Paper detail

Disentangling Planets and Stellar Activity for Gliese 667C

Gliese 667C is an M1.5V star with a multi-planet system, including planet candidates in the habitable zone (HZ). The exact number of planets in the system is unclear, because the existing radial velocity (RV) measurements are known to contain contributions from stellar magnetic activity. Following our analysis of Gliese 581 (Robertson et al. 2014), we have analyzed the effect of stellar activity on the HARPS/HARPS-TERRA RVs of GJ 667C, finding significant RV-activity correlation when using the width (FWHM) of the HARPS cross-correlation function to trace magnetic activity. When we correct for this correlation, we confirm the detections of the previously-observed planets b and c in the system, while simultaneously ascribing the RV signal near 90 days ("planet d") to an artifact of the stellar rotation. We are unable to confirm the existence of the additional RV periodicities described in Anglada-Escude et al. (2013) in our activity-corrected data.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 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.