pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12862 · v1 · pith:SB55H6GTnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Ultraviolet Imaging of SR 12 c with HST/WFC3: Accretion and Variability of a Giant Planet at the End Stages of Growth

Claire O. Finley , Brendan P. Bowler , Ya-Lin Wu , Adam L. Kraus , Yifan Zhou , Yuhiko Aoyama , William Best , Ian Czekala
show 7 more authors
Catherine C. Espaillat Katherine B. Follette Gregory J. Herczeg Raquel A. Martinez Connor E. Robinson Quang H. Tran Kimberly Ward-Duong
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 06:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords SR 12 cgiant planet accretionultraviolet imagingHST/WFC3Balmer jumpplanetary-mass companionspectral energy distributionend stages of growth
0
0 comments X

The pith

HST ultraviolet imaging shows SR 12 c accreting too slowly to grow much further and has reached the end stages of giant planet assembly.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses new 0.2–0.7 micron imaging from the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Camera 3 to examine the young wide-orbit companion SR 12 c. Strong continuum excess blueward of 5000 angstroms and a clear Balmer jump at 3646 angstroms are detected, which are converted into an accretion luminosity of 1.65 ± 0.19 × 10^{-5} solar luminosities and a mass accretion rate of 8 ± 2 × 10^{-12} solar masses per year. Given the companion's mass and age, this rate implies no appreciable additional growth, so the object sits at the final phase of its formation. The observations also show no variability across one month but a 90 percent drop in H-alpha strength over five years, and they complete a full spectral energy distribution from ultraviolet to submillimeter wavelengths.

Core claim

SR 12 c exhibits strong accretion-related continuum excess blueward of ∼5000 Å and clear signs of the Balmer jump at 3646 Å. We derive a total accretion luminosity of 1.65 ± 0.19 × 10^{-5} L_⊙ and a mass accretion rate of 8 ± 2× 10^{-12} M_⊙ yr^{-1}. Based on its mass and age, SR 12 c will not grow by an appreciable amount at its current accretion rate; it is at the end stages of assembly. No accretion variability is evident between the two epochs of the WFC3 observations spanning a month-long baseline, but the Hα emission line strength decreases by 90% compared to the reported flux from five years earlier.

What carries the argument

HST/WFC3 ultraviolet-through-red imaging that captures the accretion-driven continuum excess and Balmer discontinuity to calculate accretion luminosity and mass accretion rate.

If this is right

  • SR 12 c will not grow by an appreciable amount at its current accretion rate.
  • Accretion shows no variability over a one-month baseline but the H-alpha line has dropped 90 percent in five years.
  • SR 12 c joins the small sample of young giant planets with both accretion and disk constraints from ultraviolet to submillimeter wavelengths.
  • These data help map the range of timescales and physical processes that finish giant planet formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The low rate may mark the point where a gap or disk dispersal begins to starve the companion of further material.
  • Repeating the ultraviolet imaging on other wide-orbit companions would test whether late-stage low accretion is common.
  • The assembled spectral energy distribution could be modeled to place limits on any remaining circumplanetary disk mass.

Load-bearing premise

The mass and age of SR 12 c determined in prior work are accurate enough that the measured accretion rate means no appreciable further growth will occur.

What would settle it

An independent mass or age determination for SR 12 c that is substantially different from current values, or future monitoring that shows the accretion rate rising enough to allow significant mass gain before disk dispersal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12862 by Adam L. Kraus, Brendan P. Bowler, Catherine C. Espaillat, Claire O. Finley, Connor E. Robinson, Gregory J. Herczeg, Ian Czekala, Katherine B. Follette, Kimberly Ward-Duong, Quang H. Tran, Raquel A. Martinez, William Best, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou, Yuhiko Aoyama.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SR 12 c and its host binary, SR 12 AB in the Hα filter (F656N) from HST/WFC3. North is up and East is left. In a companion paper (Wu et al., submitted), we present new complementary 5.6–21 µm imaging from the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) on board the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). This mid-IR photom￾etry is best described by a two-component blackbody model, although irradiated flat disk and viscous a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: HST/WFC3-UVIS images of SR 12 AB from Epoch 1 spanning the UV through optical. The binary components are marginally resolved in all filters. Each image is 40×40 pixels, or about 1.56×1.56′′. North is up and East is left. Bottom: Co-added HST/WFC3-UVIS images of SR 12 c spanning the UV through optical. The signal-to-noise ratio of each of these detections are: 7.38, 12.7, 7.50, 10.5, and 108, for F225W… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The combined SED for SR 12 AB described by a BT-Settl model at Teff of 3800 K. Interstellar reddening ranging from AV =0 to 4 mag is shown with 0.5 mag spacing. The best fit yields an extinction of AV =0.85, which is what we adopt for the host and its distant companion, SR 12 c. relations between spectral type and Teff from Pecaut & Mamajek (2013) to derive an estimated Teff of 3850 K. For this work we ado… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 0.2–880 µm SED of SR 12 c, with three primary sources of emission: accretion in the UV, the photosphere in the near-infrared, and a circumplanetary disk spanning the mid-IR to mm wavelengths. In the UV, the best-fitting hydrogen slab model (Valenti et al. 1993; Herczeg & Hillenbrand 2008) is shown, with a temperature of 10640 K and a density of 2.97×1013 cm−3 (dark gray). In the near-IR, an atmospheric… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The strength of the Balmer jump modeled by the hydrogen slab as a function of column density (ne) and temperature. The size of the jump is represented by the ratio of the flux coming from 3600 ˚A to 3700 ˚A. Note that the overall strength of the jump increases with temperature and number density. parameters on the shape and behavior of the hydrogen slab emission spectrum.8 Herczeg & Hillenbrand (2008) appl… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The effect of changing density and temperature on the size and shape of the Balmer jump in the hydrogen slab models. Upper left: At a fixed temperature (T = 8000 K, in this case), varying number density affects the shape of the Balmer jump. Higher densities cause the slope on the red side of the break to flatten, the size of the Balmer jump to shrink, and the bolometric flux to increase. Bottom left: the s… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Joint constraints on hydrogen slab model den￾sity and temperature from the MCMC posterior sampling. The marginalized temperature and density distributions are shown in the top and right panels, respectively. The best-fit model (as determined from the MAP value) is plotted as a yellow star. filter includes the wavelength of the Hα line (6563 ˚A), the contribution of the line emission to the estimated contin… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The percent change in flux of SR 12 c from Epoch 1 to Epoch 2 of the HST observations, plotted as a function of the central wavelength of each filter. There is no evidence for significant variability in any of the filters over the month￾long baseline. 4.1.1. Accretion Variability Recent observations of young, accreting planets like PDS 70 b and c (Zhou et al. 2025; Close et al. 2025a) and the candidate pro… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Log M˙ versus log M∗ for accreting stellar and substellar objects as measured by UV continuum excess from the CASPAR database (Betti et al. 2023), Zhou et al. (2014, 2021), and this work. Stars are shown as teal triangles, brown dwarfs are blue circles, and planetary-mass objects are in blue squares. SR 12 c is shown as a coral star. The best-fit relation from Betti et al. (2023), M˙ ∼ M2.16, is in black … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Many details of the gas accretion phase during giant planet formation remain untested. We present new 0.2$\unicode{x2013}$0.7 $\mu$m UV-through-red optical imaging of the young, wide-orbit planetary-mass companion SR 12 c from the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) instrument on board the Hubble Space Telescope. SR 12 c exhibits strong accretion-related continuum excess blueward of $\sim$5000 $\unicode{x212B}$ and clear signs of the Balmer jump at 3646 $\unicode{x212B}$. We derive a total accretion luminosity of 1.65 $\pm$ $0.19 \times 10^{-5} L_{\odot}$ and a mass accretion rate of 8 $\pm$ $2\times 10^{-12}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Based on its mass and age, SR 12 c will not grow by an appreciable amount at its current accretion rate; it is at the end stages of assembly. No accretion variability is evident between the two epochs of the WFC3 observations spanning a month-long baseline, but the H$\alpha$ emission line strength decreases by 90% compared to the reported flux from five years earlier. Combined with previous observations of SR 12 c, we assemble one of the most complete spectral energy distributions of a young giant planet to date, spanning the UV through sub-mm wavelengths (0.2$\unicode{x2013}$880 $\mu$m). This adds SR 12 c to the small yet growing sample of planets with detailed accretion and disk constraints, which together are beginning to establish the diversity of timescales and physical processes governing the formation of giant planets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports new HST/WFC3 0.2–0.7 μm imaging of the wide-orbit planetary-mass companion SR 12 c. The data show strong continuum excess blueward of ∼5000 Å and a clear Balmer jump at 3646 Å. From these observations the authors derive an accretion luminosity L_acc = 1.65 ± 0.19 × 10^{-5} L_⊙ and mass accretion rate Ṁ = 8 ± 2 × 10^{-12} M_⊙ yr^{-1}. They conclude that, given the companion’s mass and age, SR 12 c will experience negligible further growth and is therefore at the end stages of assembly. No variability is detected between the two WFC3 epochs separated by one month, although Hα has declined 90 % relative to a measurement five years earlier. The work also compiles a UV-to-sub-mm SED for the object.

Significance. The UV detection of accretion signatures and the resulting L_acc and Ṁ values constitute a direct, observationally grounded constraint on late-stage gas accretion onto a giant planet. The assembled multi-wavelength SED adds a well-characterized object to the small sample of young planets with both accretion and disk diagnostics. These measurements are independent of the interpretive claim about growth stage and therefore remain valuable even if the end-stage conclusion is qualified.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and growth-stage discussion] Abstract (and the paragraph discussing growth stage): the statement that SR 12 c “will not grow by an appreciable amount at its current accretion rate” and “is at the end stages of assembly” rests on external mass and radius values adopted from prior studies. Because Ṁ = L_acc R / (G M), uncertainties in M and R propagate directly into both the quoted accretion rate and the integrated mass that could be accreted over the remaining lifetime. No error propagation or sensitivity test of these priors is presented, so the quantitative strength of the “end stages” claim cannot be assessed from the manuscript alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the new imaging covers 0.2–0.7 μm while the assembled SED extends to 880 μm; explicitly distinguish the wavelength range of the WFC3 data from the compiled SED in the abstract and §1.
  2. Table or text listing the exact mass, radius, and age values (with references) used to convert L_acc to Ṁ and to evaluate total growth would improve transparency and allow readers to reproduce the end-stage assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the UV detection, accretion measurements, and SED compilation, and for the recommendation of minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and growth-stage discussion] Abstract (and the paragraph discussing growth stage): the statement that SR 12 c “will not grow by an appreciable amount at its current accretion rate” and “is at the end stages of assembly” rests on external mass and radius values adopted from prior studies. Because Ṁ = L_acc R / (G M), uncertainties in M and R propagate directly into both the quoted accretion rate and the integrated mass that could be accreted over the remaining lifetime. No error propagation or sensitivity test of these priors is presented, so the quantitative strength of the “end stages” claim cannot be assessed from the manuscript alone.

    Authors: We agree that the growth-stage conclusion depends on the adopted mass and radius, and that the lack of propagated uncertainties or sensitivity tests limits the ability to assess the robustness of the 'end stages' statement. In the revised manuscript we will (1) explicitly propagate the literature uncertainties on M and R through the Ṁ calculation and the integrated mass estimate over the remaining disk lifetime, and (2) add a short sensitivity table or figure showing how the accreted mass changes across the plausible mass range (approximately 5–15 M_Jup) reported in the discovery and follow-up papers. These additions will be placed in the discussion section and referenced from the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new UV measurements independent of growth-stage conclusion

full rationale

The paper's core derivation consists of new HST/WFC3 photometry yielding an observed UV continuum excess and Balmer jump, from which L_acc and Ṁ are computed via standard relations. The interpretive statement that SR 12 c 'will not grow by an appreciable amount' and 'is at the end stages of assembly' invokes external prior mass and age values; these are independent inputs rather than quantities defined or fitted within the present work. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling occur. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard domain assumptions for interpreting UV excess as accretion and on previously published mass and age values for SR 12 c.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The observed UV continuum excess and Balmer jump are caused by gas accretion onto the planet
    This is the standard interpretation used for young accreting objects in the field.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5928 in / 1442 out tokens · 32385 ms · 2026-06-27T06:06:43.514546+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 118 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C., & Batygin, K

    Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2025, PASP, 137, 054401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adcf57

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adcf57 2025

  2. [2]

    C., Taylor, A

    Adams, F. C., Taylor, A. G., & Meyer, M. R. 2025, PASP, 137, 084404, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adfa44 Alcal´ a, J. M., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322254 Alcal´ a, J. M., Manara, C. F., Natta, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629929

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adfa44 2025

  3. [3]

    2004, A&A, 417, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040053

    Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., & Benz, W. 2004, A&A, 417, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040053

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040053 2004

  4. [4]

    2005, A&A, 434, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042032

    Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Benz, W., & Winisdoerffer, C. 2005, A&A, 434, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042032

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042032 2005

  5. [5]

    Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems , year = 2014, editor =

    Allard, F. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 299, Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, ed. M. Booth, B. C. Matthews, & J. R. Graham, 271–272, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313008545

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921313008545 2014

  6. [6]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 2012

  7. [7]

    E., Myers, P

    Allen, L. E., Myers, P. C., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 566, 993, doi: 10.1086/338128

    work page doi:10.1086/338128 2002

  8. [8]

    M., Elder, W., Zhang, S., et al

    Andrews, S. M., Elder, W., Zhang, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b9 2021

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Aoyama, Y., Ikoma, M., & Tanigawa, T. 2018, ApJ, 866, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11 2018

  10. [10]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.06608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.06608

    Aoyama, Y., Marleau, G.-D., Mordasini, C., & Ikoma, M. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.06608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.06608

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.06608 2020

  11. [11]

    R., Herczeg, G

    Ardila, D. R., Herczeg, G. J., Gregory, S. G., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/1 2013

  12. [12]

    M., Currie, T., et al

    Bailey, V., Hinz, P. M., Currie, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/31 2013

  13. [13]

    Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9805009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9805009 1998

  14. [14]

    New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  15. [15]

    2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    Barbary, K. 2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 2016

  16. [16]

    Bate, M. R. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 590, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14106.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14106.x 2009

  17. [17]

    2021, ApJL, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty, M., Bae, J., Facchini, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 2021

  18. [18]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Benisty, M., Dominik, C., Follette, K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 605, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09991 2023

  19. [19]

    2023, Comprehensive Archive of Substellar and Planetary Accretion Rates, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8393054

    Betti, S., Follette, K., Ward-Duong, K., et al. 2023, Comprehensive Archive of Substellar and Planetary Accretion Rates, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8393054

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8393054 2023

  20. [20]

    K., Follette, K

    Betti, S. K., Follette, K. B., Ward-Duong, K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ef —. 2023, AJ, 166, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ef 2022

  21. [21]

    2025, AJ, 169, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b94

    Blakely, D., Johnstone, D., Cugno, G., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b94 2025

  22. [22]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    work page doi:10.1126/science.276.5320.1836 1997

  23. [23]

    Bowler, B. P. 2016, PASP, 128, 102001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/968/102001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/968/102001 2016

  24. [24]

    P., Andrews, S

    Bowler, B. P., Andrews, S. M., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2015, ApJL, 805, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/L17

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/l17 2015

  25. [25]

    P., Liu, M

    Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Kraus, A. L., & Mann, A. W. 2014, ApJ, 784, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/65

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/65 2014

  26. [26]

    Ireland, M. J. 2011, ApJ, 743, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/148

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/148 2011

  27. [27]

    P., Kraus, A

    Bowler, B. P., Kraus, A. L., Bryan, M. L., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa88bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa88bd 2017

  28. [28]

    P., Zhou, Y., Biddle, L

    Bowler, B. P., Zhou, Y., Biddle, L. I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.14736, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.14736

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14736 2025

  29. [29]

    Brown, T. M. 2008, WFC3 TV3 Testing: Red Leak Checks for the UV Filters, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2008-49, 11 pages

    2008

  30. [30]

    2021, New time-dependent WFC3 UVIS inverse sensitivities, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2021-4, 33 pages

    Calamida, A., Mack, J., Medina, J., et al. 2021, New time-dependent WFC3 UVIS inverse sensitivities, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2021-4, 33 pages

    2021

  31. [31]

    1998, ApJ, 509, 802, doi: 10.1086/306527

    Calvet, N., & Gullbring, E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 802, doi: 10.1086/306527

    work page doi:10.1086/306527 1998

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Calvet, N., Muzerolle, J., Brice˜ no, C., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1294, doi: 10.1086/422733 C´ anovas, H., Cantero, C., Cieza, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935321 19

    work page doi:10.1086/422733 2004

  33. [33]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  34. [34]

    M., Males, J

    Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Li, J., et al. 2025a, AJ, 169, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8648

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8648

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Close, L. M., van Capelleveen, R. F., Weible, G., et al. 2025b, ApJL, 990, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5 2041

  36. [36]

    Cugno, G., & Grant, S. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.15209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.15209

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.15209 2025

  37. [37]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3cbc

    Cugno, G., Patapis, P., Banzatti, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3cbc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3cbc 2024

  38. [38]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    Currie, T., Lawson, K., Schneider, G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x 2022

  39. [39]

    C., Marley, M

    Cushing, M. C., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1372, doi: 10.1086/526489

    work page doi:10.1086/526489 2008

  40. [40]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, (IPAC/California Institute of Technology) (2003)

    2003

  41. [41]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 676, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 Dom´ ınguez-Jamett, O., Casassus, S., Baobab Liu, H., et al

    Demars, D., Bonnefoy, M., Dougados, C., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 676, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 Dom´ ınguez-Jamett, O., Casassus, S., Baobab Liu, H., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554485

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 2023

  42. [42]

    Gravitational Instabilities in Gaseous Protoplanetary Disks and Implications for Giant Planet Formation

    Durisen, R. H., Boss, A. P., Mayer, L., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603179

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0603179 2007

  43. [43]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab323 2021

  44. [44]

    C., Asensio Torres, R., Janson, M., et al

    Eriksson, S. C., Asensio Torres, R., Janson, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038131

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038131 2020

  45. [45]

    L., & Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., & Luhman, K. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8dbd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8dbd 2020

  46. [46]

    J., Allen, L

    Evans, II, N. J., Allen, L. E., Blake, G. A., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 965, doi: 10.1086/376697

    work page doi:10.1086/376697 2003

  47. [47]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  48. [48]

    B., Close, L

    Follette, K. B., Close, L. M., Males, J. R., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc183

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acc183 2023

  49. [49]

    Fruchter, A. S. e. 2010, in 2010 Space Telescope Science Institute Calibration Workshop, 382–387 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A.,...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2010

  50. [50]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    work page doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136 1992

  51. [51]

    1998, ApJ, 492, 323, doi: 10.1086/305032 G¨ unther, H

    Gullbring, E., Hartmann, L., Brice˜ no, C., & Calvet, N. 1998, ApJ, 492, 323, doi: 10.1086/305032 G¨ unther, H. M., Cody, A. M., Covey, K. R., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/122

    work page doi:10.1086/305032 1998

  52. [52]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5 2019

  53. [53]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 2016

  54. [54]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 1970

  55. [55]

    A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al

    Henden, A. A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AAVSO Photometric All Sky Survey (APASS) DR9 (Henden+, 2016), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/336. Originally published in: 2015AAS...22533616H

    2016

  56. [56]

    J., Cruz, K

    Herczeg, G. J., Cruz, K. L., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1589, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1589

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/2/1589 2009

  57. [57]

    J., & Hillenbrand, L

    Herczeg, G. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 681, 594, doi: 10.1086/586728

    work page doi:10.1086/586728 2008

  58. [58]

    Hoch, K. K. W., Rowland, M., Petrus, S., et al. 2025, Nature, 643, 938, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09174-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09174-w 2025

  59. [59]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    work page doi:10.1086/676406 2014

  60. [60]

    2003, Icarus, 166, 46, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.08.001

    Inaba, S., Wetherill, G., & Ikoma, M. 2003, Icarus, 166, 46, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.08.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2003.08.001 2003

  61. [61]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    Ingleby, L., Calvet, N., Herczeg, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/112 2013

  62. [62]

    Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/113 2011

  63. [63]

    2019, ApJL, 879, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    Isella, A., Benisty, M., Teague, R., et al. 2019, ApJL, 879, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12 2019

  64. [64]

    2005, ApJ, 620, 984, doi: 10.1086/427086

    Itoh, Y., Hayashi, M., Tamura, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 620, 984, doi: 10.1086/427086

    work page doi:10.1086/427086 2005

  65. [65]

    L., & Wardle, M

    Keith, S. L., & Wardle, M. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu245

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu245 2014

  66. [66]

    and Benisty, M

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., M¨ uller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832957 2018

  67. [67]

    M., Murray-Clay, R

    Kratter, K. M., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Youdin, A. N. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1375, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1375

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1375 2010

  68. [68]

    2011, AJ, 141, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/119

    Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Ishii, M., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/119 2011

  69. [69]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/61

    Lachapelle, F.-R., Lafreni` ere, D., Gagn´ e, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/61

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/1/61 2015

  70. [70]

    2012, A&A, 544, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    Lambrechts, M., & Johansen, A. 2012, A&A, 544, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219127 2012

  71. [71]

    M., Lattanzi, M

    Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 735, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735 2008

  72. [72]

    , keywords =

    Li, J., Close, L. M., Long, F., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L70, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfcbd 20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfcbd 2025

  73. [73]

    B., Wootten, A., & Wilking, B

    Loren, R. B., Wootten, A., & Wilking, B. A. 1990, ApJ, 365, 269, doi: 10.1086/169480

    work page doi:10.1086/169480 1990

  74. [74]

    L., & Rieke, G

    Luhman, K. L., & Rieke, G. H. 1999, ApJ, 525, 440, doi: 10.1086/307891

    work page doi:10.1086/307891 1999

  75. [75]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ddf

    Suetsugu, R. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ddf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ddf 2022

  76. [76]

    2024, in WFC3 Instrument Handbook for Cycle 33 v

    Marinelli, M., & Green, J. 2024, in WFC3 Instrument Handbook for Cycle 33 v. 17, Vol. 17, 17

    2024

  77. [77]

    2022, A&A, 657, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037494

    Marleau, G.-D., Aoyama, Y., Kuiper, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037494

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037494 2022

  78. [78]

    S., Fortney, J

    Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., & Lissauer, J. J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 541, doi: 10.1086/509759

    work page doi:10.1086/509759 2007

  79. [79]

    Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd805 2021

  80. [80]

    2007, ApJL, 654, L151, doi: 10.1086/511071

    Marois, C., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T. 2007, ApJL, 654, L151, doi: 10.1086/511071

    work page doi:10.1086/511071 2007

Showing first 80 references.