Paper detail

A new cold sub-Saturnian candidate planet orbiting GJ 221

We re-analyse the recently published HARPS and PFS velocities of the nearby K dwarf GJ 221 that have been reported to contain the signatures of two planets orbiting the star. Our goal is to see whether the earlier studies discussing the system fell victims of false negative detections. We perform the analyses by using an independent statistical method based on posterior samplings and model comparisons in the Bayesian framework that is known to be more sensitive to weak signals of low-mass planets. According to our analyses, we find strong evidence in favour of a third candidate planet in the system corresponding to a cold sub-Saturnian planet with an orbital period of 500 days and a minimum mass of 29 $M_{\oplus}$. Application of sub-optimal signal detection methods can leave low-amplitude signals undetected in radial velocity time-series. Our results suggest that the estimated statistical properties of low-mass planets can thus be biased because several signals corresponding to low-mass candidate planets may have gone unnoticed. This also suggests that the occurrence rates of such planets based on radial velocity surveys might be underestimated.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.