

218-

3102

1813

.24

−31

0517

.38.

881.

179.

960.

359

16.3

512

17.5

183

1213

.076

347

1017

168.

25E

BL

MJ0

228+

0502

2808

.87

+05

3547

.76.

631.

5310

.24

0.18

20.5

223

38.3

823

2335

.064

933

2530

03.

24E

BL

MJ0

310-

3103

1022

.62

−31

0735

.712

.61.

269.

340.

408

15.9

417

44.1

012

1747

.990

227

55

43.

23E

BL

MJ0

345-

1003

4513

.09

−10

5824

.26.

061.

2111

.20.

525

16.6

124

03.2

691

2406

.288

528

4756

02.

02E

BL

MJ0

353+

0503

5308

.94

+05

3633

.36.

861.

1911

.18

0.17

919

.42

1190

.856

211

94.2

856

5310

160

6.99

EB

LM

J035

3-16

0353

54.5

2−1

657

15.3

11.8

1.17

10.5

20.

222

18.7

1482

.386

714

76.5

373

488

110

8.18

EB

LM

J041

8-53

0418

05.1

1−5

348

05.2

13.7

1.11

11.4

50.

135

21.9

822

59.1

678

2252

.318

128

1921

02.

44E

BL

MJ0

425-

4604

2531

.70

−46

1307

.716

.61.

1910

.98

0.62

714

.83

1915

.273

1907

.462

930

1314

133.

15E

BL

MJ0

500-

4605

0032

.88

−46

1121

.38.

281.

1912

.03

0.18

120

.623

93.9

691

2391

.023

527

4144

01.

95E

BL

MJ0

526-

3405

2639

.07

−34

3659

.410

.21.

3511

.18

0.33

818

.56

901.

2815

905.

5906

3718

200

8.18

EB

LM

J054

0-17

0540

43.5

8−1

732

44.8

61.

211

.31

0.17

121

.34

1891

.219

818

88.2

173

2014

200

3.13

EB

LM

J054

3-57

0543

51.4

5−5

709

48.5

4.46

1.23

11.6

80.

1621

.64

944.

6231

942.

3912

3720

274

6.84

EB

LM

J060

8-59

0608

31.9

5−5

932

28.1

14.6

1.2

11.7

30.

325

19.3

1203

.973

512

10.6

009

3725

260

6.86

EB

LM

J062

1-50

0621

56.6

4−5

055

32.4

4.96

1.23

11.9

50.

4218

.37

1394

.946

813

92.4

649

4160

6940

6.11

EB

LM

J065

9-61

0659

07.7

8−6

150

24.1

4.24

1.16

11.3

60.

456

17.6

2197

.414

621

95.2

968

4270

7810

4.58

EB

LM

J094

8-08

0948

49.4

5−0

829

36.4

5.38

1.41

9.32

0.67

513

.32

1040

.232

610

37.7

108

3012

2216

7.39

EB

LM

J095

4-23

0954

52.8

9−2

319

55.7

7.57

1.44

10.7

10.

107

23.0

115

84.8

243

1588

.553

938

1519

293.

94E

BL

MJ0

954-

4509

5458

.68

−45

1726

.28.

071.

699.

830.

412

17.2

612

58.3

051

1254

.970

940

2427

468.

12E

BL

MJ1

014-

0710

1445

.10

−07

1333

.54.

561.

39.

710.

241

18.1

111

15.3

922

1113

.541

328

3146

467.

38E

BL

MJ1

037-

2510

3706

.93

−25

3417

.64.

941.

2610

.17

0.26

17.8

314

60.3

457

1457

.987

936

2735

326.

96E

BL

MJ1

038-

3710

3824

.51

−37

5018

.15.

021.

1713

.26

0.17

322

.81

2268

.911

822

66.4

0133

6974

05.

01E

BL

MJ1

141-

3711

4112

.18

−37

4729

.65.

151.

229.

580.

354

16.1

712

69.1

192

1266

.545

432

1828

627.

9E

BL

MJ1

146-

4211

4650

.49

−42

3659

.410

.51.

3510

.29

0.53

615

.43

2322

.497

323

27.6

4632

910

45.

02E

BL

MJ1

201-

3612

0146

.86

−36

2649

.09.

111.

1910

.82

0.10

122

.95

2103

.826

2107

.560

132

1618

04.

16E

BL

MJ1

219-

3912

1921

.03

−39

5125

.66.

760.

9510

.32

0.09

9621

.23

1201

.726

111

98.5

692

418

110

6.57

EB

LM

J130

5-31

1305

05.9

1−3

126

13.3

10.6

1.1

11.9

40.

288

18.8

118

90.1

521

1895

.235

634

2950

05.

54E

BL

MJ1

328+

0513

2815

.46

+05

3539

.47.

251.

0111

.67

0.34

117

.73

2417

.583

424

13.9

743

1925

240

3.21

EB

LM

J140

3-32

1403

40.2

0−3

233

27.3

11.9

1.06

12.0

80.

2718

.924

65.6

567

2460

.062

523

2524

02.

95E

BL

MJ1

446+

0514

4623

.16

+05

1909

.37.

761.

0411

.30.

196

19.9

422

23.2

012

2219

.327

718

1319

03.

96E

BL

MJ1

525+

0315

2543

.02

+03

0751

.63.

821.

2310

.74

0.14

421

.82

2577

.088

425

75.1

775

1648

4653

3.03

EB

LM

J154

0-09

1540

08.9

9−0

929

02.2

26.3

1.18

110.

444

16.0

622

08.8

855

2196

.641

527

1010

42.

4E

BL

MJ1

630+

1016

3025

.64

+10

0929

.811

1.07

12.0

10.

238

18.5

412

51.4

374

1256

.452

937

2839

06.

97E

BL

MJ1

928-

3819

2858

.85

−38

0827

.223

.30.

9811

.21

0.26

817

.67

1926

.521

419

37.3

808

3413

140

2.75

EB

LM

J193

4-42

1934

25.6

9−4

223

11.6

6.35

0.97

12.4

20.

178

20.6

624

40.0

983

2436

.922

133

3643

02.

39E

BL

MJ2

011-

7120

1119

.73

−71

4002

.45.

871.

419.

30.

285

17.0

220

02.2

966

2005

.200

226

46

03.

77E

BL

MJ2

040-

4120

4041

.58

−41

3159

.814

.51.

1311

.50.

165

21.0

220

19.7

014

2014

.147

732

3227

03.

2E

BL

MJ2

046-

4020

4638

.09

−40

3219

.237

1.07

11.4

90.

193

19.9

914

21.6

718

1430

.159

3010

220

4.93

EB

LM

J204

6+06

2046

43.8

8+0

618

09.7

10.1

1.28

9.87

0.19

219

.01

1361

.518

513

65.8

1628

1515

07.

37E

BL

MJ2

101-

4521

0102

.24

−45

0657

.425

.61.

2910

.50.

523

15.7

2107

.456

420

96.0

603

3618

210

5.19

EB

LM

J212

2-32

2122

57.8

6−3

229

17.1

18.4

1.19

10.6

30.

592

14.9

222

11.8

669

2217

.609

724

1210

02.

16E

BL

MJ2

207-

4122

0728

.13

−41

4855

.714

.81.

2110

.39

0.12

122

.13

2006

.388

820

13.4

725

289

90

2.99

EB

LM

J221

7-04

2217

58.1

3−0

451

52.6

8.16

0.95

12.1

80.

208

19.2

219

60.8

946

1956

.982

731

3950

06.

3

A68, page 19 of 45

A&A 624, A68 (2019)

Tabl

eA

.2.B

ayes

ian

info

rmat

ion

crite

rion

(BIC

)with

sele

cted

mod

elin

bold

.

Syst

emB

ase

mod

els

Com

plex

mod

els

k1k1

d1k1

d2k1

d3k2

Nam

eN

um.

Cho

sen

Flag

circ

ecc

circ

ecc

circ

ecc

χ2 re

dci

rcec

cci

rcec

cχ

2 red

obs.

mod

el4

para

ms.

6pa

ram

s.5

para

ms.

7pa

ram

s.6

para

ms.

8pa

ram

s.7

para

ms.

9pa

ram

s.10

para

ms.

12pa

ram

s.

EB

LM

J000

8+02

29k1

d3(e

cc)

drif

t57

736

814

236

550

131

1278

532

922

702.

0654

971

261

532

223

551.

54E

BL

MJ0

035-

6938

k1(e

cc)

9524

054

9037

558

131

052

611.

02–

––

––

EB

LM

J004

0+01

39k1

(ecc

)40

986

8240

970

8740

894

931.

81–

––

––

EB

LM

J005

5-00

24k1

(ecc

)10

418

351

102

390

4611

529

748

1.79

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

104-

3836

k1d1

(ecc

)dr

ift

334

313

112

5573

856

1.04

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

218-

3147

k1d2

(circ

)dr

ift

2020

1939

425

394

8489

1.48

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

228+

0533

k1(c

irc)

5547

5850

6354

1.4

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

310-

3127

k1(e

cc)

1557

889

945

1557

423

049

1558

608

543

1.2

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

345-

1028

k1(e

cc)

153

4115

745

175

490.

96–

––

––

EB

LM

J035

3+05

53k1

d3(e

cc)

drif

t57

424

5703

018

9625

0826

328

05.

0915

070

111

730.

77E

BL

MJ0

353-

1648

k1(e

cc)

2808

137

2811

149

2940

161

2.71

2988

167

2467

119

2.02

EB

LM

J041

8-53

28k1

(circ

)40

4510

712

126

714

31.

13–

––

––

EB

LM

J042

5-46

30k1

(ecc

)10

830

438

108

065

4010

807

042

0.73

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

500-

4627

k1(e

cc)

6613

944

7434

949

6953

292

1.17

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

526-

3437

k1(e

cc)

279

887

5926

735

063

296

897

761.

22–

––

––

EB

LM

J054

0-17

20k1

d3(c

irc)

drif

t11

534

1109

310

3981

624

418

713

.57

3539

4045

1.08

EB

LM

J054

3-57

37k2

(circ

)tr

iple

243

088

235

202

3618

235

330

2850

827

115

934.

0217

669

1704

369

671.

21E

BL

MJ0

608-

5937

k1(e

cc)

285

417

5228

079

656

282

062

600.

99–

––

––

EB

LM

J062

1-50

41k1

(circ

)64

6067

6416

869

1.32

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

659-

6142

k1d2

(circ

)dr

ift

216

221

143

146

7273

1.39

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

948-

0830

k1d2

(ecc

)dr

ift

154

658

3170

103

082

240

116

841

541.

22–

––

––

EB

LM

J095

4-23

38k1

(ecc

)17

0840

1710

4417

4547

0.57

––

––

–E

BL

MJ0

954-

4540

k1(e

cc)

394

834

5839

483

661

394

868

651.

05–

––

––

EB

LM

J101

4-07

28k1

d1(e

cc)

drif

t67

846

409

6777

144

6789

040

0.97

––

––

–E

BL

MJ1

037-

2536

k1(e

cc)

8603

765

8573

163

8640

571

1.46

––

––

–E

BL

MJ1

038-

3733

k2(c

irc)

trip

le14

963

1233

398

612

4619

638

86.

4743

777

5254

0.75

EB

LM

J114

1-37

32k1

(circ

)46

5148

5350

561.

14–

––

––

EB

LM

J114

6-42

32k2

(ecc

)tr

iple

8384

637

74

837

974

825

382

36

837

451

1003

994

47

622

437

169

02.8

89

618

945

688

622

837

189

816

0177

.96

EB

LM

J120

1-36

32k1

(ecc

)72

874

4772

861

5073

024

581

––

––

–E

BL

MJ1

219-

3941

k1(e

cc)

117

367

151

116

621

164

116

840

199

3.68

122

718

195

8820

813

43.

07E

BL

MJ1

305-

3134

k1(e

cc)

1029

467

9306

9411

116

103

1.63

––

––

–E

BL

MJ1

328+

0519

k1(e

cc)

143

3114

434

150

391.

01–

––

––

EB

LM

J140

3-32

23k1

(ecc

)75

007

3875

944

4285

119

441.

15–

––

––

EB

LM

J144

6+05

18k1

d1(e

cc)

drif

t43

135

873

3221

437

1.1

––

––

–E

BL

MJ1

525+

0316

k1(c

irc)

2429

2525

2626

1.08

––

––

–E

BL

MJ1

540-

0927

k1(e

cc)

587

240

4158

812

644

588

684

480.

99–

––

––

EB

LM

J163

0+10

37k1

d2(e

cc)

drif

t21

665

516

120

709

859

209

752

510.

77–

––

––

EB

LM

J192

8-38

34k1

(ecc

)14

557

063

145

481

9814

953

115

41.

51–

––

––

EB

LM

J193

4-42

33k1

(circ

)44

5196

103

1357

198

1.05

––

––

–E

BL

MJ2

011-

7126

k2(e

cc)

trip

le1

953

861

167

232

92

021

269

167

855

81

823

813

209

961

050

17.9

152

868

61

394

468

8031

961

1.56

EB

LM

J204

0-41

32k1

(ecc

)21

200

033

208

614

4024

502

442

0.46

––

––

–E

BL

MJ2

046-

4030

k2(e

cc)

trip

le80

678

654

394

391

292

7655

434

323

924

868

1129

.11

394

428

3346

627

386

549

0.47

EB

LM

J204

6+06

28k1

(ecc

)1

859

295

571

828

192

651

850

631

671.

7–

––

––

EB

LM

J210

1-45

36k1

(ecc

)11

286

047

112

855

5511

265

564

0.86

––

––

–E

BL

MJ2

122-

3224

k1(e

cc)

1404

775

152

1525

702

348

1545

371

562

1.83

––

––

–E

BL

MJ2

207-

4128

k1(e

cc)

4755

549

4639

854

6184

751

1.32

––

––

–E

BL

MJ2

217-

0431

k1d1

(ecc

)dr

ift

5713

7657

1641

5722

450.

72–

––

––

A68, page 20 of 45


Tabl

eA

.3.O

rbita

lpar

amet

ers

fort

hein

nerb

inar

yfr

omse

lect

edm

odel

s.

Nam

eP

bin

a bin

Kpr

ie b

inω

bin

T per

if(

m)

mA

mB

Lin

Qua

dC

ubic

(day

)(A

U)

(km

s−1 )

(deg

)(B

JD–

245

500

0)(1

0−3M�)

(M�)

(M�)

(ms−

1 /yr)

(ms−

12/y

r)(m

s−13

/yr)

EB

LM

J000

8+02

4.72

2282

4(48

)0.

0668

(17)

16.2

623(

75)

0.24

428(

41)

−51.

03(1

2)18

06.6

388(

15)

1.91

87(5

8)1.

60(1

1)0.

183(

28)

-321

.975

000(

19)

70.6

(1.2

)−4

.639

5(80

)E

BL

MJ0

035-

698.

4146

00(1

2)0.

0899

(20)

17.3

27(1

3)0.

2456

1(76

)−1

2.76

(18)

2080

.373

1(39

)4.

131(

22)

1.17

0(70

)0.

198(

20)

<7.

6–

–E

BL

MJ0

040+

017.

2348

346(

71)

0.07

10(1

8)11

.861

3(51

)0.

0698

9(50

)6.

13(3

4)17

32.2

392(

68)

1.24

18(3

6)0.

810(

60)

0.10

2(10

)<

3.5

––

EB

LM

J005

5-00

11.3

9175

6(44

)0.

1108

(25)

21.1

723(

38)

0.05

718(

24)

−12.

83(2

3)25

52.7

839(

74)

11.1

47(1

5)1.

120(

70)

0.27

9(25

)<

16.5

––

EB

LM

J010

4-38

8.25

6077

6(35

)0.

0945

(27)

20.6

334(

56)

0.00

226(

29)

−114

.8(7

.2)

1323

.23(

17)

7.51

4(13

)1.

38(1

1)0.

274(

33)

20.7

(1.6

)–

–E

BL

MJ0

218-

318.

8841

013(

44)

0.09

67(2

5)27

.786

3(55

)<

0.00

041

–12

15.2

9728

(33)

19.7

47(1

2)1.

170(

80)

0.35

9(36

)-6

4.03

7500

(27)

12.9

6(87

)–

EB

LM

J022

8+05

6.63

4731

(14)

0.08

26(2

0)14

.238

0(72

)<

0.00

23–

2336

.723

59(7

1)1.

9841

(30)

1.53

(10)

0.18

0(23

)<

7.2

––

EB

LM

J031

0-31

12.6

4278

88(7

7)0.

1260

(36)

27.8

655(

25)

0.30

8544

(81)

−174

.182

(18)

1746

.221

73(6

2)24

.394

(15)

1.26

(10)

0.40

8(41

)<

5.3

––

EB

LM

J034

5-10

6.06

1353

(10)

0.07

82(2

3)42

.473

(11)

0.00

432(

39)

−132

.4(4

.1)

2405

.580

(68)

48.1

18(9

3)1.

210(

90)

0.52

5(66

)<

20–

–E

BL

MJ0

353+

056.

8620

280(

20)

0.07

85(3

0)16

.305

1(26

)0.

0011

9(16

)−1

08.4

(7.3

)11

93.9

3(14

)3.

0819

(30)

1.19

(13)

0.17

9(26

)22

1(41

)−2

8.30

(27)

3.24

63(1

8)E

BL

MJ0

353-

1611

.761

1990

(82)

0.11

30(2

7)16

.646

1(30

)0.

0057

5(18

)43

.5(2

.1)

1480

.882

(67)

5.62

04(6

1)1.

170(

80)

0.22

2(21

)<

1.7

––

EB

LM

J041

8-53

13.6

9930

4(60

)0.

1205

(26)

10.3

769(

49)

<0.

0016

–22

55.7

430(

10)

1.58

60(2

3)1.

110(

70)

0.13

5(11

)<

30–

–E

BL

MJ0

425-

4616

.587

983(

32)

0.15

53(3

7)35

.196

7(42

)0.

0477

5(13

)16

.24(

18)

1912

.113

9(85

)74

.682

(57)

1.19

0(80

)0.

627(

51)

<8.

4–

–E

BL

MJ0

500-

468.

2844

45(3

3)0.

0890

(22)

15.8

90(1

2)0.

2314

(11)

−8.6

5(17

)23

92.3

129(

34)

3.17

1(21

)1.

190(

80)

0.18

1(20

)<

39–

–E

BL

MJ0

526-

3410

.190

9062

(41)

0.10

95(3

2)23

.597

9(54

)0.

1264

8(26

)−1

63.7

8(11

)90

3.88

49(2

8)13

.543

(21)

1.35

(11)

0.33

8(38

)<

5.3

––

EB

LM

J054

0-17

6.00

4886

5(88

)0.

0718

(20)

16.1

980(

70)

<0.

001

–18

89.7

1855

(32)

2.64

42(3

4)1.

200(

90)

0.17

1(22

)75

0.85

(71)

261.

5333

(45)

-86.

6436

0(10

)E

BL

MJ0

543-

574.

4638

354(

32)

0.05

92(1

8)16

.648

4(65

)<

0.00

21–

943.

5071

3(44

)2.

1342

(25)

1.23

(10)

0.16

0(25

)–

––

EB

LM

J060

8-59

14.6

0854

30(1

0)0.

1346

(32)

21.6

190(

67)

0.15

581(

29)

117.

58(1

2)12

04.7

895(

44)

14.7

40(2

9)1.

200(

80)

0.32

5(29

)<

2.4

––

EB

LM

J062

1-50

4.96

3842

2(21

)0.

0673

(23)

37.5

52(2

0)<

0.00

19–

1393

.705

83(4

0)27

.235

(43)

1.23

(11)

0.42

0(62

)<

7.1

––

EB

LM

J065

9-61

4.23

5639

1(27

)0.

0601

(19)

43.5

95(1

8)<

0.00

14–

2196

.355

71(3

1)36

.360

(44)

1.16

0(90

)0.

456(

64)

−20.

894(

28)

71.8

09(3

0)–

EB

LM

J094

8-08

5.37

9800

47(9

6)0.

0768

(25)

50.3

033(

82)

0.04

926(

19)

4.38

(18)

1039

.036

9(27

)70

.693

(77)

1.41

(11)

0.67

5(93

)−1

84.7

16(2

2)17

.228

(10)

–E

BL

MJ0

954-

237.

5746

36(1

7)0.

0873

(23)

8.68

74(6

7)0.

0420

8(77

)−1

06.5

(1.0

)15

88.2

35(2

1)0.

5132

(24)

1.44

(11)

0.10

7(14

)<

7.3

––

EB

LM

J095

4-45

8.07

2654

7(62

)0.

1009

(40)

27.8

87(1

4)0.

2945

6(47

)63

.329

(92)

1257

.988

5(18

)15

.831

(56)

1.69

(19)

0.41

2(62

)<

5–

–E

BL

MJ1

014-

074.

5574

647(

34)

0.06

21(2

1)23

.699

(15)

0.20

565(

70)

−44.

59(2

8)11

13.9

254(

30)

5.89

1(27

)1.

30(1

2)0.

241(

39)

98.7

(5.3

)–

–E

BL

MJ1

022-

4014

.066

01(3

4)0.

1220

(35)

12.2

072(

55)

0.25

759(

41)

84.0

2(15

)27

73.5

328(

48)

2.39

16(7

3)1.

070(

90)

0.15

3(15

)–

––

EB

LM

J103

7-25

4.93

6562

2(21

)0.

0652

(20)

24.8

12(1

3)0.

1213

6(50

)−7

3.28

(26)

1458

.166

7(34

)7.

641(

25)

1.26

(10)

0.26

0(38

)<

14.3

––

EB

LM

J103

8-37

5.02

1630

(12)

0.06

33(1

6)17

.633

(17)

<0.

0035

–22

67.6

564(

10)

2.85

23(8

1)1.

170(

80)

0.17

3(23

)–

––

EB

LM

J114

1-37

5.14

7690

1(27

)0.

0679

(22)

32.2

96(1

7)<

0.00

13–

1267

.832

32(4

7)17

.967

(29)

1.22

(10)

0.35

4(50

)<

16–

–E

BL

MJ1

146-

4210

.466

689(

19)

0.11

57(4

2)34

.220

(29)

0.05

250(

74)

104.

0(1.

0)23

22.8

63(2

9)43

.28(

21)

1.35

(14)

0.53

6(67

)–

––

EB

LM

J120

1-36

9.11

3151

(14)

0.09

30(2

4)8.

7401

(48)

0.15

239(

63)

−158

.76(

20)

2106

.213

8(49

)0.

6086

(24)

1.19

0(90

)0.

101(

11)

<2.

2–

–E

BL

MJ1

219-

396.

7600

023(

28)

0.07

11(1

8)10

.829

3(36

)0.

0556

3(31

)21

.21(

32)

1200

.544

3(61

)0.

8854

(17)

0.95

0(70

)0.

100(

11)

<4.

5–

–E

BL

MJ1

305-

3110

.619

131(

15)

0.10

55(2

7)22

.402

(11)

0.03

736(

46)

−153

.52(

79)

1893

.473

(23)

12.3

44(3

5)1.

100(

80)

0.28

8(28

)<

15–

–E

BL

MJ1

328+

057.

2515

61(1

5)0.

0811

(24)

30.6

808(

71)

0.00

396(

40)

−24.

5(5.

3)24

15.2

8(11

)21

.698

(41)

1.01

0(70

)0.

341(

48)

<11

––

EB

LM

J140

3-32

11.9

0877

4(68

)0.

1122

(29)

20.9

367(

65)

0.10

868(

42)

−64.

20(2

7)24

60.7

492(

86)

11.1

24(2

6)1.

060(

80)

0.27

0(25

)<

12–

–E

BL

MJ1

446+

057.

7630

54(1

0)0.

0824

(25)

18.3

173(

66)

0.00

252(

39)

−49(

12)

2220

.20(

26)

4.94

3(11

)1.

040(

90)

0.19

6(22

)−6

7.7(

3.9)

––

EB

LM

J152

5+03

3.82

1911

(42)

0.05

32(1

7)15

.846

(24)

<0.

0037

–25

76.1

329(

21)

1.57

57(7

3)1.

23(1

1)0.

144(

23)

<84

––

EB

LM

J154

0-09

26.3

3829

3(42

)0.

2037

(57)

23.1

814(

41)

0.12

033(

16)

62.8

61(7

4)22

07.3

253(

53)

33.2

59(3

6)1.

18(1

0)0.

444(

37)

<3.

5–

–E

BL

MJ1

630+

1010

.963

7957

(69)

0.10

56(2

8)19

.412

1(66

)0.

1807

9(37

)11

1.38

(12)

1251

.884

9(31

)7.

905(

19)

1.07

0(80

)0.

238(

22)

23.8

81(1

4)3.

1079

(73)

–E

BL

MJ1

928-

3823

.322

855(

71)

0.17

20(4

7)17

.268

8(45

)0.

0735

1(23

)13

7.24

(19)

1929

.196

(12)

12.3

44(1

9)0.

980(

80)

0.26

8(21

)<

21.8

––

EB

LM

J193

4-42

6.35

2513

(16)

0.07

03(1

8)18

.621

2(89

)<

0.00

099

–24

38.5

1022

(65)

4.24

98(6

1)0.

970(

70)

0.17

8(19

)<

25.4

7–

–E

BL

MJ2

011-

715.

8727

035(

34)

0.07

60(2

6)23

.664

3(18

)0.

0309

9(13

)−1

06.4

1(21

)20

04.9

486(

34)

8.05

18(5

1)1.

41(1

3)0.

285(

42)

––

–E

BL

MJ2

040-

4114

.456

256(

31)

0.12

66(3

1)12

.462

0(40

)0.

2264

5(32

)−3

6.81

8(95

)20

15.5

312(

37)

2.67

88(5

9)1.

130(

80)

0.16

5(15

)<

8.1

––

EB

LM

J204

6-40

37.0

1426

(32)

0.23

50(5

8)11

.986

(12)

0.47

316(

54)

155.

771(

59)

1424

.143

7(45

)4.

515(

27)

1.07

0(80

)0.

193(

14)

––

–E

BL

MJ2

046+

0610

.107

7862

(61)

0.10

41(3

1)15

.547

9(60

)0.

3436

1(34

)10

8.92

2(81

)13

61.7

645(

22)

3.26

01(8

9)1.

28(1

1)0.

192(

22)

<4.

6–

–E

BL

MJ2

101-

4525

.576

836(

40)

0.20

72(5

4)25

.510

7(65

)0.

0910

0(25

)19

.89(

14)

2103

.155

(10)

43.4

51(6

9)1.

29(1

0)0.

523(

43)

<7.

9–

–E

BL

MJ2

122-

3218

.421

323(

26)

0.16

55(5

2)35

.538

6(99

)0.

4052

0(13

)−1

35.2

60(2

7)22

16.6

569(

15)

65.4

62(9

8)1.

19(1

1)0.

592(

57)

<13

.1–

–E

BL

MJ2

207-

4114

.774

903(

59)

0.12

96(3

3)8.

6936

(26)

0.06

841(

37)

118.

11(2

9)20

07.3

98(1

2)0.

9988

(21)

1.21

0(90

)0.

121(

12)

<7.

4–

–E

BL

MJ2

217-

048.

1552

180(

55)

0.08

33(2

5)19

.939

4(95

)0.

0469

3(56

)47

.16(

67)

1960

.005

(15)

6.67

6(21

)0.

950(

80)

0.20

8(22

)−2

0.7(

2.7)

––

A68, page 21 of 45

A&A 624, A68 (2019)Ta

ble

A.4

.Orb

italp

aram

eter

sfr

omth

ese

lect

edm

odel

sfo

rk2

fits.

Nam

eP

aK

eω

Tpe

rif(

m)

mA

mB

mc

sin

I c(d

ay)

(AU

)(k

ms−

1 )(d

eg)

(BJD

–2

455

000)

(10−

3M�)

(M�)

(M�)

(M�)

EB

LM

J054

3-57

inne

rbin

ary

4.46

3835

4(32

)0.

0592

(18)

16.6

484(

65)

<0.

0021

–94

3.50

713(

44)

2.13

42(2

5)1.

23(1

0)0.

160(

25)

–E

BL

MJ0

543-

57te

rtia

ryor

bit

3237

(27)

5.18

(18)

4.10

1(21

)0.

4056

(33)

18.8

4(99

)24

09.7

(44)

17.6

7(42

)–

–0.

381(

26)

EB

LM

J103

8-37

inne

rbin

ary

5.02

1630

(12)

0.06

33(1

6)17

.633

(17)

<0.

0035

–22

67.6

564(

10)

2.85

23(8

1)1.

170(

80)

0.17

3(23

)–

EB

LM

J103

8-37

tert

iary

orbi

t26

24.9

5411

0(11

)4.

3(1.

4)2.

67(1

1)0.

55(1

3)13

6(13

)35

49.1

5015

8(10

)3.

0(1.

7)–

–0.

193(

45)

EB

LM

J114

6-42

inne

rbin

ary

10.4

6668

9(19

)0.

1157

(42)

34.2

20(2

9)0.

0525

0(74

)10

4.0(

1.0)

2322

.863

(29)

43.2

8(21

)1.

35(1

4)0.

536(

67)

–E

BL

MJ1

146-

42te

rtia

ryor

bit

259.

225(

58)

1.04

5(37

)7.

462(

37)

0.20

06(3

5)51

.5(1

.4)

2355

.38(

29)

10.4

9(16

)–

–0.

377(

30)

EB

LM

J201

1-71

inne

rbin

ary

5.87

2703

5(34

)0.

0760

(26)

23.6

643(

18)

0.03

099(

13)

−106

.41(

21)

2004

.948

6(34

)8.

0518

(51)

1.41

(13)

0.28

5(42

)–

EB

LM

J201

1-71

tert

iary

orbi

t66

2.99

(58)

1.81

5(61

)1.

9865

(27)

0.10

12(3

0)33

.89(

77)

2536

.2(3

4)0.

5302

(26)

––

0.12

07(8

4)E

BL

MJ2

046-

40in

nerb

inar

y37

.014

26(3

2)0.

2350

(58)

11.9

86(1

2)0.

4731

6(54

)15

5.77

1(59

)14

24.1

437(

45)

4.51

5(27

)1.

070(

80)

0.19

3(14

)–

EB

LM

J204

6-40

tert

iary

orbi

t55

57.0

4680

3(46

)7.

24(5

9)3.

772(

41)

0.50

0(21

)13

4.1(

3.0)

2262

(45)

20.1

(2.3

)–

–0.

378(

33)

Appendix B: Radial velocities and detection limitsfor the 47 BEBOP systems

EBLM J0008+02: chosen model = k1d3 (ecc)

mA = 1.6M�, mB = 0.183M�, P = 4.722 d, e = 0.244

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.010+4

5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−100

−50

0

50

100

.

.

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]

. .Nmes: 29 ∆T : 1911 [days] or 5.23 [yr] ∆V : 34045 [m/s] model : k1d3

model | constantNparam : 9 | 0Nfree : 20 | 0χ2 : 30.74 | 8708383.32χ2

r : 1.54 | 311013.69G.O.F. : 1.57 | 749.39σ(o−c) [m/s] : 21.50 | 11441.54<σVrad> [m/s] 20.24

Ftest : 708080.29proba(Ftest) : 1.00

. .

. .

beboppaper/000858N025642

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Radial velocities folded on binary phase

−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

10+4

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)

Min. detectable mass = 0.36 MJup

at 43.96 days

Fig. B.1. Top panel: radial velocity measurements over time (red) andfitted model (black) and the residuals to the model fit (O–C). Middlepanel: phase-folded velocities on the binary period, where the colourindicates the observation date. Bottom panel: detection limits as afunction of the detectable tertiary period and minimum mass, wheredifferent colours are used for 20 different tested tertiary orbital phasesuniformly sampled over 360◦, and the yellow star highlights the smallestdetectable mass for any parameters.

A68, page 22 of 45


D. V. Martin et al.: BEBOP circumbinary RV surveyMartin et al.: BEBOP Circumbinary RV Survey

EBLM J0035-69: chosen model = k1 (ecc)

mA = 1.17M�, mB = 0.198M�, P = 8.415 d, e = 0.246

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.010+4

5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

−400

−200

0

200

400

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]

. .Nmes: 38 ∆T : 1832 [days] or 5.02 [yr] ∆V : 34687 [m/s] model : k1




. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 37.48 days

EBLM J0040+01: chosen model = k1 (ecc)

mA = 0.81M�, mB = 0.102M�, P = 7.235 d, e = 0.07

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 30.63 days

Fig. B.1. continued.

A68, page 23 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)Martin et al.: BEBOP Circumbinary RV Survey


mA = 1.12M�, mB = 0.279M�, P = 11.392 d, e = 0.057

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−50

0

50

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 48.31 days

EBLM J0104-38: chosen model = k1d1 (ecc)

mA = 1.38M�, mB = 0.274M�, P = 8.256 d, e = 0.002

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500−200

−100

0

100

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 67.13 days


A68, page 24 of 45



EBLM J0218-31: chosen model = k1d2 (circ)

mA = 1.17M�, mB = 0.359M�, P = 8.884 d, e = 0

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

−100−50

0 50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

10+4

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 53.29 days

EBLM J0228+05: chosen model = k1 (circ)

mA = 1.53M�, mB = 0.18M�, P = 6.635 d, e = 0

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 68.26 days


A68, page 25 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)Martin et al.: BEBOP Circumbinary RV Survey


mA = 1.26M�, mB = 0.408M�, P = 12.643 d, e = 0.309

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

10+4

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−40

−20

0

20

40

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 62.15 days


mA = 1.21M�, mB = 0.525M�, P = 6.061 d, e = 0.004

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600−400

−200

0

200

400

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]



r : 0.96 | 588843.73G.O.F. : −0.03 | 912.96σ(o−c) [m/s] : 38.99 | 33832.02<σVrad> [m/s] 40.86


. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

6950 7000 7050 7100 7150 7200 7250 7300 7350 7400 7450 7500 7550 7600 7650

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 27.26 days


A68, page 26 of 45




mA = 1.19M�, mB = 0.179M�, P = 6.862 d, e = 0.001

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.510+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−100

−50

0

50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 61.06 days


mA = 1.17M�, mB = 0.222M�, P = 11.761 d, e = 0.006

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.510+4

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

−100−50

0 50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 62.37 days


A68, page 27 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)

EBLM J0418-53: chosen model = k1 (circ)

mA = 1.11M�, mB = 0.135M�, P = 13.699 d, e = 0

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 198.93 days


mA = 1.19M�, mB = 0.627M�, P = 16.588 d, e = 0.048

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.10+4

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−50

0

50

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 68.08 days


A68, page 28 of 45




mA = 1.19M�, mB = 0.181M�, P = 8.284 d, e = 0.231

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600−400

−200

0

200

400

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

10+4

6950 7000 7050 7100 7150 7200 7250 7300 7350 7400 7450 7500 7550 7600 7650

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 44.03 days


mA = 1.35M�, mB = 0.338M�, P = 10.191 d, e = 0.126

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

−200

−100

0

100

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 82.24 days


A68, page 29 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.2M�, mB = 0.171M�, P = 6.005 d, e = 0

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.510+4

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−100−50

0 50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 31.35 days


mA = 1.23M�, mB = 0.16M�, P = 4.464 d, e = 0

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−200

−100

0

100

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 19.29 days


A68, page 30 of 45




mA = 1.2M�, mB = 0.325M�, P = 14.609 d, e = 0.156

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 86.49 days


mA = 1.23M�, mB = 0.42M�, P = 4.964 d, e = 0

−2.

0.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400−400

−200

0

200

400

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 32.07 days


A68, page 31 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.16M�, mB = 0.456M�, P = 4.236 d, e = 0

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−400−200

0 200 400

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 18.35 days


mA = 1.41M�, mB = 0.675M�, P = 5.38 d, e = 0.049

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800 8000

−100−50

0 50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 21.53 days


A68, page 32 of 45




mA = 1.44M�, mB = 0.107M�, P = 7.575 d, e = 0.042

−5000

0

5000

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−5000

0

5000

6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 48.58 days


mA = 1.69M�, mB = 0.412M�, P = 8.073 d, e = 0.295

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

10+4

4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

−200

0

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

10+4

4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 55.40 days


A68, page 33 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.3M�, mB = 0.241M�, P = 4.557 d, e = 0.206

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800 8000

−200

0

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 49.81 days


mA = 1.26M�, mB = 0.26M�, P = 4.937 d, e = 0.121

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−200

0

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 22.62 days


A68, page 34 of 45




mA = 1.17M�, mB = 0.173M�, P = 5.022 d, e = 0

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

10+4

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−400−200

0 200 400

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

10+4

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 20.12 days


mA = 1.22M�, mB = 0.354M�, P = 5.148 d, e = 0

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.10+4

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500

−200

0

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 24.92 days


A68, page 35 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.35M�, mB = 0.536M�, P = 10.467 d, e = 0.052

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−200

0

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

0.

2.

10+4

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 108.25 days


mA = 1.19M�, mB = 0.101M�, P = 9.113 d, e = 0.152

−5000

0

5000

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

10+4

6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 139.04 days


A68, page 36 of 45




mA = 0.95M�, mB = 0.1M�, P = 6.76 d, e = 0.056

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200

−50

0

50

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 35.22 days


mA = 1.1M�, mB = 0.288M�, P = 10.619 d, e = 0.037

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600−200

−100

0

100

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 46.28 days


A68, page 37 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.01M�, mB = 0.341M�, P = 7.252 d, e = 0.004

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

10+4

6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 7900

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 31.39 days


mA = 1.06M�, mB = 0.27M�, P = 11.909 d, e = 0.109

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 7900

−200−100

0 100 200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 83.96 days


A68, page 38 of 45




mA = 1.04M�, mB = 0.196M�, P = 7.763 d, e = 0.003

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.510+4

6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−100

−50

0

50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 36.91 days

EBLM J1525+03: chosen model = k1 (circ)

mA = 1.23M�, mB = 0.144M�, P = 3.822 d, e = 0

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 7900

−400

−200

0

200

400

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 22.08 days


A68, page 39 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.18M�, mB = 0.444M�, P = 26.338 d, e = 0.12

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

−50

0

50

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 105.78 days


mA = 1.07M�, mB = 0.238M�, P = 10.964 d, e = 0.181

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−200

−100

0

100

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 136.65 days


A68, page 40 of 45




mA = 0.98M�, mB = 0.268M�, P = 23.323 d, e = 0.074

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.510+4

6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.

0.

1.

10+4

6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 110.66 days


mA = 0.97M�, mB = 0.178M�, P = 6.353 d, e = 0

−1.

0.

1.

10+4

6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−500

0

500

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 35.74 days


A68, page 41 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.41M�, mB = 0.285M�, P = 5.873 d, e = 0.031

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−50

0

50

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 25.48 days


mA = 1.13M�, mB = 0.165M�, P = 14.456 d, e = 0.226

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

−200−100

0 100 200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 67.10 days


A68, page 42 of 45




mA = 1.07M�, mB = 0.193M�, P = 37.014 d, e = 0.473

−2.0

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

10+4

5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

10+4

6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 211.67 days


mA = 1.28M�, mB = 0.192M�, P = 10.108 d, e = 0.344

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

10+4

5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−200

0

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−1.5

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

10+4

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 48.63 days


A68, page 43 of 45


A&A 624, A68 (2019)


mA = 1.29M�, mB = 0.523M�, P = 25.577 d, e = 0.091

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

−100

0

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

10+4

5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 111.32 days


mA = 1.19M�, mB = 0.592M�, P = 18.421 d, e = 0.405

−4.

−3.

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.10+4

6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

−100−50

0 50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−4.

−2.

0.

2.

10+4

6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 88.48 days


A68, page 44 of 45




mA = 1.21M�, mB = 0.121M�, P = 14.775 d, e = 0.068

−5000

0

5000

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600

−100

−50

0

50

100

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]

O−

C [m

/s]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−5000

0

5000

6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 59.80 days


mA = 0.95M�, mB = 0.208M�, P = 8.155 d, e = 0.047

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

−200

0

200

. .

RV

[m/s

]

BJD − 2450000.0 [days]O

−C

[m/s

]





. .

. .


ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .


−0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

−2.

−1.

0.

1.

2.

10+4

5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600

φ

RV

[m

/s]

. .

BJD−2450000 [day]

. .

ï0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

ï4.

ï2.

0.

2.

4.

10+4

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400

q

RV

[m/s

]

. .

BJDï2450000 [day]

. .

Detection limits

30 100 300 1000 3000

Pc (days)

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Mcsin

I c (

MJup)


at 37.45 days


A68, page 45 of 45


The BEBOP radial-velocity survey for circumbinary planets

Documents