Paper detail

Analysis of combined radial velocities and activity of BD+20 1790: evidence supporting the existence of a planetary companion

This paper presents the simultaneous Bayesian analysis of the radial velocity and activity indices for the K5Ve active star BD+20 1790, that was proposed to host a close-in massive planet by Hernán-Obispo et al. (2010). The Bayesian analysis supports the hypothesis of a planetary companion. We present a new orbital solution after removing the two main contributions to the stellar jitter, one that varies with the photometric period and another that varies with the synodic period of the star+planet system. We use a new method to determine these jitter components, considering them as a second and third signals in the system. A discussion on possible magnetic star-planet-interaction is included, based on the Bayesian analysis of the activity indices. We propose two possible sources for flare events of this star: one related to the geometry of the system and the relative movement of the star+planet, and a second one purely stochastic source that is related to the evolution of stellar active regions. Also, we observe for the first time the magnetic field of the star, from spectropolarimetric data.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access20 authors2 topics

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.

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.