{"id":"17a712fe-b151-48f8-9486-9058c7ea2fea","arxiv_id":"2411.18567","paper_version":3,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":6,"one_line_summary":"TOI-2119 b, a 64 Jupiter-mass brown dwarf transiting an M dwarf, is on an eccentric but aligned orbit with a projected obliquity near zero.","lead":"Astronomers measured the angle between a star's spin and a brown dwarf's orbit around TOI-2119, finding the system is aligned. It is the first such measurement for a brown dwarf orbiting an M dwarf, a small cool star.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"RRM CLV model selection is the weak link: quadratic CLV yields lambda=20 deg, and classical RM cannot arbitrate.","rationale":"The paper's central claim is that TOI-2119 b is aligned with its host star. The classical RM gives lambda = -0.8 ± 1.1 deg, and the RRM under the authors' preferred SB+linear CLV model gives lambda = 1.26 ± 1.3 deg. The most load-bearing assumption is that this linear CLV model is the correct description of the occulted starlight. The BIC comparison in Table 4 shows that the quadratic and cubic CLV models have lower BIC values (ΔBIC = -5.4 and -2.2 relative to linear), meaning they are actually preferred by the data, though not at the ΔBIC = 6 'strong evidence' threshold. The consequence is dramatic: the quadratic model yields lambda = 20.4 ± 6 deg, which would refute the alignment claim. The authors' justification for preferring the linear model relies on the conventional BIC significance threshold and on the physical expectation that M dwarfs have weak CLV. However, the fitted linear coefficient c1 is large (1.09 ± 0.2 km/s), and the paper itself only claims 'tentative' CLV detection. The classical RM cannot break the degeneracy because it does not include CLV; in fact, unmodeled CLV can bias the classical RM lambda itself. Therefore, the alignment conclusion is conditional on a model choice that is not decisively supported by the data. A Bayesian model average or a sensitivity test varying the CLV order would settle whether the alignment is robust. The reader's verdict of CONDITIONAL is appropriate; my stress-test does not change it. The paper is honest about the limitations, and the data and analysis are otherwise sound, but the model-selection ambiguity in the RRM is the key unresolved issue.","tokens_in":20489,"tokens_out":7406,"duration_ms":62306,"concrete_test":"Re-analyze the RRM local RVs with Bayesian model averaging (or AICc/cross-validation) over SB+CLV1, SB+CLV2, and SB+CLV3 using the actual number of data points and the reported chi2 values; compute the posterior probability that |lambda| < 10°. If this probability is below ~95%, the aligned claim must be qualified. As a simpler check, refit with an explicit quadratic CLV term and test whether the lambda posterior remains consistent with 0° when the limb points with mu < 0.40 are excluded; if lambda shifts by more than 10° between CLV orders, the central claim is not robust.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central alignment claim (Abstract, §5) depends on selecting the SB+linear CLV model in the RRM analysis (§4.1.1, Table 4). The quadratic and cubic CLV models give ΔBIC = -5.4 and -2.2 relative to the linear model, meaning they are preferred by BIC, though not at the ΔBIC = 6 'strong evidence' threshold adopted from Raftery (1995). Critically, SB+CLV2 yields lambda = 20.4 (+5.8/-6.4)°, which would imply a misaligned system, while SB+CLV3 gives 16.1 (+11.4/-12.5)°. The classical RM (lambda = -0.8 ± 1.1°) cannot arbitrate because, as the authors state in §4.1.1, it does not model centre-to-limb convective variations; unmodeled CLV can bias the classical RM lambda. The linear model is chosen partly from physical expectations that M dwarf CLV is weak, but the fitted linear coefficient c1 = 1.09 ± 0.2 km/s is not small, and the paper itself labels the CLV detection only 'tentative' (Abstract, §4.1.3). The BIC difference of 5.4 is in the 'positive' (2-6) regime, and the authors themselves note in §4.1.3 that the CLV signal is largely driven by limb points and that DR cannot be ruled out. A modest change in the data or in the BIC threshold flips the conclusion from aligned to misaligned.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"This paper reports the first spin-orbit obliquity measurement for an M dwarf/brown dwarf system. TOI-2119 b is a 64.4 M_Jup transiting brown dwarf on a 7.2-day eccentric orbit (e ≈ 0.336) around a young, active early M dwarf. The authors jointly fit new NEID transit spectroscopy, archival RVs, and TESS/ARC/TMMT/LCRO photometry to refine the system parameters and ephemeris, then apply two obliquity techniques. The classical Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) analysis yields λ = -0.8 ± 1.1° and, adopting priors on the rotation period and stellar radius, a three-dimensional obliquity ψ = 15.7 ± 5.5°. The Reloaded RM (RRM) analysis of the occulted starlight adopts a solid-body rotation plus linear centre-to-limb convective velocity (CLV) model and yields λ = 1.26 ± 1.3° and v_eq sin i* = 1.61 ± 0.1 km/s. The authors conclude the system is aligned, making it the most eccentric brown dwarf with a measured obliquity, and report tentative CLV and no differential rotation. The alignment claim is, however, sensitive to the CLV model choice: the quadratic CLV fit preferred by the reported BIC values gives λ = 20.4°, a misaligned system.","tokens_in":20867,"tokens_out":26638,"duration_ms":221137,"significance":"If the alignment conclusion holds, this is a valuable new data point: the first M dwarf/brown dwarf obliquity and the most eccentric brown dwarf with a measured obliquity, with direct bearing on high-eccentricity migration and the formation dichotomy between giant planets and brown dwarfs. The paper has real strengths: two obliquity techniques applied to the same NEID data give mutually consistent projected λ values; the joint photometric+RV fit updates the ephemeris and system parameters; errors and model comparisons are reported honestly, including the tentative nature of the CLV detection and the CLV/DR degeneracy; and the population trend discussed in §5 is appropriately flagged as tentative at only seven systems. The projected obliquity is a directly fitted parameter rather than an output forced by the conclusion, so there is no circularity. Nevertheless, the headline conclusion is less secure than the abstract's 'confirm' suggests: on the paper's own BIC numbers, the model that is preferred is an alternative CLV form that yields a misaligned obliquity. The result is important, but the load-bearing model-selection step needs to be strengthened.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central claim that TOI-2119 b is aligned rests on selecting the SB+CLV1 model over SB+CLV2 and SB+CLV3. On the BIC values reported in Table 4, the quadratic model is preferred over the adopted linear model by ΔBIC = -5.4 and the cubic by ΔBIC = -2.2. The paper's stated threshold of ~6 corresponds to 'strong' evidence on the Raftery (1995) scale, but a ΔBIC of 5.4 is positive evidence, so the reported statistics favor the model the authors do not adopt. This is load-bearing because SB+CLV2 gives λ = 20.4 (+5.8/-6.4)°, i.e., a misaligned system at about 3σ from zero, while SB+CLV3 gives λ = 16.1°. The classical RM (λ = -0.8 ± 1.1°) cannot arbitrate: as stated in §4.1.1, it does not model CLV, and unmodeled CLV of the amplitude fitted here can bias the classical RM λ. A threshold change of less than one BIC unit, or inclusion of the four discarded limb points, could therefore reverse the headline result; the stress-test concern lands. I recommend reporting the model-dependent range of λ, adopting a physically motivated CLV prior (e.g., from the 3D simulations of Beeck et al. 2013, which the paper cites), or using cross-validation to select between the linear and quadratic CLV forms.","section":"§4.1.1, Table 4; Abstract, §5"},{"comment":"The adopted model's key ingredient, a linear CLV with c1 = 1.09 ± 0.2 km/s, is in tension with the paper's own assessment of M-dwarf convection. Section 4.1.3 cites Beeck et al. (2013) and Liebing et al. (2021) to argue that CLV should be weak or near zero in early M dwarfs, and the abstract labels the CLV detection 'tentative'; a centre-to-limb shift of order 1 km/s would be surprisingly large for Teff = 3553 K. The higher-order coefficients are barely constrained (e.g., c3 = 34.5 ± 62.3 km/s in Table 4), yet the distinction between the linear and quadratic models is precisely what changes λ from 1.3° to 20.4°. The leverage is also fragile: with only roughly 20 usable local RVs (inferred from the χ² and χ²_ν values in Table 4), four limb points already removed (μ < 0.40), and the statement in §4.1.3 that the curvature is 'largely driven by the points which are at ingress', the linear-versus-quadratic choice is decided by a small number of measurements. The CLV model choice should be treated as a systematic uncertainty on the obliquity rather than as the settled basis for an aligned-system claim.","section":"§4.1.3, Fig. 6; Abstract"},{"comment":"The two techniques give inconsistent stellar rotation parameters, and the paper does not address the discrepancy. The classical RM yields v_eq sin i* = 1.92 ± 0.06 km/s and i* = 72.9 (+5.7/-5.4)°, while the adopted RRM model yields v_eq sin i* = 1.61 ± 0.1 km/s; these differ by about 2.7σ. Combining the RRM value with Prot = 13.2 d, as the paper does in §4.1.2, gives i* ≈ 55.4°, and for the same λ ≈ 1° that inclination implies ψ ≈ 33°, not the ψ = 15.7 ± 5.5° quoted in the abstract from the classical RM. The three-dimensional obliquity reported in the abstract is therefore tied to one of two mutually inconsistent analyses, with no discussion of the conflict. Either the tension should be resolved (e.g., by a joint model of the disk-integrated and local RVs), or ψ should be presented with the full range implied by both analyses.","section":"§3, §4.1.2, Table 4"},{"comment":"The ΔBIC ≈ 6 criterion is applied asymmetrically. In §4.1.1, the quadratic CLV model, which is better than the adopted SB+CLV1 model by ΔBIC = 5.4, is set aside because the difference is 'not at the threshold for being significant'. In §4.1.2, the DR+CLV1 (towards) model, which is worse than SB+CLV1 by ΔBIC = 5.6, is rejected because 'this BIC is still approximately greater than six'. A 5.4-point preference for a model is thus treated as insignificant while a 5.6-point preference against a model is treated as decisive, even though the two margins are nearly identical. Under a consistent application of the criterion, either the quadratic CLV model remains a serious competitor for λ (≈20°, misaligned), or the DR+CLV1 model cannot be excluded and with it the possibility that part of the apparent CLV is differential rotation. The model comparison in Table 4 does not, in its current form, supply a stable basis for the aligned-λ and no-DR conclusions together.","section":"§4.1.2, Table 4"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"In the Introduction, 'missaligned' should read 'misaligned'.","section":"§1"},{"comment":"In §5, 'the 3.5 m WYNN' should read 'WIYN'.","section":"§5"},{"comment":"The sentence 'Additionally, RV constraints on additional companions were considered in the initial discovery paper of Cañas et al. (2022) where the presence of any additional low-inclination (sin i ~ 1) brown dwarfs (M_BD < 11 M_J) within 7.4 AU of TOI-2119.' is incomplete and should end with a predicate such as '...were ruled out.'","section":"§5"},{"comment":"The text of §4.1.1 should state explicitly that the SB models fix i* = 90° and α = 0; this information currently appears only in the Table 4 footnote, and it is important for interpreting the fitted v_eq sin i*.","section":"§4.1.1, Table 4"},{"comment":"The sentence 'This is the first measurement of v_eq sin i* and the projected obliquity for this system' should specify 'from the RRM technique', since the classical RM analysis of the same paper (Table 3) also measures both quantities.","section":"§4.1.1"},{"comment":"Given the model-selection sensitivity documented in Table 4 and the paper's own characterization of the CLV detection as tentative, the statement that the two results 'confirm the system is aligned' overstates the certainty; 'are consistent with an aligned system' would be more accurate.","section":"Abstract"},{"comment":"The reduced ARC and LCRO photometry and the local CCFs used in the RRM analysis are available only on request; depositing them alongside the NEID RV tables would strengthen reproducibility.","section":"Data Availability"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"To the editor: the paper is within MNRAS scope and the science is newsworthy if the alignment claim survives. My main concern is the fragility of the RRM model selection, which is genuinely load-bearing for the headline conclusion. I could not examine the supplementary corner plots, which are the only evidence for the strong λ-CLV correlations invoked to reject the quadratic model; if those correlations are the decisive argument, the authors should show them in the main text. The asymmetric application of the ΔBIC threshold (5.4 vs 5.6) should also be addressed explicitly. With a robust model comparison (cross-validation or physical CLV priors) and a reconciliation of the two v_eq sin i* values, this would be a solid MNRAS contribution."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Short version: this is the first obliquity for an M dwarf/brown dwarf system, and the measurement is probably right, but the 'aligned and confirmed' framing is stronger than the model-selection evidence supports. The paper is worth engaging with; it just needs the alignment claim softened or the CLV systematic included.\n\nWhat's actually new: TOI-2119 b gets a projected obliquity from both classical RM (-0.8 ± 1.1°) and Reloaded RM (1.26 ± 1.3°) under the preferred model. That's a genuinely new data point in a sparse corner of the obliquity/eccentricity diagram. The authors also re-fit all available photometry and improve the ephemeris, and they use the RRM to look for differential rotation and CLV on an M dwarf, which is a useful pilot. The writing is honest: the CLV detection is flagged as tentative, the DR/CLV degeneracy is discussed, and the RUWE=1.93 possible companion is brought up.\n\nThe soft spot is real and is exactly where the stress-test note points. The RRM alignment relies on choosing the solid-body + linear CLV model over the quadratic and cubic CLV models by BIC. The ΔBIC of -5.4 for the quadratic model is in the 'positive' regime, not the 'strong' ≥6 regime they cite. The quadratic model gives λ = 20.4° (+5.8/-6.4), which is not aligned, and the cubic gives 16.1°. The authors reject these partly because of correlations and partly because of the BIC threshold, but the threshold is doing a lot of work. The classical RM cannot arbitrate because it has no CLV model and unmodeled CLV can shift λ. The paper itself admits the CLV signal is largely driven by limb points (μ<0.40 are cut) and that DR cannot be ruled out. So the 'confirms the system is aligned' sentence in the abstract oversells what is, at this stage, a moderately-supported conclusion.\n\nThat said, I don't think the result is wrong. The classical RM gives a tight aligned value, and the linear CLV model is physically plausible for a young early M dwarf. The issue is a systematic uncertainty that should be folded into the quoted λ. The fix is straightforward: either present λ with a systematic term that marginalizes over the CLV polynomial choice, or present the quadratic case as a possible solution and downgrade the claim to 'consistent with alignment under our preferred model'. This is a revision, not a rejection.\n\nWho this is for: people working on obliquities of cool stars and brown dwarf formation. It's a single-object paper, but it's the first of its kind, so it deserves a real referee. I would send it to review, and I'd expect the referee to ask for the CLV model-averaged systematic before accepting.","headline":"First M dwarf/brown dwarf obliquity, plausibly aligned, but the alignment claim leans on a BIC model choice the paper itself calls tentative.","tokens_in":21454,"tokens_out":2464,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":23376,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"Brown dwarf around an M dwarf is aligned with its star","keywords":["brown dwarf","M dwarf","spin-orbit obliquity","Rossiter-McLaughlin effect","Reloaded RM","TOI-2119","eccentric orbit","centre-to-limb convection"],"falsifier":"Take new, higher-SNR NEID transit observations of TOI-2119 with denser sampling near ingress and egress. If the BIC improvement of the quadratic CLV model over the linear model exceeds 6 and the fitted $c_2$ is nonzero with high significance, the RRM obliquity shifts to $\\sim 20^\\circ$, which would falsify the aligned conclusion. Independently, measuring the stellar rotation period and inclination through long-baseline photometry would test the $\\psi = 15.7^\\circ$ value.","tokens_in":20327,"feed_emoji":"🪐","tokens_out":7438,"duration_ms":55442,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"TOI-2119 b is a transiting brown dwarf orbiting a young, active M dwarf at 64.4 Jupiter masses in a 7.2-day eccentric orbit. This paper reports the first spin-orbit obliquity measurement for an M dwarf/brown dwarf system, using the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect on NEID transit spectroscopy. Both the classical Rossiter-McLaughlin analysis and the Reloaded RM technique find the system is aligned: the sky-projected obliquity is $\\lambda=-0.8\\pm1.1^\\circ$ from the classical method and $\\lambda=1.26\\pm1.3^\\circ$ from the Reloaded RM, with a three-dimensional obliquity of $\\psi=15.7\\pm5.5^\\circ$. An aligned companion on an eccentric orbit is significant because high-eccentricity migration channels that produce misalignment seem unnecessary for this system. The result adds TOI-2119 b to a small, emerging group of aligned brown dwarfs and constrains formation scenarios for M dwarf/sub-stellar companions.","feed_headline":"First M-dwarf brown dwarf obliquity: aligned","feed_subtitle":"TOI-2119 b's spin-orbit angle is near zero despite an eccentric 7.2-day orbit.","key_machinery":"The central mechanism is the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, the distortion of disk-integrated stellar radial velocities during transit as the companion blocks rotating starlight; its amplitude and shape encode the sky-projected obliquity $\\lambda$. The Reloaded RM technique (Cegla et al. 2016a) goes further by subtracting the scaled out-of-transit spectral cross-correlation function from each in-transit CCF to isolate the local CCF of the starlight hidden behind the brown dwarf. Gaussian fits to these local CCFs give the local radial velocities of the occulted regions, which are then modelled as the combination of a solid-body rotation field and a centre-to-limb convective velocity term, with the best-fit model selected by BIC comparison. The classical RM fit uses the analytic model of Hirano et al. (2011) for a Gaussian line profile, with the three-dimensional obliquity $\\psi$ obtained by combining $\\lambda$ with the stellar inclination inferred from the adopted rotation period.","core_discovery":"The paper's central claim is that TOI-2119 b, a $64.4\\,M_{\\rm J}$ brown dwarf transiting the early M dwarf TOI-2119 on a $P=7.2$ d, $e=0.336$ orbit, is spin-orbit aligned with its host star. The classical Rossiter-McLaughlin fit to the NEID radial velocities yields a projected obliquity $\\lambda = -0.8\\pm 1.1^\\circ$ and, using the stellar rotation period of 13.2 d as a prior, a three-dimensional obliquity $\\psi = 15.7^{+5.4}_{-5.6}$ degrees. The Reloaded RM technique, which spatially resolves the starlight occulted by the brown dwarf, gives $\\lambda = 1.26 \\pm 1.3^\\circ$ under the preferred model of solid-body rotation plus a linear centre-to-limb convective (CLV) term. The two independent measurements agree within $2\\sigma$, and the authors adopt the Reloaded RM value as the final result because it accounts for CLV, concluding that TOI-2119 b joins the six previously known brown dwarf systems with measured obliquities, all of which are aligned ($\\lambda \\le 40^\\circ$).","pith_inferences":["The alignment conclusion is model-dependent: the quadratic CLV model, which has a lower BIC (by 5.4) than the linear model but is rejected on the 'difference < 6' threshold, yields $\\lambda = 20.4^{+5.8}_{-6.4}$ degrees. If future data support the quadratic term, the system would no longer be classified as aligned.","The linear CLV coefficient of ~1.1 km/s is large compared to theoretical expectations for M dwarfs, which predict convective blueshift near zero below ~4000 K; a higher-SNR measurement sampling the limb could reveal whether this is genuine convection or an artifact of differential rotation.","The Gaia RUWE of 1.93 suggests a possible stellar or substellar companion; if such a companion is confirmed, the Coplanar High-eccentricity Migration scenario becomes testable, and the interpretation of the system's dynamical history would need revision.","Applying the same joint classical + Reloaded RM analysis to other M dwarf/brown dwarf systems could quickly double the sample of brown dwarf obliquities, given the ~10 known such systems."],"forward_implications":["TOI-2119 b becomes the seventh brown dwarf with a measured obliquity and the first around an M dwarf, extending obliquity statistics to host stars cooler than 4000 K.","An aligned, eccentric orbit is difficult to produce via planet-planet scattering, von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai oscillations, or secular chaos, which typically misalign orbits; this favours formation by disk migration or star-like collapse without a violent dynamical history.","The tentative trend that brown dwarfs with eccentricities between 0.1 and 0.35 are aligned gains a datapoint, echoing a similar pattern seen in gas giants.","The RRM analysis yields tentative evidence for centre-to-limb convective variations on an M dwarf, with a linear coefficient $c_1 = 1.09\\pm0.2$ km/s, and no detectable differential rotation."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Develops the Reloaded RM technique used to isolate and fit the starlight occulted by the brown dwarf, providing the model for deriving $\\lambda$ and probing stellar surface velocities.","marker":"Cegla et al. 2016a"},{"why":"Supplies the analytic Rossiter-McLaughlin model for a Gaussian line profile used in the classical RM fit.","marker":"Hirano et al. 2011"},{"why":"Discovery paper for TOI-2119 b that provides the stellar parameters, the 13.2-day rotation period, and the initial eccentric orbit solution adopted as priors.","marker":"Cañas et al. 2022"},{"why":"Establishes the methodology for combining projected obliquity with rotation period and radius priors to constrain the 3D obliquity $\\psi$.","marker":"Stefànsson et al. 2022"},{"why":"Previous application of the Reloaded RM technique to derive 3D obliquity by disentangling stellar inclination from $v_{\\rm eq}\\sin i_*$.","marker":"Doyle et al. 2023"},{"why":"Provides the observed trend of aligned gas giants with eccentricities 0.1-0.4 that the paper compares its brown dwarf sample against.","marker":"Espinoza-Retamal et al. 2023"}],"fun_headline_variants":["First M-dwarf brown dwarf obliquity: aligned","Aligned brown dwarf in eccentric orbit: first measurement","TOI-2119 b: first aligned M-dwarf brown dwarf","Eccentric yet aligned: TOI-2119 b's obliquity measured","First spin-orbit align for M dwarf-brown dwarf system"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The alignment result rests on the assumption that the stellar surface velocity field is solid-body rotation plus a linear centre-to-limb convective term; if the quadratic CLV model is the correct description, the Reloaded RM obliquity is about 20 degrees, not aligned.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["First M-dwarf brown dwarf obliquity: aligned","Aligned brown dwarf in eccentric orbit: first measurement","TOI-2119 b: first aligned M-dwarf brown dwarf","Eccentric yet aligned: TOI-2119 b's obliquity measured","First spin-orbit align for M dwarf-brown dwarf system"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000255,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1686,"prompt_tokens":1174,"completion_tokens":512,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":790,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":425}},"tokens_in":790,"tokens_out":512,"duration_ms":4897,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":425,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-12T11:04:07.397724+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Take new, higher-SNR NEID transit observations of TOI-2119 with denser sampling near ingress and egress. If the BIC improvement of the quadratic CLV model over the linear model exceeds 6 and the fitted $c_2$ is nonzero with high significance, the RRM obliquity shifts to $\\sim 20^\\circ$, which would falsify the aligned conclusion. Independently, measuring the stellar rotation period and inclination through long-baseline photometry would test the $\\psi = 15.7^\\circ$ value.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Previous application of the Reloaded RM technique to derive 3D obliquity by disentangling stellar inclination from $v_{\\rm eq}\\sin i_*$."},{"cited_title":"I., et al., 2023, , 958, L20","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the observed trend of aligned gas giants with eccentricities 0.1-0.4 that the paper compares its brown dwarf sample against."}],"review_version":1}