Astrometric Reconnaissance of Exoplanetary Systems (ARES): I. Methodology validation with HST point-source images of Proxima Centauri
Open accessAbstract
We present the first results of the Astrometric Reconnaissance of Exoplanetary Systems (ARES) project, aimed at validating and characterizing candidate exoplanets around the nearest systems using multi-epoch Hubble Space Telescope (HST) data. In this first paper, we focus on Proxima Centauri, leveraging archival and recent HST observations in point-source imaging mode. We refined the geometric-distortion calibration of the HST detector used and developed a robust methodology to derive high-precision astrometric parameters by combining HST measurements with the Gaia DR3 catalog. We determined Proxima’s position, proper motion, and parallax with uncertainties at the ~0.4-mas, 50-µas yr −1 , and 0.2-mas levels, respectively. This allowed us to achieve consistent results with Gaia measurements within ~1 σ . We further investigated the presence of the candidate exoplanet Proxima c by analyzing the proper-motion anomaly derived from combining long-term HST-based and short-term Gaia astrometry. Based on the assumption of a circular, face-on orbit, we obtained an estimated mass of mc = 3.4 −3.4 +5.2 M ⊕ , which is broadly consistent with radial-velocity constraints, but still limited by our current uncertainties. These results establish the foundation for the next phase of ARES, which will exploit HST spatial-scanning observations to achieve astrometric precisions of a few tens of µ as, while also enabling a direct search for astrometric signatures of low-mass companions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42
- Authors
- Libralato, M., Bedin, L. R., & Burgasser, A.
- Affiliations
- Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (IT)
- Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of California
- Venue
- Astronomy & Astrophysics
- Publisher
- EDP Sciences
- Published
- 2026-02
- Volume
- 706
- Pages
- A112
- ISSN
- 0004-6361 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0746
- OpenAlex
- W7128994274
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Astronomy and Astrophysics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS 526555, 526555)
- Space Telescope Science Institute (NAS5- 26555, 5-26555, 26555)
- European Space Agency (NAS 5-26555)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Astronomical Observations and Instrumentation
- Keywords
- Proxima Centauri, Gaia DR3, proper motions, parallax, point source imaging, low-mass companions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review