Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 106 references

Photometric Variability and Rotation of Beta Pictoris b from JWST NIRCam Coronagraphic Imaging

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Beta Pic b, a young super-Jupiter, rotates once every 9.00 ± 0.13 hours, and its spin appears aligned with its star, disk, and orbit.

desk verdict A credible first detection of rotational modulation in a close-in imaged exoplanet, with the paper's own caveat quietly contradicting its core-accretion headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13133 v2 pith:RYHSCZSL submitted 2026-07-14 astro-ph.EP

Yifan Zhou , Beth A. Biller , Aarynn L. Carter , Marshall D. Perrin , Michael Poon , Genaro Suárez , Ben J. Sutlieff , Johanna M. Vos
show 23 more authors
Jason J. Wang William O. Balmer Marta L. Bryan Anthony Boccaletti Julien H. Girard Eileen C. Gonzales Jens Kammerer Jarron M. Leisenring Paulina Palma-Bifani Kevin R. Wagner Dániel Apai Mickäel Bonnefoy Brendan P. Bowler Kyle Franson Pengyu Liu Marcio Meléndez Stanimir A. Metchev Simon Petrus Laurent Pueyo Isabel Rebollido Andrew J. Skemer Xianyu Tan Niall Whiteford
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmospheresphotometricvariabilityrotationperiodspin-orbitalignmentcoronagraphicimagingJWSTNIRCamcoreaccretionBetaPictorisb
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Beta Pictoris b, a young super-Jupiter, shows subtle brightness wobbles that repeat every 9.00 ± 0.13 hours. The paper argues these wobbles are real astrophysical rotation modulation rather than telescope systematics: two independent near-infrared bands show the same period and nearly identical amplitudes of about 0.85–0.89%. Interpreting the period as the planet's rotation, and combining it with previously measured spin speed and an assumed radius, the authors infer the planet's spin axis is almost exactly edge-on to us — aligned with its orbit, the debris disk, and the stellar equator. If correct, this is the first measurement of rotational modulation and spin-orbit architecture for a close-in directly imaged planet, and it gives dynamical evidence that β Pic b formed by core accretion in a disk rather than by gravitational fragmentation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is time-series coronagraphic photometry that isolates the planet's light from starlight, disk emission, and instrumental drifts. PSF subtraction using reference-star and angular differential imaging removes the stellar halo; principal component analysis of comparison apertures at the same separation but different position angles builds a systematic-noise model; injection-and-recovery tests show the pipeline neither creates nor destroys the signal. The load-bearing identity is the geometric relation connecting rotation period, radius, and projected spin speed: v sin i = 2π R / P_rot. Matching the measured spin speed with the equatorial speed implied by a 9-hour period an

What would settle it

Re-observe β Pic b over several full rotations in a later epoch. If the ~9-hour period is not reproduced, or if the F210M and F410M light curves stop matching in period or phase, the rotation-modulation interpretation collapses. Alternatively, an independent radius estimate below about 1.25 Jupiter radii, or a revised spin speed above the value assumed here, would make the implied equatorial speed exceed the observed projected spin speed, falsifying the equator-on geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the detection of coherent, sinusoidal photometric variability in β Pictoris b from 16 hours of JWST NIRCam dual-band coronagraphic imaging. In the F210M and F410M filters, the detrended light curves vary with periods of 9.08 ± 0.24 hr and 8.96 ± 0.10 hr; a joint fit gives a rotation period of 9.00 ± 0.13 hr and amplitudes of 0.85 ± 0.07% and 0.89 ± 0.04%. The near-identical period and amplitude in two bands that probe similar pressure levels are taken as evidence of a common astrophysical origin in a heterogeneous atmosphere rotating with the planet. Combining this period with a projected rotational velocity of about 19.9 km/s and a radius prior of about 1.4 Jupiter radii y

Load-bearing premise

The edge-on spin and core-accretion conclusions assume a specific planet radius (about 1.4 Jupiter radii) and that the literature spin speed truly reflects rigid rotation; if the radius is about 10% larger, the data no longer force an equator-on geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the variability is rotation modulation, β Pic b has a roughly 9-hour day and sub-percent patchy cloud or spot structure at the pressures probed by 2–4 µm light.
  • The measured spin-axis inclination is consistent with alignment among the planet's spin, its orbit, the debris disk, and the stellar spin, placing β Pic b in a different obliquity class from the widely misaligned wide-orbit companions.
  • The authors caution that the full three-dimensional obliquity cannot be constrained without the sky-plane position angle of the spin axis, so only line-of-sight alignment is established.
  • The demonstrated sub-percent precision over 16 hours makes time-series coronagraphic imaging a viable way to measure rotation periods and possibly search for exomoons or post-impact oscillations in directly imaged planets.
  • The true period uncertainty may be larger than the formal ±0.13 hr because atmospheric evolution can distort a single-epoch light curve; the paper's waveform-recovery tests broaden the plausible range to roughly 8.5–9.4 hr.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the equator-on conclusion leans heavily on the adopted 1.4-Jupiter-radius prior; if the radius were 10% larger, the implied equatorial speed would rise to about 21.4 km/s and the best-fit inclination would drop to roughly 68°, so the alignment story is only as strong as the radius assumption.
  • Editorial inference: a single 16-hour epoch cannot distinguish a rigidly rotating patchy atmosphere from a wave-like pattern that drifts in time; repeated monitoring would test whether the 9-hour period is stable.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same observational method to a statistical sample of directly imaged planets could turn obliquity into a population-level test between bottom-up and top-down formation, since the two formation pathways predict different spin-orbit distributions.
  • Editorial inference: the near-equal amplitudes at 2 and 4 µm may indicate that both bands probe similar cloud layers; adding a band that straddles the cloud base would help identify whether clouds or magnetic spots drive the modulation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 16-hour JWST NIRCam dual-band coronagraphic monitoring campaign of the directly imaged super-Jupiter β Pic b, using the F210M and F410M filters. The authors develop a time-series photometry framework combining PSF subtraction, PCA-based systematic-noise removal, and injection-and-recovery validation. They report coherent sinusoidal variability in both bands, with a joint rotation period of P_rot = 9.00 ± 0.13 hr and semi-amplitudes of 0.85 ± 0.07% (F210M) and 0.89 ± 0.04% (F410M). They further combine P_rot with literature vsini and radius estimates to derive a line-of-sight spin-axis inclination, finding i_p ≈ 90°, which they interpret as evidence for spin-orbit alignment and, ultimately, for core-accretion formation of β Pic b.

Significance. If the variability detection holds, this is the first detection of rotational modulation in a close-in, directly imaged exoplanet, and it demonstrates that JWST NIRCam coronagraphic time-series photometry can reach sub-percent precision — a genuinely new observational capability. The paper's validation strategy is a strength: the forced-flat model (Section 4.1), multi-position-angle injection-and-recovery (Section 4.2), pixel-level PCA (Section 4.3), and independent validation apertures (Section 3.4) together provide strong evidence that the signal is not a pure systematic artifact. The rotation-period measurement itself is plausible and carefully caveated in Section 5.1. However, the obliquity and formation conclusions are not supported by the data. The paper's own Section 5.2 states that the true three-dimensional obliquity ψ is unconstrained because the sky-plane position angle of the spin axis is unmeasurable; despite this, the Abstract and Section 6 claim that the planetary spin axis, orbit, debris disk, and stellar equator are 'all mutually aligned' and that the observation provides 'independent dynamical evidence' for core accretion. This is a logical gap between the caveat

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Abstract, §6] The paper contains an internal inconsistency. Section 5.2 explicitly states: 'We caution that the true three-dimensional obliquity ψ cannot be constrained from the available data... Marginalizing over Ω_spin uniformly leaves ψ unconstrained.' Yet the Abstract and Section 6 assert that 'the planetary spin axis, orbital plane, debris disk, and stellar equator are all mutually aligned' and that the result 'provides independent dynamical evidence that β Pic b formed via core accretion.' For two vectors both lying near the plane of the sky (i_p ≈ i_orbit ≈ 90°), the actual angle between them is dominated by the unmeasured sky-plane position angle difference; the data only rule out spin axes pointing near the line of sight. The alignment and formation statements must be removed or reduced to a line-of-sight-only statement, in line with the paper's own caveat.
  2. [§5.2, Figure 15] The claim that the data 'strongly favor' an equator-on viewing geometry is largely a prior-boundary effect. With the adopted radius R ~ N(1.4, 0.1) R_Jup and P_rot = 9.00 hr, the implied v_eq = 2πR/P ≈ 19.4 km/s, essentially equal to the adopted vsini = 19.9 ± 1.0 km/s, so the posterior piles up at sini = 1 by construction. The alternative vsini values (22 ± 2 and 25 ± 3 km/s) formally exceed v_eq and can only be accommodated by boundary mass. A 10% larger radius (1.54 R_Jup) would give i_p ≈ 68°. Please show the sensitivity of the inclination posterior to the radius prior (e.g., uniform R over 1.2–1.6 R_Jup) and to a joint treatment of the three vsini measurements; otherwise the 'strongly favoring' wording is not justified.
  3. [§5.2, §6] The formation-pathway conclusion is not supported even under the paper's own assumptions. A line-of-sight inclination consistent with the orbit does not measure the obliquity ψ, so the 'stark contrast' with the large obliquities of wide-orbit companions is not established. The claim of 'independent dynamical evidence for core accretion' overreaches: a small projected obliquity is consistent with core accretion but does not discriminate among formation scenarios, since other mechanisms (e.g., disk-driven alignment or tidal realignment) can also produce alignment. The conclusion should be reframed as 'consistent with' rather than 'evidence for,' and the caveat about the unobservable Ω_spin should be carried through to the Abstract and Section 6.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §4.1] The Abstract reports '~5σ and ≫5σ significance' for the two bands, but the forced-flat model test in Section 4.1 yields only >3σ for F210M (reduced χ² = 1.15, p = 4.7×10⁻⁶). Please quote the range of significance across tests, or state the detection as 'moderately strong' rather than a single 5σ value.
  2. [Abstract, §5.1] The quoted period uncertainty of ±0.13 hr is explicitly acknowledged in Section 5.1 as likely underestimated due to waveform mismatch; the injection-recovery for multi-sine waveforms broadens the 16th–84th percentile range to 8.47–9.41 hr. The Abstract and Conclusions should carry this caveat or report the broader range, rather than presenting 9.00 ± 0.13 hr as the definitive rotation period.
  3. [§3.5, Figure 10] The periodogram of the Δx centroid offset shows 'substantial power' near the detected planetary period. The paper notes this in the text, but the figure and discussion would benefit from a quantitative comparison of the Δx periodogram peak height and the planetary peak, and from an explicit statement of the amount of signal that survives after including centroid terms in Equation (2).
  4. [§5.2, Figure 15] The right panel of Figure 15 is labeled 'Line-of-sight obliquity |i_p − i_o| versus semimajor axis.' This quantity is a lower bound on the true obliquity; the figure should state this clearly and avoid using the term 'obliquity' without qualification, since the paper correctly argues that ψ is unconstrained.
  5. [§3.3, Equation (1)] The planet contribution fraction c_i is defined as a visit-average quantity, but the forward-modeled PSF is applied with a roll-angle orientation that changes between Roll 1 and Roll 2. Please clarify how the time-dependent PSF orientation is incorporated in the aperture photometry and whether c_i is recomputed for each roll.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variability and obliquity derivations propagate independent inputs; the spin-alignment conclusion overreaches but does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an observational measurement: sinusoidal fits to the JWST NIRCam light curves yield P_rot = 9.00 +/- 0.13 hr and amplitudes in F210M/F410M. These are fitted quantities, validated by independent injection-and-recovery tests, validation apertures, pixel-level PCA, and forced-flat tests; no prediction is equivalent to a fitted input by construction. The obliquity step combines this externally fitted P_rot with literature vsini values and a radius prior through the Masuda & Winn (2020) formula; the resulting i_p posterior is a propagation of independent inputs, not a renaming of any input. Self-citations to the spaceKLIP pipeline and earlier brown-dwarf variability studies are contextual and not load-bearing for the detection. The paper explicitly cautions in Section 5.2 that the true 3D obliquity psi cannot be constrained because Omega_spin is unobservable, yet the Abstract and Conclusions claim mutual alignment and 'independent dynamical evidence' for core accretion; this is an inferential overreach (correctness risk), not circularity, because no derived quantity is assumed in its own derivation. Under the hard rule that circularity requires a quotable reduction, no such step exists here.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The variability detection rests on fitted sinusoid parameters and PCA nuisance weights, validated by injection-recovery; the obliquity result rests on an externally adopted radius and three literature vsini values; the formation claim is an interpretive step, not a derived quantity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • P_rot (joint sinusoid period) = 9.00 ± 0.13 hr
    Fitted jointly to the F210M and F410M detrended light curves; the paper's own non-sinusoidal waveform injections broaden the recovered range to 8.47–9.41 hr (§5.1, Figure 14).
  • F210M semi-amplitude A = 0.85 ± 0.07%
    Amplitude of the joint sinusoidal fit in F210M (§3.5).
  • F410M semi-amplitude A = 0.89 ± 0.04%
    Amplitude of the joint sinusoidal fit in F410M (§3.5).
  • Per-aperture systematic weights (w0, wx, wy, w1–w3) = 6 parameters per light curve
    Weights for centroid offsets and the first three principal components in Eq. 2; fitted per aperture and roll, then applied to the planet aperture.
  • Host-star oscillation amplitudes and GP hyperparameters = 8 sinusoid coefficients + 3 GP hyperparameters
    Fitted to the stellar light curve to remove δ-Scuti oscillations; mode frequencies are fixed from Zieba et al. 2019 (§3.1).
  • Planet radius prior R = N(1.4, 0.1) R_Jup (adopted from Landman et al. 2024)
    Not fitted in this paper but load-bearing for the obliquity result: v_eq = 2πR/P ≈ 19.4 km/s at the prior center, which sets i_p ≈ 90° when matched against vsini = 19.9 km/s (§5.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linear decomposition of aperture flux (Eq. 1): F_i = [(1−c_i)·F_star + c_i·F_planet]·S_sys,i + ϵ_i
    Modeling choice standard in exoplanet time-series photometry; if the stellar and planetary components do not add linearly, the derived planet amplitude is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Sinusoidal planet light-curve model (Eq. 3)
    A single sinusoid is adopted as the nominal rotation-modulation model; the paper tests it in §4.1 (forced-flat) and §5.1 (non-sinusoidal injection), which bounds but does not remove the model-mismatch risk.
  • domain assumption Stellar oscillation frequencies fixed at the four Zieba et al. 2019 modes (P = 0.5049, 0.5284, 0.4835, 0.4424 hr)
    Frequencies taken from prior literature with only amplitudes fitted; an unmodeled mode at the epoch of observation could imprint residuals on the planet light curve.
  • domain assumption Literature vsini values (Snellen 2014: 25±3; Parker 2024: 22±2; Landman 2024: 19.9±1.0 km/s) and the radius prior R ~ N(1.4, 0.1) R_Jup
    External measurements adopted without re-derivation; the inclination result (§5.2, Figure 15) is directly sensitive to these inputs.
  • standard math Statistical machinery: Lomb-Scargle FAP (Baluev 2008), χ² with empirically estimated per-point noise, MCMC posteriors
    Uncontroversial background; the noise model assumes identical independent Gaussian uncertainties estimated from a high-pass-filtered light curve, which simplifies correlated errors.
  • domain assumption The ~9 hr photometric period equals the solid-body rotation period, with sub-percent modulation from rotating heterogeneous atmospheric structures
    Interpretive step standard in the brown-dwarf variability literature; the dataset spans less than ~1.6 cycles, so the period-to-rotation identification cannot be independently confirmed within this observation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photometric Variability and Rotation of Beta Pictoris b from JWST NIRCam Coronagraphic Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYHSCZSL

@misc{pith2026260713133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photometric Variability and Rotation of Beta Pictoris b from JWST NIRCam Coronagraphic Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYHSCZSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13133}
}
abstract

We report the detection of photometric variability in the directly imaged super-Jupiter $\beta$ Pictoris b. Using JWST NIRCam dual-band coronagraphic imaging, we conducted a 16-hour continuous photometric monitoring campaign in the F210M and F410M filters. We developed and validated a time-series photometry framework that combines PSF subtraction, principal component analysis for systematic noise removal, and injection-and-recovery tests to confirm signal fidelity. Both light curves show consistent sinusoidal variability at $\sim$5$\sigma$ and $\gg 5\sigma$ significance in the F210M and F410M bands, respectively. A joint sinusoidal fit yields a rotation period of $P_{\rm rot} = 9.00 \pm 0.13$ hr and variability amplitudes of $0.85 \pm 0.07\%$ and $0.89 \pm 0.04\%$ in F210M and F410M, respectively. The near-identical amplitudes and periods in both bands confirm a common astrophysical origin in a heterogeneous atmosphere. Combining $P_{\rm rot}$ with the previously measured projected rotational velocity, we constrain the line-of-sight spin axis inclination of $\beta$ Pic b. The result favors an equator-on viewing geometry, consistent with line-of-sight spin-orbit alignment: the planetary spin axis, orbital plane, debris disk, and stellar equator are all mutually aligned. This stands in sharp contrast to the large obliquities of wide-separation companions that are likely formed via gravitational fragmentation. Together with the system's young age, this observation provides independent dynamical evidence that $\beta$ Pic b formed via core accretion. This result constitutes the first detection of rotational modulation in a close-in, high-contrast exoplanet that likely formed via core accretion, demonstrating that time-series coronagraphic imaging with JWST opens a powerful new window onto the rotation, atmospheric dynamics, and spin-orbit architecture of this population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Filter selection and observation sequence for the β Pic b monitoring campaign. Top: transmission functions of the F210M (blue) and F410M (orange) filters overlaid on the probed atmospheric pressure of β Pic b (black). The probed pressure curve is derived assuming a Teff = 1700 K cloudy Exo-Rem model (B. Charnay et al. 2018). Both filters probe the K and L band continuum at similar photospheric pressure levels. Botto… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Centroid shifts relative to the median value of ei￾ther rolls in x and y directions. The telescope maintained ex￾tremely precise pointing (σ ∼ 0.01 pixels in F210M, 0.3 mas) during the observations. A pointing jump occurred at 1.55 hr after the start of the first science integration due to a mir￾ror tilt event then. to each frame. The stpsf model was generated us￾ing wavefront information retrieved from MAST via the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. F210M light curve of the host star. Upper panel: The raw aperture photometry shows strong oscillation signals consistent with β Pic’s known oscillation periods. Instrument systematics induce apparent flux jumps. Lower panel: A Gaussian process successfully removes the systematic trend. The corrected light curve is well fit by four sine waves representing the strongest oscillation modes (red curve). the light curve f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: spaceKLIP PSF subtraction yields high S/N detection of β Pic b in the F210M and F410M bands (upper left and upper right). The newly discovered planet β Pic d (A. Gibbs et al. 2026; B. J. Sutlieff et al. 2026) is visible in the F410M band image. KLIP Forward models usin…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The aperture positions. Apertures for β Pic b, comparison positions, and validation positions are shown in blue solid, color dashed, and white dotted circles, respec￾tively. Upper panels are for the F210M band and lower pan￾els are for the F410M band. Nominal aperture …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: F210M and F410M light curves (the Fi(t) term in Equation 1). Light curves measured in the planet apertures are plotted in black lines and the comparison aperture light curves are plotted in the same colors as their apertures in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of the light curve correction procedure using the F410M data. The top panels show the measured planet-aperture light curves in the two telescope rolls. Black dots are the raw flux measurements. Red lines are the best-fitting light curve model (Eq. 1). The…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves after the PCA model correction in F210M (left) and F410M (right).The corrected light curves of β Pic b (black solid lines) are compared with those extracted from the comparison apertures. The validation apertures at diverse positions sample a broad range o…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Significance of the variability detection demonstrated by χ 2 statistics. We compare the corrected light curves extracted from the planet, comparison, and validation apertures with a flat line and compute the χ 2 deviation. The planet’s light curves show deviations far…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Lomb-Scargle periodograms of β Pic b in F210M (blue) and F410M (red). Top: Periodograms of the corrected target light curves. Both filters show a dominant peak near ∼8–9 hr above the 0.1% false-alarm probability level (dashed line). Vertical dotted lines mark the peak…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Detrended light curves of β Pic b in F210M (blue) and F410M (red) and the best-fitting sinusoids. The colored solid lines show the best-fit sinusoid from the individual-filter fit, and the black solid line shows the best-fit sinusoid from the joint fit across both fil…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Summary of the injection and recovery test results for the F210M (left) and F410M (right). The upper panels show recovered light curves when injecting a flat line (blue) and a sinusoid (orange). The most noisy recovered light curves are presented to show the pessimist…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparisons between the nominal method and the pixel-level PCA method. The two measurements are shown in the x and y dimensions. The black dashed lines show the one-to-one correlation. Both methods produce sta￾tistically consistent results for F210M and F410M data. 2)…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Recovery of the rotation period from synthetic F410M light curves sampled at the observed cadence and uncertainties. Blue shows period recovery of a sinusoid, and purple shows injections with k = 1 and k = 2 sinusoids mo￾tivated by the planetary scale wave models. The…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Angular momentum architecture and spin-axis inclination of β Pic b. Left: The orbital (L⃗ o), disk (L⃗ d), and stellar spin (L⃗ s) angular momenta are mutually aligned to within a few degrees. This work constrains ip and L⃗ p relative to the line of sight. Middle: Pos…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: A comparison of the variability amplitude of β Pic b with those observed in brown dwarfs by Spitzer (S. A. Metchev et al. 2015; B. A. Biller et al. 2018; J. M. Vos et al. 2022; Y. Zhou et al. 2020). Peak-to-peak amplitudes are adopted following literature convention. …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Observed mirror tilt and resulting coronagraphic PSF change. Left: Measured ∆WFE from WFS observations bracketing these data.Moderate tilts are observed affecting segments on the right (+V2) deployed wing of the primary. The observed pattern shows only piston-tip-tilt…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A flash observed by JWST’s guider at the same time as the discontinuity in the time series data. The main panel shows the median background level in the 8 × 8 “postage stamp” guide exposures. The background spikes sharply at the moment of the PSF change. Insets compar…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    Albert, L., Lafreni` ere, D., Ren´ e, D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3 2023

  2. [2]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  3. [3]

    Apai, D., Nardiello, D., & Bedin, L. R. 2021, ApJ, 906, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb97

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcb97 2021

  4. [4]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121

    Apai, D., Radigan, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/121 2013

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/40

    Apai, D., Kasper, M., Skemer, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/40

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/40 2016

  6. [6]

    S., et al

    Apai, D., Karalidi, T., Marley, M. S., et al. 2017, Science, 357, 683, doi: 10.1126/science.aam9848 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4381/ac7c74

    doi:10.1126/science.aam9848 2017

  7. [7]

    Baluev, R. V. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    2018, AJ, 155, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab54e

    Batygin, K. 2018, AJ, 155, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab54e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab54e 2018

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    A., Vos, J., Buenzli, E., et al

    Biller, B. A., Vos, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa5a6

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Apai, D., Bonnefoy, M., et al

    Biller, B. A., Apai, D., Bonnefoy, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab202

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Vos, J

    Biller, B. A., Vos, J. M., Zhou, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1602

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2013, A&A, 555, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220838

    Bonnefoy, M., Boccaletti, A., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220838

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Zhou, Y., Morley, C

    Bowler, B. P., Zhou, Y., Morley, C. V., et al. 2020, ApJL, 893, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8197

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Brandt, T. D. 2024a, PASP, 136, 045005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad38da

    doi

  7. [15]

    Brandt, T. D. 2024b, PASP, 136, 045004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad38d9

    doi

  8. [16]

    Bowler, B. P. 2021, AJ, 162, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1bb1

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Chiang, E., Bowler, B

    Bryan, M. L., Chiang, E., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab76c6 24

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, spaceKLIP: JWST coronagraphy data data reduction and analysis pipeline,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2502.014 http://ascl.net/2502.014

    Carter, A., Kammerer, J., Leisenring, J., et al. 2025, spaceKLIP: JWST coronagraphy data data reduction and analysis pipeline,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2502.014 http://ascl.net/2502.014

    2025

  11. [19]

    L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al

    Carter, A. L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd93e

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    Charnay, B., B´ ezard, B., Baudino, J.-L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Tan, X., et al

    Chen, X., Biller, B. A., Tan, X., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf737

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    J., et al

    Chilcote, J., Pueyo, L., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa63e9

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Correia, A. C. M., & Laskar, J. 2001, Nature, 411, 767, doi: 10.1038/35081000

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    I., Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2011, ApJL, 743, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L17

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, George: Gaussian Process regression,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1511.015 http://ascl.net/1511.015

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2015, George: Gaussian Process regression,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1511.015 http://ascl.net/1511.015

    2015

  18. [26]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84

    Fuda, N., Apai, D., Nardiello, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf004

    Gandhi, S., de Regt, S., Snellen, I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf004

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    N., et al

    Ge, H., Zhang, X., Fletcher, L. N., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafba7

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.23789, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23789 GRA VITY Collaboration, Nowak, M., Lacour, S., et al

    Gibbs, A., Ruffio, J.-B., Bidot, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.23789, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23789 GRA VITY Collaboration, Nowak, M., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936898

    2026 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    R., Lindler, D

    Heap, S. R., Lindler, D. J., Lanz, T. M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, 435, doi: 10.1086/309188

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Biller, B., et al

    Householder, A., Limbach, M. A., Biller, B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 992, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae09ab

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Xuan, J

    Hsu, C.-C., Wang, J. J., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae434b

    2026 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf46e

    Huang, X., Ji, J., Liu, S., Dong, R., & Wang, S. 2023, ApJ, 956, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf46e

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Chiang, E

    Jennings, R. M., & Chiang, E. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2429

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    Johansen, A., & Lacerda, P. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    2010

  29. [37]

    L., et al

    Kammerer, J., Girard, J., Carter, A. L., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 12...

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    D., et al

    Kammerer, J., Lawson, K., Perrin, M. D., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ffe

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Pasachoff, J. M. 2015, ApJ, 814, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/65

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Mellon, S

    Kenworthy, M. A., Mellon, S. N., Bailey, J. I., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040060

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2020, ApJL, 897, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d27

    Kraus, S., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Kreplin, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d27

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Rodet, L., et al

    Lacour, S., Wang, J. J., Rodet, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141889 Lafreni` ere, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., & Barman, T. 2009, ApJL, 694, L148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L148

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2010, Science, 329, 57, doi: 10.1126/science.1187187

    Lagrange, A.-M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57, doi: 10.1126/science.1187187

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1135, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0857-1

    Lagrange, A.-M., Meunier, N., Rubini, P., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1135, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0857-1

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Rubini, P., Nowak, M., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Rubini, P., Nowak, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038823

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Vos, J

    Lam, M. B., Vos, J. M., Su´ arez, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24662, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.24662

    2026 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Landman, R., Stolker, T., Snellen, I. A. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347846

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Lew, B. W. P., Apai, D., Zhou, Y., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f59

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, ApJL, 915, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0620

    Li, G. 2021, ApJL, 915, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0620

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Vos, J

    Limbach, M. A., Vos, J. M., Winn, J. N., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1e2d

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  44. [52]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    Masuda, K., & Winn, J. N. 2020, AJ, 159, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65be

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Vos, J

    McCarthy, A. M., Vos, J. M., Muirhead, P. S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eaf M´ ekarnia, D., Chapellier, E., Guillot, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732121

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al

    Metchev, S. A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/154 Miles-P´ aez, P. A., Metchev, S., Apai, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d25 25

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    2003, ApJ, 583, 451, doi: 10.1086/345097

    Mohanty, S., & Basri, G. 2003, ApJ, 583, 451, doi: 10.1086/345097

    2003 doi

  49. [57]

    V., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., & Lupu, R. 2014, ApJL, 789, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L14

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    Lagrange, A. M. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.4.896

    1997 doi

  51. [59]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.014 http://ascl.net/1606.014

    2016

  52. [60]

    Fielding, D. B. 2016, ApJL, 827, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L11

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae21d9 O’Toole, C., Vos, J

    Oliveros-Gomez, N., Manjavacas, E., Karalidi, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae21d9 O’Toole, C., Vos, J. M., Nasedkin, E. N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.24663

    2026 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    2023, A&A, 670, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244294

    Palma-Bifani, P., Chauvin, G., Bonnefoy, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244294

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    T., Birkby, J

    Parker, L. T., Birkby, J. L., Landman, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1277

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G...

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012:

    2012

  58. [66]

    Oschmann, Jr., 84423D, doi: 10.1117/12.925230

    doi

  59. [67]

    L., Rein, H., et al

    Poon, M., Bryan, M. L., Rein, H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1f0e

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Rein, H., et al

    Poon, M., Bryan, M. L., Rein, H., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad84e5

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Rein, H., & Dong, J

    Poon, M., Pham, D., Bryan, M. L., Rein, H., & Dong, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.18921, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.18921

    2026 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/117

    Pueyo, L. 2016, ApJ, 824, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/117

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    Radigan, J., Jayawardhana, R., Lafreni` ere, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 1390, doi: 10.1086/590073

    Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1390, doi: 10.1086/590073

    2008 doi

  65. [73]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., & JWST Commissioning Team. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  67. [75]

    2023, PASP, 135, 018001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aca718

    Schlawin, E., Beatty, T., Brooks, B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 018001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aca718

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2005, A&A, 429, 1007, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041932

    Scholz, A., & Eisl¨ offel, J. 2005, A&A, 429, 1007, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041932

    2005 doi

  69. [77]

    2015, ApJL, 809, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L29

    Scholz, A., Kostov, V., Jayawardhana, R., & Muˇ zi´ c, K. 2015, ApJL, 809, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L29

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Rowe, J

    Simon, A. A., Rowe, J. F., Gaulme, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 162, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/162

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    L., Benz, W., & Cameron, A

    Slattery, W. L., Benz, W., & Cameron, A. G. W. 1992, Icarus, 99, 167, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90180-F

    1992 doi

  72. [80]

    Snellen, I. A. G., Brandl, B. R., de Kok, R. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature13253

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    P., Todorov, K

    Stolker, T., Quanz, S. P., Todorov, K. O., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937159 Su´ arez, G., & Metchev, S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1205

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Birkby, J

    Sutlieff, B. J., Birkby, J. L., Stone, J. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad249

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Birkby, J

    Sutlieff, B. J., Birkby, J. L., Stone, J. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1315

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Bonse, M

    Sutlieff, B. J., Bonse, M. J., Christiaens, V., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.23801, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23801

    2026 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    Tan, X., & Showman, A. P. 2021a, MNRAS, 502, 2198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab097

    doi

  79. [87]

    Tan, X., & Showman, A. P. 2021b, MNRAS, 502, 678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab060

    doi

  80. [88]

    S., et al

    Tan, X., Zhang, X., Marley, M. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.23163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.23163

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

    C., Mel´ endez, M., Flagey, N., et al

    Telfer, R. C., Mel´ endez, M., Flagey, N., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, ...

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 von Stauffenberg, A., Sauter, J., Molli` ere, P., et al. 2026, A&A, 711, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202660275

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    M., Allers, K

    Vos, J. M., Allers, K. N., & Biller, B. A. 2017, ApJ, 842, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73cf

    2017 doi

  84. [92]

    M., Allers, K

    Vos, J. M., Allers, K. N., Biller, B. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1041, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2752 26

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    M., Faherty, J

    Vos, J. M., Faherty, J. K., Gagn´ e, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4502

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb42c

    Wang, J. 2025, ApJ, 981, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb42c

    2025 doi

  87. [95]

    J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R

    Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2015, pyKLIP: PSF Subtraction for Exoplanets and Disks,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1506.001 http://ascl.net/1506.001

    2015

  88. [96]

    J., Gao, P., Chilcote, J., et al

    Wang, J. J., Gao, P., Chilcote, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8984

    2022 doi

  89. [97]

    R., & Hamilton, D

    Ward, W. R., & Hamilton, D. P. 2004, AJ, 128, 2501, doi: 10.1086/424533

    2004 doi

  90. [98]

    J., Limbach, M

    Wilson, M. J., Limbach, M. A., Skemer, A. J., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 357, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae17ca

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    H., Law, D

    Worthen, K., Chen, C. H., Law, D. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2354

    2024 doi

  92. [100]

    J., Chiang, E., & Zhou, Y

    Zanazzi, J. J., Chiang, E., & Zhou, Y. 2025, ApJ, 993, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae04ec

    2025 doi

  93. [101]

    Showman, A. P. 2016, ApJ, 818, 176, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/176

    2016 doi

  94. [102]

    P., Apai, D., et al

    Zhou, Y., Bowler, B. P., Apai, D., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9905

    2022 doi

  95. [103]

    P., Morley, C

    Zhou, Y., Bowler, B. P., Morley, C. V., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9e04

    2020 doi

  96. [104]

    2018, AJ, 155, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaabbd

    Zhou, Y., Apai, D., Metchev, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaabbd

    2018 doi

  97. [105]

    Zhou, Y., Apai, D., Lew, B. W. P., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab037f

    2019 doi

  98. [106]

    A., & Kennedy, G

    Zieba, S., Zwintz, K., Kenworthy, M. A., & Kennedy, G. M. 2019, A&A, 625, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935552

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.