11institutetext:  LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, Université PSL, CNRS, 5 Place
Jules Janssen, 92190 Meudon, France 22institutetext: Univ. Grenoble Alpes,
CNRS, IPAG, 38000 Grenoble, France 33institutetext: Pixyl S.A. La Tronche,
France

# Multi techniques approach to identify and/or constrain radial velocity sub-
stellar companions

F. Philipot, Please send any request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A.-M.
Lagrange 1122 F. Kiefer 11 P. Rubini 33 P. Delorme 22 A. Chomez 1122

(Received 07 April 2023 / Accepted 8 August 2023)

###### Abstract

Context. Although more than one thousand sub-stellar companions have already
been detected with the radial velocity (RV) method, many new companions remain
to be detected in the public RV archives.

Aims. We wish to use the archival data obtained with the ESO/HARPS
spectrograph to search for sub-stellar companions.

Methods. We use the astronomic acceleration measurements of stars obtained
with the Hipparcos and Gaia satellites to identify anomalies that could be
explained by the presence of a companion. Once hints for a companion are
found, we combine the RV data with absolute astrometry and, when available,
relative astrometry data, using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to
determine the orbital parameters and mass of the companion.

Results. We find and characterize three new brown dwarfs (GJ660.1 C, HD73256
B, and HD165131 B) and six new planets (HD75302 b, HD108202 b, HD135625 b,
HD185283 b, HIP10337 b, and HIP54597 b) with separations between 1 and 6 au
and masses between 0.6 and 100 MJup. We also constrain the orbital inclination
of ten known sub-stellar companions and determine their true mass. Finally, we
identify twelve new stellar companions. This shows that the analysis of proper
motion anomalies allows for optimizing the RV search for sub-stellar
companions and their characterization.

###### Key Words.:

Techniques: radial velocities – Techniques: high angular resolution –
Techniques: absolute astrometry –Stars: brown dwarfs – Stars: giant planet –
Stars: low mass star

##  1 Introduction

Since the first discovery of a planet orbiting a solar-type star (Mayor &
Queloz 1995), various radial velocity (RV) surveys have detected hundreds of
extra-solar planets and brown dwarfs (Mayor et al. (2011), Hébrard et al.
(2016), Wittenmyer et al. (2020), Rosenthal et al. (2021)). In the long term,
these surveys aim at estimating the minimum mass and radial distributions of
these companions and comparing these values with results obtained by different
population synthesis models (Mordasini (2018), Emsenhuber et al. (2021)).

Despite the many detections, numerous RV data available in the public archives
have never been published and could potentially contain the signals of unknown
companions. The proper motion acceleration measurements published in Gaia data
release 3 for more than 1.4 billion stars can be used to select the targets
with the highest probability of having a companion. Indeed, the study of the
star’s proper motion accelerations has recently allowed the detection in high
contrast imaging (hereafter HCI) of a few sub-stellar companions (e.g.,
Bonavita et al. (2022a), Swimmer et al. (2022), Franson et al. (2023),
Kuzuhara et al. (2022)).

Absolute astrometry based on position and proper motion measurements obtained
with Gaia (Gaia Collaboration 2020) and Hipparcos (Perryman et al. (1997), van
Leeuwen (2007)) can furthermore remove the indetermination on the companion
orbital inclination that is left with the RV method. For instance, using only
the RV data, Kane et al. (2019) reported a planet candidate with a minimum
mass of about 10 MJup while, combining the RV data with absolute astrometry,
Li et al. (2021) found a highly inclined orbit and a true mass of about 20
MJup . Since the first Gaia data release, the combination of these two
techniques has allowed us to improve the characterization of tens of sub-
stellar companions (Grandjean et al. (2019),Brandt et al. (2019), Kiefer et
al. (2019), Damasso et al. (2020), Venner et al. (2021), Brandt et al.
(2021a), Brandt et al. (2021b), Kiefer et al. (2021), Li et al. (2021), Feng
et al. (2022), Philipot et al. (2023)).

However, the precise mass of a companion can only be determined if the orbital
parameters are properly constrained, which remains difficult when the orbital
period (P) is much larger than the RV baseline Lagrange et al. (2023). In the
case of poorly constrained periods, the addition of relative astrometry from
HCI or interferometry allows us to significantly improve the characterization
of the companion. This is, for instance, the case of HD 211847 B which was
first reported using only RV data as a low-mass brown dwarf candidate with
very poorly constrained orbital parameters and minimum mass (Sahlmann et al.
2011), then reported as a massive brown dwarf adding absolute astrometry (Feng
et al. 2022) and finally identified as a low-mass star by adding relative
astrometry data (Philipot et al. (2023)).

In this paper, we study the proper motion anomalies of the stars observed with
the HARPS/ESO spectrograph, with the aim of detecting new sub-stellar
companions. We also combine the available RV data and absolute astrometry with
Hipparcos and Gaia measurements plus, when available, relative astrometry to
further constrain the orbital and mass properties of the newly detected and
the already known sub-stellar and stellar companions identified.

In Section 2, we describe the selection of our sample. In Section 3, we
present the RV, astrometric, and HCI data and the algorithm used to perform
the orbital fits. We then provide the orbital parameters and masses of the new
companions, as well as the update of these parameters for the known
companions, in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. In Section 6, we summarize the
results obtained for stellar mass companions. Finally, we summarize the
results and conclude in Section 6.

##  2 Sample

###  2.1 Proper motion anomaly for stars observed by HARPS-South

We first select the 734 stars observed with the High Accuracy Radial Velocity
Planet Searcher (HARPS) spectrograph mounted on the ESO 3.6 m telescope at La
Silla (Mayor et al. 2003) that are listed in the HARPS-RVBANK archive
(Trifonov et al. 2020) with more than 30 RV data points spread on a temporal
baseline greater than 1000 days. Secondly, we use the astrometric acceleration
of stars (so-called proper motion anomaly, Kervella et al. (2019)) determined
by the difference in proper motion (hereafter PM) between the average
Hipparcos-Gaia PM (24.5 yr time baseline) and the ”instantaneous” PM published
in the Gaia data release 3 (hereafter DR3) to select systems with the highest
probability of hosting a sub-stellar companion. To do so, we select the stars
with a proper motion anomaly (hereafter PMa) by 2$\sigma$ larger than the
noise. We simulate many samples of Gaia DR3 measurements for single stars of
similar $G$-magnitudes and $Gb-Gr$ colors, out of which we fit a PMa solely
based on pure noise. For any of the 734 stars, we obtain PMa distributions of
those stars as if they were single. The percentile of the PMa, measured in
Kervella et al. (2022), within these distributions determines by how many
$\sigma$ they exceed the noise. To focus our study on the detection of sub-
stellar companions, we then exclude systems for which the predicted mass of a
companion orbiting at 10 au that could account for the measured PMa value is
larger than 200 MJup. We obtain a sample of 116 stars.

###  2.2 Selection of systems with a substellar companion

For the selected sample of stars, we then retrieve all the RV measurements
available in the public archives of twelve different spectrographs (see below)
and analyze them to identify the presence of companion(s). For this step, we
use the DPASS genetic algorithm111DPASS uses an evolutionary algorithm to fit
RV data with one or more Keplerian orbits. This algorithm converges to the
solution corresponding to the smallest root-mean-square (hereafter rms) of the
RV residuals. (Lagrange et al. 2019) to detect periodicity in the data and
make a rapid estimate of the orbital properties and the minimum mass of the
companion(s). Thus, we find 20 multiple systems (two or more companions) and
80 single systems (one companion).

Then, we select the systems for which the orbital parameters of the companion
are properly determined and the mass is lower than about 80 MJup,
corresponding to sub-stellar companions. To do so, we combine the RV data with
astrometry to determine the orbital inclination of the companion and obtain
its true mass. We use an MCMC algorithm to estimate the uncertainties of the
different parameters. In the first step, we use the orvara algorithm (Brandt
et al. 2021) which allows combining the RV data with the absolute astrometry
and the available HCI data. orvara converges faster than most other algorithms
(Brandt et al. 2021) and allows us to quickly estimate the orbital parameters
and mass of the companion and exclude stellar companions. However, Lagrange et
al. (2023) have shown that, when the orbital period is not well covered by the
RV data points, MCMC algorithms have difficulties exploring very eccentric
solutions. Therefore, we then use our MCMC algorithm (described in Section
3.4) based on the MCMC sampling tool used by Lagrange et al. (2023) to allow a
better exploration of the possible solutions.

In 27 cases, the coupling of the different methods does not properly constrain
the orbit of companions, mainly due to the poor coverage of their periods by
RV data. We also report 25 stellar companions, for which the orbital
parameters and the mass can be retrieved in Table 13. Finally, we obtain a
sample of 27 sub-stellar companions for which it is possible to estimate all
orbital parameters and true masses.

##  3 Data available on the sample systems

###  3.1 Radial velocity data

We use the archival data obtained with the HARPS spectrograph available in the
European Southern Observatory (ESO) archives222http://archive.eso.org. To
characterize as well as possible the different systems, we combine the HARPS
data with all other publicly available RV data points. We retrieve from the
literature the data obtained with the University College London Echelle
Spectrograph (UCLES, Diego et al. (1990)), the Lick Observatory Hamilton
Echelle Spectrometer (Lick, Vogt (1987)), the Automated Planet Finder (APF,
Vogt et al. (2014)), the Coudé Echelle Spectrometer (CES, Enard (1982)) long
camera (LC) and very long camera (VLC), the Magellan Inamori Kyocera Echelle
spectrograph (MIKE, Bernstein et al. (2003)), the Carnegie Planet Finder
Spectrograph (PFS, Crane et al. (2010)), the High-Resolution Spectrograph
(HRS, Tull (1998)), and the High-Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES, Vogt
et al. (1994)). We retrieve from the DACE archive333https://dace.unige.ch the
data obtained with the CORALIE echelle spectrograph (Queloz et al. 1999) and
from the Observatoire de Haute-Provence (OHP) archive444http://atlas.obs-hp.fr
the data obtained with the ELODIE (Baranne et al. 1996) and SOPHIE (Perruchot
et al. 2008) spectrographs. For the 53 systems with a characterized companion,
the considered RV datasets are listed in Appendix B (Table 9).

Due to a major optical fiber upgrade in 2015 (Lo Curto et al. 2015), an RV
offset may be present between HARPS data obtained before and after this
upgrade. We, therefore, separate these data into two different sets as if they
were obtained from two different instruments. We label ”H03” the data sets
obtained before May 19, 2015 and ”H15” the data sets obtained after June 3,
2015. As for HARPS, a major upgrade has been performed on the HIRES (Tal-Or et
al. 2019) and SOPHIE (Bouchy et al. 2013) spectrographs and two major upgrades
have been performed on the CORALIE spectrograph (Ségransan et al. 2010). We
label ”Hir94” and ”Hir04” the HIRES data sets obtained before and after August
7, 2004, respectively, ”SOPHIE” and ”SOPHIE+” the SOPHIE data sets obtained
before and after June 17, 2011, respectively, and ”C98”, ”C07”, and ”C14” the
CORALIE data sets obtained before June 2007, between June 2007 and November
2014, and after November 2014, respectively.

###  3.2 Relative astrometry data

Whenever possible, we use high-contrast imaging data available in the
literature as well as new relative astrometry measurements obtained from
observations in the NAOS+CONICA (NACO; Rousset et al. (2003), Lenzen et al.
(2003)) and the Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch (SPHERE;
Beuzit et al. (2019)) archives. The observing logs for the analyzed
observations are summarized in Table 1.

For the NACO observations, even when they are quite shallow, these HCI data
are precious to identify large separation stellar companions that could mimic
the astrometric signature of closer-in sub-stellar objects. Given the low
contrast and wide separation of such stellar companions, we carried out a very
simple reduction, by just stacking and subtracting one to another raw data
cubes acquired at two different offset positions within the same observation,
which subtracts the dark and thermal background. In spite of this simple
reduction, we detect five high S/N stellar companions (Fig. 1) in the systems
HD1388, HD78612, HD93351, and HD207700. Since we choose to use only non-
coronographic observation even when deeper coronographic data did exist, we
are also able to measure very accurately the position of the host star and of
the high S/N stellar companions, using moffatian fit of their diffraction-
limited core.

For the SPHERE observations, we detect a massive stellar companion in the
system HD21175. This companion is outside the field of view of the integral
field spectrograph (IFS), hence only the data from the near-infrared imager
and spectrograph (IRDIS) are used. All the pre-reduction steps (dark and
background subtraction, flat-field correction, bad pixel correction, and
centering) are performed on the SPHERE data center (Delorme et al. 2017) using
tools provided in the ESO data reduction and handling pipeline (Pavlov et al.
2008). Due to the stellar nature of the companion, its point spread function
(PSF) on the residual image provided by angular differential imaging (ADI)
based algorithms using the science sequence is completely saturated and
prevents any fitting of it. Thus, we choose to extract the astrometry of the
companion using the off-axis unsaturated PSF frames of the primary star taken
before and after the coronographic sequence. We created a 4D dataset
containing only the PSF frames. We used a simple No-ADI algorithm embedded
into the SPHERE speckle calibration tool (SPECAL) software (Galicher et al.
2018) installed in the SPHERE data center. The astrometry and photometry are
extracted by SPECAL from the residual stack produced by the No-ADI reduction,
taking into account the neutral density filter used during the off-axis
calibration frames (ND_3.5).

The separations and position angles (hereafter SEP and PA) found for the new
detections can be retrieved in Table 2. For GJ680, HD101198, HD111031,
HD195564, HD221146, and HIP113201, we use the separations and position angles
published in the literature. All considered relative astrometry values are
summarized in Table 10.

Table 1: Characteristics of the reduced HCI observations.

Star Date Obs. Instrument Filter NDIT$\times$DIT(s)$\times$Nframe∗ Seeing (”)
Airmass $\tau_{0}$ (ms)a Program ID HD1388 2006-07-24 NACO DB_Hsdi 40x4x1 1.74
1.03 0.0008 077.C-0293(A) HD78612 2006-01-04 NACO DB_Hsdi 25x7x1 1.00 1.034
0.0037 076.C-0762(A) HD93351 2012-06-15 NACO Ks 200x0.15x1 0.81 1.377 0.0018
089.C-0641(A) HD207700 2012-06-14 NACO ND_$L^{\prime}$ 200x0.2x5 -1.00 1.517
0.0019 089.C-0641(A) HD21175 2016-10-04 SPHERE DB_H23 16x8x2 0.75 1.090 0.0019
098.C-0739(A)

Notes: ∗: NDIT is the number of sub integration within a DIT, DIT is the
detector integration time per frame. $\tau_{0}$ corresponds to the coherence
time.

Table 2: New relative astrometry.

Companion JD - 2400000 SEP (mas) PA ($\deg$) HD1388 B 53940.39 $1490\pm 10$
$85.6\pm 1$ HD21175 B 57665.35 $2628.0\pm 2.5$ $122.75\pm 0.08$ HD78612 B
53739.29 $613\pm 5$ $272.3\pm 1$ HD93351 B/C 56093.02 $1684\pm 30$ $76.3\pm 1$
HD207700 B 56092.36 $1090\pm 20$ $284.2\pm 1$

Notes: Since the companion of HD93351 is binary, we consider the average
separation in RA and DEC of the two companions.

Figure 1: Images of new stellar companions detected in HCI. The observations
considered come from the NACO and SPHERE ESO archives.

###  3.3 Absolute astrometry data

We use the position and proper motion values from the Hipparcos-Gaia Catalog
of Accelerations (HGCA) published by Brandt (2021) from Hipparcos and Gaia
early DR3 (Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016), Gaia Collaboration et al. (2021))
measurements to determined the stellar acceleration of each selected target.
For each star, the difference between the position measurements obtained by
Hipparcos and Gaia divided by the mean interval between the two measurements
($\sim$25 years), gives a more accurate tangential proper motion. The
corresponding values are provided in Table 5.

###  3.4 Orbit fitting

We use our MCMC algorithm presented in Philipot et al. (2023) to fit the RV
and/or relative astrometry and/or absolute astrometry data assuming Keplerian
orbits. Our tool is based on the emcee 3.0 python package (Foreman-Mackey et
al. 2013), and the HTOF package (Brandt et al. 2021) to fit the Hipparcos/Gaia
intermediate astrometric data. It follows large sections of the orvara (Orbits
Using Radial Velocity, Absolute, and/or Relative Astrometry) code (Brandt et
al. 2021) for the likelihood computation. In particular:

$\begin{split}LLH_{sep,pa}^{2}=-0.5*[&\frac{\Delta_{sep}^{2}}{\sigma_{sep}^{2}(1-\rho_{sep,pa}^{2})}\\\
&+\frac{\Delta_{pa}^{2}}{\sigma_{pa}^{2}(1-\rho_{sep,pa}^{2})}\\\
&+\frac{2\rho_{sep,pa}*\Delta_{sep}*\Delta_{pa}}{\sigma_{sep}\ \sigma_{pa}\
(1-\rho_{sep,pa}^{2})}]\end{split}$ (1)

$LLH_{RV}^{2}=-0.5*\left[\frac{\Delta_{RV}^{2}}{\sigma_{RV}^{2}+jitter^{2}}+\log(\sigma_{err}^{2}+jitter^{2})\right]$
(2)

$\begin{split}LLH_{HG}^{2}=(&\mu_{H,o}-\bar{\mu}-p\mu_{H})^{T}C^{-1}_{H}(\mu_{H,o}-\bar{\mu}-p\mu_{H})\\\
&+(\mu_{HG,o}-\bar{\mu}-p\mu_{HG})^{T}C^{-1}_{HG}(\mu_{HG,o}-\bar{\mu}-p\mu_{HG})\\\
&+(\mu_{G,o}-\bar{\mu}-p\mu_{G})^{T}C^{-1}_{G}(\mu_{G,o}-\bar{\mu}-p\mu_{G})\end{split}$
(3)

where $\Delta_{sep}$, $\Delta_{pa}$, and $\Delta_{RV}$ are the difference
between the measured and predicted separations, position angle, and RV.
$\rho_{sep,pa}$ is the correlation coefficient between the separation and the
position angle measurement. $\sigma_{sep}$, $\sigma_{pa}$, and $\sigma_{err}$
correspond to the uncertainty on the measured separation, the PA, and the RV,
respectively. $\sigma_{RV}$ is the variance of the RV, and jitter is the
stellar jitter measured. For the likelihood of the proper motions
measurements, $\mu_{x,o}$ and $\mu_{x}$ correspond to the predicted and
observed proper motion, p is the parallax, $C^{-1}_{x}$ is the inverse of the
covariance matrix, and $\bar{\mu}$ corresponds to the center-of-mass motion of
the system’s barycenter.

Unlike orvara or other similar packages, our code uses modular arithmetic
computations for angles, wherever appropriate, to alleviate artifacts at the
range boundaries. To minimize multi-modality effects, the MCMC code uses a mix
of move functions, in particular the Differential Evolution (DE) move function
suggested in the Emcee package documentation for these situations (Foreman-
Mackey et al. 2013).

We considered ten free parameters for each system: the host star mass, the
parallax555The host star mass and the parallax considered are those reported
by Kervella et al. (2022)., the semi-major axis (a), the eccentricity (ecc),
the orbital inclination (I), the longitude of ascending node ($\Omega$), the
argument of periastron ($\omega$), the periastron passage time
($P_{time}$)666The periastron passage time is calculated considering an
initial time at BJD-2454000, the companion mass, and a stellar jitter. It is
important to note that in the fitting process, we consider
$\sqrt{ecc}\cos\omega$ and $\sqrt{ecc}\sin\omega$ instead of ecc and $\omega$.
In addition, to combine data from different instruments, we added an
instrumental offset for each instrument as a free parameter of the model (see
above). We considered uniform priors for all fitting parameters, except for
the host star mass and the distance of the system for which we considered
Gaussian priors and for the orbital inclination, for which we considered a
sin(I) prior.

When the orbital period of a companion is much shorter than Gaia DR3 observing
window (1038 days), the PMa does not allow us to constrain the orbital
inclination. In such cases, we fit Keplerian orbits with our MCMC, considering
only the RV data points. We then use GASTON (Gaia Astrometric Noise Simulation
to derive Orbit incliNation; (Kiefer et al. 2019, 2021)), updated to the
improved Gaia DR3 accuracy, to model the DR3 astrometric excess noise
(hereafter AEN) with a motion of the system’s photocenter induced by the
orbiting RV companion at an optimal orbital inclination. This leads to a new
estimate of the true mass of the companion. The principle of GASTON is to
assume the presence of this companion and i) simulate Gaia’s observations of
the system with many possible orbits of the photocenter, ii) fit out the
5-parameters linear model, as performed by Gaia, that includes position,
proper motion, and parallax, iii) calculate the AEN from the residuals, and
iv) compare the DR3 AEN to the outcomes of the simulations and perform an
optimization of the orbital inclination. The GASTON method has been improved
since the EDR3 release. It now accounts for the dependence of the noise
intrinsic to Gaia’s acquisitions and data reductions (instrumental jitter,
spacecraft’s attitude, and modeling) on magnitude ($G$-band) and color ($Gb-
Gr$) (Lindegren et al. 2021). It also accounts for a parallax offset due to
the orbital motion and produces a corrected parallax.

##  4 New companions

###  4.1 Brown dwarfs

####  4.1.1 GJ660.1

GJ660.1 is a binary system composed of a M1V star (GJ660.1 A) and another low
mass star of type M$9.5\pm 0.3$ (GJ660.1 B, Aganze et al. (2016)). The
projected separation between the two M dwarfs is estimated at $122\pm 9$ au
(Schneider et al. 2011). For this system, 59 RV data points were obtained with
the HARPS spectrograph between 2009 and 2019 for GJ660.1 A. A periodicity is
clearly present in the periodogram of the data with a peak at about 615 days.
Using DPASS, we find the best solution, corresponding to an additional brown
dwarf candidate with a minimum mass of 16 MJup and a period of 620 days (Fig.
13).

The significant AEN in the Gaia DR3 data for GJ660.1 of 2.633 mas (83$\sigma$
larger than noise) is dominated by orbital signals with a period shorter than
100 yr (a ¡ 16 au). The effect of GJ660.1 B is thus negligible, and we assume
that the AEN is only due to GJ660.1 C. We used Gaston to fit the AEN
considering the RV solution found with our MCMC algorithm (Fig. 2),
considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers, and varying
the orbital inclination and the longitude of ascending node. We find a semi-
major axis of $1.12\pm 0.02$ au (P = $618.6\pm 0.1$ d), an eccentricity of
$0.65_{-0.08}^{+0.11}$, a minimum mass of $59_{-15}^{+34}$ MJup, and an
inclination of $87_{-43}^{+39}$°. This leads to a true mass within
$78_{-16}^{+38}$ MJup. The posteriors obtained for each free parameter of the
MCMC are reported in Table 3 and the corner plot is available in Appendix D
(Fig. 24). Note that, even if the orbital period is properly covered by the RV
data, additional measurements near the periastron are necessary to better
constrain the mass and eccentricity of GJ660.1 C and define the precise nature
of the companion.

Looking at the periodogram of the RV data, corrected for the signal of GJ660.1
C, we observe a significant peak at about 200 days. No correlation between RV
variations and bisector velocity span (BVS) variations that may explain this
peak is observed. This signal could therefore correspond to the presence of an
additional companion located at 0.5 au (P = 206 d) with a minimum mass of 0.3
MJup(Fig. 13). It should be noted that, given the mass and semi-major axis of
this candidate companion, the AEN induced by it would be negligible compared
with that induced by GJ 660.1 C.

Figure 2: Fit of the GJ660.1 A RV measurements. The black curve corresponds to
the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood corresponding to the
different fits plotted.

####  4.1.2 HD73256

82 RV data points were obtained for the G8IV star HD73256, 26 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2003 and 2012, 38 RV CORALIE measurements
were obtained between 2001 and 2003, and 18 RV HIRES measurements were
obtained between 2004 and 2016. Udry et al. (2003a) reported a Hot Jupiter
with a minimum mass of $1.87\pm 0.49$ MJup and a period of $2.54858\pm
0.00016$ days, considering the CORALIE data points. Considering all the RV
data points available, a periodicity appears in the periodogram of the data
with a strong peak around 2.5 days corresponding to the companion identified
by Udry et al. (2003a). Once the planet signal is removed, a periodicity
appears in the periodogram with a peak around 3000 d. Using DPASS, we find the
best two-planet solution with inner planet orbital parameters and minimum mass
close to those reported by Udry et al. (2003a) and a new, outer giant planet
candidate with a minimum mass of 10 MJup and a period of 2777 days (Fig. 14).
After removing both planets’ signals, a periodicity is again present around 14
days, which corresponds to the rotation period of the host star (Udry et al.
2003a).

As the orbital period of HD73256 b is much smaller than the duration of Gaia
DR3, the proper motion induced by the inner planet can be neglected. Thus, we
fit simultaneously all the RV data points available, corrected for the signal
of the inner planet, with the absolute astrometry (Fig. 3) with our MCMC,
considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers. We find a
semi-major axis of $3.8\pm 0.1$ au (P = $2690_{-102}^{+60}$ d) and an
eccentricity of $0.16\pm 0.07$ and constrain the orbital inclination of
HD73256 c to either $29_{-3}^{+5}$° or $152_{-7}^{+8}$°. We find a true mass
of $16\pm 1$ MJup, corresponding to a low-mass brown dwarf. The posteriors
obtained for each free parameter of the MCMC are reported in Table 3 and the
corner plots are available in Appendix (Fig. 25 and 26).

Figure 3: Fit of the orbit of HD73256. Top: Fit of the HD73256 RV measurements
after subtracted the signal of the inner planet. Bottom: Fit of the HD73256
astrometric acceleration in right ascension (left) and declination (right).
The black points correspond to the Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion
measurements. In each plot, the black curve corresponds to the best fit. The
color bar indicates the log-likelihood corresponding to the different fits
plotted.

####  4.1.3 HD165131

69 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2006 and
2021 for the G3/5V star HD165131. A periodicity is clearly present in the
periodogram of the data, with a peak at about 2350 days. Using DPASS, we find
the best solution corresponding to a brown dwarf candidate with a minimum mass
of 18 MJup and a period of 2344 days (Fig. 17).

By simultaneously fitting RV HARPS measurements and absolute astrometry with
our MCMC (fig. 4), considering 300000 iterations after 50000 iterations, 1000
walkers, we characterize the orbital parameters of the companion and constrain
the orbital inclination to either $70_{-9}^{+11}$° or $109_{-12}^{+10}$°. We
find a semi-major axis of $3.59_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$ au (P = $2343\pm 2$ d), an
eccentricity of $0.672\pm 0.003$ and a true mass of $19_{-1}^{+2}$ MJup. The
posteriors obtained for each free parameter of the MCMC are reported in Table
3 and the corner plot is available in Appendix D (Fig. 30).

Figure 4: Fit of the orbit of HD165131. Top: Fit of the HD165131 RV
measurements. Bottom: Fit of the HD165131 astrometric acceleration in right
ascension (left) and declination (right). The black points correspond to the
Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion measurements. In each plot, the black
curve corresponds to the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood
corresponding to the different fits plotted.  Table 3: Summary of posteriors
for new brown dwarfs.

Parameter GJ660.1 C HD73256 C HD165131 B a (au) $1.12\pm 0.02$ $3.8\pm 0.1$
$3.59_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$ P (days) $618.6\pm 0.1$ $2690_{-102}^{+60}$ $2343\pm 2$
Ecc $0.65_{-0.08}^{+0.11}$ $0.16\pm 0.07$ $0.672\pm 0.003$ I (°)
$87_{-43}^{+39}$∗ $29_{-3}^{+5}$ or $152_{-7}^{+8}$ $93_{-43}^{+39}$ Mass
(MJup) $78_{-16}^{+38}$∗ $16\pm 1$ $19_{-1}^{+2}$ $\Omega$ (°)
$112_{-123}^{+122}$∗ $303_{-6}^{+5}$ or $269_{-7}^{+8}$ $141_{-19}^{+20}$
$\omega$ (°) $188_{-2}^{+1}$ $300_{-53}^{+37}$ $3.1\pm 0.4$ $P_{time}$ (days)
$540_{-3}^{+2}$ $244_{-179}^{+134}$ $1588\pm 2$ $\sqrt{ecc}cos(\omega)$
$-0.80_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$ $0.42_{-0.12}^{+0.08}$ $0.818_{-0.001}^{+0.002}$
$\sqrt{ecc}sin(\omega)$ $-0.12_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ $-0.07_{-0.14}^{+0.13}$
$0.044\pm 0.006$ Jitter (m/s) $3.4_{-0.5}^{+0.6}$ $23_{-2}^{+3}$ $5.6\pm 0.6$
rms (m/s) $4.6_{-0.2}^{+1.6}$ $24.2_{-1.6}^{+3.8}$ $6.3_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ H03 =
$-50500_{-224}^{+141}$ H03 = $59\pm 6$ H03 = $46204\pm 1$ Instrumental H15 =
$-50505_{-224}^{+142}$ C98 = $74_{-16}^{+13}$ H15 = $46218_{-2}^{+1}$ offset
(m/s) Hir94 = $101\pm 13$ Hir04 = $34\pm 9$

Notes: The median and $1\sigma$ confidence interval are given for each
parameter. ∗Values obtained with Gaston.

###  4.2 New planets

####  4.2.1 HD75302

82 RV data points were obtained for this G5V star HD75302, 35 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2012 and 2018, 26 RV ELODIE measurements
were obtained between 1997 and 2005, and 21 RV SOPHIE measurements were
obtained between 2008 and 2018. A periodicity appears in the periodogram of
the data, with a weak peak around 2000 days (Fig. 22). Using DPASS, we find
the best solution corresponding to an eccentric planet candidate with a period
of 4300 days, a minimum mass of 5.3 MJup , and an eccentricity of 0.88.
However, we observe a significant correlation between RV variations and
bisector velocity span (BVS) variations (Fig. 21) indicating a possible
stellar activity signal. Correcting the RV data with the linear regression
between RVs and the bisector velocity span (Melo et al. 2007), we obtain a new
RV dataset for which a strong peak is present in the periodogram around 3000
days. Considering these data corrected for the stellar activity, we find the
best solution for the companion corresponding to a less massive and eccentric
planet ($m_{\rm p}\sin{i}$ = 2.7 MJup and e = 0.44) but with a similar period
(fig. 23).

Combining the corrected RV data with absolute astrometry with our MCMC (fig.
5), considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers, we find
a well-constrained orbital solution for HD75302 b and we constrain its orbital
inclination to either $29\pm 5$° or $150_{-6}^{+5}$°. We find a semi-major
axis of $5.3_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ au (P = $4356_{-112}^{+173}$ d), an eccentricity
of $0.39_{-0.11}^{+0.10}$ and a true mass of $5.4_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ MJup. The
posteriors obtained for each free parameter of the MCMC are reported in Table
4 and the corner plot is available in Appendix D (Fig. 27).

Figure 5: Fit of the orbit of HD75302. Top: Fit of the HD75302 RV
measurements. Bottom: Fit of the HD75302 astrometric acceleration in right
ascension (left) and declination (right). The black points correspond to the
Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion measurements. In each plot, the black
curve corresponds to the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood
corresponding to the different fits plotted.

####  4.2.2 HD108202

42 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2005 and
2022 for the K4/5V star HD108202. A periodicity is present in the periodogram
of the data, with a peak of around 3000 days. Using DPASS, we find the best
solution corresponding to a giant planet candidate with a minimum mass of 2.4
MJup and a period of 2990 days (Fig. 15).

By simultaneously fitting RV data and absolute astrometry with our MCMC (fig.
6), considering 200000 iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers, we
characterize the orbital parameters of the companion. We find an orbital
inclination of either $56_{-13}^{+19}$° or $130_{-24}^{+14}$°, a semi-major
axis of $3.7\pm 0.1$ au (P = $2990_{-51}^{+54}$ d), an eccentricity of
$0.52_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ and a true mass of $3.0_{-0.5}^{+0.7}$ MJup. The
posteriors obtained for each free parameter of the MCMC are reported in Table
4 and the corner plot is available in Appendix D (Fig. 28).

Figure 6: Fit of the orbit of HD108202. Top: Fit of the HD108202 RV
measurements. Bottom: Fit of the HD108202 astrometric acceleration in right
ascension (left) and declination (right). The black points correspond to the
Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion measurements. In each plot, the black
curve corresponds to the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood
corresponding to the different fits plotted.

####  4.2.3 HD135625

99 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2004 and
2021 for the G3IV/V star HD135625. A periodicity is clearly present in the
periodogram of the data, with a strong peak at about 4500 days. Using DPASS,
we find the best solution corresponding to a giant planet candidate with a
minimum mass of 2 MJup and a period of 4060 days (Fig. 16).

By simultaneously fitting RV data and absolute astrometry with our MCMC (fig.
7), considering 200000 iterations (burn-in = 30000) and 1000 walkers, we
characterize the orbital parameters of the companion. Absolute astrometry does
not allow us to properly constrain the orbital inclination. We can only
exclude the solutions corresponding to a high inclined orbit and we find an
orbital inclination of $93_{-43}^{+39}$°. We find a semi-major axis of $5.4\pm
0.1$ au (P = $4055_{-44}^{+45}$ d), an eccentricity of $0.16_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$,
and a true mass of $2.3_{-0.3}^{+0.8}$ MJup. The posteriors obtained for each
free parameter of the MCMC are reported in Table 4 and the corner plot is
available in Appendix D (Fig. 29).

Figure 7: Fit of the orbit of HD135625. Top: Fit of the HD135625 RV
measurements. Bottom: Fit of the HD135625 astrometric acceleration in right
ascension (left) and declination (right). The black points correspond to the
Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion measurements. In each plot, the black
curve corresponds to the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood
corresponding to the different fits plotted.

####  4.2.4 HD185283

78 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2004 and
2021 for the K3V star HD185283. A periodicity is clearly present in the
periodogram of the data, with a strong peak at about 4500 days. Using DPASS,
we find the best solution corresponding to a giant planet candidate with a
minimum mass of 1.5 MJup and a period of 4000 days (Fig. 18).

By simultaneously fitting RV data and absolute astrometry with our MCMC (fig.
8), considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 30000) and 1000 walkers, we
characterize the orbital parameters of the companion and we constrain the
orbital inclination to be of $91_{-31}^{+30}$°. We find a semi-major axis of
$4.6_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ au (P = $4060_{-112}^{+148}$ d), an eccentricity of
$0.07_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$, and a true mass of $1.3_{-0.1}^{+0.3}$ MJup. The
posteriors obtained for each free parameter of the MCMC are reported in Table
4 and the corner plot is available in Appendix D (Fig. 31).

Figure 8: Fit of the orbit of HD185283. Top: Fit of the HD185283 RV
measurements. Bottom: Fit of the HD185283 astrometric acceleration in right
ascension (left) and declination (right). The black points correspond to the
Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion measurements. In each plot, the black
curve corresponds to the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood
corresponding to the different fits plotted.

####  4.2.5 HIP10337

108 RV data points were obtained for the K7V star HIP10337, 90 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2005 and 2022, and 18 RV HIRES measurements
were obtained between 2008 and 2014. A periodicity is present in the
periodogram of the data, with a large peak at about 8000 days. Using DPASS, we
find the best solution corresponding to a giant planet candidate with a
minimum mass of 2.9 MJup and a period of 6400 days (Fig. 19).

By simultaneously fitting RV data and absolute astrometry with our MCMC (fig.
9), considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 30000)and 1000 walkers, we
characterize the orbital parameters of the companion and constraining the
orbital inclination to either $33_{-4}^{+5}$° or $146_{-5}^{+4}$°. We find a
semi-major axis of $5.9\pm 0.1$ au (P = $6240_{-156}^{+151}$ d), an
eccentricity of $0.43\pm 0.05$, and a true mass of $4.8\pm 0.6$ MJup. The
posteriors obtained for each free parameter of the MCMC are reported in Table
4 and the corner plots are available in Appendix (Fig. 32 and 33).

Figure 9: Fit of the orbit of HIP10337. Top: Fit of the HIP10337 RV
measurements. Bottom: Fit of the HIP10337 astrometric acceleration in right
ascension (left) and declination (right). The black points correspond to the
Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion measurements. In each plot, the black
curve corresponds to the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood
corresponding to the different fits plotted.

####  4.2.6 HIP54597

69 RV data points were obtained with HARPS between 2006 and 2022 for the K5V
star HIP54597. A periodicity is clearly present in the periodogram of the
data, with a strong peak at about 3300 days. Using DPASS, we find the best
solution corresponding to a giant planet candidate with a minimum mass of 2.3
MJup and a period of 3270 days (Fig. 20).

By simultaneously fitting RV data and absolute astrometry with our MCMC (fig.
10), considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 30000) and 1000 walkers, we
characterize the orbital parameters of the companion and constraining the
orbital inclination to either $62_{-13}^{+16}$° or $116_{-14}^{+13}$°. We find
a semi-major axis of $4.0\pm 0.1$ au (P = $3274_{-46}^{+47}$ d), an
eccentricity of $0.03_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$, and a true mass of $2.4_{-0.2}^{+0.4}$
MJup. The posteriors obtained for each free parameter of the MCMC are reported
in Table 4 and the corner plot is available in Appendix D (Fig. 34).

Figure 10: Fit of the orbit of HIP54597. Top: Fit of the HIP54597 RV
measurements. Bottom: Fit of the HIP54597 astrometric acceleration in right
ascension (left) and declination (right). The black points correspond to the
Hipparcos and Gaia EDR3 proper motion measurements. In each plot, the black
curve corresponds to the best fit. The color bar indicates the log-likelihood
corresponding to the different fits plotted.  Table 4: Summary of posteriors
for new planets.

Parameter | HD75302 b | HD108202 b | HD135625 b | HD185283 b | HIP10337 b | HIP54597 b
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
_a_ (au) | $5.3_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ | $3.7\pm 0.1$ | $5.4\pm 0.1$ | $4.6_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ | $5.9\pm 0.1$ | $4.0\pm 0.1$
P (days) | $4356_{-112}^{+173}$ | $2990_{-51}^{+54}$ | $4055_{-44}^{+45}$ | $4060_{-112}^{+148}$ | $6240_{-156}^{+151}$ | $3274_{-46}^{+47}$
Ecc | $0.39_{-0.11}^{+0.10}$ | $0.52_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ | $0.16_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ | $0.07_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$ | $0.43\pm 0.05$ | $0.03_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$
I (°) |  $29\pm 5$ or $150_{-6}^{+5}$ |  $56_{-13}^{+19}$ or $130_{-24}^{+14}$ | $93_{-43}^{+39}$ | $91_{-31}^{+30}$ |  $33_{-4}^{+5}$ or $146_{-5}^{+4}$ |  $62_{-13}^{+16}$ or $116_{-14}^{+13}$
Mass (MJup) | $5.4_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ | $3.0_{-0.5}^{+0.7}$ | $2.3_{-0.3}^{+0.8}$ | $1.3_{-0.1}^{+0.3}$ | $4.8\pm 0.6$ | $2.4_{-0.2}^{+0.4}$
$\Omega$ (°) |  $211\pm 11$ or $246_{-10}^{+11}$ |  $308_{-9}^{+10}$ or $320\pm 8$ | $141_{-19}^{+20}$ | $238_{-21}^{+20}$ |  $49\pm 14$ or $261\pm 14$ |  $118_{-21}^{+31}$ or $204_{-23}^{+20}$
$\omega$ (°) | $307_{-37}^{+22}$ | $78_{-8}^{+9}$ | $89\pm 12$ | $281\pm 38$ | $174\pm 9$ | $164_{-103}^{+123}$
$P_{time}$ (days) | $3607_{-245}^{+160}$ | $266_{-57}^{+67}$ | $1946_{-126}^{+125}$ | $136_{-399}^{+378}$ | $6193_{-156}^{+195}$ | $482_{-712}^{+672}$
$\sqrt{ecc}cos(\omega)$ | $0.38_{-0.23}^{+0.19}$ | $0.14\pm 0.11$ | $0.01_{-0.09}^{+0.08}$ | $0.16_{-0.14}^{+0.09}$ | $-0.61_{-0.05}^{+0.08}$ | $-0.08_{-0.28}^{+0.13}$
$\sqrt{ecc}sin(\omega)$ | $-0.46_{-0.10}^{+0.15}$ | $0.70\pm 0.03$ | $0.39_{-0.05}^{+0.04}$ | $-0.18_{-0.10}^{0.16}$ | $0.20_{-0.13}^{0.10}$ | $-0.04_{-0.12}^{+0.15}$
Jitter (m/s) | $13.9_{-1.3}^{+1.5}$ | $6.5_{-0.8}^{+1.0}$ | $4.2_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ | $3.7\pm 0.4$ | $12\pm 1$ | $7.3_{-0.6}^{+0.7}$
rms (m/s) | $17.0_{-0.8}^{+1.4}$ | $7.1_{-0.5}^{+1.3}$ | $4.7_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ | $4.5_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ | $12.1_{-0.4}^{+0.9}$ | $7.2\pm 0.2$
| H03 = $20614\pm 6$ | H03 = $-5776_{-3}^{+4}$ | H03 = $-14961\pm 1$ | H03 = $51782\pm 1$ | H03 = $3203\pm 2$ | H03 = $51754_{-2}^{+1}$
Instrumental | H15 = $20804_{-9}^{+11}$ | H15 = $-5766_{-3}^{+2}$ | H15 = $-14949\pm 1$ | H15 = $51792_{-2}^{+1}$ | H15 = $3201\pm 1$ | H15 = $51762_{-2}^{+1}$
offset (m/s) | ELODIE = $12147\pm 4$ |  |  |  | Hir04 = $4_{-4}^{+3}$ |
| SOPHIE = $20524_{-6}^{+5}$ |  |  |  |  |
| SOPHIE+ = $20566_{-5}^{+6}$ |  |  |  |  |

Notes: The median and $1\sigma$ confidence interval are given for each
parameter.

###  4.3 Long-term stellar activity

The long-term magnetic activity of the host star can lead to variations in the
RVs over periods similar to the orbital periods of the companions detected in
our study (2-15 years, Meunier et al. (2019)). In order to estimate the
amplitude of these RV variations, Meunier & Lagrange (2019) simulated the
impact of the magnetic activity for F-G-K type stars considering a
$LogR^{\prime}_{HK}$ between -5.1 and -4.6. They show that long-term magnetic
activity can induce an RV jitter between 1 m/s for quiet stars and up to 10
m/s for the most active stars. These RV variations can thus significantly
impact the detection of sub-Jupiter planets with a minimum mass lower than
typically 0.6 MJup (Lagrange et al. 2023). All the newly detected companions
have a minimum mass higher than 1.5 MJup, corresponding to RV amplitudes
higher than 40 m/s, well above the expected activity signal.

Concerning eventual short-term activity, we did not note a significant
correlation between BVS and VR for any of these systems (except for HD75302,
see above). This result is consistent with the fact that these companions
orbit around mature stars (¿ typ. 1 Gyr) whose stellar jitter is generally
smaller than for young systems (Tran et al. 2021).

##  5 Improved parameters of known RV companions

###  5.1 Long-period companions (P ¿ 1000 d)

By combining RV and absolute astrometry data, we properly characterize 14 sub-
stellar companions that have already been reported in the literature. We
significantly improve the characterization and determine the exact nature of
ten companions, and we obtain similar results to those previously reported for
four companions: HD140901 c, HD169830 c, HD221420 B, and HIP70849 b.

####  5.1.1 HD16905

52 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2003 and
2020 for the K3V star HD16905. By coupling HARPS RV measurements, obtained
before February 2018 (Julian day: 2458160), with absolute astrometry, Feng et
al. (2022) reported an eccentric massive giant planet with a mass of
$9.1_{-1.4}^{+1.3}$ MJup, an orbital inclination of $19.7_{-1.9}^{+3.3}$°, a
semi-major axis of $6.4_{-0.4}^{+1.6}$ au and an eccentricity of
$0.67_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$.

Fitting all the RV data available and the absolute astrometry data with our
MCMC (fig. 35 and 36), considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 50000) and
1000 walkers, we find significantly different solutions, with a semi-major
axis of $8.8_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ au (P = $10256_{-522}^{+618}$ d), a mass of
$11.3_{-0.7}^{+0.6}$ MJup, and an orbital inclination of either $43\pm 3$° or
$136\pm 3$°.

####  5.1.2 HD28254

72 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2003 and
2021 for the G5V star HD28254. Naef et al. (2010) reported a very eccentric
giant planet candidate with a minimum mass of $1.16_{-0.06}^{+0.10}$ MJup, a
semi-major axis of $2.15_{-0.05}^{+0.04}$ au and an eccentricity of
$0.81_{-0.02}^{+0.05}$ based on the RV HARPS data obtained before April 2009
(Julian day: 2454931).

The baseline of RV data used by Naef et al. (2010) fully covers the period of
HD28254 b. Combining all HARPS RV measurements available with absolute
astrometry with our MCMC (fig. 37 and 38), considering 600000 iterations
(burn-in = 100000) and 1000 walkers, we find a solution with a semi-major axis
very close to that reported by Naef et al. (2010) but more eccentric: a =
$2.45_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ au (P = $1333\pm 4$ d) and ecc =
$0.95_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$. We also estimate the orbital inclination at either
$21_{-11}^{+38}$° or $162_{-27}^{+7}\textdegree$ and the true mass between 1.5
and 6.5 MJup. Hence, HD28254 b is a giant planet.

####  5.1.3 HD62364

87 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2004 and
2021 for the F7V star HD62364. By coupling the HARPS RV measurements obtained
before February 2018 (Julian day: 2458160) with absolute astrometry, Feng et
al. (2022) reported two companions: a first, $17.4_{-1.7}^{+1.6}$ MJup brown
dwarf at $18.9_{-1.1}^{+1.6}$ au and a second $24.9_{-2.9}^{+2.7}$ MJup brown
dwarf at $36.98_{-2.8}^{+3.0}$ au.

By fitting the RV data considering a one companion system with DPASS, using 3
years of additional HARPS RV measurements, we find a significantly different
result: a single companion at approximately 6.4 au and no additional signal in
the RV residuals. Moreover, when considering a two-companions system, we find
an offset between the HARPS RV measurements obtained before and after the
fiber upgrade of about 78 m/s while the average offset for a star of this
spectral type is smaller than 20 m/s (Lo Curto et al. 2015), which is in
agreement with the offset of 17 m/s found for a one-companion system. We
conclude that there is no evidence for the presence of a second companion.

Combining all the RV data points available and the absolute astrometry data
with our MCMC, considering a one-companion system (fig. 39 and 40) and 300000
iterations (burn-in = 30000), 1000 walkers, we find an eccentric brown dwarf
with a mass of $19_{-1}^{+2}$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $6.4\pm 0.1$ au (P =
$5172\pm 30$ d), an eccentricity of $0.610_{-0.005}^{+0.004}$ and an orbital
inclination of either $42\pm 2$° or $131\pm 2$°.

####  5.1.4 HD89839

98 RV data points were obtained with HARPS between 2004 and 2021 for the F7V
star HD89839. Moutou et al. (2011) reported a giant planet candidate based on
the RV HARPS measurements obtained before June 2010 (Julian day: 2455353).
However, this dataset does not fully cover the orbit of the companion, which
is consequently poorly characterized. The reported orbital parameters are
therefore poorly constrained, with a semi-major axis of $6.8_{-2.4}^{+3.3}$ au
and an eccentricity of $0.32\pm 0.20$. The available data allow us to
reasonably well constrain the amplitude of RV variations, corresponding to a
minimum mass of $3.9\pm 0.4$ MJup.

The additional data points obtained between 2010 and 2021 now allow us to
properly constrain the orbital parameters of HD89839 b and, by simultaneously
fitting all the RV data points available with the absolute astrometry with our
MCMC (Fig. 41 and 42), considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 30000) and
1000 walkers, we constrain the orbital inclination to either $53_{-9}^{+16}$°
or $129_{-15}^{+9}$°. Thus, we find a semi-major axis of $4.9\pm 0.1$ au (P =
$3448\pm 26$ d), an eccentricity of $0.20\pm 0.02$, and a true mass of $5.2\pm
0.8$ MJup. Hence, HD89839 b is a giant planet.

####  5.1.5 HD114783

282 RV data points were obtained for the K1V star HD114783, 91 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2004 and 2016, 157 RV HIRES measurements
were obtained between 1998 and 2019, and 34 RV HRS measurements were obtained
between 2004 and 2007. Firstly, Vogt et al. (2002) reported a giant planet
candidate with a minimum mass of 1 MJup and a period of 501 days. Bryan et al.
(2016) reported an outer companion with a minimum mass of
$0.611_{-0.053}^{+0.056}$ MJup and a period of $4319_{-130}^{+151}$ days.
Considering the RV HIRES measurements, Rosenthal et al. (2021) reported a two
planets system at $1.164\pm 0.016$ au and $4.97_{-0.11}^{+0.12}$ au (P =
$4344_{-14}^{+33}$ d) with a minimum mass of $1.033_{-0.033}^{+0.034}$ MJup
and $0.660_{-0.047}^{+0.046}$ MJup respectively.

As the orbital period of HD114783 b is much smaller than the duration of Gaia
DR3, the proper motion induced by the planet can be neglected. Thus, we fit
simultaneously all the RV data points available, corrected for the signal of
the inner planet, with the absolute astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 43 and 44),
considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 100000) and 1000 walkers. We find
orbital parameters close to those reported by Rosenthal et al. (2021) with a
semi-major axis of $5.0\pm 0.1$ au (P = $4352_{-76}^{+88}$ d) and an
eccentricity of $0.05_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$. We constrain the orbital inclination
of HD114783 c to either $21_{-4}^{+7}$° or $159_{-6}^{+4}$°. We find a true
mass of $2.0\pm 0.4$ MJup. Hence, HD114783 c is a giant planet.

####  5.1.6 HD140901

443 RV data points were obtained for the G7IV star HD140901, 52 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2004 and 2007, 321 RV AAT measurements were
obtained between 1998 and 2014, and 70 RV PFS measurements were obtained
between 2011 and 2022. Considering all the RV data points available and the
absolute astrometry, Feng et al. (2022) reported a massive planet with a semi-
major axis of $7.42_{-0.58}^{+0.32}$ au, an inclination of
$169.4_{-55.4}^{+2.2}$°, a mass of $6.3_{-5.0}^{+1.3}$ MJup and an
eccentricity of $0.61_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$. They also reported the presence of an
inner planet with a minimum mass of $0.049_{-0.008}^{+0.002}$ MJup located at
$0.085_{-0.004}^{+0.003}$ au. However, the study did not detail the analysis
of the system. Although a significant peak is present in the periodogram of
the data around 10 days, once the signal of the external planet is subtracted,
the amplitude of the dispersion of the RV measurements is greater than the
signal induced by the potential planet. It is not possible to confirm the
presence of the planet.

In any case, as the orbital period of the planet candidate is much smaller
than the duration of Gaia DR3, the proper motion induced by this potential
planet is negligible. Thus, fitting simultaneously the same RV dataset as Feng
et al. (2022) and the absolute astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 45 and 46),
considering 400000 iterations (burn-in = 100000) and 1000 walkers, we find a
semi-major axis of $11.8_{-2.5}^{+4.1}$ au (P = $14386_{-4415}^{+8099}$ d), an
inclination of either $40_{-11}^{+18}$° or $138_{-21}^{+12}$°, a mass of
$1.8\pm 0.5$ MJup and an eccentricity of $0.77_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$. This solution
is within the error bars associated with the values found by Feng et al.
(2022) and confirms that HD140901 b is a giant planet.

####  5.1.7 HD143361

120 RV data points were obtained for the G6V star HD143361, 47 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2007 and 2019, 44 RV CORALIE measurements
were obtained between 2010 and 2014, and 29 RV MIKE measurements were obtained
between 1998 and 2005. Jenkins et al. (2017) reported a giant planet candidate
with a minimum mass of $3.48\pm 0.24$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $1.98\pm
0.07$ au and an eccentricity of $0.193\pm 0.015$, considering the RV MIKE and
CORALIE measurements and the RV HARPS measurements obtained before June 2013
(Julian day: 2456462).

Fitting simultaneously all the RV data points available with the absolute
astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 47 and 48), considering 300000 iterations
(burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers, we find orbital parameters close to those
reported by Jenkins et al. (2017) with a semi-major axis of $2.05\pm 0.03$ au
(P = $1040\pm 1$) and an eccentricity of $0.198_{0.006}^{+0.007}$. We
constrain the orbital inclination of HD143361 b to either $50_{-12}^{+19}$° or
$128_{-27}^{+18}$°. Thus, we find a true mass between 3.9 and 6.3 MJup. Hence,
HD143361 b is a giant planet.

####  5.1.8 HD167677

44 RV data points were obtained with HARPS between 2005 and 2019 for this G5V
star HD167677. Moutou et al. (2011) reported a giant planet candidate with a
minimum mass of $1.36\pm 0.12$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $2.90\pm 0.12$ au
and an eccentricity of $0.17\pm 0.07$. They considered the RV HARPS
measurements obtained before October 2010 (Julian day: 2455495) which properly
cover the period of the companion.

Fitting simultaneously all the HARPS RV measurements available with the
absolute astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 49 and 50), considering 200000
iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers, we find orbital parameters
close to those reported by Moutou et al. (2011) with a semi-major axis of
$2.9\pm 0.1$ au (P = $1804\pm 73$ d) and an eccentricity of
$0.35_{-0.15}^{+0.25}$. We constrain the orbital inclination of HD167677 b to
either $20_{-6}^{+14}$° or $155_{-12}^{+6}$°. Thus, we find a true mass of
$3.7_{-1.1}^{+1.6}$ MJup. Hence, HD167677 b is a giant planet.

####  5.1.9 HD169830

277 RV data points were obtained for the F7V star HD169830, 86 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2004 and 2009, 106 RV CORALIE measurements
were obtained between 1999 and 2003, and 85 RV HIRES measurements were
obtained between 2000 and 2019. Firstly, Naef et al. (2001) reported a giant
planet candidate with a minimum mass of $2.94\pm 0.12$ MJup, a semi-major axis
of 0.82 au, and an eccentricity of $0.35\pm 0.04$, considering the RV CORALIE
measurements obtained before May 2000 (Julian day: 2451668). A second giant
planet candidate was then identified by Mayor et al. (2004a) and characterized
by Rosenthal et al. (2021), considering all available RV data points. They
found a minimum mass of $3.51\pm 0.12$ MJup, a semi-major axis of
$3.283_{-0.036}^{+0.035}$ au and an eccentricity of $0.257\pm 0.019$, for
HD169830 c. Recently, combining all the RV data points with absolute
astrometry, Feng et al. (2022) reported an orbital inclination of
$24.47_{-7.21}^{+12.74}$° and a true mass of $7.67_{-2.76}^{+1.94}$ MJup, for
HD169830 c777As the orbital period of HD169830 b is much smaller than the
duration of Gaia DR3, the proper motion induced by this planet is negligible..

Fitting simultaneously the same RV dataset as Feng et al. (2022), corrected
for the signal of HD169830 b, and the absolute astrometry with our MCMC (Fig.
51 and 52), considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers,
we find a semi-major axis of $3.29_{-0.05}^{+0.04}$ au (P = $1832\pm 7$ d), an
inclination of either $23_{-6}^{+12}$° or $158_{-9}^{+5}$°, a mass of
$8.9_{-2.6}^{+2.8}$ MJup and an eccentricity of $0.23_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$. This
solution is within the error bars associated with the values found by Feng et
al. (2022) and confirms that HD169830 c is a giant planet.

####  5.1.10 HD196050

131 RV data points were obtained for the G3V star HD196050 A, 56 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2004 and 2021, 31 RV CORALIE measurements
were obtained between 1999 and 2003, and 44 RV UCLES measurements were
obtained between 1998 and 2005. Based on NACO high contrast imaging
observations, Eggenberger et al. (2007) reported a binary companion orbiting
at about 500 au from HD196050 A and composed of an M1.5-M4.5 low mass star
with a mass of $0.29\pm 0.02$ M☉and an M2.5-M5.5 low-mass star with a mass of
$0.19\pm 0.02$ M☉. Given the separation and mass of the HD196050 B/C pair,
their movement will induce negligible variations in RV and proper motion.
Jones et al. (2002) reported a giant planet candidate with a minimum mass of
$2.8\pm 0.5$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $2.4\pm 0.5$ au and an eccentricity of
$0.19\pm 0.09$, considering the RV UCLES measurements obtained before June
2002 (Julian day: 2452455). Considering the RV CORALIE measurements, Mayor et
al. (2004b) reported orbital parameters and minimum mass for HD196050 Ab close
to those reported by Jones et al. (2002).

Fitting simultaneously all the RV data points available with the absolute
astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 53 and 54), considering 300000 iterations
(burn-in = 30000) and 1000 walkers, we improve the orbital parameters with a
semi-major axis of $2.65\pm 0.03$ au (P = $1392\pm 4$ d) and an eccentricity
of $0.20\pm 0.01$. We constrain the orbital inclination of HD196050 Ab to
either $42_{-7}^{+11}$° or $141_{-12}^{+7}$°. Thus, we find a semi-major axis
of $2.65\pm 0.03$ au, an eccentricity of $0.20\pm 0.01$, and a true mass of
$4.7\pm 0.8$ MJup. Hence, HD196050 Ab is a giant planet.

####  5.1.11 HD204961

238 RV data points were obtained for the M2/3V star HD204961, 183 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2003 and 2019, 39 RV AAT measurements were
obtained between 1998 and 2013, and 16 RV PFS measurements were obtained
between 2011 and 2013. Bailey et al. (2009) reported a giant planet candidate
with a minimum mass of $0.64\pm 0.06$ MJup and a period of $3416\pm 131$ days.
An inner super-earth was reported by Wittenmyer et al. (2014) with a minimum
mass of $5.4\pm 1$ $M_{Earth}$. However, the signal corresponding to this
potential inner planet was then identified as corresponding to the rotation
period of the host star by 2022A&A...66arithmetics4A..64G.

Fitting simultaneously all the RV data points available with the absolute
astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 55 and 56), considering 300000 iterations
(burn-in = 30000) and 1000 walkers. We find orbital parameters close to those
reported by Gorrini et al. (2022) with a semi-major axis of $3.7\pm 0.1$ au (P
= $3853_{-47}^{+51}$ d) and an eccentricity of $0.05\pm 0.03$. We constrain
the orbital inclination of HD204961 b to either $51\pm 3$° or $134\pm 3$°. We
find a true mass of $0.99_{-0.08}^{+0.09}$ MJup. Hence, HD204961 b is a giant
planet.

####  5.1.12 HD216437

160 RV data points were obtained for the G1V star HD216437, 100 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2007 and 2021, 31 RV CORALIE measurements
were obtained between 1999 and 2003, and 39 RV UCLES measurements were
obtained between 1998 and 2005. Jones et al. (2002) reported a giant planet
candidate with a minimum mass of $2.1\pm 0.3$ MJup, a semi-major axis of
$2.4\pm 0.5$ au and an eccentricity of $0.33\pm 0.09$, considering the RV
UCLES measurements obtained before June 2002 (Julian day: 2452456).
Considering the RV CORALIE measurements, Mayor et al. (2004b) reported orbital
parameters and minimum mass for HD216437 b close to those reported by Jones et
al. (2002).

Fitting simultaneously all the RV data points available with the absolute
astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 57 and 58), considering 400000 iterations
(burn-in = 100000) and 1000 walkers, we improve the orbital parameters and
constrain the orbital inclination of HD216437 b to either $36_{-6}^{+8}$° or
$148_{-7}^{+5}$°. Thus, we find a semi-major axis of $2.57\pm 0.04$ au (P =
$1359\pm 1$ d), an eccentricity of $0.31\pm 0.01$, and a true mass of $4.2\pm
0.7$ MJup. Hence, HD216437 b is a giant planet.

####  5.1.13 HD221420

203 RV data points were obtained for the G1V star HD221420, 77 RV HARPS
measurements were obtained between 2003 and 2018, 88 RV AAT measurements were
obtained between 1998 and 2015, and 38 RV PFS measurements were obtained
between 2012 and 2021. Kane et al. (2019) reported a giant planet candidate
with a minimum mass of $9.7_{-1.0}^{+1.1}$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $18.5\pm
2.3$ au, and an eccentricity of $0.42_{-0.07}^{+0.05}$, considering the RV AAT
measurements. Recently, combining the RV AAT and HARPS measurements with
absolute astrometry, Li et al. (2021) reported an orbital inclination of
either $17.8_{-2.8}^{+2.9}$° or $162.2_{-2.9}^{+2.8}$° and a true mass of
$20.6_{-1.6}^{+2.0}$ MJup, corresponding to a brown dwarf. Moreover, they
obtained a better constraint on the other orbital parameters and found a semi-
major axis of $9.99_{-0.70}^{+0.74}$ au and an eccentricity of
$0.162_{-0.030}^{+0.035}$.

Fitting simultaneously the all available RV data points with the absolute
astrometry with our MCMC (Fig. 59 and 60), considering 300000 iterations
(burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers, we find a semi-major axis of $10.1\pm 0.7$
au (P = $10066_{-1125}^{+929}$ d), an inclination of either $14\pm 1$° or
$162\pm 2$°, a mass of $22\pm 2$ MJup and an eccentricity of
$0.12_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$. This solution is within the error bars associated with
the values found by Li et al. (2021) and confirms that HD221420 B is a brown
dwarf.

####  5.1.14 HIP70849

59 RV data points were obtained with HARPS between 2006 and 2021 for the K7V
star HIP70849. Ségransan et al. (2011) reported the detection of a very poorly
constraint companion with a minimum mass between 3 and 15 MJup, a semi-major
axis between 4.5 and 36 au, and an eccentricity between 0.47 and 0.96
($3\sigma$ confidence interval), considering the RV HARPS measurements
obtained before June 2010 (Julian day: 2455374). In Philipot et al. (2023), we
already used our MCMC (Fig. 61) to combine available HARPS data points with
absolute astrometry, considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 30000) and 1000
walkers. We found a semi-major axis of $3.99_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$ au (P = $3649\pm
18$ d), an inclination of $96\pm 16$°, a mass of $4.5_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ MJup and
an eccentricity of $0.65_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$, confirming that HIP70849 b is a
giant planet. In this study, as we consider the same dataset and the same
fitting tools as Philipot et al. (2023), we obtain the same solution.

###  5.2 Short-period companions (P ¡ 1000 d)

Four companions (HD44219 b, HD100777 b, HD111998 b, and HD215497 c) have an
orbital period smaller than the duration of Gaia data as delivered in the DR3.
It is, therefore, not possible to determine their inclination and, therefore,
their true mass precisely from the variations of proper motion. We have
therefore fitted only the radial velocities with I fixed at 90° and $\omega$
fixed at 0° to obtain the other orbital parameters and the minimum mass of the
four companions. We then use GASTON to estimate the maximum orbital
inclination and the maximum mass, which can explain the AEN measured by the
Gaia DR3.

####  5.2.1 HD44219

65 RV data points were obtained with HARPS between 2003 and 2021 for the G3V
star HD44219. Naef et al. (2010) reported a giant planet candidate with a
minimum mass of $0.58_{-0.04}^{+0.06}$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $1.19\pm
0.02$ au, and an eccentricity of $0.61_{-0.09}^{+0.07}$, considering the HARPS
data points obtained before April 2009 (Julian day: 2454932).

Fitting all the HARPS data points available with our MCMC, considering 200000
iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers (Fig. 62), we find orbital
parameters close to those reported by Naef et al. (2010) with a semi-major
axis of $1.26_{-0.07}^{+0.02}$ au (P = $472_{-4}^{+3}$ d) and an eccentricity
of $0.41_{-0.14}^{+0.12}$. Using Gaston, we could estimate that the orbital
inclination of HD44219 b is between 4° and 176° (confidence interval at
3$\sigma$) and, thus, that the maximum mass of the planet is 11 MJup. Hence,
HD44219 b is a giant planet.

####  5.2.2 HD100777

37 RV data points were obtained with HARPS between 2004 and 2007 for the G8V
star HD100777. Naef et al. (2007) reported a giant planet candidate with a
minimum mass of $1.16\pm 0.03$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $1.03\pm 0.03$ au,
and an eccentricity of $0.36\pm 0.02$, considering the all the available HARPS
data.

Fitting the same dataset as the one considering by Naef et al. (2007) with our
MCMC, considering 200000 iterations (burn-in = 50000) and 1000 walkers (Fig.
62), we find orbital parameters close to those reported by Naef et al. (2007)
with a semi-major axis of $1.06_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ au (P = $383\pm 1$ d) and an
eccentricity of $0.38\pm 0.02$. Using Gaston, we could estimate that the
orbital inclination of HD100777 b is between 4° and 176° (confidence interval
at 3$\sigma$) and, thus, that the maximum mass of the planet is 18 MJup.
Hence, the use of the AEN measured by Gaia does not allow us to determine with
certainty the nature of the companion. Moreover, it is important to note that
the PMa does not seem to agree with that induced by HD100777 b. This
difference could be explained by the presence of an external companion.
However, there is no significant signal present in the RV data. This can be
due to the short RV temporal baseline ($\sim$1200 d).

####  5.2.3 HD111998

150 RV data points were obtained with the HARPS spectrograph between 2006 and
2014 for HD111998. As HD111998 is a fast-rotating F6V star, the HARPS DRS is
not able to properly compute the radial velocity of the star. For this reason,
Borgniet et al. (2017) used the SAFIR (Spectroscopic data via Analysis of the
Fourier Interspectrum Radial velocities) software (Galland et al. 2005) to
compute the RV. They reported a giant planet candidate with a minimum mass of
$4.51\pm 0.50$ MJup, a semi-major axis of $1.82\pm 0.07$ au, and an
eccentricity of $0.03\pm 0.04$.

Fitting the same dataset as the one considering by Borgniet et al. (2017) with
our MCMC, considering 300000 iterations (burn-in = 100000) and 1000 walkers
(Fig. 62), we find orbital parameters close to those reported by Borgniet et
al. (2017) with a semi-major axis of $1.91_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ au (P =
$810_{-5}^{+6}$ d) and an eccentricity of $0.13_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$. Using
Gaston, we could estimate that the orbital inclination of HD111998 b is
between 23° and 154° (confidence interval at 3$\sigma$) and, thus, that the
maximum mass of the planet is 12.8 MJup. Hence, HD111998 is a giant planet.
Morover, it is important to note that as for HD100777, the PMa measured for
HD111998 does not seem to agree with that induced by the HD111998 b. This
difference could be due to an additional companion, which could explain the
long-term trend reported in Borgniet et al. (2017).

####  5.2.4 HD215497

115 RV data points were obtained with HARPS between 2004 and 2009 for the K3V
star HD215497. Lo Curto et al. (2010a) reported a Super-earth candidate with a
minimum mass of 6.6 $M_{Earth}$, a semi-major axis of 0.047 au and en
eccentricity of $0.16\pm 0.09$ and a giant planet candidate with a minimum
mass of 0.33 MJup, a semi-major axis of 1.28 au, and an eccentricity of
$0.49\pm 0.04$, considering all the available HARPS data points.

HD215467 b is not massive enough to induce a significant PMa or AEN. We have
therefore considered only HD215497 c. Fitting the HARPS data points, corrected
for the signal of HD215497 b, with our MCMC, considering 400000 iterations
(burn-in = 100000) and 1000 walkers (Fig. 62), we find a semi-major axis of
$1.31\pm 0.02$ au (P = $566\pm 4$ d), a minimum mass of $0.35\pm 0.02$ MJup,
and an eccentricity of $0.47_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$, the solution found by Lo Curto
et al. (2010a) is within the error bars associated with our values. Using
Gaston, we could estimate that the orbital inclination of HD215467 c is
between 4° and 176° (confidence interval at 3$\sigma$) and, thus, that the
maximum mass of the planet is 5.0 MJup. Hence, HD215497 c is a giant planet.

##  6 Stellar companions

Among the 116 selected stars, we detect and confirm the nature of 27 stellar
companions, including 12 new detections (Table 13). These companions orbit
between 0.56 and 90 au and have masses between 0.1 and 1.1 M☉(uncertainties
included).

Even if the addition of absolute astrometry can allow us to lift the sin(I)
indetermination and determine the true mass of a companion, the fit of the
variations of the proper motion of a star does not always allow us to choose
between a prograde and a retrograde orbit for the companion. For almost all
the systems presented in this study, when the orbital period is properly
constrained, we find very close semi-major axes and masses for the prograde
and retrograde solutions. One exception is the system HIP39470 for which the
32 RV data obtained with HARPS between 2004 and 2019 do not fully cover the
orbital period of the companion. Thanks to the significant PMa of the star,
adding the absolute astrometry allows us to significantly improve the
constraints on the companion’s orbital parameters compared to the RV alone.
However, considering a prograde and a retrograde solution (I = $22_{-3}^{+2}$°
and I = $170\pm 1$° respectively), we find two different solutions with a
semi-major axis of $8.8\pm 0.2$ or $7.6\pm 0.1$ au and a mass of
$0.138_{-0.008}^{+0.007}$ or $0.147\pm 0.005$ M☉respectively. In the two
cases, we find that the new companion HIP39470 B is a stellar companion. The
epoch astrometry of Gaia, expected with the fourth data release (end of 2025),
or HCI observation, when possible, could constrain the exact orbital
inclination of the companions and significantly improve the characterization
of HIP39470 B.

The study of these stellar mass companions shows us the importance of properly
determining the orbital inclination of a companion. Indeed, using only RV
data, the minimum masses found for three of these companions were in the brown
dwarfs’ regime. Indeed, we find a minimum mass of about 37 and 52 MJup for the
new companions HD56380 B and HD221638 B, and Moutou et al. (2009) reported a
minimum mass of about 18 MJupfor HD131664 B. However, coupling the RV data
with absolute astrometry, we find an inclination of either $6.1\pm 0.1$° or
$173.6\pm 0.1$°, either $31\pm 1$° or $150\pm 1$°, and either $9.3\pm 0.3$° or
$170.4\pm 0.3$°, respectively, corresponding to a true mass of $0.39\pm 0.02$,
$0.132\pm 0.006$, and $0.109\pm 0.005$ M☉($410\pm 19$, $138\pm 6$, and $114\pm
5$ MJup ), respectively. These three companions are thus, in reality, low-mass
stars. Note that Feng et al. (2021) had already identified HD131664 B as a
stellar companion by coupling RV HARPS measurements with absolute astrometry.

Moreover, in most cases, when the period of the companion is much larger than
the available RV baseline, the orbital parameters and the mass of the
companion cannot be properly characterized. In these cases, the addition of
relative astrometry significantly improves the constraint on the orbit of the
companion and, consequently, its mass. Good examples are the cases of GJ680 B
and HD111031 B. Feng et al. (2022) have combined RV data points, obtained with
HARPS between 2004 and 2012, for GJ680, and with HIRES between 1997 and 2016,
for HD111031, and absolute astrometry. They report a semi-major axis of
$10.1_{-1.7}^{+1.8}$ and $13.1_{-1.1}^{+0.8}$ au and a true mass of
$25.1_{-11.1}^{+6.2}$ and $54.2_{-6.1}^{+5.3}$ MJup respectively,
corresponding to brown dwarfs. However, GJ680 B was detected in HCI in May
2005 and May 2007 with the NACO instrument (Ward-Duong et al. 2015) and
HD111031 B was detected in HCI in February 2018 with the NESSI instrument
(Dalba et al. 2021). In this study, we consider the same RV dataset for GJ680
and we consider the RV HARPS measurements obtained between 2004 and 2013, the
RV HIRES data obtained between 1997 and 2020, the RV APF measurements obtained
between 2013 and 2020, and the RV LICK measurements obtained in 2001, for
HD111031. Combining these RV data with absolute astrometry and relative
astrometry data, we find significantly different results from those published
by Feng et al. (2022) for the two companions. We find semi-major axes of
$32_{-6}^{+9}$ and $21.1\pm 0.6$ au and true masses of $0.178\pm 0.004$ and
$0.129\pm 0.003$ M☉($186\pm 4$ and $135\pm 3$ MJup ) respectively,
corresponding to low mass stars instead of a brown dwarf.

As seen above, the algorithm used for this study, based on the MCMC sampling
tool used by Lagrange et al. (2023), allows us to obtain a better exploration
of the mass and orbital values compatible with the data. For example, in the
case of GJ680 B, whose orbit is poorly constrained, we obtain, by considering
only RV and absolute astrometry data, solutions corresponding to a $1\sigma$
(resp. $3\sigma$) confidence interval for the semi-major axis and the
companion mass between 16 and 28 au (resp. 12 and 35 au) and between 70 and
160 MJup (resp. 50 and 190 MJup), respectively. We notice that the solutions
found by adding the HCI observations are well explored by the MCMC, but it is
not possible without the imaging to conclude on the orbital parameters and the
mass of the companion.

Finally, thanks to the HCI observations of HD93351 obtained with NACO, we find
that the companion is actually a stellar binary with a combined mass of
$0.70\pm 0.05$ M☉. However, the combination of RV, HCI, and absolute
astrometry data does not allow us to properly determine the orbital parameters
of the binary. We can only obtain an estimation for the semi-major axis with a
solution at $83_{-19}^{+18}$ au.

##  7 Conclusion

Using the PMa of the stars as given by Gaia DR3 and Hipparcos observed with
HARPS RV data points spread over at least 1000 days, we identified good
candidates to host long-period sub-stellar companions, which allowed us to
optimize our search for sub-stellar companions. We detected at least one
companion, stellar or sub-stellar, for 86% of the selected stars, including
systems hosting multiple companions as well as those with companion’s orbit
poorly constrained. Moreover, 23% of the systems are composed of at least one
confirmed sub-stellar companion (41% considering companions detected in
multiple systems with a minimum mass smaller than 80 MJup ). This is
significantly higher than the detection rates obtained in the case of the
large RV surveys (Mayor et al. (2011), Wittenmyer et al. (2020), Rosenthal et
al. (2021)), which do not use selection criteria to optimize the detection of
sub-stellar companions.

Among our sample, we have detected three new brown dwarfs (GJ660.1 C, HD73256
C, and HD165131 B) and six new planets (HD75302 b, HD108202 b, HD135625 b,
HD185283 b, HIP10337 b, and HIP54597 b). As already demonstrated in the direct
imaging study (Bonavita et al. (2022a), Swimmer et al. (2022), Kuzuhara et al.
(2022)), we confirm that the study of the PMa allows optimizing the selection
of targets for the search of sub-stellar companions. However, this method
remains sensitive only to massive objects (typically ¿ 1 MJup) and is not
adapted for the detection of low-mass planets (super-Earths, mini-Neptune).

The combination of RV data with absolute astrometry data allows us to properly
characterize the orbital parameters of these ten new companions and in
particular their orbital inclination. We thus determine their true mass and
thus their exact nature. Moreover, by applying the same method, we are able to
improve the characterization and determine precisely the true mass of 10 known
sub-stellar companions and, using GASTON, we are able to confirm the planetary
nature of three known candidate planets (Fig. 11). We determined the
properties of 25 stellar companions, including 12 new detections. We show also
that five companions previously reported as brown dwarfs are indeed low-mass
stars: GJ680 B, HD56380 B, HD111031 B, HD131664 B, and HD221638 B.

The coupling of Hipparcos/Gaia measurements with RV data does not always allow
for accurately characterizing the orbit of a companion, in particular when its
period is not completely covered by the RV data. The addition of HCI data
allows for better constraining the orbit of the companion and, consequently,
measuring its mass. However, most of the companions revealed in this study
have not been detected or observed in imaging. Thus, the orbital parameters
nor the exact nature of 27 of the 80 single companions found in our sample
cannot be determined.

In summary, we conclude that studying the PMa of stars allows optimizing the
search for sub-stellar companions in RV that can then be properly
characterized by combining RV, absolute astrometry, and, when available,
relative astrometry data. However, this method is not sensitive to low-mass
planets and therefore does not allow searching for Earth-like planets.

Figure 11: Semi-major axis and masses of the different sub-stellar companions.
For known companions, the black dotted lines allow comparing the solutions
obtained in this study, represented by a star, with those obtained in previous
studies, represented by a square. The orange arrow corresponds to the maximum
mass of the planet at 3$\sigma$ found with Gaston. The gray dotted horizontal
line corresponds to the deuterium burning limit ($\sim$13 MJup).

###### Acknowledgements.

This study was funded by a grant from PSL/OCAV. This project has also received
funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (COBREX; grant agreement n°
885593). This work presents results from the European Space Agency (ESA) space
mission Gaia. Gaia data are being processed by the Gaia Data Processing and
Analysis Consortium (DPAC). Funding for the DPAC is provided by national
institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia
MultiLateral Agreement (MLA). The Gaia mission website is
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia. The Gaia archive website is
https://archives.esac.esa.int/gaia. This publications makes use of the The
Data & Analysis Center for Exoplanets (DACE), which is a facility based at the
University of Geneva (CH) dedicated to extrasolar planets data visualisation,
exchange and analysis. DACE is a platform of the Swiss National Centre of
Competence in Research (NCCR) PlanetS, federating the Swiss expertise in
Exoplanet research. The DACE platform is available at https://dace.unige.ch.
This work has made use of the SPHERE Data Center, jointly operated by
OSUG/IPAG (Grenoble), PYTHEAS/LAM/CeSAM (Marseille), OCA/Lagrange (Nice),
Observatoire de Paris/LESIA (Paris), and Observatoire de Lyon (OSUL/CRAL).
This research has made use of the SIMBAD database and VizieR catalogue access
tool, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. Based on data retrieved from the
SOPHIE archive at Observatoire de Haute-Provence (OHP), available at
atlas.obs-hp.fr/sophie. Based on spectral data retrieved from the ELODIE
archive at Observatoire de Haute-Provence (OHP). Based on observations
collected at the European Southern Observatory under ESO programmes. We
finally thank our anonymous referee, whose feedback helped us to improve the
quality of this study.

## References

  * Adibekyan et al. (2021) Adibekyan, V., Santos, N. C., Demangeon, O. D. S., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A111
  * Aganze et al. (2016) Aganze, C., Burgasser, A. J., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 46
  * Ammler-von Eiff & Reiners (2012) Ammler-von Eiff, M. & Reiners, A. 2012, A&A, 542, A116
  * Astudillo-Defru et al. (2017) Astudillo-Defru, N., Delfosse, X., Bonfils, X., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A13
  * Bailey et al. (2009) Bailey, J., Butler, R. P., Tinney, C. G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 743
  * Baranne et al. (1996) Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., et al. 1996, A&AS, 119, 373
  * Bernstein et al. (2003) Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1694–1704
  * Beuzit et al. (2019) Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155
  * Biller et al. (2022) Biller, B. A., Grandjean, A., Messina, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A145
  * Bonavita et al. (2022a) Bonavita, M., Fontanive, C., Gratton, R., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 513, 5588
  * Bonavita et al. (2022b) Bonavita, M., Gratton, R., Desidera, S., et al. 2022b, A&A, 663, A144
  * Borgniet et al. (2017) Borgniet, S., Lagrange, A. M., Meunier, N., & Galland, F. 2017, A&A, 599, A57
  * Boro Saikia et al. (2018) Boro Saikia, S., Marvin, C. J., Jeffers, S. V., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A108
  * Bouchy et al. (2013) Bouchy, F., Díaz, R. F., Hébrard, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A49
  * Bowler et al. (2021) Bowler, B. P., Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 106
  * Brandt et al. (2021a) Brandt, G. M., Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y., & Michalik, D. 2021a, AJ, 161, 179
  * Brandt et al. (2021b) Brandt, G. M., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y., et al. 2021b, AJ, 162, 301
  * Brandt et al. (2021) Brandt, G. M., Michalik, D., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 230
  * Brandt (2021) Brandt, T. D. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42
  * Brandt et al. (2019) Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., & Bowler, B. P. 2019, AJ, 158, 140
  * Brandt et al. (2021) Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 186
  * Brandt et al. (2021) Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 186
  * Bryan et al. (2016) Bryan, M. L., Knutson, H. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 89
  * Butler et al. (2017) Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Laughlin, G., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 208
  * Butler et al. (2006) Butler, R. P., Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505
  * Costa Silva et al. (2020) Costa Silva, A. R., Delgado Mena, E., & Tsantaki, M. 2020, A&A, 634, A136
  * Crane et al. (2010) Crane, J. D., Shectman, S. A., Butler, R. P., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773553
  * Dalba et al. (2021) Dalba, P. A., Kane, S. R., Howell, S. B., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 123
  * Damasso et al. (2020) Damasso, M., Sozzetti, A., Lovis, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A31
  * Delgado Mena et al. (2019) Delgado Mena, E., Moya, A., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A78
  * Delorme et al. (2017) Delorme, P., Meunier, N., Albert, D., et al. 2017, in SF2A-2017: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reylé, P. Di Matteo, F. Herpin, E. Lagadec, A. Lançon, Z. Meliani, & F. Royer, Di
  * Diego et al. (1990) Diego, F., Charalambous, A., Fish, A. C., & Walker, D. D. 1990, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 1235, Instrumentation in Astronomy VII, ed. D. L. Crawford, 562–576
  * dos Santos et al. (2017) dos Santos, L. A., Meléndez, J., Bedell, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3425
  * Eggenberger et al. (2007) Eggenberger, A., Udry, S., Chauvin, G., et al. 2007, A&A, 474, 273
  * Ehrenreich et al. (2010) Ehrenreich, D., Lagrange, A. M., Montagnier, G., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A73
  * Emsenhuber et al. (2021) Emsenhuber, A., Mordasini, C., Burn, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A69
  * Enard (1982) Enard, D. 1982, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 331, Instrumentation in Astronomy IV, 232–242
  * Feng et al. (2021) Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2856
  * Feng et al. (2022) Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 21
  * Fischer et al. (2014) Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., & Spronck, J. F. P. 2014, ApJS, 210, 5
  * Foreman-Mackey et al. (2013) Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306
  * Franson et al. (2023) Franson, K., Bowler, B. P., Bonavita, M., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 39
  * Gaia Collaboration (2020) Gaia Collaboration. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350
  * Gaia Collaboration et al. (2021) Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1
  * Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016) Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1
  * Galicher et al. (2018) Galicher, R., Boccaletti, A., Mesa, D., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A92
  * Galland et al. (2005) Galland, F., Lagrange, A. M., Udry, S., et al. 2005, A&A, 443, 337
  * Ghazaryan et al. (2019) Ghazaryan, S., Alecian, G., & Hakobyan, A. A. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5922
  * Gomes da Silva et al. (2021) Gomes da Silva, J., Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A77
  * Gondoin (2020) Gondoin, P. 2020, A&A, 641, A110
  * Gorrini et al. (2022) Gorrini, P., Astudillo-Defru, N., Dreizler, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A64
  * Grandjean et al. (2019) Grandjean, A., Lagrange, A. M., Beust, H., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, C1
  * Grieves et al. (2018) Grieves, N., Ge, J., Thomas, N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3244
  * Hartmann & Hatzes (2015) Hartmann, M. & Hatzes, A. P. 2015, A&A, 582, A84
  * Hébrard et al. (2016) Hébrard, G., Arnold, L., Forveille, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A145
  * Hojjatpanah et al. (2019) Hojjatpanah, S., Figueira, P., Santos, N. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A80
  * Hojjatpanah et al. (2020) Hojjatpanah, S., Oshagh, M., Figueira, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A35
  * Jenkins et al. (2017) Jenkins, J. S., Jones, H. R. A., Tuomi, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 443
  * Jones et al. (2002) Jones, H. R. A., Paul Butler, R., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1170
  * Kane et al. (2019) Kane, S. R., Dalba, P. A., Li, Z., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 252
  * Kervella et al. (2019) Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., & Thévenin, F. 2019, A&A, 623, A72
  * Kervella et al. (2022) Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thévenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7
  * Kiefer et al. (2021) Kiefer, F., Hébrard, G., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A7
  * Kiefer et al. (2019) Kiefer, F., Hébrard, G., Sahlmann, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A125
  * Kuzuhara et al. (2022) Kuzuhara, M., Currie, T., Takarada, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, L18
  * Lagrange et al. (2019) Lagrange, A. M., Meunier, N., Rubini, P., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1135
  * Lagrange et al. (2023) Lagrange, A. M., Philipot, F., Rubini, P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.00047
  * Lenzen et al. (2003) Lenzen, R., Hartung, M., Brandner, W., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 944–952
  * Li et al. (2021) Li, Y., Brandt, T. D., Brandt, G. M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 266
  * Liebing et al. (2021) Liebing, F., Jeffers, S. V., Reiners, A., & Zechmeister, M. 2021, A&A, 654, A168
  * Lindegren et al. (2021) Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2
  * Llorente de Andrés et al. (2021) Llorente de Andrés, F., Chavero, C., de la Reza, R., Roca-Fàbrega, S., & Cifuentes, C. 2021, A&A, 654, A137
  * Lo Curto et al. (2010a) Lo Curto, G., Mayor, M., Benz, W., et al. 2010a, A&A, 512, A48
  * Lo Curto et al. (2010b) Lo Curto, G., Mayor, M., Benz, W., et al. 2010b, A&A, 512, A48
  * Lo Curto et al. (2015) Lo Curto, G., Pepe, F., Avila, G., et al. 2015, The Messenger, 162, 9
  * Maldonado et al. (2020) Maldonado, J., Micela, G., Baratella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A68
  * Mayor et al. (2011) Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.2497
  * Mayor et al. (2003) Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20
  * Mayor & Queloz (1995) Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355
  * Mayor et al. (2004a) Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., et al. 2004a, A&A, 415, 391
  * Mayor et al. (2004b) Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., et al. 2004b, A&A, 415, 391
  * Melo et al. (2007) Melo, C., Santos, N. C., Gieren, W., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 721
  * Meunier & Lagrange (2019) Meunier, N. & Lagrange, A. M. 2019, A&A, 628, A125
  * Meunier et al. (2019) Meunier, N., Lagrange, A. M., Boulet, T., & Borgniet, S. 2019, A&A, 627, A56
  * Mordasini (2018) Mordasini, C. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte, 143
  * Moutou et al. (2011) Moutou, C., Mayor, M., Lo Curto, G., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A63
  * Moutou et al. (2009) Moutou, C., Mayor, M., Lo Curto, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 496, 513
  * Naef et al. (2007) Naef, D., Mayor, M., Benz, W., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 721
  * Naef et al. (2010) Naef, D., Mayor, M., Lo Curto, G., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A15
  * Naef et al. (2001) Naef, D., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., et al. 2001, A&A, 375, 205
  * Pavlov et al. (2008) Pavlov, A., Möller-Nilsson, O., Feldt, M., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7019, Advanced Software and Control for Astronomy II, ed. A. Bridger & N. M. Radziwill, 701939
  * Perruchot et al. (2008) Perruchot, S., Kohler, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70140J
  * Perryman et al. (1997) Perryman, M. A. C., Lindegren, L., Kovalevsky, J., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L49
  * Philipot et al. (2023) Philipot, F., Lagrange, A. M., Rubini, P., Kiefer, F., & Chomez, A. 2023, A&A, 670, A65
  * Queloz et al. (1999) Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Weber, L., et al. 1999, arXiv e-prints, astro
  * Reiners & Zechmeister (2020) Reiners, A. & Zechmeister, M. 2020, ApJS, 247, 11
  * Rice & Brewer (2020) Rice, M. & Brewer, J. M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 119
  * Rigaut et al. (1998) Rigaut, F., Salmon, D., Arsenault, R., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 152
  * Rosenthal et al. (2021) Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8
  * Rousset et al. (2003) Rousset, G., Lacombe, F., Puget, P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4839, Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, ed. P. L. Wizinowich & D. Bonaccini, 140–149
  * Sahlmann et al. (2011) Sahlmann, J., Ségransan, D., Queloz, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A95
  * Santos et al. (2011) Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., Bonfils, X., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A112
  * Schneider et al. (2011) Schneider, A., Melis, C., Song, I., & Zuckerman, B. 2011, ApJ, 743, 109
  * Scott et al. (2018) Scott, N. J., Howell, S. B., Horch, E. P., & Everett, M. E. 2018, PASP, 130, 054502
  * Ségransan et al. (2011) Ségransan, D., Mayor, M., Udry, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A54
  * Ségransan et al. (2010) Ségransan, D., Udry, S., Mayor, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A45
  * Service et al. (2016) Service, M., Lu, J. R., Campbell, R., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 095004
  * Sousa et al. (2018) Sousa, S. G., Adibekyan, V., Delgado-Mena, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A58
  * Stanford-Moore et al. (2020) Stanford-Moore, S. A., Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Macintosh, B., & Czekala, I. 2020, ApJ, 898, 27
  * Stelzer et al. (2013) Stelzer, B., Marino, A., Micela, G., López-Santiago, J., & Liefke, C. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2063
  * Swimmer et al. (2022) Swimmer, N., Currie, T., Steiger, S., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 152
  * Tal-Or et al. (2019) Tal-Or, L., Trifonov, T., Zucker, S., Mazeh, T., & Zechmeister, M. 2019, MNRAS, 484, L8
  * Tran et al. (2021) Tran, Q. H., Bowler, B. P., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 173
  * Trifonov et al. (2020) Trifonov, T., Tal-Or, L., Zechmeister, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A74
  * Tull (1998) Tull, R. G. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3355, Optical Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. S. D’Odorico, 387–398
  * Udry et al. (2003a) Udry, S., Mayor, M., Clausen, J. V., et al. 2003a, A&A, 407, 679
  * Udry et al. (2003b) Udry, S., Mayor, M., Clausen, J. V., et al. 2003b, A&A, 407, 679
  * van Leeuwen (2007) van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653
  * Venner et al. (2021) Venner, A., Vanderburg, A., & Pearce, L. A. 2021, AJ, 162, 12
  * Vogt (1987) Vogt, S. S. 1987, PASP, 99, 1214
  * Vogt et al. (1994) Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362
  * Vogt et al. (2002) Vogt, S. S., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2002, ApJ, 568, 352
  * Vogt et al. (2014) Vogt, S. S., Radovan, M., Kibrick, R., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 359
  * Ward-Duong et al. (2015) Ward-Duong, K., Patience, J., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2618
  * Wittenmyer et al. (2009) Wittenmyer, R. A., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., Levison, H. F., & Henry, G. W. 2009, ApJS, 182, 97
  * Wittenmyer et al. (2014) Wittenmyer, R. A., Tuomi, M., Butler, R. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 114
  * Wittenmyer et al. (2020) Wittenmyer, R. A., Wang, S., Horner, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 377
  * Yee et al. (2017) Yee, S. W., Petigura, E. A., & von Braun, K. 2017, ApJ, 836, 77
  * Zechmeister et al. (2013) Zechmeister, M., Kürster, M., Endl, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A78

##  Appendix A Target list

Table 5: Proper motion values from HGCA of the 116 selected stars.

Star $\sigma$ PMaa $M_{b}$ min at 10au Parallaxb $\mu_{Hip}^{\alpha}$
$\mu_{Hip}^{\delta}$ $\mu_{EDR3}^{\alpha}$ $\mu_{EDR3}^{\delta}$ $\mu_{Hip-
EDR3}^{\alpha}$ $\mu_{Hip-EDR3}^{\delta}$ No. of ($M_{Jup}$) (pc) (mas/yr)
(mas/yr) (mas/yr) (mas/yr) (mas/yr) (mas/yr) companion(s) GJ660.1 ¿ 4 11.8
$43.297\pm 0.397$ $192.695\pm 0.525$ $-704.419\pm 0.354$ $184.702\pm 4.626$
$-693.716\pm 3.139$ $190.922\pm 0.129$ $-702.635\pm 0.080$ 1 GJ676 ¿ 4 3.4
$62.609\pm 0.034$ $-258.759\pm 0.046$ $-185.119\pm 0.034$ $-260.087\pm 1.371$
$-185.157\pm 0.831$ $-258.838\pm 0.048$ $-185.880\pm 0.033$ 4 GJ680 ¿ 4 16.4
$103.345\pm 0.024$ $74.069\pm 0.033$ $470.166\pm 0.020$ $83.508\pm 3.523$
$454.994\pm 2.580$ $77.747\pm 0.082$ $464.975\pm 0.057$ 1 HD142 ¿ 4 $11.7$
$38.213\pm 0.041$ $575.099\pm 0.024$ $-40.874\pm 0.033$ $575.297\pm 0.447$
$-39.223\pm 0.469$ $575.093\pm 0.012$ $-39.845\pm 0.013$ 2 HD457 ¿ 4 6.1
$18.102\pm 0.025$ $113.112\pm 0.025$ $-18.873\pm 0.028$ $112.462\pm 0.592$
$-19.548\pm 0.678$ $112.791\pm 0.018$ $-18.826\pm 0.018$ $1^{*}$ HD1388 ¿ 4
$28.5$ $37.176\pm 0.029$ $401.642\pm 0.043$ $-0.238\pm 0.024$ $396.154\pm
0.824$ $-0.481\pm 0.457$ $398.610\pm 0.021$ $-0.437\pm 0.016$ 1 HD7449 ¿ 4
37.4 $25.9132\pm 0.0287$ $-164.544\pm 0.053$ $-134.382\pm 0.039$ $-161.045\pm
0.621$ $-138.692\pm 0.464$ $-163.019\pm 0.022$ $-136.855\pm 0.017$ 2 HD11195
$3.4$ $4.2$ $17.4998\pm 0.0184$ $-6.488\pm 0.028$ $14.994\pm 0.025$ $-6.833\pm
0.508$ $15.066\pm 0.502$ $-6.512\pm 0.018$ $14.763\pm 0.018$ 0 HD11397 ¿ 4
$119$ $18.4075\pm 0.0196$ $132.287\pm 0.027$ $-352.861\pm 0.020$ $126.848\pm
1.338$ $-363.072\pm 1.007$ $131.014\pm 0.045$ $-358.017\pm 0.033$ $1^{*}$
HD13350 2.0 $0.1$ $54.6825\pm 0.0354$ $310.909\pm 0.064$ $1049.061\pm 0.082$
$311.667\pm 0.397$ $1050.236\pm 0.444$ $310.720\pm 0.013$ $1049.658\pm 0.012$
0 HD13357 $2.0$ $0.1$ $12.1502\pm 0.0157$ $-30.155\pm 0.022$ $-195.200\pm
0.020$ $-30.826\pm 1.055$ $-195.625\pm 0.919$ $-30.082\pm 0.029$ $-195.058\pm
0.031$ 0 HD13612 ¿ 4 $17.3$ $26.1678\pm 0.0274$ $366.258\pm 0.043$ $-67.275\pm
0.030$ $376.253\pm 9.264$ $-72.567\pm 6.630$ $367.067\pm 0.684$ $-66.783\pm
0.411$ $1^{*}$ HD15337 ¿ 4 13.2 $22.2922\pm 0.0160$ $-73.581\pm 0.021$
$-211.935\pm 0.020$ $-72.014\pm 1.023$ $-210.732\pm 0.920$ $-72.829\pm 0.034$
$-211.474\pm 0.031$ $1^{*}$ HD16160 $>4$ 75.3 $35.8970\pm 0.1225$ $114.381\pm
0.209$ $-199.348\pm 0.131$ $99.098\pm 2.307$ $-187.790\pm 1.360$ $105.221\pm
0.079$ $-190.355\pm 0.046$ 2 HD16548 ¿ 4 $108.2$ $18.9061\pm 0.0226$
$261.625\pm 0.042$ $-62.568\pm 0.028$ $273.099\pm 0.730$ $-51.351\pm 0.795$
$266.536\pm 0.025$ $-61.001\pm 0.023$ 1 HD16905 ¿ 4 $5.1$ $25.1176\pm 0.0123$
$36.720\pm 0.024$ $-184.705\pm 0.018$ $37.464\pm 0.966$ $-183.811\pm 0.898$
$37.153\pm 0.029$ $-184.468\pm 0.029$ 1 HD19467 $3.0$ 2.3 $22.0344\pm 0.0177$
$36.061\pm 0.026$ $-80.180\pm 0.020$ $36.537\pm 1.713$ $-78.766\pm 1.067$
$36.267\pm 0.045$ $-80.069\pm 0.028$ $1^{*}$ HD19641 ¿ 4 20 $19.0259\pm
0.0216$ $-25.024\pm 0.024$ $114.795\pm 0.030$ $-25.973\pm 0.673$ $117.150\pm
0.749$ $-25.519\pm 0.020$ $115.886\pm 0.021$ $1^{*}$ HD20010 ¿ 4 43
$71.4337\pm 0.1320$ $359.565\pm 0.112$ $619.186\pm 0.161$ $371.142\pm 0.427$
$611.897\pm 0.550$ $364.729\pm 0.015$ $616.214\pm 0.017$ $1^{*}$ HD21019 2.8
0.1 $26.7913\pm 0.0912$ $1.295\pm 0.246$ $-219.292\pm 0.170$ $2.035\pm 0.751$
$-219.220\pm 0.511$ $1.799\pm 0.022$ $-219.483\pm 0.014$ $1^{*}$ HD21175 ¿ 4
59 $56.5570\pm 0.0270$ $63.985\pm 0.033$ $35.175\pm 0.049$ $40.646\pm 0.780$
$42.888\pm 0.778$ $53.036\pm 0.026$ $39.153\pm 0.025$ 1 HD24633 ¿ 4 32.4
$18.7655\pm 0.0884$ $4.290\pm 0.147$ $64.156\pm 0.111$ $4.088\pm 1.494$
$64.266\pm 1.419$ $5.886\pm 0.042$ $65.529\pm 0.035$ $1^{*}$ HD27894 ¿ 4 7
$22.8888\pm 0.0121$ $182.473\pm 0.017$ $270.012\pm 0.023$ $182.047\pm 0.915$
$272.210\pm 1.075$ $182.032\pm 0.030$ $270.376\pm 0.033$ 0 HD28254 2.2 0.1
$15.2528\pm 0.0183$ $181.376\pm 0.027$ $-164.130\pm 0.026$ $182.195\pm 1.058$
$-163.440\pm 0.488$ $181.367\pm 0.032$ $-164.082\pm 0.019$ 1 HD38459 ¿ 4 2.9
$26.5541\pm 0.0114$ $-19.556\pm 0.021$ $-39.926\pm 0.021$ $-20.643\pm 0.894$
$-40.680\pm 0.962$ $-19.706\pm 0.030$ $-40.138\pm 0.030$ 0 HD39091 2.7 2.3
$18.2833\pm 0.0216$ $74.236\pm 0.026$ $-214.258\pm 0.023$ $75.863\pm 1.357$
$-213.220\pm 0.847$ $74.058\pm 0.042$ $-214.357\pm 0.024$ 0 HD40397 ¿ 4 20
$41.5366\pm 0.0210$ $74.849\pm 0.029$ $-200.354\pm 0.027$ $70.996\pm 0.789$
$-203.208\pm 0.541$ $73.753\pm 0.024$ $-202.096\pm 0.017$ 1 HD42581 ¿ 4 7.7
$138.3400\pm 0.3177$ $1778.585\pm 0.589$ $1477.306\pm 0.340$ $1807.221\pm
1.454$ $1443.037\pm 0.713$ $1792.759\pm 0.033$ $1450.768\pm 0.022$ 0 HD42659 ¿
4 42 $7.7597\pm 0.0308$ $-0.118\pm 0.033$ $-18.771\pm 0.036$ $0.465\pm 0.617$
$-17.998\pm 0.513$ $0.284\pm 0.017$ $-18.558\pm 0.016$ 1 HD42936 ¿ 4 0.9
$17.8589\pm 0.0131$ $323.791\pm 0.013$ $-281.239\pm 0.017$ $324.151\pm 0.515$
$-281.307\pm 0.860$ $323.830\pm 0.017$ $-280.993\pm 0.026$ 2 HD43197 3.7 5.7
$16.0171\pm 0.0106$ $147.648\pm 0.013$ $16.600\pm 0.015$ $148.028\pm 1.432$
$13.923\pm 1.615$ $147.878\pm 0.044$ $16.381\pm 0.052$ 2 HD44219 2.2 0.1
$31.2191\pm 0.0240$ $-8.694\pm 0.036$ $-260.642\pm 0.035$ $-7.903\pm 0.734$
$-260.163\pm 0.791$ $-8.445\pm 0.022$ $-260.600\pm 0.017$ 1 HD46569 ¿ 4 87
$27.1217\pm 0.0476$ $102.014\pm 0.074$ $104.577\pm 0.074$ $102.415\pm 0.418$
$104.925\pm 0.423$ $107.769\pm 0.014$ $103.583\pm 0.014$ 1 HD49095 ¿ 4 74
$41.7838\pm 0.0270$ $-217.138\pm 0.038$ $-317.283\pm 0.038$ $-204.905\pm
0.450$ $-304.276\pm 0.461$ $-212.357\pm 0.013$ $-310.692\pm 0.015$ 0 HD56380 ¿
4 162 $18.7261\pm 0.2264$ $48.032\pm 0.304$ $113.332\pm 0.388$ $66.521\pm
2.491$ $105.182\pm 2.474$ $57.329\pm 0.080$ $104.799\pm 0.083$ 1 HD61383 ¿ 4
136 $18.8219\pm 0.0241$ $226.754\pm 0.034$ $-126.880\pm 0.026$ $228.806\pm
0.875$ $-122.982\pm 0.509$ $230.681\pm 0.025$ $-122.299\pm 0.015$ 1 HD61986 ¿
4 5.7 $32.9777\pm 0.0239$ $-148.238\pm 0.034$ $60.209\pm 0.028$ $-147.092\pm
0.945$ $59.709\pm 0.581$ $-148.613\pm 0.028$ $59.841\pm 0.014$ 0 HD62364 ¿ 4
16 $18.8811\pm 0.0229$ $-123.632\pm 0.045$ $-8.469\pm 0.039$ $-124.392\pm
0.536$ $-9.721\pm 0.541$ $-123.989\pm 0.018$ $-9.190\pm 0.017$ 1 HD63454 ¿ 4
2.0 $23.3044\pm 0.0283$ $114.008\pm 0.043$ $-72.063\pm 0.037$ $112.003\pm
1.660$ $-73.320\pm 1.260$ $114.225\pm 0.059$ $-72.085\pm 0.044$ 2 HD65277 ¿ 4
5.0 $56.6412\pm 0.0254$ $-157.142\pm 0.032$ $7.580\pm 0.022$ $-155.772\pm
1.537$ $3.088\pm 1.089$ $-158.025\pm 0.043$ $6.923\pm 0.032$ $1^{*}$ HD67200
2.2 0.1 $17.6470\pm 0.0197$ $-88.625\pm 0.028$ $-39.919\pm 0.024$ $-89.442\pm
0.818$ $-39.482\pm 0.872$ $-88.698\pm 0.028$ $-39.832\pm 0.025$ $1^{*}$
HD68161 ¿ 4 152 $3.7118\pm 0.0994$ $-9.131\pm 0.143$ $-1.733\pm 0.154$
$-9.992\pm 0.443$ $-1.443\pm 0.379$ $-9.854\pm 0.014$ $-1.243\pm 0.013$ 0
HD72659 ¿ 4 11 $19.2582\pm 0.0271$ $-112.313\pm 0.036$ $-96.386\pm 0.024$
$-112.566\pm 0.689$ $-98.187\pm 0.601$ $-112.625\pm 0.024$ $-97.048\pm 0.016$
2 HD73256 ¿ 4 14 $27.2441\pm 0.0217$ $-182.193\pm 0.024$ $67.373\pm 0.029$
$-180.349\pm 0.430$ $66.238\pm 0.542$ $-181.090\pm 0.013$ $67.182\pm 0.019$ 2
HD74957 ¿ 4 27 $20.5730\pm 0.0153$ $64.486\pm 0.025$ $78.146\pm 0.022$
$59.966\pm 0.706$ $76.040\pm 0.669$ $62.862\pm 0.023$ $77.328\pm 0.022$
$1^{*}$ HD75302 ¿ 4 5.7 $34.6094\pm 0.0239$ $27.283\pm 0.029$ $112.918\pm
0.034$ $27.126\pm 0.665$ $112.245\pm 0.590$ $27.068\pm 0.021$ $112.434\pm
0.020$ 1 HD78612 ¿ 4 101 $24.4502\pm 0.0210$ $-368.061\pm 0.028$ $-108.564\pm
0.021$ $-355.978\pm 0.782$ $-108.083\pm 0.621$ $-362.803\pm 0.024$
$-109.072\pm 0.020$ 1 HD85390 2.4 0.1 $65.5889\pm 0.0342$ $-415.507\pm 0.053$
$-213.991\pm 0.032$ $-415.899\pm 0.630$ $-214.685\pm 0.548$ $-415.721\pm
0.019$ $-213.898\pm 0.014$ 2 HD88072 2.4 2.2 $29.9081\pm 0.0377$ $-262.971\pm
0.080$ $-3.649\pm 0.093$ $-263.271\pm 0.511$ $-3.995\pm 0.392$ $-263.333\pm
0.018$ $-3.496\pm 0.014$ $1^{*}$ HD88218 ¿ 4 30 $31.5137\pm 0.0307$
$-445.632\pm 0.036$ $18.774\pm 0.040$ $-443.157\pm 0.447$ $16.019\pm 0.521$
$-444.675\pm 0.014$ $16.690\pm 0.016$ $1^{*}$ HD89839 3.3 2.4 $21.9392\pm
0.0275$ $-39.173\pm 0.037$ $-120.068\pm 0.031$ $-38.414\pm 1.088$ $-119.640\pm
0.458$ $-39.236\pm 0.033$ $-120.267\pm 0.018$ 1 HD93351 ¿ 4 10 $17.9129\pm
0.0168$ $88.176\pm 0.021$ $-142.442\pm 0.021$ $87.116\pm 1.324$ $-143.170\pm
0.942$ $87.655\pm 0.045$ $-142.596\pm 0.029$ 2 HD96116 ¿ 4 128 $17.5165\pm
0.0164$ $18.249\pm 0.022$ $-39.264\pm 0.019$ $30.843\pm 0.823$ $-35.226\pm
0.686$ $23.825\pm 0.026$ $-38.921\pm 0.025$ 1 HD97037 ¿ 4 15 $30.8043\pm
0.0212$ $-238.340\pm 0.039$ $-173.313\pm 0.025$ $-240.783\pm 0.558$
$-171.223\pm 0.559$ $-239.437\pm 0.020$ $-172.792\pm 0.017$ $1^{*}$ HD100777 ¿
4 7.8 $20.1590\pm 0.0285$ $-11.535\pm 0.038$ $35.586\pm 0.031$ $-11.575\pm
0.990$ $34.643\pm 0.852$ $-11.268\pm 0.033$ $35.034\pm 0.030$ 1 HD101198 ¿ 4
42 $37.2450\pm 0.0730$ $91.849\pm 0.104$ $125.335\pm 0.069$ $99.625\pm 0.453$
$125.765\pm 0.337$ $95.408\pm 0.018$ $126.203\pm 0.012$ 1 HD103743 2.2 0.1
$28.2336\pm 0.0231$ $-171.869\pm 0.038$ $-8.144\pm 0.026$ $-171.494\pm 7.626$
$-11.607\pm 4.054$ $-171.894\pm 0.382$ $-8.165\pm 0.241$ 0 HD104731 ¿ 4 33
$40.4345\pm 0.0884$ $318.554\pm 0.079$ $-111.120\pm 0.076$ $323.541\pm 0.384$
$-111.825\pm 0.371$ $321.144\pm 0.012$ $-111.265\pm 0.011$ 0 HD106906 3.5 9.2
$9.7673\pm 0.0185$ $-39.066\pm 0.020$ $-12.698\pm 0.022$ $-38.695\pm 0.617$
$-12.303\pm 0.651$ $-39.222\pm 0.019$ $-12.684\pm 0.021$ 2 HD107094 ¿ 4 19
$18.6573\pm 0.0234$ $-3.315\pm 0.025$ $-45.172\pm 0.022$ $-8.639\pm 0.741$
$-44.534\pm 0.643$ $-2.702\pm 0.027$ $-46.030\pm 0.022$ 1 HD108063 2.0 0.1
$19.0734\pm 0.0231$ $-135.319\pm 0.027$ $-22.538\pm 0.018$ $-135.004\pm 0.451$
$-22.583\pm 0.432$ $-135.170\pm 0.014$ $-22.539\pm 0.014$ $1^{*}$ HD108202 2.3
0.4 $25.8379\pm 0.0177$ $-309.967\pm 0.032$ $-77.177\pm 0.022$ $-311.265\pm
1.621$ $-77.031\pm 1.142$ $-309.702\pm 0.061$ $-77.415\pm 0.045$ 1 HD110537 ¿
4 4.3 $21.2496\pm 0.1143$ $-0.716\pm 0.182$ $-382.755\pm 0.176$ $0.561\pm
0.896$ $-383.939\pm 0.940$ $-1.046\pm 0.028$ $-382.604\pm 0.028$ $1^{*}$
HD111031 ¿ 4 39 $32.0310\pm 0.0219$ $-279.627\pm 0.034$ $46.791\pm 0.026$
$-282.073\pm 0.633$ $54.801\pm 0.454$ $-281.564\pm 0.022$ $49.571\pm 0.016$ 1
HD111232 ¿ 4 5.5 $24.4620\pm 0.0455$ $108.284\pm 0.077$ $-50.040\pm 0.081$
$108.246\pm 0.657$ $-49.514\pm 0.569$ $108.551\pm 0.025$ $-49.692\pm 0.021$ 2
HD111998 2.4 1.8 $19.7872\pm 0.0205$ $-191.118\pm 0.019$ $-65.020\pm 0.021$
$-190.718\pm 0.513$ $-65.308\pm 0.649$ $-191.179\pm 0.017$ $-65.216\pm 0.021$
1 HD114174 ¿ 4 37 $37.8677\pm 0.0243$ $85.533\pm 0.037$ $-680.324\pm 0.037$
$84.368\pm 0.759$ $-670.201\pm 0.603$ $84.993\pm 0.024$ $-676.775\pm 0.018$
$1^{*}$ HD114330 2.0 0.1 $11.1834\pm 0.4110$ $-35.252\pm 0.752$ $-33.302\pm
0.552$ $-35.625\pm 0.990$ $-32.322\pm 0.829$ $-36.673\pm 0.049$ $-32.368\pm
0.038$ 0 HD114783 2.9 1.1 $47.5529\pm 0.0291$ $-138.362\pm 0.047$ $10.284\pm
0.030$ $-138.541\pm 0.817$ $9.834\pm 0.851$ $-138.488\pm 0.028$ $10.508\pm
0.025$ 2 HD125276 ¿ 4 11 $55.5900\pm 0.0531$ $-359.037\pm 0.062$ $364.426\pm
0.056$ $-356.395\pm 0.887$ $366.796\pm 0.737$ $-357.805\pm 0.026$ $365.366\pm
0.019$ 0 HD128571 ¿ 4 6.1 $17.0083\pm 0.0184$ $-71.750\pm 0.017$ $19.160\pm
0.025$ $-71.718\pm 0.503$ $19.211\pm 0.687$ $-71.476\pm 0.016$ $18.924\pm
0.021$ $1^{*}$

Notes: a: Significance of the PMa. b: Gaia DR3. $\mu_{Hip}$ corresponds to the
proper motion obtained by Hipparcos. ∗: Orbital parameters and mass of the
companion poorly constrained. $\mu_{EDR3}$ correspond to the proper motion
obtained by Gaia EDR3. $\mu_{Hip-EDR3}$ correspond to the proper motion
obtained by the Hipparcos-Gaia EDR3 positional difference.

Table 6: Table A.1 continued.

Star $\sigma$ PMaa $M_{b}$ at 10au Parallaxb $\mu_{Hip}^{\alpha}$
$\mu_{Hip}^{\delta}$ $\mu_{EDR3}^{\alpha}$ $\mu_{EDR3}^{\delta}$ $\mu_{Hip-
EDR3}^{\alpha}$ $\mu_{Hip-EDR3}^{\delta}$ No. of ($M_{Jup}$) (mas) (mas/yr)
(mas/yr) (mas/yr) (mas/yr) (mas/yr) (mas/yr) companion(s) HD129191 ¿ 4 11
$18.4622\pm 0.0242$ $26.520\pm 0.042$ $-152.832\pm 0.035$ $26.278\pm 1.394$
$-152.293\pm 1.540$ $26.058\pm 0.039$ $-152.433\pm 0.038$ $1^{*}$ HD131664 ¿ 4
99 $19.1360\pm 0.0829$ $8.008\pm 0.105$ $22.284\pm 0.126$ $14.979\pm 0.710$
$28.685\pm 0.740$ $11.370\pm 0.022$ $25.899\pm 0.023$ 1 HD131977 ¿ 4 3.7
$169.8843\pm 0.0653$ $1031.472\pm 0.093$ $-1723.619\pm 0.075$ $1035.702\pm
1.343$ $-1725.446\pm 1.007$ $1032.968\pm 0.051$ $-1724.781\pm 0.033$ 0
HD135625 2.0 0.1 $18.9018\pm 0.0191$ $72.385\pm 0.026$ $-16.574\pm 0.027$
$72.305\pm 0.974$ $-17.487\pm 0.728$ $72.283\pm 0.023$ $-16.433\pm 0.016$ 1
HD140901 2.0 0.1 $26.2048\pm 0.0179$ $-4.040\pm 0.019$ $-176.046\pm 0.025$
$-3.664\pm 0.508$ $-176.463\pm 0.808$ $-4.053\pm 0.015$ $-176.132\pm 0.022$ 1
HD142070 ¿ 4 81 $5.5771\pm 0.0307$ $-14.315\pm 0.043$ $-24.244\pm 0.033$
$-15.266\pm 1.073$ $-25.030\pm 1.016$ $-13.895\pm 0.031$ $-23.580\pm 0.023$ 0
HD143361 3.0 3.0 $14.5456\pm 0.0202$ $-156.561\pm 0.026$ $-120.231\pm 0.019$
$-157.333\pm 1.362$ $-119.387\pm 1.039$ $-156.630\pm 0.040$ $-120.369\pm
0.027$ 2 HD150139 2.3 0.1 $20.5407\pm 0.0251$ $139.201\pm 0.044$ $-143.615\pm
0.037$ $138.903\pm 0.807$ $-142.494\pm 0.594$ $139.101\pm 0.031$ $-143.648\pm
0.023$ $1^{*}$ HD156079 ¿ 4 4.4 $17.5648\pm 0.0239$ $-69.179\pm 0.031$
$-165.076\pm 0.023$ $-69.736\pm 0.909$ $-164.554\pm 0.561$ $-68.923\pm 0.028$
$-165.238\pm 0.015$ 0 HD156274 ¿ 4 9.9 $113.7513\pm 0.0725$ $1029.609\pm
0.117$ $106.935\pm 0.101$ $1036.484\pm 1.039$ $109.036\pm 0.520$ $1033.069\pm
0.039$ $107.932\pm 0.021$ $1^{*}$ HD165131 ¿ 4 15 $17.2691\pm 0.0317$
$-61.918\pm 0.043$ $-124.587\pm 0.030$ $-59.570\pm 1.126$ $-125.994\pm 0.717$
$-62.476\pm 0.036$ $-124.074\pm 0.023$ 1 HD166724 3.2 1.6 $37.4641\pm 0.0253$
$-43.140\pm 0.040$ $72.728\pm 0.037$ $-43.593\pm 0.393$ $73.244\pm 0.361$
$-43.414\pm 0.013$ $72.873\pm 0.012$ $1^{*}$ HD167677 3.2 3.0 $16.7894\pm
0.0166$ $33.127\pm 0.020$ $12.219\pm 0.017$ $33.530\pm 1.050$ $12.868\pm
0.828$ $33.235\pm 0.035$ $12.392\pm 0.027$ 1 HD169830 2.0 0.1 $27.1461\pm
0.1469$ $-0.341\pm 0.221$ $16.103\pm 0.158$ $-0.721\pm 0.881$ $15.434\pm
0.537$ $0.064\pm 0.023$ $16.374\pm 0.014$ 2 HD171587 2.0 0.1 $28.5668\pm
0.0217$ $126.024\pm 0.029$ $-193.681\pm 0.025$ $126.315\pm 0.938$ $-194.794\pm
0.733$ $125.979\pm 0.034$ $-193.715\pm 0.023$ 0 HD174429 3.1 2.1 $21.1621\pm
0.0223$ $16.272\pm 0.025$ $-85.519\pm 0.024$ $17.353\pm 1.217$ $-83.766\pm
0.830$ $16.081\pm 0.035$ $-85.590\pm 0.025$ 0 HD179346 ¿ 4 53 $18.0318\pm
0.0942$ $-7.800\pm 0.126$ $-53.982\pm 0.116$ $-9.922\pm 0.877$ $-52.875\pm
0.720$ $-4.943\pm 0.030$ $-53.287\pm 0.021$ 0 HD181433 ¿ 4 2.1 $37.0511\pm
0.0211$ $-230.723\pm 0.018$ $235.806\pm 0.025$ $-230.886\pm 0.841$ $235.382\pm
0.996$ $-230.958\pm 0.030$ $235.640\pm 0.029$ 3 HD183414 2.2 0.2 $36.1158\pm
0.0264$ $1.440\pm 0.037$ $-174.330\pm 0.042$ $2.701\pm 0.701$ $-174.656\pm
0.464$ $1.268\pm 0.023$ $-174.389\pm 0.015$ 0 HD185283 2.3 0.8 $31.9046\pm
0.0217$ $-163.887\pm 0.022$ $-53.650\pm 0.017$ $-162.481\pm 1.218$ $-53.718\pm
1.109$ $-163.982\pm 0.033$ $-53.707\pm 0.025$ 1 HD191797 ¿ 4 58 $22.7336\pm
0.0272$ $-8.443\pm 0.038$ $51.173\pm 0.033$ $-12.621\pm 2.324$ $54.340\pm
1.456$ $-5.479\pm 0.051$ $48.047\pm 0.033$ 1 HD195145 ¿ 4 3.1 $16.6547\pm
0.0305$ $4.132\pm 0.052$ $-4.200\pm 0.050$ $1.989\pm 0.769$ $-4.698\pm 0.481$
$4.050\pm 0.021$ $-4.430\pm 0.012$ 0 HD195564 ¿ 4 21 $40.4241\pm 0.0497$
$309.736\pm 0.068$ $109.910\pm 0.051$ $307.694\pm 0.651$ $107.216\pm 0.518$
$308.366\pm 0.021$ $108.386\pm 0.012$ 1 HD196050 ¿ 4 6.1 $22.2309\pm 0.0234$
$-219.316\pm 0.041$ $-179.612\pm 0.039$ $-219.148\pm 0.675$ $-180.370\pm
0.547$ $-219.413\pm 0.026$ $-179.984\pm 0.023$ 1 HD196385 ¿ 4 24 $20.9103\pm
0.0239$ $73.036\pm 0.031$ $-16.412\pm 0.024$ $73.293\pm 0.772$ $-15.056\pm
0.445$ $73.633\pm 0.022$ $-15.383\pm 0.012$ $1^{*}$ HD202206 3.2 2.2
$22.2420\pm 0.0740$ $352.541\pm 0.107$ $-31.590\pm 0.064$ $350.543\pm 0.977$
$-32.314\pm 0.509$ $352.754\pm 0.031$ $-31.388\pm 0.022$ 2 HD204313 ¿ 4 11
$20.7705\pm 0.0343$ $42.751\pm 0.054$ $-270.443\pm 0.034$ $42.551\pm 0.747$
$-271.125\pm 0.483$ $42.234\pm 0.027$ $-270.727\pm 0.018$ 3 HD204961 ¿ 4 0.7
$201.3252\pm 0.0237$ $-45.917\pm 0.032$ $-816.875\pm 0.025$ $-45.677\pm 1.028$
$-817.318\pm 0.656$ $-46.049\pm 0.030$ $-816.302\pm 0.025$ 1 HD207700 ¿ 4 11
$26.0873\pm 0.0172$ $-196.563\pm 0.025$ $-437.609\pm 0.030$ $-195.605\pm
0.674$ $-438.053\pm 0.573$ $-195.753\pm 0.019$ $-437.915\pm 0.018$ 1 HD207869
3.1 1.6 $19.5789\pm 0.0118$ $-156.358\pm 0.014$ $-248.956\pm 0.017$
$-157.311\pm 0.951$ $-249.431\pm 0.807$ $-156.228\pm 0.032$ $-248.970\pm
0.030$ 0 HD210797 ¿ 4 13 $15.4128\pm 0.0210$ $258.946\pm 0.027$ $-122.008\pm
0.024$ $258.354\pm 1.303$ $-118.366\pm 1.076$ $258.487\pm 0.037$ $-121.500\pm
0.036$ $1^{*}$ HD212036 ¿ 4 69 $19.1167\pm 0.0803$ $21.555\pm 0.105$
$-234.978\pm 0.116$ $29.075\pm 1.182$ $-224.715\pm 1.505$ $22.904\pm 0.036$
$-231.443\pm 0.033$ 1 HD215257 ¿ 4 6.0 $23.6251\pm 0.0251$ $150.456\pm 0.035$
$333.617\pm 0.033$ $150.934\pm 0.889$ $331.705\pm 0.653$ $150.716\pm 0.026$
$333.292\pm 0.020$ $1^{*}$ HD215497 2.0 0.1 $24.6569\pm 0.0152$ $-54.666\pm
0.016$ $-61.147\pm 0.019$ $-53.881\pm 0.939$ $-60.575\pm 0.933$ $-54.665\pm
0.031$ $-61.222\pm 0.033$ 2 HD216437 2.8 1.7 $26.9269\pm 0.0154$ $52.792\pm
0.025$ $215.141\pm 0.027$ $51.858\pm 0.767$ $214.317\pm 0.865$ $52.863\pm
0.026$ $214.857\pm 0.028$ 1 HD218396 2.1 3.5 $28.2075\pm 0.0230$ $-179.085\pm
0.037$ $-6.549\pm 0.023$ $-196.276\pm 10.121$ $-9.146\pm 5.480$ $-179.244\pm
0.344$ $-6.934\pm 0.226$ 0 HD219834 ¿ 4 0.1 $173.5740\pm 0.0170$ $-135.692\pm
0.015$ $-719.178\pm 0.023$ $-137.136\pm 0.575$ $-713.779\pm 0.834$
$-136.426\pm 0.018$ $-715.027\pm 0.028$ 0 HD221146 ¿ 4 29 $27.5348\pm 0.0247$
$-10.513\pm 0.033$ $-24.287\pm 0.024$ $-11.763\pm 1.093$ $-28.467\pm 0.843$
$-11.268\pm 0.030$ $-25.794\pm 0.022$ 1 HD221420 ¿ 4 16.3 $32.1023\pm 0.0325$
$16.306\pm 0.056$ $0.736\pm 0.058$ $15.885\pm 0.437$ $1.647\pm 0.385$
$14.973\pm 0.014$ $0.455\pm 0.012$ 1 HD221638 ¿ 4 40 $19.1599\pm 0.0269$
$56.624\pm 0.041$ $72.839\pm 0.042$ $52.210\pm 0.623$ $77.925\pm 0.609$
$55.789\pm 0.019$ $74.527\pm 0.019$ 1 HD222237 ¿ 4 3.7 $87.3724\pm 0.0187$
$143.736\pm 0.030$ $-736.907\pm 0.032$ $141.756\pm 0.524$ $-736.300\pm 0.507$
$142.849\pm 0.018$ $-736.651\pm 0.017$ $1^{*}$ HD223238 2.5 0.1 $17.8497\pm
0.0171$ $-1.916\pm 0.016$ $-202.994\pm 0.018$ $-2.808\pm 1.100$ $-202.424\pm
1.016$ $-1.814\pm 0.037$ $-203.140\pm 0.035$ 0 HIP9603 ¿ 4 109 $18.8225\pm
0.0866$ $-111.175\pm 0.143$ $257.497\pm 0.147$ $-110.184\pm 0.933$ $245.727\pm
0.990$ $-119.933\pm 0.033$ $255.468\pm 0.033$ 1 HIP10337 ¿ 4 1.9 $42.1225\pm
0.0167$ $375.454\pm 0.019$ $55.718\pm 0.020$ $377.499\pm 1.622$ $55.290\pm
1.164$ $375.597\pm 0.051$ $55.414\pm 0.040$ 1 HIP39470 ¿ 4 91 $22.6284\pm
0.0325$ $16.231\pm 0.044$ $-82.449\pm 0.047$ $9.228\pm 1.155$ $-82.499\pm
1.131$ $18.669\pm 0.039$ $-76.357\pm 0.041$ 1 HIP54597 2.3 0.1 $19.3611\pm
0.0183$ $40.676\pm 0.019$ $53.190\pm 0.025$ $41.256\pm 0.462$ $54.595\pm
0.690$ $40.793\pm 0.016$ $53.317\pm 0.022$ 1 HIP70849 ¿ 4 4.6 $41.4618\pm
0.0175$ $-44.051\pm 0.023$ $-201.577\pm 0.028$ $-47.003\pm 2.099$ $-203.284\pm
1.890$ $-44.428\pm 0.060$ $-202.047\pm 0.044$ 1 HIP113201 ¿ 4 132 $68.7356\pm
0.0272$ $341.147\pm 0.037$ $-219.108\pm 0.034$ $343.238\pm 2.100$ $-218.067\pm
3.265$ $341.100\pm 0.055$ $-219.083\pm 0.063$ 1

Table 7: Characteristics of the 53 stars with characterized companions.

Name HIP Mass1 Distance1 Spectral2 V2 log$R^{\prime}_{\rm HK}$ Vsin(I) Age
$\chi^{2}$ 22 (M☉) (pc) type (mag) (km/s) (Gyr) GJ660.1 84212 $0.43\pm 0.01$
$23.10\pm 0.21$ M1V 11.62 -5.307 - ¿ 223 69 GJ680 86057 $0.47\pm 0.01$
$9.676\pm 0.003$ M3V 10.13 -5.167 3.012 $8.1\pm 4.2^{24}$ 8601 HD1388 1444
$1.18\pm 0.06$ $26.90\pm 0.02$ G0V 6.50 -4.986 3.113 $4.6\pm 1.7^{25}$ 4141
HD16160 12114 $0.80\pm 0.04$ $7.23\pm 0.02$ K3V 5.603 -4.873 4.713 $4.7\pm
3.9^{13}$ 6078 HD16548 12350 $1.31\pm 0.07$ $52.81\pm 0.07$ G5V 6.98 -5.133
5.213 $4.9\pm 0.3^{25}$ 11460 HD16905 12436 $0.85\pm 0.04$ $39.80\pm 0.02$ K3V
9.46 -4.723 1.514 $6.1\pm 4.7^{25}$ 184 HD21175 15799 $0.86\pm 0.04$ $17.68\pm
0.01$ K0V 6.90 -4.746 1.814 $3.7_{-1.7}^{+3.3}$ 6 69960 HD28254 20606 $1.10\pm
0.05$ $55.16\pm 0.08$ G5V 7.68 -5.173 2.35 $6.0\pm 1.3^{25}$ 10.3 HD42659
29365 $2.20\pm 0.11$ $128.5\pm 0.6$ A3 6.75 - 19.015 - 15 HD44219 30114
$1.20\pm 0.06$ $52.84\pm 0.06$ G3V 7.70 -5.043 2.213 $8.4\pm 0.9^{25}$ 23
HD46569 31079 $1.50\pm 0.07$ $36.87\pm 0.07$ F8V 5.57 -4.936 5.916
$7.6^{+3.2}_{-3.0}$6 6232 HD56380 34961 $0.98\pm 0.05$ $53.1\pm 0.3$ G8V 9.20
-5.003 0.514 $12.2\pm 1.1^{25}$ 3697 HD61383 37233 $1.17\pm 0.06$ $53.05\pm
0.08$ G3V 7.57 -5.023 2.713 $11.4\pm 0.2$13 36110 HD62364 36941 $1.30\pm 0.06$
$52.95\pm 0.08$ F7V 7.31 -4.953 3.613 $3.9\pm 0.7^{25}$ 364 HD73256 42214
$1.00\pm 0.05$ $36.68\pm 0.04$ G8IV 8.06 -4.465 3.5013 $2.2\pm 2.1^{25}$ 2040
HD75302 43297 $1.06\pm 0.05$ $30.29\pm 0.03$ G5V 7.464 -4.626 0.4617
$2.1_{-1.1}^{+2.6}$ 6 299 HD78612 44896 $1.20\pm 0.06$ $40.85\pm 0.04$ G3V
7.15 -4.983 1.613 $10.2\pm 0.8^{25}$ 20060 HD89839 50653 $1.30\pm 0.06$
$50.10\pm 0.07$ F7V 7.64 -4.943 4.214 $1.6\pm 0.9^{25}$ 56 HD93351 52720
$0.98\pm 0.05$ $55.72\pm 0.05$ G6V 9.14 -4.983 - $4.3\pm 3.9$13 143 HD96116
54102 $1.08\pm 0.05$ $57.05\pm 0.06$ G3V 8.69 -4.693 1.713 $2.1\pm 1.8^{25}$
28020 HD100777 56572 $1.08\pm 0.05$ $49.52\pm 0.08$ G8V 8.42 -5.093 1.813
$5.7\pm 3.3^{25}$ 173 HD101198 56802 $1.33\pm 0.07$ $26.82\pm 0.03$ F6.5V 5.48
-4.876 518 $6.2^{+3.2}_{-2.6}$6 1529 HD107094 60051 $0.98\pm 0.05$ $53.54\pm
0.07$ G5V 9.13 -4.833 1.813 $8.6\pm 4.0^{25}$ 1225 HD108202 60648 $0.74\pm
0.04$ $38.65\pm 0.03$ K4/5V 10.22 -4.503 - $6.5\pm 4.0^{28}$ 28 HD111031 62345
$1.17\pm 0.06$ $31.19\pm 0.02$ G5V 6.87 -5.093 1.913 $4.1\pm 1.6^{25}$ 8191
HD111998 62875 $1.40\pm 0.07$ $33.39\pm 0.05$ F6V 6.11 -4.586 20.018
$1.7_{-0.9}^{+3.4}$ 6 27 HD114783 64457 $0.90\pm 0.04$ $21.01\pm 0.02$ K1V
7.55 -4.973 2.013 $6.0\pm 4.9^{25}$ 33 HD131664 73408 $1.16\pm 0.06$ $52.2\pm
0.3$ G3V 8.13 -4.855 3.013 $1.2\pm 1.0^{25}$ 1823 HD135625 74856 $1.28\pm
0.06$ $56.58\pm 0.07$ G3IV/V 7.71 -4.996 4.513 $4.4\pm 0.9^{25}$ 7 HD140901
77358 $1.06\pm 0.05$ $15.24\pm 0.01$ G7IV 6.01 -4.796 2.013 $3.2\pm 2.8^{25}$
18 HD143361 78521 $1.06\pm 0.05$ $68.62\pm 0.10$ G6V 9.16 -5.015 0.685 $6.3\pm
3.7^{29}$ 21 HD165131 88595 $1.10\pm 0.06$ $57.8\pm 0.1$ G3/5V 8.41 -4.983
2.319 $2.7\pm 2.0^{25}$ 264 HD167677 89583 $1.00\pm 0.05$ $54.59\pm 0.07$ G5V
8.92 -4.983 0.719 $11.5\pm 1.7^{25}$ 22 HD169830 90485 $1.40\pm 0.07$ $36.8\pm
0.2$ F7V 5.90 -4.955 3.413 $2.2\pm 0.2^{25}$ 12 HD179346 94370 $1.16\pm 0.06$
$55.4\pm 0.3$ G0V 8.05 -4.843 3.813 $0.79\pm 0.68^{25}$ 496 HD185283 96861
$0.80\pm 0.04$ $31.32\pm 0.02$ K3V 8.95 -4.943 0.914 $6.0\pm 4.7^{25}$ 9

Notes: 1Kervella et al. (2022). 2Trifonov et al. (2020). 3Gomes da Silva et
al. (2021). 4Reiners & Zechmeister (2020). 5Liebing et al. (2021). 6Stanford-
Moore et al. (2020). 7Astudillo-Defru et al. (2017). 8Yee et al. (2017).
9Gondoin (2020). 10Boro Saikia et al. (2018). 11Hojjatpanah et al. (2020).
12Stelzer et al. (2013). 13Llorente de Andrés et al. (2021). 14Hojjatpanah et
al. (2020). 15Ghazaryan et al. (2019). 16Ammler-von Eiff & Reiners (2012).
17Rice & Brewer (2020). 18Borgniet et al. (2017). 19Costa Silva et al. (2020).
20Hojjatpanah et al. (2019). 21Sousa et al. (2018). 22Brandt (2021).
23Schneider et al. (2011). 24Maldonado et al. (2020). 25Delgado Mena et al.
(2019). 26Ségransan et al. (2011). 27Biller et al. (2022). 28Grieves et al.
(2018). 29Adibekyan et al. (2021).

Table 8: Table A.3 continued.

Name HIP Mass1 Distance1 Spectral2 V2 log$R^{\prime}_{\rm HK}$ Vsin(I) Age
$\chi^{2}$ 22 (M☉) (pc) type (mag) (km/s) (Gyr) HD191797 99695 $0.85\pm 0.04$
$43.94\pm 0.06$ K0V 9.50 -4.373 3.613 $4.6\pm 4.3^{25}$ 6461 HD195564 101345
$1.24\pm 0.06$ $24.71\pm 0.04$ G2.5IV 5.65 -5.183 1.913 $7.4\pm 0.3^{25}$ 1054
HD196050 101806 $1.27\pm 0.06$ $50.49\pm 0.05$ G3V 7.49 -4.985 3.313 $4.3\pm
0.9^{25}$ 655 HD204961 106440 $0.45\pm 0.01$ $4.966\pm 0.001$ M2/3V 8.67
-5.187 2.120 $8.1\pm 4.2^{24}$ 278 HD207700 108158 $1.16\pm 0.06$ $38.31\pm
0.03$ G4V 7.43 -5.105 1.213 $9.9\pm 1.6^{25}$ 655 HD212036 110440 $1.08\pm
0.05$ $52.2\pm 0.3$ G5V 8.47 -4.866 1.314 $5.7\pm 3.2^{25}$ 894 HD215497
112441 $0.92\pm 0.05$ $40.53\pm 0.02$ K3V 8.95 -5.073 - $5.8\pm 4.9^{29}$ 4
HD216437 113137 $1.22\pm 0.06$ $26.68\pm 0.02$ G1V 6.05 -5.049 3.713 $4.9\pm
1.0$ 13 46 HD221146 115951 $1.24\pm 0.06$ $36.27\pm 0.04$ G1V 6.89 -4.985
2.913 $6.4\pm 1.1^{25}$ 2220 HD221420 116250 $1.34\pm 0.07$ $31.14\pm 0.04$
G1V 6.89 -5.283 0.713 $3.7\pm 0.5^{25}$ 541 HD221638 116350 $1.20\pm 0.06$
$52.15\pm 0.09$ F6V 7.55 -4.863 7.213 $2.2\pm 1.4^{25}$ 1586 HIP9603 9603
$0.60\pm 0.01$ $27.8\pm 0.1$ K7V 11.10 - - - 6339 HIP10337 10337 $0.69\pm
0.01$ $23.725\pm 0.010$ K7V 9.83 -4.4310 3.25 $4.0_{-2.8}^{+9.5}$ 8 62
HIP39470 39470 $0.69\pm 0.01$ $44.16\pm 0.07$ M0 10.83 - - $5.1\pm 4.6^{25}$
10660 HIP54597 54597 $0.80\pm 0.04$ $39.51\pm 0.02$ K5V 9.82 -5.0411 0.514
$4.3\pm 4.0$ 13 9 HIP70849 70849 $0.65\pm 0.01$ $24.10\pm 0.01$ K7V 10.38
-4.4810 0.321 $1-5^{26}$ 119 HIP113201 113201 $0.53\pm 0.01$ $23.5\pm 0.2$ M4V
11.51 -4.427 - $1.2\pm 0.1^{27}$ 4869

##  Appendix B Data considered for orbital fits

Table 9: RV data considered for orbital fits.

Star Instrument $\Delta$T (days) Nobs Reference Star Instrument $\Delta$T
(days) N${}_{o}bs$ Reference GJ660.1 HARPS 3649 59 ESO archive HD140901 HARPS
1293 52 ESO archive GJ680 HARPS 3008 39 ESO archive HD140901 HARPS 1293 52 ESO
archive HD1388 HARPS 5082 212 ESO archive HD140901 AAT 5878 321 Feng et al.
(2022) HD1388 HIRES 8357 53 Rosenthal et al. (2021) HD140901 PFS 3994 70 Feng
et al. (2022) HD16160 HARPS 1776 229 ESO archive HD143361 HARPS 4667 59 ESO
archive HD16160 HIRES 4858 146 Rosenthal et al. (2021) HD143361 CORALIE 2012
45 Jenkins et al. (2017) HD16160 APF 2216 252 Rosenthal et al. (2021) HD143361
MIKE 2155 17 Jenkins et al. (2017) HD16160 LICK 8153 81 Rosenthal et al.
(2021) HD165131 HARPS 5596 69 ESO archive HD16548 HARPS 6333 52 ESO archive
HD167677 HARPS 5205 44 ESO archive HD16548 LICK 1349 9 Fischer et al. (2014)
HD169830 HARPS 1920 86 ESO archive HD16905 HARPS 6263 52 ESO archive HD169830
CORALIE 1506 106 Mayor et al. (2004a)∗ HD21175 HARPS 1147 61 ESO archive
HD169830 HIRES 6959 85 Rosenthal et al. (2021) HD28254 HARPS 6338 72 ESO
archive HD179346 HARPS 5861 44 ESO archive HD42659 HARPS 1535 49 Hartmann &
Hatzes (2015) HD185283 HARPS 4827 78 ESO archive HD44219 HARPS 6353 65 ESO
archive HD191797 HARPS 5523 42 ESO archive HD46569 HARPS 1297 63 ESO archive
HD195564 HARPS 4363 95 ESO archive HD46569 LC 1925 53 Zechmeister et al.
(2013) HD195564 HIRES 7936 56 Rosenthal et al. (2021) HD46569 VLC 2040 54
Zechmeister et al. (2013) HD195564 APF 1856 299 Rosenthal et al. (2021)
HD56380 HARPS 6287 96 ESO archive HD196050 HARPS 6243 56 ESO archive HD61383
HARPS 6293 63 ESO archive HD196050 CORALIE 1256 31 Mayor et al. (2004a)∗
HD62364 HARPS 6233 87 ESO archive HD196050 UCLES 2513 44 Butler et al. (2006)∗
HD73256 HARPS 2986 26 ESO archive HD204961 HARPS 5864 183 ESO archive HD73256
CORALIE 755 38 Udry et al. (2003b)∗ HD204961 UCLES 3519 32 Bailey et al.
(2009)∗ HD73256 HIRES 4700 18 Butler et al. (2017)∗ HD207700 HARPS 3260 36 ESO
archive HD75302 HARPS 2160 35 ESO archive HD212036 HARPS 5152 51 ESO archive
HD75302 ELODIE 3218 26 OHP archive HD215497 HARPS 1842 99 Lo Curto et al.
(2010b) HD75302 SOPHIE 3227 20 OHP archive HD216437 HARPS 5031 100 ESO archive
HD78612 HARPS 3073 31 ESO archive HD216437 CORALIE 1405 21 Mayor et al.
(2004a)∗ HD89839 HARPS 6191 98 ESO archive HD216437 UCLES 2801 39 Butler et
al. (2006)∗ HD93351 HARPS 6537 40 ESO archive HD221146 HARPS 3612 69 ESO
archive HD96116 HARPS 6296 40 ESO archive HD221146 HRS 6957 50 Bowler et al.
(2021) HD100777 HARPS 1231 37 ESO archive HD221420 HARPS 5493 77 ESO archive
HD101198 HARPS 1988 91 Borgniet et al. (2017) HD221420 AAT 6515 88 Feng et al.
(2022) HD107094 HARPS 6566 98 ESO archive HD221420 PFS 3323 38 Feng et al.
(2022) HD108202 HARPS 6088 42 ESO archive HD221638 HARPS 5670 57 ESO archive
HD111031 HARPS 3337 40 ESO archive HIP9603 HARPS 5790 39 ESO archive HD111998
HARPS 2992 150 Borgniet et al. (2017) HIP10337 HARPS 6435 90 ESO archive
HD114783 HARPS 4415 91 ESO archive HIP10337 HIRES 2161 18 Butler et al.
(2017)∗ HD114783 HIRES 7849 157 Rosenthal et al. (2021) HIP39470 HARPS 5554 32
ESO archive HD114783 HRS 826 34 Wittenmyer et al. (2009) HIP54597 HARPS 5836
69 ESO archive HD131664 HARPS 6100 65 ESO archive HIP70849 HARPS 5521 59 ESO
archive HD135625 HARPS 6292 99 ESO archive HIP113201 HARPS 3259 66 ESO archive

Notes: ∗Data retrieved from the DACE archives.

Table 10: Relative astrometry considered for orbital fits.

Companion JD - 2400000 SEP (mas) PA ($\deg$) Instrument Reference GJ680 B
53491.03 $3760\pm 50$ $325.4\pm 0.3$ NACO Ward-Duong et al. (2015) GJ680 B
54235.64 $3940\pm 50$ $323.7\pm 0.3$ NACO Ward-Duong et al. (2015) HD1388 B
57999.50 $1845.9\pm 1.3$ $85.8\pm 0.6$ NESSIa Dalba et al. (2021) HD1388 B
53940.39 $1490\pm 10$ $85.6\pm 1$ NACO This paper HD21175 B 57665.35
$2628.0\pm 2.5$ $122.75\pm 0.08$ SPHERE This paper HD78612 B 53739.29 $613\pm
5$ $272.3\pm 1$ NACO This paper HD93351 B/C 56093.02 $1684\pm 30$ $76.3\pm 1$
NACO This paper HD101198 B 54421.70 $891.2\pm 13.6$ $250.36\pm 1.16$ PUEOb
Ehrenreich et al. (2010) HD101198 B 54948.30 $926.4\pm 6.3$ $251.23\pm 0.55$
NACO Ehrenreich et al. (2010) HD101198 B 54948.30 $927.0\pm 10.6$ $250.93\pm
0.86$ NACO Ehrenreich et al. (2010) HD111031 B 58151.50 $1055.8\pm 1.3$
$121.3\pm 0.6$ NESSI Dalba et al. (2021) HD195564 B 58006.70 $1113.0\pm 1.3$
$49.4\pm 0.6$ NESSI Dalba et al. (2021) HD195564 B 58006.70 $1104.9\pm 1.3$
$49.8\pm 0.6$ NESSI Dalba et al. (2021) HD207700 B 56092.36 $1090\pm 20$
$284.2\pm 1$ NACO This paper HD221146 B 53262.30 $1723.0\pm 5.0$ $28.6\pm 0.1$
NIRC2c Bowler et al. (2021) HD221146 B 53571.14 $1720.0\pm 5.0$ $28.5\pm 0.2$
NIRC2 Bowler et al. (2021) HD221146 B 58041.14 $1623.0\pm 5.0$ $25.10\pm 0.14$
NIRC2 Bowler et al. (2021) HD221146 B 58480.47 $1600.0\pm 5.0$ $24.33\pm 0.12$
NIRC2 Bowler et al. (2021) HD221146 B 58480.47 $1604.0\pm 5.0$ $24.26\pm 0.14$
NIRC2 Bowler et al. (2021) HD221146 B 58676.11 $1592.0\pm 5.0$ $24.4\pm 0.2$
NIRC2 Bowler et al. (2021) HIP113201 B 57649.13 $161.21\pm 0.38$ $182.36\pm
0.13$ SPHERE Bonavita et al. (2022b) HIP113201 B 57676.03 $167.80\pm 0.53$
$180.90\pm 0.53$ SPHERE Bonavita et al. (2022b) HIP113201 B 57709.01
$172.61\pm 1.36$ $177.72\pm 0.13$ SPHERE Bonavita et al. (2022b) HIP113201 B
57906.44 $198.44\pm 1.76$ $162.72\pm 0.51$ SPHERE Bonavita et al. (2022b)
HIP113201 B 58621.39 $285.49\pm 1.29$ $123.59\pm 0.26$ SPHERE Bonavita et al.
(2022b)

Notes: a Scott et al. (2018). b Rigaut et al. (1998). c Service et al. (2016).

##  Appendix C Additional results

Table 11: Summary of posteriors obtained with our MCMC algorithm for known
planets.

Parameter | HD16905 b | HD28254 b | HD44219 b∗ | HD62364 B | HD89839 b | HD100777 b∗ | HD111998 b∗ | HD114783 c | HD140901 b
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
_a_ (au) | $8.8_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ | $2.45_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ | $1.26_{-0.07}^{+0.02}$ | $6.4\pm 0.1$ | $4.9\pm 0.1$ | $1.06_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ | $1.91_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ | $5.0\pm 0.1$ | $11.8_{-2.5}^{+4.1}$
P (days) | $10256_{-522}^{+618}$ | $1333\pm 4$ | $472_{-4}^{+3}$ | $5172\pm 30$ | $3448\pm 26$ | $383\pm 1$ | $810_{-5}^{+6}$ | $4352_{-76}^{+88}$ | $14386_{-4415}^{+8099}$
Ecc | $0.68_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ | $0.95_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ | $0.41_{-0.14}^{+0.12}$ | $0.610_{-0.005}^{+0.004}$ | $0.20\pm 0.02$ | $0.38\pm 0.02$ | $0.13_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$ | $0.05_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ | $0.77_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$
I (°) |  $43\pm 3$ or $136\pm 3$ |  $21_{-11}^{+38}$ or $162_{-27}^{+7}$ | fix to 90 |  $42\pm 2$ or $131\pm 2$ |  $53_{-9}^{+16}$ or $129_{-15}^{+9}$ | fix to 90 | fix to 90 |  $21_{-4}^{+7}$ or $159_{-6}^{+4}$ |  $40_{-11}^{+18}$ or $138_{-21}^{+12}$
Mass (MJup) | $11.3_{-0.7}^{+0.6}$ | $3.8_{-2.2}^{+3.0}$ |  $0.58_{-0.08}^{+0.09}$ (¡ 11.0) | $19_{-1}^{+2}$ | $5.2\pm 0.8$ |  $1.23\pm 0.05$ (¡ 18.0) |  $4.8\pm 0.2$ (¡ 12.8) | $1.9_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ | $1.8\pm 0.5$
$\Omega$ (°) |  $353_{-8}^{+4}$ or $125\pm 5$ |  $248_{-33}^{+53}$ or $163_{-36}^{+38}$ | fix to 0 |  $136\pm 3$ or $273\pm 5$ |  $195_{-10}^{+9}$ or $175\pm 9$ | fix to 0 | fix to 0 |  $307_{-11}^{+14}$ or $355_{-9}^{+11}$ |  $153_{-16}^{+14}$ or $81_{-17}^{+22}$
$\omega$ (°) | $248\pm 1$ | $289_{-18}^{+20}$ | $145_{-34}^{+23}$ | $0\pm 1$ | $171_{-5}^{+4}$ | $204_{-3}^{+4}$ | $190_{-17}^{+22}$ | $153_{-48}^{+46}$ | $299_{-9}^{+8}$
$P_{time}$ | $1856\pm 8$ | $246_{-10}^{+9}$ | $147_{-27}^{+42}$ | $3570\pm 5$ | $1788_{-47}^{+45}$ | $224\pm 3$ | $521_{-36}^{+45}$ | $1618_{-555}^{+583}$ | $1182_{-46}^{+47}$
$\sqrt{ecc}cos(\omega)$ | $-0.31\pm 0.02$ | $0.32_{-0.29}^{+0.30}$ | $-0.33_{-0.17}^{+0.24}$ | $0.778\pm 0.003$ | $-0.44_{-0.3}^{+0.2}$ | $-0.56\pm 0.02$ | $-0.34_{-0.07}^{+0.09}$ | $-0.17_{-0.10}^{+0.17}$ | $0.42_{-0.13}^{+0.12}$
$\sqrt{ecc}sin(\omega)$ | $-0.766\pm 0.007$ | $-0.90_{-0.06}^{+0.14}$ | $0.38_{-0.26}^{+0.16}$ | $0.01^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ | $0.07_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ | $-0.25_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ | $-0.06_{-0.11}^{+0.09}$ | $0.08_{-0.13}^{+0.12}$ | $-0.76_{-0.06}^{+0.07}$
Jitter (m/s) | $2.9_{-0.3}^{+0.5}$ | $2.9_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ | $9.7_{-0.9}^{+1.0}$ | $4.0_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ | $4.3\pm 0.4$ | $2.4\pm 0.4$ | $18.7\pm 1.2$ | $3.2_{-0.2}^{+0.1}$ | $9.2\pm 0.3$
rms (m/s) | $3.6_{-0.2}^{+0.8}$ | $5.8_{-0.1}^{+0.3}$ | $10.8\pm 0.3$ | $4.9_{-0.2}^{+0.5}$ | $5.7_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ | $2.6\pm 0.02$ | $19.4_{-0.3}^{+0.6}$ | $3.9\pm 0.1$ | $9.4_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$
| H03 = $64804\pm 2$ | H03 = $-9324\pm 1$ | H03 = $-24155_{-2}^{+1}$ | H03 = $35510\pm 1$ | H03 = $31758\pm 1$ | H03 = $1250\pm 1$ | H03 = $-3\pm 3$ | H03 = $0\pm 1$ | H03 = $-6701\pm 2$
Instrumental | H15 = $64817\pm 1$ | H15 = $-9308_{-1}^{+2}$ | H15 = $-24211_{-5}^{+6}$ | H15 = $35525\pm 2$ | H15 = $31770_{-1}^{+2}$ |  |  | H15 = $0_{-1}^{+2}$ | AAT = $-3\pm 1$
offset (m/s) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HRS = $0\pm 1$ | PFS = $-6\pm 2$
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Hir94 = $0\pm 1$ |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Hir04 = $0\pm 1$ |

Notes: The median and $1\sigma$ confidence interval are given for each
parameter. ∗ corresponds to the solutions found considering only the RV data
points. The reported masses are therefore the minimum masses and the maximum
masses estimated with Gaston, with a confidence index of $3\sigma$, are noted
between parenthesis for these companions.

Table 12: Table C.1 continued.

Parameter | HD143361 b | HD167677 b | HD169830 c | HD196050 b | HD204961 b | HD215497 c∗ | HD216437 b | HD221420 B | HIP70849 b |